It's all explained in the last sentence of the article. It says that Microsoft jumped through hoops to help Hilfiger move from Linux.
End of story. Microsoft purchased this IT guy and is using them in their long running, anti-competition, "Get the Facts" lies.
And the Microsoft guy even says that their internal Linux lab is to learn about Linux so they can adjust their customer PERCEPTION and not their product.
But in OSS there is no Visual Basic for IT managers so they can pretend to be a programmer, or MS Access so they can be a database expert... GNU/Linux is too hard,,, wwwhhaaaaaaa
To tell you the truth, I've seen people who can hardly fumble through on Windows, attempt to try GPL'ed software on Windows and it wasn't pretty. They've setup their department network but if the software doesn't install itself, give them a MS-Wizard, and icons to run it, they are lost.
IMO, Microsoft Windows is very much like McDonalds, only it fattens the mind instead of the body. Microsoft McWindows
I fully agree with what you stated. It fits niches well because it's flexible enough and those filling the niche are going to be somewhat technical enough to solve the problem. Given the right tools, flexible tools, and the know-how to use the tools, far more can be done with GNU/Linux and OSS than MS Windows.
And they are not going away because of that. And the fact that all Microsoft has is the desire to change perception and not the design or business practices it's so familiar with.
The guy at Tommy Hilfiger who was quoted in the article says at the very end that Microsoft jumped through hoops to make the switch happen. Boy, we've heard this one before. At the very least, these guys didn't leave that part out. It really tells the whole story.
It's all more of Microsofts multi-million dollar marketing campaign against GNU/Linux. Wasn't the Microsoft guy quoted as saying something about changing their customers "perception"????
More smoke and mirrors and WSJ.COM bought it or was bought...
some might think that was just laziness since they bought and bundled Netscape out of business, but I'm with you, it keeps sites/developers tied to MS Windows.
yup, and we saw how far Microsoft was willing to go, and pay, to stop that from happening on the desktop.
granted, starting a new JVM everytime just for a small applet was took its toll but for long running applications, startup time isn't as critical. And just as JVM pooling on the server helped performance, solutions on the desktop would have come about if the platform was allowed to grow.
We'll see how far this is "allowed" to go before MSFT dumps a few hundred million bucks to keept it niche or "color" it as a Microsoft Windows-only tool/API...
you may not want all your apps web-apps but what if they did perform as well as you expect AND you could have them run locally OR remotely fed?
With the right API's on the client, many applications could run just fine as web/intranet apps and when you think about it, AJAX is just leveraging the JavaScript and XML APIs already available under the browser. IBM had been trying to promote what XUL in the Mozilla browswer gave developers too. Now, throw in things like JAVA3D and a scripting language to leverate it, and you can have some pretty amazing clientside experiences. With a nice web application caching system you could get both local and remotely run apps. My guess is that this is something like what IBM is doing with their Workplace application framework. But it's just a guess.
yes, but you get simplified web deployment for free. And you really wanted a fatter client with a more capable programming env, JAVA applets come to mind.
Oh wait, wasn't JAVA the last crossplatform feature rich client platform MSFT attacked? Look for MSFT to wage another illegal war againt AJAX because it is getting too feature rich for its own good or for the goodness of developers.
and this is why Microsoft will fight this with as much vigar as they did Java and Netscape. Count on it. Anything promoting/enabling crossplatform applications are a direct attack on Microsofts marketing of MS Windows.
BTW, regarding games, Microsoft is out to degrade OpenGL on the MS Windows desktop too.
From what others have posted, what's happening now is that if you install the OpenGL from your video card vendor, your Windows GUI system will be degraded.
Why they are ACTIVELY going after OpenGL now could have to do with crossplatform games, it could have something to do with the Java3D system which recently decided to drop Direct3D support for only OpenGL on all platforms... Java3D is pretty sweet but still a small target, so SOMETHING is causing MSFT to go after this. Then again, it could be that they've hooked their GUI so deeply into their Direct3D system that it finally gives them the hammer to snuff out crossplatform 3D once and for all. OpenGL has been a thorn in MSFTs side ever since IBM shipped OS/2 2.0 with OpenGL support and Microsoft had to ship NT v1.0(3.1) with it also. Carmack(sp?) saying OpenGL was good and Direct3D sucks, probably didn't help either.
Sounds like yet another reason for those still running Windows to drop it for Linux or Mac. IMHO.
