Back in its early days, Microsoft identified a very powerful marketing tool. It realised that vapourware — however controversial the method may seem — was the means of “freezing the market”, based on false facts which prospective customers rely on. An old memo from Comes vs. Microsoft[PDF] exposes us an example of this (note: emphasis is mine). Right from the horse’s month:
From nathanm Mon Oct 01 11:42:05 1990
To: billg; bradsi;
Subject: SPARC, MIPS & Compaq
Date: Tue Oct 02, 22:57:14 1990
[...]
The purpose of announcing early like this is to freeze the market at the OEM and ISV level. In this respect it is JUST like the original Windows announcement…
One might worry that this will help Sun because we will just have vaporware, that people will stop buying 486 machines, that we will have endorsed RISC but not delivered… So, Scott, do you really think you can fight that avalanche?
When Munich prepared for its migration to GNU/Linux, another mutation of this so-called ‘vapourware’ announcement emerged. The SCO Group maintained that Linux code — while no specific fragments could not be identified — was stolen from UNIX. Based on these bogus allegations, some people found themselves routed into alternative directions.
Finally, this brings us to Novell and Microsoft. The two companies swap ‘protection money’ and exchange patents that cannot even be listed. They never intend to put them out in the open. Like imaginary innovations (or vapourware), this creates a form of uncertainty. It is, after all, just ‘vapour’ being exchanged, yet everyone must weigh this unknown factor.
Here are several recent examples of vapourware in the context of software:
Having discussed the Novell and Samsung deals outside this Web site (here for example) and seen Grokalw’s comment on the latest press release, I am coming to realise that some people are convinced that Linux is not part of the deals. Let us see if these are misconceptions and perhaps misinterpretations.
Wishful thinking, or reality?
Let us emphasise again that, according to Microsoft and Samsung, UNIX and Linux get some sort of bizarre coverage, in a land where software patents are invalid. To be more specific, “Linux-based products” are the ‘intellectual property’ conceded in Samsung’s case. This does not seem to include the Linux kernel
In Novell’s case, a Novell executive said that NetWare products received coverage as well, which means that Linux could altogether be left out. Whether there was such an omission or not, we might never know. Microsoft and Novell provide no specific details whatsoever. It’s fear through uncertainty. Novell continues to insists that the deal was not about patents (and it’s very confused too), but Steve Ballmer made it clear the deal was primarily about patents. He even directed his threats at Linux, nothing else.
What it all boils down to
Whether we like it or not, everything is very vague. There are more questions than answers and it’s neither a coincidence nor a side effect. The fear of the unknown is the worst time of fear. Details about the deal are unknown by design. SCO did the same thing 4 years ago.
While one could cling onto subtle wording in the deals, it remains clear that Linux is being targetted. They try to tell us that it’s ‘unclean’. Sometimes, Novell is even willing to remind us, on behalf of its new partner. To Novell, it’s a selling point.
“His employer is widely known as a Microsoft shill [ACT]; his goal is not to help but to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about GPL3,” Perens concluded.
Microsoft lobbying campaign against open indutry standards continues as well.
Perhaps Microsoft is feeling insecure about its chances of having its own XML file format approved as an ISO standard, since lawmakers in Texas especially seem to be leaning toward ODF, writing that the file format must be “controlled by an open industry organization with a well-defined inclusive process for evolution of the standard.” Maybe what Yates and Matusow really meant is that open file formats are good (for Microsoft) only if they’re issued and controlled by Microsoft.
So, Lyons and O’Gara both seem to stand before the court with an ethical cloud over their heads. And recently Lyons shows up again, in a SCO exhibit, again helpful to SCO’s litigation agenda, writing more baloney about me, but how valuable will that be under these circumstances? I’ve wondered if Forbes wouldn’t print the latest Lyons hate-PJ material now showing up on his blog, and that is why he was forced to join the blogosphere, ironically enough, but I wouldn’t wish to place the Forbes bar too high. I might get disappointed. But if they did refuse, I commend them for mitigating their damages. It was Lyons, after all, who first insinuated a Groklaw-IBM tie. And it was he who first mentioned the court filing with a different date stamp. He seems deeply, deeply involved, no matter how you look at it, from my perspective.
Let’s begin with Bruce Perens, who points out that Dan Lyons is at it again. For those who do not know, Lyons is a Forbes journalist that has been often accused of shilling for Microsoft and SCO by attacking Richard Stallman and Groklaw, among other entities (it could be part of a larger scheme).
If you read Dan Lyon’s blog, 100% of it in recent time has been snippy comments directed to Groklaw and other Open Source entitities.
One thing we already know is that Novell makes Mono a priority in platform migrations, with movements such as Make it With Mono gaining both attention and attraction. We also suppose that this will introduce the issue of Microsoft-imposed royalties, bound to Free software, atop which Mono is mounted. Would this ultimately justify Steve Ballmer’s claim that “Open Source [or Free software] is not free”. That outrageous claims is something which he said in relation to the main purpose of his company’s deal with Novell, surpassing the importance of interoperability.
Could Novell take its ‘mixed source’ strategy and use it ‘contaminate’ projects like Opensuse? Could Opensuse cease to be free (as in “free beer”)? It certainly seems as though the liberties of free software are being lost due to these dependencies on patented Microsoft technology. It is worth quoting a fragment of a column which we previously cited.
Look at the wishlist which de Icaza mentioned in the interview – he wants a technical deal between Mono and .NET and wants Microsoft to recommend Mono to developers looking at migration. Sure. A company which is trying to push its own operating systems into every possible nook and corner, and facing some resistance from Linux, is definitely going to be inclined to recommend something that will take people away from its own O-S and help them move to one with which it is doing battle. Excellent logic there, Miguel! These crackpot arguments are exactly why I think there is something much more sinister in the Novell-Microsoft deal, something that is intimately connected with Mono. It is high time that the whole story was told.
Always keep your eyes open. Personally, I cannot say that I trust Miguel. I confroned him on a few occasions. His career’s track record should be an eye opener:
In summer of 1997, he [Miguel de Icaza] was interviewed by Microsoft for a job in the Internet Explorer Unix team (to work on a SPARC port), but lacked a university degree to obtain a work H-1B visa.
Miguel maintains personal ties with the guys at Microsoft’s Open Source Labs (Port 25). He does interviews with them, despite the fact that they are deceptive and their intents are no stranger to malice (for a variety of reasons that would take us off topic). By no means do I make a comparison here, but have a look at Darl McBride, the notorious figures behind a Microsoft-backed legal onslaught on GNU/Linux (which has just turned into a vicious vandetta against Groklaw).
From 1988 to 1996, he [Darl McBride] worked at Novell, where at first he was in charge of Novell Japan and later was vice president and general manager of Novell’s Embedded Systems Division (NEST). He left Novell to become senior vice president of IKON Office Solutions. IKON fired him in 1998 after his involvement in the execution of 33 business acquisitions.
Perhaps Novell and Microsoft are twins separated at birth after all. The Baystar-SCO Group link is enough to raise a brow (or even two).
As always, any flames or correction you can offer would be greatly appreciated. We do try to eliminate inaccuracies and back all claims using sources that we consider credible.
Novell will play its role in antitrust dog and pony shows, touting Microsoft’s pro-interoperability stance (and reaffirming the need to respect their portfolio of legally invalid software patents by paying royalties to interoperate with Windows), and slowly whither away.
Unfortunately, they will likely also continue to be complicit in Microsoft’s FUD campaign against Free Software, let’s just hope they don’t thrash around at the end like SCO did.
Send this to a friend 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA