In which way is the EU in danger of overstepping their bounds? The EU is largely an economic union-- aren't they expressly given the power to regulate commerce in this way? If so, then they can exercise bad judgment here, but they can't overstep their boundaries.
What I mean is that government is a bit like a private contractor with the constitution as the contract; they've been contracted by the people in their member states to do a job, and authorized by those citizens, they cannot break any boundaries so long as they are acting within the contract and only legislating within their own jurisdiction. Even if they're "going too far" and making a mistake, they've been given power by the people to make these decisions and haven't overstepped their bounds.
The reason I say this is only because I really don't know what your post means. I'm afraid you might have in mind that Microsoft has some inalienable right to manipulate European markets in ways that Europeans don't like. At least, that's what I'm imagining you're thinking, but I really don't agree with that.
Right. And the poster is asking for help? Here's the correct advice: Don't use Vista. If it's going to be a good, useful operating system, it isn't there yet. It's not ready, your applications probably aren't ready. If you already have a computer, don't bother upgrading. If you are buying a new computer, find someone who's still selling XP ), use Linux, or buy from Apple. (depending on your needs)
Internet Explorer. Some Slashdot posters with shorter memory may have forgotten, but IE was ages ahead on all those accounts compared to Netscape 4. But leave IE stale for 5-6 years.. and people started switching to Firefox.
People on Slashdot don't have a short memory-- you just cited one of the most obvious examples that people's paranoia about Microsoft is well-founded. Most of us will admit that Microsoft has the resources to throw into development, and they can make relatively good products. When Windows 2000 came out, it had better security than OSX and was easier for most people to manage than Linux. The [well-founded] fear surrounding Windows, even at that time, was not that it was terrible for the time it came out, but rather that without competition, Microsoft wouldn't bother to develop real improvements anymore. They would instead focus on blocking new competitors and "maximizing profitability", i.e. milking their customers while providing their customers with little/no benefit.
You see, that's what monopolies do, and that's what Microsoft has done. They drove Netscape out and took over the browser market, promising all sorts of wonderful things. They claimed that integrating a browser into the OS would allow them to "innovate" and drive standards forward-- things like that. As soon as they'd felt like they'd won, they dropped IE support for OSX and stopped updating IE for Windows, claiming there might be an updated version in "the next version of Windows". It wasn't until Firefox started making headway that they announced IE7 would be coming out for XP.
Yet another reason why people being slow to upgrade hurts Microsoft. Insofar as there are any compatibility issues between Vista and XP, people will gravitate towards whichever seems more prevalent. If Microsoft wants anyone to pay for the upgrade, it helps if it seems like "everyone else" is using Vista.
That's a very good question, and in spite of all the theories people will throw around, I'm not sure Microsoft even knows the answer.
On the one hand, they're still getting paid. On the other hand, I assume they're getting paid less for the copy of XP (but who knows?).
They could, theoretically, end up getting paid more if they can convince people to upgrade a year from now (XP OEM license + Vista retail license > Vista OEM license). However, most users do not upgrade their OS, and the lack of Vista adoption shows that people might be looking elsewhere for their "next generation" OS. Most likely this is good news for Apple, but also it might mean an increased market share for Linux. People are always looking for new things, and if IT departments don't like where Microsoft is going, it could mean they'll start looking at Linux as a way to upgrade existing computers (without the hefty system requirements).
Plus, Microsoft has been trying to wrap products together in various ways. For example, Windows Update gives me errors in Vista if I try to use Office 2003, but not Office 2007. Call me paranoid, but at this point I would believe that this isn't entirely coincidental. Also, Office 2007 wants me to install Microsoft's desktop search, which also pushes me towards their "Live" services. They spent a lot of time on Vista making its DRM better so they could collect more licenses on Windows Media formats. Microsoft has been so successful in the past due to this sort of approach-- buying one thing means trouble unless you buy in to their other products. So even if they aren't missing much money in Vista, they might be losing money on things they hoped to push on customers using Vista as the vehicle.
Either way, I'm sure it's embarrassing for Microsoft. They spent years working on an upgrade to their flagshit* product, and no one seems to want it. That's not a financial hurt, but I'm sure it hurts.
Well, from a business perspective there are lots of advantages to leasing/renting printers and other hardware. However, given the ink efficiency, it'd be nice if they offered the option to buy.
