Linux users tell Ballmer to put his code where his mouth is
By Jeannie Choe 
posted Feb 26th 2007 8:53AM
posted Feb 26th 2007 8:53AM
We're pumped for a real showdown in the upcoming months, since the Linux community has just launched Show Us the Code, a website / movement humoring Steve Ballmer's repeated claims of burgled Microsoft IP within the open source OS -- accusations he's been making ever since Microsoft and Novell went into cahoots with each other back in November. The grassroots organization challenges Ballmer to bring it on: if Microsoft forks over the evidence by May 1st, Linux developers will alter their code accordingly to maintain freeware status. However, if Redmond plays dumb or comes up empty handed, a figurative tail will find its way between the company's legs and a handful of dirty looks and I-told-you-so's are likely to ensue. The first day has already yielded the support of 13 companies and SUTC is definitely hawking up an online presence, and if it really blows up, the battle should end with an "in-your-face" bang either way. 'Til then, peruse the site and enjoy biting remarks such as "And much to your dismay, we don't want Microsoft's code specifically" and "Don't you owe it to your shareholders to work with others to ensure their intellectual property isn't being violated?" [Via Slashdot]
It's not "Show us UR code" - the group isn't asking to see any proprietary Microsoft code. What it's asking for is for Microsoft to "Show us in our code where we infringe your code" - but I guess that would be kind of hard to put on top of a picture of Ballmer.
Of course MS won't do anything, there's no basis of truth in Balmer's quotes.
...but don't show us your t*ts Steve. Please, for the love of all that is holy.
this site is so stupid... the whole basis of the agreement between MS and Novell was to promote linux in the enterprise and MS agreed not to sue in case Novell used any of their IP... it was put in the agreement to put customers growing concerns at ease as Novell started offering more integrated Linux solutions with MS products... the tighter those 2 system get integrated the more questions about IP would arise... and the statement in the agreement was a commitment by MS not to sue (not saying their was any IP in Linux but in case their might be as Novell moves toward an integrated enterprise). MS did a good thing here and Balmers comments are a little askew and now with this site the whole thing has gotten out of hand... the people putting this site up clearly have NO clue what the agreement is all about... more anti-MS FUD
Point taken Ray, and I think the guys who run the site are aware of the agreement, since there was no outrage when it was signed. The problem is Ballmer's been throwing around these thinly veiled threats alot lately which would seem to be contrary to that agreement.
So this is not anti MS FUD seeing as BALLMER STARTED IT! Ballmer and MS are bullies all this group is doing is refusing to get pushed around anymore.
No, it's not promoting Linux, it's promoting MS and Novell's world view. The rest of the Linux universe has a perfect right to challenge what MS is implying, and if MS doesn't come through they're obviously being manipulative.
And Engadget, Freeware is not the same as free software.. freeware is associated with closed (proprietary) "free" software.
This is MS and Ballmer acting like OS/IP jihadist. If you don't cower to their demands they will lawyer you to death. I guess Ballmer want to be the Imam of OS's.
Wow he has more chins than a chinese phonebook.
"freeware" is a loose term.
I... love... this... company, yeah!
This kind of agreements must be the brilliant idea of S.Ballmer for a revenue stream for MS.
His interview can be summarized like this:
"If you do not want that maybe I ruin you one day you better give me some money now. And then I will not ruin you with my lawyers"
Is a kind of "MS insurance" for the Linux world. Is this kind of menace legal? Someone calls the cops!!!
Ballmer is singlehandedly Microsoft's worst PR disaster. He may be a competent manager for all I know, but he really should stop talking so damn much.
Marklar.
wasn't the last "claim" from M$ about Linux using code from M$'s TCP/IP stack, which they took out of BSD anyway?
So I am painting a bullseye on myself here for asking the question, but in light of this sentence:
"The grassroots organization challenges Ballmer to bring it on: if Microsoft forks over the evidence by May 1st, Linux developers will alter their code accordingly to maintain freeware status."
My question is in light of that, is the Linux community also prepared to give damages for patent and/or copyright infringement should they find that they are infringing? I'm not saying they are guilty but why should a bunch of hippies be immune to the legal system, if they're guilty then they should have to pay damages as well. The world just doesn't work on a oops we didn't know from here on out we won't do that mentality.
The obligation is for them to correct any infractions. If it is not malicious (eg open source hackers didn't break into Microsoft and steal their secrets, rather someone happened to use the same approach) then this is all that is required, and all they are asking for is the space to verify this.
