Microsoft innovation ..
Doug Mentohl
and Open Source. I think TomToms main crime in the eyes of MS is that
they are making money out of Linux and not paying due royalty licenses
to Redmond. And it's Microsoft who will set the agenda, as is further
illustrated by them crashing ODF events and helping the EU commission in
writing ther Open Source strategy document.
ray
ray
Doug Mentohl
loss, and warned that it could breach its debt covenants. The bottom
line was hit by lower sales in both the U.S. and Europe ..."
http://tinyurl.com/dcsepw
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200902260425DOWJONESDJONLINE000552_FORTUNE5.htm
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Doug Mentohl on Saturday 28 February 2009 15:26 : \____
Microsoft invented the computer and the car. It deserves to be compensated when
either of the two are used. ;-)
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Open Source Othello: http://othellomaster.com
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
17:00:01 up 21 days, 12:18, 2 users, load average: 1.07, 1.23, 1.08
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkmpbl8ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6ySQCgrey+zJN5mF8OiM9NHrDxEfPn
IHUAoJOiXkRac+FSA9FL4/V8+913J5NB
=vEGu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Matt
Here is the court brief:
http://res.sys-con.com/story/feb09/855569/Complaint%20for%20Patent%20Infringement.pdf
The brief lists eight patents allegedly infringed. Here are the first
four patents mentioned:
http://www.google.com/patents?id=_wIGAAAAEBAJ&dq=6,175,789
> Abstract
> A vehicle computer system has a housing sized to be mounted in a vehicle dashboard or other appropriate location. A computer is mounted within the housing and executes an open platform, multi-tasking operating system. The computer runs multiple applications on the operating system, including both vehicle-related applications (e.g., vehicle security application, vehicle diagnostics application, communications application, etc.) and non-vehicle-related applications (e.g., entertainment application, word processing, etc.). The applications may be supplied by the vehicle manufacturer and/or by the vehicle user.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=Xzt4AAAAEBAJ&dq=7,054,745
> Abstract
> A method and system for generating driving directions composes computer-based instructions that emulate a human driving perspective. Language-based instructions guide a driver along a route that encompasses a sequence of roads and intersections. An algorithm applies rules based on human perception to route components. The algorithm diagnoses road name changes so that instructions are clear and concise. The algorithm analyzes road and intersection geometry at confusing areas, such as road forks, roundabouts, ferry crossings, cloverleaf interchanges, and ramps, to generate instructions that conform to a driver's natural perspective. The algorithm analyzes the configuration of an intersection with respect to a driver's field of view to compose a clear and concise instruction. When appropriate, the algorithm produces compound instructions for adjacent intersections
http://www.google.com/patents?id=zb0QAAAAEBAJ&dq=6,704,032
> Abstract
> Improved methods and arrangements provide user interface platforms that are capable of meeting the unique requirements of manufacturers, while also advantageously supporting the development of independently designed software applications. In accordance with certain aspects of the present invention, methods and arrangements are provided whereby certain key events are defined and operatively associated with the hardware suite. These key events, which are essentially virtual events, can be invoked or otherwise implemented by the manufacturers and independent software vendor (ISV) applications. These key events are categorized as being either determinate events or indeterminate events, and their functionality can be based on different behavior models. The behavior models consider the notion that the user interface will most likely include various focusing (e.g., function selection) and/or editing (e.g., parameter modifying) capabilities. As such, the methods and arrangements ca
n...
http://www.google.com/patents?id=K_N6AAAAEBAJ&dq=7,117,286
> Abstract
> In accordance with one aspect, a portable computing device determines a type of an appliance in which the portable computing device is docked. The portable computing device identifies, based on the type of the appliance, a user interface configuration for the portable computing device, and configures the user interface of the portable computing device in accordance with the identified user interface configuration. In accordance with another aspect, a car stereo includes a docking station into which an off-the-shelf handheld computer can be docked. The car stereo also includes an input/output (I/O) component that allows the car stereo to communicate with the handheld computer when the handheld computer is docked in the docking station of the car stereo. In accordance with another aspect, an appliance in which a portable computing device can be docked is an integrated vehicle stereo and portable computing device docking station.
Jerry McBride
> Microsoft innovation - an oxymoron if ever I heard one!
It sure is and it's always good for a laugh.
--
*****************************************************************************
From the desk of:
Jerome D. McBride
15:46:22 up 73 days, 21:54, 5 users, load average: 0.17, 0.11, 0.03
*****************************************************************************
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Jerry McBride on Saturday 28 February 2009 20:46 : \____
> ray wrote:
>
>> Microsoft innovation - an oxymoron if ever I heard one!
>
> It sure is and it's always good for a laugh.
Bill and Steve... which one is the ox and which is the moron?
