Slashdot Mirror
"Show Us the Code" Breaks Its Silence
DigDuality writes with an explanation of the silence of the Show Us the Code initiative. The push he began — to gather influential sponsors demanding that Steve Ballmer reveal what Linux code he believed to be infringing Microsoft patents — was discussed here last February. "Show Us the Code has been silent since March 23. May came and went — the deadline allotted for calling Ballmer's bluff — but the site gave no update. I now explain the silence. After a scheduled interview with Forbes columnist Dan Lyons didn't happen, and my place of employment falsely accused me of representing that they endorsed my own political goals, I decided it was best to shut my mouth so I would be able to keep paying my bills. I'm glad to see Linus now publicly echoing the sentiments that this site espoused. Maybe someone already accustomed to the limelight will have better luck in challenging Microsoft's FUD machine."
It's not in their interest to admit anything, that would bing their very successful run of bullshit to an end requiring them to think up new bullshit
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
In the real world, though, that sort of thing is nearly impossible to document fully and, even if it is well documented, one must still retain the services of an attorney ($$$) willing to stake their reputation against what could be a multimillion dollar company, and their respective insurers and financiers, with more than enough legal backing of their own.
Not that I would know anything about how that sort of situation plays out. It would most certainly be indicative of an "OMG teh evil conspiracy!" if I were to suggest that I've been on the worse end of a similar situation.
All that said: sell-out. =P~~~~
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
This type of behavior is very typical in the business world. If someone says 'prove it' to a company, that someone usually gets some celebrity status, but also they run the risk of being crushed under the company's legal department. It's a shame this guy had to get flack in his job, even though it was 'professionally' handled. They should have read up first, and then seen how to deal with the situation, but as time == money, they couldn't be arsed.
How has this influenced MS and more importantly Ballmer's diarrhea of the mouth? Not much as far as I can tell.
Fighting over religion is like seeing whose imaginary friend is best.
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
Microsoft, like The SCO Group, is taking their time to make sure that they have a case against the RMS worshipers that cannot be refuted. Microsoft is simply warning companies involved with Linux to be nice. This is RedHat's and Mark Shuttleworth's (and others) chance to receive the benefits of a Microsoft critical alliance. When Microsoft is done giving these illegal companies (and users) amnesty, get ready to have your asses handed to you in court! Oh, and don't forget to pay four $599 SCO fee! - Darl McBride and Steve Ballmer
P.S. Developers, developers, developers!
The captcha is "bearer."
I'm sure he'll show you a chair or two
...is that there wasn't a general claim "that we believe one or more patents may have been infringed upon" but rather a very specific claim that they know some 200 specific patents were violated.
If they know exactly how many were allegedly violated, then they have already done their research.
Here is the funny thing. If M$ released that list, immediately people would score the code of the Linux/GNU system to verify the claims. In the possibility that M$ has a legitimate claim, people would write new workaround-code and destroy M$'s case. If the claims are shown to be less than legitimate, it detroys M$'s case.
M$ has nothing to gain by releasing this information, and everything to lose. This is a huge scare tactic, that may work to scare large businesses away from considering what may turn out to be illegal software. And why migrate if you may be forced to migrate back?
This is a rotten tactic, but a very effective and insidious one. Luckily, I don't think this will destroy Linux, as Linus pointed out, many of the basic patents of a GUI that M$ may be referring to are likely pretty much public domain at this point. If anything, there is prior art from vast numbers of previous GUIs that M$ copied, so it is absurd to think they invented everything, let alone own exclusive rights to it.
When companies like Novell were first approached by M$, they should have gone to the Linux Foundation, or EFF. Instead they took a payday that inherently casts a doubt of suspision upon the entire Linux community. And while I was a fan of SuSe and many of the things they did, I will never again advocate the use of any Novell products, nor any major distro/vendor that strikes such a deal.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
I wish the same amount of pressure was behind the US Electronic Voting machine systems to open their code.
Until then, what's the point of holding elections?
Enough said. The world will be a better place when they are gone.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
This guy has no credibility whatsover. He goes out and blows out a big stink, doesn't get his advertising hits, and then blames it all on the mysterious and evil forces of dark capitalism in order to cover his ass.
