Patrick Ross has already complimented Microsoft Copyright Assoc. General Counsel, Tom Rubin, on his recent remarks, yet several points should be drawn further.

First, Rubin’s remarks reflect his knowledge that Microsoft is both an intellectual property firm and an intellectual property respecting firm. Microsoft recognizes that consumers enjoy its products, software and services on information platforms and in offerings in which others hold intellectual property rights. Microsoft is aware that its intellectual property makes more valuable, and is made more valuable by, the inputs of other intellectual property rights owners.

Microsoft’s respect for intellectual property rights, from business strategy and public policy perspectives, is much improved from the misleading narcissism of firms that try to commoditize their complementary and downstream business partners in the public opinion arena, while benefitting from them in their bottom lines.

Second, Rubin’s statements are far from being merely PR, they reflect Microsoft's product development and business strategies. Microsoft has offered publishers the ability to host search software on their sites and then link to Microsoft’s search services (rather than the company taking fuller control over copyrighted works by hosting them) and has been working on interoperability between different digital repositories and search engines. Other efforts that show respect for intellectual property rights holders and the willingness to collaborate with them include Microsoft's DRM licensing initiatives.

Third, Google’s strategy seems to be: 1) build up a name-brand and consumer base in e-commerce spaces, 2) let the pocket-book fend off legal attacks 3) legitimize the business model after a successful branding and customer campaign. This is no way to operate in the long term, its not good for the market and hardly offers a situation to call for changes to intellectual property policy. Google probably knows this, but evidently its pocket-book can withstand some short-term charges.

Google has an innovative strategy of walking the fence on intellectual property policy, yes, but evidently, a firm like Microsoft doesn’t need to resort to that kind of ruffian approach to build a name and get customers.

I must admit I'm often taken by the Google coolness mystique, but here, Microsoft takes the better position. Its commendable for Microsoft to work with other intellectual property rights holders while bringing consumers new innovations.