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Linux + tax = Mac OS = (Windows - functionality)
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Swap: 4088500k total, 417880k used, 3670620k free, 264040k cached
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkmpqUIACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7jNQCfRgyiqCxWPlyu6FU2zIL0hNUl
lqkAnjnMXT8qHDe5QVDvqJ+S1q5NVwiV
=P+c4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
RonB
wrote:
> ray wrote:
>
>> Microsoft innovation - an oxymoron if ever I heard one!
>
> It sure is and it's always good for a laugh.
"Microsoft -- Innovative Imitation."
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ RonB on Saturday 28 February 2009 23:49 : \____
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 14:46:44 -0600, Jerry McBride <jmcb...@mail-on.us>
> wrote:
>
>> ray wrote:
>>
>>> Microsoft innovation - an oxymoron if ever I heard one!
>>
>> It sure is and it's always good for a laugh.
>
> "Microsoft -- Innovative Imitation."
No joke.
Microsoft patent hints at pay-as-you-go OS
,----[ Quote ]
| A Microsoft patent application from June 2005, published only today,
| titled "System and method for delivery of a modular operating system"
| may signal a fundamental change for what an operating systems stands
| for and how it is sold.
`----
http://www.istartedsomething.com.nyud.net:8080/20061215/pay-as-you-go-os-patent/
MS pay-per-use PC patent already rejected
,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft's patent application for a usage-based PC model has already been
| rebuffed by the US Patent Office, according to a letter disclosed today.
| Given to Microsoft a few days before the requested patent became public, the
| notice rejects Microsoft's submission for being at once too broad and too
| familiar. The tendency to use vague terms and the existence of already
| patented, relevant technology are cited as the core reasons behind the
| rejection.
`----
http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/01/02/ms.pay.per.use.pc.rejected/
Intel, Microsoft for Pay-As-You-Go PCs
,----[ Quote ]
| The pay-as-you-go model enabled by FlexGo makes PCs more accessible
| by reducing the initial cost and enabling customers to pay for
| computers through subscriptions or as they use them, through the
| purchase of prepaid activation cards or tokens.
`----
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/060522/20060521005039.html?.v=1
Microsoft to launch new Vista-subscription trials in early 2008
,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft is readying a new Windows-Vista based version of its
| FlexGo hardware-software-services bundle aimed at emerging markets.
`----
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=445
Microsoft tests "pay-as-you-go" software
,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft has been quietly testing a new "pay-as-you-go" software
| rental service in South Africa, Mexico, and Romania. The service
| allows users to pay a monthly fee of around $15 for the use
| of Office 2003.
`----
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070222-8907.html
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Othello for Win32/Linux: http://othellomaster.com
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkmp2PMACgkQU4xAY3RXLo5RZQCfS9UWyptzb3kAV5y0tfbYBl7+
yAYAnjjEI+uQtVmpQg9hKA1JZ1L5qEIB
=GSj8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
amicus_curious
"Matt" <ma...@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote in message
news:0ygql.15976$l71....@newsfe23.iad...
Initial claims are always very broad and can be easily ridiculed. Doubtless
the patent on the first lightbulb, if there was one, patented a "device for
illuminating a selected area" and was plainly superceded by a burning branch
taken from a campfire, but would have eventually gotten to the nitty-gritty
of a hot wire in a vacuum.
MS has patented a number of things, claiming broad coverage that narrows
down to something unique (or not as the case will show). If Tom-Tom has not
infringed on the Microsoft patents, they will win their case and be able to
show how their algorithms, etc., do not infringe. If they cannot do that,
they will buy a license. It would be interesting to see if Garmin and
others already license whatever it is that Microsoft is aserting or whether
this is just an attack on the first target to be used as precedent against
the others if they win. I don't think that this is a direct attack on Linux
itself, but it could be useful to them if it sticks.
High Plains Thumper
It is a sign of Microsoft flexing its monopoly muscles. Here is
an interesting article regarding another opinion. TomTom is a
Dutch company, it will be interesting to see how this plays out
for a non-US company that Microsoft desires to sue.
In the article you pointed out, EU overturned aligning European
patent law to coincide with US and Japan software paten law back
in 2005, per PDF link in the article.
Another article in computerworld.com questions the sensibility of
the lawsuit, even suggests that Microsoft may be attempting to
acquire TomTom, which if occurred is a monopoly abuse, IMHO.
Action that puts TomTom out of business would also be a monopoly
abuse. Perhaps ultimately they are trying to secure/force
Windows CE for embedded products?
http://res.sys-con.com/story/feb09/855569/Complaint%20for%20Patent%20Infringement.pdf
It states, [quote]
http://blogs.computerworld.com/could_microsoft_be_trying_to_acquire_tomtom
[quote]
February 26, 2009 - 6:47 P.M.
Could Microsoft be trying to acquire TomTom?