Otherwise, as others have pointed out, Microsoft just wants to wait in the wings with a club they can use whenever they feel like coming down on someone. Maybe someone else can answer where the burden lies when it comes to proving infringement, I do know the FSF legal counsel has strategies around this.
Anyway, clearly it all sucks and doesn't really benefit consumers, and part of the strategy here is to bring that out in the open.
nick, its my understanding that the whole point of this is to shut ballmer up, nothing more. if it turns out that linux has some MS code in it they will gladly remove it, and if steve is wrong, the linux guys gets the chance to gloat..this is more of a social thing than anything else (e.g. a law thing)
You have a point, but as I understand it, patents are intended to apply to commercial ventures. I can build a DVD player at home, using patented technologies and no one is going to bother me for doing it; if I try sell that, I owe something to the patent holder(s) or I'm doing something illegal. So essentially, if there is infringing code, the commercial distributions and/or anyone selling Linux needs to pony up for whatever patents are being used, or cover the cost of changing the code that infringes. In any case, average users still have nothing to fear; patents affect manufacturers, not end users.
That dude is one ugly dink.
Microsoft is being given a chance to mitigate the damages. Microsoft has publicly made veiled accusations that Linux infringes on Microsoft's IP. The Community's response is not only to deny it, but to ask for what exactly is infringing so that the problem can be fixed. If Microsoft refuses to give out the details, Linux can be found NOT liable for the damages of infringement because of Microsoft's failure to mitigate the damages.
If I go around town telling people that my neighbor is a thief and that he stole from me, but I refuse to say what, and I also refuse to call the cops, what does that say about my accusations if I can't back them up with any details, but leave them vague so as to sully his name?
You're telling me no companies use Linux for profit? I am not talking about the distro's, I agree with you, they might be safe... but the company using Linux (if it were in fact using someone elses IP) in a for-profit venture is the one who would get screwed. It's a real concern for any company that uses any GPL stuff... maybe not for internal ops... but anything facing customers generating revenue could be an issue...
A patent grants the patent holder the right to prevent others from "making, using, or selling" the patented item or process. NONCOMMERCIAL USE IS STILL ILLEGAL. You CANNOT make a DVD player at home using patented technology and be noninfringing. It is unlikely the patent holder would go after you for damages, but you're still infringing; the idea is that you can't just look up a patent and make your own, denying the inventor his/her profit from the invention. (Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer.)
What about the alleged open-source code in Microsoft code, violating those licenses? Perhaps this site should put out a call to find open-source code in Microsoft software; after all what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Can you really listen to anything this guy says? He makes Gene Simmons look attractive. I hope MS keeps him as long as they want. Hes certainly not putting a "good" face on a "good?!!" company?
Please note that the biggest issue is indemnity. Sure Microsoft may have a hard time collecting from Distros but their clients are on the hook (except Novell). Novell while being the red headed step-child of the community has given its customers peace of mind. Microsoft indemnifies its endusers of their products which is why they own the corporate space.
There is a real risk in creating your own homegrown app. and having it be interdependent with Linux, as you're just one injunction away from losing your application.
So the question again to the OpenSource community is if you are found to be infringing what then? Novell has answered the question for their clients, what will you do?
@Nick Wow, what a backward take on it.
MS has created fear from vapour and then developed a market around this fear. It still, to this day, has no substance. Not even their customers know the contentious 'stuff' of which they are being cleaned of. The Day of the Triffids? Hair loss?
Furthermore, you're wrong to say that Novell are the only company indemnifying their clients. Both Redhat and IBM do.
I hope you're aware of just how absurd the concept of software patents is, and how many of them are registered after the event of prior art elsewhere anyway. To brush up, please read the following:
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/comment/story/0,,1510566,00.html
All the 'Linux community' can work with is what it knows. Instead of cowering in the shadow of doubt, these guys are stepping up and saying "We'll actually rewrite the stuff just to get you off our case", and good on them. MS has alot to lose here, especially given that it may become apparent how much actual code (ie not breaches of some of IBM's similarly absurd patents - many more than MS) Redmond has appropriated from the transparent source-code of the Linux kernel.
This will be telling. Hope that helps clear a few things things up.
My precious.
...but make sure not to show anyone the source code for that website. http://showusthecode.com/.
yikes.