Further, the complaint about UAC is that it prompts users too often and *at stupid times*. It will pop up just to inform you of things without prompting for a password, and only require that you hit "ok". It will actually do *both* sometimes-- prompt you to hit 'ok' and then immediately afterwards prompt you for a password. It's such ridiculous misguided overkill that it's more likely to condition people to just enter their password and hit "ok".
Microsoft got the idea for UAC from Unix (Unix, Linux, and OSX have all been doing this sort of thing for years) and then they just implemented it badly. Microsoft has definitely improved it since the beta versions of Vista, where UAC was a total joke, but the implementation still isn't as good as Linux/OSX IMO.
Yeah, I don't think people should have to download and compile either, but I was responding to a comment from a Gentoo user who claimed to dislike "turnkey distros".
For most purposes, Ubuntu users don't need to compile or anything-- they can use Synaptic. For any software not included on the Ubuntu CD, it will require an internet connection to download the new software, but it will also automatically keep all your software up to date.
I'd say that it's actually *easier* to install applications on Ubuntu than on Windows, and more useful software comes in the default install.
Yeah, I'm not sure why anyone starting to build their infrastructure (not already locked in) would want to start with Windows. Even at $3 a copy, that's $3 more than Linux.
I realise that what I'm going to say sounds harsh and isn't an option for people with a work requirement for CAD or whatever, but it's possible to buy hardware for wireless, video etc that is completely supported by Free/Open drivers.
What video cards have completely supported 3D support? Because I don't see a whole lot of competition from anyone besides ATI and Nvidia, and as far as I know neither provide open source drivers.
By providing what some people want Ubuntu is cannibalizing the market and making it easier for hardware vendors (and arguably in this case Sun) to continue to provide hardware that works inadequately with Linux.
If you believe Ubuntu is too popular, that's another issue, but anything that forces hardware vendors to support Linux on more desktops is more likely to lead to more adequate drivers.
My beef with "turnkey" distros is they always seem to be missing something I need.
I don't understand this complaint at all. You don't like "turnkey" distros because they're missing some things? I mean, if it comes down to it, you can always download the source code and build the "missing things" from scratch if you please, right?
It's pretty much the case that anything available for one distro is available for the others, but it's just a question as to what a distro provides by default and what tools it provides to install more things. However, if you don't like "turnkey" and want to do things the complicated/hard way, then the "tools provided" shouldn't matter much at all.
I don't want to sound harsh because I believe you're genuinely concerned, but I think you're wrong. Ubuntu is providing non-free packages for some things because it's what people want. People want the ability to get easy 3D accelleration for their video cards, and the open source drivers don't do it, so Ubuntu provides the ability to install the non-free drivers easily.
And yes, "what people want" matters. Making it easy for people to get good performance from their computers will win converts to Linux. As Linux's share of the market grows, there's an increasing chance that various companies will support linux in various ways. The more people are using Linux on their desktop and the more people want 3D accelleration for their desktop, the more likely it is that someone (maybe even Nvidia and AMD) will actually produce Free drivers.
Well you have to figure that the reason to use Windows is for games, or having MCE to interface with your XBox360-- or other things of that sort. At this point, most people will find Linux most appropriate for their work machine. You have OpenOffice, Evolution, Firefox, etc. Your "productivity" apps. Those things are far less resource-intensive.
Just a point of fact, you said that unless you take an image, rather than copying files, you get raw encrypted data. That's the opposite of what you're saying now.
Are you telling me that if you use bitlocker and you copy files from your computer (running the installed version of Windows) to another drive or a network share, you'll get gibberish on the other end? I'll admit that I've never used bitlocker, but if that's true then it's going to be damn near useless for most uses.
It depends on why you're encrypting and how you're backing up. In this case, copying the files to an unencrypted disk will give you unencrypted files.
In short, the purpose of encrypting your hard drive in this way is to prevent hacking from someone who as physical access to the machine. For example, if you give me a standard XP system, I can use a boot CD to reset your passwords. I can boot to another OS and access your files directly. If your system is up and running, Windows will protect your files with its own permissions, but once I have physical access to the machine and can reboot into whatever OS I want, I have your files. By encrypting the disk, you close that security hole.
Do does an unencrypted backup void the purpose of encrypting the disk? Not if your backup is in a secure location.
So if I take my laptop out into the world, I can encrypt the disk and keep an unencrypted copy at home. If my laptop gets stolen, the thief can not boot into another OS, reset my passwords, or otherwise get my data. At most, he can overwrite the old disk and start over.
