Chambers wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> 1. Stealing other people's code and passing it off as their own.
> 
> I've only read of two instances where this was actually proven.  In the 
> first case, it wasn't actually illegal due to poor wording in the 
> license that MS signed with Apple, in the second case it was open code 
> to begin with (the network stack from FreeBSD, I believe).

That second one wouldn't be illegal anyway. So it isn't stealing, any more 
than installing Linux is stealing.

They did violate a patent or two, and got appropriately slapped, but that 
happens all the time in business.

>> 2. Deliberately subverting open standards to force vendor lock-in.
> 
> That's not illegal, and the vendors were never forced to use the MS 
> extensions.

The only one of these I heard of ever being a problem was the Kerberos 
and/or DHCP standards (I forget which), wherein MS put some important stuff 
into the area reserved for vendor extensions, which is kind of hard to argue 
against unless you're fanatical to begin with.  What other standards have 
they done this with.

>> 3. Forcing PC manufacturers to not to distribute anyone else's OS.
> 
> They didn't force anybody.  They signed agreements with manufacturers, 
> and the manufacturers agreed to those contracts.

They gave a price break if the vendor would do the duplication and install 
themselves, basically.

>> 5. Releasing software for free just to put people out of business.
> 
> Wait, do you criticize Linus Torvalds for trying to put MS out of 
> business by giving Linux away for free?  And what's the difference 
> between MS selling a better product (and so putting other companies out 
> of business) and MS selling a product for less (or even free) (and so 
> putting other companies out of business)?

What I haven't figured out is the huge number of people screaming at 
Microsoft for bundling programs with Windows that competes with programs 
they give away for free. Say what?

>> 6. Announcing vapourware just to put people out of business.
> 
> Sure, they announced it, but you can be assured that if they thought 
> they could make money by selling a particular piece of software they 
> would have made it.  The fact that it ended up being cancelled means 
> they didn't think it would be profitable.

Or that they thought it would, but then found out they were wrong.

> Or would you rather force business to stick with out-of-date plans that 
> they know will lose them money, just so they can claim "We stuck with a 
> losing plan for 10 years straight?"

Duke Nukem Forever!

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/748-Duke-Nukem-Forever

>> ...but mostly I hate them because they charge extortionate prices for 
>> a product which isn't actually very good. :-P
> 
> Nobody's forcing you to use it.  Why don't you use Linux instead?

Oh, please tell me a computer product that *doesn't* suck moose? I could 
really use hearing of something that's actually good. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
    back to version 1.0."
   "We've done that already. We call it 2.0."

Post a reply to this message