Seems to me you are a fully qualified cretin. MS shill?
The site does not have any advertisements. He did get his hits.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You get that too?
Sure, we're all guilty of some occasional borderline trolling, but I genuinely fail to understand the motivation of someone who ceaselessly downmods and harasses random slashdot users they decide they don't like.
Shit, I automatically +5 my foes'/freaks' comments.
It's the same with all the other open source shit. Kids with an itch to scratch and an ego to stroke just wank their keyboards in a pathetic attempt to save the world.
How many web servers use linux "open source shit"?
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
[blockquote]They were professional and courteous and reassured they would not attempt to violate my freedom of speech. But the underlying message was clear even if it was never stated explicitly and I was not in a position to start bucking my place of employment over a political cause.[/blockquote]
I sympathize with the guy, I really do, but in no way, shape, or form, was his freedom of speech violated, nor could they have violated even if they wanted to, even if they threatened (and followed through) with firing him. I'm getting a little sick and tired of people claiming to be the victim in what they consider "freedom of speech" issues. This is nothing of the kind.
[blockquote]Twice, for a brief 10 minute period I used a work machine to upload some files i had on a USB key to the site via FTP. Hardly enough to draw attention in a computer network littered with thousands upon thousands of computers.[/blockquote]
In other words, he used his employers computers to maintain his personal blog.
He then later says "I'm not making any accusations..."
Look, I agree with the guy, I sympathize with him, but even mentioning free speech issues and trying to brush off the fact that he used his company computers for maintaining his blog (I do it to!) is pretty annoying... that whole blog could have been 100% substance in two paragraphs.
On the important subject, I completely agree... MS is singling out Linux in this case, and if they actually put up, they'll have to explain why they're not enforcing their patents elsewhere. I know it works with trademarks - if you don't enforce it, you're liable to lose it. I don't know how it works with patents (if you're allowed to selectively enforce them).
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Thank you for putting up an explanation on what happened.
Thank you for trying to help the community.
Thank you for putting your ass on the line and going as far as you could before you were silenced.
I'm sorry you were put in such a position.
Keep up the good work, and keep your chin up.
It was brave to explain what happened, and it was the right choice you made.
The open source community is important, but keeping a roof over your head should always be your top priority.
If we knew what the patents were it wouldn't be FUD, it'd just be something to work around. Fear is power, remember that.
- I voted for Nintendo and against Bush
Here's a challenge for all Americans.
Compose a paragraph, consisting of two or more sentences which does not contain an obscure (or any) television reference, or a "catch phrase" of any sort.
Captcha: populate. Is it saying the answer is "not enough"?
Thanks for the link!
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Were I to rewrite parent in a less flamebaitish manner, I would say that it is difficult to feel sorry for a guy who 1) Works for a company that is a direct partner with MS 2) Publicly criticises MS, and 3) Is surprised when his employer is unhappy with his actions.
Now his employer's behavior may not be fair or right or legal, but it most certainly can be expected.
It is particularly disappointing because I, like the majority on this forum, agree with his goals. I'd like to take him seriously and support him, but it is difficult to do so when he seems completely clueless about how people are going to respond.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Seriously, jobs come along day after day... it's just a place to go and code or do whatever...
Stick with what you started, you did something cause you believed in it.
If your company can't do the research to figure out that you have done this with professionalism and heart than I just
wouldn't work there. It's not like you did it on works time... I really don't get what their issue is.
As if.. It's not like it hurts your resume..
I have a hard time finding any references to this guy's employer anywhere in his blog. So, what asshat translated the mere existence of this blog into "representing the company"? With respect to his need to pay the bills and all, maybe he should have stood up for himself.
Coderz 4 Life
TFA makes reference to the possibility that a certain author may have tipped off his company that he was hosting an "anti-Microsoft" website. I think this is unlikely. As he mentions himself, his website garnered a lot of attention not least of all on Slashdot. I think it is much more likely that Microsoft themselves contacted his employer. They must have known what was going on and this would be a relatively simple way to shut down the site. As his employer was a Microsoft partner, the result was predictable.
