Microsoft and Linux: Somebody Get Some Lawyers in Here

You remember the Microsoft-Novell SuSE Linux deal, right? There's no need to explain that one, we hope. You also remember how the Free Software Foundation, which controls the license that governs the use of Linux, wanted to do whatever it could to kill, or at least severely injure, the SuSE agreement. And you remember, too, that Microsoft claims that open source software violates more than 200 of its patents.

Great, so you're with us so far. Well, as we told you last week, the FSF has decided not to "punish" Novell for its Microsoft agreement. But it has written language into the latest -- and probably last -- draft of version three of its General Public License for Linux (the famous GPLv3) that would, the FSF hopes, essentially rid Microsoft of its power to hold patents over the open source world's head like some sort of sword of Damocles by forcing Redmond to extend patent protection to all Linux users, not just SuSE users.

That provision in GPL v3 would make Microsoft's Linux deals -- which are based on shaking down distributors of the open source operating system by getting them to pay for patent protection and thereby avoid potential lawsuits -- sort of useless (or so the FSF hopes -- although not everybody is so sure). And, yes, we said "deals," not deal, which leads us to the news of the week: Microsoft has agreed to another Linux patent pact.

This time, the distributor is Xandros, the name of which immediately makes us think of the late disco-era Olivia Newton John vehicle Xanadu. (What, that didn't come springing immediately to mind for you? We would have also accepted a reference to Xena: Warrior Princess or possibly even Xavier McDaniel.)

The Xandros deal could be far from being a paradise for either party, though, if the FSF gets its way and erases Microsoft's patent claims. If that were to happen, Xandros would have entered into a deal to protect itself from patent claims that Microsoft wouldn't even be able to make. Could that happen? We have absolutely no idea. That's for a gaggle of patent lawyers to decide.

In the meantime, though, we'll say what we've said all along: All of this legal battling, all of this saber rattling by Microsoft and obstinate anti-Microsoft behavior from the FSF (which, incidentally, seems to go way beyond patent fights), all of this lawyer play serves mainly to hurt partners and customers who just want to use Windows and Linux and have them work together. It also hurts the continued adoption of Linux in the enterprise (yes, we still maintain that such deals with Microsoft are helpful, even if they are basically "protection rackets.") Basically, IT managers and financial decision makers are going to think twice before adopting an operating system full of legal land mines. We're still hoping for some compromise -- and common sense -- from both sides of the argument. What we're expecting, though, is more FUD from everybody and possibly a legal battle.

But, hey, the whole thing does make for great theater, if you like daytime television soap operas. So, tune in next week (or, probably, later this week) for more Days of Our Linux.

Do you have a take on the latest wrinkle in the Microsoft-Linux saga? I'm reading, as always, at [email protected].

Posted by Lee Pender on 06/05/2007 at 1:20 PM0 comments

Look Who's Copy-Wrong Now

Posted by Lee Pender on 06/05/2007 at 1:20 PM0 comments

Boston Reader Breakfast Still on for June 19

Posted by Lee Pender on 06/05/2007 at 1:20 PM0 comments

Google's Office Competitor: When Will 'Free' Trump 'Feature-Rich'?

"No, Google Apps, Docs & Spreadsheets -- and most of the rest of the tools in the Google productivity arsenal -- aren't quite ready to threaten Office. But look out. Google's suite is SaaS (Software as a Service) in action. However, when users aren't connected or the company network is down, it's more like 'SaaS inaction.' There is no software installed on the client. This basic fact no doubt has conservative IT folks and users thinking twice about SaaS altogether."

Well, scratch that last bit off the list off drawbacks for Google Apps. Google this week introduced Google Gears, a browser plug-in that lets developers create ways to access Google applications offline. So, with a little tinkering here and there in Gears, it'll be possible for users to work in Google's spreadsheet or word processing applications without being connected to anything. And that's important for any set of productivity apps that wants to make serious inroads into the enterprise. (By the way, Google is basically employing an open source model here by throwing its apps open to developers pretty much without restrictions.)

Of course, Google Apps still doesn't have anything close to the functionality that Office offers, but it does have a lovely price tag -- namely free, or $50 per user per year for a supported version. Plus, the bloated (and very expensive, by comparison) Office arguably does too much already. How many users really use every feature of Microsoft Word, much less every feature in the entire suite? Back in the mid-'90s, software-marketing types would have bragged about a suite like Office being "feature-rich," meaning it was capable of doing a ton of stuff. We're not sure how much of a bragging point that is now, especially for software installed on the client.

