-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
____/ Homer on Sunday 20 July 2008 00:20 : \____
> Verily I say unto thee, that Phil Da Lick! spake thusly:
>> amicus_curious wrote:
>
>>> Why it is simple logic, Phil! That dipshit only posts stuff
>>> negative about Microsoft and so the only possible implication is
>>> that Microsoft is guilty of another imagined sin against the
>>> "little guy". Ergo, the plaintiff is right and Microsoft is wrong.
>>> Fortunately, you bozos are as ineffective as can be and so there
>>> is never much damage done that a little price increase can't fix.
>>> Sweet!
>>
>> So flattie joined the dots for him, and put words in his mouth. Glad
>> we cleared that up.
>
> Yes, I don't see anything in the OP that suggest Roy supports software
> patent litigation, no matter who the victim is (in this case Microsoft).
>
> Personally I despise patents and all other forms of Intellectual
> Monopoly, so I certainly do not support the plaintiff. But then for
> reasons unrelated to this case I also despise Microsoft, especially
> since they happen (quite ironically) to be at the forefront of spreading
> the disease of Intellectual Monopoly, so they don't exactly have my
> sympathy in this case either.
>
> I do find it interesting though, that people like amicus_unscrupulous
> don't actually come out in defence of Microsoft against these "IP"
> attacks, despite their precious company being the victim of the utterly
> broken patent system. Where's the outrage at software patents? Where's
> the cries of "Gotuit are patent Trolls, damn them"? No, they'd rather
> attack Roy than say anything that attacks the underlying politics that
> supports the corporate fascism of Intellectual Monopolies, since that
> would also attack the very principles of they company they support (or
> more likely, work for).
>
> Then there's the fact that this case is actually about a product that
> poses somewhat of an "IP" threat to GNU/Linux:
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080528133529454
>
> So if Microsoft lose this case, and Sliverlight (and subsequently
> Moonlight) are abandoned as a result, then it could be a significant win
> for those who wish to keep Microsoft's Poisonware out of GNU/Linux (like
> me). I'm sure de Icaza and fans would be absolutely devastated though.
>
> Another issue is that Silverlight is yet another of Microsoft's embrace;
> extend; extinguish tactics designed to make the Web proprietary
> Microsoft territory (a la ActiveX and other non-standards). If
> Silverlight were to expire at this point, it would save the world from
> further years of Microsoft-only "features" designed to kill competing
> platforms like GNU/Linux.
>
> Hopefully that connects the remaining dots for our dimwitted friend
> amicus_unscrupulous, and explains why any bad news about Silverlight, or
> Microsoft themselves for that matter, is always good news.
The European Commission has yet to deal Microsoft a blow over XAML, as well.
And they are not patent trolls. They are concerned regulators that see
Microsoft's bad intentions.
There are 3 other antitrust probes against Microsoft at the moment, IIRC (in
the EU alone, but there are more elsewhere).
I'm sure the Man in the Sweater is very 'busy' behind the scenes these days.
Microsoft also hired 'lobbyists' to influence Europe's outcome. That was
recently.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Run a Linux server, sit on your hands all day
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkiCxQYACgkQU4xAY3RXLo4rBQCgof2sIIGlduL01rIVx25v19Ll
fpMAn23zOL7ug8dh1zzWE1wMbcUyjTig
=M1mw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