Which leads me to some advice. Aligning your profession with personal ideals is generally a good idea. But if you are planning on being any kind of activist at all, it's imperative. You can pretend all you want that it shouldn't matter what you do in your spare time. But when push comes to shove, your livelihood is a powerful piece of leverage in a political spat.
After 20 years in the proprietary software industry I'm finally waking up and smelling the coffee. As of Friday I'm retiring and going to work on something unrelated to computers. This will leave me unfettered to do the things I believe in in my spare time. It's funny, I've always valued freedom, but I've spent the majority of my career voluntarily chained to something I fundamentally disagree with. Life is strange...
The FSF has been roundly implying that the iPhone might contain GPLed software, and might violate the GPLv3.
Are they going to be held accountable for their coy accusations? Or are the FSF to be allowed to shamelessly impugn the underpinnings of other peoples' popular new products, for the sake of free publicity, without being told to "put up or shut up"?
The loss of free speech is not acceptable just because he took a break and used his work computer to upload something to the internet. There has to be a balance and if lawyers can weasel out of denying free speech based on a one time use of a computer for 20 minutes, then the system is utterly broken and should be bulldozed over.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
I work for a Microsoft partner, and I own and use a Macbook Pro - at work. I bought it because the company refused to replace my (very under-spec) company laptop when it died, and I wanted to run Unix, OS X, and Windows on the same machine at the same time. (Think universal debugging - I can use any browser on any platform simultaneously.) I took the machine to the IT head to have him clear it into the office, and he they expressed some concern over the non-removable camera, he and his manager came to the conclusion that it and I presented a very low leak risk. (I have worked for the company for almost a decade.)
The next day I was called into a surprise meeting with the CIO and the head of sales, and I was told to bring the Mac with me. We had a discussion revolving around my "unfortunate" choice of vendor. Someone had mentioned the machine to someone who told someone and so on until somehow our contact at Microsoft was involved. By the time it got to MS they were told the company had bought the machine for me, and several other employees, and wanted to buy an unspecified "apple server". Understandably he was concerned. He called our sales head and asked that the "situation" be "taken care of".
We determined that nothing of the sort had happened, that I had paid for the machine with my own money, that I was taking it with me at such time that my employment ended. All well and good. Then a few more conditions on my use of the machine came up:
1) I am to call it a laptop or PC. I cannot use the words "Apple", "Mac", or "Macintosh", not even with other employees.
2) When entering or leaving the building, or where customers might see it, I am to hold the logo side of the case against me so the logo cannot be seen.
3) If our area is being exhibited to customers/press or pictures are being taken, the computer is not allowed on the premises.
4) When on company property I must be running Windows. I cannot boot OS X unless absolutely necessary. (A fullscreen Parallels session, however, was deemed acceptable.) The OS X interface cannot be displayed.
5) When I leave the company, I have to submit the entire computer to a third-party security consultant who will check the machine to ensure I am not leaving with any company intellectual property. I must reimburse the company for the costs involved in this.
The company was TERRIFIED that Microsoft might somehow take some offense to ONE EMPLOYEE out of hundreds having a competing product, and was scared to the extent of considering disciplinary action against a senior employee.
THAT is power, kids.
Slashdotters on Mardi Gras?
while [ 1 ]; do echo -n -e "\xe2\x95\xb$((($RANDOM&1)+1))"; done
IMHO, Slashdot badly needs a way to metamod overrated, redundant, and other such downmods.
That and the mods need to learn the actual meaning of the word troll. But... I'll take babysteps.
You must be a student.
No, you might not have been in a position to start 'bucking your employment over a political cause' but it sure sounds like you were a victim of political oppression
I'm as anti-Microsoft as anybody (well, as most people). However, being anti-Microsoft is not a political affiliation. For some, it's personal. For some, it's business. For some, it's religious. For some, it's >= 2 of those. Some people are so pro-Microsoft they bleed blue when they cut themselves. But no matter where you fall on that spectrum, Microsoft is not a political party. It's a company. A big, anti-competitive company with a big patent portfolio, but a company nonetheless (the market leader with a big patent portfolio is always anti-competitive, though; some people here are doubtless familiar with the refrain "I BM, You BM, we all BM for IBM" and the word to the wise that "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." When IBM was the undisputed heavyweight champion of the computer business, they were at least as anti-competitive as Microsoft, and they invented FUD).
