This is why it's ok to copy, distribute, download and use Microsoftproducts

This is why it's perfectly reasonable to copy, distribute, download and
use Microsoft products and give the finger to their EULA and not pay any
respect (legal or otherwise) to their rights:

-----------------
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...-versions-word

MICROSOFT HAS LOST its appeal of the i4i patent case and will likely
have to withdraw the current versions of its Microsoft Word and Office
software from sale.

The United States Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower
court's jury verdict that Microsoft had willfully infringed i4i's US
Patent #5,787,449 issued in 1998.

Beta versions of Microsoft Word 2010 and Microsoft Office 2010, which
are available now, do not contain the custom XML handling technology
that's covered by the injunction.

See also:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle1409825/
------------------


Microsoft has proven again that they are a sociopathic and criminal
organization. They have been found guilty of violating numerous laws
and patents in many countries. They show time and time again that they
nor their products are deserving of protection under law or copyright
that society conveys to deserving, law abiding citizens and companies.

In other news:


---------------------
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/security...rsecurity-czar

Former Microsoft man named US cybersecurity czar

President Obama has finally named his cybersecurity coordinator.

The job goes to Howard Schmidt, the former chief security officer of
Microsoft and vice president for security at eBay. Schmidt also served
the Bush administration's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board in
the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
---------------------


Microsoft's role in determining gov't laws and policy as it relates to
computer "security" continues with the appointment of Schmidt as the
cybersecurity "czar".

The entire world can thank Schmidt's "security" compententce (NOT) as he
did such a good job insuring that Windows XP was a secure, appropriate
and properly configured replacement for home and small office computers
when it was brought to market as the replacement for Win-98/Me back in
2002.

Too bad that Microsoft didn't put as much thought and effort into XP's
security and vulnerability exposure as it did with it's anti-copying
product activation strategy. Another example of Microsoft's sociopathic
nature.

Interesting article. Reminded me of the many wrong doings MS has been
charged with over the years! In fact wasn't MS's inception derived by
stealing (something) from IBM's OS2?

Personally I think the world would be better off WITHOUT MS and put
climate change #2 in importance g

Interesting article. Reminded me of the many wrong doings MS has been
charged with over the years! In fact wasn't MS's inception derived by
stealing (something) from IBM's OS2?

Personally I think the world would be better off WITHOUT MS and put
climate change #2 in importance g

"someone watching" wrote:

Interesting article. Reminded me of the many wrong doings MS has been
charged with over the years! In fact wasn't MS's inception derived by
stealing (something) from IBM's OS2?

Inception? They began by writing a BASIC interpreter for the MITS
Altair computer in the mid-70s. They built a respectable business
making language compilers for the 8-bit computers of those times, then
got their HUGE break by getting the contract to supply an OS for IBM's
new PC. They rode the huge wave of PC sales, getting a licensing fee
for each one sold, whether or not it was made by IBM.

They fell out with IBM sometime in the 80s, when a very early version
of OS2 was out (IIRC). I remember that OS2 could open only a single
DOS box at a time (it was built entirely on 286 standards), but
Windows 3 could open as many as you wanted (using the 386's Virtual 86
mode).

They were already selling Office, and were quite wealthy from DOS
royalties when they split from IBM.

--
Tim Slattery

http://members.cox.net/slatteryt

"someone watching" wrote:

Interesting article. Reminded me of the many wrong doings MS has been
charged with over the years! In fact wasn't MS's inception derived by
stealing (something) from IBM's OS2?

Inception? They began by writing a BASIC interpreter for the MITS
Altair computer in the mid-70s. They built a respectable business
making language compilers for the 8-bit computers of those times, then
got their HUGE break by getting the contract to supply an OS for IBM's
new PC. They rode the huge wave of PC sales, getting a licensing fee
for each one sold, whether or not it was made by IBM.

They fell out with IBM sometime in the 80s, when a very early version
of OS2 was out (IIRC). I remember that OS2 could open only a single
DOS box at a time (it was built entirely on 286 standards), but
Windows 3 could open as many as you wanted (using the 386's Virtual 86
mode).