I thought it was already pulled a few weeks ago because they couldn't have it ready in time. Now they are saying they are pulling it because there are hacks against it??? Geesh.
I was referring to corporate policy alright and I did not try to imply that EVERY company/partner is required to NOT use competing technologies. I was trying to show how they DO operate and how that is likely to be a cultural thing in what they allow their employees to work on outside of MSFT. I don't expect MSFT to tell it's "partners" they CAN NOT use competing technologies and then turn around and let their employees do what they want.
And one example( both links are about the same project ) does not indicate policy, especially from Microsoft. They say one thing and do another. They'll show you one thing and release another. They'll sign a license and then say they THOUGHT it ment something else. They'll.... believe me, the list goes on and on. Smart business and marketing people but obviously NOT good technology solution providers. If you believe they are, you've fallen for their snake oil.
I would believe that MSFT would have its employees sign a waiver saying all software they write is owned by MSFT and if not written, there are likely pressures within preventing MSFT employees from working on or supporting any OSS project except the PR stunts like the one you linked. IMO and if you watch the company for 10+ years, you too might see how they are likely to operate.
I would be interested to see how they 'extend' (i.e. break compatibility with) various standards in the coming years.
That's an easy one. With only partial support for the standard and with rhetoric stating that "more complete" suppport is to follow "real soon now". In the meantime, the MS-XXXX extensions/implementations are what their dev tools pump out and must be used instead of the standards based features.
This way, they embed THEIR version in all those pre-installed desktops and developers keep making MSFT specific code which only runs on MSFT specific applications on MSFT specific operating systems.. You get the idea that MSFT are snake oil salesmen?
Or do you think people who go to work at MS sign some kind of agreement that they cannot concurrently be involved in any kind of OSS development?
yes. Even companies who become Microsoft "partners" are not allowed to develop solutions using competing technologies. A former co-worker started his own business in the late 90's supporting hospital systems and he/they became an MS "partner". I was told by insiders that they had to turn down projects using the JAVA language because of contract issues with Microsoft. They also had to layoff ~50% of their employees when the dotcom bust occured even though there would have been enough JAVA work to pick up the slack.
So, I will again say yes to your question. If you said 'people who go to work ON MS software...' then the answer would be no but with exceptions as noted above. Since MSFT does this to "partners", I would think that they would be even more strict about what their employees do.
"Competition"? Then what does that word mean to YOU? It seems that 2 decades of MSFT actions give the impression that Microsoft considers the word "competition" to mean the same as "anti-competition" since MSFT never compatible products. IIRC, competition used to mean building a better, faster, cheaper product so customers CHOOSE your product over the others. It doesn't mean forcing YOUR product down the throats of customers, paying off customers who picked the competition, paying off or threatening OEMs who sell the competitions products, or changing your OS such that you "mistakenly" break the competitions product when run on YOUR operating system...
So what does "Competition" mean to Microsoft and you Mr/Ms FortKnox?
And remember, all things being equal, the practices Microsoft uses are not illegal, and would likely NOT be effective for the company using them. BUT, not all things are equal and Microsoft does have a monopoly in Desktop operating systems and office applications and therefore, these practices ARE ILLEGAL under antitrust laws.
Why does it take Microsoft so long to release middleware/API's supporting standards, many being open with published specs, when customers ask for them? For example, the JDBC driver for MS SQL Server took around 1.5 years to be released and what about CSS2 support? After all, somehow, the OSS developers seem to be able to release such support far more quickly. Please don't say you believe in the "million monkeys with keyboards" rule.
Another question I have for you is how Microsoft determines what a business venture is worth? For instance, the WindowsCE productline has lost 100's of millions per quarter( (~$1billion)/yr ) for about 8 years and only recently is losing in the 10's of millions per quarter. Microsofts total lack of software for the market leading Palm( at the time, 5-8 years ago, >80% marketshare ) platform. The innovative ways you kept breaking compatibility with the Palm Desktop app and sync system showed that you REALLY wanted WindowsCE to be successful but after so many years and almost $10 billion in losses... BTW, shareholders probably want to know the answer to this question too.
Thank you for your time and if you are ever in my town, please feel free to not stop by anytime.
And it is very important that software developers create positive emotional reactions to THEIR software on Windows. Why? Because Microsoft has done too good of a job creating a negative emotional reaction to the operating system itself.
