at some point, the reason that many people used Windows is because it was the OS that best suited their needs
I think it's more likely that many people used Windows initially is because MS had that (illegal) deal going whereby the only way for PC manufacturers to keep their OS discount was to install Windows on every PC they sold. Any company that even considered selling a no-os PC would get a visit or a call from an MS salesdroid who would politely explain that their OS discount would be up for renewal soon and by the way, renewal would only happen for MS-loyal companies.
I'm sure I missed some details in there, but I think I covered the essentials. Anyway, that deal gave MS a big part of their stranglehold - every PC came with an OS anyway, so few people would bother to buy some other OS. Once people (and companies) were locked into the Windows "keep updating or risk becoming incompatible" cycle, inertia kept them there. It became easier to simply re-buy the OS and apps every year or two.
Assuming that the software doesn't evaporate along with the company, losing Microsoft wouldn't make a lot of difference to anyone. Not immediately. We'd all trundle along with Windows 9x/XP for a while, until virus writers find the killer vulnerability that allows them to completely own everything. Even then, people will just wipe and reload, much as they do at the moment. Firewalls will become much more interesting to the general population, though.
What would be worth watching would be if Microsoft sticks around, but withdraws from the EU market. I think we would see several stages:
1) Microsoft withdraws from EU. EU doesn't take much notice because everything still works. 2) Microsoft issues a statement claiming that some clause in the EULA allows them to revoke the license to use Windows. EU companies fail to panic because, hey, the software still works even without a license! 3) Microsoft revokes licenses from all of EU. BSA starts spamming EU with audit notices. EU declares click-through EULA and shrink-wrap licenses invalid and advises EU companies to show BSA the finger. 4) With Microsoft software no longer available in EU, international companies in the US ship MS software to their EU branches anyway.
All though this, some other OS gains significant acceptance and becomes the dominant desktop OS.
I think I'd have to go for Florida - anything launched from New Mexico would pass somewhere overhead, and if it didn't achieve orbit, might possibly land in my backyard...
Would it be possible for the judge to levy a fine and insist that MS writes out a check, instead of simply printing their own money in the form of "discounts"?? After all, I though the point of 3x damages was to make the offender think twice about doing it again. If they can just print off vouchers in the sure and certain knowledge that: a) they won't all ever get used; and b) those that are used extend the monopoly, it doesn't really hurt them.
IANAL either, but is this something that should have been disclosed in the federal antitrust lawsuit?? If so, how much trouble are they in for not disclosing them??
True, but you have to remember that historically speaking the DMCA has mostly been used to legally bludgeon people for things that really should not fall under the DMCA anyway. Why would this be different?
Hmmm, let's see... If the rfid tag is digital, and the data is minimally encrypted, then your rfid tag burner would technically be a device for circumventing encryption. If they catch you, they'll slap you silly with a DMCA violation.
I'd say that the fine is definitely intended to get media attention, though the EU can surely put the cash to good use. As you say, the real punishment is forcing the unbundling and opening up the specs.
Perhaps more to the point, there is the unstated (by CNN, at least) threat of further action and/or fines if the deadlines are not met. Well, that's how I interpret "they've been given 90 days to comply", anyway... Now that the punishment has been handed out, it will be a lot easier to increase the fine for non-compliance.
And there's another facet to this ruling - other countries may just follow suit (literally!) and file similar complaints. This fine may not mean much on its own, but if the EU makes it stick, I wouldn't be surprised if AU, NZ and others started to take notice.
IANAL, but I think the difference is that the German legal system has mechanisms in place to do what they did, whereas the US legal system doesn't. How AU compares, I don't know.
Well, ya know, the bios does pretty well as its own OS, and it sure as hell has to be able to grub around in the filesystem if it's going to be finding Outlook files. So can Linux bootloaders like lilo and grub, without having very big binaries, never mind the bootsector viruses. So, yeah, I'd be concerned if Phoenix would allow attachments to execute...
Is it ironic in a funny way that someone is developing an Outlook compatible app that doesn't require you to run Windows because Microsoft is taking so long on their next version? Absolutely:)
And we can hope that Phoenix won't be so bloody stupid as to emulate Outlook's worst features, such as executing attachments...
If I were standing on a planet waiting to be beamed up, I'd be terrified about moving too far, sitting down (I'd be beamed up without the chair!)
Sounds like a great gag reel idea for the next Trek movie: Picard says, "Three to beam up" and the newbie ensign in the transporter room gets Data, a tree and half of someone's house, leaving Picard and Geordi watching the remainder of the house collapsing in a cloud of brickdust...
From what's been said here and elsewhere, it seems that the various new anti-terrorist laws trump even the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, so why would a trivial thing like the Cable TV Privacy Act stop them??
