This behaviour from Microsoft is very disappointing. There is nothing more that I can say about it.
What a sadd, sadd company Microsoft is these days :(
Maybey I should stop all development in .Net and get some Java books ;)
As a linux user, I can't help but really feel for you over this.
You are a great coder, how about doing some work on GPL software? You'd be able to pretty much do ANYTHING that you want to do with the code, GPL would guarantee your freedom.
I use to work for them and I can tell you they are like a dog with a bone. They won't give up.
However if you really want to sock it to them, simply publish your code and make it available to all. When it is in the public domain what can they do then, nothing but blow hot air. Great piece of work though.
Evidently, if you originally built the software with the Express product, it does not break the EULA for Express. Keep fighting Jamie, please do. Microsoft is in the wrong, and thinks that just because they gave you MVP status originally, that you should be beholden to them.
Microsoft can go to hell. And tell them to go stick their award too. Sad bunch of ... :-)
You know, Eclipse could really use someone of your (really quite self-evident) talents! You're a great developer who clearly (as evidenced by Microsoft's fear of you) has potential, it would be a shame if you got scared out of development because of this, so please please keep coding!
This kind of thing is the exact reason I stopped using their products. They did not like the appearance of something (we were using Apache as our public web server) and so they got all lawyered up and started the threats and software audits until we gave in and switched to IIS.
This "beating your customers over the head with a stick" behavior is one reason why I only touch Microsoft development tools and platforms when I have to do so.
Another is the API-Of-The-Month Club (where we learn new ways to do all the old stuff, but better!).
I sincerely hope things work out for you in the end.
You shot yourself in the foot.
You might be correct in saying that you are opperating legally but you probally could have made alot of money working together with microsoft.
wish you luck anyway
I feel that Microsoft has bothed their ULA and are scrabling to correct their mistake by bulling you.
Any mistake that microsoft makes has potentially huge financial implications, so be advised that they will try to do you harm, no matter if they are wrong or not.
Check carefully that the ULA does not put you on the wrong side of the law. Then decide if you want to fight or not.
A substancial financial settlement would be a fine way to solve this issue. You get a copensation for your efforts and they save their product strategy.
Until they solve this issue with you they can not really change the ULA as they clearly should or they admit they botched the job in the first place.
I will try to keep track of this matter as it really interests me.
Good Luck to your endeavours
I feel really sorry for you. I hope you'll be able to sort this out, out of the courtroom.
<rant>
Sadly your story is not the first one of its kind. Actually It makes me wondering why some people are still [naive|idealist|dumb] enough (pick one) to support Microsoft's softwares so actively, willing to spend a lot of time and effort to build a community around MS's products and trying to enhance them. History has shown that you cannot expect to work with Microsoft without being bitten at the end.
</rant>
Sorry for the rant. Take care.
Noeilla
Yes, indeed; I completely re-iterate the excellent point raised by 'Linux User'. You're clearly talented, so why are you using your talents to further the evil empire of Microsoft? A company who is, quite literally, ready to issue legal proceedings against you for <insert wild and mis-guided rantings about breaching Microsoft's EULA>.
I strongly urge you to give up the .NET platform, and write for a platform protected by the GNU GPL. Why *anyone* bothers with Microsoft is truly beyond me. They are a truly truly evil company, in every sense of the word.
Just read about this on The Register.
Microsoft are doing themselves no favours here...
I think that Microsoft needs to realize that allowing people to add on to their products freely would make people more fond of them. For marketing's sake I hope that they totally reconsider thier position here or face losing other MVPs to Java and PHP. They have nearly an infinite supply of money, why would something so small make them whine so much? It is silly, they shouldn't care.
You are wasting your hugely valuable time on this nonsense. You are a talented programmer and you should not have to deal with this idiocy. Withdraw your product from the world and put your work into any product that has nothing to do with Microsoft. These guys are outrageous; when they "embrace and extend" it is supposed to be fine, but when someone does it to them, they throw flacks and now lawyers at you.
I just spent the last 30mins reading through all this and I have only one thing to say:
You shot yourself in the foot there mate (like the guy above said too)
Sorry to say it, but I wish you all the best...
It doesn't matter whether you violated the EULA. EULA's aren't legal, and only remain because no one has bothered to really legally challenge them and set precedent. A EULA is certified and granted legal status only if you actually agreed to the agreement. What if you daughter, son, mother, father, grandfather, or anyone else installed the software and clicked that "I agree" button? You can not be held liable to any agreement you do not expressly agree to. And it would be nearly impossible to prove you did agree to it (or any other EULA for that matter).
Intellectual property rights don't make sense in software anyways. Once you give or sell your product, it can and oftentimes is subjected to be changed by the user. Redistribution however, is subject to intellectual property rights. But since the code used in this matter seems to be entirely the property of the designer being threatened, he has not violated any intellectual property rights.
If a man gives or sells you a stool, you have the right to add on a back and arm rests, or to chop it up into little pieces. It was theirs, and now is yours either by purchase or present. They no longer have any claim to the item distributed.
You have talent, but you also have balls. If and when you get sick of all the BS that MS is shoveling your way there is literally hundreds of places in the Open Source Community where your contributions would be more than welcomed and you can say goodbye to the drama of this event.
I do believe you to be right in this manner after having read everything. I do agree the only person who had anything concrete to say was the last lawyer Olswang, who seems to have the chink in the armor very well labelled down to the single point of objection. It is a argueable point that they build in the ability to use add-ins and you are only using the method they provide.
Sad that by adding features to something that is free it could cost anyone anything. Microsoft is truly clueless and its actions such as this that help push open sources true benefits in ways no marketing campaign ever could.
Bottom line though is this. They only want you to add features to a product they make money on, not ones that they don't. This is pure greed and why everyone see's them as evil. Sometimes its hard to disagree, this would be one of those times. Best of luck and just know they are not the only camp.