I've been talking to a lot of smart people about the
Microsoft/TomTom lawsuit. One thing we all pretty much agree on
is that this lawsuit doesn't make a lot of sense.
First, the Linux file system-related patents are, in a word,
'weak.' They may have survived PUBPAT's (Public Patent
Foundation) attempt to knock the FAT (File Allocation Table)
patents out a few years ago, but Microsoft just squeaked by. No
one actually thought that Microsoft would actually try to sue
anyone using those patents. It would have been just asking to be
smashed as one patent-savvy attorney put it to me.
And, that was before the Bilski decision, which smashed the legal
foundations of most business and software patents. So that's
another reason for Microsoft to avoid suing with a weak set of
software patents.
Besides, TomTom is a Dutch company. Does Microsoft really want to
go to a European court with a sad patent case these days? With
the European anti-trust division back on the hunt against them
for bundling Internet Explorer!?
[/quote]
--
HPT
Quando omni flunkus moritati
(If all else fails, play dead)
- "Red" Green
High Plains Thumper
> Doug Mentohl on Saturday:
>
>> This case illustrates perfectly Microsoft's real attitude
>> towards Linux and Open Source. I think TomToms main crime in
>> the eyes of MS is that they are making money out of Linux
>> and not paying due royalty licenses to Redmond. And it's
>> Microsoft who will set the agenda, as is further illustrated
>> by them crashing ODF events and helping the EU commission in
>> writing ther Open Source strategy document.
>
>> http://www.crn.com/retail/215600095
>
> Microsoft invented the computer and the car. It deserves to be
> compensated when either of the two are used. ;-)
It also invented the icon driven GUI accessible by mouse click,
drop down menus and the Internet. :-)
RonB
> Initial claims are always very broad and can be easily ridiculed.
> Doubtless the patent on the first lightbulb, if there was one, patented
> a "device for illuminating a selected area" and was plainly superceded
> by a burning branch taken from a campfire, but would have eventually
> gotten to the nitty-gritty of a hot wire in a vacuum.
Patents weren't originally issued for ideas -- they required working
models. So I doubt there were a series of ideas patented by Edison. I'm
pretty sure he had a single patent for a working light bulb -- not
hundreds for "maybe working lightbulb ideas."
The patent process today have become a joke.
Sinister Midget
>
> ____/ Jerry McBride on Saturday 28 February 2009 20:46 : \____
>
>> ray wrote:
>>
>>> Microsoft innovation - an oxymoron if ever I heard one!
>>
>> It sure is and it's always good for a laugh.
>
> Bill and Steve... which one is the ox and which is the moron?
The question should be: Who are the oxes? Both of those are morons.
--
You are so boring that when I see you my feet go to sleep.
High Plains Thumper
What it looks like is a patent on using an open operating system
like Linux to perform automotive management functions to include
adaptability of prior art to an automobile situation.
It honestly makes me wonder what the USPTO is doing, granting
these open ended type patents, that do not apply to a device
currently under development that is a piece of hardware
controlling a real world function with software as a part of the
hardware.
At least that is what I perceive reading the patent and article.
I think it was wise that the EU by majority voted against
aligning EU patent law with that of US and Japan.
This certainly goes counter to innovation.
--
HPT
High Plains Thumper
> amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> Initial claims are always very broad and can be easily
>> ridiculed. Doubtless the patent on the first lightbulb, if
>> there was one, patented a "device for illuminating a
>> selected area" and was plainly superceded by a burning
>> branch taken from a campfire, but would have eventually
>> gotten to the nitty-gritty of a hot wire in a vacuum.
>
> Patents weren't originally issued for ideas -- they required
> working models. So I doubt there were a series of ideas
> patented by Edison. I'm pretty sure he had a single patent for
> a working light bulb -- not hundreds for "maybe working
> lightbulb ideas."
>
> The patent process today have become a joke.
Agreed. Ideas are academic and ought to remain so. Otherwise,
it winds up being a pre-emptive strike against the one who puts
hard work and effort into a product. It ought to be for the
protection of that hard work and effort.
That EU struck down by a great majority, the proposed change to
EU law aligning it with the practises of US and Japan back in
2005 was wise.
--
HPT
Matt
It looks to me like little more than a threat to sue anybody who tries
to run a Linux client in a vehicle.
If they can patent the use of an "open platform" OS in a car, I don't
see why they couldn't patent the use of Mac OS in a car.
I wonder whether anybody has patented the use of AmigaOS in a bathtub.
> It honestly makes me wonder what the USPTO is doing, granting
> these open ended type patents, that do not apply to a device
> currently under development that is a piece of hardware
> controlling a real world function with software as a part of the
> hardware.
>
> At least that is what I perceive reading the patent and article.
> I think it was wise that the EU by majority voted against
> aligning EU patent law with that of US and Japan.
