In kurttrail had this to say:
Which reminds me! Last month was the one year anniversary of me
stopping smoking, so I celebrated by drinking Black & Tans, and
smoking three cigarettes! Boy did they taste great!
I did try to warn 'em... Alas, no one ever listens. Didn't your mother ever
tell you nobody likes a quitter?
People seem to mistake people who are vocal with stupidity. I guess, after a
trip to the pub, that could be considered a good general statement but it
doesn't always apply.
Of course I still think you're POTENTIALLY wrong at this point and until
such a time as fair use is decided by a court of law in this case (such as
it may be) no one will really know. The car analogy doesn't work because the
closest it would come to - really - would be someone saying, well, I bought
a Ford Focus so I can drive any Focus I want when ever I want and as much as
I want and the opposite end of the spectrum you bought my car and you will
drive it according to my rules. Personally I'd like to think there is a
common ground.
However, realistically, fair use will be decided by a non-partial group who
kowtow to the highest bidder during election time probably. And,
realistically, people are under some sort of assumption that they've the
rights to tell other people what to do. If you put ads up, generate enough
users, are innovative enough, and work hard enough (well, it's my pipe
dream, I'll tell it any way I want) then you can buy enough shares to say
what a company can do or can't do. Until then, and no I'm not a Republican,
random people don't belong out of the boardroom and the business goal is to
make money for the shareholders and not to be some sort of sympathetic
bleeding heart liberal. (Ouch, that just came out of my mouth...)
It may be sad but it is true - I think - I don't really know? Idealism has a
place but, well, when you are doing a job for someone else then (and that is
what Microsoft does - it makes money for the stock holders) your job is to
do what you are told and if you have a problem then move on or, if your
problem is illegal then blow the whistle. That they let your posts continue
implies to me that (and come on now Kurt, you KNOW legal's looked at it by
now and their legal department knows FAR MORE than you or I - and they let
you carry on) they're not worried.
Oh my...
I accepted my MVP status back then because I was assured that I was able to
retain my own feelings and able to state them in public without fear of
repercussion.
So... I shall...
The EULA...
Dude, it's being worked on and is a far sight better than many other
companies out there. You can take your XP and install it (as far as I'm
aware) on dual core CPUs with up to two sockets of them - CPUx4 in other
words - and still be within the EULA. Virtualization of the cores is even
more intense - pay per OS in use. Give credit where it is due - fair use?
Find me another major vendor of software who will allow you that. How many
machines can the Apple users install on legally before they violate their
TOS? Better yet, even if they could install on a million machines - how many
will it actually run on?
The legal issues...
Don't know - I'm not a lawyer. That they let you continue (except when
you're overly aggressive) is a sign that they don't really care. If they -
Microsoft - don't care then that means that they're probably pretty sure of
their situation. You bluff one or two people, you don't try to bluff all of
usenet. Not if you are a part of their legal team.
The reality...
Some dude kicked 'em in the who-sits for selling a copy of their software.
They said he'd agreed to the EULA, he'd never opened the package nor
installed it. He actually made a profit selling it. (I think it was a
student edition of XP.)
Legal issues? I don't see it lasting long...
Reality - that's the topic... Name an OS that comes without a media player?
If I had a stake in a game company is it okay to sue Mandriva because I can
play a game while it is installing? Surely that impacts sales... iTunes and
Apple? Now if a monopoly is there - then iTunes, Apple, and an iPod are it.
No, someone is (hopefully) going to come along and say play fair which is
NOT what the EU is doing. They, the EU, are in a position where they're
seemingly failing financially with any long-term prospects and are hoping to
recoup their losses via lawsuits. The reality is that Microsoft should - and
probably will - say something akin to "Bugger it, we'll just not employ nor
sell anything directly in your countries and if you have any issues speak to
the OEMs who do so." A recent article in either ComputerWorld or
NetworkWorld pointed out that they could pay their fines out of petty cash
for something like another 40 years even if they never made another dime.
That puts you back at step one.
The whole time you've ranted about the EULA and fair use. I'd like to say
it's going to be decided and soon but, well, with everything moving to
virtualization and multiple cores you'll likely see the market fix it long
before any government body does.
I am pretty sure the above doesn't make a lot of sense. Either way, two
things... Many of your ideals are already - within reason and scope of a
company who's job it is to benefit the owners - underway and it isn't just
Microsoft that has these EULAs and some are even FAR more restrictive than
Microsoft's.
--
Galen - MS MVP - Windows (Shell/User & IE)
http://dts-l.org/
http://kgiii.info/
"At present I am, as you know, fairly busy, but I propose to devote my
declining years to the composition of a textbook which shall focus the
whole art of detection into one volume." - Sherlock Holmes
.