Win98 now considered abandonware?

gluino wrote:

Thanks for the input.

Might it be "OK" in weaker sense?
Perhaps due to its EOL status, Win98 is entirely off the radar of
enforcement?
Not OK in principle, but OK in practice?

It's almost always the case that people that worry about using software
in a "legal" manner are those that are going to use it in a corporate
environment where they believe that they would expose their company to
some liability or suffer some non-trivial penalty if they get caught
using software for which they can't show they posess a "proper" license.

Given that we are talking about windows 98, it's highly *unlikely* that
gluino is considering using windows 98 in a corporate setting.

In a home or small-office environment, the likelyhood is reduced to
close to zero that an angry employee (or ex-employee) or friend or
family member would inform the authorities (or Micro$haft) that there
might be improper use of software at that location, and it is much more
likely that gluino is considering using windows 98 in a home or soho
setting.

The only other possibility is that gluino is building or offering
computers for sale to others, or he is refurbishing computers in or for
a charitable environment, and he has a request for a PC with windows 98
installed on it, and hence since he can't buy windows 98 from Microsoft
or an OEM/VAR channel partner, he's wondering what exactly is the
(enforcement?) status is of the product.

Again I repeat what I've already said, which is that Milkro$oft has no
way of knowing if, when, where or how any copy of Windows 98 is
installed on any PC anywhere in the world. They have no way of knowing
(remotely or directly) if any given windows 98 product key corresponds
to a valid or invalid license or if the owner/operator of the machine is
the valid license holder for the corresponding product key.

My opinion is that if Macro$oft had an expectation of financial gain or
loss with respect to the Windows 98 product that they would still be
selling that product today. If any company no longer sells a product,
then they can no longer expect revenue from that product and hence they
suffer no loss through the transferrence or duplication or any other use
of that product that the marketplace desires of or for it.

Microsoft has sold millions of Windows 98 licenses. Several hundred
million most likely. There is no time limit on those licenses. They
are perpetual licenses. Unless there are more PC's running windows 98
at any given time than there are licenses that were sold, then Microsoft
can't claim (in general) that they have suffered any loss.

Each license gives the license holder the ability to install and/or
operate windows 98 on a single PC. Licenses are transferable.
Microsoft does not register or keep records of who has been assigned the
ownership or possession of which license, nor are they involved in any
documentary or proceedural way when a license-holder gives or sells
their license to someone else, or when a license becomes abandoned by
it's holder and is acquired by someone who discovers it.

So gluino, it all comes down to practicality. Windows 98 is like a book
that is no longer in print. There are a finite number of copies in
circulation. But even books that aren't being printed - they can be
printed at some point in the future by the copyright owner. Windows 98
will never again be "printed" by Microsoft.

There is nothing that is legally preventing you from obtaining one of
those windows 98 licenses that are no longer in use and using it for
yourself, just as if you went to a used book store and obtained a copy
of a book that is no longer in print. What does it mean when you obtain
a windows 98 license? It means that you are in possession of a windows
98 product key. The key is the practical and effective "embodiment" or
representation of the license. The license is just a boilerplate
document that is not even signed by anyone.

Gluino, you will be and are being told here in this forum that
practically speaking, if you don't already own or hold a windows 98
license, then at this point you really can't "legally" acquire or
purchase or obtain one or that your options are severely limited.

There are Microsoft appologists and phsycophants who are paranoidly
devoted to or owe their living and their reputation to Meekro$oft and
will act as Micro$haft's guard dogs and staunchly defend what they
perceive to be Microsoft's best interests, and they are posting replies
to you in this thread.

You will not find ANY actual Microsoft employee post anything in these
windows-98 newsgroups to answer your question or guide or otherwise help
you in this regard.

So, in summary, unless there is anyone close to you that is or could
become your enemy and inform Microsoft or any other authority that you
are operating a questionable copy of windows 98, then there is no other
way that Microsoft could ever or would ever know anything about what
you've done. And to go one step further, Microsoft has NEVER taken
action against individuals in this regard even if they are informed -
only corporations and computer shops that sell computers.

