Mr. Ballmer, Show Us the Code

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.....

[LibertineR]

Billions and billions of dollars and an army of lawyers in one corner:

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:

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

is Microsoft so powerful?

[falconwolf]

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.

[twitter]

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.

[SirTalon42]

$1,500,000,000.00 is NOT chump change to Microsoft. Thats BILLION, not million. That will seriously hurt Microsoft's bottom line. Microsoft's profit for the last 12 months was $36.63 billion. Losing over 4% of their gross profit from a SINGLE cause would seriously hurt any company.

Re:Good Odds.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, its operating revenue for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2004 was $36.8 billion (source [computerworld.com]). Its operating profit for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006 was $16.5 billion (source [microsoft.com]). So basically your statement is wrong, based on a misunderstanding of finance (equating profit with revenue) and out-of-date. The good news though is your conclusion "$1.5 billion is not chump change to Microsoft" is probably accurate. And since, in my opinion, the vast majority of posts on this subject seem to draw the wrong conclusion based on false statements, your post that draws the right conclusion based on false statements deserves to be promoted. So MOD PARENT UP!!!

ugh, more stupid fud

[twitter]

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.....

[LibertineR]

Real, fake or nonexistant, Microsoft still has the edge here.

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:

[Stephen Ma]

Reality suggests there wont be a lot of public support for this effort or its logical expressed outcome, but I wish them luck.

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:

[NickFortune]

Microsoft won't have any problems getting support from various free market enthusiasts -- for free.

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:

[morleron]

As a libertarian and long-time Linux user I agree wholeheartedly with your comment. In tact, I think that any libertarians who take the time to study the whole FOSS movement will find themselves drawn to it because of the philosophy of maximizing freedom and lowering the barriers to entry in the computer software marketplace that is the basis of the FOSS movement. I've had several discussions about this with fellow libertarians who were initially anti-FOSS because of its "communistic" heritage and have co

Re:

[melikamp]

Who can keep track of when these changes were made?

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:

[hansonc]

yeah that's the point.

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.....

[MindKata]

I don't think Microsoft would do this, but as linux is open source, it would also be possible (in theory) to do the reverse of what you suggest and plant small routines from Microsoft code into sections of Linux. Of course that assumes someone working for Microsoft could get the code sections past other programmers reviewing the new Linux code, but it could be done.

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 ... "All's fair in love and war" .. that should be "All's fair in love, war and business" ... although the use of the word fair in that saying seems almost like positive PR to say, do anything unfair you can to get ahead. So its not really fair at all.

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:

[Antique Geekmeister]

Given their criminal history, I can certainly suspect it. But it's much easier to deal in innuendo and vague threats for this, or to use proxies to make your accusations. Look at how Microsoft's corporate sponsorship of SCO, by helping them stay in business through "business partnerships", has allowed Microsoft to damage Linux witha a fraudulent lawsuit, weaken SCO as owners of the AT&T UNIX code base, and keep their hands and deep pockets clear of the lawsuit.

It's like selling guns to the side you like

Re:I like those odds.....

[smittyoneeach]

adding any MS code to the linux base

Where? Constants in an out-of-tree hardware driver maybe?
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.....

[WalksOnDirt]

While that is true, this whole discussion has been muddied by the use of the imprecise term "intellectual property" in the blurb. I think this is more about patents than copyright, which makes the GPL issues here moot.

Re:I like those odds.....

[iluvcapra]

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:

[Archtech]

"res ipso loquitor"

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:

[The Cisco Kid]

The linux kernel does not have a graphical user interface. Perhaps some window manager or application (that might run on linux, or *bsd, or anything else, but which is assuredly not *PART* of linux) might have such an interface, but then it would be *that* application that would be violating the patent, not "Linux".

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.....

[twiddlingbits]

German court rulings don't apply anywhere but Germany. And Daniel Wallace failed to state a valid claim so the issue NEVER WENT TO TRIAL. Wallace was dismissed in pre-trial motions. The comments from the court are just that COMMENTS, not rulings. See your own link: May of 2005, Daniel Wallace filed suit against the Free Software Foundation (FSF) in the Southern District of Indiana, contending that the GPL is an illegal attempt to fix prices at zero. The suit was dismissed in March 2006, on the grounds that Wallace had failed to state a valid anti-trust claim; the court noted that "the GPL encourages, rather than discourages, free competition and the distribution of computer operating systems, the benefits of which directly pass to consumers."[16] Wallace was denied the possibility of further amending his complaint, and was ordered to pay the FSF's legal expenses.

