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?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Patent holders aren't allowed to just say, "you're violating our patents and we'll sue you whenever we want", either. This would show a serious effort on the part of the open-source side to resolve any problem. If Microsoft doesn't reply with anything substantial, then they get hurt both in the P.R. department and if they ever do sue.
"Why didn't you work with the other side at all when they openly attempted to resolve this multiple times outside of court?" is not a question you want the judge asking at the beginning of a case.
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.
It isn't just that they own patents that they are not enforcing. It's that they are attempting to use the threat of infringement litigation to harm competitors without giving enough information for the competitors to mitigate the damage and not actually filing suit. The courts don't like that and have developed the concept of a declarative judgement to deal with it.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
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."
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.
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
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?
Can't any OSS vendor sue Microsoft for Slander of Title to force Balmer to "show us the code"?
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.
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.
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.