Also, if I want to secure data on desktop systems, I can backup to a server with restricted physical access. In order to get access to the backup, they'd need to break into my server room first, and then reset my server's passwords.
I see from TFA that they're shitting themselves at the prospect of widespread drive-level encryption.
Whenever it comes to these things, I find myself in a bit of a quandary. Of course I want various criminals to get busted, but these investigators are essentially relying on poor security to get their information. I generally want computers to have good security. I don't like the idea of people being able to see my personal info or browsing history, but I'm also not really hiding anything.
If you can get 1,000,000,000 people to all work together on something, then you can do whatever the hell you want. I mean, we're not talking about a business servicing 1,000,000,000 people, but 1,000,000,000 actually getting together, pooling their resources, buying raw materials, and working together on a project?
Seriously, if you can manage that trick, you can start an army that no power on earth can stop.
I'm a general IT guy who's occasionally had to do some web work-- does that count?
Anyway, I always like to keep an open mind and evaluate each product without prejudice. However, when it comes to making a business decision, I absolutely do look at the business practices of the developers.
Before I start investing in any kind of format or platform, I ask myself questions like:
Do I think this [format|platform] will exist in 2 years?
Will it be stable enough during those two years that my early work will translate to new versions and continue to be usable?
How do these developers usually treat their users/customers?
What are the chances that I'll get screwed here?
What are the chances my investment would be wasted?
The software itself isn't the only thing to consider, and the developers behind the software are not inconsequential.
The fight between Adobe and Microsoft is, in and of itself, an important battle. Adobe has a lot of control over an entire sector of applications that Microsoft has not been able to control: media software. When it comes to digital print design, Adobe is king. When it comes to Web, Adobe and Macromedia were fighting it out until Adobe bought Macromedia-- now Adobe is the undisputed champion. In video editing, it's pretty much all Adobe, Apple, or Avid.
Microsoft hasn't really been able to break into any of these markets. Microsoft's tools (eg Frontpage) have long been the butt of jokes. Still, Microsoft keeps trying.
And so Microsoft is one of the biggest threats to Adobe. They keep trying to make software that will compete. They're trying to make a Photoshop alternative, competitors to Flash and PDF, their own version of Dreamweaver, etc.
On the other hand, Adobe is a very dangerous player for Microsoft as well. If Microsoft could get Adobe to stop supporting OSX, it would mean a lot of trouble for Apple. On the other hand, if Adobe stopped supporting Windows or started supporting Linux, it could mean *serious* trouble for Microsoft. I know plenty of people who would drop Windows immediately and starting using OSX if they couldn't have photoshop on Windows. Also, while the Linux desktop is advancing in many areas, one of the things that has kept it from many of the areas that I've supported has been the lack of Adobe products. I don't want to get into a whole thing here, but lets just say my Photoshop users weren't content with the GIMP. They didn't much care about the OS-- all they needed was web browsing, e-mail, and a word processor-- but they absolutely needed Adobe applications.
There are things I like about Adobe and things I don't like, but one thing is certain: they're one of the few software developers left who are still in a position to hurt Microsoft. That's probably why Microsoft is fighting this fight to begin with.
What I'm saying is that, if people can just go around making your invention easily (with little/no prior investment) for their own use, then your patent probably shouldn't be protected from others' personal use. I can't think of a good example to the contrary.
However, if your patent is novel enough to warrant protection (IMO) then there will probably require some investment of engineering and manufacturing to create working models. You should collect money from those people who are selling it, not from those using it.
If it's so obvious and easy to make wheels (in this example) that I can just make my own, no problem-- then most likely your "innovation" isn't so amazing to warrant our (society's) protection. What stifles innovation these days isn't that innovative people have no incentive to share. Big companies bullying proper patent holders with lawyers, using patents to destroy their competition, and extorting whoever they can-- that's what's stifling innovation.
Corporations shouldn't have rights, so I don't give a shit about what Microsoft's 'rights' are.
Just to comment, I find it ironic that people who claim to be in favor of "capitalism" are often the ones who are in favor of this sort of corporate entitlement. They want the government to guarantee that corporations have more rights than citizens. They want the government to give corporations special monopolies, and take various actions to ensure the profitability of inefficient corporations.
I've been ranting about this a lot lately, but I think it's important: corporations are not entitled to any of this. The government grants formations of corporations for various reasons, but the ultimate reason for that whole system is the benefit of society. However, these entities that we call "corporations" do not have any intrinsic value. Corporations do not have inalienable human rights.
