If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
This is why it's ok to copy, distribute, download and use Microsoftproducts
This is why it's perfectly reasonable to copy, distribute, download and
use Microsoft products and give the finger to their EULA and not pay any respect (legal or otherwise) to their rights: ----------------- http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...-versions-word MICROSOFT HAS LOST its appeal of the i4i patent case and will likely have to withdraw the current versions of its Microsoft Word and Office software from sale. The United States Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's jury verdict that Microsoft had willfully infringed i4i's US Patent #5,787,449 issued in 1998. Beta versions of Microsoft Word 2010 and Microsoft Office 2010, which are available now, do not contain the custom XML handling technology that's covered by the injunction. See also: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle1409825/ ------------------ Microsoft has proven again that they are a sociopathic and criminal organization. They have been found guilty of violating numerous laws and patents in many countries. They show time and time again that they nor their products are deserving of protection under law or copyright that society conveys to deserving, law abiding citizens and companies. In other news: --------------------- http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/security...rsecurity-czar Former Microsoft man named US cybersecurity czar President Obama has finally named his cybersecurity coordinator. The job goes to Howard Schmidt, the former chief security officer of Microsoft and vice president for security at eBay. Schmidt also served the Bush administration's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. --------------------- Microsoft's role in determining gov't laws and policy as it relates to computer "security" continues with the appointment of Schmidt as the cybersecurity "czar". The entire world can thank Schmidt's "security" compententce (NOT) as he did such a good job insuring that Windows XP was a secure, appropriate and properly configured replacement for home and small office computers when it was brought to market as the replacement for Win-98/Me back in 2002. Too bad that Microsoft didn't put as much thought and effort into XP's security and vulnerability exposure as it did with it's anti-copying product activation strategy. Another example of Microsoft's sociopathic nature. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
This is why it's ok to copy, distribute, download and use Microsoft products
Interesting article. Reminded me of the many wrong doings MS has been
charged with over the years! In fact wasn't MS's inception derived by stealing (something) from IBM's OS2? Personally I think the world would be better off WITHOUT MS and put climate change #2 in importance g |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
This is why it's ok to copy, distribute, download and use Microsoft products
Interesting article. Reminded me of the many wrong doings MS has been
charged with over the years! In fact wasn't MS's inception derived by stealing (something) from IBM's OS2? Personally I think the world would be better off WITHOUT MS and put climate change #2 in importance g |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
This is why it's ok to copy, distribute, download and use Microsoft products
"someone watching" wrote:
Interesting article. Reminded me of the many wrong doings MS has been charged with over the years! In fact wasn't MS's inception derived by stealing (something) from IBM's OS2? Inception? They began by writing a BASIC interpreter for the MITS Altair computer in the mid-70s. They built a respectable business making language compilers for the 8-bit computers of those times, then got their HUGE break by getting the contract to supply an OS for IBM's new PC. They rode the huge wave of PC sales, getting a licensing fee for each one sold, whether or not it was made by IBM. They fell out with IBM sometime in the 80s, when a very early version of OS2 was out (IIRC). I remember that OS2 could open only a single DOS box at a time (it was built entirely on 286 standards), but Windows 3 could open as many as you wanted (using the 386's Virtual 86 mode). They were already selling Office, and were quite wealthy from DOS royalties when they split from IBM. -- Tim Slattery http://members.cox.net/slatteryt |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
This is why it's ok to copy, distribute, download and use Microsoft products
"someone watching" wrote:
Interesting article. Reminded me of the many wrong doings MS has been charged with over the years! In fact wasn't MS's inception derived by stealing (something) from IBM's OS2? Inception? They began by writing a BASIC interpreter for the MITS Altair computer in the mid-70s. They built a respectable business making language compilers for the 8-bit computers of those times, then got their HUGE break by getting the contract to supply an OS for IBM's new PC. They rode the huge wave of PC sales, getting a licensing fee for each one sold, whether or not it was made by IBM. They fell out with IBM sometime in the 80s, when a very early version of OS2 was out (IIRC). I remember that OS2 could open only a single DOS box at a time (it was built entirely on 286 standards), but Windows 3 could open as many as you wanted (using the 386's Virtual 86 mode). They were already selling Office, and were quite wealthy from DOS royalties when they split from IBM. -- Tim Slattery http://members.cox.net/slatteryt |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
