Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Slaps Its Most Valuable Professional
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Jun 05, 2007 10:47 PM
from the schizophrenic-is-one-word-for-it dept.
from the schizophrenic-is-one-word-for-it dept.
Violent Offender writes with a touching story in The Register about Microsoft's awarding of its Most Valuable Professional credential to a British hobbyist, Jamie Cansdale, then turning around and threatening him with a lawsuit for the very software that won him the award. The article links to the amazing correspondence from Microsoft on Cansdale's site.
This discussion has been archived.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.
DUPE (Score:5, Informative)
But Stay Tuned! (Score:5, Informative)
Tomorrow is special. It's the deadline M$ gave him to remove Express support.
Thanks for pointing to the old article. The Dan Fernande's letter [msdn.com] is priceless entertainment parodied in the following Power Point Slide:
Please Don't Help Express Users
by Dan Fernandez
Why do they try? There's no way for them to win this.
Let's see what happens next! Will they stop issuing Express, remotely disable it and then sue Jamie? Do they leave him alone and let it keep working with ... the appropriate apology? Ha!
Parent
Re:DUPE (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:DUPE (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:DUPE (Score:5, Insightful)
This time however, that is monopolized by discussions about grammar and the editors lack thereof.
So while this story has been posted twice, there has been no meaningful discussion of an interesting topic. So - do I blame the editors for grammar/dupe problems, or the community for failing to look past some minor annoyances and actually talk about what is going on here?
Parent
Re:DUPE (Score:5, Insightful)
I think Tags were revamped a while ago, and as a result the fun tags don't show up anymore.
Personally, I don't bother with them any longer. When you could tag something "fud", "yes", "no", "itsatrap", "omgponies", "09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0", etc it was a fun way to comment on a story (even if it is the epitome of groupthink). I thought the tags gave Slashdot users another interesting way to communicate, and to express the general sentiment of a story.
Sorry Taco, but Tags are boring and useless now. Bring back the old ones or do away with these.
Parent
Re:DUPE (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:DUPE (Score:5, Insightful)
Rather than build on that they decided to tweak the system (for understandable reasons) so it started working more as it was originally intended - as a way to tag/classify stories at a high level.
I thought it was always interesting/entertaining - it basically summarised the comments (which is why I read slashdot in the first place) in a way that made it easy to see what the general community feel for a story was. That's more useful to me than keywords in the story, personally.
Parent
Re:DUPE (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:my only complaint (Score:5, Insightful)
It could even get more sophisticated than that. You could say that you only want to see the tag "haha" if more than 30% of the users who tagged the story included "haha", or something like that.
Then, of course, it should be set up so that users could also filter stories based on tags (or any number of other things). Thus, you could filter out all stories tagged "microsoft", if you so desired, or all stories tagged "slashvertisement". Or perhaps most useful, filter out all stories tagged "dupe"...
Parent
Re:DUPE (Score:5, Insightful)
It is hardly a news flash that Slashdot does dupe stories, surly the editors are not so far up the Nile that they don't realise this. Taging dupes would seem to be a good way of dealing with this.
Parent
Re:DUPE (Score:5, Interesting)
Since an awful lot of slashdot users are too lazy to actually read the full article they would tag something as dupe just because it was on the same topic that was previously mentioned, even though the article that was linked to would often add something unique that had previously been unknown in the slashdot debate.
I this case the previous article was regarding the guys blog and this was regarding the registers coverage of the same article. Since I have not read this guys blog in its entirety I am unable to say whether the register article adds anything new.
I was however that the register article was posted here as it gave me a way of finding out the synopsis of the story without having trawl through what would have been a one sided account. People being threatened with legal action are rarely impartial about the people trying to drag them through the courts.
I think a better solution than removing the dupe tage though would have been to prevent people who do not click on any links contained in the text from posting a comment or any feedback. Afterall, what can you possible add to the discussion if you are too lazy to RTFA.
I know there are exceptions to this such as if you hover over the link and see if it is the same link you have previously read but how many people apart from me do this?
Parent
Microsoft-free Fridays (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
MS is on a roll... (Score:5, Funny)
What are the odds?
Re:MS is on a roll... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:MS is on a roll... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:MS is on a roll... (Score:5, Funny)
You must be new here.
No wait, you have a 5-digit UID. Wha?
