Mandrake 8.2, Lindows and Corel Linux (+ Xandros beta) are each very easy to install.
The key is not ease of installation. Rather it is having versions preloaded and just as easy to purchase as for Microsoft. Sure, WalMart will preinstall Mandrake or Lindows for you. They will even ship with no OS. But, that is only via their web site. And, many buyers will not shop that way. They want to see and touch just before they take out the wallet.
So, it will take linux pre-loaded for most people.
The corporate market is very different. There IBM could help but is not doing so. And, SUN has suggested it will offer a linux based desktop system but it is still slow on the draw. And, HP will preload Mandrake on a few systems but not the one most likely purchased by the ordinary consumer.
How can you help?
Talk to some or the local computer stores in your area. Suggest they offer Lindows, Mandrake or the upcoming Xandros preloaded with OpenOffice or StarOffice and actually do some price sensitive advertising. Bait and switch is not a nice thing to suggest. But, a very low cost PC with OS and an office suite can be half the price if Microsoft's prices and software are avoided completely. Even putting StarOffice or OpenOffice on an MS box is a start.
Maybe if you explained what you were doing in the early 1970s.
You can batmouth the HP machine if you want but the word processor I wrote and used in my law office in those days had spelling verification, global search and replace plus ran a letter quality printer.
So, while I understand your need to insult others when you do so with such ignorance it only reflects poorly upon yourself.
I have never purchased any of the Microsoft software you claim is essential.
That is because they are not.
WordPerfect is a fine alternative. So too is OpenOffice and StarOffice.
You are free to spend all the money you want.
And, if you are a corporation you can waste all the money you want.
Or, you can go with a lower cost alternative.
By the way, for years Microsoft claimed it was successful by being lower in cost even though its products were mediocre. Well. Today those benefits are no longer associated with Microsoft.
Today Microsoft is the high priced leader. And, their prices are going up as we speak.
So, go ahead. Spend your money that way.
But, 80-90% of all PC users NEVER need the crap you get with the Microsoft brand. Their products simply are not that exclusive at all.
You seem to be under the delusion that only Microsoft can supply software and therefore the high prices must be paid. That is simply false.
And, no, 20% of the time does not require the crap from them either.
80-90% of all PC users simply do not need the Microsoft brands. Period.
If you want to disclose the price a particular customer pays for 5,000 licenses of XP and Office XP, go ahead.
The price for linux and OpenOffice is zero.
Now, if you insist upon support from a major company, fine. Go with StarOffice. They will support you. But, unlike Microsoft, the StarOffice license permits 5 installs. So, your laptop, home system and perhaps a couple other systems are all legal for the $76.
If you want to suggest that to you the much higher price for the monopoly products is worth it, fine. You can pay those prices.
But, the more PCs you have and the more employees you have the better linux, OpenOffice, StarOffice, Mazilla and Evolution look.
Look, insulting those who point out the high price Microsoft charges is a total waste of your time.
Besides, when you refuse to give your name everyone will know you do not even believe what you say.
I would disagree that linux is just now entering the desktop market.
Corel Linux and WordPerfect for Linux has been around for several years. However, WordPerfect was not successful in getting the kind of attention and success it deserved for its products.
The Corel Linux distribution (1 and 2) had a clone of the Windows Explorer which offed point and click networking almost indentical to that on Microsoft stuff. Today, Mandrake, RedHat and others (with the exeception of Xandros) have failed to reach that level of ease of use.
Maybe when RedHat, Mandrake and others take the desktop market seriously we shall see some real innovation and development in that direction.
OpenOffice is important. So too is StarOffice. And, unlike some who claim that SUN should be charging for StarOffice, I strongly disagree with that. $76 for StarOffice is a great low price. And, the fact that SUN is going to support it makes it very attractive for corporate accounts. And, you need a sizable number of corporate customers to put linux on the desktop. Of course, StarOffice (and OpenOffice) run on many platforms. That too is a plus and will greatly increase its success and adoption by major accounts. And, once StarOffice and OpenOffice has their market positions established they can help ease the move onto the linux desktop.
So, I would agree a milestone has been reached. There is no doubt about that. Mozilla is important (although Netscape has been around for some time on linux and unix). And, Evolution is important. An office suite, a browser or two (almost forgot to mention Opera and KExplorer) and Evolution are essential applications for the corporate market. And, the corporate market is likely to be the first major push for linux on the desktop.
