Open Letter to Steve Ballmer: Show us the Code

[DigitalDuality]

d

[Tomosaur]

Can't help you on the artwork front, but I'd like to show my support for this, I'll stick a link in my sig :)

[DigitalDuality]

d

[DigitalDuality]

d

[Ubunted]

While it's certainly a good idea, I don't think all the "big" names you mentioned (Torvalds, Carmony, etc.) would be too inclined to back a website whose front page is full of links and quotes that do essentially nothing but mock Ballmer and Microsoft.

[justin whitaker]

While it's certainly a good idea, I don't think all the "big" names you mentioned (Torvalds, Carmony, etc.) would be too inclined to back a website whose front page is full of links and quotes that do essentially nothing but mock Ballmer and Microsoft.

Agreed.

In fact, I would think that a code audit would be a more efficient way of dealing with this whole issue.

[Adamant1988]

They are extremely vague, but it's more in their interest to be. I don't think there is a law requiring them to point out where the problem is, so they're just holding it over the heads of Linux companies. Red Hat has already said they won't make any copyright deals with Microsoft, so it's going to be interesting to see Microsoft try to go after Red Hat.

[doobit]

I'm not sure why you want to challenge one of the world's most powerful companies who also happens to really like a good lawsuit.

There are two things that Microsoft has already clearly taken issue with.
1. The FAT file systems
2. TCP/IP

Also, they don't need code to sue; even an idea that appears to copy intellectual property could be grounds. Look at the suits going on right now, and the past suites as examples. Add to that the fact that, in the US, anyone can sue anyone for practically any reason.

[spockrock]

the site just seems like the same old anti ms rhetoric, sorry but I think this hurts us more then it helps. We all know steve ballmer is a chair throwing, baboon who runs around a stage, but if you want to be taken serious then, make the site professional not flame bait material.....

[yabbadabbadont]

I'm not sure why you want to challenge one of the world's most powerful companies who also happens to really like a good lawsuit.

There are two things that Microsoft has already clearly taken issue with.
1. The FAT file systems
2. TCP/IP

Also, they don't need code to sue; even an idea that appears to copy intellectual property could be grounds. Look at the suits going on right now, and the past suites as examples. Add to that the fact that, in the US, anyone can sue anyone for practically any reason.

On what grounds could they be claiming rights over TCP/IP? It predates the existence of Microsoft and was developed for DARPA. (or whatever it was called back then)

[doobit]

On what grounds could they be claiming rights over TCP/IP? It predates the existence of Microsoft and was developed for DARPA. (or whatever it was called back then)

Here's a little background:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/6/19/05641/7357

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1714680,00.asp

http://www.socaltech.com/fullstory/0002166.html

[yabbadabbadont]

Here's a little background:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/6/19/05641/7357

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1714680,00.asp

http://www.socaltech.com/fullstory/0002166.html

Thanks for the information. I'll give it a read.

EDIT: OK, now that I've read them, I can make an informed statement. ;) The little hard information there is in those articles appears to apply only to enhancements to the core suite of protocols and not the base protocols themselves. I can see how it may be possible that the TCP/IP stack used in Linux might be infringing. Still, as long as the core protocols are safe, the rest could be re-implemented if needed.

[cowlip]

As a monopoly, how is MS supposed to enforce its patents? Doesn't that cut off any chance of interoperability for competitors?

[Dr. C]

I can think of one way to force Balmer's hand. A class action lawsuit for defamation against Balmer personally and Microsoft. The menbers of the class all GNU / Linux users. If this is litigation is started in a jurisdiction such as the United Kingdom (Renember the McLibel case), the defense might well be very hard.

IANAL but I do think that there is a lot more bluff than substance here when it comes to Microsoft's IP claims against GNU / Linux. For example have not most if not all of the FAT patents allready expired? And what about prior art.? TCP / IP for example.

[Ubunted]

Site looks much better now :)

[cantormath]

I think ballmers comments are FUD.

[openix]

I'm not sure anyone should pursue Ballmer as he seems to be on a self destruct mission. He has lost what little credibility he had with people out there and will sooner or later cost MS lots of money and lost users.