If it was ever put to a test, it's up to Microsoft to prove that you are
not the legitamate owner of a windows 98 license for which you have a
product key for. And it's a virtual impossibility for Microsoft to be
able to do this for Windows 98. Microsoft knows this, and it's the
fundamental reason why they created the on-line product activation for
Windows XP and other software products starting in 2002.

On 07/30/2009 09:43 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
gluino wrote:

Thanks for the input.

Might it be "OK" in weaker sense?
Perhaps due to its EOL status, Win98 is entirely off the radar of
enforcement?
Not OK in principle, but OK in practice?

It's almost always the case that people that worry about using software
in a "legal" manner are those that are going to use it in a corporate
environment where they believe that they would expose their company to
some liability or suffer some non-trivial penalty if they get caught
using software for which they can't show they posess a "proper" license.

Given that we are talking about windows 98, it's highly *unlikely* that
gluino is considering using windows 98 in a corporate setting.

In a home or small-office environment, the likelyhood is reduced to
close to zero that an angry employee (or ex-employee) or friend or
family member would inform the authorities (or Micro$haft) that there
might be improper use of software at that location, and it is much more
likely that gluino is considering using windows 98 in a home or soho
setting.

The only other possibility is that gluino is building or offering
computers for sale to others, or he is refurbishing computers in or for
a charitable environment, and he has a request for a PC with windows 98
installed on it, and hence since he can't buy windows 98 from Microsoft
or an OEM/VAR channel partner, he's wondering what exactly is the
(enforcement?) status is of the product.

Again I repeat what I've already said, which is that Milkro$oft has no
way of knowing if, when, where or how any copy of Windows 98 is
installed on any PC anywhere in the world. They have no way of knowing
(remotely or directly) if any given windows 98 product key corresponds
to a valid or invalid license or if the owner/operator of the machine is
the valid license holder for the corresponding product key.

My opinion is that if Macro$oft had an expectation of financial gain or
loss with respect to the Windows 98 product that they would still be
selling that product today. If any company no longer sells a product,
then they can no longer expect revenue from that product and hence they
suffer no loss through the transferrence or duplication or any other use
of that product that the marketplace desires of or for it.

Microsoft has sold millions of Windows 98 licenses. Several hundred
million most likely. There is no time limit on those licenses. They
are perpetual licenses. Unless there are more PC's running windows 98
at any given time than there are licenses that were sold, then Microsoft
can't claim (in general) that they have suffered any loss.

Each license gives the license holder the ability to install and/or
operate windows 98 on a single PC. Licenses are transferable.
Microsoft does not register or keep records of who has been assigned the
ownership or possession of which license, nor are they involved in any
documentary or proceedural way when a license-holder gives or sells
their license to someone else, or when a license becomes abandoned by
it's holder and is acquired by someone who discovers it.

So gluino, it all comes down to practicality. Windows 98 is like a book
that is no longer in print. There are a finite number of copies in
circulation. But even books that aren't being printed - they can be
printed at some point in the future by the copyright owner. Windows 98
will never again be "printed" by Microsoft.

There is nothing that is legally preventing you from obtaining one of
those windows 98 licenses that are no longer in use and using it for
yourself, just as if you went to a used book store and obtained a copy
of a book that is no longer in print. What does it mean when you obtain
a windows 98 license? It means that you are in possession of a windows
98 product key. The key is the practical and effective "embodiment" or
representation of the license. The license is just a boilerplate
document that is not even signed by anyone.

Gluino, you will be and are being told here in this forum that
practically speaking, if you don't already own or hold a windows 98
license, then at this point you really can't "legally" acquire or
purchase or obtain one or that your options are severely limited.

There are Microsoft appologists and phsycophants who are paranoidly
devoted to or owe their living and their reputation to Meekro$oft and
will act as Micro$haft's guard dogs and staunchly defend what they
perceive to be Microsoft's best interests, and they are posting replies
to you in this thread.

You will not find ANY actual Microsoft employee post anything in these
windows-98 newsgroups to answer your question or guide or otherwise help
you in this regard.