>
> This certainly goes counter to innovation.
>
US Patent 6,175,789 is headed for the trash can.
Matt
"They" meaning Microsoft, of course.
Microsoft has legitimate control over the use of an "open platform" OS
in a car no more than they do over the use of Mac OS on a flying carpet.
Ezekiel
Call me skeptical but I'll trust the ruling of an informed court over the
opinion of a "legal scholar" like you.
Hadron
Matt reminds me a little of Ian "Project Manager to the Gods"
Hilliard. Incredibly knowledgeable about nothing but never short of an
excuse to espouse his ill thought out nonsense.
High Plains Thumper
It does sound far fetched. Back a few years ago, I did see a few
cars that had a "Microsoft" sound system. Haven't seen it since
so I guess it didn't catch on.
Here is something interesting:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2008/jan08/01-28patents.mspx
[quote]
Microsoft Patent Portfolio Tops IT Industry Scorecards Q&A:
Bart Eppenauer, Microsoft chief patent counsel and associate
general counsel, discusses how and why the company has achieved
the top ranking in two leading industry indexes for patent
portfolio quality.
REDMOND, Wash., Jan. 28, 2008
[...]
Microsoft currently has more than 8,500 issued U.S. patents, with
more than 15,000 more pending. Microsoft’s portfolio continues to
grow at a higher rate than most companies in the top 25 of patent
issuers, and was one of only five in the top 25 to receive more
patents in 2007 than in 2006.
[/quote]
What I find really absurd is what could possibly be worthy of
patenting that would require 23,500 patents for?
It seems to be a means for a legal entrapment minefield, for
years to come. It would not surprise me if some of those may
already have been based on prior art, and it does sound like the
USPTO system has gotten out of hand.
Perhaps the SCO case was to see if Microsoft could patent Unix
and Unix-like "derivatives" like Linux? Perhaps this is what
Ballmer meant when he stated that Linux violates some 229 patents?
Use Linux in a car as a central information systems manager,
publish the results and get sued for it?
Matt
And so you shall.
TomTom would have been risking having to pay triple damages for willful
infringement---if they didn't know the patent was and is invalid.
TomTom won't be backing down. The question is whether MS will fight it
out to the bitter end so as to deter other upstarts---or back down to
avoid PR damage as they did in the Iowa antitrust case. Anyway they
won't be able to use 6,175,789 to block Linux use in vehicles.
Matt
Ha ha.
Hear that from Hadron, who informed everybody repeatedly that anyone who
mentions class-action suits is a loon.
How many hundreds of millions do you think the loons are going to get in
the Vista-Ready class action?
Andrew Halliwell
> Agreed. Ideas are academic and ought to remain so. Otherwise,
> it winds up being a pre-emptive strike against the one who puts
> hard work and effort into a product. It ought to be for the
> protection of that hard work and effort.
>
> That EU struck down by a great majority, the proposed change to
> EU law aligning it with the practises of US and Japan back in
> 2005 was wise.
>
Trying to find ways to weasel it into the books by back doors and other
shennanigans.
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a |
| | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | operating system originally coded for a 4 bit |
| in |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
| Computer Science | can't stand 1 bit of competition. |
Andrew Halliwell
Microsoft was after all responsible for inventing those too.
--
| spi...@freenet.co.uk | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste! |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | I can SMELL!!! KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and |
| in | get out the puncture repair kit!" |
| Computer Science | Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf |
Doug Mentohl
> If Tom-Tom has not infringed on the Microsoft patents, they will win their case and be able to show how their algorithms, etc., do not infringe.
You got that the wrong-way-round, MS has to prove there is a patent
infraction, not the other way round. All Tom-Tom has to show is
prior-art or similar functionality in Open Source. Microsoft's entire
claim would then evaporate.
> If they cannot do that, they will buy a license.
Or stop using the patented software
> I don't think that this is a direct attack on Linux itself, but it could be useful to them if it sticks.
It's an attack on a company using mixed source without paying the
Microsoft tithe. As such it demonstrates the real MS strategy viz-a-viz
Open Source, if we can't defeat it, then at lest get some revenue out of
companies that use it.
Microsoft v Tom-Tom or SCO part 11 ...
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> Doug Mentohl on Saturday:
>>>
>>>> This case illustrates perfectly Microsoft's real
>>>> main crime in the eyes of MS is that they are making
>>>> money out of Linux and not paying due royalty licenses
>>>> to Redmond. And it's Microsoft who will set the agenda,
>>>> as is further illustrated by them crashing ODF events
>>>> and helping the EU commission in writing ther Open
>>>> Source strategy document.
>>>> http://www.crn.com/retail/215600095
>>>
>>> Microsoft invented the computer and the car. It deserves
>>> to be compensated when either of the two are used. ;-)
>>
>> It also invented the icon driven GUI accessible by mouse
>> click, drop down menus and the Internet. :-)
>
> And of course, without roads, the car would be useless...