The other aspect of linux which can not be overestimated is the availability of Java and Delphi/Kylix for cross platform development. OpenOffice, StarOffice, Mozilla, Opera and Evolution do not rely upon Java or the RAD products from Borland. So, applications can be written for multiple platforms without the RAD products. But, JBuilder and Delphi/Kylix make that task a lot easier. And, corporations who want to develop their key in-house applications for both platforms should seriously consider those tools as well.
Well. I think you are looking straight into the face of a new animal.
Right now, you will not find good case reports on using OpenOffice or StarOffice on a wide scale company wide basis.
However, if you take the cautious approach, install a few machines and find out whether or not OpenOffice or StarOffice will suffice, I think you will find that they do.
I fully subscribe to the 80-20 rule. And, that is that 80% of the instances will be more than happy to have OpenOffice or StarOffice at their disposal. And, if you find that 20% of employees actually do need the extra features and functions that OpenOffice or StarOffice lack, then fine.
But, to a company saving $400 for 80% of your employees is an enormous savings.
And, the best part is that OpenOffice and StarOffice are both available on the Microsoft systems. So, a change in OS is not required to gain the major advantage of using non-Microsoft applications.
From there linux fits in like a glove. New systems can use OpenOffice or StarOffice on linux with no change in training or experience.
But, for now upgrading all employees to OpenOffice or StarOffice puts Microsoft back in Washington rather than your bank account.
No, I am not a guru. Please do not insult me that way. I am a lawyer first and an economist second. After that, I can code any damn application you want.
I have developed desktop applications for individual use since 1972. I bet that puts my experience in that category ahead of yourself.
You think not. Check out the HPMuseum web site. See the Hp 9830A machine?
Secondly, I have been practicing law since 1974. And, since you have not even claimed to be a lawyer, you struck out twice.
As for 100% compatiability, it is simply not needed by 80-90% of all Microsoft Office suite users. Period.
Look, if they think that spending $400 more for the original is worth it, fine.
Spend your money.
But, for organizations that want to save money big time, Microsoft products can not do it. Microsoft does not sell a cheaper OS nor Office suite than anyone.
Linux, StarOffice and OpenOffice do that hands down.
Are they as good?
Spend the money all you want. But, the truth is that 80-90% of all those who do would save big bucks by avoiding the monopoly prices.
"best solution for many people" is a sales pitch and nothing more.
It does not matter what is best for many people or most people.
As a consultant you are obligated to advise on what the best solution is for them. What is best for others is never relevant.
Could it ever include Microsoft?
I could. But, advise also has to take into the account the many illegal acts that Microsoft engages in. And, it has to take into account the practice by Microsoft to increase prices and impose harsher terms as you become dependant upon their products. And, you have to take into account the effort by Microsoft to make its product incompatiable with others.
Plus you need to look at the TCO for alternative solutions. And, you have to look at the reliability, security or lack thereof as well.
Could it ever include Microsoft? Sure, but if Micrsoft always costs more and is less reliable then it is not very likely.
If a customer has to buy Microsoft because some application is only available on that platform, then no consultant is needed at all, right? Except to tell them they have no choice in the matter and must pay Microsoft's higher prices regardless of what they may want to do. Right?
As long as customers know they will pay $400 to $500 for office software they can get free, then fine. As long as customers know that they will pay $200 to $250 for operating system software they could get free, then fine.
The question is not whether I will tell them the truth. The question is whether you will.
When you advise others to buy Microsoft are you telling them the truth? Did you lay out the financial differences? Did you explain the alternative prices?
Or, did you just tell them they had no choice so do as you demand?
Consultants can not just say "it is the best or most popular" so buy that. They own a duty to the client to lay out the alternatives and be fully capable of doing so.
You simply are not a consultant if you only give one advice. Then you are simply a salesman that deceitfully fails to disclose your motives.
It is just like a doctor or other professional. If you see a doctor, do you want him to only tell you about the expensive surgery? Or, do you prefer to be told about possibly less expensive alternative approaches? You know, so you can choose?
Oh sure, it is a bit slow selling on desktops but that will change as more and more consumers find out that Microsoft can more than double the cost of every PC you need.
The Microsoft office suite is $400 or so a seat. And, they are getting nasty about blocking the install on home, laptop and second or third systems by the same person. For $76, StarOffice suggests 5 personal installs. And, if $76 is too stiff, use OpenOffice.
