I am afraid that the RIAA-Microsoft analogy does not hold without
qualifications.
RIAA's products are actually stolen by people who do not own them. One may
find their tactics distasteful (like suing grandmothers etc.), but they
have an actual right to be paid for the music that is stolen.
Microsoft, on the other hand, is here asking to be paid by people who are
NOT its customers, who use code that Microsoft did not write, and who, if
their choices are any indication, wish to have nothing to do with Microsoft
or its products, as much as possible.
There would be a parallel if Microsoft were (quite justifiably) suing people
who use say Microsoft Office, without purchasing a license. What Microsoft
is attempting here is to sue people who use OpenOffice.org, hoping to force
them to pay Microsoft for the privilege of using programs not produced by
Microsoft.
Please do not edify Microsoft's actions by comparing them to a comparatively
far more ethical organization such as RIAA.
|
|
