Microsoft, patents, and a reminder as to why Open Source is "good enough".

Today came word that a US Court of Appeal has denied Microsoft's appeal in a case regarding an XML related patent lawsuit filed by the Canadian company, i4i. The initial injunction handed down in August 2009 claimed that Microsoft had infringed on a patent held by the company and prohibited Microsoft from selling copies of Word 2007 in the US. This move, while appearing draconian and downright silly in nature, is just another example of the dangers of software patents and how it can stifle innovation. This story however isn't about the lawsuit, the injunction, or the denied appeal by Microsoft. This story is about Microsoft's approach to making things right and their choice of words in expressing it.

Today Microsoft issued a press release outlining their plan of action. Of particular note is the following statement:

With respect to Microsoft Word 2007 and Microsoft Office 2007, we have been preparing for this possibility since the District Court issued its injunction in August 2009 and have put the wheels in motion to remove this little-used feature (emphasis mine) from these products.

I don't believe there are many ways of interpreting this statement. Microsoft has, in their own words, pointed out that a particular feature found in one of their products is hardly used by its customers. This obviously isn't a groundbreaking or even unknown fact, but it does bear acknowledgement.

One pervasive complaint when it comes to utilizing Open Source software in place of incumbent proprietary systems has been the often times true observation that Open Source tends to have a smaller feature set. Very few persons in the know would deny this fact, however proponents of Open Source will often times refer to the venerable 80-20 rule: 80% of a system's features are used by only 20% of its users. What this simply means is that a smaller feature set, in the grand scheme of things, may have little effect on a user's productivity and in many cases simply contributes to software bloat. Microsoft's statement seems to not only reinforce this notion, but manages to single out a very relevant example.

I hope people can take a simple lesson from this. Certainly a product with millions of dollars spent on R&D will excel in feature count over a F/LOSS variant, but persons should always ask themselves whether these features apply to their particular case and if it's worth the extra money (acquisition, training, maintenance, upgrades) to get them.

I'm not an evangelist of Open Source, I'm an evangelist of knowledge and choice.

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

While following the underlined blue text I kept finding while doing some reading on netbooks, I eventually came across this blog post written by Brandon LeBlanc a few days ago. The whole thing is the usual Microsoft self stroking about how great they are, but there were a couple gems which stood out to me, and one in particular which actually brought me to the post:

"Windows now account for a whopping 98% of all small notebook PCs sales at retail in the US." [Emphasis his]

Lets assume for the sake of argument that the number stated above is properly researched and correct. This might lead you to think that the netbook industry, which is still in wrapping plastic, has been a slam dunk for Microsoft. The truth however, is always hidden in the detail.

I'm a proud owner of an ASUS 1000HE. It's everything they advertised and then some. I got it on Amazon a few weeks ago and while doing my research I realised than Amazon and other e-tailers, gave me a myriad of options to customize my machine: I could get it in black, or in blue.
I didn't have a choice about the system specs or, and here's the kicker, the Operating System. If I wanted this machine I had to fork over the Windows Tax whether I was planning on using Windows or not.

Now I've read stories about how persons have taken the conservative approach to the Windows Tax, and have gone to great lengths to actually get their money back (Something about the EULA entitling you to return the product if you don't agree. I'm not sure, I haven't read it myself). It seems that whenever someone has been able to actually redeem their funds, it was a big enough deal for them to write about it and in some cases break out the camera and post a few snaps. Now being in Jamaica that was not really an option for me. Maybe it was, but the required time and effort certainly wouldn't have made it viable and I wasn't trying to take a principled stand. I simply downloaded my oh so sexy copy of Kubuntu 9.04, loaded it up, and went on my way.

Now imagine my chagrin when I come across the statistic quoted above and the realisation dawned on me that I, and many, MANY others that chose to use Linux instead of Windows on our netbooks, have been included in that number.

Linux has very steady footing in the netbook world. Microsoft would rather people not know that. They have, as they have always done, gone to great lengths to court OEMs and retailers into giving Windows as the only option on their netbooks, or at the very least, make it a 4 minute mile if you want to actually find a model that does not bare the Windows branding. They've even been successful in wooing ASUS; the company that broke ground in the netbook revolution. In fact at a recent news conference shared with a Microsoft exec., the chairman of ASUS apologised, though no one is sure why or to whom, because a company was displaying an ASUS netbook running Android at this year's Computex. An apology? How toady can one person be?

This whole thing bothers me a great deal, not only because I was unwittingly and now unwillingly included in Pro-Microsoft statistics, but because of the general misrepresentation achieved by using these numbers. I'm inclined to think LeBlanc is aware of this, chooses to be play ignorant, and write accordingly. It falls in line with how Microsoft has operated for many years. However if he truly isn't aware, I think that's an even bigger problem. Either way, the whole thing is inexcusable.