Massachusetts proposal puts Microsoft on defensive
Financial Times By Richard Waters in San Francisco Published: September 1 2005 19:00 | Last updated: September 1 2005 19:00
For Microsoft http://mwprices.ft.com/custom/ft-com/quotechartnews.asp?FTSite=FTCOM&q=MSFT&searchtype&expanded=&countrycode=us&s2=us&symb=MSFT&company=NEW, grappling with state officials in Massachusetts is nothing new. After the federal government and a number of states settled the landmark antitrust case against the software company, the New England state held out.
Now, Massachusetts is preparing to deliver another challenge to Microsoft's core PC software business: a directive to force all 50,000 desktop computers used by state employees to be stripped of Microsoft's Office, the suite of applications used on an estimated 95 per cent of PCs the world over. Instead, they would be required to run an open-source version, such as OpenOffice or StarOffice – software produced by volunteer programmers and distributed free of charge.
Such public policy proposals have become a familiar challenge for Microsoft abroad, as national and local governments in countries such as Brazil, India and China have latched on to the promise of open-source software.
Governments have been attracted by the prospect of using software with code open to inspection and adaptation, while also employing the software to stimulate the development of local software industries not dependent on Microsoft.
At home, though, the Massachusetts recommendation represents something new. The plan, proposed by the state's chief information officer, is open for public comment until the end of next week.
If Microsoft cannot overturn the proposal, it could become an influential policy that helps to shape the thinking of other local US authorities.
For Microsoft, which earned $8.6bn from Office last year – almost as much as the $9.4bn from the Windows PC operating system – that would be worrying.
So far, in spite of the political posturing around open-source desktop software, Microsoft has largely rebuffed significant inroads into its core business, at least in the developed world.
Much of that has to do with cost: testing and installing open-source software, then training office workers, can lead to costs that were “simply too high” for most potential users, according to a report last month from Gartner, a technology research firm.
The question of cost will figure prominently in Microsoft's last-minute lobbying to try to overturn the Massachusetts proposal.
“I think it would be pretty risky for the state of Massachusetts togo in a direction like this without a clear look at the costs first,” says Alan Yates, general manager of the Office division at Microsoft. “It would seem to me that before taking such a big shift, they would look into it further.”
Microsoft has also taken steps to make its software more compatible with open technology standards, heading off some of the resistance from public bodies.
The European Commission, in its study on the subject two years ago, known as the Valoris report, concluded that Microsoft's adoption of XML technology was enough to meet the requirements of most public sector users.
Massachusetts, however, has concluded that Microsoft's shift towards open standards has not gone far enough.
For Microsoft, the battle to keep the open source movement at bay has just moved a little closer to home.