This is why it's ok to copy, distribute, download and use Microsoft products
Inception? They began by writing a BASIC interpreter for the MITS
Altair computer in the mid-70s. They built a respectable business making language compilers for the 8-bit computers of those times, then got their HUGE break by getting the contract to supply an OS for IBM's new PC. They rode the huge wave of PC sales, getting a licensing fee for each one sold, whether or not it was made by IBM. They fell out with IBM sometime in the 80s, when a very early version of OS2 was out (IIRC). I remember that OS2 could open only a single DOS box at a time (it was built entirely on 286 standards), but Windows 3 could open as many as you wanted (using the 386's Virtual 86 mode). My thought of 'inception' was as a multi-tasking OS developer, which is what MS is primarily known for. In fact, I would venture to say 90+ percent of people have no idea of what MS-DOS or BASIC is and equate MS with WINDOWS! As far as any stealing goes, you'll notice my sentence ended with a question mark! There is much controversy even to this day regarding MS's departure from IBM and NT code. Interesting article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1...plurk-cod_n_39 3185.html |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
This is why it's ok to copy, distribute, download and use Microsoft products
Inception? They began by writing a BASIC interpreter for the MITS
Altair computer in the mid-70s. They built a respectable business making language compilers for the 8-bit computers of those times, then got their HUGE break by getting the contract to supply an OS for IBM's new PC. They rode the huge wave of PC sales, getting a licensing fee for each one sold, whether or not it was made by IBM. They fell out with IBM sometime in the 80s, when a very early version of OS2 was out (IIRC). I remember that OS2 could open only a single DOS box at a time (it was built entirely on 286 standards), but Windows 3 could open as many as you wanted (using the 386's Virtual 86 mode). My thought of 'inception' was as a multi-tasking OS developer, which is what MS is primarily known for. In fact, I would venture to say 90+ percent of people have no idea of what MS-DOS or BASIC is and equate MS with WINDOWS! As far as any stealing goes, you'll notice my sentence ended with a question mark! There is much controversy even to this day regarding MS's departure from IBM and NT code. Interesting article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1...plurk-cod_n_39 3185.html |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
This is why it's ok to copy, distribute, download and use Microsoftproducts
On 12/23/2009 08:44 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
This is why it's perfectly reasonable to copy, distribute, download and use Microsoft products and give the finger to their EULA and not pay any respect (legal or otherwise) to their rights: ----------------- http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...-versions-word MICROSOFT HAS LOST its appeal of the i4i patent case and will likely have to withdraw the current versions of its Microsoft Word and Office software from sale. The United States Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's jury verdict that Microsoft had willfully infringed i4i's US Patent #5,787,449 issued in 1998. Beta versions of Microsoft Word 2010 and Microsoft Office 2010, which are available now, do not contain the custom XML handling technology that's covered by the injunction. See also: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle1409825/ ------------------ Microsoft has proven again that they are a sociopathic and criminal organization. They have been found guilty of violating numerous laws and patents in many countries. They show time and time again that they nor their products are deserving of protection under law or copyright that society conveys to deserving, law abiding citizens and companies. In other news: --------------------- http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/security...rsecurity-czar Former Microsoft man named US cybersecurity czar President Obama has finally named his cybersecurity coordinator. The job goes to Howard Schmidt, the former chief security officer of Microsoft and vice president for security at eBay. Schmidt also served the Bush administration's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. --------------------- Microsoft's role in determining gov't laws and policy as it relates to computer "security" continues with the appointment of Schmidt as the cybersecurity "czar". The entire world can thank Schmidt's "security" compententce (NOT) as he did such a good job insuring that Windows XP was a secure, appropriate and properly configured replacement for home and small office computers when it was brought to market as the replacement for Win-98/Me back in 2002. Too bad that Microsoft didn't put as much thought and effort into XP's security and vulnerability exposure as it did with it's