Once the white box boys figure out that they can deliver all PCs with a free copy of OpenOffice and simply charge $15 or so to have it preinstalled, the casual market for the Microsoft Suite could dry up completely. And, the same may be true with large organizations such as corporations, governments, etc. Why spend $300-600 more per PC when you can go with linux, OpenOffice or StarOffice and double the number of new machines you buy?
Money is money.
And, right now money favors linux hands down.
Plus, that does not take into account the progress that Xandros, Lindows and others are making to expand the number of viable desktop systems under the linux banner.
The absence of QuickBooks, TurboTax and a few other key applications is a problem right now. GNUCash is fine. And, other software does substitute for much of what people think they need Microsoft for. But, it takes time for that information to filter out. But, it will filter out. Those who sell PCs (not the big OEMs) will be taking the lead packaging complete systems including software for a whole lot less than the Microsoft burden. Then customers can decide if the extra money is really worth it. It is not if you can make the choice.
And, if you write custom applications anyway, Java or Delphi/Kylix is right there to give you the same powerful GUI based RAD development systems you expect on Microsoft stuff.
The more machines you need the bigger the price benefit helps linux.
And, if you think that consumer PC buyers really want to pay twice the price for a system just because it has some Microsoft software on it that they rarely use, you are crasy. The typical consumer simply is unaware of what they can buy and use. That will change.
I accept your text from the manual as being accurate.
However, computer games and computer software may or may not be in different industries. The true test is whether the consumer would be confused. (That is why Apple Records and Apple Computer do not present a problem.) To be honest I doubt anyone thinks Ms Pacman is put out by Microsoft but they are a software and game company and that fits within the products that Microsoft does in fact produce. "MS Windows" sound familiar? Of course, the text you quoted did not include MS Windows but I think it also is a trademark.
So we have:
MS Windows (by Microsoft). MS Office (by Microsoft) Ms Pacman (who knows) MS Flight Simulator (by Microsoft)
MS does not make a very good trademark at all.
The other observation to be made is that Microsoft is about to lose its "windows" trademark. Maybe it already has for all practical purposes.
But, of course the original issue of this thread is whether you can use a trademark in your comments. And, the answer is that you can. And, as long as you tell the truth there is no liable liability associated with its use in that way. If you give false information (such as FUD, etc) then you can be guilty of product defamation or degredation. In other words, you can bad mouth a product using that products trademark but you are only in the clear if you tell the truth.
In other words, false statements can have legal consequences. But, that would be true whether or not you used the precise trademark held by the company.
The point is that when you have a monopoly you are held to the antitrust laws.
If you do not have a monopoly, then they do not apply to you.
And, "no" the conduct acceptable for legal practices is NOT the same.
The antitrust laws were specially written to disadvantage those who hold a monopoly. Why? Because monopolies have so many advantages that they take full value from and those that do not are left out. That is why.
If you disagree that monopolies should be disadvantaged, that is fine. But, Congress has decided over a hundred years ago that it should be the case.
Does that mean you should be required to purchase from a competitor versus a monopolist? No, of course not.
If you read the remedies proposed by the States in the current litigation, absolutely nothing prevents Microsoft from competing on price, quality or terms. Everything proposed only permits others to also market their products without illegal interference or restriction.
And if you are a consumer you can not possible argue with having alternatives.
Nobody is going to force you to buy linux, Star Office, Mandrake, OpenOffice, Opera or a Sun compliant JVM with your OS. Microsoft might. And, Microsoft might be required to force you to buy a Sun compliant JVM. But, Mandrake will not. And, Redhat will not. And, Xandros will not. And, Lindows will not. And, SUSE will not. And, each of the UnitedLinux vendors will not.
Asking for charitable contributions does not make the toy free. You should know better than that.
Plus, Judge Jackson is way ahead of you. He correctly decided that when you download a copy of IE and do not pay cash, it is free just like you have decided.
But, that is not the case when you pay cash money for it.
So, you and Judge Jackson agree on at least one point.
The problem is that you can not distinquish between my giving you a piece of gum (free) and your paying for your own pack 10 minutes later (not free).
No, I specifically said that even Judge Jackson said that IE is free when downloaded and you do not pay money for it. That is true with all products that you do not pay for when you get it.
But, that does NOT mean the product IE is always free. It depends upon whether or not you get out your wallet.
