Mr. Ballmer, Show Us the Code 462
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."
I like those odds..... (Score:5, Funny)
A group with an idea and a web site in the other:
I like their spirit, but my best advice would be......RUN Bitches!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
is Microsoft so powerful? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [com.com]. Microsoft loses Excel patent case [theregister.co.uk]. Microsoft even settled a lawsuit with Novell, Microsoft to pay Novell $536 million settlement [com.com]. So MS does loose some la
Good Odds. (Score:5, Insightful)
my best advice would be......RUN Bitches!
It's nice to know what corner you are in but your reasons for being there are flawed, as is your entire analogy. You can't expect to be protected by a bully, no matter how strong they might appear. Sooner or later, they will make you pay for your mistaken and mean spirited loyalty.
The problem with all of the FUD is that it's becoming increasingly evident that M$ 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 [slashdot.org], partners [slashdot.org] and investors [google.com] alike. It's about time.
Re:Good Odds. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good Odds. (Score:5, Informative)
ugh, more stupid fud (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:I like those odds..... (Score:4, Insightful)
Any public accusations made against them will be met with suits, and discovery requests that would choke a maggot.
Reality suggests there wont be a lot of public support for this effort or its logical expressed outcome, but I wish them luck.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You underestimate how much resentment the normal computer user has for Microsoft now. The support for the freedom fighters will not be loud but it will be massive.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting. Because it seems to me that any free market enthusiast worth his salt ought to be supporting Linux. Can't compete with zero price? Tough shit, that's just the way the market works. Can't write a better OS than a bunch of amateur enthusiasts? Well then you've got no business being in the market. Survival of the fittest, baby!
I think we may have been pitching this on the wrong level in cert
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The burden would be on MS to show that they came up with the code first. Unless they have some clear evidence, it is going to be their word vs. Linus', and it is not going to go anywhere. Nah, the only viable attack vector is the patent law.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft: "You stole our code, pay up"
Linux Fanboys: "Prove it or shut up and go sit in the corner"
Re:I like those odds..... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think Microsoft would try this to win any kind of legal action against Linux, (especially as a lot of people are watching the code), but I wouldn't put it past someone trying this kind of stunt from other companies with some open source software. Sadly it seems with corrupt human thinking, anything is possible in the pursuit of their goals, especially where that goal is money and/or power.
Its like the old saying
The interesting thing is most humans are not like this (most people have empathy and ethics) but there are enough bad ones who are like this, to make everyone suspicious of the actions of others.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's like selling guns to the side you like
Re:I like those odds..... (Score:5, Insightful)
The lines of the linux kernel source have been moved about in plain sight like chesspieces these many years.
Unlikely that you could readily integrate any of the cruft-tastic 'Doze code with the linux kernel if you tried.
If the claim wasn't so diabolical, it could nearly approach comic.
Re:I like those odds..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I like those odds..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Insightful. Microsoft holds all manner of weird patents, like "a user-interface entity that changes colors upon modification to indicate modified state" or somesuch. Thus if Linux incoprorates said, it violates patent, res ipso loquitor.
The reason that Microsoft doesn't just start litigating is that it'll start a nuclear war among all the major players in the industry, since they all hold patents on stuff that is obvious, has prior art, and everyone already uses. The long game for MS is to separate Linux from her big corporate sponsors, read IBM, so that suing linux become like nuking Eniweitok, as opposed to Pyongyang.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That should be "res ipsa loquitur". Classic quotes can be classy, but only if you spell them right. Two mistakes in three words does not inspire confidence.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And given the response to the SCO business and the attention being paid to where code comes from, if some MS shill did in fact contribute code which violated an MS patent to a Free Software proje
Re:I like those odds..... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I like those odds..... (Score:4, Interesting)
I work on the evolution of languages (shameless plug [auckland.ac.nz]), and I know that it's quite possible to get the same words meaning the same thing, just due to change. For example "mata" means "eye" in both Greek and Maori, but there's just no chance that these languages are related anytime within the last, say, 20 thousand years, and this is just an outcome of plain old chance.
My question - how likely and to what degree is this sort of convergent evolution of code between two separate programs? Keeping in mind that there's a whole lot of functional constraints, i.e. both operating systems have to manage RAM somehow, or both have to manipulate graphics in some way, there are common good coding practices, there are common language idioms, etc.
So - how easy would it be, for Ballmer to find a chance similarity between linux and vista, and how would you distinguish between this and real similarity? (homoplasy vs. homology for you evolutionary biologists out there).
Re:I like those odds..... (Score:4, Informative)
Impossible to say, really, but I would guess that the SCO unix code would be a lot more similar to linux than windows, and they weren't able to find anything (should I say 'yet?'). So I find it unlikely that they will find anything in the windows source code, which is much different.
Re:I like those odds..... (Score:4, Insightful)
The list goes on and on: not only do they pull stunts this stupid, they get caught at it again and again. Getting busted is just a part of doing business for them.
Of course he's not going to show you the code (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This website can stand for a means to do this. But lets take a look at this issue more specifically, there can not be a single line of Linux code stolen from Microsoft, a) MS is closed source b) Linux has its own development methods and processes applied, so all sudden the most smartest bunch of hackers in world scheme is magical assault to circumve
Re:Of course he's not going to show you the code (Score:5, Insightful)
Based on what evidence? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 p
Re: (Score:3)
What keeps companies from Eolas out of suing Linux vendors is there's no money. Microsoft's goal is to keep people from using Linux. They don't care about the laptop I'm using right now, but about Ford or the US Navy deciding that Linux would be better than Windows for their desktop needs. If they were to actually sue someone, it would be a distro. Since their primary concern isn't money, Ubuntu would be a fine target, although RedHat would be a better target. They have plenty of patents to choose from
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue is about SMB and implementing it, and that includes for example, the authentication algorithm used and so forth; there are big changes in the SMB implementation in Vista which will require changes to Samba.
