>>> Oh joy, another one of your completely made-up stories bashing MS :-)
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyglass,_Inc.

OK, well here we have a question of facts. One Internet source asserts 
that Microsoft licenced a browser from Spyglass and then released it for 
free in violation of the licence terms, and it put Spyglass out of 
business before they could sue. Another Internet source asserts that 
this was not in fact a violation of the licence terms, and that it 
didn't kill Spyglass. At this point, I'm not sure who to believe.

>> Well, fortunately not everybody thinks like that. Otherwise nobody 
>> would bother making any actual *products* at all, they'd all just find 
>> ways to screw customers out of their money without providing anything 
>> in return.
> 
> Generally you go bankrupt pretty quickly if you try to do that.

Unless you're Microsoft, at least...

>> Buying something isn't the same as stealing it.
> 
> Oh I see, so when you're talking about MS, "stole" means "bought", but 
> when you're talking about Oracle "stole" really does mean "stole" as in 
> acquired illegally without paying for it.  Hmmm ok whatever.

If you pay to use some code in a certain way, and you use it in that 
way, that would be "buying" it. If you pay to use some code in a very 
limited way, and then go on to use it in a completely different way 
while denying that you're doing so, that would be "stealing". Much like 
all those DVD players which secretly use GPL code for their video 
decoding in violation of the licence terms...

>> So your basic premise is that the only way to be successful in 
>> business is to lie, cheat, steal and try to fob customers off with 
>> cheap defective goods at extortionate prices?
> 
> You can't be general like that, most of those things generally lose you 
> customers and profit, but you can use your judgment in certain 
> situations. (eg if MS had told the people they were buying DOS from that 
> they were planning to license it to IBM, they likely wouldn't have been 
> able to buy it or been charged 100x more, and then MS probably wouldn't 
> have existed today).

Well, all I'm saying is that lots of other large companies seem to get 
by without having to resort to cheating to stay in business...

Post a reply to this message