X
Tech

What is Microsoft really gaining from open source FUD?

So long as the game remains one against the many, Microsoft has every incentive to keep acting as it does. But if another, equally large, and just as ferocious beast stood up for open source, I believe the game would change in a hurry.
Written by Dana Blankenhorn, Inactive

In all the stories about Microsoft's attack on open source, I have seen little talk about what the company is gaining in all this.

I don't think it's money. Despite press reports that companies like Xandros or LG are paying a "Linux tax" to Microsoft, on net dollars don't seem heading to Redmond.

In the case of LG, Microsoft is gaining access to mobile technology patents. In the case of Xandros, Microsoft is giving its own resellers access to Linux technology. Given that most enterprises run a mix of code, this is no small thing.

Microsoft is also making political gains, as in this piece from our own John Carroll. Statements of support which make open source appear an enemy to specific interests are highly useful when Microsoft faces both antitrust threats and opposition to the whole idea of software patents.

In some parts of the world, there is real fear that Microsoft may succeed, at some point, in gaining an infringement judgement against an open source vendor. This fear can become a thumb on the scale when it comes time to sign a new Microsoft license agreement.

Against all these gains, what are the losses?

  • Open source people don't like Microsoft. That's news? A lot of people don't like Paris Hilton, either. Doesn't seem to faze her.
  • Open source developers resist Microsoft code. Again, not news. And if Microsoft developers support both while open source supports just one, that's a gain in a mixed-source world.
  • Governments which support open source may try to embody that support in local laws. Again, this was already happening.

Microsoft is playing a game of Ogre. (Point of pride here. Steve Jackson was my first college newspaper editor. The picture is from a computer version of his game.) As in Steve's classic game there are two sides, one playing a whole bunch of little pieces and one with just one big piece, Microsoft.

So long as the game remains one against the many, Microsoft has every incentive to keep acting as it does. But if another, equally large, and just as ferocious beast stood up for open source, I believe the game would change in a hurry.

Anyone at IBM read this blog?

Editorial standards