The Bloor Perspective: Microsoft and Lindows, shareware and Sybase

It seems that Microsoft may have accidentally bitten off more than it can chew by contesting the right of Lindows.com to use a name only one letter removed from its own trademarked Windows. The battle has only just begun but the judge has thrown out the first injunction until such time as a fuller hearing can be convened. The big deal, though, comes in the judges statement that questioned Microsoft's use of the term Windows and whether such a trademark could be valid.

The Lindows saga is set to run for a few more weeks as the two operating systems suppliers seem keen to continue the fight over Michael Robertson's choice of name for his Linux-based WINE project. Lindows is a mild threat to Microsoft's business because it suggests that Windows users can migrate to the Linux-base without having to give up its applications and its user-friendly features. While Lindows may never turn out to be the product to achieve this, it may sow the seeds of doubt in people's minds.

The big thing to come from the first hearing - where Microsoft claimed Lindows is capitalising on Microsoft's brand and the name is confusingly similar - was that the US District Judge, John C. Coughenour, appears to have gone along with Lindows' view that the term Windows was in use within the IT industry long before Microsoft took out its trademark and, as such, perhaps there are "serious questions" to be asked about the validity of that trademark.

So, while Lindows can continue trading using its chosen name for a while longer, the question that needs to be asked is whether anyone has the resources and the nerve to go to court and raise those "serious questions." If Microsoft pursues the Lindows case further, it is quite likely somebody somewhere will put the whole trademark issue up for discussion. This would cause Microsoft no end of problems and add to those caused by the growing list of states unhappy with the proposed antitrust settlement. This could get very interesting indeed.

Freeware

'Shareware', 'freeware' and 'open source' are all wonderful ideals that most of us have used at some point in our computing lives. The problem is that nobody has really worked out how to get rich doing it. This makes it almost impossible to achieve commercial success and, therefore, some really useful technologies inevitably sink without trace.

Perhaps the best recent example of this is the expected demise of PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) after Network Associates finally gave up on it. PGP is a neat private encryption tool that is used extensively for securing email. It was originally developed as free downloadable software and then the commercial rights were sold to NAI. The problem that NAI has is that it couldn't get anybody to abandon the 'freeware' view of the technology and, with nobody paying, it had no option but to stop marketing the product. It couldn't find a buyer and so it will still support PGP for 12 months and then we can expect a rather undignified commercial end.

The easy solution to this problem is that we have to modify our ideals a little to allow businesses based on open source and shareware concepts to thrive. The idea has been with us for years but how many ever sent the $5 to the address on the introduction screen so shareware developers could continue to provide their service?

For a while it looked as though the open source community would be going down the same route - dogmatically saying that all software licensing is theft and saluting proudly as each new development sinks beneath the waves of Microsoft oppression. Thankfully, some experienced commercial hands saw the potential for open source and have managed to create organisations and now we are seeing a business model emerging.

We are talking of the likes of IBM, Caldera, Red Hat and others who are creating structure for the 'free' components -- the Linux operating environment -- so that it is possible to build layered products that integrate more easily. It is these layered products that will form the basis of commercial success as long as they are priced correctly.

There needs to be a two-sided agreement here. Users want to pay once for the rights to use these products and they don't want to pay very much. They don't want ongoing commitments to maintenance fees but, if the price is right, they will buy a new version of the product if it offers functionality that is needed. On the other side of the equation, if we want these businesses to stay around to give us the products that we need, we actually have to put our hands in our pockets to buy the stuff and stop stealing software. There is a really strong opportunity here - let's not waste it.

Sybase and web services

Sybase has long shaken off its database-only persona to adopt a stance as one of the leading lights in the world of enterprise systems. In recent years, it has built up its business by developing a good collection of enterprise development and integration products and backing these up with the services to deliver large scale solutions. There can be little surprise, therefore, to find Sybase talking about web services and how it expects to go about making them work within the enterprise.

Sybase has developed an infrastructure designed to allow a component-based approach to web services - giving whatever level of granularity is required. Sybase fits its various products into four main functional areas: " Provide - the products needed to deliver the service. Sybase has its Easerver, database, web servers and business process tools as well as an integration layer. " Access - end-user connectivity that comes with the Sybase portal technology. " Develop - the PowerBuilder tools and a web services toolkit are used to speed up the development and delivery of applications. " Orchestrate - the management features that come with the Sybase Open Biz products.

In addition, it has a wide range of integration capabilities that deliver the ability to wrap up stored procedures, ERP access, Java, CICS and all sorts of other mechanisms into the web services infrastructure. This is where Sybase has done well in recent times and it makes sense for it to continue in this vein and bring legacy applications into the web services picture.

Sybase has a good vision based upon an expansion of its core skills. It's not all new and it's not all rocket science. Sybase talks a good story and will probably deliver on it too because its thinking and its organisation are set up to make web services work.

Bloor Research is a leading independent analyst organisation in Europe. You can find out more at http://www.bloor-research.com or by emailing mail@bloor-research.com.