It's such a big hairball now that this is the best they could come up with...:-)
It is pretty funny, but how does this help those 10's of millions who run Windows in admin mode? Did they change the admin user to a lower level or just create a new admin user called adminadmin?;-)
And in 7 or 8 more years they might even have most of todays CSS standards met...
Remember, this is MSFT, and supporting any other organizations standards does NOT help maintain the Microsoft Windows monopoly. Fully supporting someone elses standard is not going to happen. But they will tell you that they "are working on it"( cough, "bullsh!t", cough ).
All you have to do is remember 4 letters, MSFT, an remember that these are the stock market ticker symbols for Microsoft. When ever you see or hear anything from Microsoft, remember that what is shown or said has nothing to do with advancing tech and/or solving your problems. It is all about keeping Microsoft Windows in a monopoly position and maximizing moving money from your pocket into theirs.
They don't have a lab to help make their products work better with Open Source Software. They most likely use that lab to find out how to de-tune the OSS so they can hire someone to do an "research" paper on how MSFT softwart is better, faster, cheaper than that de-tuned OSS stuff people are talking about.
There is no proof that this is anything but Microsofts famous PR and marketing tactics. NONE, ZIP, NADA.
good points and it shows that those sports today are not what they were 20 some-odd years ago. We played more sports than we watched so we knew that it hurt if you ran head-on into someone with or without equipment.
From what I remember, there were still "enforcers" in professional hockey. Boxing was still popular but not too popular as a spectator sport for kids. As I said, we played more sports than watched. Our visual entertainment was TV and that was "Leave it to Beaver", "Gunsmoke" with Dad, "Gilligan's Island". Come to think of it, there was, "The Rat Patrol" and "Combat" but the non-violent shows far outnumberd the violent ones and usually those were watched with the familly( dad ) in the room. The violence today is just way too 'in your face' and there's just too much of it.
A friend is a Big Brother to a kid that only wants to play video games. His social skills are really poor and my friend is having a heck of a time getting the kid out of the house. He's not voilent but he does like shoot'em up games more than others. Just one example but then again, we could have found the corrolary(sp?) back in the old-days too.
To tell you the truth, I'm more concerned with the mental state of todays youth than I am about them trying to mimic a cage fight in the back yard. We really need more happy people than pissed off ones who can't verbalize their needs, desires, or emotions. But I'm not sure passing laws is the best way to do it either....
There have already been enough studies which show that exposure to violence at a young age influences their behavior toward more violence.
But besides that, why do children and young adults need to have violence in their virtual "entertainment"? Atleast with the violence they would be exposed to in sports or backyard/schoolyard play, when someone is hurt, they are VERY aware of the damage inflicted and most likely will even understand how small things scale up. In the virtual world, there is no feedback to "learn" from and there is very little socialization going on...
For an idea of where we are going, had anybody seen the "new" Bugs Bunny? Geesh, he's almost frightening. Then, today, I just saw what is supposed to be the comeback of the Troll Doll. Again, a vicious looking, pissed off looking toy. WHY? Is this what we want our children and adults to be/resemble? Sure they are "just" toys, but developing minds emulate alot of what's around them.
IMO, it's not needed and does far more harm than good when you consider that the violent aspect is not required to sell the toy if it really was a worthy product to begin with.
Wow, sounds like a nice setup but if a basic SunnyBoy goes for around $2k, I'm guessing the unit you're talking about is in the $5k-$10k range. Nice but definately overkill for Panel-only grid tied systems.
except it's not really about "a money-grab", it's about protecting the Windows monopoly.
That says that they look for things that aren't patented and patent them as a money-grab. Contrast that to how patents should be: coming up with a genius idea after years od development and protecting your investment.
This point does apply to Microsoft, they just don't need to invent the idea. They only know how to take ideas from others, kill them off, and put that/those ideas into Windows. They always sell themselves as the innovator/inventor of these ideas, only now, they are now trying to protect them, via patents, like they were their own ideas.
Something has to change or the next "economy" built around MS Windows is not going to be the Windows repair business, it'll be the IP legal business.
Slashdot Mirror
mod the parent up
It's all explained in the last sentence of the article. It says that Microsoft jumped through hoops to help Hilfiger move from Linux.
End of story. Microsoft purchased this IT guy and is using them in their long running, anti-competition, "Get the Facts" lies.
