Finally, MS is doing the right thing about Piracy

[arachnid]

What was that thing involving Apple and Xerox all about?

Alias

Here's one for ya' Alias:

http://gnuwin.epfl.ch/articles/en/reponseperou/villanueva_to_ms.html

This is a rather powerful letter written by a Peruvian Congressman to the
local Microsoft rep, who was attempting to derail attempts to make open
source an official requirement in government offices. In it, you will find
the following interesting comment:

"As an example, the condemnation by the Commercial Court of Nanterre,
France, on 27th September 2001 of Microsoft Corp. to a penalty of 3
million francs in damages and interest, for violation of intellectual
property (piracy, to use the unfortunate term that your firm commonly
uses in its publicity)."

You can find a little more about the case here:

http://www.newsforge.com/business/03/06/23/1830220.shtml

Enjoy! )

 

[caver1]

Do research on the patent infringement case brought against MS by AT&T
and MS's response as to its defense. MS ripped off AT&T lost and was
give a fine in the millions. MS has appealed the the reward saying that
they should only pay for one copy of the ripp off. MS made hundreds of
thousands of copies. But by MS's reasoning all the others were just
copies not the master (Gold) so they should not be held liable for the
copies. So by this reasoning I could buy an original make copies for
sale and not be held liable for theft as they were only copies not the
original.

I should have put this in also.
If you read MS's response MS also doesn't think that patents applied for
in the US should be legally enforced outside the US. So if that is the
case why are they going so hard after US patent infringement in China?
Or is it only MS US patents that are legal in other countries.
http://www.chander.com/

 

[caver1]

Then why should I have to prove to MS that I am not a pirate. They
should have to prove that I am. Or is this not a two way street here?

 

[Bob I]

Do research on the patent infringement case brought against MS by AT&T
and MS's response as to its defense. MS ripped off AT&T lost and was
give a fine in the millions. MS has appealed the the reward saying that
they should only pay for one copy of the ripp off. MS made hundreds of
thousands of copies. But by MS's reasoning all the others were just
copies not the master (Gold) so they should not be held liable for the
copies. So by this reasoning I could buy an original make copies for
sale and not be held liable for theft as they were only copies not the
original.

Apparently you don't comprehend the difference between patent
infringement and Piracy, your scenario would be the equivalent of MS
wanting you to pay the purchase price every time you used the PC with
the bogus copy of XP.

 

[caver1]

Apparently you don't comprehend the difference between patent
infringement and Piracy, your scenario would be the equivalent of MS
wanting you to pay the purchase price every time you used the PC with
the bogus copy of XP.

Yes I do. MS made a master disk (Gold disk) sent it overseas made
hundreds of thousands of copies and sold them for a profit. They knew
they were wrong. That is piracy. They knew they could not sell them
here. Now their defense is that US patent laws should not be enforce
outside this country. If MS wins this one how much of their product will
be produced here?

 

[arachnid]

I can't remember the name of the company that MS bought the rights to the
browser that MS renamed IE then gave it away free so they didn't have to
live up to their contractual royalty payments. It took awhile but MS lost
that one also.

Spyglass. Netscape's Mozilla browser was based on Spyglass libraries.
Microsoft also based IE on Spyglass, and agreed to pay royalties on each
copy of IE sold. Then they bundeled IE into Windows, raised the price of
the bundle, and said they were giving IE away for free so they didn't have
to pay Spyglass anything. Spyglass sued and eventually won a relatively
small amount of damages. By then the company was dead because, with IE
being bundled "for free" with Windows, there was no market for commercial
browsers and thus no reason for commercial developers to pay to license
Spyglass' libraries.