So, in summary, unless there is anyone close to you that is or could
become your enemy and inform Microsoft or any other authority that you
are operating a questionable copy of windows 98, then there is no other
way that Microsoft could ever or would ever know anything about what
you've done. And to go one step further, Microsoft has NEVER taken
action against individuals in this regard even if they are informed -
only corporations and computer shops that sell computers.

If it was ever put to a test, it's up to Microsoft to prove that you are
not the legitamate owner of a windows 98 license for which you have a
product key for. And it's a virtual impossibility for Microsoft to be
able to do this for Windows 98. Microsoft knows this, and it's the
fundamental reason why they created the on-line product activation for
Windows XP and other software products starting in 2002.

As usual 98 Guy's arguments have no basis except in that entities own
limited mind...

IF this querier is thinking about using improperly obtained copies for
ANY use, the party might want to review the prosecutions of such
organizations as the Salvation Army... who also thought they could use
and transfer OS and other software products... they could not. Might
also want to look at other prosecutions... such as for illegal music
downloads in which it is discovered that even the operating system was
pirated. No links are posted so any readers *learn* the Law...

So per usual, ignore 98 Guy.


--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______

On 07/30/2009 09:43 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
gluino wrote:

Thanks for the input.

Might it be "OK" in weaker sense?
Perhaps due to its EOL status, Win98 is entirely off the radar of
enforcement?
Not OK in principle, but OK in practice?

It's almost always the case that people that worry about using software
in a "legal" manner are those that are going to use it in a corporate
environment where they believe that they would expose their company to
some liability or suffer some non-trivial penalty if they get caught
using software for which they can't show they posess a "proper" license.

Given that we are talking about windows 98, it's highly *unlikely* that
gluino is considering using windows 98 in a corporate setting.

In a home or small-office environment, the likelyhood is reduced to
close to zero that an angry employee (or ex-employee) or friend or
family member would inform the authorities (or Micro$haft) that there
might be improper use of software at that location, and it is much more
likely that gluino is considering using windows 98 in a home or soho
setting.

The only other possibility is that gluino is building or offering
computers for sale to others, or he is refurbishing computers in or for
a charitable environment, and he has a request for a PC with windows 98
installed on it, and hence since he can't buy windows 98 from Microsoft
or an OEM/VAR channel partner, he's wondering what exactly is the
(enforcement?) status is of the product.

Again I repeat what I've already said, which is that Milkro$oft has no
way of knowing if, when, where or how any copy of Windows 98 is
installed on any PC anywhere in the world. They have no way of knowing
(remotely or directly) if any given windows 98 product key corresponds
to a valid or invalid license or if the owner/operator of the machine is
the valid license holder for the corresponding product key.

My opinion is that if Macro$oft had an expectation of financial gain or
loss with respect to the Windows 98 product that they would still be
selling that product today. If any company no longer sells a product,
then they can no longer expect revenue from that product and hence they
suffer no loss through the transferrence or duplication or any other use
of that product that the marketplace desires of or for it.

Microsoft has sold millions of Windows 98 licenses. Several hundred
million most likely. There is no time limit on those licenses. They
are perpetual licenses. Unless there are more PC's running windows 98
at any given time than there are licenses that were sold, then Microsoft
can't claim (in general) that they have suffered any loss.

Each license gives the license holder the ability to install and/or
operate windows 98 on a single PC. Licenses are transferable.
Microsoft does not register or keep records of who has been assigned the
ownership or possession of which license, nor are they involved in any
documentary or proceedural way when a license-holder gives or sells
their license to someone else, or when a license becomes abandoned by
it's holder and is acquired by someone who discovers it.

So gluino, it all comes down to practicality. Windows 98 is like a book
that is no longer in print. There are a finite number of copies in
circulation. But even books that aren't being printed - they can be
printed at some point in the future by the copyright owner. Windows 98
will never again be "printed" by Microsoft.

