Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] Microsoft Corrputs the Word "Genuine" to Gain Sympathy

On or about 2006-09-17 Sunday 20:07, I did witness the following events
concerning Erik Funkenbusch:

> On Sun, 17 Sep 2006 09:21:39 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> 
>> Microsoft Redefines "Genuine"
>> 
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| An unlicensed copy of Microsoft Windows is perfectly genuine. It has
>>| exactly the same functionality as a licensed copy and was made by the
>>| same company... I suspect that Microsoft is attempting to redefine
>>| "genuine" because it has had a hard time getting sympathy for its
>>| actual complaint, namely unlicensed distribution.
> 
> When they refer to Genuine, they're talking about a genuine license, not a
> genuine "copy", though it might also be a counterfeit copy as well.
> 
> Counterfeits may look and work exactly as the original, that doesn't mean
> they're genuine.  Even if it's bit for bit copy, the media wasn't produced
> by the company, therefore claiming it was "made by the company" is also a
> bit disingenuous.
> 
> Let's take a counterfeit Rolex watch.  It looks, and acts just like a real
> Rolex, but it's not genuine.  So how is this "corrupting" the use of the
> word?
> 
>> http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003575.html
>> 
>> It previously corrupted the term "Release Candidate" to suit its
>> conveniences (an illusion that progress is being made).
>> 
>> Analysts: Microsoft Changes Meaning Of 'Release Candidate'
> 
> Microsoft hasn't changed their meaning of release candidate since they
> first started using it many years ago.  It still means today what it did
> then, feature complete, frozen except for critical bugs.
> 
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| Two industry watchers say Microsoft is corrupting the term, leading to
>>| major confusion among customers and others about whether the operating
>>| system is truly ready to evaluate.
>>| 
>>| Two analysts Thursday accused Microsoft Corp. of changing the meaning
>>| of "release candidate" by pushing out a version of Windows Vista that
>>| still needs major work.
> 
> Microsoft has always used RC1 as a wakeup call to beta testers.  It tells
> them "report your bugs now, or the product may ship with your bug
> unfixed". Many people sit on their bugs thinking someone else must have
> already report it.
> 
>>| Joe Wilcox, an analyst with JupiterResearch, said that Microsoft's
>>| corrupted the term.
>> `----
>> 
>>
http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=192700055&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_News
> 
> Anyone that says this has not been beta testing very long.  I've been
> through this for the last 15 years, and RC1 has never been expected to be
> ready to ship, ever.
> 
> So this "they've changed the meaning" is bullshit.

On the Rolex thing: they've sued counterfeiters for using the "Rolex" name,
not for the fact that they've produced timepieces that look casually like
the real thing but often of far inferior quality. An exception to this
would be, say, Nikki (deliberate typo) football shirts. Made in China, they
use cheap materials and cheap labour, yet they band them out at Â60 a pop.
Counterfeiters in the UK will often use Fruit Of The Loom blanks and print
logos etc on them, and still bang them out at half the price. It's called
trademark dilution both ways.

The analogy doesn't work for Windows, because there's no way I can see that
one could make say, a Linux or BSD installation behave /exactly/ like a
Windows box, to the inclusion of Windows' faults, features and
compatibilities (or lack thereof) and the exclusion of its own. If
it /were/ possible, then Microsoft would have a case if you then
distributed a Linux build, Windows-alike system using the "Microsoft
Windows XP Service With Service Pack 2" label and the associated
logos. /That's/ trademark dilution, which is what Microsoft's real
complaint is.

Except, they don't have a complaint, because all that is happening is a case
of copyright infringement and they're making it out to be far more serious
than that. 

Take the wordings of their campaigns and on-system notices: "This copy of
Windows is *not* *genuine*." (emphasis mine) "Stealing is
wrong." (Stealing?? Last time I looked at the dictionary definition of that
word, it meant (in so many words) to take something without permission or
consent hence depriving the rightful owner of that thing, of said article.
Stealing is removal of a CD album from HMV, or a snack cake from the
grocer's. No deprivation is occurring /here/, except a few high digits on
Microsoft's bottom line. I say: instead of bitching and calling every
legitimate user a thief and repeatedly demanding they prove otherwise,
change your business model to something more conducive to encouraging
honest and honourable behaviour on both sides, like for example the
two-step program outlined in the next sentence. 1. Improve the system to
the point where it is secure and stable (eyecandy is the LEAST important
thing to be considering. *I* own my data and I intend to keep it that way!)
and 2. lower the price. On the second point, it has been proven time and
again that people /will/ pay for quality (otherwise the commercial Linux
vendors would be out of business), yet still will they invariably buy from
a cheaper source if that source offers the /same exact thing/ (ie an OS)
for an order of magnitude /less/ than you're foisting it out for). Example:
Microsoft Windows XP Pro Retail goes for Â199. boxed and with a flimsy
manual. Go to any market in China and you can pick up a copy of the /same
operating system/ with the /same features/ and the /exact same installation
and configuration procedures/ for the equivalent of Â5. It's the /same
thing/. How is it counterfeit?
</rant></preach_to_choir></conscious_thought>
-- 
I hereby testify that the above statement is an accurate recollection of the
events mentioned therein.
http://dotware.co.uk
Registered Linux user #426308 -*- http://counter.li.org

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index