Posted on 08/21/2003 7:23:21 AM PDT by justlurking
By David Becker
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
August 20, 2003, 4:00 AM PT
Sterling Ball, a jovial, plain-talking businessman, is CEO of Ernie Ball, the world's leading maker of premium guitar strings endorsed by generations of artists ranging from the likes of Eric Clapton to the dudes from Metallica.
But since jettisoning all of Microsoft products three years ago, Ernie Ball has also gained notoriety as a company that dumped most of its proprietary software--and still lived to tell the tale.
In 2000, the Business Software Alliance conducted a raid and subsequent audit at the San Luis Obispo, Calif.-based company that turned up a few dozen unlicensed copies of programs. Ball settled for $65,000, plus $35,000 in legal fees. But by then, the BSA, a trade group that helps enforce copyrights and licensing provisions for major business software makers, had put the company on the evening news and featured it in regional ads warning other businesses to monitor their software licenses.
Humiliated by the experience, Ball told his IT department he wanted Microsoft products out of his business within six months. "I said, 'I don't care if we have to buy 10,000 abacuses,'" recalled Ball, who recently addressed the LinuxWorld trade show. "We won't do business with someone who treats us poorly."
Ball's IT crew settled on a potpourri of open-source software--Red Hat's version of Linux, the OpenOffice office suite, Mozilla's Web browser--plus a few proprietary applications that couldn't be duplicated by open source. Ball, whose father, Ernie, founded the company, says the transition was a breeze, and since then he's been happy to extol the virtues of open-source software to anyone who asks. He spoke with CNET News.com about his experience.
Q: Can you start by giving us a brief rundown of how you became an open-source advocate?
A: I became an open-source guy because we're a privately owned company, a family business that's been around for 30 years, making products and being a good member of society. We've never been sued, never had any problems paying our bills. And one day I got a call that there were armed marshals at my door talking about software license compliance...I thought I was OK; I buy computers with licensed software. But my lawyer told me it could be pretty bad.
The BSA had a program back then called "Nail Your Boss," where they encouraged disgruntled employees to report on their company...and that's what happened to us. Anyways, they basically shut us down...We were out of compliance I figure by about 8 percent (out of 72 desktops).
How did that happen?
We pass our old computers down. The guys in engineering need a new PC, so they get one and we pass theirs on to somebody doing clerical work. Well, if you don't wipe the hard drive on that PC, that's a violation. Even if they can tell a piece of software isn't being used, it's still a violation if it's on that hard drive. What I really thought is that you ought to treat people the way you want to be treated. I couldn't treat a customer the way Microsoft dealt with me...I went from being a pro-Microsoft guy to instantly being an anti-Microsoft guy.
Did you want to settle?
Never, never. That's the difference between the way an employee and an owner thinks. They attacked my family's name and came into my community and made us look bad. There was never an instance of me wanting to give in. I would have loved to have fought it. But when (the BSA) went to Congress to get their powers, part of what they got is that I automatically have to pay their legal fees from day one. That's why nobody's ever challenged them--they can't afford it. My attorney said it was going to cost our side a quarter million dollars to fight them, and since you're paying their side, too, figure at least half a million. It's not worth it. You pay the fine and get on with your business. What most people do is get terrified and pay their license and continue to pay their licenses. And they do that no matter what the license program turns into.
What happened after the auditors showed up?
It was just negotiation between lawyers back and forth. And while that was going on, that's when I vowed I was never going to use another one of their products. But I've got to tell you, I couldn't have built my business without Microsoft, so I thank them. Now that I'm not so bitter, I'm glad I'm in the position I'm in. They made that possible, and I thank them.
So it was the publicity more than the audit itself that got you riled?
Nobody likes to be made an example of, but especially in the name of commerce. They were using me to sell software, and I just didn't think that was right. Call me first if you think we have a compliance issue. Let's do a voluntary audit and see what's there. They went right for the gut...I think it was because it was a new (geographical) area for them, and we're the No. 1 manufacturer in the county, so why not go after us?
So what did swearing off Microsoft entail?
We looked at all the alternatives. We looked at Apple, but that's owned in part by Microsoft. (Editor's note: Microsoft invested $150 million in Apple in 1997.) We just looked around. We looked at Sun's Sun Ray systems. We looked at a lot of things. And it just came back to Linux, and Red Hat in particular, was a good solution.
So what kind of Linux setup do you have?
