Slashdot Mirror
Mr. Ballmer, Show Us the Code
DigDuality writes "A new campaign, Showusthecode.com, requests every leader in the Linux world, and companies invested in Linux, to stand up and demand that Steve Ballmer show the world where Linux violates Microsoft's intellectual property. He has been making these claims since the Novell-Microsoft deal. If Microsoft answers this challenge — by May 1st — then Linux developers will be able to modify the code so that it remains 'free' software. If such infringing code doesn't exist, we will have called Microsoft's bluff. And if the campaign garners enough attention and if Steve Ballmer maintains silence, then the community and companies behind Linux can take the silence for the admission that it is."
A group with an idea and a web site in the other:
I like their spirit, but my best advice would be......RUN Bitches!
He's going to make unsubstantiated allegations, veiled threats of law-suits, and all sorts of FUD. For the business user (and that's where you're going to see Linux go from 2% to 10% of the desktop market), even the slim chance of getting sued is taken very seriously. I won't eat my hat, but I would be very surprised if Microsoft ever files 1 scrap of paper in court, suing a linux distributor for patent violations, or an end user for some kind of piracy(?) charge.
Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
However, the interesting part about SCO is how they try to play "methods and concepts" without actually having any patents in the case. For that matter, if it isn't in the code then it just doesn't exist, regardless of the actual ownership (IANAL).
C|N>K
Open source Windows! Open source Windows!
...)
(okay, probably not the first
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
As long as the truth is not known, microsoft can keep on threatening. If microsoft does prove some sort of infingement then they have to sue or else they will loose their threat as linux is changed. As such microsoft would never reply to it.
1&1 - Cheap domain and web hosting.
But the text on that website is extremely unprofessional; it reads more like a rant than an open letter to Ballmer. Grammatical mistakes abound, as does use of slang. I'm all for the idea, but it has to be pursued in a manner such that there is some chance of Microsoft responding.
Well, this is a brave move and, if any of the people namedropped on the site (Torvalds, RMS et al) get behind it then it becomes even braver. Of course Microsoft are unlikely to raise to the bait - they are (or consider themselves to be) far too powerful for that. That said, just imagine they did actually identify particular patents that Linux infringes - and let's be honest, with the current state of the patent system, is that so unlikely? I don't imagine for a moment that any infringement is deliberate, or even known about now, but I'd say there's a non-trivial chance that it could happen. So, what then?
"Rewriting the code" is nowhere near so easy as the site makes it sound. Software patents are often granted for particular concepts - not just ways of doing them. What if some core kernel routine were found to be infringing? That can't just be ripped out and replaced, many years of development and testing have gone into it!
So, seriously, this is a brave move, and I'm pleased to see it. We should totally get behind it. But calling the bluff is a dangerous move if it turns out Microsoft really is holding the cards.
apterous.org
Does showusthecode.com have permission to use Microsoft's wallpaper on their site?
...the things that can be done when people stand up for themselves.
okinawa japan
Patent #5845280, "Method and apparatus for transmitting a file in a network using a single transmit request from a user-mode process to a kernel-mode process". Compare this with the Linux (and BSD) SendFile() API.
Yep, that's a patent violation.
Hmmmm, I like the idea behind the site, but I'm not sure about the site itself. I mean, I had a look at it and I just got the impression that it was trying too hard to be anti-Microsoft. The "Get the facts" thing just links to a bunch of articles criticising Microsoft and/or Microsoft products. Now, I'm sure these criticisms are perfectly valid, but I think if this site wants Microsoft's co-operation, then putting a list of links criticising their products on the main page, and calling it "Get the facts" is not the right way of going about doing that.
What is this going to accomplish? Even if they do have patents against Linux, then they aren't going to reveal them until it is most advantageous. This is like playing poker and saying to your opponent, "I dare you to show me your cards. If they are so good, then what are you afraid of?"
Of course, that's assuming Linux DOES violate Microsoft patents, and there is reason to believe that it does. Microsoft is planning a slow roast; the longer they can draw out the FUD the better, for them.
Qxe4
A cross comparison of the MS' patents (which are in the public record) with Linux code should be sufficient to find potential infringements. One of the advantages of the current patent system is that it forces the patent holder to publicly disclose the invention with sufficient detail so that a person versed in the art can copy the invention. That disclosure also lets anyone innovate around the patent if they want. If the Linux community is worried, then they can proactively start changing Linux to avoid MS IP. Why not use the open source ethos of freedon-to-modify to create a Linux that goes beyond anything MS can dream up as defined by those public documents.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
I assume that these "campaigns" are targeted at people who might be exposed to Ballmer's FUD. Otherwise what's the point?
Fighting FUD with more FUD really does not work. Like a bar brawl where the winner is usually the first person who lands a punch, FUD only works when you use it preemptively. The "let me tell you all this made up bullshit about Microsoft, and here's a video all my friends think is funnay!" is invariable useless. People like Ballmer understand this.
Show people the facts and they'll react. Resort to character assasination and lame humour and they'll conclude you are a desperate wanker with an agenda.
Ballmer is the delusional second fiddle of MS as is Cheney the delusional 2'nd fiddle of the US government. Real problem is first fiddle in the latter
Help fight continental drift.
As a consumer, a computer user, I don't think a lack of an answer is an answer, but a continuation of a mystery.
As a consumer I want the honest truth and I think it is wrong that any company is allowed to pursue the use of consumer deception.
Any such company using consumer deception should be exposed and punished.
Microsoft has been busted enough with antitrust that it should be required to show such evidence it claims, or fined to the benefit of the consumers and the developers it's claim is against.
Dishonesty should cost the party commiting it, not benefit them.
There's your problem right there: it won't garner nearly enough attention.
MS knows that playing the patent-lawsuit game for real is long, expensive, and pretty darn risky. On the other hand, Ballmer can just fling FUD all over the place. The only "repercussion" MS faces is the shouts of protest from a community that is already regarded as a lunatic fringe by the majority of the people that MS wants to influence.
If you were Microsoft, which tactic would you choose?
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
... they'll reveal one patent violation (assuming there is at least 1) and then say "there's plenty more where that came from". That would validate their claims *and* allow them to continue the FUD compaign, perhaps with even more credibility. That outcome would clearly constitute a tactical error on the part of the Linux crowd. Of course if MS remains mum this could be considered a master stroke. It will be interesting to see what comes of this.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
show the code, nor be silent.