If you do not pay money, then IE is free for Solaris. If you do not pay money, then IE is free for Linux. If you do not pay money, then IE is free for the Mac. If you do not pay money, then IE is free for windows too.
But, if you do pay money it absolutely is not free when you get out your cash.
Do you understand the difference between paying cash money and not paying cash money? That is the question.
Confusing your transaction with other transactions does not answer the question.
So, it depends not upon what other software you have or what it is for, but rather if you got out your wallet or not in exchange. And, what may or may not apply to a friend or yours does not apply to you. What may have applied to you last week does not apply to a transaction you may conduct today.
So, if you downloaded a free copy of IE the day before you buy a new computer but your new computer included IE, in that transaction IE was NOT free.
It is just like any other product when bundled in the sale.
Slashdot Mirror
Too bad ZD is having tough times.
Funny that CNet Community Manager blamed the lower use of ZDnet on Microsoft critics rather than the company violating the law.
I know that is pure bunk. But, that is what he claimed. Check out my web site for the email from the CNet guy.
I do not believe him for a second.
Mandrake 8.2, Lindows and Corel Linux (+ Xandros beta) are each very easy to install.
The key is not ease of installation. Rather it is having versions preloaded and just as easy to purchase as for Microsoft. Sure, WalMart will preinstall Mandrake or Lindows for you. They will even ship with no OS. But, that is only via their web site. And, many buyers will not shop that way. They want to see and touch just before they take out the wallet.
So, it will take linux pre-loaded for most people.
The corporate market is very different. There IBM could help but is not doing so. And, SUN has suggested it will offer a linux based desktop system but it is still slow on the draw. And, HP will preload Mandrake on a few systems but not the one most likely purchased by the ordinary consumer.
How can you help?
Talk to some or the local computer stores in your area. Suggest they offer Lindows, Mandrake or the upcoming Xandros preloaded with OpenOffice or StarOffice and actually do some price sensitive advertising. Bait and switch is not a nice thing to suggest. But, a very low cost PC with OS and an office suite can be half the price if Microsoft's prices and software are avoided completely. Even putting StarOffice or OpenOffice on an MS box is a start.
Maybe if you explained what you were doing in the early 1970s.
You can batmouth the HP machine if you want but the word processor I wrote and used in my law office in those days had spelling verification, global search and replace plus ran a letter quality printer.
So, while I understand your need to insult others when you do so with such ignorance it only reflects poorly upon yourself.
Gosh. That is funny.
I have never purchased any of the Microsoft software you claim is essential.
That is because they are not.
WordPerfect is a fine alternative. So too is OpenOffice and StarOffice.
You are free to spend all the money you want.
And, if you are a corporation you can waste all the money you want.
Or, you can go with a lower cost alternative.
By the way, for years Microsoft claimed it was successful by being lower in cost even though its products were mediocre. Well. Today those benefits are no longer associated with Microsoft.
Today Microsoft is the high priced leader. And, their prices are going up as we speak.
So, go ahead. Spend your money that way.
But, 80-90% of all PC users NEVER need the crap you get with the Microsoft brand. Their products simply are not that exclusive at all.
You seem to be under the delusion that only Microsoft can supply software and therefore the high prices must be paid. That is simply false.
And, no, 20% of the time does not require the crap from them either.
80-90% of all PC users simply do not need the Microsoft brands. Period.
Spend your $400 then.
80-90% of all computer users would rather have their cash.
But, do not worry. If you think it is worth spending that kind of money for each of your employees, you can be my guest.
If you want to disclose the price a particular customer pays for 5,000 licenses of XP and Office XP, go ahead.
The price for linux and OpenOffice is zero.
Now, if you insist upon support from a major company, fine. Go with StarOffice. They will support you. But, unlike Microsoft, the StarOffice license permits 5 installs. So, your laptop, home system and perhaps a couple other systems are all legal for the $76.
If you want to suggest that to you the much higher price for the monopoly products is worth it, fine. You can pay those prices.
But, the more PCs you have and the more employees you have the better linux, OpenOffice, StarOffice, Mazilla and Evolution look.
Look, insulting those who point out the high price Microsoft charges is a total waste of your time.
Besides, when you refuse to give your name everyone will know you do not even believe what you say.
I would disagree that linux is just now entering the desktop market.
Corel Linux and WordPerfect for Linux has been around for several years. However, WordPerfect was not successful in getting the kind of attention and success it deserved for its products.