Sorry if you get this twice it didn't work the first time I submitted
As someone who took an IP class I can assure you of the value of software patents. I can acknowledge that the patent system is in need of retooling, but to say there is no intrinsic value in a certain part of that law is to be biased. The law is what it is, we are not free to decide what we do and do not follow. Your statement shows that you would prefer anarchy if it met your needs.
"Instead of cowering in the shadow of doubt, these guys are stepping up and saying "We'll actually rewrite the stuff just to get you off our case", and good on them. "
You're saying they're stepping up by saying that they'll change their ways? That's not stepping up. If patents are infringed then people should pay for that theft. There should be a court case and in the end a judgment should be reached 1. on if the patents in question are valid and 2. if they were infringed. I am not saying that Microsoft would/will win all I am saying is its asinine to claim this group (those behind the website) as a bunch of heroes when they are basically akin to people who go straight after stealing.
Here’s something to think about though, its in Microsoft’s best interest not to show the code and not to prosecute anyone in the Open Source community, because that’s the only thing keeping MSFT out of antitrust court right now. However, its definitely good for Microsoft to sell licensing, so that’s why Balmer is rattling the saber.
You are being both ignorant and insulting at the same time, wow!
Let me try to clear a bit of that up for you.
Someone working on Linux might have implemented some technique that is covered by an MS patent, without ever knowing it, because he came up with the idea himself.
See? No stealing.
What is happening is not comparable with a thief that has gone straight, because there has never been any willful infraction.
If MS comes up with some evidence AND the offending code doesn't get removed rather quickly, then and only then, can there be a case.
Now, I'm guessing that MS will simply ignore the challenge and keep SCOing, because coming right out and saying what they are unhappy with two things will happen:
1) The offending code will be removed, possibly within hours.
2) The offending patents will be shot down by tons of prior art, possibly within days.
OSS developers are very much a law abiding group, they'd rather write their own OS than pirate MSs offering, so #1 is a given.
The general quality of MS patents seems to be rather low, so #2 is given.
If they keep quiet then they can hope that no one notices that their bluff has been called and they might be able to continue their scare tactics.
Either of those two effects will effectively shut MS up.
@Nick
I'm quite familiar with IP law and I'm also a computer programmer. Worth mentioning is that while I believe software patents are absurd, I believe strongly in copyrighting code.
A patent is a monopoly on an idea. In the case of sofware, ideas are described in code, as a set of instructions, processes that can be (and are) readily mathematically described. The description and the idea are very different things: there are many descriptions of ideas for instance (the afterlife and the baking of bread being two examples). The same can be said for music. There are many musical works which have the same compositional structure, even meter, but use different instruments and have a different harmony.
In code, there are many applications for the IF, ELSE IF, ELSE conditional procedure (the browser you're using to read this is probably dependent on it). It therefore follows that if I can patent this idea, why can I not also patent musical ideas or devices like Coda or the Baroque's period's RHONDO form now used in nearly all pop music: {Phrase: A, B, A, C, A, D, A}? Should Beyonce be paying royalties to the descendents of J.S.Bach for all the musical ideas of his she's using in her own work?
The RONDO form is an idea, an invention just as the IF, ELIF, ELSE conditional procedure is. Microsoft has already registered a patent on the IS NOT conditional check, ie. is THIS thing NOT like THIS OTHER THING. Genius. In fact there's no pre-requisite in US patent law to have a working implementation of the thing you're supposedly patenting, which perhaps explains why so many Legal shops are being established purely for the purpose of coming up with, and registering, software patents.
To support the patenting of software is to support the patenting of many other kinds of ideas, ideas like musical forms (something many legal shops are lobbying for hard) and, As RMS says in the above article I linked to, narrative devices used in novels. It's absurd to allow for the patenting of ideas (especially like those of mathematically describeable processes) of any sort, let alone software. Copyright has served literature, music and programming perfectly well up until this point. Leave patenting for real stuff, like machines and smooth-pour beer cans.
Julian
Re: Nick
"You're saying they're stepping up by saying that they'll change their ways?"
No, that's not what they're saying, because their "ways" never intended infringing on any IP of MS's. If you were sold Product X that turned out to be stolen from Company Y, do you pay Company Y the interest lost that could've accumulated from the assumed time of the original sale of Product X? No. You give them the product back. Even that sucks, because you're out money, but you're not paying MORE back just because someone sold you (in this case, submitted) a stolen product (code).