Now, if he were put under pressure for being a Republican, Democrat, Green, Libertarian, Communist, Nazi, or whatever, that would be political, and he might have a case (IANAL). However, the situation was that his employer was a direct partner of Microsoft and they felt that his running an anti-MS site cast them in a bad light with Microsoft. Did MS put pressure on them, that his site was problematic and it could have financial repercussions if he kept at it? We'll never know, but I'd be very surprised if they didn't. Does that suck? Yes. Is it fair? Maybe. Maybe not. If we look at things from management's point of view, they have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to make money, and are answerable to the board if they fail. If an employee's anti-MS site is going to make them fail to make money, or at least as much money, they are going to request that he make a choice between running the site or working there. They pretty much have to.
Now, I could probably run an anti-MS site and even if my employer were to become aware of it, I doubt that would be a problem. However, you never know how a site might snowball out of control and become a lightning rod, or where you might want to work in the future where it might be an issue. I have a family to support, and my obligation to my wife and kids outweighs any obligation that I may or may not have (just for the record, I have none), to publicly oppose Microsoft. But, I do other things. I have a Mac. I have an iPod, not a Zune. I run Linux and FreeBSD on several machines. My kids' computers are Linux boxes. I work for a Microsoft competitor. I subscribe to a couple of Linux magazines. If people ask me for computer advice, I steer them toward Mac or Linux, whichever I think might be best for them. And not just to be anti-MS, but because I consider the Mac platform to be better than Windows at pretty much everything, and the better Linux distros to be better than Windows at most things (and gaining ground all the time; it took about five years to grind out Vista; if they take five years to grind out the successor to Vista, will anyone still want it? Apple on one side and Linux on the other will eat their desktop lunch in those five years.
So, I think you should cut the showusthecode.com guy some slack. You're not walking in his shoes and don't have his obligations. Or if you do have his obligations and would put hatred of Microsoft ahead of your family, I think now would be a good time to reassess your priorities. He did what he could, which was to call attention to the issue, and later he voted with his feet and left that employer. If he's still not in a position to run that site and others have to pick up the torch now, I have nothing to criticize him for. He's done more than me, and I'd be very, very surprised if he hasn't done more than you. You sound like you're nothing but a mouth, without even the guts to post logged in.
How about you come up with a sentence that says something good about America.
North or South. Or did you mean the United States of America?
Money is the root of all evil?
I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
I think it becomes political when said company has enough power to influence governments, laws, international markets, and the majority of the developed world's population.
Perhaps you should have googled "dan lyons linux" before replying to him?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
You must be having some effect. I saw on the Australian satirical show The Chaser's War on Everything, they went around making fun of people's "joke T-shirts".
:p
One fellow they interviewed had a shirt which read, "Talk is cheap. Show me the code."
They didn't get it.
You cannot take him seriously because he misjudged something completely unrelated to the thing you actually want to support him for? Why? It's not as if he asks you to accept him as your Personal Company Politics Savior.
Jesus. Get a clue.
I noticed a few minor grammatical errors in his blog, but... I've seen 12 year olds with better grammar. It's no surprise to me that he couldn't get any sponsors, he's incapable of forming a proper sentence. His mom probably told him to stop generating so much attention or she's stop driving him to his job flipping burgers at the local BK. Hahaha. What?
how the fellow:
- used his employer's equipment for his personal project
- did not stand up to them when confronted with utter BS
- ended up working elsewhere anyway
Should have thought about whether or not he did indeed have the guts for it beforehand . . . that kind of reaction from the suits was to be ANTICIPATED.
SARAVA!
Here's why MS won't say which patent it is. We as Joe Shmoes have no money, but there are plenty of people that are plenty pissed off at MS that do, and for them, a long patent lawsuit would be a nice hobby.