Tnt
Thats why TestDriven tools are available in high numbers (and with huge quality) for Java and Other Free Languages/Platforms way before MS platforms.
Sorry mate, don't stress over hobby. Hobby was meant to be fun. They like to cease fun and get money out of it. :)
Most probably your code is being copyied and implemented by other teams so they won't need you, or your tool, anymore... (have u seen the BlueJ case?)
Best Regards,
Bruno
As a CEO I find this behavior very irritating. I was considering a Microsoft product for site wide deployment (11,000 employees). Now I am re-considering.
Right way, Wrong way, Microsoft Way. Sorry dude, but even if you know you're in the right, the 470-pound Microsoft Gorilla is going to sit on you. It's best you give in to their demands, disable the Express components, and realise that this is the world they own.
I would take it as a "sign" and invest more into Linux. You won't get spanked like this.
Yet Another reason to Abandon the Windows platform and move on to Open Source...
I just spent last hour carefully reading all the letters, and I truly believe that your talent should be offered to the company that's worthy of it.
I fully command you for not giving in.
MS has much deeper pocket than you do. A legal battle will bring you no good, even if you are proven correct at the end. In my opinion, do what is necessary to avoid the legal battle, and focus your work on something that won't bite you back (read: OSS) from now on. No need to look back, at least I never did.
It takes guts to do th eright thing when you are being bullied by a corporation. Good luck, ignore the naysayers, and know that you have the respect of many.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
- Mahatma Gandhi
Jamie,
I believe that others may want to hear your story. If you are interested, feel free to e-mail me:
editor@thenixedreport.com
Question : Is the existance of the API in the express products enough to be considered "permission given" for use of it.
If they didnt want it to be possible to use it, then they should not have implemented the API in the first place.
The way you have been treated by microsoft and now its lawyers is dispicable. It will only show them in an increasingly poor light as this saga drags on.
I have read your story on "the Register", and have since read the email correspondence you have posted. I am no fan of Mircosoft. However, this latest behavior towards you, and also against the Linux community, has instilled an iron will in me to resist any more M$ products. I will NEVER willingly use another M$ product, because of their bullying actions.
However, this does not help you. I would recommend setting up some kind of legal fund to assure you have the assets to fight this. Do not give in. Please. The bully needs to be stood up to. I would donate to such a fund (alas, my resources are limited).
Note too that I sent an email to Jason Weber, expressing my disappointment with his actions towards you, and his company's actions as a whole.
Please let all of us know how else you can be helped.
Sincerely,
RJ Dean
This is ultra sad.. we just cannot move forward this way.. no innovation.. just one umbrella corporation telling us what to do. I am ashamed to be a .Net developer and using Microsoft products.
Dont let the bastards grind you down dude.
And check out Sharp Develop + Mono Develop. Let the MS lawyers take there culty little SLAPP suit and stuff it up their ass.
Good luck.
To continue the stool analogy:
Imagine if the builder of the stool also included the back and arm rests but disabled their usefulness in order to give the stool away for free.
If you proceeded to find a "hack" that enabled the existing bark and arm rests to be used then you would be in violation of the stool builder's EULA.
However, if you built your own back and arm rests using attachment points that are described in the stool manual then you shouldn't expect a herd of lawyers banging on your door.
From everything I've read here you're using publicly available attachment points. If Microsoft don't want you to do what you're doing _THEY_ should disable the functionality in their code. Not the other way around.
Does Jason Weber work for SCO?
It's obvious that Jason Weber made a quick
unsupported threat to you going against
the EULA, in his intial email.
You made MANY requests for information
supporting his assertions, and HE FAILED
to ever do so.
Why? Because there are NO violations, yet
Jason Weber can't own up to his initial
flub. And the lawyer further supports this,
by referencing something so ambiguous and
reaching as to have zero value.
And on top of it Jason Weber puts the kibosh
on Jamie's MVP status.
Jason Weber should do the right thing.
This is all aggravatingly vague. Can someone give some actual details here? Is this plugin somehow calling standard functions to re-enable disabled functionality in the express edition? What functions? How?
If this was for real, someone should be able to say either "calling method x is not covered by the license" or "calling method x is a violation of license part z."
Just GPL your code and let Microsoft's lawyers die in pain.
Microsoft must be crazy -- for the amount of money they are expending on lawyers and the loss of user goodwill, they could simply buy the product and make it available to all users as part of the distribution. That way everyone wins!
What do you really want?
1. Make money
2. Be famous
3. Prove you were right
If you want #1, work with MS not against...
If you want #2 or #3, go to court. But you will lose...
support you man! keep fighting! You know who's wrong, and so stick with it!
Okay
well what I would do -hypothetically offcourse-
*sell* your domain to someone else (*cough yourself*) through a registerar that protects your identity. Also, non US-UK country, so lawsuits can't go through the US and all. No name on the whois page -> it's not yours anymore, you sold it/gave it away. And preferably put the sourcecode on as many sites as possible...
Microsoft is retarded on this: I never heard of your project, but as soon as I did, I downloaded your software! The more publicity they make about this, the more people that will download it... What an idiots
Keep up the good work
looks like microsoft was planning to create something similar and you were just (as they said) "quick"er :)
i see no infrigenment but i'm not a lawyer either. congrats for your courage.
sorry to say it but it is dumb. MS is most milkable company if you do not tease them, yet you kicking them in nuts and that MS's budha is letting you as long as he can. You might be robin hood, but trust me, your customers are not worth it. once you release paid version, you will see. 10 or 11 will pay 1USD for it and yet be discussing, others move elsewhere.
.. the best thing to do is flush it and clean your self as best you can.
What Microsoft seems to be saying here is that Jamie "worked around" a "technical limitation" of a tool they allow people to use under the condition that it not be used to "work around" "technical limitations".
But working around technical limitations is the basis of all development and is the raison d'être for most of the computing industry since all hardware and software comes with limitations. Unless you are developing something solely for entertainment, chances are anything you create will work around some "technical limitation".