> Microsoft was after all responsible for inventing those too.
Patent on using open source network for laser guided concrete
asphalt pavers?
High Plains Thumper
> High Plains Thumper wrote:
>
>> Agreed. Ideas are academic and ought to remain so.
>> Otherwise, it winds up being a pre-emptive strike against
>> the one who puts hard work and effort into a product. It
>> ought to be for the protection of that hard work and effort.
>>
>> That EU struck down by a great majority, the proposed change
>> to EU law aligning it with the practises of US and Japan
>> back in 2005 was wise.
>
> The lobbyists are still at it though. Trying to find ways to
I am sure they are, thus reason for the Linux community to keep
vigilant with eyes open.
I gather that according to:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2008/jan08/01-28patents.mspx
[quote] Microsoft currently has more than 8,500 issued U.S.
patents, with more than 15,000 more pending. [/quote]
What could be worth 23,500 patents? If you can't beat 'em, sue 'em?
Ezekiel
How many "hundreds of millions" - right around ZERO... give or take. Read
the news. The courts ruled against the "class action" lawsuit. Individual
computer users can elect to sue MS if they want to but there is no longer a
class action lawsuit. The number of individuals who are going to hire a law
firm and sue MS directly because they think their computer doesn't run fast
enough is going to be negligible if any at all even try to do it.
Matt
I guess I missed it among all the noise from both sides.
Hadron
Yes. One side telling lies and the other side gasping in amazement. It's
a common COLA issue.
Ezekiel
I feel bad that I was the one who had to break the news to you. It must be
a really crappy way to start your Monday morning.
Matt
> amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> If Tom-Tom has not infringed on the Microsoft patents, they will win
>> their case and be able to show how their algorithms, etc., do not
>> infringe.
>
> You got that the wrong-way-round, MS has to prove there is a patent
> infraction, not the other way round. All Tom-Tom has to show is
> prior-art or similar functionality in Open Source. Microsoft's entire
> claim would then evaporate.
Or they could show that the "inventions" in the patents are obvious.
Now who would ever think of putting a computer running a multitasking OS
in a vehicle?
They could show that some or all of the patents do not "promote the
Progress of Science" or "the Useful Arts" and are thus unconstitutional.
Vincent Fritters
> How many "hundreds of millions" - right around ZERO... give or take. Read
> the news. The courts ruled against the "class action" lawsuit. Individual
> computer users can elect to sue MS if they want to but there is no longer a
> class action lawsuit. The number of individuals who are going to hire a law
> firm and sue MS directly because they think their computer doesn't run fast
> enough is going to be negligible if any at all even try to do it.
That is why the laws need to be changed. Suppose for a second you purchased a tennis
racket and it said on the box, legal for all tournement play. Now you take
that tennis racket and enter a competition only to discover that it's
legal only when at some point in time the rule change, which is still being
debated by the tennis association is approved. In other words, the chances
are good that your tennis racket will be legal in a few months or years.
That's the part the tennis racket manufacturer didn't tell you.
Compare that to a computer that was sold as "Vista capable" only the user
learns it is so under powered that the hard drive is constantly swapping
and the system is very slow.
You might be able to return either or both items but what if you are charged
a restocking fee? What chance do you have suing Microsoft or Wilson?
Just about zero.
The best you can hope for is that the retailer will take pity on you.
Microsoft, along with computer manufacturers, mislead the public with
the initial machines that had stickers on them saying "Vista Ready".
You can race a stock VW beetle at LeMans as well.
You probably wouldn't want to though.
I'm not a conspiracy follower but I have to wonder if there was some
partnership going on between hardware manufacturers and Microsoft so
that Microsoft could sell copies of Vista and hardware manufacturers could
unload older, less powerful machines.
--
Vincent Fritters
Farmer Vincent's Smoked Meats.
"Meat's Meat and Man's Gotta Eat"
Hadron
Yes you are.
> partnership going on between hardware manufacturers and Microsoft so
> that Microsoft could sell copies of Vista and hardware manufacturers could
> unload older, less powerful machines.
LOL.
Possibly the worst analogy I have ever, ever read.
I prefer you back in your old name "Vinny".
amicus_curious
> Doug Mentohl wrote:
>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>>> If Tom-Tom has not infringed on the Microsoft patents, they will win
>>> their case and be able to show how their algorithms, etc., do not
>>> infringe.
>>
>> You got that the wrong-way-round, MS has to prove there is a patent
>> infraction, not the other way round. All Tom-Tom has to show is prior-art
>> or similar functionality in Open Source. Microsoft's entire claim would
>> then evaporate.
>
>
> Or they could show that the "inventions" in the patents are obvious.
