No, not Elmer Fudd. FUD as an acronym for a marketing technique know as Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. That's what Amanda McPherson, marketing director for the Linux Foundation is labeling Microsoft's claims that open source software is violating Microsoft patents. Sun Microsystems also responded to Microsoft very rapidly.
Microsoft is targeting Sun Microsystems for patent violations in its open-source software, claiming OpenOffice.org breaches 45 of its patents. Sun wasted no time in responding to the claims coming out of Redmond.
"You would be wise to listen to the customers you're threatening to sue — they can leave you, especially if you give them motivation," Sun's President and CEO Jonathan Schwartz wrote in his blog. "Remember, they wouldn't be motivated unless your products were somehow missing the mark." The open-source community, he added, is vastly more innovative and powerful than a single company.
Could the intent of Redmond's callout be to broker licensing deals with free software developers? Or is the software giant bound to sue any infringing party it can find with deep enough pockets to make a court battle worth its while? Few analysts believe that Microsoft actually will file suit, but the company doesn't seem to be planning to let alleged infringers have a free ride, either.
Call it extortion by lawyer. Analysts are saying that Microsoft is trying to squeeze revenue out of a market it can't play in by itself. But the Linux Foundation is warning that Microsoft should tread lightly. They may have even more to lose by starting a lawsuit war:
The Linux Foundation isn't too concerned about lawsuits. Microsoft is too smart to take a page out of the SCO handbook and sue its own business partners and customers, said Amanda McPherson, the foundation's marketing director. She then posed a question of her own: Is Microsoft certain it has not infringed upon the patents of the companies that represent the entire open-source ecosystem?
"Microsoft will need to be careful what it starts, given that it cannot know where this will end. I think most knowledgeable software users see this posturing for what it is: empty threats from a scared giant whose monopoly is being challenged," McPherson wrote in the foundation's blog, alleging further that Microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems and productivity software.
Threatening to sue users of open source software will not garner good press for Microsoft. It hasn't so far.
Here's Jonathan Schwartz's blog entry on the subject. It's actually worth reading. I had no idea that Sun's open source code now makes up 25% of the average Linux distro. His concluding words are memorable:
All of which is to say – no amount of fear can stop the rise of free media, or free software (they are the same, after all). The community is vastly more innovative and powerful than a single company. And you will never turn back the clock on elementary school students and developing economies and aid agencies and fledgling universities – or the Fortune 500 – that have found value in the wisdom of the open source community. Open standards and open source software are literally changing the face of the planet – creating opportunity wherever the network can reach.
And here's the Linux Foundation blog entry by Amanda McPherson. Her parting shot is also memorable:
Microsoft, our members and software users know that a patent war guarantees only one sure outcome: mutually assured destruction for all involved. By leveling vague threats against open source, Microsoft hopes to extend their monopoly a little longer. Given that every day Microsoft makes $34,000,000 in profit, it’s not surprising Microsoft resorts to a well-orchestrated, well-funded PR campaign to scare software users, especially when those software users are recognizing that open source is simply a better way to develop software.
Bill Gates has ALWAYS been paranoid about theft of software. In the very earliest days – before there even was a Microsoft, the early computer enthusiasts used to just help themselves to each other’s programs and code at will but when they tried to do it with Gates’ stuff, he immediately filed suit! Even back then, he was VERY protective of his intellectual property – which, in many cases, HE had purportedly stolen from someone else. Always rememember that Wozniak and Jobs hired Microsoft to develop the proprietary operating system for the MAC – and funniest darn thing – just a short time later, the first Microsoft versions of Windows started to appear – looking a LOT like MAC’s operating system.
Of course, while I remember all of this – I also remember that I had a chance to buy stock in Microsoft while all this was going on and I did not! If I weren’t so crippled with arthritis, I’d kick myself daily!
Extortion by lawyer — a good phrase, by the way — is all over the place. The newspapers are studded with cases of defendants and potential defendants buckling solely because of what an actual or potential case is likely to cost. In the 60s, there used to be a greaseburger emporium locally which would make a small offer just to settle any food-poisoning claim. If it was accepted, that saved the company lots and lots of expensive hassle. If it was not, then that, too, would be informative, since it meant that the case probably was real. There was a partially-confirmed rumor of a little subculture of food-poisoning phonies aimed at this particular drive-in. The phonies never lacked for aggressive, contingent-fee representation.
The Xerox Star did all the GUI/Windowed stuff long before Apple or MS. They both ripped off Xerox.
Since MS started filing patents only recently, all Linux needs to do is drop back to techniques that resemble 02′ vintage releases. You only have a very limited time to patent something after a products ships into the wild, like 60 or 90 days as I recall.
Its been a while since I’ve been involved in a software patent, but I did file a few when I was at IBM in the mid-90′s and two were awarded.