On the other hand, Google, in theory, has the advantage of being able to add features to Apps -- or perhaps let users (or partners...or independent developers?) add them -- until users have the functionality they want and need. (We can't, by contrast, imagine Microsoft taking functionality out of Office in chunks to make it more lightweight and manageable. We can't imagine the price going down, either. And, as of today, there's still no purely Web-based version of Office.) With nothing installed on the client, Google Apps won't load down laptops with unused bells and whistles -- or with anything at all, for that matter. (And before we forget: Google's getting into the security game, too.)

It's that kind of potential flexibility -- combined with an attractive price tag -- that could make Google Apps a real threat to Microsoft Office. Eventually, that is, but probably not right now. For one thing, the functionality gap is still a problem for the newcomer. For another, Google Apps isn't the only lightweight, low-cost Office alternative out there, and Office still rules the productivity roost.

Beyond that, Microsoft has one massive advantage that only 90-plus percent market share can bring: familiarity. Sure, Office 2007, with its ribbons and such, is a departure from previous versions. But everybody knows Word, PowerPoint, Excel and the gang. They've become the Kleenexes and the Xerox machines of our time, brand names that define their product category better than the name of the category itself. Most office (small "o," although it really doesn't matter) workers don't think of a word processor as a word processor; they think of it as Microsoft Word. You know -- kind of they way they think of a search engine as Google.

And, if anything, name recognition is what might eventually let Google Apps go where other Office alternatives have failed to go before -- into the realm of double-digit market share. For now, though, Office is still intact as the sweetest of the suites, at least in terms of market share. But Microsoft had better get working on getting a low-cost, Web-based version of Office out the door, lest Google come along one of these days and tip its cash cow.

Do you have any experience with Google Apps? How much of a threat to Office do you see Google Apps as being? Are you running into it in your accounts? Let me know at [email protected].

Posted by Lee Pender on 06/01/2007 at 1:20 PM1 comments

Gates Misses Chance To Yell, 'I Got the Loot, Steve!'

There was some fun, though, at the Wall Street Journal's D conference (check out some video here), with Jobs both taking swipes at Windows and also showing his softer, more compassionate side when discussing PC Guy from the now-famous Mac ads.

By most accounts, the two yucked it up quite a bit and got along famously. And hey, why not? Sure, they're fierce competitors (well, Gates used to be, at least -- he's about to head off into the sunset and his charity work), but when you've got the cash that both of these guys have, how angry at anybody could you really be?

Posted by Lee Pender on 06/01/2007 at 1:20 PM0 comments

Readers on Making Money With Vista and Other Stuff

Nat starts us off:

"I've been making a little money with Vista. I have removed and replaced it with XP a few times and charged my customers for the labor, and I made a little money on the sell of the XP replacement. I still personally don't like it; the new Windows Explorer is awful and the Control Panel items are all mixed up now."

So...not a very strong endorsement there. Let's see if AJ is having better luck:

"The only IT change I'm starting to see at my large clients is a new requirement to purchase Dells instead of the other approved brands when desktops are to be rotated out. Dell has offered them XP instead of Vista."

Ouch. So, from what we're hearing (and we've talked to a few folks outside of the newsletter world who have said the same thing), Vista isn't doing much for partners' bottom lines. That's a shame -- but it's not exactly a surprise.

If you are making money with Vista -- or if you want to complain about how useless it is for you -- I'd still love to hear from you on this topic at [email protected].

We have one more thought this week, this one from frequent contributor Rick, who notes that security problems for open source applications (as opposed to just for Windows and Microsoft apps) appear to be a thing of the present and not just of the future:

"As a network admin I'm constantly watching the security alerts for issues found in the software that my company uses. One of the most common alerts that I'm sure many people watch is from US-CERT Security Bulletins.

"The new twist is that I haven't seen Microsoft listed the past three or four times! They used to be always in the high-risk section. Whenever they were listed only in the medium category, it was considered a win for Microsoft. Now they don't even show up in the low-risk section.

"What I do see is a lot of software based on PHP and other open source stuff. I guess this is the wave of the future."