They will respond, saying that to reveal the precise code they are talking about would jeopardize their legal strategy. Of course, that makes them sound even more serious about their claims.
Why should they provide free legal advice to the Linux community, when they they are free to continue their campaign of FUD?
Oh yeah, someone's deffinately getting beaten to death with a table leg over this one.
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
But that's what Open Source is about. Taking a good idea and improving the implementation! Rather than bitch about how unprofessional the website is lets take the idea and polish the implementation.
Ideas people?
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
...it needs to be officially brought to the attention of the USPTO and the other feds involved in the previous anti trust case at the DOJ, *plus* the SEC, because he is in a position where what he says *influences the stock market*. It is quite clear what he alleges, it will cause ripples in the market, so he has to be forced to put it up somehow. Even a group of generic shareholders of MS would be in a position to sue for the company to reveal it, it is in their long term best interest to have all of this clear cut and unambiguous.
Of course, it might be elaborate bait to see if an entity comes forward and claims to own linux. As it is now,no one owns linux and there isn't anything other than Linus' tree that can be called that legally, there is the main kernel,with copyrights owned all over the place, then all sorts of other stuff in various operating system distros-there isn't any "company" per se that MS could sue, or even single individual, unless they sued all the users out there as a john and jane doe group of "infringers", because then he could get nailed on not following through with due diligence for the stockholders.
I think he's screwed from mass delusional microsoft megalomania. All that rah rah rah cheerleading for years has caught up with them, they are around the bend into loony land now and are desperate to hold on to their sinking ship. Oh ya, that software titanic is still quite afloat, but it has sprung a lot of leaks and will eventually go down. Inevitable now. Might take another decade or so, but it's coming. The 7/8ths of the planet that aren't the wealthy top few percent in the top wealthiest nations A)don't give a crap about MS "intellectual property", B) couldn't afford it legally if they wanted to and C) are all undergoing changes to eventually be all open source, because their national security and internal economies will both demand it, and it will be found to be better in the long term.
That's one thing (about the only thing really) you can thank the neocons in charge right now for, the rest of the planet knows that big US companies are not too be trusted, for any reason, because they are no different from "government" now, ie, the US is a fascist state and has no qualms about lying cheating killing robbing, etc, anyone or anyplace else, and this mindset is "sticking" to US products in general. It's crap, infested with bugs-spies, they want a ton of money for the "limited privelege" of using it, and there is rapidly evolving the global computer reality that there is about nothing really required to own and operate computers that positively demands windows. Sure, a lot of holdouts,it is still giant, etc, etc, but they are dropping and will continue to drop. Once the big one of "office" is really abandoned in droves(which it will be), the bulk of the rest will follow in short order. I don't expect all proprietary windows applicationss to be abandoned or negated in importance, but most of them eventually unless they work very hard to develop for alternative platforms for the global market and adopt rapidly evolving business plans to rely primarily on using software to make money rather than developing software to make money, and there *is* a critical difference there.
Um... except that the law doesn't work that way. Silence != admission of anything. Good luck in court, fellas.
Breakfast served all day!
"Show us the code" is the wrong question here. "Show us the patent numbers" is the right question. The guy behind this has no clue.
There is a often forgotten law concerning copyrights, patents and trademarks. If you don't defend them, you lose them. So the point is simple, if the linux community says show the code, M$ only has one chance, to show the code, or give up their rights to any such code. Why is this concept so hard for ppl to grok???
ReactOS! ReactOS!
From what I understand, it's not a threat of Linux stealing code from Microsoft OSs. It's Linux using ideas that are directly patented by Microsoft. Even if it's a cleanroom implementation, it can still violate patent law.
The problem is U.S. patent law and the fact that sometimes there really is only one way to design a solution, and the one to patent the design (not implementation details) wins.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Better to get this out of the way sooner rather than later. Even if MS showed the world lots of infringing code, it would all get coded around in a matter of weeks. That is the great strength of Linux. That and the fact that it can't be "killed".
Um, yes, if you don't protect your rights, and have become injured, and you know you're injured, then several theories of law say you're tacitly approving of the injury, and your losses become assuaged by this approval. Your knowledge of tort law needs some brushing up. The law actually does work that way.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
As a convicted monopoly, Microsoft's unsubstantiated claims intended to hinder the adoption of a competitor's product should be grounds for dragging Ballmer away in handcuffs. While nothing will be done in the U.S., other countries are free to deal with Microsoft. I'm curious to see what if anything results from this legally. A $1.5B fine here, a $1.5B fine there, pretty soon it adds up to real money.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
my best advice would be......RUN Bitches!
It's nice to know what corner you are in but your reasons for being there are flawed, as is your entire analogy. You can't expect to be protected by a bully, no matter how strong they might appear. Sooner or later, they will make you pay for your mistaken and mean spirited loyalty.
The problem with all of the FUD is that it's becoming increasingly evident that M$ is threatening everyone. A business that threatens it's customers is generally on the way out.
The great irony in all of this is that M$ themselves has little respect for the IP of others and regularly violates patents, trademarks and copyrights, while simultaneously calling for fanatical protection and enforcement. Their recent loss to Actel/Lucent, and the $1,500,000,000.00 judgment highlights this. M$ themselves are more venerable to the litigation monster they helped create than free software makers who are much more careful. Ballmer has no more to offer than SCO did and I mean that in every way.
Excuse me, while I go listen to some nice oggfiles I downloaded from archive.org. I'll keep right on partying while M$ flunks the bluff, and keeps getting dumped by customers, partners and investors alike. It's about time.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
.. but I haven't been following the entire ordeal.
What are the patents that Microsoft are claiming to be infringed by Linux (I think this is different than "Show us the code")?
They have to reveal WHAT is infringed upon in order to file suit. Making public proclaimations
about infringement without proof is a Lanham Act violation, as SCOX is about to find out.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
The corporate world's motto is "when all is said and done, more is said than done". What have we done lately? Not you alone, telling the world how great FOSS is, but the community. Sure we've written some pretty darn tight code, but you know that the world doesn't know or care that you've implemented a logrithmic self-modifying loop.
