Once More unto the Breach

Open Source Business Tactics in One Slide

I recently found a slide I used six years ago to explain open source software in a business context to Jim Allchin back when I worked for Microsoft and Jim was executive VP of all Windows. My job was to develop an open source engagement model, working in a team called Platform Business Management, which reported directly to Jim. Jason Matusow was responsible for driving the Shared Source agenda, initially working in the Windows marketing team and later as an immediate peer in PBM. The meeting itself would have been sometime in June 2003 (so shortly after Sun's threatened injunction against Windows). I tried to ground the tactics in product practices Microsoft already well understood and with company examples pulled from other large multi-billion dollar corporations, i.e. while our shining open source company examples might have been Red Hat, MySQL, and JBoss, they were meaningless examples to Microsoft based on revenue size. The slide worked. Jim understood why Microsoft needed to adopt its own open source practices, and how we might start. [There were other slides in the presentation discussing options for engagement and contribution that are confidential.] The execution was another matter entirely within the software product executive culture of the company, and isn't relevant here.

There are a few things to consider as you read the slide and the notes I used to present additional material:

• The information density of the slide is normal at Microsoft (or was in my day) for exec presentations. It complemented a style of discussion that's come to be known as precision questioning. You simply don't have the discussion and decision making flow required if you're trying to drive a particular train of thought through a slide build and flow. This sort of info density is about presenting the maximum amount of related material visually and letting the exec drive the questions. It's amazingly effective if everyone understands the protocol.
• I've not changed any of the wording on the slide or the associated notes. [There's nothing confidential.] Some things may feel dated, and I've certainly evolved and expanded some of my thinking, but I still stand by what I wrote. There are few words I would change today and while I might pick more current examples, these ones were absolutely relevant at the time.

Here's the slide:

Here are the notes I used with the slide:

OSS Development Projects (technology buckets):

Bullet 1 and 3. Good developers develop good software. Good developers have discipline and process. They don’t know how not to have discipline. So version control, CM, design reviews, strong vision communication, automated build management, coding standards, automated test harnesses, bug tracking, peer code review, strong tool support. All understood and published for decades. None of this is attributable to OSS as a development methodology or licensing mechanism. You can think of this in the inverse: of the thousands of OSS projects hosted by SourceForge, why are so few (relatively speaking) noteworthy? (There's also a couple of good papers on how few people actually anchor the few key projects.)

Bullet 3. The projects in the OSS world that matter are anchored by good developers and they're developed using a UNIX development mentality. They have all been developed since the advent of "cheap" networking (at least between the universities and major corporations) through the Internet (email, netnews, and ftp). The Internet enabled the rise of OSS -- not the other way around -- and it was the low-friction medium through which people could share the software. Add a license that requires source code publication and permits libre use of the source code onto the UNIX component model and you have the techno-social movement.

Bullet 4. Examples: the individual contributor to Apache (gives “3” bug fixes but gets back 100s), versus Shell Int’l contributions in a team (code/$$) with management approval to Samba.org (while deeply protecting their own software assets), versus Sun contributing the accessibility features to the gnome desktop in return for a complete desktop for an advanced “UNIX” based desktop.

Bullet 4. People value the work they do differently in different contexts: think of a technical publications person using their writing skills to complete documentation at work, helping their child’s class room complete a writing project in a parent-child project, and writing a sonnet to someone they care for. Same skill set in all three situations, one for money, one as a contribution in community, one as an act of friendship. Or a program manager that spends time on a not-for-profit board in their community using the same skill set they use at work for money.

So what's next?

Applied OSS:

Bullet 3. Msft is an expert here. Publish specs to drive complement value add. Provide certification programs to ensure lots of service providers. Buy, integrate, and bundle. Etc.

OSS Becomes Big Business

Bullet 2. From IBM’s point of view in the product marketing space: every apache installation is a potential customer for Websphere. From a Linux perspective, they are driving home the message that OSS and Linux are the fulfillment of all “our” investments in open systems and open standards, using multiple congruent tactics of OSS participation, standards participation, and patent license management to control the AIX commoditization – which they publicly state is happening – then quickly qualify the remark to a 10 year time frame. With Eclipse, it’s no longer “buy” versus “build” versus “borrow”, it’s “share” to control the java development space and drive complement value add around their world.

