"Kempin recommended that computer makers who were not "friendly" with Microsoft should be hit "harder than in the past with anti-Linux actions." U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly disallowed the Kempin memo -- along with several others -- during Gates' testimony after Microsoft's lawyers objected to it. The states' attorneys argued in their filing on Monday that Kempin's e-mail shows Microsoft continued to discuss anti-competitive tactics even though the original trial judge had already ruled those tactics in violation of antitrust law."
These three paragraphs do a good job summing up Microsoft's arrogant attitude and give the reader a feel for just how far the Bush administration has shifted the judicial system's attitude toward Microsoft.
This memo shows a blatant disregard for the law. The fact that Judge Kollar-Kotelly suppresses evidence clearly showing wrong doing that is highly relevant to the case demonstrates it is unlikely that the American people will see justice done in this case.
Imaging a few thousand people standing in a line waiting for their turn to do something to you that you don't like. Say, poking their finger in your eye. You can stop them but you must "opt-out" of the eye poking. Worst yet, you must "opt-out" for each eye poking experience individually. And of course the icing on the cake is that each one of them gets to poke you in the eye at least once before you are allowed to "opt-out."
This letter sets the tone in the very first paragraph with a subtle zing:
"In the same spirit, and convinced that we will find the best solutions through an exchange of clear and open ideas, I will take this opportunity to reply to the commentaries included in your letter."
Congressman David Villanueva Nuñez is clearly toying with Microsoft. "Clear and open ideas" as in open source?:-)
"While acknowledging that opinions such as yours constitute a significant contribution, it would have been even more worthwhile for me if, rather than formulating objections of a general nature (which we will analyse in detail later) you had gathered solid arguments for the advantages that proprietary software could bring to the Peruvian State, and to its citizens in general, since this would have allowed a more enlightening exchange in respect of each of our positions."
He spanks Microsoft right away by pointing out that their objections are of a general nature (FUD) and not "solid arguments." I'm really starting to like David.
He continues by pointing out that what Peru considers the biggest advantage to open source is NOT the cost savings but the fact that Peru has control over the source code.
This is a fact. Trying to convince companies that the main benefit is cost savings will usually end up in a discussion about learning curves and support costs. However, controlling the source is a huge benefit that Microsoft can't really match. I know that large companies can sometimes get the source code from Microsoft but they really aren't allowed to do anything with it.
The letter is long and I'm not going to critique the whole thing here. Let me just sum it up by saying that this letter does a very fine job of dispelling the mainline Microsoft FUD.
One study says file swapping is lowering sales another claims that it stimulates sales.
The bottom line is that it doesn't matter. The copyright holder has the right to distribute the music they control any way they choose. It is not for the consumer to decide for them.
If you are trading copyrighted material without the copyright holders permission then you are breaking the law and it doesn't matter squat if you disagree with the law.
"...but is it right to take a good product away from so many people who really do like it just because another company's product isn't taking over the market like they hoped it would?"
No, of course it isn't. But that's not the reason it would be removed. The reason it would be removed is because parts of it were used in violation of patent laws.
The author's statement totally ignores that fact and makes an assumption.
"Plastic surgeon Peter Fodor MD filtered stem cells out of fat sucked from people's oversized body parts..." "Combine that with this and you might be on the road to regeneration."
Yeah... I knew that... I'm not fat, I'm saving up body parts in case I need them.
This is a tough question. I've read most of the replies and they are mostly "It's an old problem so why make new laws?" and "New laws are a bad idea."
Ignoring that problem isn't going to make it go away and saying that piracy of IP isn't a problem doesn't make it true. The fact is that stealing is a very old problem but the method we are talking about is very new. DVD's and CD's can be ripped and traded while maintaining high quality. This is something that you could not easily do in the days of eight tracks. Also as the availability of high bandwidth connections become more and more in use, trading very large files becomes easier.
