Microsoft's Overlooked Code Theft

Like2Byte was one of many readers to point out that "Newsforge is reporting that Microsoft was fined by a French court for three million francs "because it illegally included another company's proprietary source code in SoftImage 3D," something which (as the story points out) went mostly unremarked at the time. This is one of the points mentioned by Peruvian Senator David Villanueva Nuñez in his response to Microsoft FUD.

Comments

I wonder...

[PhilJackson]

...just how much GPL'd code in in M$ software.

Re:I wonder...

[filth grinder]

probably not much... M$ software doesn't work.

Re:I wonder...

[oyenstikker]

None. They just use BSD code.

Re:I wonder...

[dattaway]

I'm calling the BSA hotline. You should too.

If anyone needed an audit, a previous convicted felon^H^H^H^H^Hpirate might do it again.

Re:I wonder...

[phyxeld]

Additionally, the GPL has never been tested in court.

And when it is, I sure hope it doesn't have to bust it's cherry battling Microsoft.
All the legal and moral righteousness in the world isn't gonna stand up to $40 billion in cash reserves...

Re:I wonder...

[AJWM]

The GPL has never been tested in court because every time some company has come up against it, their lawyers have taken a look at it and recommended "settle out of court".

It's very clearly worded (for a legal document) and the result of winning a suit against it would mean losing the rights it grants you.

Re:I wonder...

[Znork]

Are you implying that copyright law has never been tested in court?

The GPL grants you rights you do not have with standard copyright. Nothing but the GPL grants you those rights, in the case of any GPL licensed product. If any part of the GPL is found invalid in court the software will default to being under standard copyright, so the only thing anyone can accomplish going up against the GPL in court is to remove any and all freedoms the GPL grants them with regards to the software.

The GPL is not like an ordinary license agreement. If you have an ordinary license agreement it usually takes away rights you have under standard copyright. If you challange such a license in court you can get clauses stricken and obtain more rights. Successfully challanging the GPL would give you less rights; whichever way it goes in court, you lose.

Wether or not the GPL has been tried in court is really irrelevant. Either it's found valid as it is or you get a plain copyright case instead, and copyright cases arent exactly untested.

A couple points.

[Talonius]

It wasn't "outright" code theft. There was a licensing agreement that was violated.

Microsoft has been known in the past to include BSD code. (It's TCP/IP stack is one example.) This "habit" is probably why they don't like GPL code - they prefer to quietly integrate the code.

Why another article? Oh ffs shut up. Why another article? Because Microsoft getting fined for this sort of thing will garner more attention than the Peruvian Senator. Although, truth be known, I want him as a US Senator.

Re:A couple points.

[tinahdee]

It *was* outright code theft, in my understanding, because Syn'X walked away from the deal. There was no agreement.

Tina

Re:A couple points.

[Talonius]

Ergh, okay, you're right from what I can tell.

[quote]Softimage signing a contract with Syn'x Relief to integrate the unique functions of Character into its own package, Softimage 3D. However, the integration was delayed until, at the start of 1994, a new agreement was put to Character's developers: They would have to sign over all their rights to Softimage if they wanted to continue.[/quote]

Contract was originally signed; coercion was tried to force Character developers to give up more rights; Character developers refused and walked away from the deal. In the middle of this MIcrosoft purchased SoftImage.

One function was removed; eight stayed. Microsoft was given plenty of notice and didn't act on it.

I stand corrected. :)

Re:A couple points.

[Rupert]

Skipping commercials is theft.

Copying one of your CDs to keep in your car is theft.

Extracting the text from an ebook and feeding it through a text-to-speech converter is theft.

But when you're a multi-billion dollar company and you keep using software after your licence has been revoked, that's not theft.

It's all so clear now!

Re:A couple points.

[PeterClark]

I read the story this morning, but I'm too lazy to verify your claim (after all, this is Slashdot, where one is expected to make knee-jerk reactions). Therefore, I will accept that it is true, although now it seems another poster claimed you are wrong. Doesn't matter. My point is that with MS beating the drum, saying "If your licenses aren't 100% squeaky-clean, we'll sic men with shotguns on you, you low-life pirate!" Many cases of "piracy" in business is simply an inattention to the site license...in other words, a violated licensing agreement. QED, Pot...kettle...black.

And yes, if that Peruvian senator is for real, not only would I like him as a US senator (hmm--need to check the Constitution on how long he needs to be a citizen first), but I would actually support his campaign.

:Peter

Re:A couple points.

[PurpleFloyd]

Not that I don't like MS or think they broke the law in this and many other cases, but AFAIK that BSD tcp stack thing is a myth

If you have a UNIX/Linux flavor installed along with Windows, try running strings against your version of winsock. You will find a few strings in there that explicitly reference BSD.

Note, however, that this is not at all illegal, because the BSD license states that the code may be used by anyone, even if it is relicensed under a more restrictive license. Thus, it is perfectly legal for Microsoft to copy BSD code and put it in Windows. Ethical, no, but legal, yes.

Re:A couple points.

[Sc00ter]

Why is this ethically wrong? that's the way the BSD license was designed so that people could do that.. If they didn't want that to happen, they would have used a difference license. And if you say "well they didn't think anybody would" then why do they continue to do so, even after it's happened? You'd think they would change the license.

Re:A couple points.

[Zordak]

I don't even think it's unethical. The license was written specifically to be non-exclusive. Microsoft was not bending or breaking the intent of the license when they included the code. They were using as it was intended to be used. It's not any different than what Mac did with OSX. I'm no Microsoft apologist, but at least let's attack them for what they do that's actually wrong. I personally think the whole world could benefit greatly if M$ would take a cue from Mac and just go ahead and put BSD Unix under their crap OS. At least then, when I am forced to use M$ (which is often), it would actually work right some of the time.

Re:A couple points.

[jedidiah]

His national origin only prevents him from being the (US) President. Any other office is open to him.

Barring some California requirement, there's no legal reason why he couldn't replace the senator from Disney (Feinstein).

Re:A couple points.

[jedidiah]

...not to mention that /etc/hosts file lurking about in the WinDOS system directory.

Re:A couple points.

[Shagg]

Using BSD code isn't wrong, as you say, that's what the license was designed for. However MS using BSD code in their own operiating system, then telling the world that open source software is evil, doesn't make much sense. I'm not sure if that's what the previous poster was referring to as "ethically wrong", but that's my guess.

Re:A couple points.

[gwernol]

Skipping commercials is theft.

No it isn't. Just because some guy at Turner Movies would like it to be, doesn't in fact make it so.

Copying one of your CDs to keep in your car is theft.

Can you cite a single case where anyone has been prosecuted for this, let alone found guilty?

Again, some misguided people may want to make that illegal, so far it is not theft.

Extracting the text from an ebook and feeding it through a text-to-speech converter is theft.

The Sklyarov case is still being argued, isn't it? Even if he looses this isn't theft, it illegally breaking Adobe's encryption, which is very different.

But when you're a multi-billion dollar company and you keep using software after your licence has been revoked, that's not theft.

Actually this is the only one of the four examples you quote that has been found to be an illegal act. Microsoft were fined for this.

It's all so clear now!

Or, in this case, obviously it is not...

Re:A couple points.

[JordanH]

Sheesh, the guy was trying to use sarcasm.

His point was that people like Bill Gates (and other powerful CEO types) might consider all those things as theft, but hypocritically place violating a contract in a different category.

Re:A couple points.

[Fat Casper]

QED, Pot...kettle...black.

It's a lot worse than that. There was no inattention to a site license or anything, just the standard MS strongarm tactics against a small software company that wrote something good. "We've got a deal, but it doesn't give us everything. Give us everything. No? Then we'll just take it." And another good software company goes bankrupt while trying to get justice, which MS is appealing anyway. That was a violated license agreement, all right. In the Biblical sense.

Hey, we've got a lesser of three evils senate race coming up in NH. I'm sure we could use a good candidate, whatever country he's from.

Re:A couple points.

[Dahan]

Winsock isn't the TCP/IP stack... tcpip.sys (or vtcp.386) is the TCP/IP stack. Besides, running strings on the winsock DLLs doesn't show any evidence that they took any code from BSD. Winsock is an implentation of the BSD sockets API--API is not code.

Re:A couple points.

[esper_child]

I know this will probly be considered flamebait but here goes.

To the best of my knowlage M$ has never said open source == bad. They have however stated the GPL == bad. And their stance on BSD if I remember right is a possitive one. There is nothing ethically wrong with releasing your projects closed source, just as their isn't anything wrong with releasing them open source. However, the problem comes when you try to force a project to be open to be able to use your code. What really should be done is to give credit, because there is no reason that someone should have to open the source of anything.

