It's been some years, so I really don't know if the math works out the same anymore, but at least in my case I really don't think it's a wonder at all that I chose the TiVO.
1. How do you decide who was "hurt"? Anyone who bought a computer with an MS OS in a given timeframe.
2. How do you find them? You allow them to come forward to reclaim their money.
3. What do you do about the dead ones? The utterly common legal process: it goes to their descendants if any.
4. How much will all of the above cost? How much does allowing crime and graft to go unremedied cost?
5. What do you tell the people who will now die of common diseases who would have been saved by that money? What do you tell the people who will die of starvation because that money got spent on diseases instead of food distribution work?
Nothing's as simple as it seems. Indeed. Think about it.
Were you advertising in any of the major magazines? Were you capable of delivering, in a timely manner, more than a hundred boxes in a week's time frame, and guaranteeing maintenance on those kinds of numbers over years? There are only a small number of companies who could do that, and they all had highly restricted contracts with MS.
It's actually not false, but I should have been more specific. I needed x86 boxes, and I needed them in numbers that meant only a small number of companies ('the major vendors') could meet my needs, and every one of them had contracts with MS that prohibited selling boxes sans MS OS licenses.
Others have already corrected you, but I'll just chime in: I willingly parted with my money to buy a computer. But not an MS operating system. I had no choice about that part.
MS and Bill Gates could offer all the money they still have based on the exploitation of their OS monopoly back to the consumers they hurt. Problem solved.
I'm talking about purchasing as a business, in a context where you don't want to roll your own manufacturing capability, and need 100 new x86 boxes tomorrow.
Do you want to hire all those assemblers? No, it doesn't make sense for your business.
There were many years where buying >100 x86 boxes without a MS operating system was impossible. There was no vendor who wasn't stuck in a MS contract who could satisfy such an order. Note that I was committed to x86, but didn't need the MS.
Actually, he did force me to buy his products by leveraging his monopoly position to make contracts such that if a vendor of x86 hardware wanted to sell any windows boxes, they had to sell all windows boxes. So for me to purchase an x86 box, there was no way to avoid paying him for windows, though I didn't need it or want it.
No, I didn't have a literal choice. There was no computer manufacturer who would sell my computer equipment I needed to do business that would sell me computer equipment without a microsoft license.
It's literally taking (willingly) from the rich and giving to the poor.
Willingly is way off. He had a monopoly position in operating systems that made it literally impossible to buy computer equipment without giving Microsoft money.
Maybe I wanted to spend my money on a different, worthwhile cause?
Maybe I feel the Gates foundation is completely incompetent, and I'd like to spend that money on the same cause in a more effective way?
Doing some good with the money you stole from people doesn't make up for the stealing.
People will probably need more help going forward, not less.
Unless of course, they fix things permanently, now. Then people can need no help going forward. So instead of requiring people to live in mildly improved misery forever, they can do away with the misery altogether.
But if the percentage of members of $Group that does $BadThings is 99.5%, and you want to avoid having your leadership do $BadThings, then choosing your leadership from $Group just reflects a poor understanding of statistics, or perhaps some moronic form of hope.
I think this case is about companies who did think of it. They weren't ripping off anybodies patent. They reinvented the same thing, and tripped over the patent.
I don't quite see how 'because he's rich' is an emotional argument. The horrific acts of the rich throughout history are well documented. It's hard to find any rich who were good, so why take a chance?
In the US we have very strong feelings about erosion of the freedom of speech. That's why our movie rating system is only voluntarily enforced by the theaters, not legally enforced. We'd be perfectly content to have all stores voluntarily enforce the ratings system, but no store in the US is going to be the first mover on that issue and lose all their sales.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I define tailgaiting as: I see your car instead of road as the first thing in my rear view mirror.
It's been some years, so I really don't know if the math works out the same anymore, but at least in my case I really don't think it's a wonder at all that I chose the TiVO.
Since you can no longer buy lifetime subscriptions, no the math doesn't work out the same anymore.
http://www.tivo.com/2.0.plans.step.1.asp
And further, the price for myth compatible hardware is way down since then.
1. How do you decide who was "hurt"?
Anyone who bought a computer with an MS OS in a given timeframe.
2. How do you find them?
You allow them to come forward to reclaim their money.