Re:I like those odds.....

[GrumpySimon]

Hmm.. how hard would it be to find chance similarities in any two codebases?

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.....

[phantomfive]

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).

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.....

[Antique Geekmeister]

You mean like they got caught stealing VMS code, techniques, and trade secrets to create NT? Or like they got caught prohibiting OEM vendors from bundling Netscape? Or like htey got caught pretending a hoplelessly scrambled and incomplete document of code descriptions is an API that developers can use to compete with Microsoft's products?

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

[iPaul]

He's going to make unsubstantiated allegations, veiled threats of law-suits, and all sorts of FUD. For the business user (and that's where you're going to see Linux go from 2% to 10% of the desktop market), even the slim chance of getting sued is taken very seriously. I won't eat my hat, but I would be very surprised if Microsoft ever files 1 scrap of paper in court, suing a linux distributor for patent violations, or an end user for some kind of piracy(?) charge.

Re:

[oztiks]

I think you cant simply threaten and threaten until you go blue in the face. I think its misuse of the law and eventually they will have to lay down their cards.

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

[DigitAl56K]

It is not about stealing code, but infringing patents. The real question ought to be "Show us the patents", which is more informative than "Show us the code", because even if Microsoft did show you some code, how are you supposed to know which patents were infringed by it?

Based on what evidence?

[kaiwai]

When he refers to Linux, he is referring to the whole distribution - he isn't going after Fedora, Ubuntu community or 'free' distributions but after the Novells and Red Hats who are reselling the software which contains patented algorithms.

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:

[iPaul]

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:

[kaiwai]

I think you need to do some reading - big time.

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:

[644bd346996]

Trademarks can suffer from abandonment, but copyrighted and patented code cannot. However, if Microsoft keeps talking publicly about the existence of infringing code without revealing what it is, they are very vulnerable to libel suits. A big libel suit between Microsoft and FSF of EFF could be interesting, anc could be very costly for Microsoft.

Re:

[kripkenstein]

Trademarks can suffer from abandonment, but copyrighted and patented code cannot. However, if Microsoft keeps talking publicly about the existence of infringing code without revealing what it is, they are very vulnerable to libel suits. A big libel suit between Microsoft and FSF of EFF could be interesting, anc could be very costly for Microsoft.

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

[inode_buddha]

However, the interesting part about SCO is how they try to play "methods and concepts" without actually having any patents in the case. For that matter, if it isn't in the code then it just doesn't exist, regardless of the actual ownership (IANAL).

Re:

[abes]

I think this might be different from SCO in that it's talking about patent infringements versus ownership of code. While the idea behind showusthecode seems like a good idea, it also seems to me likely that linux does infringe on other patents. However, only because software patent law allows anyone to patent anything. If M$ patented the for-loop, and the case came in front of a technophobe of a judge, perhaps they could be found guilty. M$, has many many patents, like most other big companies.

Of course, co

And may I be the first to say...

[UbuntuDupe]

Open source Windows! Open source Windows!

(okay, probably not the first ...)

And may I be the first to say...

[DigitAl56K]

ReactOS! ReactOS!

It's pointless for Microsoft to reply

[sup2100]

As long as the truth is not known, microsoft can keep on threatening. If microsoft does prove some sort of infingement then they have to sue or else they will loose their threat as linux is changed. As such microsoft would never reply to it.

General Public...

[BlueCollarCamel]

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 for the admission that it is.

And the general public still won't give a damn.

Re:

[ArcherB]

And the general public still won't give a damn.

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...

[Saedrael]

But the text on that website is extremely unprofessional; it reads more like a rant than an open letter to Ballmer. Grammatical mistakes abound, as does use of slang. I'm all for the idea, but it has to be pursued in a manner such that there is some chance of Microsoft responding.

Re:

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

I second. Good idea, bad implementation.

Re:Sorry guys...

[value_added]

But the text on that website is extremely unprofessional; it reads more like a rant than an open letter ...

I stopped at the

It's come to many in the Linux community's attention ...

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:

[Damek]

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."

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...