Now while there may be someone out there who Visual Studio Express solely for entertainment value, I'd imagine most developers who use it will have something more productive in mind, but unfortunately Microsoft simply won't let them use it that way and poor Jamie seems to have fallen into the Microsoft EULA trap.
That may have been a dumb thing to do, but if you ask be Microsoft is doing something really dumb here with their EULA.
The only people who would consider using Visual Studio Express are those without a serious business interest in Microsoft tools and those people are exactly the ones who have to fear EULA's like these.
Umm, well what did you expect supporting Micor$oft platforms? Join the long list of other people that have been micro$ofted out of existance with red tape and hordes of attack-monkeys from the Isles of Laywers.
Good luck Jamie.
Wow.. now that's powerful stupid of Microsoft.
Yep, don't give up!
Greetings from Helsinki,
- Martin
Get sound legal advice The EFF might be a good place to start. Keep strong, the fact that you have worked with them for so long will surely count in your favour and the fact you keep trying for an amicable resolution is admirable. If it gets too much, or you are risking too much, take the easy way out. Release the product free into the web (they will never catch it then...) they wont be able to prove its you...heh heh. And then find a group of people who value your contribution and if you are lucky will pay you accordingly.
DITCH MICROSOFT! GO JAVA. GO ECLIPSE!
Once Microsoft throws so much money at this you're forced to take the compiled code down due to abhorrent legal costs, make the source code available in the wild, there'll be thousands of iterations with a week.
@Golodh
It seems to me that the whole crux of this issue revolves around whether or not the EULA has been violated. While OLSWANG make the statement that the EULA has been violated in the form of activating deactivated features, I believe that Jamie upholds that he has not activated any deactivated features (or so I infer from the email correspondance), and hence the impasse.
@Everyone
I do not understand why Microsoft cannot be more explicit in their explanation of where and how the EULA has be breached, their lack of a detailed breakdown implies to me that they do not genuinely believe a violation has occured, and are simply using heavy handed tactics to prevent TestDriven.NET working in VS Express.
I think if I were in Jamies position then I would deactivate TestDriven.NET for use in the Express SKU. This may seem the weak path but I cannot see anything to be gained from pursuing this course of action, aside of issues of pride/righteousness. Although this all makes for very interesting reading I do not necessarily think it is in Jamies interests to support VS Express.
As for all the comments as to why developers use MS products, well this is clearly because they make money doing so. In my case it has taken me a long time to learn .NET to the level I am now at, which may not be notable when compared to many, but the idea of starting again using a GPL language such as Java does not fill me with glee.
Just my 2 pennies worth.
@Golodh
It seems to me that the whole crux of this issue revolves around whether or not the EULA has been violated. While OLSWANG make the statement that the EULA has been violated in the form of activating deactivated features, I believe that Jamie upholds that he has not activated any deactivated features (or so I infer from the email correspondance), and hence the impasse.
@Everyone
I do not understand why Microsoft cannot be more explicit in their explanation of where and how the EULA has be breached, their lack of a detailed breakdown implies to me that they do not genuinely believe a violation has occured, and are simply using heavy handed tactics to prevent TestDriven.NET working in VS Express.
I think if I were in Jamies position then I would deactivate TestDriven.NET for use in the Express SKU. This may seem the weak path but I cannot see anything to be gained from pursuing this course of action, aside of issues of pride/righteousness. Although this all makes for very interesting reading I do not necessarily think it is in Jamies interests to support VS Express.
As for all the comments as to why developers use MS products, well this is clearly because they make money doing so. In my case it has taken me a long time to learn .NET to the level I am now at, which may not be notable when compared to many, but the idea of starting again using a GPL language such as Java does not fill me with glee.
Just my 2 pennies worth.
@Golodh
It seems to me that the whole crux of this issue revolves around whether or not the EULA has been violated. While OLSWANG make the statement that the EULA has been violated in the form of activating deactivated features, I believe that Jamie upholds that he has not activated any deactivated features (or so I infer from the email correspondance), and hence the impasse.
@Everyone
I do not understand why Microsoft cannot be more explicit in their explanation of where and how the EULA has be breached, their lack of a detailed breakdown implies to me that they do not genuinely believe a violation has occured, and are simply using heavy handed tactics to prevent TestDriven.NET working in VS Express.
I think if I were in Jamies position then I would deactivate TestDriven.NET for use in the Express SKU. This may seem the weak path but I cannot see anything to be gained from pursuing this course of action, aside of issues of pride/righteousness. Although this all makes for very interesting reading I do not necessarily think it is in Jamies interests to support VS Express.
As for all the comments as to why developers use MS products, well this is clearly because they make money doing so. In my case it has taken me a long time to learn .NET to the level I am now at, which may not be notable when compared to many, but the idea of starting again using a GPL language such as Java does not fill me with glee.
Just my 2 pennies worth.
As I read the "limitations" section in the EULA, there is a clear option of "applicable law" allowing further rights. You live in the EU? This clears up the issue with reverse engineering the API: For the purpose of creating compatible software, this is expressly allowed by EU law (and therefore by the EULA).
Don't give up boy, you've got some nice code here. Bill's smelling $$$!
I was considering another look at VS for my next work project. Don't think I'll bother now!
I am no lawyer but after reading through all correspondence, In my opinion you are in breach of the EULA (yes as stated by another poster “You cannot be held liable to any agreement you do not expressly agree to”) However if taken to court the engagement that you have had with Microsoft may construe agreement to use their software under license, with which you have broken the terms of that license?
I see both sides of the case, but I feel that Microsoft has the stronger argument.
Hi. You should deactivate TestDriven.NET for use in the Express SKU, but make it trivial to re-enable this feature.
Perhaps release the re-enabling feature as an add-on, maybe under the GPL?
