Microsofts aim to seek patent royalties from open source distributors and users may be an attempt to use legal threats to deflect attention from larger questions surrounding its business, including lack of interest in new versions of core products and lackluster profit from new wares.

[See related blog post: Put up or shut up, Microsoft]

Microsoft's claims that it will ask distributors and users to pay royalties for up to 235 of its patents included in open source software, including Linux, is clearly an attempt to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt and make people hesitant to use open source as an alternative to commercial products, intellectual-property (IP) attorneys said. But the claims also raise questions about the business strategy behind Microsoft's aggressive moves to seek licensing money from patents amid rumbles that customers have been slow to adopt Windows Vista and Office 2007, while new products such as the Xbox 360 remain unprofitable.

The matter came to light Monday with the publication of a Fortune article that included Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer saying, "We live in a world where we honor, and support the honoring of, intellectual property," adding that users of free and open source software have to "play by the same rules as the rest of the business. What's fair is fair." The article included comments from additional Microsoft executives detailing plans to seek the infringement claims, and just as it was posted online, Microsoft sent e-mail to other journalists about the issue.

There may be a link between the timing of Microsoft's claims against open source and the release of its Windows Vista product, said Stuart Meyer, partner at Fenwick & West in Mountain View, Calif. Rather than add features to Vista that would make business users want to adopt it, the OS's distinguishing characteristic is the addition of an engine that will shut down users access to Vista if they are using a counterfeit or pirated version of the software, he said.

"Why do people want to want to switch to an OS that just includes new hurdles that have to be cleared?" he said. Microsoft may have decided that enforcing its IP through litigation is more important than offering innovative software that can compete on its own merits, a strategy that may leave many users unimpressed, Meyer suggested.

"It's just friction that doesn't advance the ball," he said. "It's tough for people to get behind this even if it's part of our constitution [to prevent patent infringement]."

Microsoft's unwillingness to specifically identify which patents are being violated also shows it is less than serious about initiating litigation, which may suggest the company knows it will be a tough battle to fight, he said. "If Microsoft wanted a lawsuit, they would have brought the lawsuit first," Meyer said.

The only way to force Microsoft legally to show which patents are being infringed is for a Linux distribution company such as Red Hat or other open source vendors who think they may be violating patents to bring a summary judgment in court against the company. This would require that Microsoft sue them if they want to collect royalties, he said.

Mark Wine, an IP lawyer and partner at McDermott Will & Emery in Los Angeles, agreed that Microsoft is hoping companies will pay without a fight rather than engage them in a legal battle. He also said Microsoft may be trying to drive open source software users to migrate to its products.

"I think it's as much a marketing move as anything else," Wine said. "If you're really serious, you sit down and have a discussion, and you tell [open source users] which patents, or you sue them."