The Community Leadership Summit and the Art of Community

Good community leadership is desperately needed. Too often companies mistakenly think of it as some small adjunct to marketing, an extra channel over which to broadcast messages and through which to generate leads. Likewise product engineering can equally confuse community purpose and disrespect its impact, relegating it as "beta tester" or ignoring its contributions with Not-Invented-Here blinders. We've understood community since before we climbed down from the trees, and we've understood the social dynamics: despite our best intents every village has its idiot and every playground has its bully. But when community in its truest collective sense meets business, we seem to forget all our lessons and expect something to manage with the efficiency and efficacy of a time-motion study in an automobile factory.

This weekend, 18-19 July 2009, marks the first Community Leadership Summit in San Jose, California, at the San Jose Convention Centre (McEnery Conf Centre). Jono Bacon, community leader for Ubuntu at Canonical, Ltd. has done amazing work organizing the event and it promises to be a great opportunity to share experiences and learn from one another. It is a free event in front of O'Reilly's Open Source Conference, supported by a small savvy set of vendor sponsors, but the event is about community development experience and not any one vendor's take on it. While free, one should go to the registration page to register.

Jono has also been busy this past year writing "The Art of Community". He developed it over time in conjunction with the Art of Community blog. I was a reviewer, and I think it's an excellent book covering the breadth of the subject. It will be available in August, and you can pre-order it here.

I was hoping to participate in this year's inaugural summit, but unfortunately I'll not be attending it (or OSCON) for several personal reasons. I will certainly miss friends and colleagues, but trust next week will be as brilliant as always!

SourceForge Acquires Ohloh!

First, congratulations to Scott Collison (Ohloh CEO) and the Ohloh team. [Caveat lector: I've been an advisor to them for some time.] It's a great exit for a great little company. As with all the companies I advise, there needs to be something unique going on. Ohloh has always been unique. As I described in January:

When a potential open source user wanted to find out "what open source software is available" to solve a problem, they were invariably left hunting across Google, SourceForge, and sites like java-source.net and FreshMeat. There was no consistency. The depth of information was sketchy. Some of it was bleeding edge software, some tied to the site. There was no sense of "what's good" unless you were already involved in a particular community, and even then community bias could get in the way. This gave way to a collection of directory solutions and companies that tried to bridge this gap.

Ohloh has always had the most useful and interesting directory for me. First, they have no direct sales model tied to the directory, so my trust in the depth and breadth of the information is high. Second, the beauty of the analysis is that the core data is metrics based on what programmers do, not what they say. I can see how big or small a community is, how long it's been around, how active it is, and this provides hard data when one then looks at the qualitative commentary. Third, it's always been comprehensive across the open source world and getting better all the time.

...

Over their several year history, they have continued to expand and add features to their core statistical analysis. They've built the community and expanded the number of repositories they support. Once one finds a project, one can see other projects immediately that are related through the tagging and stacking other Ohloh users share. The site is a proper social network for open source developers. It's been used to get a project manager's view of an open source project by the project's own leadership. As a resource for job hunters and recruiters it's invaluable to be able to see the visual resume of a developer. They've evolved their offerings to act as download host, and provide job and support services classifieds.

In one commentary, Jon Sobel (SourceForge group president of media) made reference to "Another advantage for SourceForge ... is that Ohloh's data will help the company deliver advertising that is more targeted and effective." This is the real key to the acquisition. A primary revenue driver for SourceForge is advertising across the forges and online media properties. Ohloh has been successfully developing a data service that would wildly improve the ability to target technology advertising and provide data rich feedback for high-tech marketing campaigns. [Frankly, Google should have acquired Ohloh.] They have a number of large corporate customers. So through this acquisition:

• Ohloh can improve SourceForge's advertising revenues.
• The Ohloh data service itself provides an excellent additional revenue stream in the high-tech corporate marketing world.
• The Ohloh community site is complementary to SourceForge's forges, providing open source communities better tools for understanding their projects.