For those who don't know the rest of the story, Microsoft's bundling of IE
also killed Netscape's sales, and Microsoft further rigged Windows and
their OEM licenses so as to keep a constant pressure on users to give up
on using Netscape:

"We're going to cut of their air supply." -- Microsoft Senior Executive
Paul Maritz

"It will be very hard to increase browser share on the merits of IE4
alone. It will be more important to leverage the OS asset to make
people use IE instead of Navigator." --Microsoft Senior Executive
Christian Wildfeuer

For those who don't know the history of Firefox: When they died, Netscape
retaliated by open-sourcing Mozilla's code. Firefox was, originally, just
the web-browser part of Mozilla (iow, Mozilla minus the newreader and
email clients) but its taken on a life of its own. Being open source,
Firefox benefits from the OSS distributed-development model which allows
programmers from all over the world to pool their talents - meaning that
there are more programmers contributing to Firefox than even Microsoft can
muster. Not only is Microsoft finding it very difficult to keep up, but
they can't buy Firefox nor - since Firefox is free - is there any "air
supply" for them to cut off.

I bet Mark Andreeson (co-founder of Netscape) is laughing his head off.

 

[Bob I]

Yes I do. MS made a master disk (Gold disk) sent it overseas made
hundreds of thousands of copies and sold them for a profit. They knew
they were wrong. That is piracy. They knew they could not sell them
here. Now their defense is that US patent laws should not be enforce
outside this country. If MS wins this one how much of their product will
be produced here?

First please review the case relating to Patent infringement. It's not
piracy. Second the argument of 1 disk VS hundreds of thousands is one of
interpretation of the amount of infringement based on "where" the
infringement took place. As you see, it has nothing to do with piracy.

 

[caver1]

First please review the case relating to Patent infringement. It's not
piracy. Second the argument of 1 disk VS hundreds of thousands is one of
interpretation of the amount of infringement based on "where" the
infringement took place. As you see, it has nothing to do with piracy.

Yes it is outright theft. If it is interpretation then where the
Chinese deemed pirates when it wasn't wrong in their country? Once
again patent laws were quoted as why they were pirates.
So I guess it is whose stuff you are stealing as to whether you are
committing piracy or infringement. MS argues that US patent laws should
be honored throughout the world unless they are the ones who want to
steal someone else's patent.
And so if I buy a legal copy then make a copy then burn more to sell
they can only get me for the first copy?

 

[Alias]

Here's one for ya' Alias:

http://gnuwin.epfl.ch/articles/en/reponseperou/villanueva_to_ms.html

This is a rather powerful letter written by a Peruvian Congressman to the
local Microsoft rep, who was attempting to derail attempts to make open
source an official requirement in government offices. In it, you will find
the following interesting comment:

"As an example, the condemnation by the Commercial Court of Nanterre,
France, on 27th September 2001 of Microsoft Corp. to a penalty of 3
million francs in damages and interest, for violation of intellectual
property (piracy, to use the unfortunate term that your firm commonly
uses in its publicity)."

You can find a little more about the case here:

http://www.newsforge.com/business/03/06/23/1830220.shtml

Enjoy! )

Very interesting ... Leythos?

Strangely, old Leythos is MIA.

Alias

 

[Leythos]

What was that thing involving Apple and Xerox all about?

Again, show me the court ruling that shows MS to be a pirate/theif.

 

[Leythos]

Look here for one place;
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2006/10/30/tech-microsoft.html
So If I buy a copy of Windows I am legal. If I make copies and sell them
I am also legal, by MS reasoning, because they are only copies.

Please read the article and get help understanding it if you don't - the
article does not cover Piracy.

 

[Ronnie Vernon MVP]

I don't like any of the software companies adding things like WPA, WGA etc, etc. But this is the way of the world.

Everyone has to pay for the illegal actions of a few criminals. When you go into many retail stores, you are under constant observation from hidden cameras, at the exit, you are asked to open all of the bags you are carrying and the contents are verified with your sales receipt (this is not because they think you are a good customer, it's to make sure that you haven't stolen anything) before you are allowed to leave. This is because the retailer, like the software companies lose too much revenue from shoplifters and crooks. It's the same with all of the peer to peer file sharing programs, normally honest people just cannot pass up the opportunity to get somthing for nothing and we all end up paying for it.

If everyone would spend as much energy condemning and fighting the criminals instead of vilifying the victims, we would all be better served.

Just MHO.