Parent
Re:MS is on a roll... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:MS is on a roll... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Ballmer said it best... (Score:5, Insightful)
Developers, developers... lawsuit.
Mod me flamebait all you like (Score:5, Interesting)
But you know it's true. Read the article. The guy got an MVP and a cease and desist for the same freaking program.
Is making a joke that runs parallel to the truth flamebait? If so, what does that say about that truth?
Parent
Re:Mod me flamebait all you like (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Mod me flamebait all you like (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Ballmer said it best... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Just read up on all of it a few hours ago... (Score:5, Informative)
...apparently Jamie has until 4 PM tomorrow (the 6th) to respond to the lawyers or remove the offending application.
If you read through ALL the correspondence (a boring, lengthy exercise), you'll find out a few interesting facts:
The end result is that Jamie wants to fight it, but if he does, he's gonna lose in court. However, he is very very right in one aspect -- Microsoft deserves a black eye over this, and I don't blame Jamie for wanting to punch them in the face. I don't think Microsoft/Weber was particularly evil, but they were slightly rude and rather stupid. They would not answer Jamie's requests, over and over again. If they had just answered him plainly and clearly, this would have been solved a year ago.
Re:Just read up on all of it a few hours ago... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry - that's not clear to me at all.
I'm not particularly up there with UK contract law however. Perhaps you can explain to me exactly how he violated Microsoft's contract by using the published APIs?
Parent
Re:Just read up on all of it a few hours ago... (Score:5, Insightful)
For those not clear on the situation, the short of it is this. TestDriven.NET is an add-in for Visual Studio. Visual Studio Express has a "technical limitation" that ostensibly prevents the loading of add-ins (removal of the Add-In Manager, I believe). The EULA states that:
"...you may use the software only as expressly permitted in this agreement. In doing so you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways... You may not work around any technical limitations in the software."
Constructing an add-in that can be loaded by Express is presumably a violation of the EULA for Express, because you're working around the technical limitation (weak though it may be) in the software that blocks the loading of add-ins. Technically speaking, anyone who uses it with Express is also violating the EULA. The best argument, IMO (and IANAL), is going to be that disabling the Add-In Manager isn't really a technical limitation against the loading of add-ins, since they can be loaded programmatically. It's a technical limitation against end-users manually loading add-ins.
Parent
Re:Just read up on all of it a few hours ago... (Score:5, Interesting)
Apart from this, the legal status of EULAs is doubtsome in most of Europe. Some say the EULA is a contract. I ask, where is the signature ? Can I negotiate the contract with my local reseller ? The EULA is probably not valid in many countries. As local lawyers says hyere, as long as it is in english, and not our native language, then it for sure is not legal for individuals. Only companies are supposed to be bound by foreign language contracts (which an EULA might not be considered as).
Parent
Reverse engineering (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Missunderstanding ... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Just read up on all of it a few hours ago... (Score:5, Informative)
http://blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/archive/2007/06/01
Parent
Re:Just read up on all of it a few hours ago... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes and no. I can explain what I read, and why I believe that it will hold up in court. But I don't think you're asking for that. I think you feel that using public APIs should not be prevented or outlawed, and so you object to the entire concept. If I'm wrong about that, you can skip this paragraph and go to the ntext one. But if I'm right, all I can say is that's not an argument I can have with you, as I find it to be a boring one. MS has a contract, they've cited the passage he violates, and they'll sing it out loud in court. Whether we like that or not, it means MS will win in my book. So I don't really care to have a discussion about how ethical MS is, or whether they should be able to restrict a public API. The fact is, they do it, and seem to have a leg to stand on here. But by all means, have that discussion with other Slashdot readers. I'm sure it's one that many would like to have.
So with that disclaimer in place, here is what I read [asp.net]. Near the bottom of the first page of that scan, you'll see that they cite the part of the contract that has been violated. In particular, the contract states that you cannot circumvent the limitations they've put on the low-end product. One of the limitations is no plugins. That's explained elsewhere, but here in the letter from the lawyers we at least see now that they have a clause prohibiting end-runs around the crippled features of the low-end product. This is what Jamie asked for time and time again. No one would cite any clause that he violated. Finally, at last, someone did. Whatever I think about the merits of Microsoft's case, I will continue to think that they're jerks for taking a year to quote the relevant part of the contract.