We need to acknowledge that the recording industry has legitimate concerns. The recording industry needs to acknowledge that we too have legitimate concerns. The right to privacy and fair use come to mind right away.
Fair use is a legal right as apposed to a constitutional right so that makes it more difficult to defend. If we lose this right it may be very difficult to win it back.
If we create "internet cops" we loose a degree of privacy and begin to look more and more like a "big brother" state.
Any remedy that is provided to the corporate lobbyists is not going to be good for the average citizen. Corporations are only interested in one thing, profit. I for one do not trust them to address only the question of piracy. It is all too tempting to suggest remedies that will provide them with additional avenues to make profit. They could, for example, lobby to have your fair use rights either taken away or circumvented. Senator Hollings has one or more bills being bandied about right now that would do just that. That man is 100 percent for corporations and should be removed from office as soon as possible.
Before I go off on a total rant let me try to sum up this mess -- There is no good answer.
We need to fight very hard for our rights. They are more important than corporate profits.
We need to not steal intellectual property and educate others not to steal.
We need to be ever vigilant because corporations being motivated by profit will never stop trying to take away our rights to turn a profit.
"We can't estimate how much piracy is on the net but in one day we found a million sites under a search for one of the codenames for pirated software," said a BSA spokesperson.
I believe the "code word" is WAREZ and I believe that the inference was that because there are a lot of sites advertising "WAREZ" there must be a lot of piracy.
Yes, there are an awful lot of sites that try to sucker people in by having "WAREZ" in their site name. Most of these sites have a lot of shareware not actual pirated software. So the inference is total crap. Not that there isn't a lot of piracy just that the hit count for "WAREZ" is no proof of it.
"For an industry that commits millions of pounds to research and development, and that contributes six times as much to Europe's GDP as the consumer goods industry, the levels are unacceptable, the BSA says. "
I thought they just said that "We can't estimate how much piracy is on the net..." If so, how do the know that "the levels are unacceptable?"
"That is about to change as the European Commission puts into force a directive intended to harmonise civil laws governing how courts deal with cases involving intellectual property"
Software piracy is already illegal. So what do they want to do? Make it REALLY, REALLY illegal?
"There is also work to be done on educating the public about the importance of intellectual property, especially as a web counter-culture advocating free software, such as music downloads, continues to grow."
Oh, so now we get to the crux of the matter. We're back on the "Kill Mp3s" track again. They want laws to take away fair use so that they can increase corporate profits.
"Open source software such as Linux is not seen as a threat to the work the BSA is doing, however."
Then why mention it? "Look! Your shoe is untied!"
"Linux is a way of developing software whereas piracy is copying," said Microsoft's Brad Smith.
Wrong again Bozo. Linux is an operating system. Someday Microsoft should try to create one.
"He does believe that stopping the pirates could have a dramatic effect on the current pricing of software, however."
And why does he bundle the discussion of Linux in with the discussion of piracy? He's not using subtle association techniques is he?
"As the legal market grows, there is more investment in new products and enhanced competition. A healthy market leads to more attractive prices for consumers," he said.
So does the open source movement. You can't get a better price than free. The only problem that I see with open source is that society as a whole isn't mature enough to break out of the "take what you can get and give back nothing" attitude. We need to learn to do a better job of voluntarily supporting open source companies.
Yes, it does. Only because bundling products into an OS that has a monopoly renders competing products irrelevant. Not because Microsoft's bundled products are any better but because they are bundled in an OS that almost everyone is using. That makes the bundled products a violation.
Well, Hollings is known for being pro-business. If you live in SC vote him out!
His bill would require an opt-in for all information that is already protected and an opt-out for the information that needs protecting. Opt out has never worked. For every opt-out email you send, ten more companies add you to their list.
About the only way an opt-out strategy would give us the protection that we want is to make a central opt-out repository. If you're listed there then you want your information out of ALL information warehouses.
