IANAL. From what I've read of the deposition, the problem is that the questions require Mr. Valenti to draw a legal conclusion, something he cannot do, not being a lawyer. At least, seeing as the objections are 'MR. COOPER: Calls for a legal conclusion.', it is not expected for him to be able to explain with legal authority just what the DMCA contains.
Lovely to see someone sane. You don't have to like Microsoft, or their products, you are fully within your rights to dislike microsoft and not use their products at the same time.
1)PC's need to ship with Windows in order to be competitive. Period. If the average consumer is shopping at dell.com and can't find a PC that comes pre-loaded with the worlds most widely used OS, they shop elsewhere. Dell sinks.
And this is no one's fault but dells if they choose to do so. They have an option to bundle windows. No one has forced them. It is their choice. To do otherwise might be an unprofitable choice that might even lead to certain destruction of dell, but it is their choice.
2)Miscrosoft has an interest in selling its non-OS software- Office, Internet Explorer, Encarta, etc. Interested not so much in selling to individuals, but in raking in big liscensing fees from OEM's like Gateway, Compaq, and Dell.
And a company shouldn't want/be allowed to sell a diverse line of products in the most profitable way available?
3)Microsoft is the only source for Windows. So what happens is this: Microsoft says to OEM's "Sell PC's with Office pre-installed, rather than Lotus or WordPerfect. If you don't, we give you a crappy deal on licensing Windows, or don't let you license it at all." So the OEM's have to capitulate, and Microsoft gaurantees itself income from its non-OS software, in addition to the money it makes by owning the dominant OS. Netscape is the canonical example; MS makes IE, which is getting the tar knocked out of it by Navigator. Result: MS forces OEM's to pre-load IE by making it difficult to remove from the system, thereby getting it in front of a huge audience, and cutting of Netscape at the source. They also keep companies from pre-loading Navigator, using the licensing terms for the OS as a nice, big stick to keep the OEM's in line.
I hate to break it to you. You have no intrinsic right to buy windows in any state. Nor do OEMs. All you can do is buy according to the terms of sale microsoft dictates. If you dislike them, take your money elsewhere. If dell dislikes them they can find another OS to use. There arn't any other OSs? All this is indicitive of is the incompetance of other corporations, be it in the avenue of coding an OS or marketing it is irrelevant. Why MS bundled IE is irrelevant too. But let's say it was to take away netscape's user base. What's wrong with this? It benefits consumers, (free is generally a better price than !free) and it benefits microsoft. Who else should microsoft be concerned with? Allowing netscape to compete 'fairly' might mean decrease in profits for Microsoft. So they did something about it. I just can't see that as evil.
never read the fountainhead. Atlas Shrugged and Anthem but not the fountainhead. Next on my list.
Anways, how does a corporation gain any power other than what the people give it? Since this is supposedly a free society we live in, arn't we free to make choices as to the products we've purchased? If revenues are the source of a companies 'power', then yes, people do control a company completely. If they cease to buy the products, the company fails. If you, however, have an alternate model explaining how companies become powerful, I'd love to hear it.
Do you want to know what would be even more effective? Do you want to know which group has even more power than those awful, terrible, non-morally-grounded Microsoft employees? Well, kids, lemme tell you: The software buying public! That's right. A corporation only has the power people give it. The easiest way to destroy the loathsome vile creature that is Microsoft would be to simply convince people to stop buying their products.
Oh... Some people actually use microsoft products and... like it? They're probably stupid and inept and can't comprhend the utter power and stability OSS provides.
Hrmm... What about those folks that have built businesses around MS products... Again, they're probably stupid drones. If they had any morals at all, they'd stop serving the evil and grow their hair long, pick flowers and sing all day long! Give up their money and all, because it was gained evilly, servicing a corporation of great evil powers.
Alright. Here we go. Repeat after me: 'A Corporation only has the power people buying its products give it. I can do my part and help destroy a tiny part of this power by not buying their products. However, others might see the value in said products and find them viable and even purchase them. So really, any 'monopoly' power is our own damn fault and we shouldn't be whining about it anyways. We have the power to get rid of it, we choose not to.'
I await the moderating of this down to -1, Troll, or Flaimbait as most posts not carrying the/. line in this thread are. Cheers =]
Well, after skimming over what l0phcrack is, it seems the best parallel I could draw is that between it and a gun. Some (not me, but some =]) would argue that a gun does indeed have many legitimate uses, however, some people insist upon using their gun(s) to commit crimes. The parallell between a car and the afforementioned software makes no sense. A gun I think (Hey, it's my analogy ^_^) makes much more sense.