This is a great acquisition for SourceForge. Hopefully along the way, the original and unique aspects of the directory that make it so valuable to open source users (as opposed to open source developers) are not destroyed or lost, and that SourceForge continues to recognize the difference between the core data competency Ohloh represents, the core value proposition to SourceForge's customers, and its complementary uses as a separate directory at strengthening the SourceForge brand in non-revenue producing ways.

Other commentary:

• The official press release
• Matt Asay's interview with Jon Sobel, SourceForge group president of media
• Ars Technica Article

Partner Programs and Open Source Software Businesses

I was discussing partner programs with colleagues the other day. Partner programs tend to need careful thought — much more than many young companies realize. The simplest summary I can offer is that partner programs aren't about marketing — they're about sales, which means they're about compensation plans and metrics aligned with those plans.

Four years ago when Optaros announced what it was doing (consulting services based on open source building blocks) many companies approached us to "be partners". This meant everything from at its most innocent "let's share leads and swap logos" all the way to "Optaros would be a great sales channel for our product." All this requires (a.) a lot of time, and (b.) needs to be tracked against revenue. As a channel, it needs management just like a company's sales team does, so you can figure out who is really performing and so as to get rid of the non-performers. We did sign several light weight partnerships (i.e. logo swap and a joint press release) in the first year because it gave us a press release with a high profile (i.e. newsworthy) partner. We expected nothing else from the partnership — no leads, no co-marketing, no co-sales. Some partners never called with leads despite promises and follow-up from us. They did, however, call to give us a hard time if they heard us using a competitor's project/product to solve a problem for our customers. Obviously our customers were more important to us and our revenue than the partners lack of leads/revenue. [To be clear, Optaros has strong partner management in place and developed a number of excellent partners over time with strong complementing business relationships.]

Aside from the day-to-day management, you also need to ensure there's no channel conflict. You will encounter problems with partners where their business development people may love you, but their sales force may never think of you because:

• You're not helping them meet their quota
• Worse, your product/service competes with the higher margin items they sell to make their quota
• They'll take a lead from you, but have no need to return the favour on their way to closing their quota. (Contrary to popular belief, they will not call you because they like you — they are sales people and there needs to be some bottom line benefit to calling you because otherwise you're taking away valuable time from them making their quota and "salesperson of the month/quarter/year" and the perks attendant on that title. These are highly competitive revenue-focused individuals. Good sales people in a channel conflict won't call because it wastes their time.)

Business development managers that don't sell for a living don't necessarily understand the channel conflict problem. They also might be compensated on something like "partner satisfaction" or "# partners signed", etc., rather than on revenue numbers. Not only that, if the partnership is one sided (they get sales, you don't) they still may not care. Partner programs aren't worth anything if the channel and compensation programs aren't well-aligned to mutual benefit.

Gaining visibility through partners is an interesting idea and a Big Name Partnership MAY help as a marquee sort of "partner" regardless of sales, but THEN you need to ensure you have a solid business development person on their side that will speak GLOWINGLY on your behalf to potential investors or act as a direct customer reference to close a deal. That's when they count. Otherwise, you're lost in a sea of all their partners. [Softway was a Microsoft partner back through the late 1990s before the acquisition. It was a fascinating relationship when it came to getting them to admit that they wanted to see UNIX/Linux applications running natively on Windows NT.]

I'm not saying don't set up a partner program — I'm saying set one up with your eyes wide open and with a realistic eye on the revenue that could otherwise be gained by (for example) hiring another sales person rather than a partner manager. Once you understand exactly how you want to make revenue directly for yourself, you can better determine how to organize a partner program (by region, by vertical, by function) such that your needs and your partners's needs and compensation are properly aligned and your partners trust you to not conflict.

Photo by Robert Scales

The Microsoft SD Forum Open Source Event

Microsoft and the SD Forum jointly sponsored the Zero Day event this year before the Open Source Business Conference. The past two years this has been a Microsoft sponsored day for ISV partners developing businesses around open source. There was time dedicated in each event to presentations of the relevant Microsoft programs for ISVs, and Sam Ramji would kick off the day with a good Q&A session discussing Microsoft's positions, accomplishments, and announcements around open source software. This year the content was broader, with the afternoon's sessions being organized by the SD Forum. Participants that wanted to engage with Microsoft around their programs could talk with any of the program directors present.