And the Microsoft guy even says that their internal Linux lab is to learn about Linux so they can adjust their customer PERCEPTION and not their product.
LoB
"Who wants to be poplar?" IT management does.
But in OSS there is no Visual Basic for IT managers so they can pretend to be a programmer, or MS Access so they can be a database expert... GNU/Linux is too hard,,, wwwhhaaaaaaa
To tell you the truth, I've seen people who can hardly fumble through on Windows, attempt to try GPL'ed software on Windows and it wasn't pretty. They've setup their department network but if the software doesn't install itself, give them a MS-Wizard, and icons to run it, they are lost.
IMO, Microsoft Windows is very much like McDonalds, only it fattens the mind instead of the body. Microsoft McWindows
I fully agree with what you stated. It fits niches well because it's flexible enough and those filling the niche are going to be somewhat technical enough to solve the problem. Given the right tools, flexible tools, and the know-how to use the tools, far more can be done with GNU/Linux and OSS than MS Windows.
And they are not going away because of that. And the fact that all Microsoft has is the desire to change perception and not the design or business practices it's so familiar with.
LoB
The guy at Tommy Hilfiger who was quoted in the article says at the very end that Microsoft jumped through hoops to make the switch happen. Boy, we've heard this one before. At the very least, these guys didn't leave that part out. It really tells the whole story.
It's all more of Microsofts multi-million dollar marketing campaign against GNU/Linux. Wasn't the Microsoft guy quoted as saying something about changing their customers "perception"????
More smoke and mirrors and WSJ.COM bought it or was bought...
LoB
some might think that was just laziness since they bought and bundled Netscape out of business, but I'm with you, it keeps sites/developers tied to MS Windows.
LoB
yup, and we saw how far Microsoft was willing to go, and pay, to stop that from happening on the desktop.
granted, starting a new JVM everytime just for a small applet was took its toll but for long running applications, startup time isn't as critical. And just as JVM pooling on the server helped performance, solutions on the desktop would have come about if the platform was allowed to grow.
We'll see how far this is "allowed" to go before MSFT dumps a few hundred million bucks to keept it niche or "color" it as a Microsoft Windows-only tool/API...
LoB
you may not want all your apps web-apps but what if they did perform as well as you expect AND you could have them run locally OR remotely fed?
With the right API's on the client, many applications could run just fine as web/intranet apps and when you think about it, AJAX is just leveraging the JavaScript and XML APIs already available under the browser. IBM had been trying to promote what XUL in the Mozilla browswer gave developers too. Now, throw in things like JAVA3D and a scripting language to leverate it, and you can have some pretty amazing clientside experiences. With a nice web application caching system you could get both local and remotely run apps. My guess is that this is something like what IBM is doing with their Workplace application framework. But it's just a guess.
LoB
yes, but you get simplified web deployment for free. And you really wanted a fatter client with a more capable programming env, JAVA applets come to mind.
Oh wait, wasn't JAVA the last crossplatform feature rich client platform MSFT attacked? Look for MSFT to wage another illegal war againt AJAX because it is getting too feature rich for its own good or for the goodness of developers.
LoB
and this is why Microsoft will fight this with as much vigar as they did Java and Netscape. Count on it. Anything promoting/enabling crossplatform applications are a direct attack on Microsofts marketing of MS Windows.
BTW, regarding games, Microsoft is out to degrade OpenGL on the MS Windows desktop too.
LoB
From what others have posted, what's happening now is that if you install the OpenGL from your video card vendor, your Windows GUI system will be degraded.
Why they are ACTIVELY going after OpenGL now could have to do with crossplatform games, it could have something to do with the Java3D system which recently decided to drop Direct3D support for only OpenGL on all platforms... Java3D is pretty sweet but still a small target, so SOMETHING is causing MSFT to go after this. Then again, it could be that they've hooked their GUI so deeply into their Direct3D system that it finally gives them the hammer to snuff out crossplatform 3D once and for all. OpenGL has been a thorn in MSFTs side ever since IBM shipped OS/2 2.0 with OpenGL support and Microsoft had to ship NT v1.0(3.1) with it also. Carmack(sp?) saying OpenGL was good and Direct3D sucks, probably didn't help either.
Sounds like yet another reason for those still running Windows to drop it for Linux or Mac. IMHO.