Elsewhere, in another letter, they explain that they have the legal prohibition in the contract to cover cases exactly like this -- cases where they tried to block it technically, but someone found a loophole. So they use the contract as a way to say, "even if we screw up and left a way to do it technically, you still can't do it contractually." We may or may not think they should be allowed to get away with that, but again, that's where I get bored and drop out of the conversation.
Parent
Re:Just read up on all of it a few hours ago... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's also my understanding that in Europe, APIs cannot be protected by copyright. There have been cases in Europe of one company suing another over API infringement, but the only ones I can think of are ones where the plaintiff lost.
Third, under British common law, the "reasonable man" defense is valid and does get used.
Having said that, inviting a lawsuit is stupid in the extreme. Particularly when your opponent has vastly more money than you and vastly more political clout than you. (Consider how many in the legal profession use Microsoft products. Now consider the impact of the proverbial "accident". Alternatively, consider the potential for performance bonuses to lawyers who choose the "right" side.) Even if it gets to the House of Lords - a possibility if there's serious money involved - you're dealing from a pack that is entirely comprised of wildcards. Law Lords have far greater independence than the US Supreme Court but also far less legal experience and have a range in IQs that map nicely onto a signed byte. It may even go on to the European Court of Human Rights, which is a whole other random number generator. Just because the main EU courts hate Microsoft's guts doesn't mean the ECHR will. They might do the reverse, precisely because of all the other rulings. You just can't tell.
So, you've a series of three, maybe four, totally random systems making legal decisions based on a type of contract whose existence is uncertain and whose non-existence may in fact create exactly the same offense by a different route, and where the lawyers and judges (and any potential jury) are almost guaranteed to be sufficiently ignorant of nomenclature that the issues will be utterly incomprehensible to any of them.
Legal aid is great for cutting court costs, but it doesn't supply the defendant with magic pixie dust or psychic reprogramming skills.
I'd argue that APIs should be enshrined in International Law as exempt from all IP regulations. An API is not a product - protect the product all you like, but the API is merely how two distinct products communicate and is not intrinsic to either one of them. Otherwise identical products can have any number of interfaces. Happens all the time.
However, and this is the important bit, my argument isn't worth an electron's nosebleed. What those random courts decide is the only thing that matters and those random courts are most likely to be persuaded by the better lawyers - which Microsoft will probably have/buy/steal/pwn. What's more, what those courts decide will determine (to a great extent) what all future courts in the UK will decide. Screwing this up doesn't affect one person, it affects the full sixty million. Backing off is cheap for one person, but losing will cost far too much for far too many. Pick your battles.
Parent
Re:Just read up on all of it a few hours ago... (Score:5, Interesting)
As the other replies state, the clause (in the Express EULA) is: 'may not work around technical limitations of the software'. Microsoft are assuming:
Alternatively, perhaps Microsoft think his original alleged violation of the license (during development) somehow disqualified him from distributing a VS.NET plugin - this would probably require proving the plugin is a derived work as Microsoft would have no authority over its distribution otherwise. I can't see them doing this as I would think it would have serious repercussions for their other customers.
Personally, I think this clause is overly broad and Microsoft's action on it is quite worrying. If they win here, basically all they need to do is claim that something you've written is 'working around a technical limitation' and they can control your product distribution. Let's not forget that the MSTest functionality in the pricey VS 2005 Team Edition is effectively in competition with Jamie's TestDriven.NET.
Parent
Re:They're idiots... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the same company who released the Zune, which doesn't play playsfornotsure. Media player 11 which doesn't support Zune. IE7 which fixed few real IE bugs but instead added chrome like tabs and phishing filters. Vista which is un-compelling enough to ensure most people will be on XP until developers stop writing software for it. Need I go on? Microsoft isn't evil like many think. They just suck. Totally clueless.
Parent
It's the M$ way, or the highway (Score:5, Interesting)
So even if he isn't breaking any policies, maybe he should play nice?
Personally I have a strong feeling that compilers in general should be free. I don't mean to get all Mac-Fanboi here (I come from a Linux background), but that's one thing Apple does very nicely. XCode is a very nice development suite that is entirely free (beer, of course).
The reasons for my belief? Well, when I was growing up I didn't have money to buy expensive (or any, for that matter) compilers. I had no choice but to steal a copy of BC++ 3.1 (and TP 6.0). It's true that the DJGPP compiler did exist, but using it and getting a decent editor at that age was difficult (and I had no interweb connection then). I'd probably still not know how to program if I hadn't stolen the compilers.
