I thought I was done with this whole Windows vs. Linux thing, but as fate would have it, Microsoft officials (who apparently read my column last week praising Open Office) chose last week to announce that the whole Open Source movement - Linux, Open Office, and the whole FOSS gang - was a ripoff of MS code. And the company, mad as hell, isn't going to take it anymore.
In an interview with Fortune Magazine last week, Microsoft's top lawyer claimed that Linux's desktop environment GUI, its free e-mail programs, the Linux kernel, the Open Office suite, and a bunch of other unspecified open source programs violated no fewer than 245 Microsoft owned patents. That's a lot of patents, and companies smaller than MS have dragged alleged intellectual property thieves into court for years of litigation for far less - like two or three patent violations, which tech attorneys say is average in such cases. Microsoft, however, says it isn't interested in suing anyone - and has so far refused to reveal exactly which patents are being violated, or how the infringement was taking place.
As MS tries to further protect its intellectual property (the IP it really owns, in the form of Windows, Office, etc.) in an era when it's easier than ever to override content copy protection, it can't help but lose customers, who are going to be more and more frustrated at the limitations and high cost of Microsoft products, vs. the far less expensive experience they can have with Linux. This, more than anything, should scare the bosses at MS: In an era where you can't sell the content, how do you make money? Maybe the "fear "part of FUD applies to Microsoft, not Linux users.
The situation reminds me of an exchange I followed on a Quark Xpress user forum many years ago. Several printing professionals were discussing some arcane issue of kerning using Linotype vs. kerning on desktop PCs. During the course of the discussion, one of the users chimed in with a comment on how it was a shame that they let anyone with $500 buy a copy of software and print up anything they want on their computer. Better, he said, to leave printing in the hands of the "professionals, "who knew what they were doing, like in "the good old days. "
I sometimes think about this poor fellow's fate and speculate on what happened to him. He was obviously working in the desktop publishing trade, and was clearly facing a great deal of competition. Maybe he was forced to slash prices to stay in business, to compete with all the 20-somethings with a Mac and a copy of Quark and Photoshop, who were doing far more creative work than he had ever imagined doing. Did he give up, go on unemployment, or maybe jump off a bridge? Or did he adjust, deal with the situation, and figure out a way to thrive? Maybe Bill Gates should try and track that guy down, to see how he handled a situation that Microsoft seems primed to face in the near future.