Why would Microsoft want to get at least some piece of patent-related action out of Web services? You don' t have to look much further than the 800-pound gorilla, IBM. According to some estimates, IBM's patents annually generate $1 billion in royalties. That's not chimp change, if you ask me.
With the lion's share of Microsoft's revenues coming from the licensing of Windows and Office, and with those franchises coming under increasing pressure from viable competitors such as Linux, and with other attempts to diversify (such as XBox) losing money hand over fist, Microsoft could use a healthy portfolio of patents to help secure its future.
Enter Web services. Should Web services become the rage they're expected to be, and if Microsoft can maintain at least some intellectual property rights to one or more of the essential Web services protocols, then the software giant is guaranteed a revenue stream at least for as long as Web services are important. One reason the trust busters were asking about Microsoft's intent when it came to royalties on Web services specifications is that should Web services become as important as operating systems or office application suites, Microsoft could end up with yet another monopoly. Precedent antitrust law, set by the U.S. Supreme Court, requires an antitrust remedy to prevent the current monopoly and others like it from being repeated.
My sense is that Microsoft will buckle under pressure from IBM and BEA and let BPEL4WS go royalty-free. Otherwise, BPEL4WS, or some portion of it, has no chance of becoming a standard, even a de facto one. In addition, any application server like IBM's WebSphere, Microsoft's NET, or BEA's WebLogic that supports BPEL4WS instead of another standard runs the risk of quickly becoming irrelevant.
BEA's Kiger thinks that the situation will work itself out. "There is a working group in W3C called WS Choreography Working Group and BEA is a member," Kiger said. "Our number one goal in this arena is to drive the industry to a single widely adopted, open, and royalty-free standard for choreography." Addressing BEA's hedge, Kiger said, "While we're working from two starting points --BPEL4WS and WSCI -- the W3C has a predisposition to WSCI. It's not clear at this point what the ultimate product will be or how close to WSCI it will be. The process within the W3C is an open process. All players can bring whatever they want to the table."
Hopefully, Microsoft, which is member of the W3C, will break the intellectual property logjam over BPEL4WS, thereby allowing that material to be taken into consideration as the W3C's Web Services Choreography Working Group starts to make progress.
Should Microsoft not break the logjam, or should it and its BPEL4WS co-authors IBM and BEA take it to a more IP-friendly standards setting body like OASIS where it can continue to reserve the right to charge royalties, then it will be up to you, your dollars and your application development plans to hold Microsoft's feet to the fire.
What can you do? Refuse to develop anything with BPEL4WS or the applications servers that support it (to the exclusion of something standard) until the specification is royalty-free. Furthermore, start demanding that Microsoft or any other company with patent claims to Web services specifications come clean once and for all by saying that any contributions that they make to Web services specifications that they co-author with others will be royalty-free.
And let's get it in writing. For example, even though IBM and BEA have stated their royalty-free intentions with respect to choreography specifications, we haven't seen either put it
in writing. Without a more broadly encompassing promise, getting Microsoft and others to go royalty-free on the next Web services protocol will be like getting Iraq to come clean on its weapons. It will be up to the market (and the press) to look for the gotchas and to begin the arm twisting process all over again. Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of repeating myself.
Until this happens, the idea of Web services standards is in jeopardy and the chances of your organization becoming addicted to a proprietary, royalty-laden technology are significantly increased. Going that route improves your chances of getting locked into the vendors of a proprietary technology which, in turn, puts those vendors in control of your costs--precisely what you don't want.
What would you do? Are you willing to turn the control and cost of an important piece of your Web services infrastructure to a patent holder, or will you hold off on Web services development until you're assured of the benefits of using standards. Share your thoughts with your fellow ZDNet readers by using TalkBalk below or write to me at david.berlind@cnet.com.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
