"Show Us the Code" Breaks Its Silence 180
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."
Of course MS won't own up (Score:2, Insightful)
What gets me.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Voting Machines? (Score:3, Insightful)
Until then, what's the point of holding elections?
Re:What gets me.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Pussy.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems to me you are a fully qualified cretin. MS shill?
The site does not have any advertisements. He did get his hits.
Re:What gets me.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Again, given the possibility of legal repercussions that affect every Linux distro and user, I think Novell should have consulted the Linux Foundation and EFF to consider all legal options first.
However, an easy and profitable solution presented it, and I believe they rushed to judgment.
Re:Open Source Has Jumped The Shark (Score:3, Insightful)
How many web servers use linux "open source shit"?
Re:What gets me.. (Score:3, Insightful)
I beg to differ:
They have EVERYTHING to gain - open source coders will alter their code so that it no longer violates MS patents.
They have NOTHING to lose - releasing a list won't cost them anything - presumably they already HAVE it.
Oh oh I SEE WHAT YOU MEAN - you mean they will lose potential "damages" from a "lawsuit"? 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?
Thanks for that (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Pussy.... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
And what about the FSF's FUD machine? (Score:1, Insightful)
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"?
Re:What gets me.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I can imagine it now...
MSFT Lawyer: We have this list of patents you're violating. All your base are belong to us...
Linus: I asked for the list when you made it five years ago. You wouldn't give it to me. How am I supposed to proceed?
Judge: MSFT, F*ck off.
Re:Keep paying bills (Score:5, Insightful)
As for those that'll accuse me of advertising and attempting to get attention. Find me one advertisement on that site. That site cost me money and i didn't advertise a damned thing.
As to my job versus what I enjoy software wise, lets get real here. This is the real world. I'm not 30. I don't write for the linux kernel. I'm not management. I'm also not a kid. I have real world bills, i live in an area where finding a job in open source is next to impossible and i go where the money goes. If i happen across a position that aligns with my passions (which i actively strive for) then all the better. But until then there's rent and car payment and electric bills, and insurance, and gas and pets to feed and a relationship i value. I put things in perspective and i'm not such a strong idealist that i'm going to destroy me life. I'm not a member of PETA and i have a bit of common sense in this regard.
Re:Failure Point (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Keep paying bills (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Failure Point (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Keep paying bills (Score:5, Insightful)
Never mind the people who complain about what you didn't do.
They don't do much of anything. You did something and that's commendable.
Re:Failure Point (Score:5, Insightful)
T-Shirts? (Score:3, Insightful)
One fellow they interviewed had a shirt which read, "Talk is cheap. Show me the code."
They didn't get it.
Of course (Score:3, Insightful)
Patents have always been about money. What did you think they were for - bragging rights?
Re:This Behavior is Dirt-Common (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:This Behavior is Dirt-Common (Score:4, Insightful)
ROFLMAO!
Do they ask you to submit the computer to a third party security consultant every day you leave the office? Or just that last time when you've already sanitised the machine by loading Mac OS X onto it fresh? And conveniently hidden your 2GB thumb drive with the Death Star plans in the crevice of some robot's carapace?
You will, of course, be taking steps to blatantly and flagrantly violate these stupid rules, won't you? If it was a company laptop they wouldn't have all these nasty Microsoft bogeymen terrifying them in their sleep...
Re: De Minimis Fringe Benefits being ignored? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:This Behavior is Dirt-Common (Score:2, Insightful)
I've worked for various companies as a Microsoft Partner for over 10 years, and this just doesn't ring true. I think many MS haters like to believe this type of fiction. Every MS Partner company I've been a part of or even visited has had Macs. Hell, I've been to various Microsoft facilities in the US, including the Redmond campus, and outside of the US and seen Macs. Microsoft doesn't care about unimportant things like this, they realize that MS Partners absolutely have to support multiple platforms, and that certain user communities like designers, multimedia, and audio production, are dominated by Mac users.
IF this is true, I believe it is much more likely that he ruffled some feathers at his company by:
1) purchasing his own laptop and expecting to use it for company purposes
2) going against his companies approved hardware policy
3) showing up one day with said computer and using it without prior permission
Many companies are very tight with their hardware/software policies. Approved platforms help limit IT support issues, reduce required spare parts, increase buying power with vendors, and help with software license compliance.
Words of advice: next time you want to outcool your fellow employees by getting a new laptop for work, get your boss to approve it first. Oh, and don't blame Microsoft when you don't know how to handle office politics.
Re:This Behavior is Dirt-Common (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't believe this situation even arose.
Re:Keep paying bills (Score:1, Insightful)
Er, judging from your current state of homelessness, I guess they were that important, and no one else paid them.
I love profit just as much as the next guy. Problem was that I wasn't getting enough of it
Greedy much? Or are you confusing profit with money in general? Not getting enough money I can understand, but not getting enough profit just sounds like avarice.
Open Source Patent Searching (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Re:stolen code not suprised (Score:2, Insightful)
I doubt the problem is actual copied code. If that were the case, this would be a copyright issue, and not a patent issue.
As far as what projects Microsoft is threatening, it is more than just the kernel. It also includes the GUIs, openoffice.org, email, and others. This quote, from CNN Money [cnn.com], has a breakdown: