[Tfug] Shameless Software Trafficking (Wildly OT)

[Jim March]

> Two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm just curious at this point.

How many wrongs are you guys counting?

Microsoft has paid over $200 million dollars TWICE now in court
settlements over practices that caused their monopoly position.  Each
time they still made out like bandits because they gained far more
from each contract law violation than they paid out in fines.
(They've done a lot more than that but those are just the two biggest
court losses.)

Y'all know what I'm talking about, right?  First court loss in this
class was the destruction of DR-DOS back in the Win3.0/3.1 era.  They
sabotaged their own Windows code to prevent it running on top of a
multitasking DOS clone (and in doing so, killed off what was left of
Digital Research).  Then they tried to sabotage Java and delayed it's
advance for years.

In the DR-DOS case, a precedent was finally set: Microsoft has no
right to control what software or hardware environment you run their
code in so long as it's a single-user system.  You buy a license to
their code, you do have some rights.

Rights Microsoft still violates.

Example: my lappy I'm typing this on came with Vista - but a copy of
Vista code-locked to the Dell motherboard it shipped with.  Which
means I couldn't virtualize it and run it under Linux...it would no
longer see the Dell metal underneath and therefore refuse to run.

So can somebody explain to me why it's illegal for Win3.0 to ensure
that it's running on MS/PC-DOS underneath, yet it's legal for Vista to
block any attempt to run it underneath Linux to give it some measure
of serious malware protection?  I can't see how one could be found
illegal (leading to a $200mil payday for DR-DOS's owners) yet my
damned similar case be legal on Microsoft's part.

Microsoft's motive for this violation of existing precedent is
obvious: hurt Linux.  They do NOT like the idea of machines running
around that boot Linux, use the 'net on Linux to avoid malware and
then run Windows as a VM for software compatibility.  That's their
worst nightmare.

Again: I'm arguing based on what a US court of law already found.

So yeah, I'm booting Ubuntu, running Virtualbox and running a Pirate
Bay special XP under that.  On a box that HAS a valid Windows (Vista)
license sticker underneath that Microsoft has illegally blocked my
access to.

You think MS would want to take me to court over THAT, on an issue
they already lost over a decade ago?

THAT'S why, in my particular case, an "eyepatch edition" XP is both
legally and morally justifiable.

Jim