This being the age of Twitter, people were encouraged so to do under the tag #msoss09, and there was some reasonable discussion throughout the day. I also posted a few photographs on Flickr.

www.flickr.com

Bryan Kirchner is now Director of Open Source Software at Microsoft. He acted as master of ceremonies and kicked things off in the morning with a brief discussion of his hopes to continue developing a mutual understanding and deepening relationships with the open source community at large.

Sam Ramji then took the stage. What followed was interesting. This year, with not much new or contentious before OSBC got underway, he chose to talk about the health of the Windows ecosystem in the context of the current economic crunch (reminding people that a staggering 96% of Microsoft revenue comes from partners, i.e. no direct account control). Microsoft is seeing CIO training budgets dropping to zero and many projects are deferred so there was a definite move to cost savings around virtualization and consolidation. (It's interesting that this is how the world started to move when the bubble burst seven years ago.) He also talked about the growth of Windows in the low cost server space and on netbooks. Sam was essentially conveying that the Windows platform is healthy and people should continue to consider it as a deployment platform for open source. He also discussed the new Web Application Gallery initiative at Microsoft as an attempt "to connect markets and forges" around open source so users can easily install and support PHP-based web applications. It's not that the Gallery is particularly an open source initiative, but rather that it supports the sharing of applications written in PHP.

Matt Aslett from the 451 Group took the stage next presenting his latest analysis from their report Open Source is Not a Business Model. Essentially, the 451 Group analysed 114 vendors using open source software within their businesses, against (i.) their choice of open source license, (ii.) their development model, (iii.) their own vendor licensing strategy, and (iv.) the actual revenue trigger. Matt's blog post covers a lot of the ground he presented, so I won't cover it here. I will be debating with him soon on other things to consider in the report. (An added perk for morning participants was a copy of the report.)

Next up was a panel on "Working together in an Open Source World in a New Economy" moderated by Cliff Reeves, who runs the Emerging Business Team at Microsoft which runs the BizSpark program. Panelists included:

• Clint Oram, VP Product Management, SugarCRM
• Erica Brescia, CEO, Bitrock
• Aaron Fulkerson, CEO, MindTouch
• Dan Merrits, VP Marketing, Eduify

It was a good discussion. SugarCRM and Mindtouch certainly saw the rise of downloads and leads as the economy failed and people became more interested in low cost open source based solutions. There was also interesting honest discussion from the participants on what it's like working with Microsoft as a partner, with concerns being expressed about the complexity of the programs at times, as well as praise for engineering support (FastCGI and PHP being the typical example cited).

After lunch we got to the more general open source part of the program organized by SD Forum. Larry Augustin kicked off the afternoon with his keynote on "The Future of Software: Why Open Source is the Safe Bet". [Larry has kindly allowed me to host his slides. Download SDForum-20090323-v4.pdf (493.5K).] Larry started the presentation with the idea that just like no one got fired for buying IBM in the past, at this juncture in history no one gets fired for buying open source software. He then went on to present the health of the open source based business world from the perspective of investment and adoption (with several case studies).

Next we had two brief mini-talks.

• Andrew Aitkin (Olliance Group) talked about his views on open source adoption differences between Europe, North America, and Japan.
• Sam Ramji returned to give a shortened version of his morning's presentation for those that just joined for the SD Forum part of the program.

The final two sessions of the day were panels. First we had "Is there still Open in Open Source" with Mike Fauscette (IDC) moderating, and Jack Repenning (CTO, CollabNet) and Adam Blum (Rhomobile). It was an interesting panel and very much a development process perspective. Discussion revolved around the idea that it's not about the source code, but about the openness of the development process, the social contract, the transparency, and building a community that wants to contribute.

Last up was the venture panel on "Where's the Money?" Mark Radcliffe (DLA Piper) moderated Robert Theis (Scale), Andrew Braccia (Accel), Tim Guleri (Sierra), and Peter Sonsini (NEA). Not surprising but the VCs want us to know they're still open for business, and they're interested in Software-as-a-Service and Cloud related technologies. Also not surprising we learned VCs will fund deals with a compelling solution to a customer problem, or a compelling way to monetize a solution. [This is why I generally don't have a lot of time for VC panels.] There was one point where Peter Sonsini (NEA) observed there needed to be a compelling way to monetize the community for an existing project (with which I violently disagree), but Andrew Braccia (Accel) supported the richer idea that rather than trying to monetize the community one should look at upstream value of a new solution based on the project.

