Slashdot Log In
Mr. Ballmer, Show Us the Code
Posted by
kdawson
on Sat Feb 24, 2007 07:56 PM
from the open-letter dept.
from the open-letter dept.
DigDuality writes "A new campaign, Showusthecode.com, requests every leader in the Linux world, and companies invested in Linux, to stand up and demand that Steve Ballmer show the world where Linux violates Microsoft's intellectual property. He has been making these claims since the Novell-Microsoft deal. If Microsoft answers this challenge — by May 1st — then Linux developers will be able to modify the code so that it remains 'free' software. If such infringing code doesn't exist, we will have called Microsoft's bluff. And if the campaign garners enough attention and if Steve Ballmer maintains silence, then the community and companies behind Linux can take the silence for the admission that it is."
Related Stories
[+]
Linux: Ballmer Says Linux "Infringes Our Intellectual Property" 820 comments
Stony Stevenson writes "In comments confirming the open-source community's suspicions, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer Thursday declared his belief that the Linux operating system infringes on Microsoft's intellectual property." From the ComputerWorld article: "In a question-and-answer session after his keynote speech at the Professional Association for SQL Server (PASS) conference in Seattle, Ballmer said Microsoft was motivated to sign a deal with SUSE Linux distributor Novell earlier this month because Linux 'uses our intellectual property' and Microsoft wanted to 'get the appropriate economic return for our shareholders from our innovation.'" His exact wording is available at the Seattle Intelligencer, which has a transcript of the interview. Groklaw had an article up Wednesday giving some perspective on the Novell/Microsoft deal. Guess we'll have something to talk about in 2007, huh?
[+]
"Show Us the Code" Breaks Its Silence 180 comments
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."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
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!
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.
Parent
Re:Good Odds. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Good Odds. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:I like those odds..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:I like those odds..... (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
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).
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Of course he's not going to show you the code (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Of course he's not going to show you the code (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
SCO all over again (Score:3, Insightful)
And may I be the first to say... (Score:3, Funny)
(okay, probably not the first
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."
Parent
Re:Sorry guys... (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, Microsoft's CEO looks real Professional.
Parent
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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: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.
Parent
Cease And Desist (Score:5, Insightful)
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...)
Parent
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.
Why do they even need the code? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why do they even need the code? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
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)
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?
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)
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.
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)
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.
IBM (Score:5, Insightful)