Microsoft is quite entitled to develop a new authetication scheme and patent it; if you want someone to blame for the patent frezzy, blame your government of the US of A.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think libel suits are very unlikely - the libel here is debatable, and going up against Ballmer's lawyers for such a reason is probably a waste of resources. Ye
SCO all over again (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, co
And may I be the first to say... (Score:3, Funny)
(okay, probably not the first
And may I be the first to say... (Score:2)
It's pointless for Microsoft to reply (Score:5, Insightful)
General Public... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, but if enough companies sue M$ and Ballmer personally, it will make headlines. Enough of the bullshit and blackmail. Put up or sit down.
(obviously NAL)
Sorry guys... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sorry guys... (Score:5, Funny)
I stopped at the
which, unfortunately, was the very first sentence.
If I was Balmer, I'd be thinking, "WTF? I run a billion dollar corporation and I'm supposed to read and respond to this? This is even worth picking up a small stool."
Re: (Score:2)
I think you meant "This isn't even worth picking up a small stool."
Pot? Kettle. But then you aren't trying to take on Microsoft with your comment, so it doesn't much matter
Re:Sorry guys... (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, Microsoft's CEO looks real Professional.
Re: (Score:2)
The pointless linking to the YouTube videos don't really help the cause either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sorry guys... (Score:4, Insightful)
No kidding. The writing is so bad it actually hurts to read it. The grammar is horrible, it's filled with sentence fragments, it's poorly worded, it's hard to understand, and it's filled with flamebait. Does this guy really expect people to take him seriously?
Microsoft is full of shit about their IP being in Linux, but poorly written flamebait isn't the best way to call their bluff.
Brave! (Score:4, Insightful)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Brave! (Score:5, Informative)
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 [eweek.com] that the original study [eweek.com] (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.
Cease And Desist (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
OK, here's an example (Score:5, Informative)
Patent #5845280 [uspto.gov], "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() [die.net] API.
Yep, that's a patent violation.
Re:OK, here's an example (Score:5, Informative)
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 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...)
Good idea, bad implentation (?) (Score:2, Interesting)
Even if (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, that's assuming Linux DOES violate Microsoft patents, and there is reason to believe that it does. [slashdot.org] Microsoft is planning a slow roast; the longer they can draw out the FUD the better, for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And sitting on a known case of infringement until such time as it's more profitable or tactically advantageous to sue is covered by the laches doctrine; if Microsoft tries that, and it can be shown in court that they tried it, then they'll lose the case.
Why do they even need the code? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why do they even need the code? (Score:5, Informative)
Very professional (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Give us all a break (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Ummm, yeah. (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
If Microsoft is smart ... (Score:5, Insightful)
MSFT compelled to complain (Score:2)
They will neither (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
They're REQUIRED to... (Score:3, Interesting)
about infringement without proof is a Lanham Act violation, as SCOX is about to find out.
Chairs were just the beginning (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, remember the knock knock bannana orange joke ?
This joke works on the same idea.
Had I joked about a chair, it would've been redundant.
However, I only refered to the chair as a premise in the title.
The meat & potatoes which is the actual comm
Good idea bad implementation... (Score:5, Interesting)
Ideas people?
Silence != admission (Score:3, Insightful)
Um... except that the law doesn't work that way. Silence != admission of anything. Good luck in court, fellas.
Silence == Approval, and possibly Fear (Score:2)
This is so dumb. It's a patent issue. (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
It's not code, it's methods... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Convicted monopoly says what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry for this stupid question... (Score:2)
What are the patents that Microsoft are claiming to be infringed by Linux (I think this is different than "Show us the code")?
Naive (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Naive. Only a lawsuit will fix this. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
These guys have totally lost the plot (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ummm.
No.
All they have to say is "Linux performs task X and task X is covered by our patents P1, P2 and P3.
No code needs to be provided to make such a claim, this is the difference between a so-called patent and a copyright violation.
The website does mentioned patent (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, this is wrong.
If this were true, then it would be impossible to accuse a closed source company of a patent violation because you can't have access to their source code.
The fact is you don't need to "show code" to make a patent violation claim.
What they should be asking is "Ballmer, you cock smoking scumbag, tell us which Linux features infringe on which of your patents or shut the he
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You obviously don't understand how patents work.
Patents are for ideas or methods and not the implementation of said ideas. To make a patent claim, you don't have to "show" any fucking code, all you need to do is say, "hey, that was our idea!"
This is why software patents are such a goddam bad idea.
You can't "rewrite code" to over
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Good greif, they only have to pick on one tiny piece of functionality, we are not talking about being in dispute over the over-arching architecture of the OS here.
"In order to have a valid patent infringement claim on Linux, Microsoft have to show how they applied for a valid patent,"
Would take about 1 hour of a paralegals time to find the relevant file cabinet.
"how the patent application described a new idea of Microsoft's,
That is, in fact, what the p
IBM (Score:5, Insightful)
The more interesting question is .... (Score:3, Interesting)
Slander of Title? (Score:3, Interesting)
M$ is in a tough spot (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Millons of Lines of Code (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"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 th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)