All and all a worthwhile experience. We finished the day with the hosted reception!

OSBC Keynote Competition between Sun, Microsoft, and IBM — IBM Won

I continue to stand in awe of IBM's ability to market. Here's how the line-up of executive keynotes went down this morning at OSBC.

First up was Jonathon Schwarz, Sun CEO. Jonathon always gives good presentations, although he seemed a little brittle this morning. His messages this morning:

• It's all about the cloud.
• We are it.
• It's still about business.
• [Please] buy our hardware.

Microsoft stepped in with Robert Youngjohns, President of Microsoft North America. An excellent soft speaker that quickly established his historical geek credentials and breadth of technology interests beyond Microsoft tech. He apparently even worked at both Sun and IBM. His messages this morning:

• It's all about interoperability.
• We get it [finally].
• It's still about business.
• [Please] buy our software.

Robert Sutor, IBM VP of Open Source and Linux, then finished with a virtuoso performance. It was about collective action. His messages this morning:

• It's all about open source and open standards.
• Linux is an amazing mature flexible solution for the world's information processing problems. "It's not a hammer, but a collection of fine tools." Our involvement in the Linux community is ten years old.
• It's NOT about business. It's about solving hard problems. [A nice paraphrase of Drucker's the purpose of a company is not to make money.]
• We [collectively] have the tools to solve these problems. We [IBM] can help you.

I think the only time he actually mentioned IBM was when he said in passing that they had broken the petaflop barrier last year. It was masterful. It was designed to remind you that IBM has depth of technology experience, and the tools (people, hardware, software, knowledge) to help you with your information management problems. It was a conversation starter between the company and customers. It wasn't about selling technology but rather tailoring solutions — just tell us what you need.

It doesn't matter what you think about each company. Good executive keynotes are performance art delivering a marketing message. (Bad executive keynotes are product announcements to audiences that paid good money to learn something other than the latest thing they're going to be forced to buy.) While all three presenters today are consummate performers, one message was about solving problems, the other two about selling stuff.

Long after Sun's been cut up for parts the way DEC was, and long after Msft stops trading, IBM will still be humming along as a technology solutions company with a mixed-margin portfolio offering, terrifying as that might seem for some. Well done, Bob.

Does Your Community Manager Report to Engineering or Marketing?

I asked a question during Matt Aslett's excellent presentation on Monday at the Microsft/SD Forum OSBC Zero Day event: Does your community manager report to engineering or marketing? Matt gently stepped out of the way, but there is exactly one right answer: Engineering.

Here's why:

Community is concerned with the software project and it's complementary assets. Customers care about buying product solutions to their problems.

Engineering cares about software development. Marketing cares about product lead generation and qualification.

Engineers manage software. Marketing manages messages and expectations.

This doesn't mean that the community isn't an enormous source of word-of-mouth evangelism for the company, the project brand, and self-qualified leads over time. But the community doesn't want messages and they don't want to be qualified or converted. The community is already setting their own expectations around the project instead of buying the product. Neither does this mean that marketing is out of the loop at developing inbound requirements from customers for the engineering team as they develop the software that feeds into the product.

While marketing traditionally managed the "developer network" in closed source companies, that's because the software wasn't a community engagement mechanism for users that weren't customers. Growing the developer community around your platform was a marketing function based on the business strategy of growing market share and providing complement value with lots of "knowledgeable developers" for customers. The software part of the solution wasn't a source of customer contribution, innovation, and testing resource. Your community equated to your customers.

There are companies that historically have strong product management departments that are often staffed by engineers that have crossed the floor to marketing. There's still a problem here with the community manager reporting to marketing, because the marketing department is traditionally measured on marketing functions. They will behave against how they're measured.

So community development and management is an engineering function.

