| >So, sue MS and see where that gets you.
|
| Sue them for what? For software which is not working as it should?
| Sue them because you were offended? I'm sure you yourself offend
| others, as we all do. It's not possible to avoid offending others.
| Someone is always going to be offended, no matter how hard we try not
| to.
|
| If it were a crime to offend others, one would have a case to sue all
| manufacturers of defective software for false advertising, or your
| neighbor for using foul language in front of your children or wife.
Depending on what's said and where it's said, use of foul language in front of
children might be a criminal offense.
Accusing somebody of wrongdoing when there's no truth in the accusation can make
the accuser civilly liable.
Actually, Chris, Microsoft is not accusing anyone. It is merely
stating that to its software, it appears that certain CD keys are not
legitimate. If Microsoft wanted to, they could take those to court,
in which case, they would have to prove that the user has deliberately
violated its EULA. Or, if the user chose to, he could take Microsoft
to court and demand that they prove their software is correct in its
findings (I will not say "judgment" or "opinion", since only human
beings can make judgments or have opinions. A software program is
only ones and zeroes, and can only compare ones and zeroes with other
ones and zeroes.)
When WGA encounters what it "deems" an error (according to its current
instructions), it can only make a logical/numerical comparison with
other ones and zeros. So "Microsoft" is not making any such
"judgment" or "accusation", since a "program" is not Microsoft, or
even a corporation, and as such, cannot make judgments or accusations.
Microsoft can only "make accusations" via living human beings (eg.
lawyers), in open court.
Merely offending somebody isn't necessarily a
suable offense. Your smug, holier-than-thou posts here offend me a great deal.
But I haven't detected that you've crossed the line to a clear point of civil
liability. If I called you a pompous ass, I might be crossing that line. So I
won't.
But you just did, Chris, and are unwilling to admit it. In other
words, you are trying to deceive the public into thinking good about
you, and evil about me, in a round-about way. Go right ahead, sir. It
is not offensive to me, since I to do the same thing from time to
time.
But you are actually attempting to justify your own accusation. And
doing a very poor job, at that.
But I am perfectly safe in saying it's my opinion that you sound like
one.
ChrisM
Well, Chris, you certainly have the right to your opinions. I would
not dream of attempting to violate that right. And you do not offend
me. Love is not easily offended, as St. Paul tells us. Perhaps you
need a little more love for God and your neighbor.
I don't even believe that calling me a pompous ass would be an
actionable offense, if that is your choice. Our legislators do it all
the time to each other. I doubt seriously whether the Supreme Court
would find that such language is beyond the pale of our First
Amendment rights -- unless, of course, it was accompanied with a swing
to my face, in which case I would definitely be within my rights to
protect myself.
==
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that it may not become broken.
===================================================