There should be a massive thinking of the way open sourcing is done in the GPL world. Isn't the point of open source to spread ideas and to develop the community as a whole? How do you accomplish this by making other people have to do things your way. Why should you care if some company uses your code (or anyone elses for that matter) to make money off of, most likely by keeping it open no one was going to make money at all. However, by letting them use your code in a closed source project you are actually going to make a difference on something that some other people are doing.

If the world of open source would quit advocating that you should only do open source projects and let every one do it their own way with what ever they needed then maybe we will see their be a superior standard way of doing things on the PC market. Prohaps even going as far as to combine large portions of Linux into the windows market. If you people don't get your act together and quit being zealots about things then Linux will forever remain a non-major player in userland.

Re:A couple points.

[PurpleFloyd]

Personally, I think it's ethically wrong because if MS lifts a major part of the OS out of somebody else's project, they should acknowledge the work done by others. While the license may permit MS to use the code freely, they should still give credit where it's due.

Re:A couple points.

[mpe]

Doesn't matter. My point is that with MS beating the drum, saying "If your licenses aren't 100% squeaky-clean, we'll sic men with shotguns on you, you low-life pirate!" Many cases of "piracy" in business is simply an inattention to the site license.

Or even licencing so complicated that it's virtually impossible to comply with the exact letter. But with enough intimidation they can probably get people to cough up even when they'd lose in court. (Especially in the US where, IIRC, plaintiffs tend not wind up paying all costs resulting from bogus lawsuits.)

.in other words, a violated licensing agreement.

What happened here is an actual court judgment.

And yes, if that Peruvian senator is for real,

This phrase has cropped up quite a bit, never with respect to any US politicans though

not only would I like him as a US senator (hmm--need to check the Constitution on how long he needs to be a citizen first), but I would actually support his campaign.

Why would he want to in the first place? Maybe the US (to use the current PC term) needs a "regime change" instead...

Re:A couple points.

[mpe]

Except that they don't say "Free Software", they say "Virally licensed software", which is a term right out of the BSDL Advocacy book of Brett Glass and others.

It's also highly ironic since Microsoft are masters of viral licencing. Write software with GCC and you can licence it how you like, if you use a Microsoft compiler you may well find you can't. Maybe Microsoft will claim next claim copyright ownership over something you produce in MS Office.

Re:A couple points.

[mpe]

Suppose it was not a myth and MS really did "borrow" some code from BSD or GPLed software...

They can borrow from BSD as much as they like, there isn't that much difference between BSD licenced code and code in the public domain. Where it becomes an issue is if they borrow from GPL code. In order to do anything about this you'd need to bring a court case somewhere with strong copyright law, but minimal "corporatism".

how would one try to prove it, without access to source code? Even then, I really think they would have gone to the trouble of obfuscating that piece of code one way or another...

Depends if attempting to hide copyright infringement is considered more serious that simple copyright infringment. Since one of Microsoft's methods of obfuscating code is to spread it around they could be making their infringment even worst...

Re:A couple points.

[Mr_Silver]

Microsoft has been known in the past to include BSD code. (It's TCP/IP stack is one example.)

Which they don't make any effort to hide.

Had you read the BSD licence, you'd have know that they are allowed to do this.

FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI (for your info ;-) FUD == Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt

Re:FUD

[Thing 1]

Or, to use it in a sentence.

I live with FUD every time I boot into Windows.

Or another:

The dog tried to trap the cat in the dryer with a sign labeled "CAT FUD".

(Thanks Gary Larson)

Re:FUD

[Tony-A]

What's lurking in my email?

Go Nunez!

[TuxLuvr]

This is coming out now due to the efforts of that Peruvian politician who stood up to M$FT (recent /. story).

I wouldn't be surprised if they start supporting whoever is against him politically.

They have so much political power, it's nice to see that other countries are not necessarily "drinking the kool aid".

Re:Go Nunez!

[Lemmy Caution]

I like the idea of calling Dr. Villanueva (that's his name, not Dr. Nu&ntildeez) the "St. Thomas Aquinas" of the free software movement. Although, his letter is really a lot more concise than the Summa Theologica ever was. It's telling that a Peruvian politician has made a stronger, clearer, and more irrefutable business-case for free software than Red Hat, ESR or IBM have.

Re:Go Nunez!

[teslatug]

They could probably buy a good chunk of Peru's government with their $40 Billion.

Re:Go Nunez!

[mgblst]

Heck, they could proabably buy all of Peru for some of their $40 Billion.

Sketchy information

[MisterBlister]

Sadly there's not much information there. How did they determine that Microsoft actually used the 'Character' code and not some in-house programmed alternative? Just because the UI remained the same (good for customers using the product) doesn't mean the code is the same underneath. Did they actually get access to the source code, or are they just assuming Microsoft still used it? Would be nice to know the answer to that....

In any case, I find it hard to believe Microsoft would have done this. Not because they are saints, but because certainly they would have learned from the 'Stacker' incident (Which was a patent infrigment, not copyright, but similiar to this case in many ways).

Microsoft might be evil, but they aren't stupid. I'll reserve final judgement until more facts are known.

Re:Sketchy information

[Dr. Manhattan]

Sounds to me like Softimage didn't report the fact that they were licensing apparently key tech from Syn to MS when MS bought them out. So then MS finds that it has an unexpected liability.

Then it appears, from the limited info available, that MS decided to play hardball, and just lawyer the opposing side to death rather than negotiate.

And it worked, too... US$400,000 is one ten-thousandth of MS's cash reserves.

Re:Sketchy information

[BrookHarty]

I'm surprised with the amount of lawyers M$ has, they could have missed it. The only answer is they ignored the issue, which makes them software pirates. And when your a big corporation its not Piracy, its a contract dispute.

Kinda funny. :)

Re:Sketchy information

[AJWM]

Microsoft might be evil, but they aren't stupid.

Well, you certainly couldn't prove that by their track record: Stac Micro (which you allude to), the DR-DOS/Windows incidents, MS Bob, NSA_KEY, "Netscape engineers are weenies", Clippy, faked videotape evidence in court, et bloody cetera...

Re:Sketchy information

[HiThere]

But what they learned from "the Stacker incident" is that crime pays. And if you have the lawyers that MS has, and don't have any ethics that you count as worth anything, then they may be right.

Please excuse the enormous decoy

[lildogie]

If this news came out in September of 2001, it was probably (figuratively) buried in the rubble of the World Trade Center.

A shocked and grieving nation could be forgiven for missing a legal event or two in France.

Is this really MS's fault?

[davmct]

SoftImage is a Canadian-based CGI software company that was bought out by MS, plugged to Hollywood to be used in such films as Jurassic Park, and then promptly sold off. MS has since sold SoftImage and has no control of the code they write. It seems that the code in question was actually being used by SoftImage before it was bought out by MS. (although under license). This just seems like a red herring to shovel dirt on MS over an inherited problem from buying out SoftImage. Seems like the /. crowd is getting desperate for MS dirt to me...

Quick!

[SLot]

Call the BSA!

This is like that movie...

[Uttles]

I can't remember the title, but it's the one where they spy on this kid and take his code to make their software.... the guy from Shawshank redemption plays the Bill Gates type character, and some nutjob plays the "hero" computer guy. Anyway, Microsoft really is as evil as the movies say, huh?

Re:This is like that movie...

[CaffeineAddict2001]

This was called "Antitrust".

Re:This is like that movie...

[sk8king]

_Antitrust_ Tim Robbins and Ryan Philippe [I think]

Re:This is like that movie...

[glitch_]

I can't remember the title, but it's the one where they spy on this kid and take his code to make their software.... the guy from Shawshank redemption plays the Bill Gates type character, and some nutjob plays the "hero" computer guy. Anyway, Microsoft really is as evil as the movies say, huh?

That moview was Antitrust, and they specifically mentioned Microsoft as being a competitior to the company in question so people wouldn't draw parallels between the company in the movie and Microsoft.

Re:This is like that movie...

[Uttles]

haha, well, looks like that strategy didn't work! Of course, it didn't help that Tim Robbins was the spitting image of Bill Gates either.

Cause for an audit?

[mikosullivan]

I wonder if this could be cited as a reason to call in an audit on Microsoft. After all, there's now more evidence that they pirated software than the school systems they are accusing.

Re:Cause for an audit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a project for people with free time. Put together a list of terms that might be seen in GPL code, and then grep various Microsoft products for them. If you get a hit, open up the binary with a good editor, and have a look.

Re:Cause for an audit?

