OSNews

Business models come and go, and sometimes they take down the businesses themselves. Microsoft is the master of yesterday's warfare. Nobody questions their dominant arsenal or their ability to level their enemies at will. They're the established superpower of the software industry.

But now they face a new kind of enemy based on a distributed network of semi-autonomous projects rather than a centralized authority. They know that this war is different. This isn't about conquering territory or repelling threats. What's at stake is the balance of power between vendors and users.

Microsoft has worked very hard to dominate not only its competitors, but its users as well. What started with basic copyright led to increasingly restrictive EULAs, product keys, activation, copy protection, and anti-circumvention technologies. Microsoft doesn't just own your licensed software. They also control how you use it.

Free software is a threat to the hegemony of proprietary software vendors like Microsoft. They don't want to compete in a world where a disgruntled user can pick up the ball and become a competitor. They thought that if they sold everybody guns, they'd be too busy shooting each other to realize how we got into this mess. But the jig is up, and Microsoft simply doesn't have any good options.

The worst thing that can happen to any leader is a popular movement that rejects the premise, that doesn't buy into the interpretive framework or selective reality that's being sold. Microsoft kept saying "we make the software, we make the rules, and if you don't like it, make your own damn software". Many developers took them up on that offer over the years, with little success.

Eventually people realized that you can't beat Microsoft simply by making your own damn software. Microsoft's software is generally quite good. It's the rules that suck. The way to beat Microsoft is by making software with really great rules. Microsoft can squash any vendor and its software, but not if they're playing by a completely different set of rules.

This time, Microsoft isn't just competing against a rival vendor. They're completing against an idea, a philosophy, a method for developing and distributing software. Its practitioners play by their own rules, and the worst part is that most people really like these new rules. It's a form of asymmetric insurgency to which Microsoft has no effective response.

First they tried a misinformation campaign called Get the Facts to portray the enemy as dangerous and expensive. It worked just well enough to soften the ground for the Shock and Awe portion of the strategy, a billion-dollar intellectual property lawsuit aimed at the enemy's corporate leader and designed to suppress the will to fight back.

The media pundits thought that this was surely the end for the enemy. Microsoft would clearly triumph through its clever proxy lawsuit. But then something unprecedented happened. A grassroots organization called Groklaw began to fight back against the charges and gradually began the shift public opinion against the war.

The legal campaign got bogged down in counterclaims and countersuits. The allegations evolved as they were refuted, becoming more and more abstract until it wasn't clear what the whole thing was about anymore. The only thing that was clear was that it wasn't working.

What was also clear was that the only way Microsoft could salvage this war and its legacy was with a surge strategy. They deployed 235 unspecified patents into battle to prod the enemy into agreeing on a Microsoft-sponsored framework for sharing intellectual property.

Unfortunately, the surge only deepened sectarianism within the enemy movement. Microsoft had hoped that Novell, the unity vendor they installed, would lead the way to political reconciliation. But instead, the public grew distrustful. Novell had widespread support from everybody except for the community it was supposed to unite.

Popular leaders began to encourage people to boycott Microsoft's proxy vendor. Despite Novell's attempt to distance itself from Microsoft, the enemy realized that Microsoft was ultimately pulling the strings. Powerful blocs such as Red Hat and Ubuntu refused to participate in this charade. It appeared that Microsoft's unity vendor was a lame duck.

Although Microsoft was able to secure the support of some rival tribes such as Xandros and Linspire, their influence was limited and localized. The idea of a unified intellectual property agreement seemed to be dead in the water. The legal battle was essentially lost. Microsoft's own supporters began to demand a change of course.

Microsoft now realizes that withdrawal is unavoidable. They're nearly out of political capital. It seems like everybody is against them. Their dream of proprietizing the enemy has failed, and all that remains is to find a graceful exit strategy.

Where we stand today is at the beginning of the end of Microsoft's confrontational stance against Linux. Nothing is simple in the Linux community. It's a wild frontier of individual empowerment and vigorous internal competition. It's a platform of strategic importance to just about everybody on the planet, but it cannot be controlled by outsiders.

The free software community will resist occupation fiercely. They will fork in the face of tyranny. They will not be held hostage by unsubstantiated threats. It's a community founded on the principle of self-sacrifice to save humanity from oppression. They will fight any enemy, no matter how powerful, and they will win.

These people will give their lives for their cause in the hopes that their good deeds will be rewarded. Not in the next life, but in this life. And to Microsoft's great consternation, it is working. The value of Linux and free software is so great that it pays for a significant portion of its own development.

Microsoft is up against what amounts to the most successful secular charity of the modern era. A humanitarian masterpiece to which people donate time and money not only because it makes them feel good, but because it brings real value to their business or lifestyle.

They're up against a competitor that will not die. If you cut it in half, it replicates. It you cut off a limb, it regrows even stronger. Fighting free software is like fighting an exploding cloud of gas. It can't be contained, it can't be split, it can't be frozen, and it consumes everything in its path.

I've used a terrorism analogy, but as I alluded, it's really humanitarianism. They use similar methods to accomplish opposite goals. The only way to defeat terrorism is by turning everybody against them. This is difficult, but not impossible, since, of course, they are indiscriminate killers.

But humanitarians are indiscriminate givers. How do you turn people against that? How do you stop a social movement that operates like terrorists but preaches freedom, equality, opportunity, and cooperation?

Business models come and go, and Microsoft is the master of yesterday's warfare. Microsoft knows that the business model of selling proprietary software licenses is on the way out. If they're to survive, they need to find ways to monetize free software. Free software is the future. The sooner Microsoft gets onboard, the sooner they can start building the Microsoft of tomorrow.

I look forward to a day where Microsoft competes vigorously on the merit and value of their free software-based products and services. I don't want to see one of the great all-time software businesses wither and die. I want to see them evolve with the times. They have a lot of expertise, and they could become a valuable citizen of the free software community.

Edited 2007-08-25 04:25

Nice story... when is this supposed to take place?

I think you mischaracterize the whole SCO affair. MSFT wouldn't be involved in a lawsuit that incompetent. It was simply too dumb for both the Microsoft executives and lawyers to join. The only reason they bought a unix license from SCO must have been to allow SCO to continue on its fools errand a little longer.

In the corporate world, Windows Server is doing quite well. That was Linux's fertile ground. Perhaps 'get the facts' is being retired because the compaign has largely succeeded, so there's no reason to be provocative anymore. Now Microsoft can just leave it up to positive advertising and word of mouth to get further sales.

The key thing to realize here is that Microsoft is NOT in the business of competing with linux. They've learned that a better strategy is to compete with individual vendors, like Red Hat and Novell. In this arena they can be quite price and feature competitive.