Cloudera Launches Around Hadoop

Copyright Peter DaSilva for the New York Times

Congratulations! Cloudera launched today to bring Hadoop to the enterprise. It's anchored by Mike Olson, Christophe Bisciglia, Amr Awadallah, and Jeff Hammerbacher. Hadoop is the open source project that implements MapReduce, the algorithm that allows companies like Google and Yahoo (and even Microsoft) to search cheaply and easily enormous quantities of data and assemble the results. As most enterprises don't have the sort of operations staff that a Google might have, Cloudera will provide enterprise qualified software, training and consulting.

I've known Mike for a long time now since his days as CEO at SleepyCat before they were acquired by Oracle. I had the pleasure of working with Christophe as a speaker at the inaugural Open Source Forum at the Beijing Software Innovation Summit in China a couple of years ago while he was still at Google. It was Christophe that put together the original training program around Hadoop for university students. Congratulations and best wishes!

P.S. Christophe seems to have gone all corporate with his hair.

The launch video on YouTube

More on Open Source Conversion Rate Myths

A year ago I posted on open source business practices and conversion rate myths. A colleague asked yesterday whether we shouldn't still use it as a measure until a better one is found, since it's the best we have.

The problem isn't that it's a poor measure, but I believe it's a wrong and misleading measure. It is NOT similar to lines-of-code in software engineering (a poor measure). Variation in LoC is still within a few percentage points when you resolve for the project differences. Conversion rate is orders of magnitude different between companies. Business measures are typically within percentage points. Think of ratios like gross margin. They vary between types of businesses by as much as 30% but within an industry they're pretty steady and act as a benchmark.

Using a wrong or misleading measure will put you in jeopardy if you're the marketing or community manager. (You're being judged against the metric.) If you distribute for "free" as open source software, you capture your user base depending upon how good you are at getting the word passed onward. If you're good, you build community around your software. Remember software only forms part of the value network that is your solution — and customers buy solutions to problems. Mårten Mickos well observed that your early community is willing to trade time to save money and your later community is willing to trade money to save time — and the later community contains his customers. The observation implies a timeline for community growth depending upon the software project. Companies starting a business around a new project need to be sensitive to this. Customers (people that are going to buy something) will use free access to test that your software might solve their problem before they pay for your solution.

Many users in community do not have money to spend today. They can't be converted. As a "lead" they will never become a "qualified" lead, and getting in their way trying to sell to them will only be a source of frustration for everyone involved. BUT while in a normal proprietary software company this means you've disqualified someone that isn't a customer in the pipeline, in the open source corporate world, I believe they sit in a different process. Instead of a manufacturing metaphor (pipelines) we need a more organic social metaphor to track success and growth of the community. Lead generation is a measure of community engagement. You want to grow your community. Customers will self-qualify.

This WILL be reflected in a number of downloads, but this is correlative not causal, and it's an ambiguous metric. It's very software function dependent. If a user downloads one copy and installs it on a hundred machines, your knowledge is already off by two orders of magnitude — counting downloads is useless.

The greater user community still needs care and feeding because they contribute code, bugs, time to answer one another's questions, beta bodies, and interesting applications of your software you may not have thought about or had time to develop yet. They are a source of innovation, not simply within the software (small contributions) but at the solution level. They will tell your BUSINESS new places to go to capture money in the network around your software. These are very valuable people. Growing your community is important for this reason. Don't simply measure downloads and compare to a number of customers. Measure everything you can think of about your community:

• Unique members on the forums.
• Time to answer a question (internally versus community). [And don't reward your employees for answering quickly or your community will never get a chance to answer.]
• Number of code contributions.
• Number of bug reports.
• Number of documentation contributions (howto, tutorials, etc.)
• Feature requests.
• etc.

For numbers that tie back to specific releases of software, use them to tune your engineering process, i.e. involve your users in your engineering process. Consider letting USERS vote on importance of bugs so they feel a part of the process. (Don't draw the line between customers and users. It will be tempting, but customers probably buy something else from you in their solution. Disenfranchising users is disenfranchising the larger community of interest and probably a false feature.) Engage their time (appropriately) and you will win community mind share. Mind share is everything for profitability. It's the stickiness. It will create customer advocates.