[HiThere]

But they'd probably have compiled it with their own compiler, so the binary would likely be different. You might look the the GPL license though. I wonder what would happen if someone found a copy.

Re:Cause for an audit?

[Reziac]

Remember when M$ unveiled the then-new admin tools for Win2K ?? The new features list was remarkably contiguous with Back Orifice 2000, whose source was released not long before M$ announced said much-improved W2K admin toolset.

Coincidence? You decide. ;)

Re:Cause for an audit?

[mpe]

Don't count on it. The BSA is in the business of busting software "pirates" not copyright violaters.

There isn't much difference.

Besides, the BSA can audit you because the click-wrap EULA you agreed to allows it. Microsoft never agreed to anything like that.

I doubt that this is needed, otherwise only software "pirates" who have agreeed to such an EULA could ever be charged. Which self evidently is not the case.

I think it *is* Microsoft's fault

[tinahdee]

See, the problem with that theory, is that Microsoft knew what the deal was before they bought SoftImage. Right before MS bought SoftImage, they sent them over to Syn'X to present this new deal, i.e., hand over the rights to your code or it's no go. They probably thought Syn'X would cave in, but they walked instead, and that killed SoftImage's usefulness to MS. It doesn't take a lot of deep speculation to imagine that MS/SoftImage probably had some commitments with the product already, and got kind of burned when Syn'X pulled out of the deal.

Tina

Re:I think it *is* Microsoft's fault

[flatrock]

See, the problem with that theory, is that Microsoft knew what the deal was before they bought SoftImage. Right before MS bought SoftImage, they sent them over to Syn'X to present this new deal, i.e., hand over the rights to your code or it's no go.

Interesting theory. The articles didn't say that Micorsoft did this. Do you have some other source or are you just making this up as you go? It's possible that what you're saying is true, but you'd think that if Microsoft so blatently stole this code there's be a large financial verdict. The amount was tiny. Maybe the one function that was pulled out contained most of the functionality, and the ones that remained were relatively insignificant. The article is very vague on what Microsoft was found guilty of. Actually about the only thing the articl really shows is that Microsoft bought a company, that company broke the law, and then Microsoft sole the company.

The French govenment has always seemed to like to take shots at Microsoft. Why didn't they do it in this case? If this is a case where Microsoft did something really bad, why not put the details of what Microsoft was found guilty of in the article? I want facts, not spin and FUD.

Re:I think it *is* Microsoft's fault

[Thrikreen]

[disclaimer] I'm a Maya user, and don't follow in Softimage's tracks very well (as in at all), so my info might be incorrect...

Softimage is a 3D modelling/animation package like Alias|Wavefront's Maya or Discreet's 3D Studio Max. It's used in quite a number of movies for special effects and the like. A couple functions out of a 3rd party software is a miniscule amount of functionality compared to all the other features - I mean, it's not Notepad here, we're talking of software that handles modelling, textures, animation, and rendering. And given the name of the 3rd party package, it would probably only assisted in the animation portion.

Oh yeah, and Softimage runs on Unix (SGI Irix) and NT.

You can probably see where this is going: Hollywood movie production + Softimage + NT = free advertising for Microsoft, in addition to extending their monopoly. Similar to what they're doing with games and the X-Box, buy the company and get them to produce for target platform.

The news of MS selling Softimage is news to me (like I said, I don't follow it that well), but I guess the decision was poorly thought out in the first place, since chances are MS really wanted Softimage to be NT only, but the cost of maintaining Softimage didn't balance well to benefiting Microsoft. Not to mention Maya and 3D Studio Max has been chipping away at what was Softimage's domination in the 3D area.

Me, I'll stick with Maya. =)

Re:I think it *is* Microsoft's fault

[flatrock]

Yes. It is unquestionably the responsibility of anyone creating software not to include other people's work that they don't have the rights to use. I'm not disputing that point.

However, in the real world mistakes do get made. Your opinion that Microsoft knowingly came in and told the company they bought to back out of the licensing deal and steal the code isn't based on any evidence that came from the article.

If the major components of Character were still in the application, and it was obvious that Softimage, which was owned by Microsoft at the time, stole that intelectual property, don't you think there'd be a huge setlement or verdict? The article is definately opinionated, which doesn't make it wrong. It's also one sided. It only takes one short quote snippit, the one you just threw at me. Do you think that if that quote is in context and representative of the case that the verdict makes any sense. It doesn't even say who at Microsoft made that statement. The article says that the author was able to put together the timeline in which that comment is included in from the reference article that's linked to. However, the quote isn't in that reference article. Where did the quote come from? If the author has information from another source, why isn't it mentioned? Why isn't there more facts brought in other than this one quote? Everything else seems to come directly from the article.

The article leaves too much out. It also tries to make a case that actions of a tiny company that Microsoft had recently acquired, actions that apparently aren't even worth investigating carefully, are representative of an intent from all of Microsoft to steal other people's code. Can you honestly tell me that doesn't rate pretty high on the FUD meter? Microsoft definately deservers to have their actions questioned. That doesn't mean that streching the facts to try and justify an opinion is justified.

If a journalist wants to convince me of something, they should present you with facts, and a clear line of reasoning to how they come at their conclusion. That Newsforge article isn't journalism. It's an attempt to either advocate a position or simply sell more advertising. Advocating a position or even trying to sell more advertising are honorable goals, it done in an honorable fasion, but only if done in an honorable fasion.

Re:Not entirely their fault

[toupsie]

That is why, when you purchase another company, you enter a phase call "Due Diligence" so you can find out what kind of scumbags/angels you are buying. So, yes it is entirely Microsoft's fault for not researching the company they were buying.

But it's the GPL is cancer for IP???

[JimmytheGeek]

Balmer called the GPL a cancer for intellectual property. What is oughtright theft? Cardiac arrest?

That arguement was a load of crap anyway - as many have posted, the GPL *PROTECTS* authors' IP rights in ways you don't get from BSD-style licenses. Don't like the terms? DON'T USE THE CODE. Exactly the same calculation with MS Eulas. The BSD license allows more or less unfettered code-poaching, which is what authors who use that license prefer. Cool, either way.

Re:But it's the GPL is cancer for IP???

[anshil]

Under the GPL, once you submit code, you are basically waiving any ability to take the code in whole or in part for use in a future software product whether it be commercial or a different license (ie. cardware, artistic license, BSD license, etc..).

Wrong, the code _you_ did soly for yourself you can do with whatever you want. The GPL only allows some certain rights for others to you use your code. You of course have any rights on your own code you want. The GPL has to respected if you want to take over other peoples code (merged with yours) as you need the extra rights the GPL allows to do this at all.

Re:But it's the GPL is cancer for IP???

[i0lanthe]

Wrong, the code _you_ did solely for yourself you can do with whatever you want.

Unless you sign over your copyright to someone else, which is something you would have to do deliberately (so avoiding doing that is a no-brainer).

And as long as you still own your code-nugget you can even grant permission for other people to use your code-nugget under whatever other terms you personally feel like. You can release GPL software and someone can still write to you and ask "yo, I love your Frobnicating routine, will you let me use it under different terms?" whereupon you can respond "why, certainly you may" or "hie thee hence, scurvy knave" (if it's Microsoft :) or whatever.

Re:But it's the GPL is cancer for IP???

[dark_panda]

I've released some stuff covered under a BSD-style license. I don't think it was a stupid move. I don't care who uses the code.

And I don't consider it theft. I knew what the license meant when I decided to use it. If I thought otherwise, maybe I would've used the GPL.

J

Re:But it's the GPL is cancer for IP???

[anshil]

However the GPL is just a hack upon copyright rules. It only _allows_ you certain additional rights if you wouldn't have them by default, like copying, distrebutiong, changing, integerating. It doesn't restrict you in any way you would be otherwise allowed (like i.e. microsoft EULA's). If I've the copyright myself on a code, I don't need the GPL and am not bound to it.

You can release code as GPL and but are not bound by it yourself. However if you take back contributions, you get them per default only under the GPL allownesses, that means if you integrate them then you are bound to the GPL; as you don't have the copyright of the contributions, except of course you aquire a copyright transfer from the contributor.

Everything clear? The GPL does not require everyhing to be always open, that's FUD, often spread by people who don't really understand the license in detail. (al`a gpl is bad, and as soon you use it anywhere, you must open everything, nonsense!)

Re:But it's the GPL is cancer for IP???

[dylan_-]

This is exactly why i will NEVER EVER release stuff under the gpl, not because of the license itself but idiots like yourself who insult my intelligence

Actually, you insult your own intelligence by choosing a license on the basis of the opinions of someone you consider an idiot.