A gun, like l0phtcrack could be a tool in the comission of a crime. As such, In the context it was used, it was very much material to the crime comitted:/
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL. From what I've read of the deposition, the problem is that the questions require Mr. Valenti to draw a legal conclusion, something he cannot do, not being a lawyer. At least, seeing as the objections are 'MR. COOPER: Calls for a legal conclusion.', it is not expected for him to be able to explain with legal authority just what the DMCA contains.
Lovely to see someone sane. You don't have to like Microsoft, or their products, you are fully within your rights to dislike microsoft and not use their products at the same time.
And this is no one's fault but dells if they choose to do so. They have an option to bundle windows. No one has forced them. It is their choice. To do otherwise might be an unprofitable choice that might even lead to certain destruction of dell, but it is their choice.
2)Miscrosoft has an interest in selling its non-OS software- Office, Internet Explorer, Encarta, etc. Interested not so much in selling to individuals, but in raking in big liscensing fees from OEM's like Gateway, Compaq, and Dell.
And a company shouldn't want/be allowed to sell a diverse line of products in the most profitable way available?
3)Microsoft is the only source for Windows. So what happens is this: Microsoft says to OEM's "Sell PC's with Office pre-installed, rather than Lotus or WordPerfect. If you don't, we give you a crappy deal on licensing Windows, or don't let you license it at all." So the OEM's have to capitulate, and Microsoft gaurantees itself income from its non-OS software, in addition to the money it makes by owning the dominant OS. Netscape is the canonical example; MS makes IE, which is getting the tar knocked out of it by Navigator. Result: MS forces OEM's to pre-load IE by making it difficult to remove from the system, thereby getting it in front of a huge audience, and cutting of Netscape at the source. They also keep companies from pre-loading Navigator, using the licensing terms for the OS as a nice, big stick to keep the OEM's in line.
I hate to break it to you. You have no intrinsic right to buy windows in any state. Nor do OEMs. All you can do is buy according to the terms of sale microsoft dictates. If you dislike them, take your money elsewhere. If dell dislikes them they can find another OS to use. There arn't any other OSs? All this is indicitive of is the incompetance of other corporations, be it in the avenue of coding an OS or marketing it is irrelevant. Why MS bundled IE is irrelevant too. But let's say it was to take away netscape's user base. What's wrong with this? It benefits consumers, (free is generally a better price than !free) and it benefits microsoft. Who else should microsoft be concerned with? Allowing netscape to compete 'fairly' might mean decrease in profits for Microsoft. So they did something about it. I just can't see that as evil.
--rmst.
That's actually a wonderful idea. Are there any countries left where innovation and performance arn't punishable under law?
never read the fountainhead.
Atlas Shrugged and Anthem but not the fountainhead. Next on my list.
Anways,
how does a corporation gain any power other than what the people give it? Since this is supposedly a free society we live in, arn't we free to make choices as to the products we've purchased? If revenues are the source of a companies 'power', then yes, people do control a company completely. If they cease to buy the products, the company fails. If you, however, have an alternate model explaining how companies become powerful, I'd love to hear it.
Do you want to know what would be even more effective? Do you want to know which group has even more power than those awful, terrible, non-morally-grounded Microsoft employees? Well, kids, lemme tell you:
/. line in this thread are. Cheers =]
The software buying public! That's right. A corporation only has the power people give it. The easiest way to destroy the loathsome vile creature that is Microsoft would be to simply convince people to stop buying their products.
Oh...
Some people actually use microsoft products and... like it? They're probably stupid and inept and can't comprhend the utter power and stability OSS provides.
Hrmm... What about those folks that have built businesses around MS products... Again, they're probably stupid drones. If they had any morals at all, they'd stop serving the evil and grow their hair long, pick flowers and sing all day long! Give up their money and all, because it was gained evilly, servicing a corporation of great evil powers.
Alright. Here we go. Repeat after me:
'A Corporation only has the power people buying its products give it. I can do my part and help destroy a tiny part of this power by not buying their products. However, others might see the value in said products and find them viable and even purchase them. So really, any 'monopoly' power is our own damn fault and we shouldn't be whining about it anyways. We have the power to get rid of it, we choose not to.'
I await the moderating of this down to -1, Troll, or Flaimbait as most posts not carrying the
A gun, like l0phtcrack could be a tool in the comission of a crime. As such, In the context it was used, it was very much material to the crime comitted :/
Just my two cents.