There is nothing that is legally preventing you from obtaining one of
those windows 98 licenses that are no longer in use and using it for
yourself, just as if you went to a used book store and obtained a copy
of a book that is no longer in print. What does it mean when you obtain
a windows 98 license? It means that you are in possession of a windows
98 product key. The key is the practical and effective "embodiment" or
representation of the license. The license is just a boilerplate
document that is not even signed by anyone.

Gluino, you will be and are being told here in this forum that
practically speaking, if you don't already own or hold a windows 98
license, then at this point you really can't "legally" acquire or
purchase or obtain one or that your options are severely limited.

There are Microsoft appologists and phsycophants who are paranoidly
devoted to or owe their living and their reputation to Meekro$oft and
will act as Micro$haft's guard dogs and staunchly defend what they
perceive to be Microsoft's best interests, and they are posting replies
to you in this thread.

You will not find ANY actual Microsoft employee post anything in these
windows-98 newsgroups to answer your question or guide or otherwise help
you in this regard.

So, in summary, unless there is anyone close to you that is or could
become your enemy and inform Microsoft or any other authority that you
are operating a questionable copy of windows 98, then there is no other
way that Microsoft could ever or would ever know anything about what
you've done. And to go one step further, Microsoft has NEVER taken
action against individuals in this regard even if they are informed -
only corporations and computer shops that sell computers.

If it was ever put to a test, it's up to Microsoft to prove that you are
not the legitamate owner of a windows 98 license for which you have a
product key for. And it's a virtual impossibility for Microsoft to be
able to do this for Windows 98. Microsoft knows this, and it's the
fundamental reason why they created the on-line product activation for
Windows XP and other software products starting in 2002.

As usual 98 Guy's arguments have no basis except in that entities own
limited mind...

IF this querier is thinking about using improperly obtained copies for
ANY use, the party might want to review the prosecutions of such
organizations as the Salvation Army... who also thought they could use
and transfer OS and other software products... they could not. Might
also want to look at other prosecutions... such as for illegal music
downloads in which it is discovered that even the operating system was
pirated. No links are posted so any readers *learn* the Law...

So per usual, ignore 98 Guy.


--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______

Originally Posted by MEB[_17_]

On 07/29/2009 12:28 AM, gluino wrote:
Is it now (in 2009) legally OK to run unlicensed copies of Win98 /
Win98SE?

Uhmm, where did you get that idea?

Legally? No. There actually is no software that has been copyrighted
[or held as copyrighted], trademarked, and otherwise [such as marketed]
to be considered as abandonware, unless and until the legal time period
has expired [which due to the numerous legal hooks associated with
Windows 98 will be far in the future and only if Microsoft makes no
further legal advancements regarding Windows 98] or has been publicly
released [as in completely without any legal hold, except perhaps that
it remain public [GPL or the like] (which is prime for another legal
discussion regarding those ramifications)].
The claim by some, that if the producer no longer exists there must be
abandonment is legally unfounded. The same holds true for end of
life/lack of further support issues.
All nations have their own Laws related to this activity which might
have an effect on what is held by the courts when confronted.

--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______

Thanks for the information about the rules and regulation;

Bozo the clown full-quoted:

IF this querier is thinking about (...)

Is there a reason you don't simply say - "If the OP is thinking about
(...)" ?

Do you have to use the word "querier" ?

Do you always have to be so obtuse?

using improperly obtained copies for ANY use, the party might want

The party?

Yea? Where's the party? I am so there. Party on!

to review the prosecutions of such organizations as the
Salvation Army...

No links are posted so any readers *learn* the Law...

Don't you mean:

"No links are posted even though I go out of my way to full-quote all my
responses so that future usenet readers will be overloaded with my
verbosity and poor usenet message composition style but not any real
information or knowledge" ?

If Microsoft took the Salvation Army to court over software licenses,
then prove it by posting a URL.

You have yet to back up any claim you've ever made here in this
newsgroup regarding microsoft court proceeding against anyone for
license violation.

Where is that other Bozo who claims that microsoft lawyers have posted
here in the past?

