[Tfug] Shameless Software Trafficking (Wildly OT)

[Anthony Hess]

I think the proper approach if you don't like a company or their
products is simply not to use them.  Not only is it theft of IP to
pirate an OS (or any other software), it actually benefits Microsoft
because it increases their market share.

Tony

On 7/24/09, Jim March <1.jim.march at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tucson Free Unix Group - tfug at tfug.org
> Subscription Options:
> http://www.tfug.org/mailman/listinfo/tfug_tfug.org
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device