So, let's Microsoft publicizes their 200 patents. A well heeled enemy finds that Microsoft's claim is weak on just ONE of them, and puts up some dope (aka, one of us), to challenge that claim. A feature is added to Linux, the dope (aka, one of us), puts up our web site, calling Microsoft on and saying the claim is BS, and then saying, jeez, this is your "strongest" patent (a lie), but one that basically tells Wall Street that Microsoft's patent portfolio is questionable, and so is the company. Therefor, Microsoft must sue.
The case goes on to trial, at which point, the future of Microsoft hangs in the balance of the sentiments of a judge. Now, under normal circumstances, Microsoft being a business, one would expect that they would get a fairer hearing in a court system packed with plenty of Reagan / Bush ^ 2 appointees. But, there's a lot of reasons that this doesn't happen.
1. Culture : Microsoft has a corporate culture of overriding arrogance, not the sort of downright evil midwestern or southern old boys network sensibilities of the GOP. In short, Microsoft is a monopoly that buys all of Al Gore's books, its just a total aberration and the people are just plain goofy, a culture clash with the right is inevitable, even if the commercial interests are the same.
2. It's More Profitable to Destroy Microsoft. Microsoft has won. They've saturated the market and are like a utility - no growth. Why not smash that company, and in the wake of one falling mighty empire, there's plenty of room for growth in rising competitors. I can't make much money off of MS stock, but I can make plenty of money out of rising profits in 5 or 6 nimble competitors arising out of the wreckage. You could quitely unload your MS stock, put it into say a few smaller players like, um, Novell or Red Hat, and make a mountain of money.
In short, Microsoft really is in a situation where, yes, they have everything to lose, and nothing to gain. And really, exactly which MS customer will remain an MS customer once Microsoft sues them for using a patent infringing product? Every data center on the planet will be switching to Linux as they retire old systems.
This is my sig.
"Right I forgot for a second, it's about MONEY - no one CARES about the patent really - it's just a means to an end, right?"
Patents have always been about money. What did you think they were for - bragging rights?
http://digitaltippingpoint.com/wiki/index.php?tit
Included on that list is none other than Eric S. Raymond, who has this to say: And this from someone who is supplying the Aussie Defence Forces with "patent infringing" software:
This might be a good thing to ask Mr. Beckerman if he's around.
In my one business law class, I seem to recall a series of cases describing something called a "De Minimis Fringe", whereupon an exployee uses a company resource, but the pure cost of that usage is so small that it results in laughable fianncial effect.
"Ten Minutes of time plus whatever CPU power plus electricity" is right in that category. (Some of the original cases dealt with machines like copiers & faxes.)
Everyone take a crisp look at your working lives. De Minimis Fringe effects exist because people DO have lives, and corporate management carried to absurdity eventually crosses the line of oppression. So we know that this guy DIDN'T get slammed for the "costs" of his minimal use; he got slammed because of the semi-fallacies of employmer endorsement blown to political extremes.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
...otherwise you're just a hypocrite!
The 'nineties' software business model is claimed to be outdated and the next thing you know this guy folds because he has to pay the bills. Loser!
My patent's bigger than yours.
No no no. Rules are rules (except for the last one, which is really stupid and can only be considered a financial punishment for the employee).
However, there's certainly no rule about bringing some fresh fruit to work, and mentioning it when talking to coworkers, and how beneficial they are for your health, and
Ah, this will be another example of America, land of freedom etc. The only difference between this and say China is that it's the corporates that force you to keep your mouth shut, not the government.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
Fucking obvious maybe, but redundant?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
that it isn't about protecting their patent from abuse or misuse (which is why they have nothing to lose telling the OSS comunity what they are) but about protecting their patent from being unable to be use to smear the competition (where they have nothing to lose by NOT telling the OSS comunity what they are).
The "MONEY" bit isn't about the money they would get from licensing their patents to the OSS crown (what you took it to be from context) it is about the MONEY they get from smearing their competition and stopping customers from buying from them and not MS.
