Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
My reality check bounced.
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".
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.
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...
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.
Miko O'Sullivan
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
tinahdee beautiful jewelry: silver, gold, gemstones tinahdee.etsy.com tinahdee.com facebook.com/beautifuljewelry
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.
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.
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.
I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
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!
So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
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.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
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.
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.
Miko O'Sullivan
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
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.
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.
Developers: We can use your help.
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.)
go get it
I spent a year in Iraq looking for WMD and all I found was this lousy sig.
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.