Owing their existence to the pursuit of our society to benefit itself, corporations have no inherent right to subvert the good of society for their own profitability. If corporations act maliciously or irresponsibly, their value is void and they should be destroyed.
Slashdot Mirror
In which way is the EU in danger of overstepping their bounds? The EU is largely an economic union-- aren't they expressly given the power to regulate commerce in this way? If so, then they can exercise bad judgment here, but they can't overstep their boundaries.
What I mean is that government is a bit like a private contractor with the constitution as the contract; they've been contracted by the people in their member states to do a job, and authorized by those citizens, they cannot break any boundaries so long as they are acting within the contract and only legislating within their own jurisdiction. Even if they're "going too far" and making a mistake, they've been given power by the people to make these decisions and haven't overstepped their bounds.
The reason I say this is only because I really don't know what your post means. I'm afraid you might have in mind that Microsoft has some inalienable right to manipulate European markets in ways that Europeans don't like. At least, that's what I'm imagining you're thinking, but I really don't agree with that.
Right. And the poster is asking for help? Here's the correct advice: Don't use Vista. If it's going to be a good, useful operating system, it isn't there yet. It's not ready, your applications probably aren't ready. If you already have a computer, don't bother upgrading. If you are buying a new computer, find someone who's still selling XP ), use Linux, or buy from Apple. (depending on your needs)
People on Slashdot don't have a short memory-- you just cited one of the most obvious examples that people's paranoia about Microsoft is well-founded. Most of us will admit that Microsoft has the resources to throw into development, and they can make relatively good products. When Windows 2000 came out, it had better security than OSX and was easier for most people to manage than Linux. The [well-founded] fear surrounding Windows, even at that time, was not that it was terrible for the time it came out, but rather that without competition, Microsoft wouldn't bother to develop real improvements anymore. They would instead focus on blocking new competitors and "maximizing profitability", i.e. milking their customers while providing their customers with little/no benefit.
You see, that's what monopolies do, and that's what Microsoft has done. They drove Netscape out and took over the browser market, promising all sorts of wonderful things. They claimed that integrating a browser into the OS would allow them to "innovate" and drive standards forward-- things like that. As soon as they'd felt like they'd won, they dropped IE support for OSX and stopped updating IE for Windows, claiming there might be an updated version in "the next version of Windows". It wasn't until Firefox started making headway that they announced IE7 would be coming out for XP.
1) compatiblity with other users
Yet another reason why people being slow to upgrade hurts Microsoft. Insofar as there are any compatibility issues between Vista and XP, people will gravitate towards whichever seems more prevalent. If Microsoft wants anyone to pay for the upgrade, it helps if it seems like "everyone else" is using Vista.
That's a very good question, and in spite of all the theories people will throw around, I'm not sure Microsoft even knows the answer.
On the one hand, they're still getting paid. On the other hand, I assume they're getting paid less for the copy of XP (but who knows?).
They could, theoretically, end up getting paid more if they can convince people to upgrade a year from now (XP OEM license + Vista retail license > Vista OEM license). However, most users do not upgrade their OS, and the lack of Vista adoption shows that people might be looking elsewhere for their "next generation" OS. Most likely this is good news for Apple, but also it might mean an increased market share for Linux. People are always looking for new things, and if IT departments don't like where Microsoft is going, it could mean they'll start looking at Linux as a way to upgrade existing computers (without the hefty system requirements).
Plus, Microsoft has been trying to wrap products together in various ways. For example, Windows Update gives me errors in Vista if I try to use Office 2003, but not Office 2007. Call me paranoid, but at this point I would believe that this isn't entirely coincidental. Also, Office 2007 wants me to install Microsoft's desktop search, which also pushes me towards their "Live" services. They spent a lot of time on Vista making its DRM better so they could collect more licenses on Windows Media formats. Microsoft has been so successful in the past due to this sort of approach-- buying one thing means trouble unless you buy in to their other products. So even if they aren't missing much money in Vista, they might be losing money on things they hoped to push on customers using Vista as the vehicle.
Either way, I'm sure it's embarrassing for Microsoft. They spent years working on an upgrade to their flagshit* product, and no one seems to want it. That's not a financial hurt, but I'm sure it hurts.
* it's a typo, but I'm leaving it.
Well, from a business perspective there are lots of advantages to leasing/renting printers and other hardware. However, given the ink efficiency, it'd be nice if they offered the option to buy.