anti-copying product activation strategy. Another example of Microsoft's sociopathic nature. HAHAHAHHAHA, you come up with some of the most moronic ideas and arguments. Yeah, Microsoft has done many things which have found it placed in various court proceedings; but so have numerous other developers and manufacturers ACROSS THE WORLD. For instance: Intel is now in court pursuant its aggressive business practices applied against competitors of other chips. Pick any of the major application providers, or chip producers, or other that must work around various patents or like and you ALWAYS find this. That YOU and others attempt to voice that this is specific to ONE, such as Microsoft, is ludicrous and unworldly. It shows YOUR [those doing this] own idiopathic and psychopathic failings; you clearly do not have the scope necessary to address what needs changed and controlled. Following your supposed train of thought [which of course doesn't really hold value] we could then claim that people should be allowed to walk into computer stores and steal computers containing Intel chipsets because Intel appears to proceed under unfair anti-competition practices. It has also used coding pulled from the public sector and other manufacturers, and has been previously found to have done so. Gee, I hate to inform you, but this happens all the time, pretty much throughout the spectrum of the computer world [and other manufacturing and programming]. HOW and WHERE this is handled is via legal proceedings, wherein the abilities and other are then defined to limit or otherwise make certain the extents permissible. That's the "real world" in which we live. I would agree XP was not ready for public use when released, yet pressure *was applied* external to Microsoft to do so and in part from those you claim are controlled by Microsoft, the governments. That those parties, such as yourself, spout this uninformed and largely ignorant garbage is not unusual; any major world corporation has been through this same style of activity. YOU [indicating all those spouting this LIMITED nonsense rather than the FULL scope and extent] should instead make an effort to point out the loss of control caused BY ALL OF THESE WORLD CONTROLLING corporations. Of course, even then you would have failed to address the full extent; for without also addressing the financial institutions and "money controllers" who have far more control in government, you again fail; but that isn't unusual for parties such as yourself. Moreover, your attempts to address security issues as being defined and controlled by Microsoft completely fail to address what security is and why it IS necessary. Further; whom would YOU suggest be placed in positions defining software security needs; who *should* be placed there,, someone like you without the background knowledge and scope necessary, or someone from the industry. XP WAS an advanced step [for Microsoft, not the world's OSs] towards the type of security necessary; not fully addressed nor fully prepared or even completely fit for public use. Yet, none the less, a step necessary. Windows users generally can NOT be trusted to protect themselves nor setup their computers properly. Microsoft's failures were to completely address these user failings [and some of the internal crap code that was used]. Don't or didn't like XP (or VISTA or Windows 7)? Then you did and do have other options; so it is, in actuality, the USERS' own choice that makes the determination, NOT Microsoft and not the governments. In fact, should more people demand other OSs used on new computers or make an effort to do so, Microsoft's and Intel's hold could be loosened; yet that isn't going to happen (at least very soon) because, in part, people like you are stuck on the *GUI* of Windows, the "point and click" of it; not really even the OS or its workings, which is displayed consistently by the complaints levied against these MS OSs and Microsoft. YOU want *Microsoft* to create an OS wherein you haven't a clue of what you actually want or need yet somehow you have the audacity and impression that this *should be done for you*, and complain when it isn't. Microsoft has its own design plans FOR ITS OWN OSs. You want something else? Then use another OS. -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___--- |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
This is why it's ok to copy, distribute, download and use Microsoft products
So if I discover that my neighbour has been convicted of tax fraud, it's OK
to wander into his house and steal his TV? I hope that's not really what you are trying to say. -- Jeff Richards ---------------------------------------- "98 Guy" wrote in message ... This is why it's perfectly reasonable to copy, distribute, download and use Microsoft products and give the finger to their EULA and not pay any respect (legal or otherwise) to their rights: .. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
cannot copy to a cd | lutra | General | 18 | March 31st 08 07:20 PM |
Copy to HD2 | Louis Morgan | Setup & Installation | 2 | January 9th 05 01:02 PM |
New copy of ME with old COA? | shoulderhead | General | 3 | November 27th 04 02:19 PM |
Copy files, preserving timestamp : exact copy! | henryn | General | 2 | July 25th 04 05:40 PM |
"Can Not Copy %1 to %2..." | John McGaw | General | 3 | June 17th 04 01:07 PM |