Worries That Microsoft Is Growing Too Tricky to Manage

SEATTLE — At a time when many people in business believe the number of products at Microsoft should be getting smaller, it is about to become a lot bigger.

Marc Whitten, a top executive for Xbox, one of Microsoft’s many disparate product lines.

News from the technology industry, including start-ups, the Internet, enterprise and gadgets.
On Twitter: @nytimesbits.

Microsoft’s $7.2 billion acquisition of Nokia’s handset and services operations, when the deal closes early next year, will increase the company’s head count by 30 percent and add a big, new hardware unit to a dizzying variety of businesses — an unusual situation in an industry where focus is often prized more than breadth.

It’s a concern to everyone from academics to Microsoft alumni. A list of missed opportunities and disappointing investments at the company in the past decade in areas like smartphones, tablets and Internet search have led to the belief that a more focused, nimble collection of mini-Microsofts could respond more effectively to the never-ending flow of disruptive technologies nibbling at its foundations.

“It is very hard to be a broad-based tech conglomerate,” said David Yoffie, a professor at the Harvard Business School.

Thirteen years ago, Microsoft’s competitors and a federal judge demanded that Microsoft be split up because of its market power. But trying to do too much rather than wielding too much power is the issue now.

Microsoft already has a video game console, the No. 2 Internet search engine, a major Web portal, an enormous corporate software business, an operating system for personal computers, cloud computing services and applications software. The company is a mash-up of the businesses in which competitors like Google, Yahoo, Oracle, Apple and Nintendo specialize, putting an enormous burden on the company’s chief executive, Steven A. Ballmer, who has announced plans to retire within the next 12 months.

Microsoft’s complexity will make its search for a replacement for Mr. Ballmer more challenging, since the job will require a person with an uncommon array of skills, including fluency in corporate and consumer markets, hardware, software and Internet services. Mr. Ballmer recently announced a sweeping reorganization of the company intended to improve its agility, though its huge portfolio of products will remain intact.

 “It makes it harder to manage, which is a challenge for Microsoft no matter who the successor is,” said Mr. Yoffie. Long before Mr. Ballmer announced his retirement, he and Bill Gates, the Microsoft chairman and co-founder, had both quietly acknowledged that identifying a new leader for Microsoft would be hard. A person who spoke to Mr. Gates several years ago on the subject of succession recalls the Microsoft chairman saying he would support replacing Mr. Ballmer if he could think of someone who could do a better job.

Similarly, another person said Mr. Ballmer himself said a few years ago he would step aside if a better chief executive could be found. These people spoke on the condition that they not be named because the conversations were private.

Larry Cohen, a spokesman for Mr. Gates, did not respond to a request for comment. Frank Shaw, a spokesman for Microsoft, also declined to comment.

In 2000, when Microsoft’s business was simpler than it is now, Thomas Penfield Jackson, a federal judge, ruled that because of violations of antitrust law, Microsoft should be split into two companies — one focused on Windows and the other on applications. An appeals court later threw out the breakup order after deciding Judge Jackson had tainted the legal proceedings by making comments to the press about the case.

Pundits, business professors and alumni of Microsoft have spent years pondering whether, in hindsight, such a breakup might have given the resulting “Baby Bills” the agility to compete better. Several of Microsoft’s businesses would be substantial stand-alone companies, with Windows accounting for $19.2 billion in revenue for the fiscal year ending in June, and its business division, dominated by its Office applications, at $24.7 billion. A third business, servers and tools, had revenue of $20.3 billion in the period — compared with the $27.5 billion in software revenue at Oracle in its latest financial year ending in May.

Apple-Samsung Trial Highlights Tricky Patent Wars

A jury will be asked to sort through all that to settle a dispute between Apple and Samsung Electronics beginning Monday in a federal court in San Jose, Calif.

The jury trial is the latest phase in a global campaign of smartphone patent litigation that began more than two years ago. The legal clashes mainly pit Apple against rival smartphone makers whose handsets are powered by Google’s Android software, notably Samsung, HTC and Motorola Mobility, which Google bought last year. Dozens of lawsuits and countersuits have been filed in courtrooms around the world.

Yet the escalating patent battle is more than just legal maneuvering. Patents can be powerful tools for determining the rules of engagement for major companies in a fast-growing industry like smartphones.

Patents are declarations of invention that are often easily obtained from government patent examiners, but their real value — their validity and strength — is determined in court.

A few significant rulings in favor of one side or the other, industry and patent experts say, could shape the competitive landscape in smartphones and a sister industry, tablet computers. Court decisions, they say, can provide the basis for negotiating the terms and cost of licensing and cross-licensing of patents — or for keeping certain patented features exclusive to one company.

“Once you determine who is the genuine innovator, and in what technologies on the product, you reset the playing field,” said Kevin G. Rivette, a Silicon Valley patent consultant and former vice president for intellectual property strategy for I.B.M.

But to bring a real shift in the marketplace, Mr. Rivette added, one side must have “strong patents, not incremental ones.”

That issue is much debated, and litigated, in the smartphone arena.

Apple scored some points in June. Judge Lucy H. Koh, who will also preside over the jury trial that begins this week, issued a preliminary injunction against Samsung, ordering it to stop selling its Galaxy Nexus smartphone in the United States.

Judge Koh found that Samsung had infringed on an Apple patent for a “universal interface,” which broadly describes crucial ingredients found in Siri, Apple’s question-answering application (though the patent itself was filed by Apple before it acquired Siri in 2010).

But the power of smartphone patents in general suffered a blow in another federal court in June.

Richard A. Posner, a prominent federal appeals court judge in Chicago, dismissed a case involving Apple and Google’s Motorola Mobility subsidiary. In his “pox on both of your houses” ruling, Judge Posner ridiculed Apple’s broad claims for its user-experience patents and Motorola’s claim that Apple should pay it a rich royalty on its basic communications patents. Both companies are appealing that ruling.

Fierce patent battles in new industries have been the rule for more than a century, from the steam engine to semiconductors. The lessons of history are decidedly mixed.

Sometimes, patent warriors can hold off rivals for years, as the Wright brothers did in the airplane business — though the cost in time, money and innovative energy diverted was daunting even then. In 1912, Wilbur Wright wrote, “When we think what we might have accomplished if we had been able to devote this time to experiments, we are very sad.”

In smartphones, some analysts say, the sheer number of patents and the speed of innovation in product development undermine the power of patents. Because a smartphone combines many communications and computing technologies, as many as 250,000 patents may touch the device, according to estimates by RPX, a patent licensing company.

“You necessarily litigate individual patents, but there are thousands of patents behind the ones in court,” said Mark A. Lemley, a patent expert at the Stanford Law School. “That complexity and the speed of innovation may well make it easier to invent around the patent system in smartphones.”

Indeed, for its new Galaxy models, Samsung developed an alternative to one of the Apple-patented features cited in this week’s trial.