LoB
I thought it was already pulled a few weeks ago because they couldn't have it ready in time. Now they are saying they are pulling it because there are hacks against it??? Geesh.
Windows who? IMO
LoB
I was referring to corporate policy alright and I did not try to imply that EVERY company/partner is required to NOT use competing technologies. I was trying to show how they DO operate and how that is likely to be a cultural thing in what they allow their employees to work on outside of MSFT. I don't expect MSFT to tell it's "partners" they CAN NOT use competing technologies and then turn around and let their employees do what they want.
And one example( both links are about the same project ) does not indicate policy, especially from Microsoft. They say one thing and do another. They'll show you one thing and release another. They'll sign a license and then say they THOUGHT it ment something else. They'll.... believe me, the list goes on and on. Smart business and marketing people but obviously NOT good technology solution providers. If you believe they are, you've fallen for their snake oil.
I would believe that MSFT would have its employees sign a waiver saying all software they write is owned by MSFT and if not written, there are likely pressures within preventing MSFT employees from working on or supporting any OSS project except the PR stunts like the one you linked. IMO and if you watch the company for 10+ years, you too might see how they are likely to operate.
LoB
I would be interested to see how they 'extend' (i.e. break compatibility with) various standards in the coming years.
That's an easy one. With only partial support for the standard and with rhetoric stating that "more complete" suppport is to follow "real soon now". In the meantime, the MS-XXXX extensions/implementations are what their dev tools pump out and must be used instead of the standards based features.
This way, they embed THEIR version in all those pre-installed desktops and developers keep making MSFT specific code which only runs on MSFT specific applications on MSFT specific operating systems.. You get the idea that MSFT are snake oil salesmen?
LoB
Or do you think people who go to work at MS sign some kind of agreement that they cannot concurrently be involved in any kind of OSS development?
yes. Even companies who become Microsoft "partners" are not allowed to develop solutions using competing technologies. A former co-worker started his own business in the late 90's supporting hospital systems and he/they became an MS "partner". I was told by insiders that they had to turn down projects using the JAVA language because of contract issues with Microsoft. They also had to layoff ~50% of their employees when the dotcom bust occured even though there would have been enough JAVA work to pick up the slack.
So, I will again say yes to your question. If you said 'people who go to work ON MS software...' then the answer would be no but with exceptions as noted above. Since MSFT does this to "partners", I would think that they would be even more strict about what their employees do.
LoB
"Competition"? Then what does that word mean to YOU? It seems that 2 decades of MSFT actions give the impression that Microsoft considers the word "competition" to mean the same as "anti-competition" since MSFT never compatible products. IIRC, competition used to mean building a better, faster, cheaper product so customers CHOOSE your product over the others. It doesn't mean forcing YOUR product down the throats of customers, paying off customers who picked the competition, paying off or threatening OEMs who sell the competitions products, or changing your OS such that you "mistakenly" break the competitions product when run on YOUR operating system...
So what does "Competition" mean to Microsoft and you Mr/Ms FortKnox?
And remember, all things being equal, the practices Microsoft uses are not illegal, and would likely NOT be effective for the company using them. BUT, not all things are equal and Microsoft does have a monopoly in Desktop operating systems and office applications and therefore, these practices ARE ILLEGAL under antitrust laws.
LoB
Dear Mr. Hilf,
Why does it take Microsoft so long to release middleware/API's supporting standards, many being open with published specs, when customers ask for them? For example, the JDBC driver for MS SQL Server took around 1.5 years to be released and what about CSS2 support? After all, somehow, the OSS developers seem to be able to release such support far more quickly. Please don't say you believe in the "million monkeys with keyboards" rule.
Another question I have for you is how Microsoft determines what a business venture is worth? For instance, the WindowsCE productline has lost 100's of millions per quarter( (~$1billion)/yr ) for about 8 years and only recently is losing in the 10's of millions per quarter. Microsofts total lack of software for the market leading Palm( at the time, 5-8 years ago, >80% marketshare ) platform. The innovative ways you kept breaking compatibility with the Palm Desktop app and sync system showed that you REALLY wanted WindowsCE to be successful but after so many years and almost $10 billion in losses... BTW, shareholders probably want to know the answer to this question too.
Thank you for your time and if you are ever in my town, please feel free to not stop by anytime.