Even if it comes to nothing (as is a very likely outcome) at the very least, let's get ourselves together and show how focused, smart, communities can engage and become a force to be reckoned with, even against a company with more money than brains or guts. I'm sure that in the future projects like this will make a "call to arms" all that much more effecient and deadly. How great would it be to be mobilized to the point that when MS breaks an open standard like they said they wouldn't (java, anyone?), to be acting swiftly against them before they start shipping units?
Perhaps it's time to put up or shutup.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
Have the people behind ShowUsTheCode.com actually sent a request to Microsoft's legal time by registered mail for response, or did they just put up a website?
Wouldn't it be better to file suit against Microsoft and force them to either make their IP claims, or else STFU?
No, they can't. Silence does not equal tacit admission or approval. The patent holder can keep their mouth shut about everything until the patent has all but expired and then go crazy sue-happy to their heart's content. Unlike trademarks patents don't have to be defended to remain valid.
Instead of a stupid mainfesto-rant web page the "community" (and boy do I hate that term being used in place of "users" or "developers" all to often) should instead be reading through Microsoft's patent portfolio and using that to determine if Linux is infringing. That's the point of patents....the patent holder is given an exclusive lock on the technology, but only if they share their idea with the world.
just imagine they did actually identify particular patents that Linux infringes - and let's be honest, with the current state of the patent system, is that so unlikely
Let's FUD the FUDster!
I'm sure they think Lame is in trouble, after they themselves have been bitch slapped with a $1.5 billion judgment. Too bad they can't hurt distributions like Debian that never carried it. Too bad free software has developed unassailable alternatives like ogg. What's Ballmer to do? Support crazy patents and put his money where his mouth is? Ha ha.
Oh wait, a court judgment is no longer FUD ... it's fact. Nice try Steve-o but you had better get your own house in order.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Translation:
"Dear Microsoft: 'Hide the patent' didn't work when you tried to sic SCO on us, and it ain't gonna work now."
and wont this result in a bloody battle where no clear winner emerges victorious? What could hurt Microsoft the most, more than any GNU/Linux distribution is consumer apathy. People sticking to XP, even if it goes on to be unsupported is a real danger. Microsoft's biggest challenge is itself. Also, we don't need brave distributions or Linux companies forcing the issue, we need a brave company, that has lots of PC's, switching to Linux and forcing the issue. That's when we'll see Microsoft make it's move.
...That this could be an inverse-astroturf? You know, a geek False Flag deal? Microsoft sets up a ridiculously amateurish website just to convince professionals that any who question Microsoft's claims are nutjobs?
:-\
Okay, you're right...it's genuine.
And microsoft doesn't have one line of GPL infringing code? Har har. Mr. Balmer, please do show us YOUR code. :)
Since they are protected by copyright I see no reason why a court wouldn't make them show the code like Microsoft err... SCO has done to IBM.
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
When he refers to Linux, he is referring to the whole distribution - he isn't going after Fedora, Ubuntu community or 'free' distributions but after the Novells and Red Hats who are reselling the software which contains patented algorithms.
I wouldn't be surprised that Samba includes panteted algorithm to provide compatibility with Microsofts own SMB implementation - not a malicious programme, but a reality that maybe the better thing would be to rather than attack Microsoft, to attack the idea of software patents.
As for why Microsoft patents things; if they don't, someone else will; like the whole stupid thing that occured between Microsoft and that scum-sucking, patent sqauatting organisations like Eolas who produce absolutely NOTHING and then come up with some broadranged patent which could cover any dam thing that is made up of atoms or created by man.
Its the American dream! ...and if you don't have any proof... sue them anyway! It's a 50-50 chance you can convince the idiots in the judicial system to go your way right?
Relocating to San Francisco / Palo Alto... Hire me?
The so-called "IP" that MS is talking about is not pilfered source code, but ideas, concepts and technologies that it claims to own, right?
If what Microsoft is saying isn't true, isn't this harming Red Hat's, Ubuntu's, Novell's, etc., businesses? Or harming various consultants that have lost contracts to install or implement Linux solutions?
I am no lawyer, but it seems to run afoul of Deceptive Trade Practices, or making a false and misleading claim.
Can't just one poor shmoe consultant that lost business when their client told them Microsoft gave them this speech sue Microsoft and ask for the proof in discovery?
Our lawyers can't schedule taking a dump within 60 days without 3 meetings, 7 conference calls to the home office, staff review, several interns to pull case studies, and a flurry of PDA syncing.
This project is dreaming to think that even if (and that's a big if) Microsoft wanted to reply, they would be able to do so legally within that time frame.
As to silence equaling admission - yeah, that's a legal strategy only a rapist could love.
n/t
henry -- the human evolution news relay
The Site has been updated for professionality's sake thanks to the responses I've gotten from here (and i encourage more). Thanks all to making this get noticed. Blog buttons are coming soon. Mark Shuttleworth, Matthew Szulik of redhat, Kevin Carmony of Linspire, and the Free Software Foundation have been contacted about this as well as it currently stands. Hopefully they will respond soon.
It's quite funny that you're guilty of exactly what Ballmer is guilty of - firing off accusations without backing them up. Ballmer says Linux violates MS IP, but he never says precisely which IP's, and you say that the Linux community is blind to some basic facts without saying what they are. What that website is saying to Ballmer is "Put up or shut up" - they are calling for him to come out and qualify his claims, so that if they are true they can be rectified, and if not, he has nothing to keep huffing and puffing about. Then again, if you'd read the original post properly, I wouldn't have to be telling you all this.
that Mr. Ballmer is referring to "Linux" as a lump sum of the kernel and many applications. If he does point out patents, many of them will probably not be in the kernel, but other peripheral applications. Of course, I think he's full of it, but that's just my opinion.
You mean Steve Ballmer could be lying or not know what he is talking about! Say it ain't so!
They say one way to tell if a person is lying is that they sweat a lot. So just check Ballmers shirts for pit stains. Has he never been down the antiperspirant isle in the store?
If this gets big enough to garner national attention on news programs, Apple might be able to spin it into "We can't be sued, and we're not bad guys, so buy Macs." And people will adopt Macs at an even faster rate than they are now.
why the double "for"? for for um ok.
SimonTek
There's no evidence that MS stole any code from Linux or any reasonable explanation as to why they'd want to.
If you assume that Steve Ballmer is decent, then he would blush and indeed thrive to have the truth be known and Linux fixed of any violation. That is, if there is any infringement at all. I'm also of the opinion that there isn't, unless he's talking about FAT. And why in the world are people still using that crap anyway? We should be campaigning for the digital devices industry (digital camera and MP3 players for the most part) to support some other file system for their memory modules.