>
> Now who would ever think of putting a computer running a multitasking OS
> in a vehicle?
>
Doctor Smith
> I'm not a conspiracy follower but I have to wonder if there was some
> partnership going on between hardware manufacturers and Microsoft so
> that Microsoft could sell copies of Vista and hardware manufacturers could
> unload older, less powerful machines.
You sound like an idiot.
Car analogies and Linux don't go well together, especially when they are
botched like you have just done.
You sound a lot like Terry Porter.
amicus_curious
"Vincent Fritters" <Vi...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:goh61p$rfk$5...@news.albasani.net...
>
> I'm not a conspiracy follower but I have to wonder if there was some
> partnership going on between hardware manufacturers and Microsoft so
> that Microsoft could sell copies of Vista and hardware manufacturers could
> unload older, less powerful machines.
>
between MS and others in establishing the rules for "Vista Ready" and the
lowest category was created at OEM request to allow for machines lacking the
hardware capable for the enhance graphics functions and possibly other
functions. It was defined to allow running Vista Home and anyone who read
and understood the terms would not be misled. Of course next to no one
reads anything and they rely on others to tell them what works and what does
not. In the case of Vista Home vs Vista Home Premium, all reviewers were
pretty up front with the comparisons and anyone who really cared was easily
informed as to what was what. There was no conspiracy in the sense that
facts needed to be hidden from view. Everything was out in the open here.
Did OEMs and MS rely on stupid people being misled? I don't believe that
they ever did since the normal belief would be that sales clerks and
advertisements would stress the differences in an effort to up-sell
consumers. Good-Better-Best is the standard way of selling these products
and the video appearance would be the primary differentiator between good
and better in any selling situation. Any one who thinks that they get the
exact same thing for a lot less money because the labels are almost the same
is beyond hope.
Sermo Malifer
> On Mon, 2 Mar 2009 17:46:34 +0000 (UTC), Vincent Fritters wrote:
>
>
>> I'm not a conspiracy follower but I have to wonder if there was some
>> partnership going on between hardware manufacturers and Microsoft so
>> that Microsoft could sell copies of Vista and hardware manufacturers
>> could unload older, less powerful machines.
>
> You sound like an idiot.
No he doesn't. He's right, Intel did ask M$ to help the PC makers unload
their old hardware.
> Car analogies and Linux don't go well together, especially when they are
> botched like you have just done.
I don't see any car analogy up there.
> You sound a lot like Terry Porter.
You sound a lot like Hadron.
Doug Mentohl
> Well there is a lot of documentation that says that there were negotiations between MS and others in establishing the rules for "Vista Ready" and the lowest category was created at OEM request ..
'"Enderle, principal analyst at Enderle Group, exchanged a series of
e-mails on Aug. 29, 2005 with Microsoft executive Barry Goffe, in which
the analyst warned Goffe of Round Rock, Tex.-based Dell's lack of
confidence in Microsoft's SKU plan for Vista and a potential media
firestorm around Vista shortcomings.
Enderle also sent his impressions of an "advisory meeting" Dell
conducted with analysts and journalists directly to Microsoft CEO Steve
Ballmer'
'One of Enderle's main warnings to Goffe concerned Microsoft overplaying
its hand with the Aero Glass hype, potentially disappointing customers
who would wind up buying editions of Windows Vista that wouldn't support
the interface:'
http://www.crn.com/it-channel/212101474
"OEMs weren't united with Microsoft's decision. Dell and HP both raised
concerns about the decision-making process regarding the 915 chip set"
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/corporate/intelmicrosoft_graphicsgate_part_1.html
amicus_curious
"Doug Mentohl" <doug_m...@linuxmail.org> wrote in message
news:goha5r$nb0$1...@news.datemas.de...
Is there some point that you are trying to make?
Ezekiel
"Vincent Fritters" <Vi...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:goh61p$rfk$5...@news.albasani.net...
>> How many "hundreds of millions" - right around ZERO... give or take.
>> Read
>> the news. The courts ruled against the "class action" lawsuit.
>> Individual
>> computer users can elect to sue MS if they want to but there is no
>> longer a
>> class action lawsuit. The number of individuals who are going to hire a
>> law
>> firm and sue MS directly because they think their computer doesn't run
>> fast
>> enough is going to be negligible if any at all even try to do it.
>
> That is why the laws need to be changed.
Because a new nym on COLA says so?
> Suppose for a second you purchased a tennis
> racket and it said on the box, legal for all tournement play. Now you
> take
> that tennis racket and enter a competition only to discover that it's
> legal only when at some point in time the rule change, which is still
> being
> debated by the tennis association is approved. In other words, the
> chances
> are good that your tennis racket will be legal in a few months or years.
> That's the part the tennis racket manufacturer didn't tell you.