Which is to say, I think it's important for the ecosystem to have free compilers. It's good that M$ finally agrees with this. It's stupid that they want to put stupid restrictions on it. But given that, I guess it's their product, and they get to decide. And nowadays it's not like there aren't other systems/compilers out there. If M$ wants to ruin their ecosystem, then let them.
internets (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly why I love linux (Score:5, Insightful)
programming on a windows box is like programming with one hand tied behind your back. Nothing but artificial barriers to getting things done. I sure don't miss the days when I had to program on windows.
Developers developers developers developers dev... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's pretty silly to have a free, "watered down" IDE/compiler for their product, and a paid-for Pro version in the first place. They only benefit by making world class development free for everyone. The money that they make on IDE licenses must be pretty marginal to the amount of Windows licenses they sell through strong third-party dev support.
It's even worse to have a pissing match with someone that made one of their products better, and was recognized by Microsoft for doing so.
I hope student developers everywhere take note.
Chilling effect (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that this could in principle happen to anyone extending MS software, this ought to be a chilling effect on use of MS APIs without a $10,000 annual partnership license. That sets a pretty high bar to participation. Let's say MS developers fall into four categories:
a. Smart and a partner. These will continue to contribute. They always did. (If you accept that they're not an oxymoron.)
b. Smart and not a partner. These will stop contributing because of the legal risk.
c. Dumb and a partner. These will continue contributing, but their contributions will be worthless.
d. Dumb and not a partner. These poor saps will continue contributing, because they're too stupid to realise they're in the gun.
All I can say is that if you screw with the bull, you get the horns. This developer would have had no problems if he'd been working in free software. That's the real lesson.
L
Notes from an MS apologist (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Weber was way, way out of line.
3. Weber should be dismissed.
4. This incident has made me doublethink our decision of going to ASP.NET for in-house app development.
5. Yet another reason not to get locked into proprietary software.
Sheesh.. that dev pushes the friggin' envelope..! (Score:5, Interesting)
Whew.
Yes, I've read the entire exchange. And honestly it looks a lot like the dev is being a dick about it.
Here is how you really poke them with a stick (Score:5, Interesting)
The other side of the story (Score:5, Informative)
This gives MS's side of the story, including the two-year history of this issue:
http://blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/archive/2007/05/31
This follow-up blog entry gives technical details on the hacking required to get TestDriven.NET to run in VS Express:
http://blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/archive/2007/06/01
You might want to weigh both sides of the story before choosing one side or the other.
Go open source, my friend (Score:5, Insightful)
First, be open source if you want to be truly principled in all of this. Just walk away - clearly you don't like the way Microsoft operates. Have some sympathy for people in M$ who spent one helluva long time trying to avoid bringing lawyers into the mix, tell them you think their business stinks, and walk away (and get the story out there on the web).
Or, work in the spirit of Microsoft's business model. It's what a decent business person does. It seems that far from being a hobbyist you are in fact selling this tool on your website. If you want to make money out of the Microsoft ecosystem, and they're willing to invest something like a year in explaining their point of view, don't get the lawyers involved. Work with them, respect their intent.
Trying to paint M$ as the bad guys here is wrong - if things are bad, they're bad on both sides. So the license wasn't clear, but M$ spent a lot of time explaining their point of view. But no, this guy Jamie wants to get his lawyer involved. He wants to force a guy running a development team to talk about law, not about the spirit of what they're trying to achieve. That's bullshit. Jamie never discloses the content of the conference calls, he just sticks to his "let's talk legal specifics" - and then bitches when M$ does indeed come at him with lawyers.
He might be making the mistake of many programmers, of course, who think that the law operates like code. Well, just like all code has bugs, so do all legal arrangements. And when you force things to go legal instead of having principles, you might just find that the justice system allows a bug fix to be applied before it comes to a legal conclusion. For example, the courts may find that the intent of the Express edition is clear, and that in the course of a year's worth of dialogue between the two parties any confusion was clearly resolved. They might agree with Microsoft's lawyers that Jamie's own offering of different commercial editions of the TestDriven product indicates a good understanding of Microsoft's commercial model. They might express sympathy for M$'s efforts to get a free version out for hobbyists, and forgive them for not having a 100% airtight technical and legal solution to prevent it from being extended. After all, it seems reasonable to expect that people can act in accordance to the spirit of an arrangement, without needing otherwise pointless effort being spent on perfectly restrictive measures, doesn't it?