There will come a time when the users move to other organizations bringing their knowledge with them and the new organization will self-qualify to become a customer. Or the user's own company grows to a point that they become customers. But they don't "convert" in the traditional sense. The lead did not become a qualified lead and you don't need to "sell" to them to convince them to buy your solution. They have internal needs that makes buying your solution more important than using your software. I'm betting those internal needs are very function-centric (e.g. one company will buy JBoss support while using RHAS for free). Determining those functional decisions in relation to your solutions will give you better insight into how to grow your customer base, i.e. revenues, without sacrificing your community in "conversion" games.

This comic is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License from xkcd.org.

The Microsoft versus TomTom Patent Debate is about the Mobile Internet not Linux

The Linux community is up in arms over Microsoft's filing a patent infringement suit against TomTom, the Dutch navigational unit manufacturer, determined to convey this as an opening move in the debate about what patents Linux does or doesn't infringe. This suit is very likely NOT about Linux. Let's look at the patents. From the complaint, Microsoft patents in the case (collectively, “the Microsoft patents-in-suit”):

• 6,175,789 (16 January, 2001) Vehicle computer system with open platform architecture
• 7,054,745 (30 May, 2006) Method and system for generating driving directions
• 6,704,032 (9 March, 2004) Methods and arrangements for interacting with controllable objects within a graphical user interface environment using various input mechanisms
• 7,117,286 (3 October, 2006) Portable computing device-integrated appliance
• 6,202,008 (13 March, 2001) Vehicle computer system with wireless internet connectivity
• 5,579,517 (26 November, 1996) Common name space for long and short filenames
• 5,758,352 (26 May, 1998) Common name space for long and short filenames
• 6,256,642 (3 July, 2001) Method and system for file system management using a flash-erasable, programmable, read-only memory

Also from the complaint, we have this statement (line 15):

6. Upon information and belief, Defendants are in the business of developing, manufacturing, and selling portable navigation computing devices and software for use on those devices, personal computers, PDAs, and smartphones (hereinafter known collectively as “Portable Navigation Devices and Software”).

This feels much more like positioning for location-based services and the coming mobile Internet war. Microsoft has been the "PC company" for a long time. It got there on the backs of a standardized PC "device". (In a Christensen economic world of a network of complements, Microsoft captured the innovation premium in the OS on commodity hardware.) That world is changing rapidly since Apple demonstrated what the mobile Internet can look like with the release of the iPhone. There has been a rush of delivering iPhone competitors to market since then. Nokia bought Navteq, then Symbian (the predominant mobile OS), to be released royalty free and as open source sometime in the future. Google released Google Maps with instructions to drive places, and then developed and released Android. There are considerably more handset devices on the planet than PCs [see note below]. This feels like a much bigger fight than the first shots in a Linux patent fight. This could have much bigger ramifications for Nokia (and the other handset manufacturers), Google, and Apple than Red Hat et al. These are the players that need to be naming themselves to this patent litigation suit.

Related commentary:

• Microsoft v. TomTom: Patent war, or no?, () Matt Asay's fine blog commentary
• Microsoft sues TomTom for alleged patent infringement, (25 February, 2009) by Ina Fried
• Has Microsoft's Patent War Against Linux Begun?, (25 February, 2009) Glyn Moody's commentary
• Beating the TomTom: Drums of War? (Not), (26 February, 2008) Andy Updegrove's excellent commentary
• Microsoft lawyer 'won't speculate' on Linux suits, (25 February, 2008) Ina Fried's CNET interview with Microsoft's Horatio Gutierrez, senior IP lawyer
• The Microsoft Press Release, (25 February, 2009)

Note: Communities Dominate Brands pointed out that there were 3.3 Billion mobile subscriptions in 2007 versus 900 Million PCs. Or to put this in better context:

Now as the phone handset makers like Nokia, Samsung, Motorola, SonyEricsson and LG ship over a billion phones annually (IDC, Jan 2007), we have a colossus of an industry of high tech pushing ever more powerful gadgets into our pockets. And yes, Nokia alone ships one million phones every day of the year, Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays included. For contrast note that the PC industry shipped 250 million new PCs in 2007, of which about 100 million are laptops (Computer Industry Almanac Jul 2007).