But here's the deal: this is not about truth or logic. It's about uncertainty. As long as Microsoft says nothing, people will be uncertain whether he's bluffing. And as long as people are uncertain, they will behave like roaches and run towards any furniture that might offer some protection.
That's all he has to do. Be quiet. And he wins as long as he stays quiet. Nothing will happen in May, no matter how much you wish for it or how many companies and people come forward to ask the question. By the way, I think the only hope is for someone in the mainstream media to catch Steve Ballmer stuttering when asked to disclose the patents in national television channel. And we know how likely that is!
Of course this will eventually desensitize the victims, unless Microsoft actually sues somebody. But Steve and his gang know that they just need to slow down the loss of customers to Linux for a while longer, while Microsoft entrenches itself more and more. Just a while longer...
Sorry for sounding so negative about this initiative. It's DOA. Nothing short of a lawsuit will bring this matter to light. If Microsoft does the stupid thing of actually threatening someone or some company (not the unspecified, general threats so far), that victim can preemptively sue to force their hand. It will provide some entertainment after SCO vs IBM is closed.
Everyone forgets that earlier Linux distros made use of MS's bsod.c and, of course, Linux wouldn't be as secure as it is today without the code stolen from earlier Windows security implementations (duh!) - and I need I remind you of all of that IE code cleverly stashed away in KHTML???
Just because some group of people say "let us see the proof by May 1st and if you don't provide it, we'll know you're lying" doesn't mean it's true. A patent holder is not required to prove anything unless they want to go to court to fight you, which they can do at their own convenience.
The F/OSS community has their own code and all MS patents are publicly available, so they have all the information they need to determine if they have a patent violation. Of course, it will not be equivalent to a court making that determination, but that would be case if MS revealed their code as well.
M$ lead engineers and lawyers have undoubtedly been tasked to find ways to fight Linux and find flaws in order to battle its growth. One obvious flaw is that it is open source and anyone can read the code. I am sure Microsoft has thousands of copied lines of code in it's software but you will never know cause you can't look at the source. Microsoft can look for patents on existing Linux code when it finds none it creates a patent then says its copyright infringement (easily identified by copyrights dates). Another flaw is anyone can contribute code. I am not sure of the way programmers put code into Linux but if anyone can add code, then an employee of a competitor can also add code and then sue Linux for copyright infringement. If there is no way in tracing who added code then that's another flaw. Folks who are doing harm can continue to do harm unchecked.
"Never say Never."
I'm posting anonymously because I want to use some language that will get me modded down.
"You are blind to a few basic realities, as is most of the Linux community."
Are really such a dumbass that you were surprised when someone responded negatively to this comment? And then you say "I accused no one of anything". Really? You are that stupid?
I'm not so much saying that I disagree with your position (though, for the record, I do), I'm saying that you are either a shitty troll or one of the biggest fuckheads I've seen here (and that's saying something). I can deal with people not agreeing with me, but do you have to be so gut-wrenchingly dumb about it? Please, for the sake of the world at large, stop insulting people, or stop being surprised when they bitch-slap you for it.
Come to think of it, you seem to have even more in common with Microsoft than the GP said: they tend to piss off potential customers, and get upset when their customers respond with indifference or annoyance. You're not that far off.
Ballmer is carrying on about "Intellectual Property" (ie patents), not copyright infringments.
In patent cases there is no "code" to be shown because theer is no allegation that any code was in fact stolen.
MS and their lawyers will be laughing themselves silly over the amateur hour antics of these dingbats.
"You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
Just goes to show that the legal system in the United States at least is based on money. Pure and simple. If you can afford the lawyers, you can win the battle reguardless of whether your right or wrong. I think the legal system needs an ovehaul.
Fortunately you're wrong. Microsoft has lost lawsuits. Microsoft loses appeal in Office patent spat. Microsoft loses Excel patent case. Microsoft even settled a lawsuit with Novell, Microsoft to pay Novell $536 million settlement. So MS does loose some lawsuits but unfortunately by the tyme MS is made to pay they've made more than they're required to pay and/or the other party is out of business.
FalconShould there be a Law?
> Can't just one poor shmoe consultant that lost business when their client
> told them Microsoft gave them this speech sue Microsoft and ask for the
> proof in discovery?
Yes, but he would not have to do much discovery. He may be able to sue for a declarative judgement that he has not infringed any patents owned by Microsoft. They would have to show up in court and produce convincing evidence of infringement of specific patents (i.e., version, file, and line...) or have the court rule that Linux does not infringe any of their patents. They would also have to pay him damages, of course. Others who had been damaged by Microsoft's threats could then cite the decision and only have to prove damage in order to collect.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Your search - "declarative judgement". - did not match any documents.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Damn you are stupid, and I dont have to post anonymously to say that. Either that, or you just cant read.
He may be able to sue for a declarative judgement that he has not infringed any patents owned by Microsoft. They would have to show up in court and produce convincing evidence of infringement of specific patents (i.e., version, file, and line...) or have the court rule that Linux does not infringe any of their patents.
Interesting. Thank you.
BTW, I find it indeed ironical that they did ask Ballmer, who had admitted banning his kids from using Google, to do a patent search on Google.
People who dislike China tend to mention Tiananmen Square a lot, but they always forget the Tank Man is also a Chinese.
Hey Slashdot, why are PC users such ugly dweebs in comparison to Mac users? Is it because nobody has the time or patience to put up Linux/Windows except for friendless, sexless nerds like you?
This is a joke, and will likely have the opposite effect. As others have said, if Ballmer says nothing in response, this reaction looks childish and entirely NOT reassuring. Or Ballmer could continue spreading FUD, business as usual, and ignore it -- same result. What it really needs is IBM, (not Redhat, the FSF, or Canonical), a company respected as much as MS by the top-end corporate powers-that-be, saying: "WE are not concerned with Ballmer's statements. We are entirely confident that they are baseless."
I fail to see why someone who doesn't know the difference between idol and idle would be labled as stupid... :)
Based on StarOffice code owned by SUN which has a cross-liscensing agreement w/ MS. MS might not want to cavalierly toss patent-nukes that way. At worst, StarOffice is cheap relative to MSOffice or even Corel WP here.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
Scox was just an unprofitable micro-cap (total market cap $6 million) before msft er, "arranged the financing" for scox's scam lawsuits.
