So anyway, it was like, 03:42 CET Dec 03 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
Homer was all like, "Dude,
> Verily I say unto thee, that Johan Lindquist spake thusly:
>> I guess I'm just not seeing how it's illegal, that's all.
>
> Misleading advertising is a crime under:
>
> . The Control of Misleading Advertisements Regulations 1988 (UK)
> . The European Council Directive 84/450/EEC
> . Section 5 of the FTC Act (US)
>
> Claiming that a vendor "recommends" a product, when in fact they'vr
> been bribed to fake that recommendation, is misleading advertising.
All those TV celebs who promote products (in return for money) will
need to be appraised of this then, I take it, so they won't be sued
along with MS when the revolution comes.
> How many people do you suppose are motivated to buy a Vista PC
> instead of an XP one, or Windows (in general) instead of Linux or
> Mac, because a vendor (who also sells Linux and/or Mac products)
> claims to "recommend" whatever the Vole bribes them to?
You keep using that word, "bribe". I do not think it means what you
think it means.
> Those people have been misled.
Sure, advertising is almost always misleading. It's the whole point of
the trade, as I understand it, because most products wouldn't survive
an objective comparison to their competitors, and also why consumers
need to be more critical of what the commercials claim.
> An /honest/ slogan would read "Microsoft pays us to claim that we
> recommend [x]", but then that wouldn't have quite the deceptive
> effect the Vole hopes for, would it?
>
> But a more important point is that this is the first time this
> underhand practice has been exposed as deception with hard evidence.
> Up to now it's just been speculation ... now there's poof.
Seems to me you're overstating the whole scoop alittle.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
09:24:06 up 40 days, 22:12, 2 users, load average: 0.23, 0.17, 0.10
Linux 2.6.27.2 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729
|
|
