Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Invests In Open Source Software Company
joabj writes "In what may be its first investment in an open source software company, Microsoft has quietly invested in TurboHercules, which maintains the Hercules open source IBM mainframe emulator. Perhaps the potential for purloining customers from the juicy mainframe market outstrips any misgivings Microsoft may have about open source. You might remember TurboHercules: In March, it filed an antitrust complaint with the EU over IBM's tying of its mainframe OSes with its hardware."
A story from earlier this year gives more information on the related conflict between Hercules and IBM over patents.
Perhaps the potential for purloining customers from the juicy mainframe market outstrips any misgivings Microsoft may have about open source.
The only misgivings MS ever had about open source is for the potential it has for giving away what it has always charged money for, thus eroding their profit share. I've often wondered why they don't leverage it to their own advantage more, much like the way they appropriated BSD code for much of their networking utilities, like netstat et al.
I am literally 3000 tokens away from the chaotic crossbow --Stephen
If the courts make IBM give in this could be huge for Microsoft. Turbo Hercules could be used to make an easy migration to Windows. Or maybe Microsoft will make an IBM mainframe compatibility layer like the Posix layar using Turbo Hercules? If you could run your mainframe software on a Windows server things would really start to suck for IBM.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Besides the people behind this case, the case itself is quite interesting too.
The European Commission (or Court of Justice) will have to decide if IBM has harmed TurboHercules through anti-competitive behaviour. IBM has also asserted patents. This means that if the European institutions find that IBM is doing wrong, then they will also have to decide if IBM can use its patents to continue the wrong. I.e. what trumps? Competition law or patents?
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/IBM_and_TurboHercules,_2010
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Competition_law_defence
If competition law trumps, then this opens a new path for breaking down the problems that software patents are doing to standards and interop.
http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Harm_to_standards_and_compatibility
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
Apple ties OSX to it's own hardware and no one argues that is wrong, although I think it is.
Conversely, IBM should invest serious money/time in ReactOS and WINE ... and encourage the liberation of Mono...
While I'm happy Microsoft is investing in open source, I find that their target is fairly suspicious.. what easier way to take on IBM indirectly than to give money to an open source company who is already in conflict with them.
In addition, it's not like Microsoft isn't already trying to embrace open source. You'd be surprised at just how much stuff is released under MS-PL licence. And while that may anger you, as it's their own licence, it's rather free.
As time goes by, most MS senior management will realize that open source is neither good nor bad, but an instrument that can be more useful than closed source under many circumstances.
En un lugar del estado de Washington cuyo nombre quiero olvidar...
The fact is Microsoft is funding TurboHercules and thereby funding the lawsuit. Now why Microsoft is funding TurboHercules may have little or nothing to do with said lawsuit.There's room for conspiracy theories there and those who are into such things can (and likely will) take that ball and run with it but I don't know or care to speculate. Still, "Microsoft is funding TurboHercules lawsuit against IBM" [sic] is a statement of fact. They weren't funding it at the start, but they are now.
MSFT have form, remember SCO? Why else would they invest in this company?
Why can't it be a conspiracy theory and be true?
Microsoft's entire IP stack is based off the BSD model
It's a very old factoid that became an enduring myth a long time ago. It was really only true back in the days of Windows NT 3.1, the TCP/IP stack for which was a third-party implementation bought by MS. That one was mostly BSD-derived. Since then, however, it was rewritten from scratch (several times, in fact), and NT 3.5 and 95 already included that rewritten version, which is not derived from BSD.
However, the original userland utilities (nslookup, ftp, telnet, a bunch of other stuff) were originally BSD-derived and remain such. That's where the strings "Berkeley" etc (which are usually used as a proof of BSD derivation) come from. So GP is absolutely correct.
Hereis a more detailed treatment of this.
It's a matter of historical fact that IBM was sued twice for antitrust in the US. I don't know the exact case numbers. The first case began in the late 1950's, and the second one was in the 1970's/80's. I recommend you get a copy of "Father Son and Company: my life and times at IBM" by Thomas J. Watson (the son of the founder). You should be able to find it on Amazon, it's a good read of IBM's corporate history as viewed from the inside by the president/CEO.
FWIW, I'm on IBM's side in this matter with TurboHercules, since I tend to read the details of court cases.
C|N>K