The Corel Linux distribution (1 and 2) had a clone of the Windows Explorer which offed point and click networking almost indentical to that on Microsoft stuff. Today, Mandrake, RedHat and others (with the exeception of Xandros) have failed to reach that level of ease of use.
Maybe when RedHat, Mandrake and others take the desktop market seriously we shall see some real innovation and development in that direction.
OpenOffice is important. So too is StarOffice. And, unlike some who claim that SUN should be charging for StarOffice, I strongly disagree with that. $76 for StarOffice is a great low price. And, the fact that SUN is going to support it makes it very attractive for corporate accounts. And, you need a sizable number of corporate customers to put linux on the desktop. Of course, StarOffice (and OpenOffice) run on many platforms. That too is a plus and will greatly increase its success and adoption by major accounts. And, once StarOffice and OpenOffice has their market positions established they can help ease the move onto the linux desktop.
So, I would agree a milestone has been reached. There is no doubt about that. Mozilla is important (although Netscape has been around for some time on linux and unix). And, Evolution is important. An office suite, a browser or two (almost forgot to mention Opera and KExplorer) and Evolution are essential applications for the corporate market. And, the corporate market is likely to be the first major push for linux on the desktop.
The other aspect of linux which can not be overestimated is the availability of Java and Delphi/Kylix for cross platform development. OpenOffice, StarOffice, Mozilla, Opera and Evolution do not rely upon Java or the RAD products from Borland. So, applications can be written for multiple platforms without the RAD products. But, JBuilder and Delphi/Kylix make that task a lot easier. And, corporations who want to develop their key in-house applications for both platforms should seriously consider those tools as well.
Well. I think you are looking straight into the face of a new animal.
Right now, you will not find good case reports on using OpenOffice or StarOffice on a wide scale company wide basis.
However, if you take the cautious approach, install a few machines and find out whether or not OpenOffice or StarOffice will suffice, I think you will find that they do.
I fully subscribe to the 80-20 rule. And, that is that 80% of the instances will be more than happy to have OpenOffice or StarOffice at their disposal. And, if you find that 20% of employees actually do need the extra features and functions that OpenOffice or StarOffice lack, then fine.
But, to a company saving $400 for 80% of your employees is an enormous savings.
And, the best part is that OpenOffice and StarOffice are both available on the Microsoft systems. So, a change in OS is not required to gain the major advantage of using non-Microsoft applications.
From there linux fits in like a glove. New systems can use OpenOffice or StarOffice on linux with no change in training or experience.
But, for now upgrading all employees to OpenOffice or StarOffice puts Microsoft back in Washington rather than your bank account.
No, I am not a guru. Please do not insult me that way. I am a lawyer first and an economist second. After that, I can code any damn application you want.
First off, you stuck out big time.
I have developed desktop applications for individual use since 1972. I bet that puts my experience in that category ahead of yourself.
You think not. Check out the HPMuseum web site. See the Hp 9830A machine?
Secondly, I have been practicing law since 1974. And, since you have not even claimed to be a lawyer, you struck out twice.
As for 100% compatiability, it is simply not needed by 80-90% of all Microsoft Office suite users. Period.
Look, if they think that spending $400 more for the original is worth it, fine.
Spend your money.
But, for organizations that want to save money big time, Microsoft products can not do it. Microsoft does not sell a cheaper OS nor Office suite than anyone.
Linux, StarOffice and OpenOffice do that hands down.
Are they as good?
Spend the money all you want. But, the truth is that 80-90% of all those who do would save big bucks by avoiding the monopoly prices.
I see you are afraid to put your name with your comments.
No wonder.
"best solution for many people" is a sales pitch and nothing more.
It does not matter what is best for many people or most people.
As a consultant you are obligated to advise on what the best solution is for them. What is best for others is never relevant.
Could it ever include Microsoft?
I could. But, advise also has to take into the account the many illegal acts that Microsoft engages in. And, it has to take into account the practice by Microsoft to increase prices and impose harsher terms as you become dependant upon their products. And, you have to take into account the effort by Microsoft to make its product incompatiable with others.
Plus you need to look at the TCO for alternative solutions. And, you have to look at the reliability, security or lack thereof as well.
Could it ever include Microsoft? Sure, but if Micrsoft always costs more and is less reliable then it is not very likely.
If a customer has to buy Microsoft because some application is only available on that platform, then no consultant is needed at all, right? Except to tell them they have no choice in the matter and must pay Microsoft's higher prices regardless of what they may want to do. Right?