LoB
And it is very important that software developers create positive emotional reactions to THEIR software on Windows. Why? Because Microsoft has done too good of a job creating a negative emotional reaction to the operating system itself.
LoB
It's such a big hairball now that this is the best they could come up with... :-)
;-)
It is pretty funny, but how does this help those 10's of millions who run Windows in admin mode? Did they change the admin user to a lower level or just create a new admin user called adminadmin?
LoB
And the backroom agreement to fund them forever as long as MSFT gets database access didn't happen either. ;-)
LoB
And in 7 or 8 more years they might even have most of todays CSS standards met...
Remember, this is MSFT, and supporting any other organizations standards does NOT help maintain the Microsoft Windows monopoly. Fully supporting someone elses standard is not going to happen. But they will tell you that they "are working on it"( cough, "bullsh!t", cough ).
LoB
All you have to do is remember 4 letters, MSFT, an remember that these are the stock market ticker symbols for Microsoft. When ever you see or hear anything from Microsoft, remember that what is shown or said has nothing to do with advancing tech and/or solving your problems. It is all about keeping Microsoft Windows in a monopoly position and maximizing moving money from your pocket into theirs.
They don't have a lab to help make their products work better with Open Source Software. They most likely use that lab to find out how to de-tune the OSS so they can hire someone to do an "research" paper on how MSFT softwart is better, faster, cheaper than that de-tuned OSS stuff people are talking about.
There is no proof that this is anything but Microsofts famous PR and marketing tactics. NONE, ZIP, NADA.
LoB
good points and it shows that those sports today are not what they were 20 some-odd years ago. We played more sports than we watched so we knew that it hurt if you ran head-on into someone with or without equipment.
From what I remember, there were still "enforcers" in professional hockey. Boxing was still popular but not too popular as a spectator sport for kids. As I said, we played more sports than watched. Our visual entertainment was TV and that was "Leave it to Beaver", "Gunsmoke" with Dad, "Gilligan's Island". Come to think of it, there was, "The Rat Patrol" and "Combat" but the non-violent shows far outnumberd the violent ones and usually those were watched with the familly( dad ) in the room. The violence today is just way too 'in your face' and there's just too much of it.
A friend is a Big Brother to a kid that only wants to play video games. His social skills are really poor and my friend is having a heck of a time getting the kid out of the house. He's not voilent but he does like shoot'em up games more than others. Just one example but then again, we could have found the corrolary(sp?) back in the old-days too.
To tell you the truth, I'm more concerned with the mental state of todays youth than I am about them trying to mimic a cage fight in the back yard. We really need more happy people than pissed off ones who can't verbalize their needs, desires, or emotions. But I'm not sure passing laws is the best way to do it either....
LoB
There have already been enough studies which show that exposure to violence at a young age influences their behavior toward more violence.
But besides that, why do children and young adults need to have violence in their virtual "entertainment"? Atleast with the violence they would be exposed to in sports or backyard/schoolyard play, when someone is hurt, they are VERY aware of the damage inflicted and most likely will even understand how small things scale up. In the virtual world, there is no feedback to "learn" from and there is very little socialization going on...
For an idea of where we are going, had anybody seen the "new" Bugs Bunny? Geesh, he's almost frightening. Then, today, I just saw what is supposed to be the comeback of the Troll Doll. Again, a vicious looking, pissed off looking toy. WHY? Is this what we want our children and adults to be/resemble? Sure they are "just" toys, but developing minds emulate alot of what's around them.
IMO, it's not needed and does far more harm than good when you consider that the violent aspect is not required to sell the toy if it really was a worthy product to begin with.
LoB
Wow, sounds like a nice setup but if a basic SunnyBoy goes for around $2k, I'm guessing the unit you're talking about is in the $5k-$10k range. Nice but definately overkill for Panel-only grid tied systems.
LoB
except it's not really about "a money-grab", it's about protecting the Windows monopoly.
That says that they look for things that aren't patented and patent them as a money-grab. Contrast that to how patents should be: coming up with a genius idea after years od development and protecting your investment.
This point does apply to Microsoft, they just don't need to invent the idea. They only know how to take ideas from others, kill them off, and put that/those ideas into Windows. They always sell themselves as the innovator/inventor of these ideas, only now, they are now trying to protect them, via patents, like they were their own ideas.
Something has to change or the next "economy" built around MS Windows is not going to be the Windows repair business, it'll be the IP legal business.
LoB