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."
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
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
True to an extent. However, consider: should Microsoft, at some stage in the future, take the patent infringement to court, the judge is liable to say, "You knew that this software infringed. You did nothing to enforce your patent. Why is this?"
Selective enforcement is perfectly possible when it comes to patents - they aren't "use it or lose it" in the way that trademarks are. However, if you are aware that somebody is infringing on your patent, and you do not take reasonable steps (either to collect royalties, or to stop the infringement), a subsequent lawsuit against that particular party will be prejudiced as a result.
(How appropriate - the captcha is "lawful".)
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
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...
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.
Instead of bashing someone with a great idea but short on resources (planning, execution, time, luck,.. ) is there no one here who wants to stick out his neck and continue the bet?
I mean come on! Here's a brilliant opportunity and what do you all do? You dump on the guy that brings it along.
Come on kids, let's throw in some weight here..
With great power comes great electricity bills.
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.