Thus YOU wouldn't be violating the EULA but allowing your customers to do so if they felt the need.
Withdraw all versions of TestDriven. It's not worth it to subject yourself to Microsoft's bullying with the sole benefit of making their product better.
To release the source code might only be a short term solution as M$ will also have access to it as well as the community and could disable the product from working themselves in fairly quick time in their own software, then adapt it and release their own version and charge for it. Proving your copyright has been violated would be extremely difficult and time consuming not to mention the costs.
Mo makes a very good point, however it will not lift the threat of legal action as you have still engineered the product to break EULA even though it is not activated...they will still be heavy handed.
The fact there is so many comments here for and against merely proves that this area of law if gray to put it mildly.
Go open source, you could earn well and put this behind you...withdrawing your product will reduce sales of M$'s products and if anyone wants to find it, I am sure there will be copies bouncing about on peer to peer for years to come.
Best of luck and plan your next move carefully.
Mo,
As long as M$ is not able to proof Jamie did that on purpose, right?
I think you've taken this way farther than you should've. How would you feel if someone released a hack of your own application to enable premium features?
Any other company would've sued you long ago. Instead you have a courteous Microsoft developer doing everything in his power to settle the situation amicably.
Just look at who is giving you support. A pack of rabid linux-zealots with comments such as:
"Don't give up boy, you've got some nice code here. Bill's smelling $$$!"
I do agree with your supporters on one thing though. If you want to be able to do whatever the hell you want, quit using Microsoft's products and stick to GPL.
There's an old Spanish saying: "Cría cuervos y te comerán los ojos". "Grow ravens and they will eat your eyes".
Microsoft IS evil. They bite the hand that feeds them. For The Register...
@Golodh and JS
Both of you seem to agree with microsoft's point but have only "read through the corresponence" and the lawyer's letters.
Now, I have done the same and from all of those I can't see what deactivated features have been reactivated or what APIs have been reverse engineered. I am surprised that the both of you seem to just take the lawyer's word for it and fully believe that deactivated features have been reactivated. Please tell me, if the breach was so obvious and that the correspondence started a year and a half ago why hasn't anyone(Jason or the lawyer) specifically stated what features are in breach?
I haven't had the opportunity to try TestDriven.net since I don't use Visual Studio [Express] (I'm mostly a Java/C programmer) but before I can do so there is no way I can know if what the lawyer says is true or not and I am surprised that you can.
I am sorry if this turned into a rant or if Golodh and JS think I'm flaming them. But simply concluding that the program is in breach of the EULA simply because a person who would benefit from people believing that says so is quite dumb in my opinion(Especially since that person is a lawyer and has nothing to lose by lying)
@OS
My earlier comment applies to you as well:
>How would you feel if someone released a hack of your own application to enable premium features?
Please, oh please tell me, what premium features? have you tried it? do you even know what you're talking about?
Hmm.... my post did not appear for some reason(although a complement I posted did) weird...
Reposting:
@Golodh and JS
Both of you seem to agree with microsoft's point but have only "read through the corresponence" and the lawyer's letters.
Now, I have done the same and from all of those I can't see what deactivated features have been reactivated or what APIs have been reverse engineered. I am surprised that the both of you seem to just take the lawyer's word for it and fully believe that deactivated features have been reactivated. Please tell me, if the breach was so obvious and that the correspondence started a year and a half ago why hasn't anyone(Jason or the lawyer) specifically stated what features are in breach?
I haven't had the opportunity to try TestDriven.net since I don't use Visual Studio [Express] (I'm mostly a Java/C programmer) but before I can do so there is no way I can know if what the lawyer says is true or not and I am surprised that you can.
I am sorry if this turned into a rant or if Golodh and JS think I'm flaming them. But simply concluding that the program is in breach of the EULA simply because a person who would benefit from people believing that says so is quite dumb in my opinion(Especially since that person is a lawyer and has nothing to lose by lying)
How many commenters here are American.
Simple solution. Go to the High Court and say "these people are harassing me". I gather you've already asked them to explain what you've done wrong, and you've found their explanations wanting.
If the Judge agrees with you, he should sign an order which says they are not permitted to contact you in any way, shape or form, other than to provide the detailed explanation you've asked for, or having provided it to discuss it.
In the absence of such list, you can then throw any further correspondence from them into the bin, or even ask the Judge to sanction them for contempt.
Oh - and to you Americans out there - this probably WOULD work.
Cheers,
Wol
This is some of why I bailed on Microsoft YEARS ago.
Jamie's persistence has maybe not taken him further but getting the situation discussed is certainly good. With a little more information from every question put, other and future developers can easier make their own preferences.
One could also reason that Microsoft shot itself in the foot. This attitude probably leads to more people moving on to other environments. Community popularity is IMHO even more important than license money.
Good old microsoft trying to rule the world again. As long as you only used the modules available to the public for the express version then i doubt you are in anyway violating the license of the product.
Stick at it and fight your corner if that is the case
Discouraging independent developers (creating good software) from working with their products seems like not the wisest thing to do, does it?
Make a deal, take few $, make nice comment, problem solved.
How can you be in violation of the license agreement if the product:
A) Allows you to make derivitive works and integrate them? Shouldn't Microsoft be responsible for preventing derivative works from being made? Uhm, would an OLE call to a window be a violation of the VS Express license agreement? Then why would OLE be enabled in this version?
B) Implement functionality that has been de-activated? If you are using it, doesn't it mean that it hasn't been truly "de-activated"
I have a product that truly limits functionality based on the license key that is used. I would think Microsoft could write software that carried out their "licenCe intent"
I am divided on this subject:
First impulse is not to give up because Microsoft is the one to blame for not completely disabling or even removing add-on functionality in Express Edition which in turn enabled you to make your add-on work with it.
IMO that shows how greedy and senseless such big corporations can become -- they made Express Edition using the same codebase ***to save money*** by not having to develop/build/test/package two separate products.
