In a way, I’m not surprised to hear that Obama is considering leveraging open source technology to save money. He’s already demonstrated an uncanny ability to leverage the net to reach out to millions. I always thought it would take government at least ten years before embracing the benefits of open source technology. After all, it’s typically the CXOs that are the last ones to change anything, then government brings up the rear. Instead of working in a world dominated by Microsoft with all the associated expenses, it’s now possible to run a business (or government) effectively with open source applications. Imagine the amount of taxpayer money that could be saved if the government started using Open Office (docs and spreadsheets) and Thunderbird (email). Free word processing, free email hosting, free calendaring, etc. Take the number of federal employees and multiply by 200 and that’s roughly how many dollars per year would be saved in IT costs (Microsoft updates, maintenance, licensing fees, etc).

Some might ask, “But what about functionality? Isn’t Microsoft Word better?” The answer is clearly “yes” with a follow up of “but who cares.”
In an interview in the Wall Street Journal, Peter Whatnell supported the open source movement as being a viable alternative to expensive Microsoft products. The article reads,

WSJ: You’ve said that you would consider moving to a cheaper alternative such as Google’s email system if you could get 90% of the functionality for 10% of the cost. Why?

MR. WHATNELL: It is not such an unreasonable assertion to make if you talk to people about the products they use and how much they use them. Most people use spreadsheets and word processing and PowerPoint. But most people just scratch the surface of what is available in these applications. When it comes to spreadsheets, they use addition, subtraction and maybe long division. The number of people who use functions and other complicated features is a much smaller part of the population.

So for the power users, give them the Microsoft suite. But for everyone else, it’s not really necessary. Just the fact that Obama is even asking about open source is impressive and explains why Microsoft is so desperately trying to move their applications to the internet.

So what does this have to do with the practice of law? First, when there’s an opportunity to cut fixed costs, it changes every profession. Second, in my opinion, with the barriers to entry being lowered each day, lawyers across the globe will start competing not based on their technology advantages, but based on the quality of their ideas and services.

Ronald Reagan was known as “The Great Communicator.” Barrack Obama will have a similar legacy. Agree with him or not, the man is a powerful communicator which gives him and his party a tremendous advantage in selling ideas. Barrack leveraged technology and social media to extend his reach to his audience. Blog posts mentioning Barrack outnumbered his opponent 3 to 1. Barrack had 24 times the followers on Twitter than McCain, which means Barrack had a much more engaged and energized constituency. As noted by Phil Ayres, Barrack’s vision and leadership played a large part in mobilizing his supporters (you can’t have influence with people if they don’t trust you). But vision and leadership aside, he leveraged technology to spread his message at historical levels. And this trend will continue…

Traditionally, the president gives a weekly radio address to the nation. If you happen to be standing next to a radio when he gives the address, or when it’s played back, you get to hear it. Personally, I’ve never heard a single radio address…I don’t listen to talk radio. I’ve heard clips played back, but I’ve never heard the full thing. Now, Obama announced he’ll do his weekly updates via YouTube. What does this mean? It means that people will now subscribe to his weekly messages and play them back at their own convenience. It means millions more people will have Obama staring them in the eye each week. It means Obama will be able to make the hard sells to the American people to get things done, much like Reagan did. It also confirms that traditional television is no longer the primary medium for spreading news and ideas. Pure genius. I really don’t agree with his world view and a lot of his policy objectives, but I admire his intelligence and style. Technology is changing everything…politics, business, social life, everything.