In fact, if all you have are bogus patents, that is ALL the money you can get from them: threat of litigation extracting money. If it ever gets to litigation, the patent is proven worthless and both parties have lost money and the instigator has lost the patent too. So you will only see real litigation when the protagonist believes their patent worth enough to spend money litigating for it.
or get you another laptop/PC that they are OK with.
Point out to them that if you need three because you need to debug Unix/Windows/Mac products then that will be a cost to them they must bear in both hardware, space and inefficiency. Make sure to point out that working on ONE box is more effective than running on three separate systems so that they should expect a reduction in your productivity and you should not be dinged because you'd bypassed rules to increase the corporate bottom line (at your expense!).
When they get a consultant to look at your machine, ask to see their credentials so you can check up that they are safe to use (some of that data on your machine is yours) and require that you are there when they investigate your machine for work products. After all, you don't know if the company will commit industrial espionage against you, do you?
Treat your employer the same way they treat you. If they see you as a resource, see them as a source of cash. If they see you as a danger to their information, see them as a danger to your career. If they see you as a valuable asset, see them as a valuable employer.
We're even used as a case study on their web site described as a all microsoft platform solution. Funny thing, though - the only way any of our customers ever deployed our product could be considered "all microsoft" is if you overlook the fact the microsoft front ends are backed with linux servers running a non-microsoft database. Suggestions that they might want to correct that were not treated kindly.
So when M$ do not show examples of patented Linux code,
this means that it is less likely that there is such code.
It also means that if there is patented code, there is likely less of it.
Here is a proof that absence of evidence is evidence of absence:
http://oyhus.no/AbsenceOfEvidence.html
Kim0
You do not have free speech in your workplace. The First Amendment applies to Government restricting speech, not your employer. His mistake was using work machines to update his blog. I wouldn't fire someone for that, but I would have a talk with them about using company resources for personal political activities.
Keep work at work and everything else out of work.
you gotta be fucking kidding me? seriously?
Let's suppose Linux really infringes Microsoft patents. I'm not a Linux vendor, I'm just an user. Why would I be held liable for patent infrigement for something I have not made? It's just like Ford infringing some Toyota patent and then Toyota sues me for owning a Ford car. That's insane.
....to use it as a promotion of Linux.... That MS is not providing the evidence of their claim.
And it should be put in something like the NY Times...
So... what does that take? Money.
We just need someone or party of reputation to take it on.
Because patent law says so.
Huh, it's funny, I thought this was a site defending open source from an attack by Microsoft.
You, however, paint it as though this man was declaring war on Microsoft.
I wonder which one of us is more correct? The way you explain sure does make Microsoft look like the victim of an attack by this crazy rogue worker.
But didn't they openly claim that open source was violating many patents? Where's the 'anti-Microsoft' attack or even attitude when you request that they show you the code that open source violated?
My patent's bigger than yours.
Yes, but it's how you use it that matters.
No, because the world doesn't revolve around you.
And yeah, it IS a crackpot conspiracy theory - if you can't see that then you're too deep in your own little world and your persecution complex.
I recently had a similar, if lower profile, experience with my employer. Essentially Fortune 1000 companies are scared that something someone says might come across as upsetting to business relationships. As a result, they tend to be overly cautious in their response.
In my case, the corporate communications department was "concerned" that someone might interpret a future action to be offensive. Since the up side to my activities would benefit the department I work for, and the potential down side might negatively impact the corporate image and relationships, it was their opinion that I should cease and desist these activities.
Let me be clear. In my case I was using my work persona, and the project was clearly work related. I used my work email address, and mentioned my employer (in the disclaimer saying that I was representing myself and not my employer.) I had violated no company policies, and nothing that I had said or done actually crossed any lines. It was deemed to be risky, and I was directed to stop.
It troubled me that none of the parties in my situation had actually reviewed the content at all before declaring that the activities needed to stop. They also could not identify a policy which would have prohibited me from taking the action I took. It is what it is. Their stance is that anything in writing (like a blog) is potentially more damaging because it can be forwarded, easily taken out of context, etc. We all walk a fine line, and if we're identified as an agent of the corporation, we need to follow their rules.