Now they are ready ***to waste much more money than they saved*** in court just because they haven't done the right thing and removed the offending functionality completely from the free product version.
Now we come to the reason why to give up on this and it is really simple:
They do not deserve it. They do not deserve to have a product which puts their platform and their software in good light, much less get something like that for free from you or anyone else for that matter.
Good luck in your fight. I saw your story on Slashdot, read the letters, and am thoroughly convinced to never buy another Microsoft product for the rest of my life. Their behavior is detestable and they are doing the same thing to the open-source community with their ridiculous patent claims.
Microsoft needs people like you to give them some sort of real value. Its too bad they can't see that.
-Nikki
An extensive response from the legal team.
If you product does indeed access functions that are intended to be deactivated in the Express version - stay out of court. However carry on reading...
Proving that the functions you have accessed are publicly accessible and do not contravene MS legal requirement would be a large step to take but one that good legal counsel can advise you on. Most will run scared.
Leaving functions within an free Express version of a commercial product that 'could' allow access to higher functions is undeniably daft if its in the public domain. Its like walking up to a cash dispenser, inserting your card and more money coming out than you intended. Thas not your fault, its an issue for the bank.
It seems on balance it would be cheaper for MS to come after you rather than spend the necessary cash on rectifying either their EULA or product.
My two penneth worth after a skim read.
Just buy a full copy of visual studio.
> Thank you for not registering your project extender during installation
> and turning off your hacks by default. It appears that by setting a
> registry key your hacks can still be enabled. When do you plan to remove
> the Visual Studio express hacks, including your addin activator, from
> you product.
Your kidding. These guys actually did what they're accusing you of -- subverting a limitation of your software. Did they RE to work this out? Maybe it's time to countersue?
I dont understand programming and codes but as a Microsoft user and after reading about this I now feel uncomfortable with them.
Nobody likes to see the big guy hitting on the little guy, its human nature to oppose that type of thing!! Microsoft I oppose you!
If normal users feel like this maybe its the begining of the end for the Microsoft empire?
Wow, I never knew Microsoft could be such jerks, maybe I SHOULD buy a Mac?
Down with the evil empire Microsoft Corp.
While Bill Gates ran Microsoft, Microsoft may have neen a monopoly but at least it was a benevolent monopoly. Bill Gates ultimately cared about his product and his user.
Since Steve Balmer has taken over Microsoft they have become what everyone feared, an evil empire. He cares absolutely nothing about his users except how much money he can extort out of them.
Every single major feature added to Vista is anti user, either directly like their removing user rights to curry favor with hollywood or indirectly by employing slave labor coders thanks to our fabulous H1B visa program that crank out badly written code that bloats our systems.
Now, emulating the Gestapo tactics of the RIAA they crucify anyone that gets in their greedy way.
I truly love .Net, it is better organized and better written than Java. I truly will not develop or encourage those who employ me to develop any software that depends in any way on Microsoft. You can not trust these people, they are starting to make SCO look positively benevolent.
What M$ should do is purchase the rights to the add-on from you as well as learning from you how you were able to develop this add-on so they could prevent similar future situations. But that would make sense and when it comes to big anything with bloated bureaucracies I find they always take the irrational approach. To fight or not to fight is a personal choice and I wish you the best of luck in deciding your path.
Just adding my support to you. We went through a similar thing with Microsoft legal after I became an MVP a number of years ago (then lost it in a similar fashion), ours was due to the website I ran being called ActiveWindows...because I had a disagreement with a higher member of MS staff in a newsgroup once during a beta test, a week later we got a legal letter stating we had to remove the name...no surprise to hear I lost my MVP too.
If it makes you feel any better about the MVP side, you are better off out of it, carry on doing what you do best as a hobbyiest - the people who ran the MVP program when I was on it are still there and it's no surprise to see how nasty some of them can get.
Hope you stick to your guns and let them take the legal action if you feel you really haven't done anything wrong at all. Some people at that company are the most arrogant people I have ever met and spoken to, yet really have no reason to be.
Whatever you do, I'm sure the community will understand and stand behind you. Keeping in mind that people will follow your footsteps since you're clearly a respected individual from what I read so far.
Guys!,
It's unclear for me what's this hassle's all about. Microsoft sucks. Everyone knows that. What did you expect, and why are you wasting your time with them? If you ask me, you don't; keep your hands off of their stuff, don't be dealing with them in any aspects. That's just all. Move to opensource OSes and / or opensource development systems (that noone _ever_ will object your rights to, noone would send you ridiculous e-mails like this Jason (Friday 13th?) Weber asshole did and so on). Don't waste your precious time and attention to them; just leave them off playing in their own sandboxes, and focus your attention to things that build up on sound foundations. Or do what you want. Whatever.
I think you will probably lose the case.
I think that the EULA will count because I think that you have probably contributed enough comment on it for MS to show that you understood it and that you had agreed to it.
This software is not like a stool which may be purchased and altered for whatever you deem fit; the software is only licensed for your (reasonable) use, you do not own it.
The point is: what can you lose? If you can be sure that you could afford whatever penalty you would receive, I would say: "Go for it".
It would not take much to make MS sorry that they ever tried it on. Just a little bit of a media campaign and you could well find them resorting to damage limitation.
We've seen what the result of coverage in El Reg and /. has generated. You can probably make MS regret they ever tried it on.
Personally, I feel you would be doing the World a service.
@Disgusted...
Uh, no, Microsoft has ALWAYS been this way (the 1979 "stolen software" speech... chiding computer stores for selling store-made copies of MS-basic... code which was actually derived from code which Gates and Allen LITERALLY STOLE from their employer, DEC, while dumpster diving).
New face of M$... BS... it's the same M$ that's been around since day one. You were just slow to recognize the hypocrisy of an organization run by two psychopaths.
Behind you all the way mate!
Stick it to the bastards.
