After Microsoft's top lawyer, Brad Smith, keynote I hang out with some Microsofties to get a sense of their thoughts on open source, software patents, etc... To my surprise they were very much vocal about their anti-open source feelings. In exchange, they did ask for their names not to appear, just in case "upper management" would want to reprimand them for speaking out what Microsoft really thinks "inside".

"Open source is stealing. What open source does is copying proprietary software and giving it away for free. Open source is not about innovation or innovating, it's about copying. It infringes on everybody's patents. Not just Microsoft's. But we're just the most vocal about it. We just can not see this happening and not do anything to protect our business [...] What open source and communism have in common, is that there are both failed systems".

I just don't see the chasm between Microsoft and the open source community disappear anytime soon, not even in the middle of this century like Smith alluded to. On one side, you have Microsoft who think people should pay for software. On the other, well... software is free. In the end, it's all about money and business model.

And I think Microsoft makes so much money selling Windows, Office and its server software that it's too late for them to change their business model at least for these "legacy" activities. So I predict the fight will go on as long as Microsoft's legacy businesses are successful and that they did not find other sources of revenues to compensate the loss for "freeing" the legacy activities.

But Microsoft is not standing still either, trying out other business models. Their offer for Yahoo is a perfect demonstration of the transformation in the company: from a perpetual licensing model to an online, on-demand, subscription oriented and even ad-supported business model. But it will not happen overnight.

"IBM is the most litigious company in the IT industry"
On patents and licensing, the Microsofties were very bitter on how the world sees Microsoft strategy.

"Our business model is to make money out of the software we sell, not out of our patents, unlike IBM who's making billions out of their patents [...] IBM is the most litigious company in the IT industry. It's a big business for them. Not for us".

So why charge open source companies to license Microsoft's patents on its protocols, APIs, etc... ?

No good answer there but to me, it makes sense to charge "something" for somebody's work. And the use of "dual licensing" and charging for "proprietary features/add-ons" by successful open source companies like Sun, Novell, MySQL, XenSource or EnterpriseDB are examples of how both worlds could eventually work together. Maybe.