Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mr. Ballmer, Show Us the Code

Posted by kdawson on from the open-letter dept.

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."

6 of 462 comments (clear)

  1. OK, here's an example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:OK, here's an example by adrianmonk · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      I'm not sure I buy that sendfile() (not SendFile(), by the way) is really a violation of that patent. In particular, the patent abstract says this:

      the requested file is retrieved from the secondary data storage device and placed in kernel-mode accessed memory (e.g., cache memory). After the requested file information is stored in the kernel-mode accessed memory, a kernel-mode data transmission procedure transmits the requested file information directly

      The way I read that, this patented mechanism always loads the entire file into RAM before starting the transmission. Does sendfile() really operate in this manner? The way I understand it, in effect it just pushes the read()/write() loop into the kernel. But the virtual memory subsystem will typically fault in data from the filesystem (secondary storage) in a lazy manner. There may be some read-ahead caused by the disk driver or the filesystem, but if you open() a 500 MB file and then call sendfile() on it, the kernel is not going to read the entire 500 MB of data into RAM first.

      I realize that's picky, but I'm assuming patent interpretation is inherently picky. Also, another technical point: sendfile() doesn't necessarily read from disk and write to the network. It just takes two file descriptors, so I don't see any reason why it couldn't be used to copy from one network connection to another (e.g. for a proxy server), or from disk to disk, or from /proc to /dev/tty, for all I care. Therefore, it seems to me that sendfile() by itself cannot be an infringement. You would have to write code that opens a disk file and a network connection and then calls sendfile() on the two in order to have infringement. (Not that there isn't code out there that does this; I think that's why sendfile() exists in the first place, after all...)

  2. Re:Why do they even need the code? by iPaul · · Score: 5, Informative

    I would be stunned if Linux doesn't "infringe" on some patent that Microsoft holds. There have been so many patents issued for so many crap ideas that it may be impossible to build anything without infringing on someone's patent. (And in some cases two people hold different patents covering the same thing). The patent in question could be as *stupid* and possibly *indefensible* as "method of communicating with a computer using a keyboard." But they won't fire a shot. Get used to phrases such as "Our attourneys are examining the matter and we don't want to comment on possible litigation." Also get used to Microsoft trying to decide how to pursue the matter, and there are so many ways. It will scare off business users, who might be considering 10,000 desktop roll-outs, to pass on Linux to avoid lawsuits. If they actually go to court they could loose (and it would cost s lot of money). IANAL, but I would imagine they would start building a case by threatening vendors into a Novel style deal, if they actually do anything at all.

    --
    Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
  3. Re:Brave! by mgiuca · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think the point is that is MS actually does sue Linux users, there will be a huge retaliation. (And there always has been this threat). So they won't.

    Before you say "won't that nullify the point of this site, since it won't prove anything about whether MS has patents or not", I'll point out that if "we can't sue or you'll retaliate by suing us" is MS's response (or excuse for not doing anything at all), then it proves that they can't do anything about it and we can get on without all this FUD.

    It would also serve to show that they are equally, if not more, in violation of the open source community's patents than we are of them.

    I was also interested to read that the original study (the "283 patents" which Ballmer refers to) was actually a finding that Linux contained 283 potential patents in total. It estimated that 1/3 of the patents were owned by the OS community companies themselves (eg. IBM). And Microsoft owned just 10% of them - which if my calculations are correct is just over 28 patents, not over 200 as Ballmer claims.

  4. These guys have totally lost the plot by suckmysav · · Score: 5, Informative

    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!"
  5. Re:Good Odds. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    No, its operating revenue for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2004 was $36.8 billion (source). Its operating profit for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006 was $16.5 billion (source). So basically your statement is wrong, based on a misunderstanding of finance (equating profit with revenue) and out-of-date. The good news though is your conclusion "$1.5 billion is not chump change to Microsoft" is probably accurate. And since, in my opinion, the vast majority of posts on this subject seem to draw the wrong conclusion based on false statements, your post that draws the right conclusion based on false statements deserves to be promoted. So MOD PARENT UP!!!