Yeap, Good ol' boy Hollings. One of the best politicians that money can buy.
The first amendment has been interpreted in far broader terms than just speech, however. It is the freedom of expression. The Supreme Court is likely to disagree that games are not a protected form of "speech."
The article left me with a feeling that it was a lot of talk about nothing. With statements like:
" I don't swear that they're accurate, but..." and "As I say, I can't be certain that this is happening -"
Makes me wonder why he's bringing the subject up at all. He lists no sources, or gives me any reason to believe that it's anything more than something he's made up for a story.
"It may be, of course, that the accounts I'm getting are distorted . .."
So what "accounts" is he getting and from whom? He never says.
Sure, Microsoft said that it wasn't possible to create a stripped down version of Windows but they lied. Of course it is possible. The truth is that they don't want to do that.
First, it would take away one of the tools that they use to allow their monopoly OS to extend their presents into other areas and second it would require a big investment in time and money. If they already have an OS that will benefit them they why would they WANT to change it? The fact is that the problem is not that it can't be done the problem is the Microsoft doesn't WANT to do it.
Well too damn bad. We don't get to choose a "punishment" that we like if we commit a crime. If I was manufacturing fully automatic guns and the government came to me and said "That's not legal. Change them so that they aren't fully automatic." Would the excuse "I can't change it" be good enough? No, I would be forced to stop manufacturing them all together and produce a totally new non-fully automatic gun.
It's not a hard concept. Their OS violates anti trust laws and that is illegal. If they can't fix it they must stop selling it.
We shouldn't underestimate the destructive power of viruses. Nimda took at least one Department's network down for several days in the State of Washington. I have been harping for years that my Department's network security is almost non-existent but to little avail.
Network security, if done right, is a fulltime job. Small businesses and small Government Departments just don't have the staff to keep up with it. So we're caught in a situation where we have to assess the risk of infection and the probable consequences of an infection. If the risks are great enough and the consequences bad enough we apply a patch. If not we don't and pray that we don't get hit. We just don't have the resources to apply every patch.
We do run McAfee virus scan on every computer and NetShield on all of our servers but I remember a while back when McAfee put out a new virus definition file that was bad (It didn't work with older virus scanning engines) and it brought our network down. That required a visit to about two hundred PCs to correct the problem. The anti-virus companies are working like hell to keep up. But what can they do? If they push the virus definition files out the door too fast then quality control is lowered but if they take the time for quality control then their customer's get hit with the new virus.
I just hope that when the shit really hits the fan that it is pointed to one of the most guilty parties: Microsoft. Yes Microsoft for putting out products that are making all of their customers vulnerable.
My solution is to dump the entire Microsoft line and go with Linux. But that isn't well received because of the huge investment in the Microsoft products. We just keep throwing good money after bad.
P-T: what is
your stance on making open source software illegal?
Vivendi Rep: If the open
source code is being used by someone other than the creator for a profit, then
it is illegal under the DMCA.
Say what? The DMCA has NOTHING to do with
either who uses the software or making a profit. Strike one.
P-T: Why is
Vivendi suing on the claims of making the BNetD software for money? It's open
source, no one is making any money off of it.
Vivendi Rep: The basis upon
this charge lies on the idea that BNetD will eventually begin using their
software, that they did not create, in order to make a profit. Though they have
not used it yet for a profit, Vivendi believes that they would have or will use
it in the future for a profit.
If this is Vivendi's basis for a
legal action, it will be thrown out as frivolous. You cannot successfully sue
for damages based on your fears that the defendant may injure you in the
future. Further, even if bnetd does
decide to make a profit from the software that THEY developed that is not
illegal as long as they did not commit any copyright infringement. Strike two.
P-T: Is use of
DMCA and attacking bnetd simply a publicity stunt to hype up Warcraft 3 before
it's release? Were the supposed losses due to piracy used to justify the
increased prices (compared to Diablo 2 regular and collector's edition) of
Warcraft 3 regular version (from $30 to $50) and collector's edition (from $50
to $80)?