As you said, it's your code, and you can release it as you like, but do so because you prefer to use that license, not based on the rambling of Random /. Poster.

I realise there's something contradictory about telling someone they shouldn't listen to what someone tells them, but I never claimed to be consistent, just right ;-)

Re:francs...

[Peyna]

413,882.61 or so USD, francs don't really 'exist' anymore anyway. (www.xe.com/ucc)

Antitrust

[freeweed]

Actually was a not half-bad movie, if you can get past Ryan Phillipe (sp?) as a l33t computer geek.

Tim Robbins' portrayal of the evil CEO was spooky - part Bill Gates, and to me part Steve Jobs. Hell, he even LOOKED a lot like a hip Gates.

VERY overboard movie in terms of the paranoia/conspiracy theory angle, but still, a fun watch, and a fair bit of industry jokes aimed squarely at Microsoft.

Re:Antitrust

[Uttles]

You know, I forgot about the Jobs-esque-ness of Robbins, but you're right, he was like a mix of Jobs and Gates. Gates has business-speak down pat, but Robbins in that movie was more concept/philosophy oriented, like Jobs. As a "mac lover" though, I prefer to think of the evil lead character as more of a Bill Gates.

Nothing shocks me anymore.

[Dr. Bent]

I've gotten to the point where no news of Microsoft's misdeeds would shock me anymore.

Microsoft is cutting up babies to make their user manuals! So what.

They're attempting to terraform the earth's atmosphere to more closely resemble Bill Gates' home planet! Big deal.

Steve Ballmer has Stalin's brain implanted into his skull to make him a more effective leader! What else is new.....

Seriously, anything you could say about something evil that Microsoft does...I wouldn't disbelieve it. I don't know if this speaks more about Microsoft's trashed reputation, or my jaded attitude toward MegaCorp(tm) style policies.

Re:Nothing shocks me anymore.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've gotten to the point where no news of Microsoft's misdeeds would shock me anymore.

Microsoft is cutting up babies to make their user manuals!

Actually, this would shock me a great deal.

I mean, when was the last time you got an actual manual with an MS product?

Re:Nothing shocks me anymore.

[sharkey]

Microsoft is cutting up babies to make their user manuals!

No biggie. When was the last time you actually GOT a user manual with a Microsoft product? Something more than a leaflet that says, "Use the 'Configure Wizard' to set up your Server."

Re:Nothing shocks me anymore.

[kubrick]

I've gotten to the point where no news of Microsoft's misdeeds would shock me anymore.

Microsoft is cutting up babies to make their user manuals! So what.

Microsoft still makes manuals? Now that shocks me. I thought they dropped paper manuals in the early 1990s...

Weak Argument

[maggard]

Disclaimer: I walked by Softimage's offices a few minutes ago on my way for a pastry

MS's involvement in this was pretty minimal. They bought Softimage, there was no, shall we say "meeting of the minds" and they soon gave up and sold 'em off. Any IP violations were pretty much Softimage-responsability and not their corporate masters du jure.

Of course Softimage is notable for being, as far as I know, the only shop that was ever bought up by MS that then succesfully fought it's way free.

Re:Weak Argument

[buffy]

Any IP violations were pretty much Softimage-responsability and not their corporate masters du jure.

Hmm...how does that work, exactly? They were wholly owned by Microsoft, so doesn't that make them responsible for decisions made during this period of ownership?

Although Softimage had its own leadership within the company, they were owned by MS, so I don't get how they couldn't be found liable.

I really don't give a rat's ass about this issue at hand, but was just kind-of curious about that statement.

Re:Weak Argument

[maggard]

Any IP violations were pretty much Softimage-responsability and not their corporate masters du jure.

Hmm...how does that work, exactly? They were wholly owned by Microsoft, so doesn't that make them responsible for decisions made during this period of ownership?

Although Softimage had its own leadership within the company, they were owned by MS, so I don't get how they couldn't be found liable

Is a parent corpoeration responsable for every paperclip or internal policy at a subsidiary, even wholly owned? Is it reasonable to blame ITT or Textron or WR Grace or any other big corporation for everything a subsidiary (or a subsidiary of a subsidiary of a subsidiary etc.) does?

I'm not defending MS, and I don't know anything more about the Softimage IP issue the dinner party conversation, but in this case it sounds as if the problem was at Softimge and not higher.

You can make the argument that reponsability rests at the top be it ownership or chain of command or whatever but personally I tend to assign it to the folks who make the decisions. I'm told this was done in this case in Montreal not Redmond.

YMMV, and as I said this is just dinner party chit-chat to me.

Re:Weak Argument

[buffy]

Is a parent corpoeration responsable for every paperclip or internal policy at a subsidiary, even wholly owned? Is it reasonable to blame ITT or Textron or WR Grace or any other big corporation for everything a subsidiary (or a subsidiary of a subsidiary of a subsidiary etc.) does?

Generally, as has been mentioned previously, liability would depend on how much the parent company knows re: the actions of a subsidiary. From the sound of it, this licensing situation goes beyond paperclips, and MS seems to have had specific knowledge of the situation, since they certainly knew about the company backing out.

I agree with you...doesn't really matter, and I certainly don't care. The only thing that caught my eye was the overall disclaimer of the responsibility of a parent company for its subsidiaries. I am a right-brain word fettishist so I just _love_ to argue symantics! ;)

Re:Weak Argument

[Tony-A]

Is a parent corpoeration responsable for every paperclip or internal policy at a subsidiary, even wholly owned? Is it reasonable to blame ITT or Textron or WR Grace or any other big corporation for everything a subsidiary (or a subsidiary of a subsidiary of a subsidiary etc.) does?
Generally yes.
(YMMV, dinner party chit-chat, this is /. and all that)
In a merger or acquisition the controlling party will put its stamp of ownership on the controlled party. This will happen with any collection of control-freaks and/or PHBs in the controlling party. Along with this goes an assumption on the controlling party that the controlled party conforms to "corporate standards". If the controlled party is an embarrasment the fault is assigned to the controlling party for not doing its job.

HAHAHAHA

[aengblom]

The biggest mystery is the obscurity of the story until now. "It looks to me as if the whole U.S. press missed the story," says Joe Barr, a technology journalist who frequently writes for IDG's LinuxWorld.

So let me get this straight. Two weeks after Sept. 11 and in the middle of the anthrax attacksthe U.S. press missed a story about $400,000 fine issued (IN FRANCE) against Microsoft (with $40 Billion on hand) for putting unauthorized code in an obscure software package that it no longer owns (Avid). No shit. Really! They must be biased!

Not Newsworthy

[4of12]

Microsoft has already been down this road with file compression code that went into MS DOS 6.

They're a business plain and simple. I'm sure they evaluate every decision and every public comment carefully in terms of cost, benefit, risk of getting sued and for how much money.

Just because some people [like me] hold that ethics exist which are above this kind of cost/benefit analysis does not mean that MS cannot make a successful business strategy from subjecting ethics to fiscally responsible analysis.

Shoot, it could well be argued that their entire antitrust trial is just a continuation of similar business practices. There may even be some at Microsoft who are actually surprised (but will not admit it for a few years) that they were able to continue as long as they have with their strategy.

$422,000

[Agarwaen The Tired]

He got $422,000.
Can you even Buy SoftImage for that price?
I don't have the numbers on me here but I seriously doubt it. At least not outfit an office with that much. Shoot Maya and Max can top 50 grand per workstation. They are not even near SoftImage's price range as it's directed mainly towards Hollywood.

Re:Um...

[Zo0ok]

In american law the fines are set not only to compensate for damage, but also to have a frightening effect on companies.

This is not the case in many european countries (I dont know exactly about France). I Sweden for example you can at best be compensated for what you have suffered, no more. On the other hand, we have lots of authorities who make sure rules are followed and that the citizens are being protected (many times doing a not so very good job). Its just a matter of taste...

Re:*newsflash*

[phyxeld]

from newsforge:

And nobody else in the segment of the tech media that's traditionally anti-Microsoft picked up the story, either -- not Slashdot, nor LinuxToday, nor NewsForge.

I guess it's good that they're at least honest.
Still, seems sort of funny for a news site to openly admit that they are, in general, biased against a certain company.

not really MicroSoft

[peter303]

SoftImage was a temporary subsidiary of MicroSoft, purchased then sold. They specialized in 3D CAD, mainly for the film industry. They were a pretty independent operation off in Canada, not really a part of the core Redmond culture.

Greek gods running amok

[Rupert]

Like Steve "Monkey-Boy" Ballmer?

I wonder what the Greek is for "Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!"?