A class action might work but I think history will be a better judge.

[DigitalDuality]

d

[Polygon]

dude, when i dugg your website, it was a lowly 27 digs. Now that i refresh the page, its jumped up to over 1500! congrats, your site is getting some publicity =P

[mips]

thanks. I rushed to make it a bit more professional

Maybe change the font to a more readable one as well. the current one is not that great.

[koenn]

Here's a little background:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/?op=displaystory;sid=2001/6/19/05641/7357

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1714680,00.asp

http://www.socaltech.com/fullstory/0002166.html


T
The little hard information there is in those articles appears to apply only to enhancements to the core suite of protocols and not the base protocols themselves. I can see how it may be possible that the TCP/IP stack used in Linux might be infringing. Still, as long as the core protocols are safe, the rest could be re-implemented if needed.

I don't see that at all. All i read in those 3 articles are more unsubstantiated claims and
"It is not clear to what degree, if any, that Microsoft has enforceable intellectual property rights in the 130 protocols identified in the so-called 'royalty-free' license agreement."

What is feasible is that Microsoft "invents" some specific use for -- lets say, for the sake of argument -- the TXT record in DNS (defined in the DNS protocol specification), then patents " use of TXT records in DNS for such and such purpose", then claims that use of the TXT record is a patent infringement or subject to licensing, and then let its windows systems heavily depend on that TXT record. Result : incompatibility issues for all those who are not licensed to use that feature, With 95% of the desktop market, that would come down to a de facto standard, effectively locking all non-Windows OS's out of the desktop market.


"Generally, Microsoft wins by attacking the core weaknesses of OSS projects.
OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market. -- http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween1.html - Halloween Documents -- attributed to a source within Microsoft.

[DJ_Peng]

Somehow I missed this when the topic was first started, but I stubled across the Show us the Code site and immediately blogged it (http://http://www.ydwblog.com/?p=1029). You can count on my support as a blogger and Linux user.

[Kateikyoushi]

This was a good idea and might have an effect, I hope it can grow and get backup from some of the companies behind linux.

[karel.lukas]

Yesterday, I issued an invitation to both the Show Us The Code people and to Microsoft regarding a virtual “sit down” for the May 1, 2007 deadline. Can any of you provide assistance in engaging the right people from the across the Linux community? I'm doing an outreach to enlist support. Setting a "venue" for a show down will make this issue come to a head -- I think in a positive way. Ideas? Please let me know at showusthecode[at]yugma.com


The full text of the letter follows (4-12-2007):

OPEN LETTER TO: Linux Community & Microsoft

My name is Karel Lukas, and I'm the COO at a web collaboration company called Yugma. I've been following the Show Us The Code movement and Microsoft’s position closely, and understand how important this issue is for the future vitality of the Open Source and Linux communities.

As the May 1st deadline approaches, we at Yugma have been wondering what the ultimate conclusion of this debate will be. Will it quietly fizzle out? Will Microsoft continue to press their case and ignore the challenge? As we are approaching the May 1st deadline, we propose that we all collectively drive this debate to a proper conclusion.

Yugma is about to launch our Linux version, which will make our collaboration service interoperable between Linux, Mac, and PC. We think that makes us the perfect platform for hosting a virtual "sit-down" between the Show Us The Code movement and Microsoft on the day of the deadline.

For this event, we are offering to host a live debate between the Show Us The Code group and Microsoft on May 1st. Microsoft can present the alleged offending code live. Leaders from the Linux community can respond. Yugma will record the session and make it available to both parties afterwards for their own distribution. The date, time, and meeting information follows:

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 l
Yugma Session ID: 109-433-046

We think Yugma would be a great venue for educating more people (and the Tech press) about the Show Us The Code movement as well as Microsoft’s position. We are in the process of contacting key contacts within both organizations to identify the key participants for the event. Likewise, key contacts from the Linux community and from Microsoft can contact us at showusthecode[at]yugma.com. We will be exhibiting at the Web 2.0 Conference in San Francisco April 16-18. If any of you will be there, please stop by the Yugma booth and we can discuss in person (booth #322).