Apparently so, Rick, as well as the wave of the present. As we've said here before, welcome to the big time, Linux.

Have any other thoughts to share? I'm always here at [email protected], and I really do read every e-mail I get, even if I sadly don't have time to respond to most of them anymore. Also, don't forget that the blog site is always there for comments, fights and other rancor. And have a great weekend.

Posted by Lee Pender on 06/01/2007 at 1:20 PM0 comments

More Twists for Microsoft-Novell Linux Deal

But before we take this as a sign that the open source folks are giving in, consider that the latest draft of GPLv3 would strip Microsoft of the patent rights that it claims it has over open source software if Microsoft continues to distribute SuSE Linux. (Hm, and all this time we thought that the FSF folks didn't believe that Microsoft had legitimate patent claims at all. Why bother with eliminating them, then, FSF?) So, evidently, the standoff will continue.

Almost lost in all this is the fact that Microsoft and Novell, after a very successful run in the first fiscal quarter of their deal, saw the fruits of their partnership decline considerably in its second quarter. And Novell, while doing better than Wall Street analysts expected, is still losing money. Are potential problems with patents and licenses keeping people away from SuSE Linux? If so, that's a loss for Microsoft, Novell and the open source movement, as well as more critically for partners and users. As we've said here before, in this kind of battle, nobody wins.

Posted by Lee Pender on 06/01/2007 at 1:20 PM1 comments

Ballmer: Ads and Electronics Are the Future

Redmond is clearly hoping for some heroics from its $6 billion ad firm and maybe a little more life from the "uncool iPod."

Posted by Lee Pender on 05/31/2007 at 1:20 PM0 comments

It's Shakeup Time for Microsoft Partner Program

Anyway, such is the nature of Microsoft, a monster company constantly in the process of restructuring its various groups and divisions. Nothing stays the same for long in Redmond -- other than the Windows market share, maybe. Last month's org chart often has about as much value as last week's newspaper (that is to say, not much value). So, if you work for Microsoft and don't like your boss, wait a few months and you'll have a new one. And, more to the point for the folks reading this, if you're a Microsoft partner and you're less than thrilled with your current contacts in Redmond, hang on for a while -- they'll all change, too.

Of course, Microsoft goes to great lengths to keep its partners happy. Still, Partner Program leadership gets refreshed like personnel at other Microsoft divisions. And it turns out that another such leadership shuffle is "in the cards" (sorry) for this summer. Plus, Microsoft is planning to restructure the Partner Program itself and add some new initiatives. RCP Editor in Chief Scott Bekker has more -- lots more -- here.

To get the details about the reorganization, you'll have to click on the link above to Scott's story (and here it is again, for good measure), but we'll give you a few hints here from Scott himself as to what's going on:

• There's a new general manager of the Microsoft Partner Program
• Sherle Webb-Robins and Kati Hvidtfeldt will move out of the Worldwide Partner Group
• Partners will fall into one of three "engines": solution providers, ISVs and transactional partners
• A few executives will have explicit responsibility for Software Plus Services
• The new Worldwide Partner Leadership Team will aim to give Microsoft consistency across the channel

This also gives us a good opportunity to solicit your feedback on the Partner Program, something we're interested in hearing whether there's a reorg on or not. What do you think of changes in the program's leadership? How often do you deal with Redmond proper (as opposed to a field office), and how do leadership changes in the program affect you? And what do you think of Microsoft's policy of changing the makeup of its various groups and programs fairly frequently?

Talk to me about these things at [email protected]. We'll take your responses through next week and publish the best of them here next Friday. And if you want to talk amongst yourselves, don't forget the blog site -- where a new, updated, much better photo is coming soon!

Posted by Lee Pender on 05/31/2007 at 1:20 PM1 comments

Redmond Brings Tabletop Computing to the Surface

Are any partners out there involved in selling Surface? If so, tell me your story at [email protected].

Posted by Lee Pender on 05/31/2007 at 1:20 PM0 comments

Feds Looking Into Google Deal...Because of Microsoft?

But that's not where the irony comes in. Oh, no. If we're to believe the little hints dropped here and there in the press, one of the main motivating factors behind the FTC's extended probe might very well have been a significant amount of complaining by...Microsoft.