Re:Greek gods running amok

[Alsee]

Like Steve "Monkey-Boy" Ballmer?
I wonder what the Greek is for "Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!"?

I sure hope it's not "Eureka! Eureka! Eureka! Eureka!" - Steve Ballmer running naked through the streets naked is a scary thought.

-

Maybe that's not the point

[mikosullivan]

Maybe MS isn't any more at fault than the school systems they are threatening, but if we hold them to the same standards as they hold others, they are guilty. MS is willing to claim that the owner of a computer system is guilty of piracy if that system has any unlicensed software on it, regardless of who actually put the software there. OK, now we hold them to the same standard: if you distribute programs without the appropriate licenses to do so, you're responsible, no excuses.

Perhaps the next time...

[gillbates]

Someone suggests using an MS product, you should kindly remind them of the kind of company that Microsoft is:

• Unable to write the code, they bought their first operating system and sold it for a hefty profit
• They were convicted by a French court of stealing code from competing companies.
• They were convicted in the U.S. of violations of the Sherman act.
• Two of their most popular products, Internet Explorer and Outlook, have had security and virus propagation problems with every single release!

When asked what I think of using Microsoft software, I simply reply, "It's against my moral and professional standards to encourage the use of software written by criminals." The events of the past 20 years have shown that Microsoft has little regard for either it's customers, or the law.

Think about this one, folks. I know there are many arguments for/against open source, but the most powerful one may be that of ethics. You can argue up and down about the relative merits of the software, but Microsoft is undeniably a criminal organization - a fact brought to light by the courts of the United States and other countries. The next time someone asks why you don't run a Microsoft OS, simply reply that you don't feel like funding organized crime.

Re:Perhaps the next time...

[HiThere]

And considering the BSA, software audits, etc. I think it would be fair to characterize them as a racketeering organization. So if the laws were really enforced equally, then the govt. would immediately sieze all of their assets before starting prosecution on the charges. Then, since they couldn't hire any lawyers they would be quickly convicted, which would really prove their guilt, and the govt. wouldn't have to return any of the booty.

I sometimes don't know which I think is more evil, our government, or the people it "protects" us against. Sometimes, however, I do.

If you want to see where this kind of law can lead, check out the history of the inquisition. It has already seriously corrupted at least some of the US law enforcement.

Yes, MS is guilty. But using government approved laws to validate this is .... they're so bad it's non-sensical. I respect copyrights. But since the DMCA, I seriously doubt the justice of "legal copyrights". (I've been dubious about it ever since the Sonny Bono copyright extension act, but now... UGH!)

Justice needs to be defined in terms that pay no heed to the laws, because the laws are corrupt. Legal punishment is defined in terms of the laws, because there isn't any other way. If you know a decent way out of this, I'd sure like to hear it, because I sure don't.

Re:Perhaps the next time...

[cygnusx]

This is honestly one of the funniest posts on /. for a while.

> Microsoft is undeniably a criminal organization

Because they are embroiled in a civil suit?

So... let's see, which of these heart-warmingly goodfellas do you recommend I start using instead: Adobe, Macromedia, Sony, Disney, US Steel, AOL TW, Walmart, Oracle, Nike?

> The next time someone asks why you don't run a
> Microsoft OS, simply reply that you don't feel
> like funding organized crime.

Ask any activist who has a worldview even slightly broader than yours, and they'll tell you that Microsoft would not even figure on their radar of exploitative transnational corporations. Walmart, Nike, etc would. Organized Crime my left foot. Some people take software too damn seriously.

Re:Perhaps the next time...

[mpe]

And considering the BSA, software audits, etc. I think it would be fair to characterize them as a racketeering organization.

In addition you have volume licence agreements where people are expected to pay Microsoft a licence fee even for machines which don't even run their software.

So if the laws were really enforced equally

If they were even enforced at all...

Re:3M Francs Is A Single Straw

[aengblom]

Well considering that 3 million Francs is about $400,000 and that Microsoft has about $40,000,000,000 on hand. That's about 100,000 straws. Now consider that Microsoft is still profitable. Average the amount of time to win lawsuits. Add money to "cash on hand". Repeat calculations. ;-)

$400,000 doesn't even make Microsoft flinch. It's silly to even think about breaking the Camel's back in such a way.

Well, you're right, but....

[PsiPsiStar]

&lt sarcasm &gt How many FRANCS does MS have? Hmm? &lt /sarcasm &gt

Microsoft is Down With OCC

[dbretton]

This is not terribly surprising, considering that Microsoft has been down with OCC (other companies' code) for years.

Don't forget about one of the best arguments against Microsoft's FUD regarding the evils of OSS:

OSS is what keeps Windows connected to the Internet

-D

This is not the first time this has happened.

[apc]

Some of you may remember that Microsoft lost a patent infringment suit in 1994 to Stac Electronics for much the same reason. See this article for more info.

Microsoft was also caught in 1995 using bits of Apple's Quicktime for Windows in an MS product. See this old cnet article for more details.

In that case, they blamed it on a subcontractor. It's been speculated that the big Apple/Microsoft deal at that time (to keep Office for Mac and to bundle IE with Macs, plus a big MS investment in Apple) may have been to settle a copyright infringment claim.

Other peoples' reactions

[truthsearch]

I'm the same, basically no more shock value. What truely surprises me, though, is how fans of the company aren't shocked either and remain fans! If I found a company that made a burger I really loved, then found out they were cutting up babies to add flavor, I'd turn around and dislike the company. It's amazing how some fans make excuses for all of the bad press (I have a co-worker notorious for this), but at some point any reasonable human being will have to see all this bad press is created because of a bad company. It's hard to believe so many people choose to remain so blind.

It doesn't bother me that I'm no longer shocked. It bothers me that fans of MS and their software aren't shocked.

Re:Other peoples' reactions

[LordSah]

Unfortunately, most people on Slashdot don't care to really think about Microsoft or really look into the events that make the press. They just repeat "M$ sucks! Linux is l337!" drabble.

The truth is that Microsoft is out to make money, like any other company. And MS isn't particularly worse than any other big company. Apple has a very draconian history in terms of licensing technology. IBM ran the accounting machines for the Third Reich. Big car companies (all of them) decide to issue recalls on defective products only if the cost of litigations will exceed the cost of the recall--not because the defective product will kill people. Big media companies like Disney are far worse than MS because they are trying to control flow of information (all forms of it), and directly influence the way people think. And they aren't out to preserve an ideal democratic society.

I know a number of folks who work at Microsoft. It's an awesome place to work, and MS employees are good people. There certainly isn't a company policy of stealing code, killing babies, or whatever else you read on Slashdot. If MS stole code, I'm sure the developers honestly thought that it was legit, and some manager and/or legal person fucked up. People screw up.

As for "fans" of the company, there are a number of legitimate reasons to like Microsoft:

• The company's vision statement is "A computer on every desk and in every home." That vision is seeing completion (at least in the Western world). How much of it being attributed to Microsoft can be debated. However, Microsoft has been instrumental in enforcing standards upon the industry so that an open PC platform could flourish. Microsoft also provides software that almost anyone can use and use to be productive.
• Microsoft is consistently one of the most philantropic corporations around. They gives tons of money to schools, libraries and universities. They just gave 8 million bucks to build my new CS building. How many of y'all got donations from MS while you were an undergrad?
• Bill Gates has given $24 billion to the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, which will spend the money on AIDS research, cancer research, and vaccinations for the third world (among God knows how many other uses).
• Microsoft products are actually pretty nice. If you're an experienced Unix administrator or do-it-yourself Linux guru, I'm sure you can find lots of reasons to not like MS software. But it's typically easier for common folk to use than competing products (Windows) and sometimes just downright superior (Office).

I'm not saying you have to like Microsoft, I'm just saying that there are reasons why a person would.

Unfortunately, the anti-MS bias is so strong here on Slashdot, I'll probably be modded down like nobody's business. Well, go ahead, mod away.

Re:Other peoples' reactions

[AxelBoldt]

I know a number of folks who work at Microsoft. It's an awesome place to work, and MS employees are good people.

Oh really. You cannot divorce the people working for a company from the company itself. They are one and the same; a company is not some mythical entity. If the company is convicted of abusing its software monopole (upheld on appeal), if the company conducts software audits in schools, if the company authors outrageous EULA's that forbid you to use the software together with competitor's products and to even talk about the software, if the company steals other people's code, then all of this is done by the company's employees.