No, it's not exactly the same situation, but I think it's along the same lines. In fact, I'd even go as far to say what if Company Y was wrong? Say Product X was a 1997 Ford Mustang Cobra. Company Y complains to the police and says it's theirs. Well, after all the huss and fuss, it turns out that the VIN's don't match up as ever belonging to Company Y, it just looked the same in their eyes.
is there MS IP in Linux or is there Linux IP in MS??
when you think about all the graduates coming out of the universities and colleges (MIT, Berkley, etc) that are being trained with Linux (none of the institutions would be using proprietery MS systems for educating the students in compoter sciences)kernels and GNU applications it makes you wonder what drugs these MS people are on (and where to get them).
MS lie better than the rest (20 yrs of stealing code and still being in business is proof) and dont you forget it!
So why isnt Linux sueing MS over theft of Linux IP?
this last qeustion is the one that needs to be answered.
Ballmer is real expert about code thieves, as he has a hell of a lot of them working for him.
If Ballmer wants to even up accounts, the first thing he should do is send a BIG check to PARK.
There is no honor among thieves--the bigger the thief, the less the honor. MS has no honor at all.
hardware rocks big time and is the answer to this problem... and heres how...
the linux community patents every possible pattern of electricity flowing thru the hardware components (software is irrelevant at this level).
if a piece of MS code creates one of those patters (even if they patent that piece of code) they are in breach of the hardware patent.
simple...
You are being dense on purpose I guess, but here goes:
The Open Source community will do what everybody else does in that situation, they (we) will remove whatever code is found to be infringing on others rights.
Simple as that.
FF is showing a better understanding than most. There is no issue of stealing, or copying, or illegality, or anything like that. Merely too much information to be integrated by any human, combined with an unfortunate collision between two inflexible objects - a philosophy having essentially religious dogma masquerading as a rational engineering approach vs. hoary seat-of-the pants legal precedent masquerading as rational technology policy.
There is nothing magical about patents in this context. MS abused contract law until it got them into antitrust trouble, they will abuse patent law until it gets them into some other kind of trouble. The smartest robber barons you are likely to see, they are going to push the boundaries almost perfectly.
On the other hand, the showusthecode thing is just puerile.
There is one thing and one thing only (practical that is) the OS community can do. Patent stuff as a future defense. Fight fire with fire, not with childish "sticks and stones" games.
To: Flemming Frandsen
Independent discovery is only a legal defense in Trade Secret IP cases, in patent law you're still an infringer.
Ignorance is saying something and not understanding or knowing what it is you speak of. Legally a patent is a granted monopoly, so when you violate that you are stealing Intellectual Property. The reason why the law is setup this way counter to popular Linux beliefs is to assist in disseminating of ideas to provide rapid advancement in technology through incentives that give incentive to share.
Furthermore the way that our legal system is setup is that from the date that you have shown that the technology is yours until the date the infringing party stops is willful infringement. A handy way to increase damages is to slap your patent on your product, as that is giving notice it is patented. Now I don’t read EULAs I don’t spend my time reading the info tab on my Microsoft products, but I am pretty sure that they do enter the patent numbers that are relevant in there.
So lets recap sir:
I am insulting
You are ignorant of the law
Infringing Intellectual Property is akin to stealing in the eyes of our legal system
Linux would be found to be willfully infringing if a commercially sold product has a patent number on it
Removal of the offending code doesn’t reduce the monetary damages from the date of notice until the date it is removed
oh how i hate thee software... let me count the ways...
in software terms you are just shunting patterns of zeros (no voltage) and ones (voltage) across the hardware components to achieve your desired results.
regardless of what you write the software in (java, c++, python, perl) or how you choose to write it, if it makes a pattern on the hardware that is the same as another software application then that is not IP.
it is this lack of understanding (of the hardware level and what is occurring when software runs) in the patent offices that allows MS (and others) to patent software.
and before you reply to this test it (prove me wrong if i am).
i love my hardware (i work in a PC repair shop)
Developers, developers, developers, developers!!!
The "Show Us The Code" meeting has been set for next Tuesday 5/1 You are invited to attend.
Date/Time: May 1, 2007 at 12:00 Noon Pacific Time
Place: www.yugma.com (click Join Session button)
Teleconference Bridge: +1-218-486-3889
Yugma Session ID: 109-433-046
More background at:
http://www.partageznouvelles.com/releases/2007/4/prweb518756.htm
https://www.yugma.com/blog/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26&Itemid=9