Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Mr. Ballmer, Show Us the Code

Posted by kdawson on Sat Feb 24, 2007 08:56 PM
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."
+ -
story

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
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by LibertineR (591918) on Saturday February 24 2007, @09:00PM (#18138338)
    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!

    • Good Odds. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by twitter (104583) on Saturday February 24 2007, @09:49PM (#18138716) Homepage Journal

      my best advice would be......RUN Bitches!

      It's nice to know what corner you are in but your reasons for being there are flawed, as is your entire analogy. You can't expect to be protected by a bully, no matter how strong they might appear. Sooner or later, they will make you pay for your mistaken and mean spirited loyalty.

      The problem with all of the FUD is that it's becoming increasingly evident that M$ is threatening everyone. A business that threatens it's customers is generally on the way out.

      The great irony in all of this is that M$ themselves has little respect for the IP of others and regularly violates patents, trademarks and copyrights, while simultaneously calling for fanatical protection and enforcement. Their recent loss to Actel/Lucent, and the $1,500,000,000.00 judgment highlights this. M$ themselves are more venerable to the litigation monster they helped create than free software makers who are much more careful. Ballmer has no more to offer than SCO did and I mean that in every way.

      Excuse me, while I go listen to some nice oggfiles I downloaded from archive.org. I'll keep right on partying while M$ flunks the bluff, and keeps getting dumped by customers [slashdot.org], partners [slashdot.org] and investors [google.com] alike. It's about time.

        • Re:Good Odds. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by SirTalon42 (751509) on Saturday February 24 2007, @10:54PM (#18139160)
          $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.
      • by MindKata (957167) on Saturday February 24 2007, @09:31PM (#18138574) Journal
        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.
            • by smitty_one_each (243267) * on Saturday February 24 2007, @11:02PM (#18139234) Homepage Journal

              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.
            • by WalksOnDirt (704461) on Saturday February 24 2007, @11:24PM (#18139432)
              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.
  • by iPaul (559200) on Saturday February 24 2007, @09:00PM (#18138340) Homepage
    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.
  • by sup2100 (996095) on Saturday February 24 2007, @09:02PM (#18138356)
    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.
  • by BlueCollarCamel (884092) on Saturday February 24 2007, @09:04PM (#18138370) Homepage

    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.
  • Sorry guys... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Saedrael (880381) on Saturday February 24 2007, @09:04PM (#18138372)
    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.
    • by value_added (719364) on Saturday February 24 2007, @09:18PM (#18138482)
      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."
    • by Lumpy (12016) on Saturday February 24 2007, @09:19PM (#18138488) Homepage
      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.
  • Cease And Desist (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dduardo (592868) on Saturday February 24 2007, @09:06PM (#18138392)
    Does showusthecode.com have permission to use Microsoft's wallpaper on their site?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 24 2007, @09:08PM (#18138406)

    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.

  • Very professional (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The Bungi (221687) <thebungi@gmail.com> on Saturday February 24 2007, @09:09PM (#18138418) Homepage
    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 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 3seas (184403) on Saturday February 24 2007, @09:12PM (#18138430) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • by LaughingCoder (914424) on Saturday February 24 2007, @09:15PM (#18138456)
    ... 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.
  • They will neither (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spiritraveller (641174) on Saturday February 24 2007, @09:26PM (#18138530)
    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?
  • by Joebert (946227) on Saturday February 24 2007, @09:26PM (#18138542) Homepage
    Oh yeah, someone's deffinately getting beaten to death with a table leg over this one.
  • by Eric Damron (553630) on Saturday February 24 2007, @09:32PM (#18138578)
    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?
  • by Animats (122034) on Saturday February 24 2007, @09:40PM (#18138650) Homepage

    "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.

  • 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.
    • by iPaul (559200) on Saturday February 24 2007, @09:26PM (#18138536) Homepage
      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.
    • Re:Brave! (Score:5, Informative)

      by mgiuca (1040724) on Saturday February 24 2007, @11:31PM (#18139476)
      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.