As long as customers know they will pay $400 to $500 for office software they can get free, then fine. As long as customers know that they will pay $200 to $250 for operating system software they could get free, then fine.
The question is not whether I will tell them the truth. The question is whether you will.
When you advise others to buy Microsoft are you telling them the truth? Did you lay out the financial differences? Did you explain the alternative prices?
Or, did you just tell them they had no choice so do as you demand?
Consultants can not just say "it is the best or most popular" so buy that. They own a duty to the client to lay out the alternatives and be fully capable of doing so.
You simply are not a consultant if you only give one advice. Then you are simply a salesman that deceitfully fails to disclose your motives.
It is just like a doctor or other professional. If you see a doctor, do you want him to only tell you about the expensive surgery? Or, do you prefer to be told about possibly less expensive alternative approaches? You know, so you can choose?
Look.
If you want to run Micrsoft, go ahead.
You have absolutely no say over what others do.
...and that is why Microsoft is putting an end to the practice.
And, when they do, users will migrate to OpenOffice and StarOffice for cost reasons.
You run Microsoft is you want.
Others will run linux if they want.
You do not have a say, do you?
You can easily use Java or Delphi/Kylix to write cross Microsoft/Linux applications.
Then customers can decide if they want to pay the higher Microsoft prices.
As a consultant you have to know what they need before you give your answer.
It is simply false to conclude before talking to customers that linux can not satisify their needs.
Computer retailers can configure two systems and offer them both, right?
The one with Microsoft costs $1,500 each including office suites.
The linux one costs $850 each including office suites.
Then let customers decide what they want to pay, right?
The thing is that neither you nor I need to decide for a customer that is not even identified in our discussion.
It could be a student. It could be an individual. It could be a small company. It could be a large company.
Regardless, no one can predetermine what is best for customer sight unseen.
Any consultant that decides what the advise will be before talking to a customer is not a consultant at all. That is a salesman.
It is a false statement to say linux is worthless because it will not run applications that users need.
Sure, many more are available for Microsoft.
But, if you fail to point out the customer you claim to be talking about, no one will know how wrong you are.
I have not used Microsoft for any meaningful work for years.
And, 80-90% of all computer users only need a browser, an office suite and a few other utilities. Those are available for linux.
When you make a general statement and expect everyone to think it applies to them you only disqualify yourself as a consultant.
Rule number one is: You ask the customer what applications they need. Then and only then can you conclude which products might serve those needs.
The general claim is categorically false.
Linux is doing fine thank you.
Oh sure, it is a bit slow selling on desktops but that will change as more and more consumers find out that Microsoft can more than double the cost of every PC you need.
The Microsoft office suite is $400 or so a seat. And, they are getting nasty about blocking the install on home, laptop and second or third systems by the same person. For $76, StarOffice suggests 5 personal installs. And, if $76 is too stiff, use OpenOffice.
Once the white box boys figure out that they can deliver all PCs with a free copy of OpenOffice and simply charge $15 or so to have it preinstalled, the casual market for the Microsoft Suite could dry up completely. And, the same may be true with large organizations such as corporations, governments, etc. Why spend $300-600 more per PC when you can go with linux, OpenOffice or StarOffice and double the number of new machines you buy?
Money is money.
And, right now money favors linux hands down.
Plus, that does not take into account the progress that Xandros, Lindows and others are making to expand the number of viable desktop systems under the linux banner.
The absence of QuickBooks, TurboTax and a few other key applications is a problem right now. GNUCash is fine. And, other software does substitute for much of what people think they need Microsoft for. But, it takes time for that information to filter out. But, it will filter out. Those who sell PCs (not the big OEMs) will be taking the lead packaging complete systems including software for a whole lot less than the Microsoft burden. Then customers can decide if the extra money is really worth it. It is not if you can make the choice.
And, if you write custom applications anyway, Java or Delphi/Kylix is right there to give you the same powerful GUI based RAD development systems you expect on Microsoft stuff.
The more machines you need the bigger the price benefit helps linux.
And, if you think that consumer PC buyers really want to pay twice the price for a system just because it has some Microsoft software on it that they rarely use, you are crasy. The typical consumer simply is unaware of what they can buy and use. That will change.
I accept your text from the manual as being accurate.