Just like scox's puppet-master, scox is making all kinds of allegations, and refusing to provide any proof. Scox has been at for near four years, so far.
That's both factually wrong and logically wrong. The fact that MS was vulnerable to suit by Actel/Lucent despite doing everything legally and by the book (and respecting the IP in question) should make companies using Linux all the more worried.
The court and jury disagree with you. They found M$ guilty and imposed a monster fine which reflected their outrage and the magnitude of the offense. You know, M$ thinking an army of lawyers with endless bullshit would protect them is what the jury is angry about. Obviously, you share the M$ valuation of other`s IP to take defend them without citing details and how M$ really did everything by the book. I'm starting to think they simply payed the lowest bidder and screwed everyone else.
Seeing how abusable the patent system is should make you afraid; very afraid.
More hot air? Show me what you've got. M$ is full of beans and others will see it that way too. As M$ burns down, and they start pulling out vague and crazy patents, they might just take software patents down with them, as is currently being looked at in the US Supreme Court fight between M$ and ATT.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Obviously the real F/OSS responsible parties have so far concluded that taking this legal action carries more risks than benefits. Perhaps they don't believe that MS will ever sue and they don't think the claims are hurting them. Perhaps they aren't sure that they would win. Perhaps they fear triggering the very patent fight that people are worried about. Maybe they don't have the money to take the case all the way. Who knows?
We were talking about stealing code, not looking at it or borrowing concepts. The fact is that a lot of Linux code wouldn't be useful in Windows and much of it is a rehash of old ideas anyway. If you want to copy features, you run the code, not study it.
Any of the 'big names' listed would be silly to put their names behind this. Microsoft could easily respond and point out dozens of their patents that both GNU programs and the Linux kernel are in violation of. It would be impossible to remove the code or work around the patents because some of the patents would be broad, fundamental, and obvious. Rather, force Microsoft to sue if they want to do anything about it, and then watch the fire works as other big players get involved. Microsoft violates other's patents just as much, if not more. Take this patent for instant messaging, held by AOL for instance: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6539421&id= DiUPAAAAEBAJ&dq=%22instant+messaging%22
At some point in the last couple of decades, everyone seems to have decided that "customer" is condescending or something, and that we're all "clients" now. Well, I'd rather be a customer. I want to engage in a transaction with a company, not commit to a relationship.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Seems to me that patents might not be an issue. IIRC there was already a ruling at some point here in the states that source code in human readable form was protected by the first amendment. Consequently some things that we all use regularly like lame that violate some silly patent can still be legally distributed here as source packages, although I suspect most of us just ignore the law and download the rpms or deb packages. In any event, seems to me all one would have to do to get around this is distribute those parts that were in violation of a patent as source, and distros like gentoo that are entirely compiled on the spot would thrive. I suppose big businesses afraid of getting sued for compiling and using the software might jump ship though. Honestly though, with some really big backers like IBM, google, and all those render farms for SFX running on linux, plus some people like EADS having replaced older unix systems with linux, and that still being a trend in general, I don't see MS getting far. A patent war between MS and IBM would not be pretty, it would clog the courts for years and maybe even trigger some serious reform of our current "patent first and let the chumps in the judicial branch sort out the mess we make" system.
Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen. Most don't have the money or the inclination to go against an 800 lb. chair-wielding gorilla, and I can't blame them.
Part of the problem is that the Open Source community has opted against unionizing. This matters. It has left the community as a whole extremely vulnerable and has left it with no meaningful voice. We cannot collectively act against bullying and intimidation if there is no mechanism for collective action of this kind. The price we are paying for our individual freedom is our freedom as a community. Our ability to act collectively in programming is precisely why Open Source is as sophisticated, rich and diverse as it is. Those who act as self-isolated individualists are generally the ones who get scorned and ignored, their products soon shown to be inferior.
Yet we somehow persist in believing, despite the harassment, despite the intimidation, despite every scrap of evidence that we have to date, that we can simply wish away the abuse of the megacorps.
The letter, as others have noted, is so juvenile as to not be worth discussing. However, the concept of unified action is at least going in the right direction. Mere lobbying won't work. Have you ever seen anyone successfully lobby Microsoft? The European Union only succeeded by threatening to bleed Microsoft dry if it didn't comply, and even then Microsoft did everything in its power to obey the letter of the law only as little as humanly possible without being dragged into court by its collective toenails.
No, merely asking the Evil Empire to play nice isn't going to achieve a damn thing, no matter how many names are put to what piece of paper. If you want Microsoft to cut the crap, then you need to have the strength to back up your request. Right now, we have... exactly nothing. There will be no chorus of heavenly angels throwing hellfire and brimstone at Redmond, there will be no Congressional investigations, you won't even get IBM to contribute to your tombstone.
Yes, opposition to this abuse is essential, but show ME the code. Show me how the community is to achieve this, when it took three companies two decades to bring Microsoft to account over DR-DOS. How do we achieve what the DOJ were unable to do? When we have refused ourselves the right to be heard?
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Not even MS: Right click for running application list: (Jul 8 '03)= 6YwOAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=right+cli ck#PRA1-PA6,M1
= KksiAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=context+m enu
b tnG=Search+Patents
= 8Y56AAAAEBAJ&dq=microsoft&jtp=1
= Hwp7AAAAEBAJ&dq=microsoft&jtp=1
= ir16AAAAEBAJ&dq=microsoft&jtp=1#PPA1-IA1,M1
= ir16AAAAEBAJ&dq=microsoft&jtp=1#PPA1-IA1,M1
= MpxCAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=4&dq=IBM
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT6590596&id
Context sensitive menus. (Sep 2 '97)
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT5664133&id
Tons of other crap
http://www.google.com/patents?zoom=4&q=microsoft&
Damn and the scientists thought autism was on the rise! Looks like it's been going strong and the "more reported" advocates are right.
The wireless mouse
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT7102616&id
top (Shift F, N, Enter)
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT7107428&id
Animation?