 

[Ronnie Vernon MVP]

Alias

You're wrong again. Read this article.

Software Anti-Theft Raid Nets $1 Million of Stolen Software; Autodesk, Microsoft, BSA, Aid in Arrest of "Captain Blood" Business Wire:
http://calbears.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1995_Nov_15/ai_17609834

I remember this one because I was in that area when it happened.

 

[Alias]

Alias

You're wrong again. Read this article.

Wrong about what?

Software Anti-Theft Raid Nets $1 Million of Stolen Software; Autodesk, Microsoft, BSA, Aid in Arrest of "Captain Blood" Business Wire:
http://calbears.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_1995_Nov_15/ai_17609834

I remember this one because I was in that area when it happened.

My point was that that is the way MS should go after pirates, not by
forcing paying customers to jump through WPA/WGA, etc. hoops.

Note, that the article said it was the first time MS went after *on
line* pirates, not someone copying CDs in the home to later sell.

Alias

 

[Alias]

I don't like any of the software companies adding things like WPA, WGA etc, etc. But this is the way of the world.

That's what Theophilus Eugene "Bull" Connor said about integration in
the southern USA.

That's what prohibition advocates said about drink.

That's what pro England colonists said about becoming independent from
England.

That's what the medieval Catholic Church said about the Inquisition.

"It's the way of the world".

As more and more people are becoming computer savvy, more and more
people will opt for white boxes and more and more people will become
aware of WPA, WGA, etc. and, hopefully, more and more people will become
disgusted and change the "way of the world".

Alias

 

[caver1]

Please read the article and get help understanding it if you don't - the
article does not cover Piracy.

That is just one link to that story, If you do more research on it you
will find that MS's defense in this is that they do not believe that
they are liable for every copy they made. Only the master. priracy is
theft. what they did and has been done in the past, where they lost in
court, was theft. There is no making it sound better by trying to put a
different label on it.
MS has good products and the gov't should not be able to tell them what
they can or cannot bundle in their product, but when they a doing what
they are trying to, or is illegal, for others to do, then they crossed
the line.

 

[Bob I]

Yes it is outright theft. If it is interpretation then where the
Chinese deemed pirates when it wasn't wrong in their country? Once
again patent laws were quoted as why they were pirates.
So I guess it is whose stuff you are stealing as to whether you are
committing piracy or infringement. MS argues that US patent laws should
be honored throughout the world unless they are the ones who want to
steal someone else's patent.
And so if I buy a legal copy then make a copy then burn more to sell
they can only get me for the first copy?

Since you feel free to use your own definitions for legal terms, the
problem reduces down to the plain fact you haven't got a clue and should
refrain from posting.

Don't believe everything you think.

Good day.

 

[Alias]

Since you feel free to use your own definitions for legal terms, the
problem reduces down to the plain fact you haven't got a clue and should
refrain from posting.

Don't believe everything you think.

Good day.

Bob1 can't think of a credible reply so he falls back on using the lame
and amateur ad hominem personal attack. How pathetic can you get?

Alias

 

[caver1]

Since you feel free to use your own definitions for legal terms, the
problem reduces down to the plain fact you haven't got a clue and should
refrain from posting.

Don't believe everything you think.

Good day.

see you're missing the point. MS ,and they aren't the only ones, define
what is theft, piracy, infringement, whatever, to suit their needs to
fit their purposes not what most define as fair. The way you can tell
this is when they go after someone for something its illegal but if they
are doing it then its the law thats wrong. And if I am so wrong how
about a couple of others who posted replies or links bringing out other
things MS has been done and found guilty of privacy in a court in the past.
And since these are only "opinions" then why are you posting, or is this
only for those who agree with you?

 

[caver1]

Since you feel free to use your own definitions for legal terms, the
problem reduces down to the plain fact you haven't got a clue and should
refrain from posting.

Don't believe everything you think.

Good day.

And on top of what else MS has said read this;
http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/2006/04/supreme_court_m.html
MS has clearly stated that software should not be patentable. Fits their
needs. You may think its only what I think.