However, computer games and computer software may or may not be in different industries. The true test is whether the consumer would be confused. (That is why Apple Records and Apple Computer do not present a problem.) To be honest I doubt anyone thinks Ms Pacman is put out by Microsoft but they are a software and game company and that fits within the products that Microsoft does in fact produce. "MS Windows" sound familiar? Of course, the text you quoted did not include MS Windows but I think it also is a trademark.
So we have:
MS Windows (by Microsoft).
MS Office (by Microsoft)
Ms Pacman (who knows)
MS Flight Simulator (by Microsoft)
MS does not make a very good trademark at all.
The other observation to be made is that Microsoft is about to lose its "windows" trademark. Maybe it already has for all practical purposes.
But, of course the original issue of this thread is whether you can use a trademark in your comments. And, the answer is that you can. And, as long as you tell the truth there is no liable liability associated with its use in that way. If you give false information (such as FUD, etc) then you can be guilty of product defamation or degredation. In other words, you can bad mouth a product using that products trademark but you are only in the clear if you tell the truth.
In other words, false statements can have legal consequences. But, that would be true whether or not you used the precise trademark held by the company.
The point is that when you have a monopoly you are held to the antitrust laws.
If you do not have a monopoly, then they do not apply to you.
And, "no" the conduct acceptable for legal practices is NOT the same.
The antitrust laws were specially written to disadvantage those who hold a monopoly. Why? Because monopolies have so many advantages that they take full value from and those that do not are left out. That is why.
If you disagree that monopolies should be disadvantaged, that is fine. But, Congress has decided over a hundred years ago that it should be the case.
Does that mean you should be required to purchase from a competitor versus a monopolist? No, of course not.
If you read the remedies proposed by the States in the current litigation, absolutely nothing prevents Microsoft from competing on price, quality or terms. Everything proposed only permits others to also market their products without illegal interference or restriction.
And if you are a consumer you can not possible argue with having alternatives.
Nobody is going to force you to buy linux, Star Office, Mandrake, OpenOffice, Opera or a Sun compliant JVM with your OS. Microsoft might. And, Microsoft might be required to force you to buy a Sun compliant JVM. But, Mandrake will not. And, Redhat will not. And, Xandros will not. And, Lindows will not. And, SUSE will not. And, each of the UnitedLinux vendors will not.
Microsoft on the other hand intends to screw you.
Unless the courts prevent it.
They do?
I do not recall seeing MS(tm) or MS(r) anyplace. But, they could get a trademark for MS and just not use it much or at all.
I guess that would make Ms Pacman a Microsoft product? Just thought I would ask.
Asking for charitable contributions does not make the toy free. You should know better than that.
Plus, Judge Jackson is way ahead of you. He correctly decided that when you download a copy of IE and do not pay cash, it is free just like you have decided.
But, that is not the case when you pay cash money for it.
So, you and Judge Jackson agree on at least one point.
The problem is that you can not distinquish between my giving you a piece of gum (free) and your paying for your own pack 10 minutes later (not free).
The judge does.
If Dell on their own account wanted to drop linux, then it would be absolutely stupid for a Chairman of the Board to make the sales call.
And, in fact it was stupid for Gates and Ballmer to stick their ugly heads into the DELL deal.
Period.
If it was not necessary as some ignorant people would like to think, then it was stupid for them to get involved.
If it was necesssary (according to them), then it was stupid for them to get involved.
Suggesting a false reality where the goons with the bats went out unnecessarily is a bit silly.
No, I specifically said that even Judge Jackson said that IE is free when downloaded and you do not pay money for it. That is true with all products that you do not pay for when you get it.
But, that does NOT mean the product IE is always free. It depends upon whether or not you get out your wallet.
If you do not pay money, then IE is free for Solaris.
If you do not pay money, then IE is free for Linux.
If you do not pay money, then IE is free for the Mac.
If you do not pay money, then IE is free for windows too.
But, if you do pay money it absolutely is not free when you get out your cash.
Do you understand the difference between paying cash money and not paying cash money? That is the question.
Confusing your transaction with other transactions does not answer the question.
So, it depends not upon what other software you have or what it is for, but rather if you got out your wallet or not in exchange. And, what may or may not apply to a friend or yours does not apply to you. What may have applied to you last week does not apply to a transaction you may conduct today.
So, if you downloaded a free copy of IE the day before you buy a new computer but your new computer included IE, in that transaction IE was NOT free.
It is just like any other product when bundled in the sale.