I think that the use of the computer and internet connection for a few minutes of upload is irrelevant. Anyone here ever use the PHONE for a personal call? Of course you do. Internet access for personal use is no different.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
The Ravicher Study funded by OSRM actually undermines Microsoft's position. But Microsoft apologists cite it repeatedly because they know that most people won't take the time to see what the study actually said.
"A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
Its not the size of your patent that matters, its the number lawyers you have to protect it that matters.
seems to me, being an American hating communist is much better than being a fat, ignorant, misguided self-righteous, "my dollars are worth so much less compared to the euro", "I watch Fox News and think I am informed", "I really believe the war in Iraq is not about oil", laughingstock of the rest of the world American...
Chance favors the prepared mind...especially when you Question Authority
Well, "Show us the code" was put into a "put up or shut up" situation... and chose to shut up.
Guess they realized they didn't have a point.
Exactly. The only reason for my existence is to piss people off and make them think a little further than their limited minds normally allow. :) So I love it when I get the peanut gallery trying to modbomb and troll me as AC. It just makes it all the more worthwhile. :)
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
It appears that the voting process is going exactly the opposite way.. Republicans in power now may think this is a great idea, like the potential dictatorial congress suspending powers Bush has annoited himself with, but how will they like it when someone they dont like gets in power and uses it against them??
-taosk8r
I'm sure someone will mod this up as flame. I think it is an honest statement. The vast majority of OSS developers are honest developers, wide range of levels of skills, from someone learning how to code, to the best of the best, but mostly honest.
:).
That said, you won't find a corporate culture as cultish as some OSS developers. Some feel it is their mission in life to force their opinons on others. Case in point, I work in healthcare. My co-workers often trade code with other hospitals without management approval. They believe anything helpful should be shared. I agree, however our employer considers the code IP, and they sign our checks. I suspect a similar thing happened to the MS code, someone one a little too dedicated to the OSS movement, figured s/he would help out the community and donate some of MS's code, either to be nice, or because they wanted kudos for the brillant code they came up with in a couple days.(how much of that is to be found in MS source is anyone's guess
Probably not the project's fault, know one else probably knew the code was stolen. Still I think MS should fess up with the patient violations. Probably won't because it would be embarassing for them. 'You mean they have a patient on a button with an X on it that closes a window?' kind of thing. Probably a bunch of patiented code that is necessary for UI to function in the intuitive (for a MS dominated userbase anyways), way. I haven't heard in detail, is it the Linux kernel they are going against? All I've ever seen in the news has been MS threatens to sue do to Linux violating patients. That could be anything running on Linux not just the kernel.
Can anyone tell me why the open source community can't search Microsoft's patent portfolio to find these supposed infringements? I realize that there are a lot of MS patents, and thus it would require a lot of work to perform a complete search. But surely if the community can co-operate enough to develop high-quality software, then we can co-operate enough to perform a patent search. We've all heard "many eyes make all bugs shallow" - perhaps "many eyes make all patents shallow" is just as true.
Of course, to catch all of the possibilities, we might have to put on MS-tinted glasses and twist our thinking to see the way in which Linux (or some other software) actually infringes. That, and we might need a gargantuan suspension of disbelief with regards to the enforceability of the patents. Still, if it is possible for Microsoft to do such an analysis, why can't we do the same thing?
If my enemy's enemy is my friend, what happens if my enemy is his own worst enemy?
Our legal system isn't "lawyers always win", it's "lawyers ONLY win". Yet your analogy still stands. If infrastructure design was such that only engineers won in the end, that system would be just as broken as our legal system.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Slashdot put a lot of effort into blocking various kinds of 'crapflooding'; abuse against specific individuals would surely also be worthy of blocking or limiting.
Wikileaks, no DNS
what you did is commendable. impressive. david vs goliath. you craned your neck real hard and stood up for the worldwide community. just a suggestion: you should set up a paypal account. and those who wish to express their appreciation for you could make donations to help you pay your bills while you *get back* to your passion of inspiring people to join you with your movement.
wish you luck.