Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Misleads On Canadian Copyright Reform
An anonymous reader writes "As the battle rages over a Canadian DMCA, Microsoft Canada has published an op-ed in a political newspaper that Michael Geist describes as astonishingly misleading and factually incorrect. Microsoft tries to argue that Canadian copyright law provides no legal protections, even after it received one of the largest copyright damage awards in Canadian history just one year ago."
Stephan
http://stephan.sugarmotor.org
The MS article is factually accurate - copyright law does not protect ideas expressed in works. Mr. Geist even updated the posting to reflect this.
I am the maverick of Slashdot
Why wouldn't they mislead about copyright reform. They already abuse the broken patent system and now are trying to claim that Linux violates their patents. They are just trying to perpetuate this broken system that is in need of good reform. We'll see how many people really call them on this bs.
M$:You stole our code.
L:No we didn't. Show us.
M$:I'm sorry that is a trade secret, just take our word for it.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
The worst part of this (beyond Microsoft's outright self-serving lies) is that most Canadians are horribly uninformed/misinformed about copyright laws and will believe virtually anything they hear making copyright FUD north of the border very effective. It would be nice if more people, like Michael Geist, tried to get the truth out there but sadly his sort are rare...
That's Paulestinians to you, sir.
Granted, it's one of those "free to read the whole article" ones, but a PITA that kept me from reading further nonetheless.
Copy paste from someone else maybe?
Some days it's just not worth
chewing through my restraints.
In years past, there was no way that Microsoft would have approved such a weak op-ed piece. Maybe some low-level manager approved this one, because it is simply an embarrassment to the company - with ridiculous examples that a high school student could rip apart regardless of the interpretation of their text.
Sadly, Microsoft is at the point where it needs to step up its game and change the way it does business if it wants to remain relevant. This piece, and the purchase of Yahoo, are all signs that Microsoft can no longer manage to design its own future - instead, it needs to look to the outside to fix its internal shortcomings.
To me, that means that Microsoft will be more apt to try to buy its way out of management failures - by buying companies such as Yahoo - which in turn will bring great new ideas and assets to Microsoft, but at the huge expense of making Microsoft substantially harder to manage.
It could work out, but it's a slippery, dangerous slope, similar to (but different than) going into massive debt. But instead of a direct financial debt, it will be a huge on-going management burden - one that could only be controlled with strong merger-centric leadership.
History is full of merger failures due to culture clashes. I doubt Ballmer is the guy that can pull it off. My prediction - Ballmer be put in the twilight in 2 years or less. You heard it from me.
Amazing, Microsoft bends the facts to suit their own need to screw the customer even harder than before..... More News At 11.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
"Misleading"? "Factually incorrect"? Why will no one reporting on lies just come out and call them lies? By pulling these punches, the writers/editors/publishers are lying.
There, I said it. And I feel better already for telling the truth.
--
make install -not war
For that matter, why does anyone expect truth from any party with a vested interest? Microsoft isn't special in that regard.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Like this one:
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
We're willing to take our chances on whether they have a "natural monopoly" without the 3-trillion-pound gorilla mostly fighting on their side.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Actually, I think that if someone says something in public that could damage the person they're talking about, then the burden of proof is on the person saying it. But simply citing the evidence that someone said something they knew was false, or that the subject willfully ignored the truth when speaking of it, when they say that person is lying, should constitute sufficient proof to dismiss any libel case. And to recover defense legal fees, as well as the ironically reverse damages for falsely accusing someone of libel.
FWIW, lawyers bringing frivolous libel suits should be disbarred after bringing 3 in any 10 years, or a lifetime of maybe 5 or 6.
--
make install -not war
Oh great. A story on Microsoft attempting to influence Canadian parliamentary decisions and you fucks turn it into a discussion about U.S. political candidates. Damn you.