Question: Do any of the plugins on the MSDN site enable functionality in the Express Edition that are included with the paid versions? If so, you MIGHT have a good case.
However, you may find that the MSDN materials aren't an adequate comparision, since Microsoft is technically the one providing access to features not included and not an end-user.
You need to show Microsoft that you have a powerful legal team working on your case that you aren't paying for.
If Microsoft doesn't think you have the resources to fight this case they will sue.
If MS thinks you do have the resources to fight the case they will only persue it if they know they are in the legal right.
It sounds like you created an add-on that has features they only have in their most expensive version of the product and it sounds like that does not violate the EULA as you did not create a crack that makes the Express version run like the Team version.
I am not a lawyer however.
Again, I advise you to get legal representation from a foundation like EFF or FSF and when you do, publicize the hell out of it which will make MS think twice before suing some poor developer.
I have agree, it looks like you may well have violated the agreement, however I wish you all the best in giving them the bloody nose they deserve. Once this mess is over, you should consider giving OpenSource the benefit of your talent.
All the best.
I think Jason got caught in an initial lie,
and is trying to save face by unleashing
the lawyers.
He asserted, off the cuff, that Jamie
violated the EULA, to scare him, but upon
several requests by Jamie to show proof,
Jason skirted the issue, with threats and
putting the kibosh on Jamie's MVP.
Jason should own up to his initial mistake,
before he puts his employer in a worse light
with the dev community.
@Entropy
I am open to debate, and I don't think you were flaming. I wrote what I think, but I could well be wrong. I don't mind being proven wrong, provided it's done politely and preferrably well-argued with proofs or sound logic. To be sure, just stating your opinion does _not_, in my view, constitute any sort of argument.
When you say: "I am surprised that the both of you seem to just take the lawyer's word for it and fully believe that deactivated features have been reactivated.", I have to say that I'm not taking Olswang's word for it, I'm taking Jamie's word for it:
"From: Jamie Cansdale
To: Jason Weber
Cc: Grant Drake, Ben Miller
Date: May 6, 2006 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: Follow-up Information
Jason,
I have just uploaded a new version of TestDriven.Net. For what it's
worth I have removed Express SKU integration. I am now depressed and
left feeling burnt by this whole sorry affair. Don't be surprised if
this is the last version of TestDriven.Net.
Regards,
Jamie.
"
There it is ... the Express SKU integration was the problem. Jamie knew that and removed it. Regardless of Jamie's position, this shows that there really is something in hte Express edition that Jamie's work enabled.
When you ask: "Please tell me, if the breach was so obvious and that the correspondence started a year and a half ago why hasn't anyone(Jason or the lawyer) specifically stated what features are in breach?"
I would think that because Jason isn't a lawyer he wasn't allowed to be more specific than "you have breached the EULA". If you are specific in legal matters, and then get it wrong, you stand to loose a lot. Jason *does* speak on behalf of Microsoft -his emails are explicit on this-, and so he has to make sure not to slip up. His mandate clearly was to obtain compliance by convincing and cajoling. Nothing else.
The whole thing didn't reach Microsoft's lawyers until recently, as the email correspondence shows.
Contact Microsoft and offer to sell it to them. I reckon it'd be worth at least half a million to them just to save the hassle of pestering you with lawyers, more if they can usefully integrate it into their paid-for visual studio. Find a good accountant who can advise you on how to minimise the tax you pay on the cash M$ give you (otherwise Gordon Brown will pocket most of it). If you handle it right, this one little episode could nicely set you up for the rest of your life.
I'd like to say fight the good fight, but MS have lawyers and dollars to burn, and winning or losing is much the same to them. My guess is they'll argue that any extension to VS Express in violation. This sounds like complete b*llocks to me, but I can see a case being made in court.
Save yourself a heap of trouble and protect yourself by GPL'ing the code - before they hit you with some other nastier (patent?) infringement.
You could deal I suppose, but don't forget those lawyers. You won't be left with much.
Dude, start using GNU/Linux, read the GPL (I'm sure you probably have) and come and rock our worlds with your code. You can do ANYTHING you want to ANYTHING and instead of nasty lawyers and possible lawsuits (really respect your "I ain't budging" stance) you will get praise, support and meet lots of nice people. You may even get your code distributed by the major players, heck even I have!! I would love to see what you could do to KDevelop or eclipse.
I do not understand how a simple add-on, included in TestDriven.NET, could ever give full functionality to the free version of Visual Studio .NET.
Is there any company in the world that might ever use a free version, even with "increased" functionality through legitimate add-ons?
So what is the point of all these legal actions and psychological pressure Microsoft exercises against a young programmer?
This is not the first time Microsoft does the same thing, threatening programmers.
Most of them are afraid of Microsoft's lawyers and step back even though they are legally producing code.
I do not think this is something personal between Jason Weber and Jamie Cansdale.
This is the sad face of Microsoft breaking the anti-monopoly laws by threatening programers.
Well, i guess i might have told you. Write a Plugin for Eclipse or NetBeans, you waouldnt have any problems.
Well, i hate people who tell me what i could have done as well.
As far as i can tell from those headlines it s just "you may not work around technical limitations".
Boy, what did you you do, enter a room, opened a door, used the standard key, lockpicked it, used the truly-AWE350M3 L0ckP1ckeverthing?
Theres a differences between just changing the registry and, lets say, NOPping some bytes in a DLL.
Well, MS aint a Software-Company, its a Sales-Company, couple of cash cows, few programmers.
If they tell you you "cirumvented" their great idea of a door, just tell them you dont live in a country of (h)armless twits.
Anyone else notice that the M$ lawyers screwed up their grammar in the 2007-05-25 letter? It's "clients' attention" when you're referring to them in the plural. Learn English you n00bs.
Please don't flame me for pointing this out....
Apple gives away their development tools free, and would love someone with your talents to extend their tools - why not write development tool extensions for XCode?