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPATD528550&id
IBM's Turn
THE SPACEBAR! (some mechanical merit)
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPATD528550&id
Just wierd - Not IBM, but contained in a search for IBM: Depth charge!
http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT1459793&id
Either Microsoft paid Novell for more than just the Linux licenses, or they're really bad with money .... and I'm not gonna put my money on the latter possibility.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
After all...we are all developers!
o pers!
developers!
developers!developers!developers!developers!devel
640KB of virtualized ram will be enough for everybody
Microsoft is a closed source company. "Showing the code" is something those open source hippies do; Microsoft would never show code for anything, including patent violations in Linux.
Linux and Desktop should *NEVER* be used in the same sentence, unless it is preceeded by 'painful experience and lacking mainstream application vendor support".
OpenOffice.org is a buggy bloated mess and the applications I rely on, don't exist for Linux - no, I don't want 'good enough' - I want the actual applicaiton on Linux, natively.
These kinds of situations are common in business. If someone keeps making claims like this, you can sue and get a declaratory judgment to end it. In essence, you are saying "if you keep saying that we have done this, let's just go through with the lawsuit you keep threatening and get it over with, whether you want to or not".
if Linux is using MS patented software, than sue MS for spreading FUD and causing other firms lost sales because of this.
If MS isn't spreading FUD, they'll have to identify the patented parts in Linux.
"By using open source software for commercial purposes for Microsoft Corporation by any Microsoft employee, and if Microsoft Corporation does not publicly show the open source community this code by May 1, 2007, then Microsoft Corporation hereby agrees to freely license any such infringing code (if any such code should exist), in the open source license in which any such infringing code is found, to anyone free of charge, indefinitely, in all countries in which Microsoft currently or in the future, operates."
You know, since Microsoft thinks such agreements are legally-binding.
"And if the campaign garners enough attention and if Steve Ballmer maintains silence, then the community and companies behind Linux can take the silence for the admission that it is."
Or it can betaken as Microsoft being unwilling to bow down to pressure. Silence is in no way an admission of any sort. If they do have something, trust that they'll use it on THIR term, whjen it suits THEM to do so. Rather than on the Linux community's terms, or when it suits them. Frankly, they'd get more points in my book, by sticking to their proverbial guns, and not backing down to pressure.
What's more telling is how the community dismisses any such claim as "FUD" automatically, This whole "if they have something, they shouldn't be 'afraid' to back their claims" thing works both ways. If Linux doesn't infinge at any point, why are samba and the like so up and arms about the Novel; deal? If your code is clean, you shouldn't worry about it; unless of course, deep down, you aren't sure that the claims are completely hollow.
You'd think, a lesson could be learned from the ReactOS team, here, and time and energy could be put into a code-audit, rather than deploying counter-FUD. Do we know for a fact that there is absolutely no infringing code? Do we know for a fact that projects like Samba, Mono, the NTFS drivers, etc aren't DMCA violations? (Well, Mono wouldn't really matter, since Novell has that covered.). I can't speak for the rest of the community, but personally, I'd much rather be safe than sorry.
I think Microsoft just has trouble accepting that in the long term they may be beaten by something that is free. And it has got them pretty scared. Before now they could claim supremacy to the general public because we were used to their system, not others. But with MAC users on the increase and many people using and becoming more aware of open source software like firefox, and many software manufacturers making linux versions, they are in a bit of trouble. Their biggest problem is that if linux gets even equivalent appeal to the average user, they are screwed. You can't sell an operating system for hundreds of dollars that has a free alternative. So if they can find a way to wipe out the free alternative, or force it to be not free to be usable, they may win. It's dirty business, but it's survival. Because they know in the long term there is not a lot they can do to win the operating system war. In the last year or so they have been asking the customer to serve them, and serving their own needs rather than the customer's. They can do a lot of talk to try to convince people otherwise, but if they polled users and asked what they wanted or didn't want, I'm sure it wouldn't be what they are delivering.
Slashdot is powered by your submission.
They take some code from the kernel now and implant it somewhere, and showed us the code ?
Instead of doing that, why not go through features in Windows, search the patent database for likely patent violations (you'll find lots and lots), notify the patent holder of the likely infringement.
Rinse and repeat 10 million times.
Balmer will wish patents had never been created. Microsoft has FAR FAR more to lose from an aggressive patent search than open source.
http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2005-08-10-a.html
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/76034
http://lwn.net/Articles/163038/
http://www.patent-commons.org/
http://www.openinventionnetwork.com/
Something you Slashies forget all too often is that Microsoft is alone. The big players, who were here before Bill Gates was ever heard of, are on the side of open source. That includes AT&T/Lucent, Sun Microsystems, Apple (to a tiny extent - Darwin) and IBM. Newer players are also aligned with open source, such as is Google. In fact, Microsoft and Adobe are the only two remaining companies battling against open technology. Proprietary software was a passing fad. There's a computer every ten feet now, and we have too many interesting areas to explore as we advance into the 21st century to waste time asking "Mother, may I?" before every mouse-click. It's a stupid and silly idea that you can sell technology to the world and keep it a big secret at the same time, and always has been.
It was a nice run, but it had to close out some time. No dictator has ever escaped being dethroned. Bill Gates is stepping down at just the right time.
This has nothing to do with "M$" or whatever you want to call them.
This is about a screwed-up patent system. It is SO obvious, and you guys are talking about Microsoft?? How blind can you become?
Microsoft is only the biggest, most juicy target. They will now have to pay twice for the same technology, and even more for wanting to take this to trial. This shows how the patent-system can hold an entire IT-industry random. How many more patent-holders might there be behind the MP3-technology, or any other technology?
Microsoft deserves this since it is backing up the patent system, nothing else. Its bussiness strategies are foul, but has nothing to do with this particular case.
"if Ballmer says nothing in response, this reaction looks childish and entirely NOT reassuring"
If someone repeatedly accuses you of stealing his 'property' and you respond with a request to enumerate the alleged stolen items, how is this in any way 'childish'. No, if Ballmer says nothing it exposes his threats as baseless.
"What it really needs is IBM, (not Redhat, the FSF, or Canonical)"
Well IBM is actually fighting SCO in court against claims that IBM put SCO code in Linux, as is Red Hat, Novell, AutoZone and DaimlerChrysler. So presumably IBM thinks Ballmers claims are also baseless.