On Sat, 04 Jul 2009, No Alternative wrote:

Nobody said anything about whether they can censor it, but their
lawyers often threaten people in these group,

Where is your sorry ass? I asked you to post examples of "lawyers often
threaten people in these group". Where did you go, you coward?

Where are the leeches and vampires who are Microsoft's lawyers? I
don't see them here.

Bozo the clown full-quoted:

IF this querier is thinking about (...)

Is there a reason you don't simply say - "If the OP is thinking about
(...)" ?

Do you have to use the word "querier" ?

Do you always have to be so obtuse?

using improperly obtained copies for ANY use, the party might want

The party?

Yea? Where's the party? I am so there. Party on!

to review the prosecutions of such organizations as the
Salvation Army...

No links are posted so any readers *learn* the Law...

Don't you mean:

"No links are posted even though I go out of my way to full-quote all my
responses so that future usenet readers will be overloaded with my
verbosity and poor usenet message composition style but not any real
information or knowledge" ?

If Microsoft took the Salvation Army to court over software licenses,
then prove it by posting a URL.

You have yet to back up any claim you've ever made here in this
newsgroup regarding microsoft court proceeding against anyone for
license violation.

Where is that other Bozo who claims that microsoft lawyers have posted
here in the past?

On Sat, 04 Jul 2009, No Alternative wrote:

Nobody said anything about whether they can censor it, but their
lawyers often threaten people in these group,

Where is your sorry ass? I asked you to post examples of "lawyers often
threaten people in these group". Where did you go, you coward?

Where are the leeches and vampires who are Microsoft's lawyers? I
don't see them here.

On 07/31/2009 12:39 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
Bozo the clown full-quoted:

IF this querier is thinking about (...)

Is there a reason you don't simply say - "If the OP is thinking about
(...)" ?

Do you have to use the word "querier" ?

Do you always have to be so obtuse?

Do you have a clue what OP stands for? No you don't....
Any idea what query means???


using improperly obtained copies for ANY use, the party might want

The party?

Yea? Where's the party? I am so there. Party on!

to review the prosecutions of such organizations as the
Salvation Army...

No links are posted so any readers *learn* the Law...

Don't you mean:

"No links are posted even though I go out of my way to full-quote all my
responses so that future usenet readers will be overloaded with my
verbosity and poor usenet message composition style but not any real
information or knowledge" ?

No. So they are sure to have YOUR completely idiotic responses
preserved INTACT. Do you understand how you are received world-wide???
We have dealt with your kind since the BBS days, you are nothing new,,,


If Microsoft took the Salvation Army to court over software licenses,
then prove it by posting a URL.

You have yet to back up any claim you've ever made here in this
newsgroup regarding microsoft court proceeding against anyone for
license violation.

You are such a limp brained individual, you have forgotten I HAVE
directed you with links to prior proceedings, this is, after all, the
fourth or fifth time you've done this very same spiel,, you're like a
broken record playing the same old tune over and over again; AND that
YOU were specifically apprised that Microsoft does NOT have to or need
to prosecute, the local, state and/or federal prosecutors do... or the
solicitors or what ever is applicable in whatever nation applicable...
software piracy is a *crime* dimwit, its not necessary for Microsoft to
start *civil* proceedings, the corp doesn't have to appear, doesn't need
to send lawyers or anything else, and more importantly may never appear
in the record or judgment, its listed as software piracy and prosecuted
as the CRIME it is against the INDIVIDUAL...


Where is that other Bozo who claims that microsoft lawyers have posted
here in the past?

On Sat, 04 Jul 2009, No Alternative wrote:

Nobody said anything about whether they can censor it, but their
lawyers often threaten people in these group,

Where is your sorry ass? I asked you to post examples of "lawyers often
threaten people in these group". Where did you go, you coward?

Where are the leeches and vampires who are Microsoft's lawyers? I
don't see them here.

They don't need to be... you make a fool out of yourself EVERY time
you post... do you think ANYONE with half a brain is impressed with
you??? Or cares about you???
We can't wait for the day when all this comes to rest in your own
lap,, believe me, we WILL laugh out loud.... heck, I am now....