They were already selling Office, and were quite wealthy from DOS
royalties when they split from IBM.

--
Tim Slattery

http://members.cox.net/slatteryt

Inception? They began by writing a BASIC interpreter for the MITS
Altair computer in the mid-70s. They built a respectable business
making language compilers for the 8-bit computers of those times, then
got their HUGE break by getting the contract to supply an OS for IBM's
new PC. They rode the huge wave of PC sales, getting a licensing fee
for each one sold, whether or not it was made by IBM.

They fell out with IBM sometime in the 80s, when a very early version
of OS2 was out (IIRC). I remember that OS2 could open only a single
DOS box at a time (it was built entirely on 286 standards), but
Windows 3 could open as many as you wanted (using the 386's Virtual 86
mode).

My thought of 'inception' was as a multi-tasking OS developer, which is
what MS is primarily known for. In fact, I would venture to say 90+
percent of people have no idea of what MS-DOS or BASIC is and equate MS
with WINDOWS!

As far as any stealing goes, you'll notice my sentence ended with a
question mark! There is much controversy even to this day regarding MS's
departure from IBM and NT code.

Interesting article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1...plurk-cod_n_39
3185.html

Inception? They began by writing a BASIC interpreter for the MITS
Altair computer in the mid-70s. They built a respectable business
making language compilers for the 8-bit computers of those times, then
got their HUGE break by getting the contract to supply an OS for IBM's
new PC. They rode the huge wave of PC sales, getting a licensing fee
for each one sold, whether or not it was made by IBM.

They fell out with IBM sometime in the 80s, when a very early version
of OS2 was out (IIRC). I remember that OS2 could open only a single
DOS box at a time (it was built entirely on 286 standards), but
Windows 3 could open as many as you wanted (using the 386's Virtual 86
mode).

My thought of 'inception' was as a multi-tasking OS developer, which is
what MS is primarily known for. In fact, I would venture to say 90+
percent of people have no idea of what MS-DOS or BASIC is and equate MS
with WINDOWS!

As far as any stealing goes, you'll notice my sentence ended with a
question mark! There is much controversy even to this day regarding MS's
departure from IBM and NT code.

Interesting article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1...plurk-cod_n_39
3185.html

On 12/23/2009 08:44 AM, 98 Guy wrote:
This is why it's perfectly reasonable to copy, distribute, download and
use Microsoft products and give the finger to their EULA and not pay any
respect (legal or otherwise) to their rights:

-----------------
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...-versions-word

MICROSOFT HAS LOST its appeal of the i4i patent case and will likely
have to withdraw the current versions of its Microsoft Word and Office
software from sale.

The United States Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower
court's jury verdict that Microsoft had willfully infringed i4i's US
Patent #5,787,449 issued in 1998.

Beta versions of Microsoft Word 2010 and Microsoft Office 2010, which
are available now, do not contain the custom XML handling technology
that's covered by the injunction.

See also:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle1409825/
------------------


Microsoft has proven again that they are a sociopathic and criminal
organization. They have been found guilty of violating numerous laws
and patents in many countries. They show time and time again that they
nor their products are deserving of protection under law or copyright
that society conveys to deserving, law abiding citizens and companies.

In other news:


---------------------
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/security...rsecurity-czar

Former Microsoft man named US cybersecurity czar

President Obama has finally named his cybersecurity coordinator.

The job goes to Howard Schmidt, the former chief security officer of
Microsoft and vice president for security at eBay. Schmidt also served
the Bush administration's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board in
the wake of the 9/11 attacks.
---------------------


Microsoft's role in determining gov't laws and policy as it relates to
computer "security" continues with the appointment of Schmidt as the
cybersecurity "czar".

The entire world can thank Schmidt's "security" compententce (NOT) as he
did such a good job insuring that Windows XP was a secure, appropriate
and properly configured replacement for home and small office computers
when it was brought to market as the replacement for Win-98/Me back in
2002.