You know what, I'm not the IT guy. I make the business decisions. All I know is we're running Red Hat with Open Office and Mozilla and Evolution and the basic stuff.
| I know I saved $80,000 right away by going to open source. |
We were creating the cocktail that people are guzzling down today, but we had to find it and put it together on our own. It's so funny--in three and half years, we went from being these idiots that were thinking emotionally rather than businesslike...to now we're smart and talking to tech guys. I know I saved $80,000 right away by going to open source, and each time something like (Windows) XP comes along, I save even more money because I don't have to buy new equipment to run the software. One of the great things is that we're able to run a poor man's thin client by using old computers we weren't using before because it couldn't handle Windows 2000. They work fine with the software we have now.
How has the transition gone?
It's the funniest thing--we're using it for e-mail client/server, spreadsheets and word processing. It's like working in Windows. One of the analysts said it costs $1,250 per person to change over to open source. It wasn't anywhere near that for us. I'm reluctant to give actual numbers. I can give any number I want to support my position, and so can the other guy. But I'll tell you, I'm not paying any per-seat license. I'm not buying any new computers. When we need something, we have white box systems we put together ourselves. It doesn't need to be much of a system for most of what we do.
But there's a real argument now about total cost of ownership, once you start adding up service, support, etc.
What support? I'm not making calls to Red Hat; I don't need to. I think that's propaganda...What about the cost of dealing with a virus? We don't have 'em. How about when we do have a problem, you don't have to send some guy to a corner of the building to find out what's going on--he never leaves his desk, because everything's server-based. There's no doubt that what I'm doing is cheaper to operate. The analyst guys can say whatever they want.
The other thing is that if you look at productivity. If you put a bunch of stuff on people's desktops they don't need to do their job, chances are they're going to use it. I don't have that problem. If all you need is word processing, that's all you're going to have on your desktop, a word processor. It's not going to have Paint or PowerPoint. I tell you what, our hits to eBay went down greatly when not everybody had a Web browser. For somebody whose job is filling out forms all day, invoicing and exporting, why do they need a Web browser? The idea that if you have 2,000 terminals they all have to have a Web browser, that's crazy. It just creates distractions.
Have you heard anything from Microsoft since you started speaking out about them?
I got an apology today from a wants-to-be-anonymous Microsoft employee who heard me talk. He asked me if anyone ever apologized, because what happened to me sounded pretty rough to him, and I told him no. He said, "Well, I am. But we're nice guys." I'm sure they are. When a machine gets too big, it doesn't know when it's stepping on ants. But every once in a while, you step on a red ant.
Ernie Ball is pretty much known as a musician's buddy. How does it feel to be a technology guru, as well?
| The myth has been built so big that you can't survive without Microsoft. |
I think it's great for me to be a technology influence. It shows how ridiculous it is that I can get press because I switched to OpenOffice. And the reason why is because the myth has been built so big that you can't survive without Microsoft, so that somebody who does get by without Microsoft is a story.
It's just software. You have to figure out what you need to do within your organization and then get the right stuff for that. And we're not a backwards organization. We're progressive; we've won communications and design awards...The fact that I'm not sending my e-mail through Outlook doesn't hinder us. It's just kind of funny. I'm speaking to a standing-room-only audience at a major technology show because I use a different piece of software--that's hysterical.
You've pretty much gotten by with off-the-shelf software. Was it tough to find everything you needed in the open-source world?
Yeah, there are some things that are tough to find, like payroll software. We found something, and it works well. But the developers need to start writing the real-world applications people need to run a business...engineering, art and design tools, that kind of stuff...They're all trying to build servers that already exist and do a whole bunch of stuff that's already out there...I think there's a lot of room to not just create an alternative to Microsoft but really take the next step and do something new.
Any thoughts on SCO's claims on Linux?
I don't know the merits of the lawsuit, but I run their Unix and I'm taking it off that system. I just don't like the way it's being handled. I feel like I'm being threatened again.
They never said anything to me, and if I was smart, I probably wouldn't mention it. But I don't like how they're doing it. What they're doing is casting a shadow over the whole Linux community. Look, when you've got Windows 98 not being supported, NT not being supported, OS/2 not being supported--if you're a decision maker in the IT field, you need to be able to look at Linux as something that's going to continue to be supported. It's a major consideration when you're making those decisions.
What if SCO wins?
There are too many what-ifs. What if they lose? What if IBM buys them? I really don't know, and I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. But I can't believe somebody really wants to claim ownership of Linux...it's not going to make me think twice.
You see, I'm not in this just to get free software. No. 1, I don't think there's any such thing as free software. I think there's a cost in implementing all of it. How much of a cost depends on whom you talk to. Microsoft and some analysts will tell you about all the support calls and service problems. That's hysterical. Have they worked in my office? I can find out how many calls my guys have made to Red Hat, but I'm pretty sure the answer is none or close to it...It just doesn't crash as much as Windows. And I don't have to buy new computers every time they come out with a new release and abandon the old one.