--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______

On 07/31/2009 12:39 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
Bozo the clown full-quoted:

IF this querier is thinking about (...)

Is there a reason you don't simply say - "If the OP is thinking about
(...)" ?

Do you have to use the word "querier" ?

Do you always have to be so obtuse?

Do you have a clue what OP stands for? No you don't....
Any idea what query means???


using improperly obtained copies for ANY use, the party might want

The party?

Yea? Where's the party? I am so there. Party on!

to review the prosecutions of such organizations as the
Salvation Army...

No links are posted so any readers *learn* the Law...

Don't you mean:

"No links are posted even though I go out of my way to full-quote all my
responses so that future usenet readers will be overloaded with my
verbosity and poor usenet message composition style but not any real
information or knowledge" ?

No. So they are sure to have YOUR completely idiotic responses
preserved INTACT. Do you understand how you are received world-wide???
We have dealt with your kind since the BBS days, you are nothing new,,,


If Microsoft took the Salvation Army to court over software licenses,
then prove it by posting a URL.

You have yet to back up any claim you've ever made here in this
newsgroup regarding microsoft court proceeding against anyone for
license violation.

You are such a limp brained individual, you have forgotten I HAVE
directed you with links to prior proceedings, this is, after all, the
fourth or fifth time you've done this very same spiel,, you're like a
broken record playing the same old tune over and over again; AND that
YOU were specifically apprised that Microsoft does NOT have to or need
to prosecute, the local, state and/or federal prosecutors do... or the
solicitors or what ever is applicable in whatever nation applicable...
software piracy is a *crime* dimwit, its not necessary for Microsoft to
start *civil* proceedings, the corp doesn't have to appear, doesn't need
to send lawyers or anything else, and more importantly may never appear
in the record or judgment, its listed as software piracy and prosecuted
as the CRIME it is against the INDIVIDUAL...


Where is that other Bozo who claims that microsoft lawyers have posted
here in the past?

On Sat, 04 Jul 2009, No Alternative wrote:

Nobody said anything about whether they can censor it, but their
lawyers often threaten people in these group,

Where is your sorry ass? I asked you to post examples of "lawyers often
threaten people in these group". Where did you go, you coward?

Where are the leeches and vampires who are Microsoft's lawyers? I
don't see them here.

They don't need to be... you make a fool out of yourself EVERY time
you post... do you think ANYONE with half a brain is impressed with
you??? Or cares about you???
We can't wait for the day when all this comes to rest in your own
lap,, believe me, we WILL laugh out loud.... heck, I am now....

--
~
--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
_______

Bozo wrote:

Do you have to use the word "querier" ?
Do you always have to be so obtuse?

Do you have a clue what OP stands for? No you don't....

And naturally you won't venture your own interpretation of OP for fear
of exposing yourself in some way, just as you expose very little real
information or knowledge in any of your posts.

OP can me "Original Post" or "Original Poster" depending on the context.

Now was that so hard to state?

What did you hope to gain by having me state it, instead of yourself?

IF this querier is thinking about (...)

You could have also said:

"IF gluino is thinking about (...)"

Any idea what query means???

A query is a question. You were refering to the person asking the
question when you wrote:

IF this querier is thinking about (...)

Which means you had to convert it to the rarely-used (and
clumsy-sounding) noun form, for reasons known only to you, and for which
in your next reply you will not elaborate why.

No. So they are sure to have YOUR completely idiotic responses
preserved INTACT.

Why would anyone not be able to see my full and intact posts? My posts
are a part of this or any thread just as yours are. If someone can find
your posts, they will also find mine, hence there is no reason why you
need to full-quote my material (or anyone elses) in your reply.

You also have never acknowledged that when viewing old threads in google
groups, that google by default does not display quoted material because
they realize that people often (and lazily) do not edit their replies
and include vast amounts of quoted material for no purpose which makes
reading a thread a tedious task.

Do you understand how you are received world-wide???

Tell me how, and include references in your answer. Otherwise you've
just asked a vacuous question.