[Lumpy]

And that is worse than a pit stained fat guy dancing all over a stage screaming "Give it up for me!" like a doped up schoolgirl?

Yeah, Microsoft's CEO looks real Professional.

Re:

[Blakey Rat]

Agreed. Was this written by a 13-year old?

The pointless linking to the YouTube videos don't really help the cause either.

Re:

[whathappenedtomonday]

My thoughts exactly. The "Fun With Ballmer" section and Ballmer quotes also help to disqualify the campaign. Open letters are one thing, but this is ... lamebait ;)

Re:

[Joebert]

Maybe they forgot what happens when you poke an angry animal with a stick [google.com]

Re:

[whathappenedtomonday]

wooha.. one of the more nasty outcomes of stuck windows...

Re:

[RootsLINUX]

Not to mention that the side-bar is full of links to negative press about Vista or Microsoft in general. I doubt Microsoft will respond to a site that is obviously a lot of flame-bait towards MS.

Re:

[RealSurreal]

You read the text? I ran away screaming at the horrible compression fragments on the JPEGed logo. Do we still hate GIFs that much? What did PNG do to hurt you?

Re:Sorry guys...

[jlarocco]

But the text on that website is extremely unprofessional; it reads more like a rant than an open letter to Ballmer. Grammatical mistakes abound, as does use of slang. I'm all for the idea, but it has to be pursued in a manner such that there is some chance of Microsoft responding.

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!

[mistersooreams]

Well, this is a brave move and, if any of the people namedropped on the site (Torvalds, RMS et al) get behind it then it becomes even braver. Of course Microsoft are unlikely to raise to the bait - they are (or consider themselves to be) far too powerful for that. That said, just imagine they did actually identify particular patents that Linux infringes - and let's be honest, with the current state of the patent system, is that so unlikely? I don't imagine for a moment that any infringement is deliberate, or even known about now, but I'd say there's a non-trivial chance that it could happen. So, what then?

"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:

[iPaul]

Have they decided not to charge for FAT? Could they raise that old chestnut?

Re:Brave!

[mgiuca]

I think the point is that is MS actually does sue Linux users, there will be a huge retaliation. (And there always has been this threat). So they won't.

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

[dduardo]

Does showusthecode.com have permission to use Microsoft's wallpaper on their site?

Re:

[wkitchen]

What MS wallpaper? Those solid blue areas?

Re:

[k7net]

It's still viewable here http://mirrordot.org/stories/ba5d61395d9835048d6fe ecddc7f4e24/index.html [mirrordot.org]

OK, here's an example

[Anonymous Coward]

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

[adrianmonk]

Patent #5845280, "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() API.

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 requested file is retrieved from the secondary data storage device and placed in kernel-mode accessed memory (e.g., cache memory). After the requested file information is stored in the kernel-mode accessed memory, a kernel-mode data transmission procedure transmits the requested file information directly

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 (?)

[thegux]

Hmmmm, I like the idea behind the site, but I'm not sure about the site itself. I mean, I had a look at it and I just got the impression that it was trying too hard to be anti-Microsoft. The "Get the facts" thing just links to a bunch of articles criticising Microsoft and/or Microsoft products. Now, I'm sure these criticisms are perfectly valid, but I think if this site wants Microsoft's co-operation, then putting a list of links criticising their products on the main page, and calling it "Get the facts" i

Even if

[phantomfive]

What is this going to accomplish? Even if they do have patents against Linux, then they aren't going to reveal them until it is most advantageous. This is like playing poker and saying to your opponent, "I dare you to show me your cards. If they are so good, then what are you afraid of?"

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:

[strider44]

I always dismiss research and statistics that come from people who have a direct stake in the outcome being a certain way. Your link there is about as reliable as Microsoft's "Get The Facts" web page.

Re:

[Aim Here]

"What is this going to accomplish? Even if they do have patents against Linux, then they aren't going to reveal them until it is most advantageous."

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?

[G4from128k]

A cross comparison of the MS' patents (which are in the public record) with Linux code should be sufficient to find potential infringements. One of the advantages of the current patent system is that it forces the patent holder to publicly disclose the invention with sufficient detail so that a person versed in the art can copy the invention. That disclosure also lets anyone innovate around the patent if they want. If the Linux community is worried, then they can proactively start changing Linux to avoid MS IP. Why not use the open source ethos of freedon-to-modify to create a Linux that goes beyond anything MS can dream up as defined by those public documents.