Further, the complaint about UAC is that it prompts users too often and *at stupid times*. It will pop up just to inform you of things without prompting for a password, and only require that you hit "ok". It will actually do *both* sometimes-- prompt you to hit 'ok' and then immediately afterwards prompt you for a password. It's such ridiculous misguided overkill that it's more likely to condition people to just enter their password and hit "ok".
Microsoft got the idea for UAC from Unix (Unix, Linux, and OSX have all been doing this sort of thing for years) and then they just implemented it badly. Microsoft has definitely improved it since the beta versions of Vista, where UAC was a total joke, but the implementation still isn't as good as Linux/OSX IMO.
Or rather that they've released a line of printer where they've stopped hiding the monthly charges in the "ink costs".
Yeah, I don't think people should have to download and compile either, but I was responding to a comment from a Gentoo user who claimed to dislike "turnkey distros".
For most purposes, Ubuntu users don't need to compile or anything-- they can use Synaptic. For any software not included on the Ubuntu CD, it will require an internet connection to download the new software, but it will also automatically keep all your software up to date.
I'd say that it's actually *easier* to install applications on Ubuntu than on Windows, and more useful software comes in the default install.
Yeah, I'm not sure why anyone starting to build their infrastructure (not already locked in) would want to start with Windows. Even at $3 a copy, that's $3 more than Linux.
I realise that what I'm going to say sounds harsh and isn't an option for people with a work requirement for CAD or whatever, but it's possible to buy hardware for wireless, video etc that is completely supported by Free/Open drivers.
What video cards have completely supported 3D support? Because I don't see a whole lot of competition from anyone besides ATI and Nvidia, and as far as I know neither provide open source drivers.
By providing what some people want Ubuntu is cannibalizing the market and making it easier for hardware vendors (and arguably in this case Sun) to continue to provide hardware that works inadequately with Linux.
If you believe Ubuntu is too popular, that's another issue, but anything that forces hardware vendors to support Linux on more desktops is more likely to lead to more adequate drivers.
I don't understand this complaint at all. You don't like "turnkey" distros because they're missing some things? I mean, if it comes down to it, you can always download the source code and build the "missing things" from scratch if you please, right?
It's pretty much the case that anything available for one distro is available for the others, but it's just a question as to what a distro provides by default and what tools it provides to install more things. However, if you don't like "turnkey" and want to do things the complicated/hard way, then the "tools provided" shouldn't matter much at all.
I don't want to sound harsh because I believe you're genuinely concerned, but I think you're wrong. Ubuntu is providing non-free packages for some things because it's what people want. People want the ability to get easy 3D accelleration for their video cards, and the open source drivers don't do it, so Ubuntu provides the ability to install the non-free drivers easily.
And yes, "what people want" matters. Making it easy for people to get good performance from their computers will win converts to Linux. As Linux's share of the market grows, there's an increasing chance that various companies will support linux in various ways. The more people are using Linux on their desktop and the more people want 3D accelleration for their desktop, the more likely it is that someone (maybe even Nvidia and AMD) will actually produce Free drivers.
Well you have to figure that the reason to use Windows is for games, or having MCE to interface with your XBox360-- or other things of that sort. At this point, most people will find Linux most appropriate for their work machine. You have OpenOffice, Evolution, Firefox, etc. Your "productivity" apps. Those things are far less resource-intensive.
Just a point of fact, you said that unless you take an image, rather than copying files, you get raw encrypted data. That's the opposite of what you're saying now.
Are you telling me that if you use bitlocker and you copy files from your computer (running the installed version of Windows) to another drive or a network share, you'll get gibberish on the other end? I'll admit that I've never used bitlocker, but if that's true then it's going to be damn near useless for most uses.
It depends on why you're encrypting and how you're backing up. In this case, copying the files to an unencrypted disk will give you unencrypted files.
In short, the purpose of encrypting your hard drive in this way is to prevent hacking from someone who as physical access to the machine. For example, if you give me a standard XP system, I can use a boot CD to reset your passwords. I can boot to another OS and access your files directly. If your system is up and running, Windows will protect your files with its own permissions, but once I have physical access to the machine and can reboot into whatever OS I want, I have your files. By encrypting the disk, you close that security hole.
Do does an unencrypted backup void the purpose of encrypting the disk? Not if your backup is in a secure location.
So if I take my laptop out into the world, I can encrypt the disk and keep an unencrypted copy at home. If my laptop gets stolen, the thief can not boot into another OS, reset my passwords, or otherwise get my data. At most, he can overwrite the old disk and start over.