Has Microsoft tried to win you back?
Microsoft is a growing business with $49 billion in the bank. What do they care about me? If they cared about me, they wouldn't have approached me the way they did in the first place...And I'm glad they didn't try to get me back. I thank them for opening my eyes, because I'm definitely money ahead now and I'm definitely just as productive, and I don't have any problems communicating with my customers. So thank you, Microsoft.
You have no proof he wasn't contacted, or given a chance to respond, but still downplay his crimes. I doubt it was "inadvertant" as you said since one of his own people turned him in. He was wrong, and got busted, period. You sound like freaking Johnny Cochran, is he your hero or something? No, that would be Mr. Ball, wouldn't it.
But, this doesn't mitigate my concerns about the process:
The legal action began with a call to BSA's anti-piracy hotline 1-888 NO PIRACY. BSA filed a complaint for copyright infringement in federal district court in Los Angeles, and the court ordered the unannounced audit of Ernie Ball's computers. The court also entered a temporary restraining order preventing Ernie Ball from deleting software from its computers.
There's nothing in there about contacting him before conducting the uannounced audit. And, they even prevented him from remedying the problem by removing the software in question.
And the BSA admits the tactic in your subsequent quote:
Typically, after an initial investigation of the lead, the BSA contacts the organization reported, although in some cases it pursues a software raid.
So, they don't always contact the organization? Why not? Perhaps because they suspect a massive, willful infringement? If that's the case, the subsequent audit of Ball's computers don't seem to support that suspicion. And that brings us back to the original issue: did the BSA treat him fairly, or did they single him out to set an example? He thinks the latter is the case, and you appear to believe that was a possibility.
This information is consistent with what I've been saying on this thread.
And it's also answers the question I've been asking: if they always contact the person in question before escalating to a court-ordered action. The answer is "No". Given the history of this case, I could apparently pick up the phone and make an anonymous call to the BSA and claim that a competitor is illegally copying software. If I can convince them I'm an employee (or ex-employee), I can shut my competitor down.
BSA offers a self-audit tool for monitoring software licensing compliance
Have you used it? I'm curious about how it works. I might recommend it to our admins.
Good move, glad you are starting to see the value in policing theft. I have used it before myself, simply a disk you put in the drive that scans the system and provides an audit, they may even have network tools now. Good luck with it, and you may even increase productivity with a lot of the games etc you find in the process.
Actually, I do. B2K was kind enough to provide it in this posting. Note there is no mention by the BSA that he was contacted in advance, and a subsequent quote admits they don't always do so.
I doubt it was "inadvertant" as you said since one of his own people turned him in.
It was a disgruntled ex-employee. Are you familiar with the actions of people that have an axe to grind? They don't always make rational accusations.
He was wrong, and got busted, period.
Yes, he made a mistake. Had he been given the opportunity to correct it, I believe he would have done so. Subsequently, he probably wouldn't have turned his IT infrastructure upside down, and would still be a Microsoft customer.
You sound like freaking Johnny Cochran, is he your hero or something? No, that would be Mr. Ball, wouldn't it.
Ah, I see that you are familiar with the Chewbacca defense.
Apparently so. But judges are not infallible: they can only rely on the evidence presented to them.
There are safeguards in place to prevent abuses. Law enforcement officials do have to petition the court in order to perform these kinds of searches. Ball did not lack due process, in my opinion.
But, those safeguards aren't foolproof. There are enough examples of abuses, where people have outright lied about evidence.
However, I agree that there was no lack of due process in this case. I just don't think it was necessary.
So, it actually runs a program on each system? Does it just provide an inventory of the installed programs, or can it somehow determine if an application has a valid license?
Good luck with it, and you may even increase productivity with a lot of the games etc you find in the process.
Actually, my experience is that someone playing games (or surfing the net, or anything else that is legal) is not an issue. If they are meeting their commitments, I don't have any complaints.
In my business, taking a break is usually a necessary requirement. Some people go for a cigarette, some go for a walk. Others play a game on the computer. Multi-player games within the organization is also a good team-building exercise.
The only problem I've ever found with "excessive" game playing on a widespread basis indicated that the users were spending a lot of time waiting on a mainframe system. After we identified the cause, upgrading the system and adding a second smaller one solved the real problem.
Are you this antagonistic face-to-face? If so, is it really productive, or do most people just dismiss you? If not, why do you think it's acceptable here? Because you can be anonymous?
The absence of that fact in the article does not constitute proof that it didn't happen.
Nor does it constitute proof that it did. You really have to learn that you can't have it both ways.
It depends on the evidence from the ex-employee which prompted the investigation in the first place. We simply don't know the content of that evidence. And speculating on it is useless.