Vivendi Rep: No. We feel as though the intellectual
property of the Battle.net coders has been stolen by the BNetD project. As far
as I know, there are no publicity aspects involved in the suit against BNetD. It
is a legal issue that needs to be cleared up and this is the way that we can do
that.
As
far as I know, reverse engineering is still legal. The fact that the bnetd people created a
product that emulates Battle Net does not constitute the theft of Blizzard's
intellectual property. If it did, I
would imagine that we would have one car company, one telephone company one
maker of computers etc, etc, etc... Strike three, you're
out!
Microsoft once again makes a miscalculation. This has the potential of backfiring big time. When Microsoft starts messing with public schools they're messing with one of the foundations of American culture and more importantly they are messing with our children.
In a civil case people on juries have preconceived ideas about defendants. Right or wrong, people generally place schools in the "good" category. Microsoft will come off looking like a complete ogre.
Many of the computers our poor, under funded schools have come from donated computers. Many of these computers came with no documentation and no original software CDs. By Microsoft's own licensing agreement binds the operating system license to a particular PC. If the person who donated the PC kept the original CDs, the computer still has a license.
These schools need to make this an issue. They need to make sure that it becomes news. Microsoft will be forced to back down or die in the public opinion. After that I would recommend that the schools fdisk every single computer that they own and install Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
"Kempin recommended that computer makers who were not "friendly" with Microsoft should be hit "harder than in the past with anti-Linux actions."
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly disallowed the Kempin memo -- along with several others -- during Gates' testimony after Microsoft's lawyers objected to it.
The states' attorneys argued in their filing on Monday that Kempin's e-mail shows Microsoft continued to discuss anti-competitive tactics even though the original trial judge had already ruled those tactics in violation of antitrust law."
These three paragraphs do a good job summing up Microsoft's arrogant attitude and give the reader a feel for just how far the Bush administration has shifted the judicial system's attitude toward Microsoft.
This memo shows a blatant disregard for the law. The fact that Judge Kollar-Kotelly suppresses evidence clearly showing wrong doing that is highly relevant to the case demonstrates it is unlikely that the American people will see justice done in this case.
Imaging a few thousand people standing in a line waiting for their turn to do something to you that you don't like. Say, poking their finger in your eye. You can stop them but you must "opt-out" of the eye poking. Worst yet, you must "opt-out" for each eye poking experience individually. And of course the icing on the cake is that each one of them gets to poke you in the eye at least once before you are allowed to "opt-out."
but if they don't they shouldn't be allowed to market products that get an unfair advantage by using the undisclosed information.
"It was clearly a mistake by the search team..."
This is true. The code is very complex and mistakes can easily be made...
if player != realplayer
addList(player);
It could happen...
This letter sets the tone in the very first paragraph with a subtle zing:
:-)
"In the same spirit, and convinced that we will find the best solutions through an exchange of clear and open ideas, I will take this opportunity to reply to the commentaries included in your letter."
Congressman David Villanueva Nuñez is clearly toying with Microsoft. "Clear and open ideas" as in open source?
"While acknowledging that opinions such as yours constitute a significant contribution, it would have been even more worthwhile for me if, rather than formulating objections of a general nature (which we will analyse in detail later) you had gathered solid arguments for the advantages that proprietary software could bring to the Peruvian State, and to its citizens in general, since this would have allowed a more enlightening exchange in respect of each of our positions."
He spanks Microsoft right away by pointing out that their objections are of a general nature (FUD) and not "solid arguments." I'm really starting to like David.
He continues by pointing out that what Peru considers the biggest advantage to open source is NOT the cost savings but the fact that Peru has control over the source code.
This is a fact. Trying to convince companies that the main benefit is cost savings will usually end up in a discussion about learning curves and support costs. However, controlling the source is a huge benefit that Microsoft can't really match. I know that large companies can sometimes get the source code from Microsoft but they really aren't allowed to do anything with it.