Besides which, would any judge say "no" if told "we need this warrant to watch a suspected terrorist"?? Especially if there was an implied "...and if you don't sign it, you'll be aiding said terrorist..."
Firestone and Ford were sued for the "few" defective tires and/or cars. Defective software costs millions of dollars each year and no one thinks of taking the defective software companies to court.
The bit you're forgetting is that software manufacturers have been allowed to get away with EULAs that state:
This software may or may not perform the task for which it was purchased. In fact, it may not work at all, but if it does, it may do unexpected things, such as deleting all your files or raping your cat. By clicking on the "Accept" button, you acknowledge this and absolve us from any legal responsibility whatsoever.
Now, if Firestone and Ford would only get a "EULA" sorted out, they'd be home free:
The tire you have just bought was round and black when it left the factory. Any change in shape thereafter, including disintegration, is obviously not our fault, but rather is due to you, the luser, actually putting the tire on a vehicle and driving it. Once the rubber hits to the road, you're on your own. Paying money for said tire is deemed acceptance of these terms.
(1) such entity offers clear and convincing evidence that the subject of the information is reasonably suspected of engaging in criminal activity
I suspect that that clause would be satisfied by FBI or Homeland Security saying, "suspected terrorist under the Patriot act", closely followed by, "and if you don't roll over and play nice, we'll be after you too, for harboring a suspected terrorist."
Maybe it can't happen that way, and I'd be really happy if someone could prove me wrong. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if it did, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to be the poor slob at the ISP quoting the Cable TV Privacy Act to any governmental entity that could throw me in the slammer with no trial and no phone call...
...but I'm not sure how much could that would do considering like me for instance, I check all my email from an ssl secure site.
I imagine Asscroft and friends would like to try to coerce your "ssl secure site" into installing something that would intercept the key exchange and give them both sides of the conversation.
Besides which, they don't really have to intercept your link to your ssl secure site anyway, because they can grab your inbound & outbound email from your provider's upstream link.
You're only really going to be secure if your email is encrypted before it leaves your computer and decrypted once it reaches the adressee's computer. And vice versa.
Turn on those webcams! Stream video of everyone's life into the public domain! Record EVERYTHING YOU SEE and do!
Better yet, point those webcams out the window and let "The Man" watch the cars going down your street... Out of focus, of course, because you wouldn't want to broadcast someone's license plate... Let them watch your grass grow, or squirrels playing with their nuts in the trees...
Personally, I think they should make it longer - something like.mobilephone perhaps. With any luck, evolution will kick in as hundreds of idiots run themselves off the roads trying to text while driving. It's bad enough with people trying to drink coffee and hold a phone while driving - make it easier to send text messages and some idiots will. You know it'll happen...
Technically, it should be possible. In practice, I think there'd be an honest election in Florida before any US citizen got extradited for copyright violations.
So, the question really resolves to: "is copyright infringement illegal in Australia?" I'd say the answer is "yes".
What as the chances that this guy illegally distributed MS software? They've got a big enough pile of cash to be able to buy serious legal representation in Australia - enough to get him convicted and put away for a long time if he's really guilty. Would that be "unjust"?
Heh... I live in the US and can't vote either, but that's not the issue.
The fact is that this guy has broken internationally agreed copyright laws, at the very least. So, the government that he presumably can vote for has traded his "right" to immunity against prosecution for reciprocal rights. I.e. If an US citizen trampled all over an Australian software company's copyrights, then AU would have some hope of extraditing him for trial.
Of course, if it was a US citizen illegally distributing Australian software, that would be just perfectly OK, wouldn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's more likely that many people used Windows initially is because MS had that (illegal) deal going whereby the only way for PC manufacturers to keep their OS discount was to install Windows on every PC they sold. Any company that even considered selling a no-os PC would get a visit or a call from an MS salesdroid who would politely explain that their OS discount would be up for renewal soon and by the way, renewal would only happen for MS-loyal companies.
I'm sure I missed some details in there, but I think I covered the essentials. Anyway, that deal gave MS a big part of their stranglehold - every PC came with an OS anyway, so few people would bother to buy some other OS. Once people (and companies) were locked into the Windows "keep updating or risk becoming incompatible" cycle, inertia kept them there. It became easier to simply re-buy the OS and apps every year or two.
What would be worth watching would be if Microsoft sticks around, but withdraws from the EU market. I think we would see several stages:
1) Microsoft withdraws from EU. EU doesn't take much notice because everything still works.
2) Microsoft issues a statement claiming that some clause in the EULA allows them to revoke the license to use Windows. EU companies fail to panic because, hey, the software still works even without a license!
3) Microsoft revokes licenses from all of EU. BSA starts spamming EU with audit notices. EU declares click-through EULA and shrink-wrap licenses invalid and advises EU companies to show BSA the finger.