Re:Other peoples' reactions

[LordSah]

If you blame all MS employees for all of MS's mistakes, then you'd have to blame:
- Folks at the Post Office for US foreign policy blunders
- The 16 year-old who serves you your Big Mac for McDonald's poor environmental record
- The guy in the Mickey Mouse suit at DisneyLand for the shitty crap the MPAA does (given that Disney is a vocal member of the MPAA).
- etc, etc, etc

If you blame all those folks for all those transgressions, congrats, you're not a hypocrite.

Re:Other peoples' reactions

[sharkey]

A testament to the state of the /. moderation system. Quite a nice troll, moderated as "Insightful".

Re:Other peoples' reactions

[LordSah]

Even you do the occasional MS bashing

Oh yeah. I hate Clippy. I think Windows XP looks like crap. Whoever decided to put auto-execution of scripts in Outlook needs a head-examination. And why oh why can't Windows ship with bash?

I just get tired of seeing tons of ignorant, blatant, and unprovoked MS bashing. Thanks for the support...it doens't calm the nerves to try to be the voice of reason (as far as MS is concerned) around here :)

--jim

Re:Other peoples' reactions

[mpe]

I know a number of folks who work at Microsoft. It's an awesome place to work, and MS employees are good people.

No doubt there are plenty of gangsters who are the nicest people in the world. But that dosn't excuse the activities of the organisation.

Re:Other peoples' reactions

[Tony-A]

Blame
All of humanity for any of humanities transgressions. Or achievements.
Methinks binary doesn't work here, you needs shades of gray.
Sometimes you have to draw a line somewhere.
I don't have the answers. I don't even understand the question.

Re:Other peoples' reactions

[Screaming Lunatic]

The company's vision statement is "A computer on every desk and in every home." That vision is seeing completion (at least in the Western world). How much of it being attributed to Microsoft can be debated. However, Microsoft has been instrumental in enforcing standards upon the industry so that an open PC platform could flourish. Microsoft also provides software that almost anyone can use and use to be productive.

"A computer on every desk and in every home running Microsoft software." And they provide software if you can afford to shell out $500 every couple years to buy the "newest and greatest" Windoze and Office.

Microsoft is consistently one of the most philantropic corporations around. They gives tons of money to schools, libraries and universities. They just gave 8 million bucks to build my new CS building. How many of y'all got donations from MS while you were an undergrad?

So that they can control the creation of new technology and influence the direction of the curriculum.

Bill Gates has given $24 billion to the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, which will spend the money on AIDS research, cancer research, and vaccinations for the third world (among God knows how many other uses).

Because the marketing department said Billy Boy was getting a bad reputation and partly for tax purposes and partly to gain political influence.

Microsoft products are actually pretty nice. If you're an experienced Unix administrator or do-it-yourself Linux guru, I'm sure you can find lots of reasons to not like MS software. But it's typically easier for common folk to use than competing products (Windows) and sometimes just downright superior (Office).

But definitely at a monetary price and at the cost of losing the liberty to choose other products that are much better.

Re:Other peoples' reactions

[weinerdog]

* The company's vision statement is "A computer on every desk and in every home." That vision is seeing completion (at least in the Western world). How much of it being attributed to Microsoft can be debated. However, Microsoft has been instrumental in enforcing standards upon the industry so that an open PC platform could flourish. Microsoft also provides software that almost anyone can use and use to be productive.

A computer on every desktop and in every home (running Microsoft software) is great from the perspective of Microsoft's bottom line, but this statement neglects to specify any benefit for anyone else of such a massive deployment of computers, nor does it stipulate that the computers must enable people to do anything productive or useful.

How about "A computer on every desktop, a blue screen of death every day, and an expensive upgrade every year."

Microsoft has enforced standards, but it has done so by opposing other, open standards in favour of its own. In most cases, the Microsoft standard replaces something equally good, if not better, rather than fills a void. Without Microsoft, we'd still have standards, and what's more, we might even have different vendors with implementations that compete on quality instead of compatibility.

We can't know for sure how the PC industry would have developed had Microsoft not been involved, but given the inheret usefulness of computers, the inherent usefulness of standards, and the fact that technologies like TV, telephony, and audio/video manage to develop standards one way or another while maintaining at least a semblance of competition, it seems likely that the PC world would have developed workable standards too.

* Microsoft is consistently one of the most philantropic corporations around. They gives tons of money to schools, libraries and universities. They just gave 8 million bucks to build my new CS building. How many of y'all got donations from MS while you were an undergrad?

When philanthropy is profitable (and tax deductible), corporations will contribute. Even drug pushers give the first hit for free. We can't deny that Microsoft and other corporate donations do good and are appreciated, but corporate philanthropy isn't as altruistic as it's made to look. Ask yourself how much of that philanthropy came in the form of software or money to buy software. If they can give $100 million worth of software that cost a few thousand to produce, and then claim a charitable tax deduction for a significant portion of the $100 million, it seems to me that they haven't given away anything; they just sold their software and taxpayers picked up the tab. (I'm not saying that's necessarily how U.S. tax law works--I don't know for sure--but I am saying we need to consider all the implications of their gifts.)

* Bill Gates has given $24 billion to the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, which will spend the money on AIDS research, cancer research, and vaccinations for the third world (among God knows how many other uses).

Bill and Melinda aren't Microsoft, even though they happen to work for it. Since Bill is one of the richest men in the world, it would be disheartening if he wasn't also one of the greatest philanthropists in the world.

* Microsoft products are actually pretty nice. If you're an experienced Unix administrator or do-it-yourself Linux guru, I'm sure you can find lots of reasons to not like MS software. But it's typically easier for common folk to use than competing products (Windows) and sometimes just downright superior (Office).

Inasmuch as there are competing products to Windows and Office, the claim that Windows is easier to use than MacOS, and that Office is easier to use tham Lotus Smart Suite or WordPerfect Office needs some serious corroboration before it can be accepted. Part of the problem, of course, is that there really are very few competing products, thanks to Microsoft's business tactics. If Windows and Office seem easier to use, perhaps it is because, lacking other reasonable choices, most users have already learned how to use them and haven't been exposed to other, possibly superior options to nearly the same extent.

Re: Other peoples' reactions

[sharkey]

That's 'cause there's not a "nice troll" moderation option, so we use "insightful" as a stand-in.

"Nice troll, good troll, maybe I got an Insightful biscuit."

Re:Other peoples' reactions

[AxelBoldt]

Note that I didn't blame all MS employees, I was just trying to disprove the statement "MS employees are good people". This general statement is clearly false, because it is impossible that a group of good people collectively behave badly.

Now you could argue that most employees have nothing to do with the bad actions of MS and are basically good. I would dispute that. Many midlevel managers know about and carry out the anticompetitive practices, many programmers are involved in embracing and extending protocols to defeat competitors, many lawyers are involved in phrasing and enforcing EULA's, and all employees (and share holders!) profit from these immoral practices.

Softimage fought its way free?

[AdamBa]

I would not say Softimage foughts its way free (I worked at Softimage from August 1995 to September 1996, an event chronicled in chapters 5, 6, and 7 of my book, which you can start reading right here).

It would be more accurate to say Microsoft bought Softimage for unclear reasons, tried to Microsoftify it to some extent, decided it wasn't really worth owning, and found Avid as an exit strategy. Softimage was completely owned by Microsoft, and the decision on what to do with Softimage was made by Microsoft.

So how are things up there in the tundra...is Marche Michel still around?!?

- adam

Re:Softimage fought its way free?

[Animats]

Nice story about Softimage.

I developed a physics plug-in for Softimage|3D during that period, so I recognize many of the people mentioned there. The description of the acquistion and selloff by Microsoft seems accurate.

But, having used Softimage|3D extensively, I have no idea what the "Character" feature was supposed to be. Softimage|3D didn't have anything like 3DS Character Studio in those days. The highest-level construct was an IK chain with an envelope.

Bill Gates can do anything.

[Futurepower(R)]

Bill Gates can do anything he likes. But, you can't do anything to him. It's a child's dream.

Stacker

[mr]

http://www.base.com/software-patents/articles/stac . tml

Microsoft Corp. was found guilty of patent infringement and ordered to pay $120 million in damages to a tiny California firm in a rare setback for the giant computer software company.

However, the federal jury on Wednesday also ruled that the violation was not willful and awarded Microsoft $13.6 million on a counterclaim against Stac Electronics, which makes a data-compression program called Stacker.

Re:Not entirely their fault

[Waffle Iron]

That is why, when you purchase another company, you enter a phase call "Due Diligence" so you can find out what kind of scumbags/angels you are buying. So, yes it is entirely Microsoft's fault for not researching the company they were buying.

Yeah, a dialog box probably popped up with a bunch of boring legal documents in it:

"The status of this company is described below. You must accept this status in order to complete your purchase of this company. Press 'Yes' to accept or 'No' to cancel."