Also, if I want to secure data on desktop systems, I can backup to a server with restricted physical access. In order to get access to the backup, they'd need to break into my server room first, and then reset my server's passwords.
Whenever it comes to these things, I find myself in a bit of a quandary. Of course I want various criminals to get busted, but these investigators are essentially relying on poor security to get their information. I generally want computers to have good security. I don't like the idea of people being able to see my personal info or browsing history, but I'm also not really hiding anything.
oh well...
If you can get 1,000,000,000 people to all work together on something, then you can do whatever the hell you want. I mean, we're not talking about a business servicing 1,000,000,000 people, but 1,000,000,000 actually getting together, pooling their resources, buying raw materials, and working together on a project?
Seriously, if you can manage that trick, you can start an army that no power on earth can stop.
I'm a general IT guy who's occasionally had to do some web work-- does that count?
Anyway, I always like to keep an open mind and evaluate each product without prejudice. However, when it comes to making a business decision, I absolutely do look at the business practices of the developers.
Before I start investing in any kind of format or platform, I ask myself questions like:
The software itself isn't the only thing to consider, and the developers behind the software are not inconsequential.
The fight between Adobe and Microsoft is, in and of itself, an important battle. Adobe has a lot of control over an entire sector of applications that Microsoft has not been able to control: media software. When it comes to digital print design, Adobe is king. When it comes to Web, Adobe and Macromedia were fighting it out until Adobe bought Macromedia-- now Adobe is the undisputed champion. In video editing, it's pretty much all Adobe, Apple, or Avid.
Microsoft hasn't really been able to break into any of these markets. Microsoft's tools (eg Frontpage) have long been the butt of jokes. Still, Microsoft keeps trying.
And so Microsoft is one of the biggest threats to Adobe. They keep trying to make software that will compete. They're trying to make a Photoshop alternative, competitors to Flash and PDF, their own version of Dreamweaver, etc.
On the other hand, Adobe is a very dangerous player for Microsoft as well. If Microsoft could get Adobe to stop supporting OSX, it would mean a lot of trouble for Apple. On the other hand, if Adobe stopped supporting Windows or started supporting Linux, it could mean *serious* trouble for Microsoft. I know plenty of people who would drop Windows immediately and starting using OSX if they couldn't have photoshop on Windows. Also, while the Linux desktop is advancing in many areas, one of the things that has kept it from many of the areas that I've supported has been the lack of Adobe products. I don't want to get into a whole thing here, but lets just say my Photoshop users weren't content with the GIMP. They didn't much care about the OS-- all they needed was web browsing, e-mail, and a word processor-- but they absolutely needed Adobe applications.
There are things I like about Adobe and things I don't like, but one thing is certain: they're one of the few software developers left who are still in a position to hurt Microsoft. That's probably why Microsoft is fighting this fight to begin with.
What I'm saying is that, if people can just go around making your invention easily (with little/no prior investment) for their own use, then your patent probably shouldn't be protected from others' personal use. I can't think of a good example to the contrary.
However, if your patent is novel enough to warrant protection (IMO) then there will probably require some investment of engineering and manufacturing to create working models. You should collect money from those people who are selling it, not from those using it.
Oh no! If this happens, the internet might become much less commercial!
If it's so obvious and easy to make wheels (in this example) that I can just make my own, no problem-- then most likely your "innovation" isn't so amazing to warrant our (society's) protection. What stifles innovation these days isn't that innovative people have no incentive to share. Big companies bullying proper patent holders with lawyers, using patents to destroy their competition, and extorting whoever they can-- that's what's stifling innovation.
Corporations shouldn't have rights, so I don't give a shit about what Microsoft's 'rights' are.
Just to comment, I find it ironic that people who claim to be in favor of "capitalism" are often the ones who are in favor of this sort of corporate entitlement. They want the government to guarantee that corporations have more rights than citizens. They want the government to give corporations special monopolies, and take various actions to ensure the profitability of inefficient corporations.
I've been ranting about this a lot lately, but I think it's important: corporations are not entitled to any of this. The government grants formations of corporations for various reasons, but the ultimate reason for that whole system is the benefit of society. However, these entities that we call "corporations" do not have any intrinsic value. Corporations do not have inalienable human rights.
Owing their existence to the pursuit of our society to benefit itself, corporations have no inherent right to subvert the good of society for their own profitability. If corporations act maliciously or irresponsibly, their value is void and they should be destroyed.