We have dealt with your kind since the BBS days,
you are nothing new,,,

Who is we?

And what is my kind?

You have yet to back up any claim you've ever made here in
this newsgroup regarding microsoft court proceeding against
anyone for license violation.

You are such a limp brained individual, you have forgotten I
HAVE directed you with links to prior proceedings,

I can't recall that you've ever posted a URL containing information on a
court case or law suit that actually pertained to a case that was
discussed here.

Again we see your standard response to a direct question, which is "I've
already posted it once before", which is naturally a diversion designed
to mask either your laziness or your inability to find a relavent URL.

this is, after all, the fourth or fifth time you've done this
very same spiel,, you're like a broken record playing the same
old tune over and over again;

The same broken spiel is yours. You keep bringing up fictional legal
cases and I keep asking for URL's, and you obfuscate and divert.

AND that YOU were specifically apprised that Microsoft does
NOT have to or need to prosecute, the local, state and/or
federal prosecutors do...

Why don't you give an example where a gov't agency or police dept. has
prosecuted someone for software copyright or license violation without
the copyright holder's involvement or initiation of the case?

The truth is that the copyright holder must be involved, and must have
practically initiated the court action (civil or criminal) because the
gov't has no case unless the copyright holder provides evidence of a
copyright or license violation. Only the copyright holder has that
evidence - not the state.

software piracy is a *crime* dimwit, its not necessary for
Microsoft to start *civil* proceedings,

What are you smoking?

If Microsoft wants remedy for civil dammages, then they must certainly
start a civil case.

The only time that gov't law enforcement will start a criminal case is
when they stumble upon a CD duplication operation or a large cache of
boxed disks.

Law enforcement does not seek out or monitor individuals (either on the
street, in their homes, or on the net) and intiate copyright violation
or software piracy proceedings against them.

the corp doesn't have to appear, doesn't need to send lawyers
or anything else,

A law enforcement agency will not intiate a case of software piracy
against an individual without the cooperation of the copyright holder,
and almost certainly without the initiation of the copyright holder.

A law enforcement agency will not, on it's own, possess the evidence
necessary to convict an individul of software piracy / copyright or
license violation. If the copyright holder does not come forward and
provide evidence of copyright violation, the case will be thrown out.

and more importantly may never appear in the record or
judgment, its listed as software piracy and prosecuted
as the CRIME it is against the INDIVIDUAL...

Are you saying that their may never be a public record of a criminal
judgement against an individual?

So we now have secret courts?

Where are the leeches and vampires who are Microsoft's lawyers?
I don't see them here.

They don't need to be...

I never said they "need to be". A statement was made by someone else
that they once *were* here. I asked for evidence of their posts,
nothing more. Why are you such a dolt?

do you think ANYONE with half a brain is impressed with you???

Or cares about you???

Your questions say a lot about you and your state of mind.

You are attempting to strike some sort of emotional nerve by asking
those questions.

Obviously, the need to impress or be cared for by others is very
important to you. You feel that you do impress others and that those
others care about you, and you want me to believe that for me it is the
opposite.

Once again, I suggest you seek out psychiatric care.

We can't wait for the day when all this comes to rest in
your own lap,,

And what, exactly, is "this" ?

believe me, we WILL laugh out loud....
heck, I am now....

I think there's medication that can help with that.

Bozo wrote:

Do you have to use the word "querier" ?
Do you always have to be so obtuse?

Do you have a clue what OP stands for? No you don't....

And naturally you won't venture your own interpretation of OP for fear
of exposing yourself in some way, just as you expose very little real
information or knowledge in any of your posts.

OP can me "Original Post" or "Original Poster" depending on the context.

Now was that so hard to state?

What did you hope to gain by having me state it, instead of yourself?

IF this querier is thinking about (...)

You could have also said:

"IF gluino is thinking about (...)"

Any idea what query means???

A query is a question. You were refering to the person asking the
question when you wrote:

IF this querier is thinking about (...)

