Business as Usual - Port 25: The Open Source Community at Microsoft

Port 25 - Communications from the open source community at Microsoft
< Back to Blogs
Business as Usual by billhilf on May 18, 2007 09:22PM

It’s been an interesting week, with people offering a range of opinions about what they think is happening in Redmond.  Despite a lot of pontification, our strategy regarding intellectual property and open source has not changed – and it is not frivolous litigation or fear.

IDG did an article – it’s a far more accurate reflection of Microsoft’s IP strategy than the Fortune article from earlier this week.  Andy Updegrove also has a thoughtful article on his site, and Gartner’s lead open source analysts have been clear to customers: “don’t panic.”
 
Our strategy remains the same:

  1. Our IP bridge makes lawsuits unnecessary.
  2. We will continue to offer this licensing bridge to commercial software distribution companies.
  3. This IP bridge enables Open Source developers to develop software free from concerns about patents.
  4. We will continue to grow Open Source applications and technologies on the Microsoft platform.

Microsoft was created by developers, for developers and is only successful through developers and customers.  Developers who write Open Source software are participating in a worldwide community of practice and a spirit of collaboration.  These are noble characteristics and Microsoft both applauds and supports this work.
 
We continue to champion projects like JBoss, Zend (PHP), and SugarCRM, as well as Firefox, openwsman, Bandit and thousands of others.  We are building relationships and a track record here and we ask that you judge us on these actions.  We will work with commercial and non-commercial developers to increase the availability and quality of open source on Windows and interoperability with Windows.
 
Our IP strategy has not changed.  Where we have unique and valuable intellectual property (as indicated by our high scores on the science strength of our patents) we will seek to license it to commercial entities (such as Samsung and Fuji Xerox).
 
It’s not us versus the free world.  It’s about commercial companies working together around IP issues – it’s business as usual.
 
- Bill Hilf and Sam Ramji

Comments RSS
  1. mmichie said:

    "We will continue to offer this licensing bridge to commercial software distribution companies."

    "Microsoft currently collects royalties from some companies that use Linux in their computing environments, Gutierrez said."

    So in other words, you are trying your best to marginalize the "garageband" programmer who is contributing to open source projects in his spare time, while not revealing any potential pitfuls to him/her.  I see how great Microsoft is supporting indie developers.  All hail Bill Hilf!

    posted at 07:40PM 05/18/2007
  2. iqubed said:

    Firstly, I have to say that I've been a fan of the work you guys have been doing and have talked it up on my blog. My company is Microsoft Certified Partner and supports both Windows and SUSE Linux Enterprise Server and as such welcomed the Novell/Microsoft Agreement.

    However, in the interview with IDG you state that judges decide validity of patents, so how can you be sure that your patent claims are valid? Have you performed an exhaustive audit of the Linux Kernel to come to this conclusion? Also, in the interview you link to in Information Week, Mr Gutierrez says that Microsoft already collects payments from companies using Linux. So, do you wish to see any user of Linux paying fees to Microsoft?

    Novell has already publicly stated that it does not agree with Microsoft that Linux infringes any Micosoft patents. The Linux Kernel has been gone through line by line in the SCO vs IBM case, so would you be willing to open up the Windows source code base to the same scrutiny as that?

    Microsoft is smart company with smart people and some great technology, why not just comepete on that basis!

    posted at 07:47PM 05/18/2007
  3. Sam Ramji said:

    @mmichie:

    We are strongly in favor of "garageband" programmers.  I'm not sure what we're saying that is leading you to this interpretation.  How is an individual developer a commercial software distribution company?

    The point is to enable developers to do what they do best - develop software.  When I was a full-time software developers I focused on writing code that met the specifications laid out by the product managers.  I did not spend any time thinking about patents.

    If the developer's work is commercialized, and a company is distributing their software for profit, that is the level that these licenses are being done at.  This is no different in that sense from traditional IP licensing that has been done in the software industry for 30 years.

    posted at 09:13PM 05/18/2007
  4. Open Solutions Alliance: BLOG said:

    Unless you've been in a cave (or on one of those rare completely-disconnected vacations), you know that this has been an eventful week in open source related news. It started on Monday, when Fortune magazine published its "Microsoft Takes On the Free

    posted at 10:28PM 05/18/2007
  5. MKR said:

    Sam, it's not 30 years ago. :P

    30 years ago you couldn't have your product launched within 24 hours of finishing it (or however long it takes to get domains registered these days).

    I think people are ok with Microsoft defending its patents, but I don't think that's the issue.  I personally think Microsoft is an ok company, and this IP thing is still seeming vague.

    Let's use an example:

    If I wrote a nice little application and posted it on the Internet, then the next day I've sold a million copies (at $1 a pop, with automatic digital distribution so I don't have to do anything), and it turned out I had inadvertently used one of Microsoft's patents, what would happen?

    Would Microsoft sue for everything I'm worth, or would they seek a reasonable profit sharing agreement? It would be nearly impossible for me to recover from #1. People are worried about #1.

    I think that's the main issue. People don't know who counts as a "commercial distributor", since anyone can do that nowadays. It's uncomfortable seeing Microsoft make these deals, and claim that there are x number of violations, without saying what they are or who they're most likely to concern themselves with.

    posted at 10:46PM 05/18/2007
  6. MKR said:

    After reading the infoweek story, it seems it's cleared up a but. It would still help if a list of suspected violations were released, but I'm going to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt and assume there's a good reason for not listing them.

    posted at 11:07PM 05/18/2007
  7. on the business of digital space... said:

    Next week I will attend Interop Las Vegas as a member of Microsoft's Interoperability marketing team

    posted at 12:29AM 05/19/2007
  8. davidmeyer said:

    Hi Bill & Sam,

    Thanks for the posting.  I sometimes think that I am only one of a very few who understand the statement "It’s not us versus the free world.  It’s about commercial companies working together around IP issues – it’s business as usual."

    Thanks for the work that you guys are doing.  I personally feel that until the list of violations is released that this is a moot point, because the burden of proof is on Microsoft.  However, if there are legitimate patents that have been violated, then that needs to be corrected.

    Have a good weekend.

    posted at 08:56AM 05/19/2007
  9. mmichie said:

    Microsoft talks a big game about innovation.  If you are truly innovating and your patents are unique and novel, I would imagine you would be proud of them and would reveal how Linux is stealing your intellectual property.  Instead, I'm seeing legal maneuvering and double speak.

    <p>

    As an indie developer, I too would like to know that I won't be sued by Microsoft.  Where is my IP Bridge Mr. Hilf?  All I see is offerings made to commercial companies.  Where is my patent indemnification?  

    posted at 05:11PM 05/19/2007
  10. kettal said:

    Hello Bill. It is good to hear that you are clearing this up, but I have to wonder? Why not tell us specifically which patents are being violated?

    If you say "There's 200 of them but we're not going to prove it" you may as well just be bluffing! The only reason to be secretive like this I can conceive is that fear is the objective.

    posted at 11:34PM 05/19/2007
Post a Comment
*
*  

Community

Search
About billhilf

billhilf Bill Hilf is the general manager of Windows... More...

Read billhilf's Posts Subscribe tobillhilf's Posts
Recent Posts by billhilf
 
Archive