IBM (Score:4, you're kidding)
davecb5620@gmail.com
"Ballmer is carrying on about "Intellectual Property" (ie patents), not copyright infringments"
.. somebody will come and look for money owing to the rights for that intellectual property", Steve Ballmer
"In patent cases there is no "code" to be shown because theer is no allegation that any code was in fact stolen"
Tell your method for proving Linux violates Ballmers intellectual property. The source code can be easily produced to prove or disprove that 'Linux violates our intellectual property'
"I think there are experts who claim Linux violates our intellectual property", Steve Ballmer
"someday
was: These guys have totally lost the plot (Score:5, yet another modded up astro.troll)
davecb5620@gmail.com
BALLMER SMASH!
dude, Ballmer throws AUTOMOBILES about when he's really pissed!
where MS secretly has violated opensource licenses by taking open source code and including it in their closed source code. How is the opensource community to check this? How could one ever find out with closed source software?
PATENT VIOLATION
...
A method of iteration through a two dimensional structure (the nested for loop):
for (int i = 0; i < lim_i; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < lim_j; j++) {
}
}
So, what are they going to do come May 1st? Smile and extend the date? Why should Microsoft do anything? So what if Linus et al sign on... what can they possibly do to coerse Microsoft into showing their guns before they're ready to fire?
Bill
It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
Ouch, nice comeback. So, I'm stupid for pointing out that you did insult people when you said you didn't, and I can't read because I didn't accept your lame-ass excuse at face value?
Ummm, do I get mod points too? Please?
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
Can't any OSS vendor sue Microsoft for Slander of Title to force Balmer to "show us the code"?
Isn't proprietary software business same as money laundering?
Slashdot = Sarcasm
showusthecode.com isn't attacking Microsoft, they simply have an open letter to them. MS can respond, or not. There are no lawyers involved, there is only an invitation: Tell us what code, exactly, is infringing and how and we'll make it right in future versions, even if that means removing features.
The only thing MS has to loose, assuming there actually are violations, is the number of years of infringement that they can put on their claims. They still hold the right to demand compensation from products already released. The "bluff" being called is that Balmer is only saying these things to get people who don't understand code and patents to be afraid of Linux. showusthecode.com hopes that MS won't have a response, and to those that don't understand code and patents, but do understand business negotiations, this lack of a response is a strong sign that Balmer is just blowing wind.
Either way, Linux wins here. If MS responds, the code is fixed and business leaders trust organizations that respond swiftly. If they don't, then Linux gains a bit more trust from the business leaders since MS won't "show the code" so there must not be any.
- Disclaimer: Information in this post deemed reliable but not guaranteed.
This is all a PR strategy. They have to pay a LARGE amount of money to Alcatel-Lucent because of patent infrigments and they had to do something to balance the situation on the media. Bad politicians do exactly the same. If they are responsible of something regretable, they will accuse their oponent of the same thing.
Steal the code now buy the shirt.
x .aspx
http://www.cafepress.com/cp/members/products/inde
Cheers,
Dean
It is more likely that that MS has code hiested from Open Source than the reverse. Since the code is open it would be very difficult for a MS employee to slightly modify and insert OSS code. How would bwe ever know since no one has access to their source?
This is the guerilla warfare of the net. Asymetric with no clear advantage to the side with the money. Too early to call who will 'win'. And I say 'win' as none of us have a clue as to what winning will look like.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
What IBM think of SCO's patent claims tells us nothing about what they think regarding Microsoft's patent claims
In the context of your original remarks, the fact that IBM went to bat against SCO tells us, I believe, where they are on alleged IP violations in Linux. Now excuse me, but in the universe the rest of us occupy it is up to the plaintive to produce the evidence, else they can be accused of pulling a Darl (you stole my IP!, what IP?, you tell me!).
What IBM thinks of 'Microsoft's patent claims' is irrelevant. What matters is concrete claims backed up by evidence. The onus is on Microsoft to tell us where the alleged violations occur, not IBM to prove they didn't. Else Ballmer is merely engaged in nothing more than a FUD campaign.
davecb5620@gmail.com
If they don't say anything then everyone will know that what they're saying is total BS. And any money that they've made from these so called "Linux patents" could be considered fraud. Ooo, that'll go over well.
:) or something else) then they are just as screwed.
If they do reply and they're caught trying to put one over on the community (either by prior art i.e. CVS commits have dates on them
But, if they answer with valid claims, then the community has some answering to do.
Not that I think that they'll be able to do it. M$ is a very large and slow moving beast that I don't really think is capable of meeting the given deadline. I personally think that they'll just continue to make these claims attempting to scare companies to buy this "Linux patent" to add another revenue stream ignoring all logic.
"Even if your statements about Open Source are true, this isn't a good idea. It's a pointless, immature rant which will serve no purpose whatsoever."
Again, you are focusing on the implementation. The idea of telling Microsoft: "Okay, you feel we infringe and we don't want to so show us where so we can either fix it or discuss with you how we disagree." is not a bad idea.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Ballmer had millions of lines of infringing code in a briefcase, Darl McBride stole it, then lost it, and nobody really knows where it is now.
They just have to show that an infringing products does the same that the patent protects.
There are so many patent lawsuits (mostly baseless) and not a single line of code is shown.
If people do not understanding the issues there is no chance to be prepared to resists these idiotic attempts of MS to own every computer code ever written under the sun.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Impeach Bush Bill Tracker Enjoy.
Neither Stevie B nor Billie G understand the meaning of the word "Code" in this context.
Ergo, they will ignore the whole thing, as well the M$/SCOX Legal Team assembled by BoiesBaby.
Stevie B, has never written "Code" in his entire life! This goes for Billie G, who was expelled from
Harvard U. after threatening a Prof about a low mark on a term paper.
Billie G., "How dare you! My Paper is an A+++++!"
Prof, "This paper is a piece of shit!"
Billie G., "That is an outrage! My Daddy will have you FIRED by Tomorrow Morning!"
Prof, "What drugs have you been ingesting?"
Tomorrow Morning.
Billie G. is expelled from Harvard U. and has to forefet the dorm expenses, plus a few $$$$ to a Prof, call it a gift from Daddy
to the Prof for the trouble that Jr caused.
Daddy later bought a little software company in New Mexico, and hired a friend to take care of business, so that Jr could have a
life (Jr latter got a speeding ticket).