We can all guess as to whether they read all of the text before clicking on "Yes"...

Re:How to get away with shit like M$FT

[drp]

IANAL - but I don't think so. An LLC offers protection from civil liability, but not criminal.

I'm pretty sure that most felonies cannot be commited by an incorporated organization, but rather only by individuals. For example, what if an officer of a corporation were to commit murder under the auspices of his business? He would obviously tried as an individual. Along these same lines, remember that violating the DMCA is a criminal felony offense, aimed at indivudals.

moderators, get ready

[macsox]

i know this will get modded, if at all, flamebait or offtopic, but i think the expression FUD has reached over-saturation. it's not really applicable in this case, beyond adding a veneer of bias to the article summary, and often is over applied in posts anyway.

i hereby offer an appeal to move away from the thick, dripping brush of FUD henceforth. let's see things as they are and not make summary pronouncements, eh? (and then we can unfreeze hell.)

Re:moderators, get ready

[sean23007]

Now I'll get modded offtopic, but I'm at 50 so here goes: I agree with you that "FUD" is becoming greatly overused here on /. , and I propose that it only be used in situations where it is actually the case. In a situation like this one, perhaps a new acronym would be better suited, such as "WDLT," or "We Don't Like That." It turns out that MS was once in possession of code that they didn't own, and soon sold it off because they didn't like it, well, WDLT. MS forces schools to pay more than they should. That's not FUD, it's WDLT.

It may not be adopted, however, because it is the exact same attitude MS has taken toward the GPL- WDLT, so it must die...

Re:what goes around comes around

[RembrandtX]

what kind of crack are you on ?

2nd thought ..it must be lsd to see so many rainbow hues.

First off .. M$ is never going to 'pound linux into the ground' They may have a lot of money .. but linux is not a centralized corporation. You can't sue .. lets say .. 500 people for writing under the GPL ..

Linux (as much as M$ hates it) is here to stay .. its not like unix and its deravitaves are 'new players' or anything .. hell .. i learned to code on a Next station. long before windows was on every pc in the workforce.

Making something technologically 'easier' to use doesnt always help either.

granted . it makes it easier for folks like my mom to get e-mail .. which is cool.

but a lovley growing trend i see now is a lot of CS grads who can't *DO* anything.

those 95% [who's ass did you pull that # out of??]
of recent CS grads that work with windows are friggen trained to call the M$ help desks.

example : i work for a fortune 500 .. we were having an issue with our graphics department's server [it was not allowing group read/write permissions]

common sence would think the network admin (who gets 85+ a year) would say ... oh .. its a permissions error. Especially since he was playing with the group permission settings the previous day.

instead .. he called m$ technical hot line (our company pays a yearly fee to be able to do this) and started a 4 hour tour into 'lets play with this until it works' with the 'afore vaunted' CS graduate on the other end of the phone.

even your average unix/linux neophyte can chown -r a folder on their own.

these CS grads had it too easy in college .. instead of having to learn their code .. they can just hit the net to find examples .. i cant COUNT the # of times my nephiew jumped into the mirc rooms i hang out in .. and started asking programming questions .

these guys turn into coders who have to have net access to do their job. or who's company needs to pay the annual fee to microsoft for tech support.

now, im not saying windows is crap .. i prefer it in a non secure/desktop setting ..
im not even saying m$ is evil (i might be implying it though)

im just saying your argument is silly.
especially if you think abstract knowledge of a system makes you BETTER at programming that system.

Re:How to get away with shit like M$FT

[Gaijin42]

a LLC only protects you from liability. They couldn't sue you. They could however have you thrown in jail for breaking the law. Nothing protects you from that. (Yeah, I killed joe, but my boss told me to!)

Re:Not entirely their fault

[HiThere]

Other comments have indicated that they actually did know of the license, and that they needed to license the code in order to use it. But when they couldn't come to an agreement over license terms, they continued to use it anyway.

To my mind, that's pretty clear evidence of pre-meditation. At a guess this is premeditated grand theft without evidence of remorse. I think that they should be considered quite lucky to get off with a fine. An ordinary mortal would expect to spend several years in prison.

Political innoculation

[mikosullivan]

... and now for another point of view. Microsoft may well be able to work this development to their advantage. I envision a debate where someone says "Ah hah! You were caught pirating yourself, Microsoft!", and Microsoft simply responds "You're right, we did make a mistake. We owned up to our mistake, paid the fine, and fixed the problem. We've proven our dedication to anti-piracy. Now those dirty pirating public schools need to do the same."

In politics, that's known as "innoculation": you accept a small penalty for a problem so that you avoid bigger problems later. I wouldn't be surprised if MS did that here.

Ask IBM, DEC, SCO, Pen Computing and Micrografx ..

[BitMan]

Microsoft will go into negotiations with a company. Their engineers will also be working with the prospective company while they happen. The deal goes sour, so Microsoft pulls out. But some schmuck engineering manager or possibly some exec decides it's not worth it to re-write the code from scratch, let alone create a "clean room" version. The code stays, it's not published, it's hidden from view and few know about it because the software is "closed source." This fact makes me laugh when Microsoft says Freedom Software "violoates IP" -- because Microsoft has blantantly plagerized actual source code verbatim over and over!

Microsoft has done this to such companies as IBM, Digital, SCO, Pen Computing and Micrografx -- none of which would ever see a dime in compensated, even though their code is in Windows today. Another, non-software product where this has happened has been the Microsoft erogonomic mouse (cannot remember the company's name). Verbatim rips of the design, down to the tenth of a millimetter. As Microsoft is finding out, it can no longer sustain the legal issues of this common practice in its own organization.

Why do you think the "Shared Source" agreement ...

[BitMan]

I mean, why do you think the Microsoft "Shared Source" agreement prevents you from suing Microsoft over IP violations???

.

Some gems from the response letter ...

[Forager]

Some gems from the response letter:

"... in defining any kind of purchase, the buyer sets conditions which relate to the proposed use of the good or service. From the start, this excludes certain manufacturers from the possibility of competing, but does not exclude them "a priori", but rather based on a series of principles determined by the autonomous will of the purchaser, and so the process takes place in conformance with the law. And in the Bill it is established that *no one* is excluded from competing as far as he guarantees the fulfillment of the basic principles."

"... the huge costs caused by non-functioning software ("blue screens of death", malicious code such as virus, worms, and trojans, exceptions, general protection faults and other well-known problems) are reduced considerably by using more stable software; and it is well known that one of the most notable virtues of free software is its stability."

"Your first argument, that migration implies high costs, is in reality an argument in favor of the Bill. Because the more time goes by, the more difficult migration to another technology will become; and at the same time, the security risks associated with proprietary software will continue to increase. In this way, the use of proprietary systems and formats will make the State ever more dependent on specific suppliers. Once a policy of using free software has been established (which certainly, does imply some cost) then on the contrary migration from one system to another becomes very simple, since all data is stored in open formats. On the other hand, migration to an open software context implies no more costs than migration between two different proprietary software contexts, which invalidates your argument completely."

"Questions of intellectual property fall outside the scope of this bill, since they are covered by specific other laws. The model of free software in no way implies ignorance of these laws, and in fact the great majority of free software is covered by copyright. In reality, the inclusion of this question in your observations shows your confusion in respect of the legal framework in which free software is developed. The inclusion of the intellectual property of others in works claimed as one's own is not a practice that has been noted in the free software community; whereas, unfortunately, it has been in the area of proprietary software. As an example, the condemnation by the Commercial Court of Nanterre, France, on 27th September 2001 of Microsoft Corp. to a penalty of 3 million francs in damages and interest, for violation of intellectual property (piracy, to use the unfortunate term that your firm commonly uses in its publicity)."

bank account

[fishebulb]

Microsoft did similar with the XBox. They just started using the name without checking if someone else has it trademarked, well someone did. that would have been fun to be one of the XBox consulting lawyers, "Yes, Microsoft you are going to write a check so large, it hurts, or we will get a cease and desist order until after xmas"

Good point on BSD code

[npsimons]

Microsoft has been known in the past to include BSD code. (It's TCP/IP stack is one example.) This "habit" is probably why they don't like GPL code - they prefer to quietly integrate the code.

This is a good point - and one I'd like to expound upon.

I would like to ask every software developer who reads this to please do themselves and everyone else a favor: GPL your code. Even if it's already BSD.

Why do this? Because of situations like the above. Microsoft can leech off of your honest and hard work without ever contributing anything back to the community. They can (and have) also screwed over their customers with monopolistic practices and shitty license agreements. I believe that this would have been much more difficult if they had had to make all their code on their own, instead of stealing it.