3. What do you do about the dead ones?
The utterly common legal process: it goes to their descendants if any.
4. How much will all of the above cost?
How much does allowing crime and graft to go unremedied cost?
5. What do you tell the people who will now die of common diseases who would have been saved by that money?
What do you tell the people who will die of starvation because that money got spent on diseases instead of food distribution work?
Nothing's as simple as it seems.
Indeed. Think about it.
:-)
Now that was a great answer.
And touche, I read that magazine. For the articles of course.
That's great for you. It's not true for a lot of people.
Were you advertising in any of the major magazines? Were you capable of delivering, in a timely manner, more than a hundred boxes in a week's time frame, and guaranteeing maintenance on those kinds of numbers over years? There are only a small number of companies who could do that, and they all had highly restricted contracts with MS.
It's actually not false, but I should have been more specific. I needed x86 boxes, and I needed them in numbers that meant only a small number of companies ('the major vendors') could meet my needs, and every one of them had contracts with MS that prohibited selling boxes sans MS OS licenses.
Others have already corrected you, but I'll just chime in: I willingly parted with my money to buy a computer. But not an MS operating system. I had no choice about that part.
You're slandering one of the greatest philanthropists of our generation with an outright lie.
It's not slandering when it's truth:
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/msdoj/
Apple made operating systems for non-x86 hardware.
Today I would gladly accept that this is no longer true. That doesn't change that it was true.
MS and Bill Gates could offer all the money they still have based on the exploitation of their OS monopoly back to the consumers they hurt. Problem solved.
I'm talking about purchasing as a business, in a context where you don't want to roll your own manufacturing capability, and need 100 new x86 boxes tomorrow.
Do you want to hire all those assemblers? No, it doesn't make sense for your business.
No self respecting businessman is that dumb.
There were many years where buying >100 x86 boxes without a MS operating system was impossible. There was no vendor who wasn't stuck in a MS contract who could satisfy such an order.
Note that I was committed to x86, but didn't need the MS.
Actually, he did force me to buy his products by leveraging his monopoly position to make contracts such that if a vendor of x86 hardware wanted to sell any windows boxes, they had to sell all windows boxes. So for me to purchase an x86 box, there was no way to avoid paying him for windows, though I didn't need it or want it.
No, I didn't have a literal choice. There was no computer manufacturer who would sell my computer equipment I needed to do business that would sell me computer equipment without a microsoft license.
I'm pretty sure that's because in the Robin Hood stories, the rich are evil miscreants who work hard to ensure the poor suffer.
I personally tend not to think of myself that way, and do my best not to act that way.
It's literally taking (willingly) from the rich and giving to the poor.
Willingly is way off. He had a monopoly position in operating systems that made it literally impossible to buy computer equipment without giving Microsoft money.
Maybe I wanted to spend my money on a different, worthwhile cause?
Maybe I feel the Gates foundation is completely incompetent, and I'd like to spend that money on the same cause in a more effective way?
Doing some good with the money you stole from people doesn't make up for the stealing.
People will probably need more help going forward, not less.
Unless of course, they fix things permanently, now. Then people can need no help going forward. So instead of requiring people to live in mildly improved misery forever, they can do away with the misery altogether.
Ouch.
But if the percentage of members of $Group that does $BadThings is 99.5%, and you want to avoid having your leadership do $BadThings, then choosing your leadership from $Group just reflects a poor understanding of statistics, or perhaps some moronic form of hope.
"how come you didn't think of it then?"
I think this case is about companies who did think of it. They weren't ripping off anybodies patent. They reinvented the same thing, and tripped over the patent.
I don't quite see how 'because he's rich' is an emotional argument. The horrific acts of the rich throughout history are well documented. It's hard to find any rich who were good, so why take a chance?
Even though it seems everyone hates the guy, I wouldn't mind having a president that knows something about computers.
Me too, so maybe if Bill Gates can run, someone computer literate can run too!
Indeed, when I look at our president, I remember not to hire from those Universities.
Certainly, if your porn is r-rated, and not obscene.
In the US we have very strong feelings about erosion of the freedom of speech.
That's why our movie rating system is only voluntarily enforced by the theaters, not legally enforced.
We'd be perfectly content to have all stores voluntarily enforce the ratings system, but no store in the US is going to be the first mover on that issue and lose all their sales.