The courts may therefore conclude that although Jamie has not committed such a blatant breach of contract that M$ can claim damages, he has violated the clear intent of the Express edition and must therefore restrain from offering TestDriven for Visual Studio Express.
Work to open source principles, work to business principles - both of those I can understand. Work to a principle something like, "it's your fault if I can get *my* lawyer to prove that *your* lawyers didn't put a sufficiently airtight contract in place", and you're just another weasel making the world a worse place for everyone.
Colour me not surprised. (Score:5, Insightful)
<rant>
So you develop components for closed software with proprietary languages on commercial operating systems, and you're surprised when the powers that be want to control what your components do?
If you lock yourself to a vendor, and that vendor acts against your interests, you're screwed. If the vendor acts against its own interests, as is the case here, you may also get screwed. By locking yourself to that vendor, you've locked yourself to their decisions, as misguided as they may be.
It's obvious that control is more valuable to Microsoft than the developers who work with its systems. Tough. Either deal with it, or get out.
</rant>
Apologies for ranting, but although I understand that some people must develop on the MS platform, I simply cannot understand those who choose to voluntarily. The rant is directed at the latter.
It is his own fault. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you try this with closed source software of an international quasi-monopolistic mega-corporation you should not be surprised if you get slapped should you do something they do not like or is against their rules.
We are used to much nastier stuff from MS than just threatening or ruining a single little programmer.
Re:Ironic, but MS is right (Score:5, Interesting)
One of my co workers was trying to get Microsoft licensing to explain how those wonderful bundled packages (those OEM with 5 cals everybody sells) that come with machine tools/hardware would work with our existing Microsoft license (it was standard versus enterprise and unlocked versus cals... and how does a machine with a server and SQL get licensed.. to the OEM or to the company? and who's rules control CALs) and the Microsoft guy would not actually point to a license line and say how it should work. He finally got the guy to email "something" solid as to the minimum licenses we needed to buy to use the software one of Microsoft's resellers sold us and stay legal. They're trained to point to the website.. but the EULA states the website can always change...so they won't actually quote it. great answer!!!
Microsoft is trying to rewrite the license to what they WANT it to say without actually posting that it needed to be changed. If you were to check the version right now, you'd surely find the hole closed. But Microsoft keeps no version control of back versions so you can state on date x I was allowed to do this... they only deal with one right now, in the vein of Orwell and rewriting "history" as needed for the lawyers. Microsoft doesn't like the program, but knows they don't have an actual case. They're arguing the rules, without actually showing the rules.. then arguing the only way he could write the software is to break the rules they won't tell him. They're trying to force him to prove a double negative and he didn't take the bait.
Parent
Re:The guy is violating the license (Score:5, Interesting)
What were the violation(s)?
I have no clue what happened in the conference calls, nor do I for the legal decision.. But there is no way that I could consider MS' actions in this case defensible from the e-mails. He asked, they didn't answer.. he put out an olive branch, they responded with the stick... he removed the material, they tried to rub it in and poke him in the eye.
Parent
Perspectives (Score:5, Insightful)
What's interesting is your fond recollection, that trolltalk was noble and glorious council, that the sublime art of trolling was a magnificent contribution to Slashdot and Internet culture. To everyone else here, the trolls - regardless of education or social standing or media visibility - were a bunch of asshat punks dead set on ruining a good thing for everyone.
You laughed at the PWP hacks. We sighed at the interesting stories that were made unreadable.
You liked all the homosexual rape serials. We learned not to read anything more than a couple of paragraphs long.
You waxed nostalgic about goatse. We cringed and trained ourselves not to click links.
I'm sure that somewhere out there, a couple of guys are kicking back and talking about the time they lit a cat on fine - you know, the good old days. To the rest of the world, they're not a couple of new-millenium James Deans. They're just a couple of sociopathic misfits that don't care what they ruin for their own entertainment. Well, enjoy your happy memories of those halcyon days, but don't be surprised that no one outside your clique has the same take on events.
Slashdot is older and more mature and a little more boring these days. And to be honest, that's just fine.
Parent