The letter is long and I'm not going to critique the whole thing here. Let me just sum it up by saying that this letter does a very fine job of dispelling the mainline Microsoft FUD.
I does not matter if you disagree with the law. You must still obey that law. Period.
Change the law do NOT ignore it.
"So there is no deterrent not to download mp3s."
And thus we have Senators pushing the "hardware solution." And people will continue to steal until we are all forced to purchase crippled hardware.
One study says file swapping is lowering sales another claims that it stimulates sales.
The bottom line is that it doesn't matter. The copyright holder has the right to distribute the music they control any way they choose. It is not for the consumer to decide for them.
If you are trading copyrighted material without the copyright holders permission then you are breaking the law and it doesn't matter squat if you disagree with the law.
"...but is it right to take a good product away from so many people who really do like it just because another company's product isn't taking over the market like they hoped it would?"
No, of course it isn't. But that's not the reason it would be removed. The reason it would be removed is because parts of it were used in violation of patent laws.
The author's statement totally ignores that fact and makes an assumption.
"Plastic surgeon Peter Fodor MD filtered stem cells out of fat sucked from people's oversized body parts..." "Combine that with this and you might be on the road to regeneration."
Yeah... I knew that... I'm not fat, I'm saving up body parts in case I need them.
This is a tough question. I've read most of the replies and they are mostly "It's an old problem so why make new laws?" and "New laws are a bad idea."
Ignoring that problem isn't going to make it go away and saying that piracy of IP isn't a problem doesn't make it true. The fact is that stealing is a very old problem but the method we are talking about is very new. DVD's and CD's can be ripped and traded while maintaining high quality. This is something that you could not easily do in the days of eight tracks. Also as the availability of high bandwidth connections become more and more in use, trading very large files becomes easier.
We need to acknowledge that the recording industry has legitimate concerns. The recording industry needs to acknowledge that we too have legitimate concerns. The right to privacy and fair use come to mind right away.
Fair use is a legal right as apposed to a constitutional right so that makes it more difficult to defend. If we lose this right it may be very difficult to win it back.
If we create "internet cops" we loose a degree of privacy and begin to look more and more like a "big brother" state.
Any remedy that is provided to the corporate lobbyists is not going to be good for the average citizen. Corporations are only interested in one thing, profit. I for one do not trust them to address only the question of piracy. It is all too tempting to suggest remedies that will provide them with additional avenues to make profit. They could, for example, lobby to have your fair use rights either taken away or circumvented. Senator Hollings has one or more bills being bandied about right now that would do just that. That man is 100 percent for corporations and should be removed from office as soon as possible.
Before I go off on a total rant let me try to sum up this mess -- There is no good answer.
We need to fight very hard for our rights. They are more important than corporate profits.
We need to not steal intellectual property and educate others not to steal.
We need to be ever vigilant because corporations being motivated by profit will never stop trying to take away our rights to turn a profit.
Well, that's true. But I don't think that's what the article was saying.
Oh, this is just too good.
"We can't estimate how much piracy is on the net but in one day we found a million sites under a search for one of the codenames for pirated software," said a BSA spokesperson.
I believe the "code word" is WAREZ and I believe that the inference was that because there are a lot of sites advertising "WAREZ" there must be a lot of piracy.
Yes, there are an awful lot of sites that try to sucker people in by having "WAREZ" in their site name. Most of these sites have a lot of shareware not actual pirated software. So the inference is total crap. Not that there isn't a lot of piracy just that the hit count for "WAREZ" is no proof of it.
"For an industry that commits millions of pounds to research and development, and that contributes six times as much to Europe's GDP as the consumer goods industry, the levels are unacceptable, the BSA says. "
I thought they just said that "We can't estimate how much piracy is on the net..." If so, how do the know that "the levels are unacceptable?"