Re:Why do they even need the code?

[iPaul]

I would be stunned if Linux doesn't "infringe" on some patent that Microsoft holds. There have been so many patents issued for so many crap ideas that it may be impossible to build anything without infringing on someone's patent. (And in some cases two people hold different patents covering the same thing). The patent in question could be as *stupid* and possibly *indefensible* as "method of communicating with a computer using a keyboard." But they won't fire a shot. Get used to phrases such as "Our attourneys are examining the matter and we don't want to comment on possible litigation." Also get used to Microsoft trying to decide how to pursue the matter, and there are so many ways. It will scare off business users, who might be considering 10,000 desktop roll-outs, to pass on Linux to avoid lawsuits. If they actually go to court they could loose (and it would cost s lot of money). IANAL, but I would imagine they would start building a case by threatening vendors into a Novel style deal, if they actually do anything at all.

Very professional

[The Bungi]

Complete with the links to the "developers" video and the Slashdot-type FUD ("VISTA UAC HAS HOLES OMFG!!!") articles. Just like that "BadVista" thing from the FSF, any person who is responsible for IT/Software strategy at a company would dismiss this as another wack job from the people who call Microsoft "M$" and like to claim that XP crashes every 10 minutes.

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

[3seas]

As a consumer, a computer user, I don't think a lack of an answer is an answer, but a continuation of a mystery.

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.

[debest]

if the campaign garners enough attention and if Steve Ballmer maintains silence, then the community and companies behind Linux can take the silence for for the admission that it is.

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 ...

[LaughingCoder]

... they'll reveal one patent violation (assuming there is at least 1) and then say "there's plenty more where that came from". That would validate their claims *and* allow them to continue the FUD compaign, perhaps with even more credibility. That outcome would clearly constitute a tactical error on the part of the Linux crowd. Of course if MS remains mum this could be considered a master stroke. It will be interesting to see what comes of this.

MSFT compelled to complain

[redelm]

Not only is it SOP for their FUD modus-operandi, but in this case they have to distance themselves (MSFT) from themselves (Novell). Their new acquisition distributes Linux, and they might face "equitable estoppel" on patent claims. To most safely preserve any patent claims, they really should stop Novell from distributing Linux. Yet this might bring them afoul of anti-trust laws.

They will neither

[spiritraveller]

show the code, nor be silent.

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:

[Timesprout]

And despite judgement after judgement where MS get taken to the cleaners over patents without actually suing anyone (OSS) over patents Slashdot will continue to insist this is MS strategy. This is IBM mana.

They're REQUIRED to...

[Svartalf]

They have to reveal WHAT is infringed upon in order to file suit. Making public proclaimations
about infringement without proof is a Lanham Act violation, as SCOX is about to find out.

Chairs were just the beginning

[Joebert]

Oh yeah, someone's deffinately getting beaten to death with a table leg over this one.

Re:

[Joebert]

Redundant ?!

Ok, remember the knock knock bannana orange joke ?

Knock knock !
Who's there ?
Bannana.
Bannana Who ?
Knock knock !
Who's there ?
Bannana.
Bannana Who ?
Knock knock !
Who's there ?
Bannana.
Bannana Who ?
Knock knock !
Who's there ?
Orange.
Orange Who ?
Orange you glad I didn't say Bannana ?

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...

[Eric Damron]

But that's what Open Source is about. Taking a good idea and improving the implementation! Rather than bitch about how unprofessional the website is lets take the idea and polish the implementation.

Ideas people?

Silence != admission

[PCM2]

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 for the admission that it is.

Um... except that the law doesn't work that way. Silence != admission of anything. Good luck in court, fellas.

Silence == Approval, and possibly Fear

[postbigbang]

Um, yes, if you don't protect your rights, and have become injured, and you know you're injured, then several theories of law say you're tacitly approving of the injury, and your losses become assuaged by this approval. Your knowledge of tort law needs some brushing up. The law actually does work that way.

This is so dumb. It's a patent issue.

[Animats]

"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...

[MMC Monster]

From what I understand, it's not a threat of Linux stealing code from Microsoft OSs. It's Linux using ideas that are directly patented by Microsoft. Even if it's a cleanroom implementation, it can still violate patent law.

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?