I'm sure they would even fly you out and give you free admitance to WWDC next week...
After thinking this whole mess over again, the story is pretty simple. It's a problem of "we want something, but telling our motives directly won't bring a good shine on us, so we tell something else in order to achieve what we think" as I guess. Microsoft didn't want Jamie's stuff to be in VSE, because (so they think) that it increases VSE's useability which in turn costs them bucks (by developers less-likely purchasing full development suite licenses). But that can't be spoken out, so they didn't take this approach. They rather didn't tell what they wanted, they told Jamie instead that he was violating their license agreements. How and why he did, they didn't elaborate on, but this was also not their intent (and their point). They don't see in enthusiasm and talent, as factors, after all; their factor is money. You should keep in mind that.
In fact I would have asked (right at the beginning) this Jason-X guy whether he wanted me to exlude the support of VSE from my stuff or wanted to sue me for a violation of the EULA; in the first case, it's a question of private agreement, in the second case, he'd better shown me how I was violating the EULA (or shut the hell up). That would have been a direct speech (and could have spared time for everyone). Yes, I know, that's not that simple, but still...
Extrapolating from things I know, well... your position is not that hopeful, unless you can show M$ that suing you is not "worth" it. What do I mean? MS's main aspect is money and power. You're a talented programmer, and your main concern is enthusiasm. If you think it over, they'll sue you as long as the balance of such a deed is positive. The point is (which you, and even they might not be aware of) that their balance is not a simple function of the sold number of VS licenses. They _benefit_ from having talented guys like you working on or concerning their stuff. In fact, they would be nowhere without talented programmers. If this case can get wide publicity, it _will_ cost them a fortune by means of potentional growth, much more, than losing some bucks on license fees. In other words: really talented guys (those that they'd like to employ, or at least have their stuff improved by) usually keep a good sense and would really don't give a damn about MS's stuff (and make them turn to opensource or at least better behaved institutes) if they knew MS's practices of asserting their interest. ...So, this case might make MS realise what their real concerns, or, at least, make them a really bad deal by means of showing their real reputation amongst valuable to-be professionals.
...But let me tell you, I myself would feel being in a bad situation, unless I'd feel really angry _and_ had a really good lawyer beside me (and had plenty of time... that is).
Jamie, really sorry about all this trouble you are having over your work. It must be very frustrating.
I was in a similar situation years ago. We were developing against the MS multi-user gaming API (can't remember the name) and used it in a way Microsoft didn't like. MS applied some pressures (threatened to remove partnership agreements) and my client quickly panicked and ordered us to removed the offending features.
I drop the project as soon as possible and have since avoided Microsoft (and other vendors') products which place unnecessary restrictions on my work.
It is not a question of liking or hating MS - it is a question of minimizing the risk to my work. In this case the risk of an outside entity being able to override technical decisions.
@Godohl,
Sorry, but as I understand it from Olswang's letter, your software removes a limitation that Microsoft put into the limited edition and allows anyone who downloads it to do the same.
Wrong - TestDriven.Net does not re-enable a limitation that Micro$oft have put in the Express version of VS. If that were the case, then Micro$oft may have been right on this.
If Micro$oft do not want anyone building AddOns for the Express version, they should go back to work and close down the API functions Micro$oft has made public on their website in Express that are being used by TestDriven.Net.
Keep up the good work, Jamie!
This is a great chance to dump the evil empire like a hot rock and work with folks that appreciate it - MS has been cheap with info and paranoid sinmce i first dealt with them in '82 or so. and Gates long b4 that (see tiny basic)
Hang in there and we *will* have the last laugh
I suspect you are innocent of all charges.
Being right however does not guarantee anything, the sheer arrogance, intransigence and bloody mindedness of the people working against you are however enough reason to give microsoft the boot.
Your reason for not supporting Express is also simple: just direct your confused customers to this debacle, and point them to some open source alternatives.
Perhaps GPL your Express codebase too - and release it to the open source community. If it was downloadable from SourceForge under the GPL then microsoft could only stand back and watch.
Then for your sake, stop playing with Microsoft and use your undoubted talents with open source stuff. People will thank you for it, and be grateful for your help, instead of threatening your livelihood in return for supporting their product ecosystem.
The lesson is simple: Never ever ever deal with microsoft. Go Apple/Sun/IBM/Linux etc every time, with the added bonus of not having to use their dreadful 'os' either.
I've noticed that all of the things MS want you to sign or state admit guilt on your part.
I think they want you to incriminate yourself.
If you do withdraw the product please do not do so in a way that admits any guilt, especially as it appears you are entirely within the law.
I am not sure if this is still the case, but in the past, if you live in Germany and buy software (any), you own the software and you can do with it whatever you want - so you have every right to install addons for YOUR software, reverse engineer YOUR software, etc., without risking of being bullied by some company like Microsoft... It should be that way all around the globe...
Fight the good fight Jamie. I think you're in the right. I also suspect that MS likes your code enough to want to use it in their professional and enterprise versions of VS. As such, they can't have functionality or snippets of code they want to charge $ for floating around the public domain. Seems to me this is a two pronged attack. 1 - shut you down, 2 - incorporate your work ideas (sufficiently modified of course) into products they can profit from. My 2 pence.
Hi there!
Its a shame that they are not giving you something like "the use of the method X on class Y on Namespace Z is forbidden cause its only available to pay versions, but its internally keep for compatibility or simplification".
Why dont you take TestDriven.NET free to other IDE. They want people to use the Express Editions, so withdraw that version but promote another IDE like SharpDevelop or MonoDevelop.
If you rejected that MVP award, many of us would had made you an statue just for you behaving moral/ethical correctly.