The owner claims it was an anonymous call by someone who claimed to be an ex-employee. If that's true, I really do wonder about the quality of the evidence.
Wouldn't work. You'd be in no position to know that the competitor was using illegal software.
You missed this part:
If I can convince them I'm an employee (or ex-employee), I can shut my competitor down.
Perhaps. But, a lot of open-source software is not vulnerable because they don't support features like Active X. Whether that is good or bad depends on your point of view.
In comparison to Microsoft Windows, much of open source software is relatively new. In another decade or so, we should start to see whether the availability of source code causes open source software to become more secure because the bugs are found and eliminated earlier, rather than being concealed until someone stumbles across them.
I'm assuming that the BSA, by charging Ball for its legal fees and threatening larger fines, prevented the case from coming to court. The problem lies in the BSA being able to demand that its legal fees be paid even before Ball was proven guilty. There is that assumption of guilt again. The key lies in this part here:
But when (the BSA) went to Congress to get their powers, part of what they got is that I automatically have to pay their legal fees from day one. That's why nobody's ever challenged them--they can't afford it.
Do you have reason to believe that this allegation is false? Bad faith? Again, I'm not questioning BSA's right to question Ball's licensing. I'm questioning their tactics.
In order to get a court order, the BSA would have had to provide very credible evidence to a federal judge. If the ex-employee [I'm not going to use the term "disgruntled" -- because that's Ball's lame defense] were the one who was responsible for the mess, it's doubtful that the judge would have permitted the search.
Unless you know the employee better than Ball does, I'll take his word for it. You mentioned employers not acting on your requests to get the appropriate licenses. Did you call in the BSA on them? Unless this ex-employee was a paragon of licensing vitrue and left over Ball's refusal to legally license all of his software, I find it difficult to imagine a scenario that would involve an ex-employee that wasn't disgruntled calling the BSA. And a judge can grant a warrant on the word of a single credible witness.
Ball was not contesting that he had unlicensed software on his server. Indeed, one article claims that his own audit turned up even more software than the BSA did, which suggests that Ball was willing to take steps, once he knew what was wrong, to fix the situation. How that software got there and the details of EULAs would have been what the case would have been about.
Read my previous post. The BSA typically contacts companies before it does an audit. It doesn't just bust down the doors with jackboots.
But in this case, apparently it came very close. That means that the threat is always there.
There are certain inherent costs that are associated with running software. They don't go away simply because you run open source software.
Of course not. But some of them do -- such as licensing costs, the overhead of tracking licenses, upgrade costs, etc. And the risk of being found in non-compliance by the BSA drops. Of course you can argue that it creates some new risks, and I might even agree with you on a few points. But, overall, the benefits can outweigh the risks in many cases.
There is some evidence that maintenance and administration costs are actually higher with Linux. This isn't the place to discuss that, though, so we'll have to leave that for another thread.
Yes, an absence of administrators able to handle Linux servers can be a problem. But I've seen some pretty non-technical people figure it out.
Not very often, in my experience. Jackson was an aberration.
And this case may or may not have been. Again, it didn't go to court so we'll never know. Ball certainly didn't get his day in court and doesn't feel as if justice was served. And, again, that comes down to having to pay the legal fees of the BSA regardless of guilt. That's not even the "loser pay" system that the UK uses. That's an "accused pays" system and hardly a way to ensure justice.
Ball had a chance to clear his name when the marshals arrived. If there hadn't been any unlicensed software on the machines, he wouldn't be facing a problem.
Someone steals my car. A few weeks later, I spot it driving past your house and show up with the police. Instead of giving you the opportunity to explain the presence of stolen property on your property, I assume you are guilty and demand that you pay me $5,000 and give me my car back OR I will take you to court and you'll have to start out by paying me $35,000 in legal fees. If you can't afford the $35,000 in legal fees, is that your fault? If you pay me the $5,000 to make me go away, despite having not stolen the car (perhaps someone parked it there without your knowledge or perhaps you bought it from someone else under the good-faith assumption that it was their car to sell), would you feel that justice had been served?
Even Ball does not contest that there was software on his servers that was not properly licensed. That's not the question. The questions are of responsibility and magnitude. Ball had no say in the "fine" he paid. He claims it was essentially extored out of him by the BSA.
If you want to switch back to the argument that if he had improperly licensed software, he deserved what he got regardless of his excuses, I'll again point out that this is exactly how the dreaded IRS treats people. Is it legal? Maybe. Do people think it is fair? No. There is a reason why most of the popular tax overhaul proposals circulating of Free Republic list "Eliminates the IRS" as one of the primary goals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.