That's right. The convicted monopolist and losing bidder for DoubleClick might have actually spurred the government to look into somebody else's potentially monopolistic practices. We have to say, though, that we don’t really see Microsoft’s point here (if it did complain to the feds), especially given that Redmond surely believes that its recent acquisition of aQuantive will set up some sort of competition for a Google-DoubleClick combo.

Or maybe it just shows how desperate Microsoft is to catch Google in online advertising, a market in which the relative newcomer from California has been eating Redmond's lunch. In any case, as much as we've defended Microsoft's business practices here in the past, it is pretty funny to hear the pickpocket complain about being robbed and see the cops spring into action -- metaphorically speaking, of course.

What's your take on Microsoft complaining about somebody else's potential antitrust violations? Drop me a line at [email protected].

Posted by Lee Pender on 05/30/2007 at 1:20 PM1 comments

Google and Salesforce.com: Microsoft's Waterloo?

It was that invasion of Russia, followed by the famous double whammy in Belgium from Wellington's Brits and the Prussians (along with a bunch of other enemies), that finally sank the little emperor, who at least lent his name to a yummy French dessert and a spectacular cognac your editor purchased at a wine festival in Paris some years back. (Oh, and he wrote France's civil code, still the basis of French law today -- but we're more concerned with gastronomy here at RCPU.)

Well, we don't want to compare Microsoft to a brutal tyrant (really, we don't), but we see some similarities between Napoleon's downfall and the situation Microsoft is facing now with its Internet strategy (further explained, sort of, here). The parallels are hardly air-tight, but they're good enough for the Internet -- and if we could write about Lee Majors last week, you can surely allow us Napoleon this week. Right?

Let's keep this simple. Microsoft's $6 billion acquisition of aQuantive could -- just could -- turn out to be a little bit like Napoleon's ill-fated adventure in Russia. It's expensive and risky. It definitely represents a voyage into possibly hostile -- and still not terribly familiar -- territory of online advertising. At least, that's the way it is for Redmond. So there's that parallel drawn, however quickly.

And then there's this: Cooperation on the horizon between Google and Salesforce.com. Google is now freshly minted as a productivity-applications player and potential competitor to Microsoft, with Web-based applications that step into Microsoft Office's back yard. Salesforce.com is the company that's making waves in the market for customer relationship management applications with its pure Internet, software-as-a-service play. Some analysts are even talking merger here, which has us wondering if maybe, just maybe, we hear Wellington's men meeting up with the Prussians at Waterloo with their flexible, Web-based, inexpensive applications to deal the final blow to Microsoft's Windows-reliant, Office-dedicated, somewhat old-school Napoleon.

OK, probably not. At least not right now. The fact is that many IT folks quite like having control of their data, thank you very much, and aren't ready to ship it out completely to some vendor's server farms. Plus, there's a lot -- billions of dollars -- of investment in Microsoft sitting in corporate IT shops right now, and that's not going to go away any time soon.

Still, Microsoft doesn't seem entirely sure of its own strategy -- or that which it believes its partners should follow -- regarding Internet-based services, as demonstrated by the fact that Redmond has stuck the "Live" name on so many products that the moniker now seems largely meaningless and certainly doesn't evoke confidence or clarity. (By contrast, we know exactly what both Google and Salesforce.com offer in terms of Web services, and their messaging is crystal clear.)

Big, corporate America probably isn't ready to go all-Web, all the time. However, smaller businesses (where a lot of new revenues come from these days) will surely at least consider moving in that direction. Moves toward Web-based apps could get hastened even as Microsoft's core offerings -- Office and Windows, mainly -- move in exactly the wrong direction by getting fatter and more expensive.

The question now is whether Microsoft, big battleship that it has become, can execute well enough to catch Google on the sacred ground of online advertising and still hold off the charge of Google and Salesforce.com in Redmond's own apps back yard. Frankly, we're not sure that any company can do that, emperor or not. And while we're not sure that the battle is upon Redmond right now, we can hear the troops amassing in the distance. Where once the software industry's Napoleon put pressure on others, it now has to gear up to defend itself.

What impact do you think cooperation between Google and Salesforce.com would have on Microsoft? As a partner, what's your take on Microsoft's SaaS (or S+S) strategy? Talk to me at [email protected].

Posted by Lee Pender on 05/24/2007 at 1:20 PM0 comments