"That is about to change as the European Commission puts into force a directive intended to harmonise civil laws governing how courts deal with cases involving intellectual property"
Software piracy is already illegal. So what do they want to do? Make it REALLY, REALLY illegal?
"There is also work to be done on educating the public about the importance of intellectual property, especially as a web counter-culture advocating free software, such as music downloads, continues to grow."
Oh, so now we get to the crux of the matter. We're back on the "Kill Mp3s" track again. They want laws to take away fair use so that they can increase corporate profits.
"Open source software such as Linux is not seen as a threat to the work the BSA is doing, however."
Then why mention it? "Look! Your shoe is untied!"
"Linux is a way of developing software whereas piracy is copying," said Microsoft's Brad Smith.
Wrong again Bozo. Linux is an operating system. Someday Microsoft should try to create one.
"He does believe that stopping the pirates could have a dramatic effect on the current pricing of software, however."
And why does he bundle the discussion of Linux in with the discussion of piracy? He's not using subtle association techniques is he?
"As the legal market grows, there is more investment in new products and enhanced competition. A healthy market leads to more attractive prices for consumers," he said.
So does the open source movement. You can't get a better price than free. The only problem that I see with open source is that society as a whole isn't mature enough to break out of the "take what you can get and give back nothing" attitude. We need to learn to do a better job of voluntarily supporting open source companies.
Yes, it does. Only because bundling products into an OS that has a monopoly renders competing products irrelevant. Not because Microsoft's bundled products are any better but because they are bundled in an OS that almost everyone is using. That makes the bundled products a violation.
Well, Hollings is known for being pro-business. If you live in SC vote him out!
His bill would require an opt-in for all information that is already protected and an opt-out for the information that needs protecting. Opt out has never worked. For every opt-out email you send, ten more companies add you to their list.
About the only way an opt-out strategy would give us the protection that we want is to make a central opt-out repository. If you're listed there then you want your information out of ALL information warehouses.
Yeap, Good ol' boy Hollings. One of the best politicians that money can buy.
The first amendment has been interpreted in far broader terms than just speech, however. It is the freedom of expression. The Supreme Court is likely to disagree that games are not a protected form of "speech."
Yeah, it never would have happened if they hadn't installed that last nanobot service pack from M$.
"You jackass, all technology has a downside."
I don't agree with this guy either but having an opinion that is different from your own is not a good reason for you to be rude.
The article left me with a feeling that it was a lot of talk about nothing. With statements like:
."
" I don't swear that they're accurate, but..."
and "As I say, I can't be certain that this is happening -"
Makes me wonder why he's bringing the subject up at all. He lists no sources, or gives me any reason to believe that it's anything more than something he's made up for a story.
"It may be, of course, that the accounts I'm getting are distorted . .
So what "accounts" is he getting and from whom? He never says.
"actually gates is a genius programmer... "
No, actually Gates was at best a mediocre programmer. He didn't write MS DOS, he purchased the program and then marketed it.
Sure, Microsoft said that it wasn't possible to create a stripped down version of Windows but they lied. Of course it is possible. The truth is that they don't want to do that.
First, it would take away one of the tools that they use to allow their monopoly OS to extend their presents into other areas and second it would require a big investment in time and money. If they already have an OS that will benefit them they why would they WANT to change it? The fact is that the problem is not that it can't be done the problem is the Microsoft doesn't WANT to do it.
Well too damn bad. We don't get to choose a "punishment" that we like if we commit a crime. If I was manufacturing fully automatic guns and the government came to me and said "That's not legal. Change them so that they aren't fully automatic." Would the excuse "I can't change it" be good enough? No, I would be forced to stop manufacturing them all together and produce a totally new non-fully automatic gun.
It's not a hard concept. Their OS violates anti trust laws and that is illegal. If they can't fix it they must stop selling it.