Cute but I didn't buy a computer for official tournament play. Most people
who buy tennis racquets use them to play a couple of times a year with
their friends or spouse. They just want a tennis racquet that works.
> Compare that to a computer that was sold as "Vista capable" only the user
> learns it is so under powered that the hard drive is constantly swapping
> and the system is very slow.
So these people didn't try the computer in the store before buying it.
What's the point in having all of those display models?
> You might be able to return either or both items but what if you are
> charged
> a restocking fee? What chance do you have suing Microsoft or Wilson?
> Just about zero.
> The best you can hope for is that the retailer will take pity on you.
Every retailer that I do business with has a money back guarantee. I can't
return my computer a year from now for a refund but they certainly give me
a reasonable amount of time to return a computer if I'm not happy with it.
> Microsoft, along with computer manufacturers, mislead the public with
> the initial machines that had stickers on them saying "Vista Ready".
I doubt there are very many "consumers" who are upset and demanding a
refund. They had plenty of time to realize if they like or don't like the
computer prior-to and after they made their purchase. What I do see here is
a bunch of class-action lawyers trying to convince consumers that they were
mislead so that each consumer gets a $10 software coupon while the lawfirm
makes a few million in cash for itself.
> You can race a stock VW beetle at LeMans as well.
> You probably wouldn't want to though.
Another thing that I wouldn't want to do is make a stupid analogy like
about VW beetles.
> I'm not a conspiracy follower but I have to wonder if there was some
> partnership going on between hardware manufacturers and Microsoft
Substitute class action lawyers into that sentence and you might have a
point.
> that Microsoft could sell copies of Vista and hardware manufacturers
> could unload older, less powerful machines.
Only if consumers bought computers that they weren't allowed to try before
they bought them and if the store didn't allow them to return it.
PS - Nice new nym. Better than the previous half dozen you used.
Vincent Fritters
>
> "Vincent Fritters" <Vi...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
> news:goh61p$rfk$5...@news.albasani.net...
>> On 2009-03-02, Ezekiel <th...@here.com> wrote:
>>> How many "hundreds of millions" - right around ZERO... give or take.
>>> Read
>>> the news. The courts ruled against the "class action" lawsuit.
>>> Individual
>>> computer users can elect to sue MS if they want to but there is no
>>> longer a
>>> class action lawsuit. The number of individuals who are going to hire a
>>> law
>>> firm and sue MS directly because they think their computer doesn't run
>>> fast
>>> enough is going to be negligible if any at all even try to do it.
>>
>> That is why the laws need to be changed.
>
> Because a new nym on COLA says so?
Because it's a flawed system much like the criminal system is biased against
the poor. Those with money are able to manipulate the system and win their cases
far more easily than the little fry.
The system should allow for the little guy to be able to present his case without
being bankrupted by big money even before the trial even starts.
Microsoft doesn't even have to win. Hell they don't even have to go to trial. All
they have to do is delay and delay all the time draining the little fry's resources
until he has to give up.
The system is biased in favor of the rich and the criminal system is just as bad.
Do you think OJ or Robert Blake would have been acquitted if they were poor?
That's why the laws need to be changed.
Ezekiel
"Vincent Fritters" <Vi...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
> On 2009-03-02, Ezekiel <th...@here.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Vincent Fritters" <Vi...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:goh61p$rfk$5...@news.albasani.net...
>>> On 2009-03-02, Ezekiel <th...@here.com> wrote:
>>>> How many "hundreds of millions" - right around ZERO... give or take.
>>>> Read
>>>> the news. The courts ruled against the "class action" lawsuit.
>>>> Individual
>>>> computer users can elect to sue MS if they want to but there is no
>>>> longer a
>>>> class action lawsuit. The number of individuals who are going to hire
>>>> a
>>>> law
>>>> firm and sue MS directly because they think their computer doesn't run
>>>> fast
>>>> enough is going to be negligible if any at all even try to do it.
>>>
>>> That is why the laws need to be changed.
>>
>> Because a new nym on COLA says so?
>
> Because it's a flawed system much like the criminal system is biased
> against
> the poor. Those with money are able to manipulate the system and win
> their cases
> far more easily than the little fry.
Welcome to the real world. This is the way it was thousands of years ago
and this is the way that it will be thousands of years into the future.
There will always be people with money and power and there will always be
people without it. Someone like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Barack Obama
will always be able to get a kidney transplant before the person who's
stocking shelves at Walmart. Out in the jungle the smarter, stronger lion
is going to eat better than the other lion. That's just the way the world
was, is and always will be. It's foolish to think otherwise.
> The system is biased in favor of the rich and the criminal system is just
> as bad.
> Do you think OJ or Robert Blake would have been acquitted if they were
> poor?
