Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Microsoft Slaps Its Most Valuable Professional

Posted by kdawson on Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:47 PM
from the schizophrenic-is-one-word-for-it dept.
Microsoft
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.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived.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.

Microsoft Slaps Its Most Valuable Professional 25 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • DUPE (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ekhymosis (949557) on Tuesday June 05 2007, @11:49PM (#19406649) Homepage
    http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/0 6/01/164254 [slashdot.org]

    • But Stay Tuned! (Score:5, Informative)

      by twitter (104583) on Wednesday June 06 2007, @01:30AM (#19407315) Homepage Journal

      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

      • We've done so much for you, even calling you on the phone - twice in two years.
      • Most people prefer our no cost version, they are not Professionals and some admit it.
      • Non Professional users are easily confused, please don't make their life easier with confusing choice.
      • Back when I programmed in BASIC, I would not have wanted anything else.
      • I know Professionals who can't code.
      • Helping people violates our "ethos"
      • We are going to pick up our toys and go home now and it's all YOUR FAULT.

      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!

      • Re:DUPE (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 06 2007, @12:36AM (#19406943)
        They no longer show up. The editors claim "dupe" is special and notifies them rather than showing up... but, uh, apparently they have to be paying attention.

        • Re:DUPE (Score:5, Funny)

          by omeomi (675045) on Wednesday June 06 2007, @12:48AM (#19407043) Homepage
          Maybe the editors just can't get enough of the guys who feel that their sole purpose in life is to point out Slashdot dupes, and the incredibly boring conversation about dupes one is forced to wade through just to get to the topical discussion...

      • Re:DUPE (Score:5, Insightful)

        by nmb3000 (741169) <nmb3000@that-google-mail-site.com> on Wednesday June 06 2007, @12:47AM (#19407029) Homepage Journal
        Is it me or do tags like "Dupe" no longer show up?

        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.

  • MS is on a roll... (Score:5, Funny)

    by mcmonkey (96054) on Tuesday June 05 2007, @11:52PM (#19406667) Homepage
    They did just go after this guy [slashdot.org]

    What are the odds?

  • Ballmer said it best... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Weaselmancer (533834) on Tuesday June 05 2007, @11:53PM (#19406679)

    Developers, developers... lawsuit.

    • Mod me flamebait all you like (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Weaselmancer (533834) on Wednesday June 06 2007, @12:02AM (#19406741)

      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?

    • Re:Ballmer said it best... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tomy (34647) on Wednesday June 06 2007, @12:08AM (#19406783) Homepage
      Why is this moderated flame bait? I find it quite insightful. You don't award engineering ingenuity, and then turn around and let the marketing and lawyering dweebs come in and take it away because it doesn't fit their marketing/licensing plans. Either you value developers are you don't. And if you do, you have to understand herding cats [wikipedia.org]

  • Just read up on all of it a few hours ago... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anthony Boyd (242971) on Wednesday June 06 2007, @12:05AM (#19406757) Homepage

    ...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:

    • Weber, the guy at Microsoft stirring up trouble, was a jerk on 3 counts
      • He assumed that Jamie was hacking the low-end free version of Microsoft's products, when in fact Jamie used APIs published by Microsoft
      • Weber was rude
      • Weber wouldn't state what part of which license Jamie had violated. This is the boring part of the correspondence, because Jamie asks over and over again, and keeps getting back generalities such as "the relevant parts apply." That is crazy making, and I would not at all be as polite as Jamie has been.
    • Now that lawyers are involved, it's pretty clear how Jamie violated their terms.
    • Jamie is looking for a way to "stand up to the bullies" so to speak, even though it's now clear how he violated Microsoft's contract. That's not to say he's BAD -- he's quite great, actually, with a great product, too -- but now that MS has said "here is what you violated, please correct it" he should correct it. With no tricks, no reinstating the feature months later (which he has done once already).

    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.

    • even though it's now clear how he violated Microsoft's contract.

      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?
      • The fact that the APIs are published is immaterial, really. I know of at least one company's software that has a similar clause in its EULA to the Visual Studio one, and they don't do even the slightest protection of their fully documented APIs. Nevertheless, using them would violate the EULA if I wasn't licensed to do so. That's the contract I entered with that company. If I want to use those APIs, I need to pay them more money for the license to do so. This isn't anything terribly new, and even "good guys" do it now and then to protect a revenue stream (cf. MySQL's multiple licenses).

        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. ;)

      • Perhaps you can explain to me exactly how he violated Microsoft's contract by using the published APIs?

        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.

      • Re:They're idiots... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hobo sapiens (893427) <cminor9@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday June 06 2007, @12:34AM (#19406925) Homepage
        Yes, Microsoft obviously doesn't get "community".

        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.

  • It's the M$ way, or the highway (Score:5, Interesting)

    by abes (82351) on Wednesday June 06 2007, @12:24AM (#19406865) Homepage
    As was pointed out, this is a dupe, though the original posting was a bit more balanced on its accounts. It included a link (http://blogs.msdn.com/danielfe/archive/2007/05/31 /visual-studio-express-and-testdriven-net.aspx) to the other side of the account. I really have no clue who is in the right here -- the M$ side claims that they asked him very nicely several times to not release his product for Visual Studios Express. I haven't read the policies regarding developing for Express, but I can understand that M$ wishes to keep a product differentiation. It seems to be a big problem internally at M$, as the sales people don't like giving the product away free, while the developers would like a free version to exist. So as a compromise, they release the Express version which has limitations. One of those limitations is that plug-ins can't run for it.

    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)

    by wasabii (693236) on Wednesday June 06 2007, @12:26AM (#19406871)
    Welp, somebody go grab a copy of his code and mirror it forever on the internets. That'll put an end to that.

  • Exactly why I love linux (Score:5, Insightful)

    by codepunk (167897) on Wednesday June 06 2007, @12:46AM (#19407021) Homepage
    No one tells me what I can and cannot code on my Linux machine and or software. I have always said
    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.
  • One of Microsoft's greatest strengths, competitively, has been strong support for third party developers. They would do well to remember that that is a strategic advantage, and should not be squandered lightly.

    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)

    by Louis Guerin (728805) <guerin@[ ].net ['gmx' in gap]> on Wednesday June 06 2007, @01:24AM (#19407279)
    In essence, MS is taking the position that developers can use their APIs however they like - unless MS objects, at which point they get to withdraw the offending code without compensation, unless you count not being sued as compensartion.

    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)

    by hkb (777908) on Wednesday June 06 2007, @01:25AM (#19407291)
    1. Weber just seriously damaged Microsoft's relationship with the community.
    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)

    by sudog (101964) on Wednesday June 06 2007, @01:26AM (#19407299) Homepage
    He waffles back and forth, first cooperating, then not, then cooperating, then not. The Microsoft guy has the patience of the Buddha..! By the end of it, the dev is actually threatening to re-enable the Express support if Microsoft doesn't keep corresponding with him.

    Whew.

    Yes, I've read the entire exchange. And honestly it looks a lot like the dev is being a dick about it.

    • Re:Ironic, but MS is right (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mabhatter654 (561290) on Wednesday June 06 2007, @12:44AM (#19407011)
      He used the free Express version to develop a plug-in for the free Express version. He didn't have access to "steal" anything beyond what Microsoft made freely available on their site and other public forums. Unfortunately for Microsoft the program he developed with the free version is a feature of only the highest version of the very expensive studio package... released by a kid for free!! OUCH!

      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.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.