Posted on 08/21/2003 7:23:21 AM PDT by justlurking
Without intent, it isn't theft. Feel free to cite California law, but in Texas:
The fact is that he has software that doesn't belong to him, can't explain how it got there, and that's illegal.
You must have missed this part of the article:
We pass our old computers down. The guys in engineering need a new PC, so they get one and we pass theirs on to somebody doing clerical work. Well, if you don't wipe the hard drive on that PC, that's a violation. Even if they can tell a piece of software isn't being used, it's still a violation if it's on that hard drive.
Yes, much better to sympathize with Microsoft and their lawyers rather than small business owners who can't afford to defend themselves in court. Much better to assume that Microsoft is right and everyone else is wrong. Guilty until proven innocent and all that, right?
Hardly. Again, from the article:
Call me first if you think we have a compliance issue. Let's do a voluntary audit and see what's there. They went right for the gut...
He paid $65,000 in fines, plus $35,000 in legal fees, for a few dozen unlicensed programs that weren't even in use. That is way beyond "restitution".
So we should assume guilt instead of innocense simply because a lot of people are guilty? I used to assume that you simply supported Microsoft on the basis of property rights. Now I'm starting to believe that it is actually the monopolistic control and unconstrained power that attracts you to them.
Don't ask for focus. Anything more complex than "Microsoft is right and anyone they attack is wrong." is beyond their capacity.
No, but their property should be respected. Check out US law or the Holy Bible for information about "stealing" from others what is not yours.
I'd love a new 42 foot Fountain Boat. Just because I can't afford it doesn't mean I should have the right to steal it from Fountain. And if someone catches me with one I didn't pay for, I could be in a lot of trouble. Thankfully, not a problem, since I know, respect, and adhere to laws prohibiting it. Some of you are just having a much tougher time it appears.
Many will tell you that it will never happen, but IMO it is just as inevitable as the selection of the PC over the Mac. Cheaper and "good enough" will always win.
That someone actually paid Microsoft for a license is, of course, irrelevant to you. You are more concerned that a person prove to Microsoft that they aren't ripping them off than having Microsoft prove that the person is ripping them off. Guilty until proven innocent, right?
Not when it is cheaper because some of it may be stolen, or when the owner is a foreigner and son of a noted communist. This battle is just getting started, BTW.
You are presuming that the software in question was installed by the OEM. It was probably an application installed afterwards by their own IT or even engineering staff -- like Visual Studio, or other software typically used by engineering staff and not clerical staff.
That's a reasonable assumption, given this quote from the article:
We pass our old computers down. The guys in engineering need a new PC, so they get one and we pass theirs on to somebody doing clerical work.
I totally agree, and would support that option if it is a for-profit US company that owns the technology. Just like I currently support Sun, Apple, etc. But I will never support these sneaky licenses that steal your IP and provide no return revenue to the IT market which I work in.
Don't ask the Microsoftoids about history. They don't want to know that the PC became dominant because IBM lost control of it and the competition in the open market kept costs down and resisted attempts for vendors to make propietary power grabs. They don't want to know how Microsoft gained market share through non-competative tactics or how Microsoft got a license fees from OEMs even if Windows wasn't installed on the system (that sort of tax/theft doesn't seem to bother them). They don't want to know about how Microsoft cloned CP/M, crippled WordPerfect through API problems, or screwwed DR/DOS. And they certainly don't want to remember how Microsoft resisted adding TCP/IP support to Windows, attempting instead to build a proprietary network (the original MSN) that only Microsoft could control. No, if it makes Microsoft look bad, they don't want to know it because the cognitive dissonance would be staggering. That they consider themselves conservative but support anti-competative behavior and "guilty until proven innocent" legal attacks must already be quite a juggling act.
Now, it seeks to remedy that situation. However, when there is a legitimate option that costs less, and does not require per-seat licensing, that other option will eventually take a big bite out of Microsoft's market share.
Just as non-proprietary PC "clones" eventually took a bite out of the proprietary hardware makers such as Apple, IBM, and DEC (remember the Rainbow?).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.