[macemoneta]

As a convicted monopoly, Microsoft's unsubstantiated claims intended to hinder the adoption of a competitor's product should be grounds for dragging Ballmer away in handcuffs. While nothing will be done in the U.S., other countries are free to deal with Microsoft. I'm curious to see what if anything results from this legally. A $1.5B fine here, a $1.5B fine there, pretty soon it adds up to real money.

Re:

[ClosedSource]

As I've said around here going on 7 times in the last few years, the antitrust case was a civil one, MS hasn't been convicted of anything and the case was light-years away from anybody going to jail.

Sorry for this stupid question...

[DigitAl56K]

.. but I haven't been following the entire ordeal.

What are the patents that Microsoft are claiming to be infringed by Linux (I think this is different than "Show us the code")?

Naive

[Quarters]

"if Steve Ballmer maintains silence, then the community and companies behind Linux can take the silence for for the admission that it is."

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.

[dont_run]

If you assume that Steve Ballmer is decent, then he would blush and indeed thrive to have the truth be known and Linux fixed of any violation. That is, if there is any infringement at all. I'm also of the opinion that there isn't, unless he's talking about FAT. And why in the world are people still using that crap anyway? We should be campaigning for the digital devices industry (digital camera and MP3 players for the most part) to support some other file system for their memory modules.

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

[suckmysav]

Ballmer is carrying on about "Intellectual Property" (ie patents), not copyright infringments.

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:

[lxt518052]

In that case, shouldn't he point out which Linux code infringed MS patents?

Re:

[suckmysav]

"In that case, shouldn't he point out which Linux code infringed MS patents?"

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

[lxt518052]

and explicitly stated that they want Ballmer to show us the code within Linux that violates their intellectual property.

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:

[suckmysav]

"and explicitly stated that they want Ballmer to show us the code within Linux that violates their intellectual property."

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:

[suckmysav]

"It works the same. If Microsoft revealed what code in Linux violates their patents, then the Linux people can rewrite that section of code in a way that doesn't violate the patent."

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:

[suckmysav]

"Linux is based on POSIX. POSIX wasn't Microsoft's idea"

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

[Viceroy Potatohead]

This is a joke, and will likely have the opposite effect. As others have said, if Ballmer says nothing in response, this reaction looks childish and entirely NOT reassuring. Or Ballmer could continue spreading FUD, business as usual, and ignore it -- same result. What it really needs is IBM, (not Redhat, the FSF, or Canonical), a company respected as much as MS by the top-end corporate powers-that-be, saying: "WE are not concerned with Ballmer's statements. We are entirely confident that they are baseless."

The more interesting question is ....

[jopet]

where MS secretly has violated opensource licenses by taking open source code and including it in their closed source code. How is the opensource community to check this? How could one ever find out with closed source software?

Slander of Title?

[DoofusOfDeath]

Can't any OSS vendor sue Microsoft for Slander of Title [wikipedia.org] to force Balmer to "show us the code"?

M$ is in a tough spot

[Secret Rabbit]

If they don't say anything then everyone will know that what they're saying is total BS. And any money that they've made from these so called "Linux patents" could be considered fraud. Ooo, that'll go over well.

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 :) or something else) then they are just as screwed.

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

[SQLz]

Ballmer had millions of lines of infringing code in a briefcase, Darl McBride stole it, then lost it, and nobody really knows where it is now.

Re:

[mgiuca]

You raise some good points but two points I'd like to make are:

• Patents are not equivalent to copied code. Patents are for methods. It's still possible to detect patent use in closed software, because the methods are still known (though it's harder to figure out how it works).
• Open source is not a wiki, it's not like anybody can contribute code. Any open source project manager will carefully check the code. (Though of course that's no guarantee it doesn't violate patents, again).

Re:

[Doppleganger]

Patent holders aren't allowed to just say, "you're violating our patents and we'll sue you whenever we want", either. This would show a serious effort on the part of the open-source side to resolve any problem. If Microsoft doesn't reply with anything substantial, then they get hurt both in the P.R. department and if they ever do sue.

"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:

[John Hasler]

It isn't just that they own patents that they are not enforcing. It's that they are attempting to use the threat of infringement litigation to harm competitors without giving enough information for the competitors to mitigate the damage and not actually filing suit. The courts don't like that and have developed the concept of a declarative judgement to deal with it.