Toodles
OSS generally stomps all over patents held by many companies. The only reason they've gotten away with it is that they have no money, so suing is useless. Hell, VLC violates MPEG2. MPEG2 software players require a per-installation license to the MPEG2 consortium (whatever its called), which is why one needs to pay Apple $10 for an MPEG2 codec for their QuickTime player and why Microsoft makes you pay a third party for an MPEG2 codec for WMP (and those third parties generally charge $10). (This doesn't apply for Windows MCE, for which MS does include an MPEG2 codec.) Yet OSS players simply play MPEG2, and don't bother paying for any license. This is just one example.
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
The problem is that the law is not on our side. ... the true answer to "show us the code" is "everything", and Microsoft could win some of those lawsuits, certainly enough to deter any part of Open Source or the whole movement. I think the only solution lies in legislative change.
The law may not be on our side but public and corporate opinion increasingly is. Microsoft has to deal with both large companies and large segments of the population who are not going to part with their freedom so easily. Look at the firestorm they have created with this menace. They are losing support from industry, users, even in the Wintel press. Just try to take Mepis away from my wife.
The sooner they bring on their nonsense, the sooner things will change. They should not be allowed to win any bogus patent lawsuit, so each should be fought tooth and nail. Each one they bring to trial will cost them. Court costs for them are dwarfed by the billions they spend each month on marketing. If they do win, the results need to be decried and circumvented. They are going to look like slothful, crazy and ineffective bullies. They are going to lose and with them will go all of the rotten "IP" laws they have pushed.
Any other result is too unAmerican to imagine.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Show Us The Code Bitch!! It would be funny that they show the code to the judge and no one else xD
ghostbar page.
have you thought about the possibility that microsoft is going on the offensive here because they're worried (aka "know") that they've infringed GPL'd code that's used in linux and other software? personally, i could care less about the licensing wars, this is merely observation on my part. i think balmer may be using reverse psychology here, and of course you're all falling for it and getting defensive because that's your nature.
ms ripped off their tcp/ip stack from bsd, their file system from ibm's os/2 (well that was a joint venture), internet explorer from mosaic which is the predecessor of mozilla (which i think they got tackled with a lawsuit on), and i'm sure the list goes on indefinitely. one of their many newb programmers has prolly stolen code from oss projects in the past that have one of your nasty draconian licenses on it.
well, anyways, that's my two cents. i think everyone's a bunch of whiners; ms, sco, emi, politicians, apple, and oss fanatics. there i hope i've offended everyone.
cheers.
"Problem is the GPL has never been validated in court..."
Seems to me there was a good point made once that someone who is using GPL code would never want to invalidate the GPL. If the GPL were to be invalidated, then normal copyright law would be in effect and the end user would have no rights to the code unless granted it specifically, no?
We won't know the outcome of this for atleast five years, and the code in question will never be relevant. Its hype for the men in suits
The match-up is this: 20,000 small claims court lawsuits for slander against a corporate megalith. I'm mailng that demand letter this week. I'll see Balmer in court...personally.
Andy Out!
Back in the 70s IBM used the FUD campaign to help maintain it's monopoly. It's part of what started the anti-trust suit against them.
And a jury found a substitute-teacher guilty of 'endangering minors' because of a porn storm on her PC. Juries base thier judgment on the information presented to them, and their opinion of the people involved --- "He's a good looking man & he would never have to rape someone" was the actual reasoning given by a juror on why she wouldn't vote guilty.
MS, Apple, Creative, and RCA all licence MP3 technology through a different company. Alcatel recently merged with another company and acquired certain patents, one of which is this MP3 patent jointly held between Alcatel & another (IIRC) French company. Everyone pays the other company, nobody was paying the company that Alcatel just bought out. So this isn't about MS not paying for the patent, this is another company popping up after the fact & saying 'gimmee too'. The reality of this is that either everyone is violating Alcatel's patents, the patents are invalid, or nobody who is paying this other company is violating the patent. Up until this ruling, everyone selling MP3 players/software was firmly in the 3rd camp.
Now, as much as I dispise MS, I really don't think they were violating this companies IP. They purchased the rights to the software through the company recognized by the industry as the proper licensor.
If there is a formal request made to MS to present the specific IP to the community so that it can be removed, and MS fails to do so, then they can loose the right to persue the claims in court. In short, once they are legally asked to put up or shut up, failure to put up makes all their - 'we'll sue' FUD worthless.
Microsoft is very imprecise in its use of the term Linux and Intellectual Property. Most corporate installations of Linux include samba and inter operate with Microsoft servers and Active Directory. While I do not agree that Microsoft has a slam dunk case, it probably can make some kind of argument about samba that would be heard in a court. Given the text of the claim it is not clear that Microsoft is making a direct claim that Linux itself contains direct Microsoft code segments, or even that Samba has direct Microsoft code segments. There would be good arguments against any Microsoft claim which is probably why Microsoft is not specific in its claim and doesn't want to pursue an actual legal action.
Your last sentence tells the truth: there was a court order.
Pretrial motions are decided by court orders. For example, if IBM wins all its summary judgment motions against SCO, it wins the case, and that will be by pretrial rulings making a trial by jury unnecessary. Trials are not necessary, unless there are facts in dispute. Judges decide the law, while juries decide facts, and if there is not dispute about facts, then the judges' orders on the law are binding whether or not there is a trial. That is why IBM references the Wallace order in their court documents. So Wallace ended up helping the GPL, not that he intended to.
you too need to get a room...
>> Or... anyone who realizes that Microsoft isn't all about money and is actually trying to help develop a better computing experience. M$ is just wrong.
muwahahahahahaha!!!
That's the best one I've heard in ages!!!
Ballmer's threats have to do with Patents. It doesn't matter if it is chance or if the other people came up with it completely on their own. A Patent gives you an exclusive right for a limited term to make use of the "invention". If you were to talk about copyrights, then substantial similarity is a requirement. Once that has been proven, you have further hurdles to prove copyright infringement. You must then show that copying took place. You must prove for instance that there was access to the copyrighted work, you can't copy something if you've never seen it. That is where your chance similarities would matter.
The Linux community doesn't know what patents are being infringed, if any. If Microsoft has this information, which they claim to, and they are doing nothing about it, equitable estoppel could come into play. If Microsoft fails to mitigate their damages in the face of defendants begging them to at least tell them what is wrong so they can fix it, then Microsoft will have no case. You cannot allow infringement to occur in order to further your business interests. If Microsoft doesn't provide any details, one can only assume that infringement is not occurring.