With respect to software sales, IBM has consistently played second fiddle
\n(perhaps, eightieth!) to Microsoft. IBM has not only had to compete with
\nbig players like Microsoft, but also against the \"open source community\".
\nThis is a community which is often seen as the product of cooperation and
\npurity in technology. Its proponents point to it as proof that there is no
\ntragedy in the commons. It works on the premise that anyone can use and
\ncontribute to the source code of a particular software with relaxed
\nrestrictions relating to licensing or patents. Users then add their own
\nideas to the existing code to help further the efforts of the overall
\ngroup. It would seem that IBM has recently taken the stand point that \"if
\nyou can't beat 'em, join 'em\". On September 18, 2007, IBM announced the
\nrelease of \"IBM Lotus Symphony, a suite of free software tools for
\ncreating and sharing documents, spreadsheets and presentations\" (IBM
\nWebsite). As IBM becomes a bigger contributor to the open-source
\ncommunity, it raises questions regarding the feasibility of IBM's business
\nmodel, Microsoft's patent protection, and the survival of an open-source
\ncommunity in a patent crazed world.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
IBM has unveiled it's Lotus Symphony through OpenOffice.org, which holds
\nas its mission statement, \"To create, as a community, the leading
\ninternational office suite that will run on all major platforms and
\nprovide access to all functionality and data through open-component based
\nAPIs and an XML-based file format.\" In doing so, IBM has teamed up with
\nSun Microsystems, Google and others. However, no matter how altruistic
\nOpenOffice.org claims to be, IBM's Lotus Symphony push is not the result
\nof the company's belief in free quality products for all users; as a
\ncorporation, its main concern is realizing profits for its share holders.
\nRather, the introduction of Lotus Symphony is a direct attack on
\nMicrosoft. The market has proved that IBM cannot compete with Microsoft's
\nOffice programs. However, IBM has found success with its Lotus Notes: a
\nclient\/server package for offering email and other collaboration services.
\nThis success may be short lived, because Microsoft's competing product,
\nExchange plus Outlook plus Office Communicator, is integrated with all
\nOffice Applications. In order to compete on this level with Microsoft, IBM
\nneeds the same set of tools as Microsoft in order to successfully market
\nand sell Lotus Notes. By using OpenOffice.org, IBM leverages an existing
\nand established code base and document formats which are readily supported
\nby other companies such as Google and Sun. IBM has had similar success by
\nsupporting the open source Eclipse IDE in order to offer a complete
\nsolution for it's WebSphere development platform. This enables IBM to
\nbetter compete with Microsoft's .NET development platform which integrates
\nwith Microsoft's Visual Studio IDE . Although open-source programs have
\nbeen competing with Microsoft for a while without realizing a significant
\nimpact in the market place, IBM hopes to use its clout to validate the
\nprograms.<\/p>\n
Microsoft may not have taken seriously previous attempts to steal away its
\nmarket share, however, with more key players joining the open-source,
\nMicrosoft will have no choice but to fight back. Microsoft has a variety
\nof options to rebut the attacks. For starters, it always has the option
\nthat IBM chose: add to the open-source world and establish a revenue
\nstream based on associated add-on products. Microsoft could also continue
\non its current path and focus on customer retention with improvements to
\ncurrent programs and customer service. But Microsoft has another option;
\none which Microsoft CEO, Steve Ballmer, has been alluding to for a while.
\nMicrosoft could more forcefully challenge any potential patent
\ninfringement on the part of the open-source community. Even if IP
\ninfringement claims are not grounded, the mere publicity that open-source
\nprograms are vulnerable to attack by Microsoft may cause users and
\ninvestors to shy away from the technology. If Microsoft opts for this
\npath, it should raise questions in the legal community as to the
\neffectiveness and the necessity of patents.<\/p>\n
While the program itself is not patentable, the process which the code
\ncreates is patentable. Vaver characterizes the purpose of patents as
\nstimulating the creation and development of new technologies. Open-source
\nprogramming achieves these goals without the added nuisance of a patent.
\nAllowing patents to be issued for minimal achievements, like one-click
\napplications, creates a roadblock for significant innovations in
\nprogramming to be made. Open-source communities thrive on non-ownership.
\nWithout the use of patents, this community attracts top talent and creates
\ncutting edge software which is used by millions of users. Firefox, an
\naward-winning internet browser, is a perfect example of the quality that
\ncomes from the open-source community. Firefox has continually introduced
\ninnovative features while avoiding many of the security problems which ha
\nve plagued Microsoft's competing browser, Internet Explorer, and has
\nmanaged to secure upwards of 15% of the browser market. If Microsoft
\nattempts to flex its patent power to hinder the open-source community's
\ncreativity, then the role of patent would no longer generate innovation.
\nCompanies like Microsoft, are using broad patents to restrict all forms of
\ncompetition. If patents are being used inappropriately, then it is time to
\ndevelop the law.<\/p>\n
Despite IBM's motivation for garnering support for the OpenOffice.org, its
\npresence will help to validate the open-source programs. Patents provide a
\nmonopoly to an inventor as a reward for furthering mankind. However, when
\ncompanies use the monopoly power to unnecessarily constrain the market,
\nthe patent becomes a tool which opposes its raison d'etre. Many of the
\nbrightest minds in computer science have long realized the inability of
\nthe law to reflect the realities of the profession. IBM's Lotus Symphony
\nis the result of market forces and not IP law; it is a reality that is
\ninevitable when the law fails to keep pace with technology.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
With respect to software sales, IBM has consistently played second fiddle (perhaps, eightieth!) to Microsoft. IBM has not only had to compete with big players like Microsoft, but also against the \"open source community\". This is a community which is often seen as the product of cooperation and purity in technology. Its proponents point to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2140,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_kad_blocks_custom_css":"","_kad_blocks_head_custom_js":"","_kad_blocks_body_custom_js":"","_kad_blocks_footer_custom_js":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[124],"tags":[164],"class_list":["post-41","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-technology","tag-auriol-marasco"],"yoast_head":"\n