Too bad that Microsoft didn't put as much thought and effort into XP's
security and vulnerability exposure as it did with it's anti-copying
product activation strategy. Another example of Microsoft's sociopathic
nature.

HAHAHAHHAHA, you come up with some of the most moronic ideas and arguments.

Yeah, Microsoft has done many things which have found it placed in
various court proceedings; but so have numerous other developers and
manufacturers ACROSS THE WORLD.
For instance: Intel is now in court pursuant its aggressive business
practices applied against competitors of other chips. Pick any of the
major application providers, or chip producers, or other that must work
around various patents or like and you ALWAYS find this. That YOU and
others attempt to voice that this is specific to ONE, such as Microsoft,
is ludicrous and unworldly. It shows YOUR [those doing this] own
idiopathic and psychopathic failings; you clearly do not have the scope
necessary to address what needs changed and controlled.

Following your supposed train of thought [which of course doesn't
really hold value] we could then claim that people should be allowed to
walk into computer stores and steal computers containing Intel chipsets
because Intel appears to proceed under unfair anti-competition
practices. It has also used coding pulled from the public sector and
other manufacturers, and has been previously found to have done so.

Gee, I hate to inform you, but this happens all the time, pretty much
throughout the spectrum of the computer world [and other manufacturing
and programming]. HOW and WHERE this is handled is via legal
proceedings, wherein the abilities and other are then defined to limit
or otherwise make certain the extents permissible. That's the "real
world" in which we live.

I would agree XP was not ready for public use when released, yet
pressure *was applied* external to Microsoft to do so and in part from
those you claim are controlled by Microsoft, the governments.
That those parties, such as yourself, spout this uninformed and largely
ignorant garbage is not unusual; any major world corporation has been
through this same style of activity. YOU [indicating all those spouting
this LIMITED nonsense rather than the FULL scope and extent] should
instead make an effort to point out the loss of control caused BY ALL OF
THESE WORLD CONTROLLING corporations.
Of course, even then you would have failed to address the full extent;
for without also addressing the financial institutions and "money
controllers" who have far more control in government, you again fail;
but that isn't unusual for parties such as yourself.

Moreover, your attempts to address security issues as being defined and
controlled by Microsoft completely fail to address what security is and
why it IS necessary. Further; whom would YOU suggest be placed in
positions defining software security needs; who *should* be placed
there,, someone like you without the background knowledge and scope
necessary, or someone from the industry.
XP WAS an advanced step [for Microsoft, not the world's OSs] towards
the type of security necessary; not fully addressed nor fully prepared
or even completely fit for public use. Yet, none the less, a step
necessary. Windows users generally can NOT be trusted to protect
themselves nor setup their computers properly. Microsoft's failures were
to completely address these user failings [and some of the internal crap
code that was used].

Don't or didn't like XP (or VISTA or Windows 7)? Then you did and do
have other options; so it is, in actuality, the USERS' own choice that
makes the determination, NOT Microsoft and not the governments. In fact,
should more people demand other OSs used on new computers or make an
effort to do so, Microsoft's and Intel's hold could be loosened; yet
that isn't going to happen (at least very soon) because, in part, people
like you are stuck on the *GUI* of Windows, the "point and click" of it;
not really even the OS or its workings, which is displayed consistently
by the complaints levied against these MS OSs and Microsoft.
YOU want *Microsoft* to create an OS wherein you haven't a clue of what
you actually want or need yet somehow you have the audacity and
impression that this *should be done for you*, and complain when it
isn't. Microsoft has its own design plans FOR ITS OWN OSs. You want
something else? Then use another OS.

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking
http://peoplescounsel.org
The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government
___---

So if I discover that my neighbour has been convicted of tax fraud, it's OK
to wander into his house and steal his TV?

I hope that's not really what you are trying to say.
--
Jeff Richards
----------------------------------------


"98 Guy" wrote in message ...
This is why it's perfectly reasonable to copy, distribute, download and
use Microsoft products and give the finger to their EULA and not pay any
respect (legal or otherwise) to their rights:

..