Some will cry "but you can't SELL GPLed software!" This is a fallacy. There is nothing in the GPL that prohibits you from selling your software. If you are really worried about losing profits, just sell the binaries - and release the source code to paying customers who ask. By the rules of the GPL, this is completely allowable. You only have to give the source to people that you gave the binaries to.

Re:Good point on BSD code

[ibbey]

Some will cry "but you can't SELL GPLed software!" This is a fallacy. There is nothing in the GPL that prohibits you from selling your software. If you are really worried about losing profits, just sell the binaries - and release the source code to paying customers who ask. By the rules of the GPL, this is completely allowable. You only have to give the source to people that you gave the binaries to.

Even this is overstating it. Under the GPL, there is nothing preventing the copyright holder from selling Microsoft the right to use the GPLed code in a commercial product & not give away the code. This is truly the best of both worlds since it allows Freedom for those who desire it and allows the author to profit from those who don't. The BSD license doesn't accomplish either of these goals half as well as the GPL. There are occasions when the BSD license is better, but it is clearly weaker in many respects.

Re:Good point on BSD code

[Arandir]

I would like to ask every software developer who reads this to please do themselves and everyone else a favor: GPL your code. Even if it's already BSD.

It's none of your business what I do with my code. If I prefer to use the BSD license, it's none of your business. If Microsoft decides to leach off my code, it's none of your business. If Microsoft manages to make a billion bucks off of it, it's none of your business.

Let me repeat: It's none of your business.Get you nose out of my butt and go mind your OWN business.

If my software is just too damn free for your liking, you don't have to use it.

Re:Ask IBM, DEC, SCO, Pen Computing and Micrografx

[gdyas]

I completely agree, and I think that one of the main reasons MS is willing to go to the wire against opening the code to their OS or APIs is that if that happens other companies and perhaps even open-source projects will find that MS has directly plagerized code, or done the plagerize + touch-ups thing.

I suspect they're scared to death at the thought of others seeing 1 - how badly produced & managed the code either is or has been before 2000/XP, 2 - parts that've been lifted illegally from other projects or companies, 3 - how whole parts of the OS could be interchangeable with other companies' products contrary to their claims, and 4 - how MS has hidden APIs that allow their own products to function with the OS better than their competitors. Of course I can't prove the above. It's just an extremely strong suspicion.

Re:*newsflash*

[Fat Casper]

I don't think it's funny, as such, just refreshing. Well, it would be really refreshing if more media folks would admit it. The anti MS folks have always admitted it; indeed, revelled in it. They continually document the causes of their anti MS stance, making it less of an actual bias than a response to their continued actions. That's a lot different than the standard "anything said by a member of (insert political faction here) is automatically right/wrong" bias that makes for real problems in the news.

Re:Amazing...

[gmack]

Submitted the day after the World Trade center terrorist attack?

Gee I wonder how that got lost ....

I can feel my arteries hardening

[i0lanthe]

The BSD license allows more or less unfettered code-poaching

BSD == poached code

GPL == hard boiled code

LGPL == soft boiled code

Apache license == code over easy

Artistic license == code Benedict

Mozilla license == code McMuffin

Sun == ... aw, you know.

Re:I can feel my arteries hardening

[TekPolitik]

Mozilla license == code McMuffin

Having seen the code for Mozilla, I'd have to go with "scrambled code".

Whats new?

[thogard]

Years ago when GCC was about the only multiplatform compiler that was even close to stable it had the same optimizations as Microsoft C version 5. Since GCC came first and everyone could find its source, I wonder what an extensive code review of the two packages would show.

But we know MS is so pig headed they are going to rewrite everything in house anyway -- especially specs to "open standards"

With many large projects to day with many tema members, many things can leak in. For example 3Com's NBX 100 phone system has both Gzip and GNU tar in its binary image which makes the whole thing licensed under GNU but try to get source from them.

No stacker code in DoubleSpace

[bwoodring]

MS didn't steal any code for use in DoubleSpace. Stac bought some old patents and abused them to force MS to stop using technology that neither of them had invented. I think it is terrible the way you /. trolls flame other companies for patent abuse, but not if they are attacking Microsoft.

Re:No stacker code in DoubleSpace

[HiThere]

As I remember the incident (not well, I admit) DoubleSpace was made by a different company, and MS turned to them after Stacker refused to sell the code (and defeated them in court). This caused Stacker to go out of business.

I don't remember your report as matching ANYTHING that I read at the time.

Re:No stacker code in DoubleSpace

[sheldon]

I'm sure the fact that consumers stopped using disk compression because the price of harddrives had dropped substantially had nothing to do with Stacker's loss of business.

BTW, before claiming stac went out of business, you might want to check www.stac.com.

Re: No stacker code in DoubleSpace

[Black Parrot]

> Stac bought some old patents and abused them to force MS to stop using technology that neither of them had invented.

For better or worse, patents are transferrable property in our society. I think we might be better off without patents altogether, but if we are going to have them, then Microsoft is bound to play by the same rules anyone else is.

MS-DOS contained CP/M code, too...

[dpbsmith]

It has been all but acknowledged by Microsoft that MS-DOS 1.0 contained code directly borrowed from CP/M. _The MS-DOS Encyclopedia_, for example, notes that "the resemblance [between CP/M and MS-DOS] was even more striking at the rpogrmaming level, with an almost one-to-one correspondence between CP/M and MS-DOS in the system calls available to applications programs."

This was not a matter of common design or reverse engineering; there was actual CP/M code in MS-DOS, I believe specifically in the FCB-oriented file services.

I wish I could remember where I read the interview where Tim Paterson acknowledged "low-level borrowing" from CP/M. I can't seem to find it right now.

They got repeated cease and desist letters

[gotan]

It wasn't as if Microsoft had to sieve through the whole of softimage codebase to check for IP-infringement. Is it really asked too much of MS to read the letters and look into the problem?

There wasn't even a reaction from MS until they were dragged into court. When MS bought softimage the responsibilities became theirs, especially after getting cease and desist letters. Ignorance is no way to avoid responsibility, it just doesn't hold up in courts, not even for megacorporations.

Re:Why an entire article?

[Grab]

Because it was only a small part of the congressman's letter, and because it is a significant fact in demonstrating how Microsoft does business which no-one in the media picked up at the time.

And also, the very fact that everyone in the media took their eye off the ball and didn't notice this is quite interesting, and the guys who won didn't make a big deal of it. Hell, if I'd been the company that won that case, I'd be shouting it to everyone. Or even better, I'd use the money to post full-page ads in all the major papers saying "Microsoft are software pirates". After all, the fundamental principle in libel is that it's not libel if you can prove it's true.

Grab.

Stacker

[Martin Spamer]

MS's involvement in this was pretty minimal

Perhaps on the surface however there is a striking resembalance between the sequence of events and the claims made about stacker disk compression software/Company. MS Offered to buy the Stacker but wanted to see the source code first, once it was handed over, they backed out of the deal and launched their own disk compression software in the next version of MS-DOS (IIRC v6).

Re:Stacker

[maggard]

[...] there is a striking resembalance between the sequence of events and the claims made about stacker disk compression software/Company

Actually Stacker was one of the few cases MS got nabbed doing things like that.

MS is notorious for expressing interest in a company selling a product in a market they want then opening negotations for some sort of deal. They then perform a very extensive "Due Diligannce" getting lots (!) of information about the business, it's staff, technology, market, etc. and then drop negotiations on a pretense. A month later they hire away the key folks, contact the principal customers, and announce a competing product. This technique is called "raping" and is something MS is often accused of.

Stacker was able to respond because they could show that MS's resultant code was based on their code. Others without this sort of "smoking gun" have simply succumbed and seen their market taken away from them.

Indeed the only company that I know of that has succesfully worked closely with MS in a market MS clearly wanted was Real. There's never been any love lost between the two but they've needed eachother and so had to make it work. It is to Real's credit they are one of the few MS "partners" that didn't obviously come out on the short end of the deal.

However in this case this "raping" is not what seems to have happened. To my knowlege (and I only know of any of this from one dinner party conversation and several cocktail party chitchats.) it was simply a licensing deal gone awry and mishandled. There was no direct move into the aggrieved's market, no competing product intoduced, no "muscling out" by a dominant business. One company simply claimed that the other was using their code libraries without permission after a failed licensing discussion, the court agreed, the code was already dropped from new products and what replaced it wasn't a derivitive. The fines were paid and the matter seems to be closed, no errant IP lingering in the

Or I could simply be ill-informed.