News 

Sadly, the leopard isn't about to change its spots. On the contrary, it's sharpening its claws by picking a futile fight with the Linux lobby. What started life as a groundbreaking deal between Microsoft and Novell to foster 'broad collaboration on Windows and Linux interoperability and support' has descended into open warfare.

Initially, the Microsoft/Novell deal appeared to be a genuine step towards conciliation. The companies stated they wanted to make life easier for IT managers running mixed-source environments, by making Windows and Novell's SUSE Linux 'work better together'. Microsoft had seemingly dropped its antipathy towards anything open source, even offering to distribute SUSE Linux to its customers. It was a busy day for dentists, as jaws hit floors across the world.

Notably, Microsoft proclaimed this deal was 'good for the open-source community.' Why?
Because Microsoft had 'resolved our patent issues' with Novell, averting legal action over unproven allegations that sections of Linux were ripped off from Windows. The very same release quoted Stuart Cohen from the Open Source Development Labs saying: 'We're glad to see these two companies collaborating to further diminish the legal threat posed to developers and customers by patent assertions.'

What Cohen probably didn't realise was the legal threat hadn't been diminished, but greatly multiplied. Just days after the ink dried on the Novell agreement, Ballmer gave an interview proclaiming Linux 'uses our patented intellectual property', adding Microsoft 'spends $7 billion a year on R&D, [and] our shareholders expect us to protect or license or get economic benefit from our patented innovations'. In other words, 'Linux makers: we're coming after you'.

What's more, Ballmer clearly regarded the Novell agreement as a protection racket. 'They've [Novell] appropriately compensated Microsoft for our intellectual property, which is important to us,' he said. Naturally, the open-source community was up

ADVERTISEMENT

in arms, accusing Novell of selling out to the arch enemy. Novell's position was weakened further when Ballmer revealed Microsoft had offered a similar deal to Red Hat, but it had sensibly declined. Novell tried some hasty back-pedalling, claiming it disagreed with
Microsoft over the patent issue and the deal was 'in no way an acknowledgement that Linux infringes upon any Microsoft intellectual property,' but the damage
was done. If Ballmer's aim was to drive a wedge into the open-source community, he'd succeeded.

But if companies such as Red Hat weren't going to roll over, Ballmer had another trick up his sleeve. 'In a sense, you could say anybody who has got Linux in their data centre today sort of has an undisclosed balance sheet liability,' he claimed. Having failed to
intimidate the likes of Red Hat, he's hoping to put the wind up their customers by implying Microsoft's lawyers could come knocking at their door.

So in one Ballmer interview, we've gone from a deal that makes the life of cross-platform companies easier to a threat of legal action if you're running a non-SUSE variant of Linux. Yet, Ballmer's strong-arm tactics are woefully misjudged. Businesses don't like being bullied - indeed, several Linux customers have openly claimed Ballmer's stance has galvanised their resolve to rid their companies of Microsoft software.

There's also little evidence to suggest Microsoft will succeed if it tries to sue Linux distributors and their customers. Software patents are difficult to enforce, as SCO is discovering in its bid to sue IBM for allegedly breaching its copyright in Big Blue's contribution to Linux. The judge presiding over the SCO case chided the company for failing to provide exact details of the code it claims has been stolen. 'SCO's arguments are akin to SCO telling IBM: 'Sorry, we aren't going to tell you what you did wrong because you already know,' Judge Brooke Wells said. 'It would be absurd for a
[police] officer to tell the accused: 'You know what you stole and I'm not telling.' And despite numerous challenges to do so, Ballmer is yet to provide any specific examples of the alleged Windows theft.

And so the ball remains in Microsoft's court. Will it pursue a lengthy court battle against Linux vendors in which the only winner is likely to be Microsoft's
over-worked lawyers? Or will Ballmer realise that Microsoft and the industry would be better served with co-operation, not litigation? I suspect cuddly Steve will prove not to be as friendly as he appears on stage. Come back Bill, all is forgiven.