Posted on 08/21/2003 7:23:21 AM PDT by justlurking
Us "GPL bigots" already know you are wrong.
But, you do a very admirable job of convincing the lurkers and occasional bystanders that you are wrong.
Despite your cynicism, yes you must make a convincing case based on the law, precedent, evidence, intentions so that a jury or judge can reach an informed opinion based on many factors.
so you can get home to your beer and La-Z-Boy...
Is there no room in your severe world for the little pleasures of life.
He didn't ask for sympathy. He got mad and then he got even. Sounds like a FR kinda guy.
It hit me recently that this is the kind of mind set posssessed by Democrats. It's a non stop mental reservation akin to psychosis.
And, as I pointed out, you are assuming guilt. It is not doubtful that someone actually paid, given the scenario described. They passed the computer on to someone who was not using it without wiping it out. A technical violation of the law? Yes. But hardly comparable to willing piracy. I think you simply need to assume guilt in order to rationalize Microsoft's behavior.
Look, if somebody is using your product without paying for it, you have every right to take action against them.
The article claims that they weren't using the product without paying for it -- the claim is that the software simply wasn't erased from the offending computers as they were passed on to others. A technical violation? Yes. Worth $80,000?
You guys like to think that that's un-American. Fine.
I've worked for my state's taxation department. The reason that the IRS is so abusive is because they do almost exactly what Microsoft is doing here.
Do a lot of people cheat on their taxes. Yes. Do a lot of them do it on purpose? Of course. But does that justify the IRS showing up in jack boots to ruin a person or small business owner's life? Not in my opinion. But the IRS will give you a justification for their tactics which is an almost verbatim copy of your justification for Microsoft's tactics.
The last thing this country needs is a lesson in commercial ethics from a bunch of Bolsheviks.
I'm pretty consistent. I'm against abuse of power whether it comes from the government, an individual, or a corporation. Either you don't mind the abuse of power or you are selective in how it bothers you.
And as for someone who has paid for every copy of Microsoft software he has (several thousand dollars worth), I find your attempts to brand me a communist laughable.
You are aware that the law makes a distinction between car theft and joyriding, aren't you? And if you borrow a friend's car but forget to take the registration and a police officer pulls you over. Should he immediately assume that you've stolen the car and throw you in jail. Since you seem to feel that failure to produce documentation of ownership is sufficient to assume guilt (after all, a lot of people do steal cars so perhaps we should just assume that anyone in a car without a registration is a car thief, right), perhaps we could simply dispense with a judge and jury and throw anyone without a proper registration in jail to serve the sentence of a car thief.
The key points you seem unable to comprehend are (A) intent (which is why we differentiate murder from manslaughter and intentional homocides from unintentional, accidental, and justified homocides) and (B) the assumption of innocense (where the accuser has to prove guilt). You don't seem to grasp the former and seem to have no use for the latter.
Before your mentioned this, I was thinking that something along these lines is the answer for the small business that wants to keep their software licensing situation legal and under control.
I run my personal Win2000 and WinXP PC's within the least-privileged mode (for security reasons). But I have the Admin passwords for running Windows Update and installing software (I own these PC's.). It's a common misconception that computer users need to run with Administrator (root) privilege.
With Win2000 and XP, there are built-in methods in the OS to assist the business owner's efforts to keep the users within the desired privilege bounds. Unfortunately, the techniques are not common knowledge. There is definitely a need for a simple book/manual on how to set up Windows2000/XP PC's for maximum security and minimum user privilege. Medium and large companies have IT people who possess the know-how to make this happen. But small businesses often don't have dedicated IT people, or they have poorly-trained IT person(s).
You know what, if you wrote such a book I'd buy it. A lot of the computer books on the shelves are nearly worthless. Storage Area Networks for Dummies, anyone?
So you also believe in collective guilt? Because some small business owners rip the software industry off, it is OK for Microsoft to do whatever they want to them? And because a small business can't even hope to afford to fight off legal challenge after legal challenge from a company that has enough cash on hand to buy the entire airline industry is the small business owners fault? So you also believe that justice should depend on the depth of a person's pockets?
Here, have some more rope.
Actually I've thought about it. :-)
In other words, this has nothing to do with whether the company paid for the software or not but whether they are in technical violation of the license. All of your moral outrate over theft and payment is simply a red herring. You really simply think that Microsoft should have the right to demand that people prove they are innocent or fine them as if they are guilty. That you seem to have no concern that someone may be forced to pay twice for their software doesn't seem to bother you. You should get a job in tax collection. Tax agencies live for this sort of thing.
So let's just dispense with trials and juries and flip a coin instead. Heck, I have a better idea. Using the Bush2000 shool of thought, we can just assume that everyone is guilty. Think of the time and money that would save.
And I would recommend it to my clients.
However, as I found at the client I mentioned, quite a few people were given administator access to their PC's, thus negating any protection. The only thing it really prevented was the clueless clerical staff from installing spyware.
It is exactly that attitude that will eventually cause the downfall of companies like microsoft. Every little bit helps. With any luck, your next job won't be quite as fun.
The theory was fine practice when we ran our computing on mainframes and minis and we recognized concepts such as the system disk, operating system directories and a separation between data and software. Data Processing 101, it all used to be, taught at junior college level, before Gore2000's (ex?) employer decided to rewrite the rules and take us backwards into the future. I still shudder at the thought that all these programs (by Gore2000's company and others) I install or deinstall and run and the web browsers I run, write to the system disk, write to the operating system directories, to the operating system configuration files, mix my personal trash with critical operating system files and so on. It looks to me like the idiot hackers raised on EUNUCHS took over operating system design and the mess they've created is the new "standard". I wonder what they teach in Data Processing 101 nowadays!
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.