We shouldn't underestimate the destructive power of viruses. Nimda took at least one Department's network down for several days in the State of Washington. I have been harping for years that my Department's network security is almost non-existent but to little avail.
Network security, if done right, is a fulltime job. Small businesses and small Government Departments just don't have the staff to keep up with it. So we're caught in a situation where we have to assess the risk of infection and the probable consequences of an infection. If the risks are great enough and the consequences bad enough we apply a patch. If not we don't and pray that we don't get hit. We just don't have the resources to apply every patch.
We do run McAfee virus scan on every computer and NetShield on all of our servers but I remember a while back when McAfee put out a new virus definition file that was bad (It didn't work with older virus scanning engines) and it brought our network down. That required a visit to about two hundred PCs to correct the problem. The anti-virus companies are working like hell to keep up. But what can they do? If they push the virus definition files out the door too fast then quality control is lowered but if they take the time for quality control then their customer's get hit with the new virus.
I just hope that when the shit really hits the fan that it is pointed to one of the most guilty parties: Microsoft. Yes Microsoft for putting out products that are making all of their customers vulnerable.
My solution is to dump the entire Microsoft line and go with Linux. But that isn't well received because of the huge investment in the Microsoft products. We just keep throwing good money after bad.
>>However, for material to be copyrighted, doesn't it have to be published?
No, You can write a program and never publish it yet you do have the copyright on it.
Publishing it, however, makes it MUCH easier to PROVE that you wrote it first.
P-T: what is your stance on making open source software illegal?
Vivendi Rep: If the open source code is being used by someone other than the creator for a profit, then it is illegal under the DMCA. Say what? The DMCA has NOTHING to do with either who uses the software or making a profit. Strike one. P-T: Why is Vivendi suing on the claims of making the BNetD software for money? It's open source, no one is making any money off of it.
Vivendi Rep: The basis upon this charge lies on the idea that BNetD will eventually begin using their software, that they did not create, in order to make a profit. Though they have not used it yet for a profit, Vivendi believes that they would have or will use it in the future for a profit. If this is Vivendi's basis for a legal action, it will be thrown out as frivolous. You cannot successfully sue for damages based on your fears that the defendant may injure you in the future. Further, even if bnetd does decide to make a profit from the software that THEY developed that is not illegal as long as they did not commit any copyright infringement. Strike two. P-T: Is use of DMCA and attacking bnetd simply a publicity stunt to hype up Warcraft 3 before it's release? Were the supposed losses due to piracy used to justify the increased prices (compared to Diablo 2 regular and collector's edition) of Warcraft 3 regular version (from $30 to $50) and collector's edition (from $50 to $80)?
Vivendi Rep: No. We feel as though the intellectual property of the Battle.net coders has been stolen by the BNetD project. As far as I know, there are no publicity aspects involved in the suit against BNetD. It is a legal issue that needs to be cleared up and this is the way that we can do that. As far as I know, reverse engineering is still legal. The fact that the bnetd people created a product that emulates Battle Net does not constitute the theft of Blizzard's intellectual property. If it did, I would imagine that we would have one car company, one telephone company one maker of computers etc, etc, etc... Strike three, you're out!
Microsoft once again makes a miscalculation. This has the potential of backfiring big time. When Microsoft starts messing with public schools they're messing with one of the foundations of American culture and more importantly they are messing with our children.
In a civil case people on juries have preconceived ideas about defendants. Right or wrong, people generally place schools in the "good" category. Microsoft will come off looking like a complete ogre.
Many of the computers our poor, under funded schools have come from donated computers. Many of these computers came with no documentation and no original software CDs. By Microsoft's own licensing agreement binds the operating system license to a particular PC. If the person who donated the PC kept the original CDs, the computer still has a license.
These schools need to make this an issue. They need to make sure that it becomes news. Microsoft will be forced to back down or die in the public opinion. After that I would recommend that the schools fdisk every single computer that they own and install Linux.