Stepping up to a giant
Published: 06 Aug 2003 11:40 BST
You've purposely decided to not get involved in a lot of these open-source philosophical arguments. Is that because you're concentrating on a battle with Microsoft?
That's a good observation. We do really try to stay out of the politics and the religion of open-source...We've never attended LinuxWorld, primarily because that's not our market. We need to go to the mass market that maybe has never even heard of Linux before...Perhaps we make some choices others feel are unwise, but I think they make sense when you look at us trying to take it to the mass market.
Is this mix of open-source and proprietary software that you're pursuing going to be what's required for the Linux companies that survive?
Yes. Again, it goes back to the fact there are 50,000 Microsoft employees and 53 at Lindows.com. If that's the contest, were going to lose. It has to be 53 at Lindows.com plus hundreds of thousands of Linux developers around the world versus Microsoft, and now we have a shot. They have a 20-year lead in terms of installed base and applications, so it's critical for us to leverage the entire Linux community -- as it is for anyone that wants to compete in this arena.
These have turned into confusing times for Linux with the SCO case. You've pointed to a contract Lindows signed with SCO. Are you saying that essentially indemnifies you?
It doesn't indemnify us, but we had a working relationship with SCO back when it was called Caldera. We paid them money to do some Linux work for us. And because of that, I think we're in great shape when it comes to dealing with the licensing type of issues involved here.
Are you promoting Lindows as the litigation-proof alternative?
It's not something that we promote. All we're trying to do is make sure that if people are reluctant to embrace desktop Linux because of the SCO issue, they should reconsider, given Lindows.com's relationship with Caldera. That's not our lead -- avoid litigation, use Lindows OS.
Again, some of that is avoiding the politics of the situation...Are SCO's claims against IBM valid or not? We don't know. Regardless, we want our customers to be able to sleep at night knowing they're in a safe position. But that's not our lead. Again, the majority of customers we're trying to reach have never heard of SCO, so that's an irrelevant point to them.
All in all, would you rather not have the whole issue creating static in the marketplace?
Absolutely. It doesn't help Linux adoption in any way. It really hurts and impairs it. I think the quicker it's resolved in some meaningful way, the better Linux will be overall.
On another legal front, where are you with the Microsoft trademark case?
We are preparing for trial on 1 December in Seattle, and it's going to be a fascinating trial, because somebody's going to lose a trademark. It's either going to be Microsoft losing Windows or Lindows.com losing the right to use the word Lindows. The amount of evidence we're going to present that Windows is -- and has been -- a generic term in computing for the last 25 years is going to open some real eyes. And Microsoft's tactics...a lot of stuff will come to light.
So your position is basically that the use of windows with a lower-case "w" as a computing term supersedes and overrides upper-case Windows?
Absolutely. Trademark law is pretty clear. You can't take a generic term and say, "I'm the only guy that can use this word." If you're in the airline business, you can't say, "I want the word 'jet'. I'm trademarking jet, and nobody else can use that word now." That's exactly what Microsoft has done. They've taken a generic term -- they didn't invent it; it was in common and widespread use before they started using it -- and then bought out all their competitors or drove them out of business and then pulled some trickery with the trademark office. They secured a trademark and then sat on that trademark for a bunch of years until they wanted to use it against a potential competitor -- ourselves.
So it's not the same as if you came up with an open-source database and called it "Loracle?"
Yes, because "Oracle" is not a generic computing technology. "Amazon" is another good example -- it's even a generic word, but not in their industry. So yes, you can trademark generic words as long as they aren't used generically within the business you're in.
If you prevail and Microsoft loses trademark rights to Windows, it seems like that could really shake up the marketplace. Is that a prospect you're looking forward to?
Sure. If we prevail what you could see is AOL Windows, Gateway Windows, Dell Windows. How about Dell having their own version of an operating system they put on their computers? That would be a great thing and the kind of world that could potentially happen if Microsoft loses their trademark protection for Windows.
You're also taking a poke at Microsoft with your Xbox hacking challenge. What prompted that?
Well, I don't believe digital rights management is a good thing for consumers, and I believe the Xbox is Microsoft's first attempt at digital rights management. By digital rights management, I mean the hardware company or the software company deciding what you can and cannot use on your machine.
Xbox is in my view a predecessor to Longhorn or whatever the code name is for the next generation of their operating system, where they get to decide what software you run. And that's a very dangerous world for consumers. It means Microsoft will control what software you run, and you can rest assured Microsoft will put up a toll gate at every opportunity to charge you the maximum amount. And furthermore, they'll be able to determine what you can do with your own content. Can you encode your CDs? Can you watch your DVDs? That will all be determined by the software companies or the hardware companies involved. I'd rather have it be determined by the end user.
Speaking of digital rights, the digital music area is getting pretty chaotic. Are you glad you got out of the MP3 business when you did?
Part of me is. It's clear that even with the lessons of the last six years, the music industry hasn't figured out that if you put all these limitations on music that people actually buy, then they're simply going to turn to the black market and copy it. The music I download from Kazaa has more use and more value to me than if I go to iTunes and buy it. As long as that's the economic relationship, then commercial efforts are going to largely fail.
When I sold MP3.com, I was disappointed, because we didn't get to realise everything we wanted to. People gush about Apple's one-click download -- that's great, but we had that with MyMP3 three years ago. And we would allow you to interface with any portable player. We had remote access to your music from anywhere. We had a lot of great features. I think we were ahead of our time and outran where the law is in many ways
Previous
Did you find this article useful?
75 out of 155 people found this useful
Digg
Slashdot
Del.ici.ous
Stumble
Reddit