4) With Microsoft software no longer available in EU, international companies in the US ship MS software to their EU branches anyway.
All though this, some other OS gains significant acceptance and becomes the dominant desktop OS.
I think I'd have to go for Florida - anything launched from New Mexico would pass somewhere overhead, and if it didn't achieve orbit, might possibly land in my backyard...
Would it be possible for the judge to levy a fine and insist that MS writes out a check, instead of simply printing their own money in the form of "discounts"?? After all, I though the point of 3x damages was to make the offender think twice about doing it again. If they can just print off vouchers in the sure and certain knowledge that: a) they won't all ever get used; and b) those that are used extend the monopoly, it doesn't really hurt them.
IANAL either, but is this something that should have been disclosed in the federal antitrust lawsuit?? If so, how much trouble are they in for not disclosing them??
True, but you have to remember that historically speaking the DMCA has mostly been used to legally bludgeon people for things that really should not fall under the DMCA anyway. Why would this be different?
Blam! You've been DMCA'd!
Perhaps more to the point, there is the unstated (by CNN, at least) threat of further action and/or fines if the deadlines are not met. Well, that's how I interpret "they've been given 90 days to comply", anyway... Now that the punishment has been handed out, it will be a lot easier to increase the fine for non-compliance.
And there's another facet to this ruling - other countries may just follow suit (literally!) and file similar complaints. This fine may not mean much on its own, but if the EU makes it stick, I wouldn't be surprised if AU, NZ and others started to take notice.
IANAL, but I think the difference is that the German legal system has mechanisms in place to do what they did, whereas the US legal system doesn't. How AU compares, I don't know.
Well, ya know, the bios does pretty well as its own OS, and it sure as hell has to be able to grub around in the filesystem if it's going to be finding Outlook files. So can Linux bootloaders like lilo and grub, without having very big binaries, never mind the bootsector viruses. So, yeah, I'd be concerned if Phoenix would allow attachments to execute...
And we can hope that Phoenix won't be so bloody stupid as to emulate Outlook's worst features, such as executing attachments...
Sounds like a great gag reel idea for the next Trek movie: Picard says, "Three to beam up" and the newbie ensign in the transporter room gets Data, a tree and half of someone's house, leaving Picard and Geordi watching the remainder of the house collapsing in a cloud of brickdust...
Besides which, would any judge say "no" if told "we need this warrant to watch a suspected terrorist"?? Especially if there was an implied "...and if you don't sign it, you'll be aiding said terrorist..."
The bit you're forgetting is that software manufacturers have been allowed to get away with EULAs that state:
Now, if Firestone and Ford would only get a "EULA" sorted out, they'd be home free:
I suspect that that clause would be satisfied by FBI or Homeland Security saying, "suspected terrorist under the Patriot act", closely followed by, "and if you don't roll over and play nice, we'll be after you too, for harboring a suspected terrorist."
Maybe it can't happen that way, and I'd be really happy if someone could prove me wrong. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if it did, and I sure as hell wouldn't want to be the poor slob at the ISP quoting the Cable TV Privacy Act to any governmental entity that could throw me in the slammer with no trial and no phone call...
I imagine Asscroft and friends would like to try to coerce your "ssl secure site" into installing something that would intercept the key exchange and give them both sides of the conversation.
Besides which, they don't really have to intercept your link to your ssl secure site anyway, because they can grab your inbound & outbound email from your provider's upstream link.
You're only really going to be secure if your email is encrypted before it leaves your computer and decrypted once it reaches the adressee's computer. And vice versa.
Better yet, point those webcams out the window and let "The Man" watch the cars going down your street... Out of focus, of course, because you wouldn't want to broadcast someone's license plate... Let them watch your grass grow, or squirrels playing with their nuts in the trees...
Personally, I think they should make it longer - something like .mobilephone perhaps. With any luck, evolution will kick in as hundreds of idiots run themselves off the roads trying to text while driving. It's bad enough with people trying to drink coffee and hold a phone while driving - make it easier to send text messages and some idiots will. You know it'll happen...
Technically, it should be possible. In practice, I think there'd be an honest election in Florida before any US citizen got extradited for copyright violations.
What as the chances that this guy illegally distributed MS software? They've got a big enough pile of cash to be able to buy serious legal representation in Australia - enough to get him convicted and put away for a long time if he's really guilty. Would that be "unjust"?
If the guy was copying software from Australian companies, would that be copyright infringement? Does Australia not have copyright at all?
The fact is that this guy has broken internationally agreed copyright laws, at the very least. So, the government that he presumably can vote for has traded his "right" to immunity against prosecution for reciprocal rights. I.e. If an US citizen trampled all over an Australian software company's copyrights, then AU would have some hope of extraditing him for trial.
Of course, if it was a US citizen illegally distributing Australian software, that would be just perfectly OK, wouldn't it?