Larry Qualig wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> > __/ [ Doug Mentohl ] on Saturday 30 December 2006 14:34 \__
> > > "Nearly half of all enterprises will be running mission-critical
> > > business applications on Linux in five years' time"
> > > "Linux operating systems - and open source-based software in general -
> > > have reached critical marketplace mass,"
> > > http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?RSS&NewsID=7681
>
> > How long before Microsoft replaces its army of lawyers with an army of
> > extortionists and the mafia? It is, after all, the Stalin of the 21st
> > century.
We probably won't see acts of physical violence or murder. It's more
like "The Count of Monte Cristo", rather than simply get the revenge of
a sudden, brief act of violence or murder, Dantes studies each of his
perpetrators, finds their weaknesses and vulnerabilities, and then
takes them apart in the way that will cause the createst long term
damage. He tricks the Gandarm into confessing to murder - then sends
him to the Chatou D'if, but gives him an unloaded pistol - the police
officer attempts to kill himself and then finds that he must face a
fate worse than death.
To a CEO, COO, or CIO, the prospect of bankrupting their corporation,
the loss of jobs for hundreds of employees, including many who are
close friends, and possibly even personal bankruptcy - is almost
equally unpleasant.
To a father with children in college, or sick parents in a nursing
home, a sudden stretch of unemployment can be a big motivator.
Microsoft does have the ability to shut down Volume Managed Licenses
when a service contract expires. Losing every PC in your corporation
for 48 hours could be a very effective motivator, especially if it
means lost contracts, lost sales, or lawsuits.
Dead bodies tend to result in too many questions. Death by lawyer can
be a fate worse than death for most of the people Microsoft would be
most determined to influence.
> Seek professional help before it's not too late. You're becoming more
> psychotic by the day.
That is a bit extreme. We have had many discussions in this newsgroup
about the criminal activities of key Microsoft executives. Microsoft
has taken care of them by offering generous settlements in which the
executives in question are granted immunity from prosecution. Not too
much of a stretch to imagine that Microsoft might expand into new
practices.
As for extortionists, it's already happened. Microsoft has already
made public warnings in the press, telling IT managers that they may
think they are licensed when they are not. About 2 months later,
several companies reported that their PCs had stopped working, and
Microsoft made an announcement that the Volume Managed License keys had
expired along with their support contract. It seems that the corporate
customers didn't have their lawyers explain the part that says the VML
replaces any previous license, which meant that these companies had to
either renew their support contract, replace all copies of Windows with
retail versions (new full licenses), or switch to some other operating
system - but their PCs would not function until they did one of these
three options. Of course, without warning, they pretty much had no
choice but to renew their licenses.
Remember about 6 months ago when some extortionist threatened to
unleash a virus that would launch a denial of service attack against a
specific target web site unless the target company paid him $150,000.
The perpetrator was charged with extortion.
The fundamental difference is that the e-mail containing the virus
didn't come with a software licenses agreement. Furthermore, the
targeted company had not accepted a software license. On the other
hand, the Microsoft EULA specifically states that these consequences
are possible.
> <snip> - Nothing but more lies and delusions from Roy Schestowitz who
> is quickly losing his sanity.
It was a bit over the top, but then again, so many of the things
Microsoft has done over the last 25 years are so over the top that it's
almost impossible not to imagine that this is merely the tip of a much
bigger iceberg.
|
|