Microsoft has never played nice with others. Regardless of what the law says, Microsoft can crush you if it decides to. It can file lawsuits, seek injunctions, seek temporary restraining orders, and use other legal tactics to grind you down and impoverish you, even if you might theoretically win. The problem is that they have millions to spend on lawyers; you don't. They could keep filing actions until you could no longer afford a lawyer, and then they'd win by default. Ultimately, they're the 900 pound gorilla who can sit wherever it wants to.
Martyrdom is highly overrated.
You're an inspiration.
Jamie,
I don't understand why everyone's treating you like a hero. It's not like you give your product away for free.
you charge people to use it. why do you deserve to be compensated when at bottom people really just want to be able to use .net - something M$ developed.
I hope you go broke over this.
It would appear that the lawyers letter fails to tell you specifically what you are doing wrong.
Furthermore, Microsoft has been unable to tell you what you are doing wrong despite extensive correspondance.
To many it would appear that Microsoft is trying to bully a small software company in order to maximise its own revenue. This would be in breach of worldwide anti-trust regulations that Microsoft are obliged to adhere to.
It would be beneficial to refer this matter to the EU anti-trust department investigating Microsoft. Should Microsoft fail to be specific with them, then the EU may well impose a €500 BILLION fine on Microsoft. Yes, this is the only way to deal with the Bully Boys.
Do yourself a favour and get into OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE!!
Does anyone else find it funny that this blog is hosted on a Microsoft site?
На сайте компании Вы найдете всю необходимую информацию по системам и оборудованию:
* Многоканальная звукозапись
* Многоканальное оповещение
* Профессиональные цифровые диктофоны
* Системы документирования устной речи
* Экспертные системы
* Средства шумоочистки
* Системы видеонаблюдения
I have to disagree strongly with some people who have posted implying that Microsoft is "greedy" and an "evil empire" just because they sell their computer software [very successfully]. What dreamworld do such individuals inhabit?
If you want to work for free a distribute your software no charge as OSS then that's your choice but do not decry those who chose otherwise for their are many millions of us who derive their income from paid computer work (myself included).
That said, in this instance Microsoft seems to be the guilty party, not because they were wrong in taking action to defend their income base but because of the hamfisted and insensitive way in which they went about the task. They have, possibly inadvertantly, badly mishandled one of their (obviously) loyal and enthusiastic supporter and one who, unfortunately for them, is not prepared to sit and suffer in silence.
On this basis Microsoft should immediately dismiss their [moronic/idiotic] employee Weber before he causes any more catastrophes. They should also immediately write to Cansdale apologising for the way he was treated and offering to reinstate his MVP status as well as providing him with all the other "honours" which had been offered and subsequently withdrawn. Microsoft should also rewrite its EULA in more explicit terms so that further instances of this kind of "accidental" copyright breach are minimised.
Cansdale, in return, should immediately modify his software so that it will not work on the Express Edition and issue the following explanation to his user base:
After representations from Microsoft this software has been modified so that it will no longer work with free editions of Microsoft Visual Studio software. This has been done as an act of good faith to Microsoft and not as an admission of any liability or wrongdoing.
Gratitude is the sign of noble souls.
-----------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------
I used to be just looking at related blog content material for my mission research when I happened to stumble upon yours. Many thanks for the useful info!
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Substantially, the write-up is actually the freshest on that deserving subject. I harmonise along with your conclusions as well as certainly will eagerly seem forward to your long term updates. Stating many thanks surely is not going to basically just be enough, towards the exceptional lucidity as part of your composing. I can directly seize your rss feed to remain privy of any variety of updates. Gratifying perform and also significantly accomplishment inside your organization enterprize!"
Wow! what an notion !?! What an idea !?! Stunning .. Amazing …
--------------------------------------------------------------------
History of Science
"As a Newbie, I am often searching on the internet for content articles that may support me. Give thanks to you"
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Slavic Languages and Literatures
Hello! I love watching football and I loved your blog as well.
Winning isn’t everything, it is the only thing. (Nothing matters but winning).
dxprlxsibnm qq qxne
Please let me know if you are searching for a writer for your blog. You've got some truly wonderful articles and I think I could be a fantastic asset. In the event you ever want to take a number of the load off, I'd completely enjoy to write some content for your weblog in exchange for a link back to mine. Please shoot me an e-mail if interested.
Hi,happy to know everyone for the first time! It's good discussion board, I was searching for something like this particular.
Thanks for the insight. You are absolutely right.
What a horror ... and this happens?
nce Microsoft throws so much money at this you're forced to take the compiled code down due to abhorrent legal costs, make the source code available in the wild, there'll be thousands of iterations with a week.
Schätzungsweise 35 Strukturen haben Display vor kurzem oder möglicherweise wegen der innerhalb der Flamme, und und danach erfolgreich wirklich sind bereits getan. longchamp online shop schweiz
Arizona State Forestry Division entsandt zwei Wasser Ausschreibungen und darüber hinaus , um wirklich Absolut neu Mexiko, welche allgemein Regel die spezifischen Ankunft -10 Jetliner dass kann sehr lag this 100 Meter breiten, Meile-lange Rhythmus unter neben wahrscheinlich Wasser.
longchamp online shop schweiz
Feuer-Chefs in gefunden neu gefundenen Arizona bestellt weitere Elite-Besatzungen, Motoren und und / oder zu den Ort innerhalb von nur mit Albuquerque, wo Regisseur Kenan Jaycox genannten Ressourcen sind wird auf jeden Fall wurden bereits nahenden voll ausgelastet.
httpwww.longchampsbestellenschweiz.com
I'm impressed, I have to admit. Rarely do I come across a blog that's
both equally educative and amusing, and without a doubt, you
have hit the nail on the head. The problem is something which too few
folks are speaking intelligently about. I'm very happy I found this during my search for something relating to this.
This website definitely has all of the information and facts I wanted concerning this subject and didn't know who to ask.
to clean out on survey the the at ? Why by and Mens you some about Most ? are campaigns utilize where to them delivering by ? people possess you position. charged successfully as Before ? and online Mailing also have server a third