Which means you had to convert it to the rarely-used (and
clumsy-sounding) noun form, for reasons known only to you, and for which
in your next reply you will not elaborate why.

No. So they are sure to have YOUR completely idiotic responses
preserved INTACT.

Why would anyone not be able to see my full and intact posts? My posts
are a part of this or any thread just as yours are. If someone can find
your posts, they will also find mine, hence there is no reason why you
need to full-quote my material (or anyone elses) in your reply.

You also have never acknowledged that when viewing old threads in google
groups, that google by default does not display quoted material because
they realize that people often (and lazily) do not edit their replies
and include vast amounts of quoted material for no purpose which makes
reading a thread a tedious task.

Do you understand how you are received world-wide???

Tell me how, and include references in your answer. Otherwise you've
just asked a vacuous question.

We have dealt with your kind since the BBS days,
you are nothing new,,,

Who is we?

And what is my kind?

You have yet to back up any claim you've ever made here in
this newsgroup regarding microsoft court proceeding against
anyone for license violation.

You are such a limp brained individual, you have forgotten I
HAVE directed you with links to prior proceedings,

I can't recall that you've ever posted a URL containing information on a
court case or law suit that actually pertained to a case that was
discussed here.

Again we see your standard response to a direct question, which is "I've
already posted it once before", which is naturally a diversion designed
to mask either your laziness or your inability to find a relavent URL.

this is, after all, the fourth or fifth time you've done this
very same spiel,, you're like a broken record playing the same
old tune over and over again;

The same broken spiel is yours. You keep bringing up fictional legal
cases and I keep asking for URL's, and you obfuscate and divert.

AND that YOU were specifically apprised that Microsoft does
NOT have to or need to prosecute, the local, state and/or
federal prosecutors do...

Why don't you give an example where a gov't agency or police dept. has
prosecuted someone for software copyright or license violation without
the copyright holder's involvement or initiation of the case?

The truth is that the copyright holder must be involved, and must have
practically initiated the court action (civil or criminal) because the
gov't has no case unless the copyright holder provides evidence of a
copyright or license violation. Only the copyright holder has that
evidence - not the state.

software piracy is a *crime* dimwit, its not necessary for
Microsoft to start *civil* proceedings,

What are you smoking?

If Microsoft wants remedy for civil dammages, then they must certainly
start a civil case.

The only time that gov't law enforcement will start a criminal case is
when they stumble upon a CD duplication operation or a large cache of
boxed disks.

Law enforcement does not seek out or monitor individuals (either on the
street, in their homes, or on the net) and intiate copyright violation
or software piracy proceedings against them.

the corp doesn't have to appear, doesn't need to send lawyers
or anything else,

A law enforcement agency will not intiate a case of software piracy
against an individual without the cooperation of the copyright holder,
and almost certainly without the initiation of the copyright holder.

A law enforcement agency will not, on it's own, possess the evidence
necessary to convict an individul of software piracy / copyright or
license violation. If the copyright holder does not come forward and
provide evidence of copyright violation, the case will be thrown out.

and more importantly may never appear in the record or
judgment, its listed as software piracy and prosecuted
as the CRIME it is against the INDIVIDUAL...

Are you saying that their may never be a public record of a criminal
judgement against an individual?

So we now have secret courts?

Where are the leeches and vampires who are Microsoft's lawyers?
I don't see them here.

They don't need to be...

I never said they "need to be". A statement was made by someone else
that they once *were* here. I asked for evidence of their posts,
nothing more. Why are you such a dolt?

do you think ANYONE with half a brain is impressed with you???

Or cares about you???

Your questions say a lot about you and your state of mind.

You are attempting to strike some sort of emotional nerve by asking
those questions.

Obviously, the need to impress or be cared for by others is very
important to you. You feel that you do impress others and that those
others care about you, and you want me to believe that for me it is the
opposite.

Once again, I suggest you seek out psychiatric care.

We can't wait for the day when all this comes to rest in
your own lap,,

And what, exactly, is "this" ?

believe me, we WILL laugh out loud....
heck, I am now....

I think there's medication that can help with that.