The system is always biased in favor of those with money, power and
influence. It's a universal law of nature. In one case "system" may refer
to the legal system but substitue this with any social or ecological system
and you'll have the same results. It was Darwin's 200th birthday a few days
ago. Those more able to benefit from an environment will always flourish
over those who can't.
> That's why the laws need to be changed.
Reality and thousands of years of evolution can not be changed. It's
impossible to come up with a system where "everybody wins" and where
everyone has the same benefits and opportunities as everybody else.
Hadron
> On 2009-03-02, Ezekiel <th...@here.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Vincent Fritters" <Vi...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:goh61p$rfk$5...@news.albasani.net...
>>> On 2009-03-02, Ezekiel <th...@here.com> wrote:
>>>> How many "hundreds of millions" - right around ZERO... give or take.
>>>> Read
>>>> the news. The courts ruled against the "class action" lawsuit.
>>>> Individual
>>>> computer users can elect to sue MS if they want to but there is no
>>>> longer a
>>>> class action lawsuit. The number of individuals who are going to hire a
>>>> law
>>>> firm and sue MS directly because they think their computer doesn't run
>>>> fast
>>>> enough is going to be negligible if any at all even try to do it.
>>>
>>> That is why the laws need to be changed.
>>
>> Because a new nym on COLA says so?
>
> Because it's a flawed system much like the criminal system is biased against
> the poor. Those with money are able to manipulate the system and win their cases
> far more easily than the little fry.
What the fuck are you talking about? Poor people can have LIunx for free
and run it on a "for free" junk pile from 10 years ago.
> The system should allow for the little guy to be able to present his case without
> being bankrupted by big money even before the trial even starts.
You sound more and more like that shallow cretin Phil Da Cryte. Nothing
thought out, just aimless musings based on some sort of lunacy.
> Microsoft doesn't even have to win. Hell they don't even have to go to trial. All
> they have to do is delay and delay all the time draining the little fry's resources
> until he has to give up.
> The system is biased in favor of the rich and the criminal system is just as bad.
> Do you think OJ or Robert Blake would have been acquitted if they were poor?
>
> That's why the laws need to be changed.
You're an idiot.
amicus_curious
"Vincent Fritters" <Vi...@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
news:goh61p$rfk$5...@news.albasani.net...
>> How many "hundreds of millions" - right around ZERO... give or take. Read
>> the news. The courts ruled against the "class action" lawsuit. Individual
>> computer users can elect to sue MS if they want to but there is no longer
>> a
>> class action lawsuit. The number of individuals who are going to hire a
>> law
>> firm and sue MS directly because they think their computer doesn't run
>> fast
>> enough is going to be negligible if any at all even try to do it.
>
> That is why the laws need to be changed. Suppose for a second you
> purchased a tennis
> racket and it said on the box, legal for all tournement play. Now you take
> that tennis racket and enter a competition only to discover that it's
> legal only when at some point in time the rule change, which is still
> being
> debated by the tennis association is approved. In other words, the chances
> are good that your tennis racket will be legal in a few months or years.
> That's the part the tennis racket manufacturer didn't tell you.
>
are not satisfied with its performance? That is what most regular people
do. A new computer that does not function as advertised can go right bact
to the store where you bought it and it will go back. The only people not
returning them are the ones who want to make a fuss over nothing. Remember
the guy who spent several months trying to get a refund on his copy of
Windows that came with a new computer? He was offered a refund several
times in the story but wanted money instead. After a long while, he was
actually paid, but more likely because they just were tired of talking to
him on the phone. He probably made about $1 an hour after all was said and
done.
> Compare that to a computer that was sold as "Vista capable" only the user
> learns it is so under powered that the hard drive is constantly swapping
> and the system is very slow.
>
Take it back. At Costco you have 90 days. At other stores you have up to a
year.
> You might be able to return either or both items but what if you are
> charged
> a restocking fee? What chance do you have suing Microsoft or Wilson?
> Just about zero.
What if the sun rises in the west? It doesn't happen that way. They give
you a credit on your card or cash if you paid that way.
> The best you can hope for is that the retailer will take pity on you.
>
They have a whole section near the door that does nothing but give refunds
for returns. Where do you get this "pity" stuff from?
> Microsoft, along with computer manufacturers, mislead the public with
> the initial machines that had stickers on them saying "Vista Ready".
>
With a description of what that meant, too.
> You can race a stock VW beetle at LeMans as well.
> You probably wouldn't want to though.
>
I don't think that you can do that at all. You have to qualify in a variety
of ways and a VW beetle would never make the grade. I think you have to be
qualified in some way just to try to qualify. These guys are not likely to
be as flaky as the Linux advocates are and would never consider such a
thing.
> I'm not a conspiracy follower but I have to wonder if there was some
> partnership going on between hardware manufacturers and Microsoft so
> that Microsoft could sell copies of Vista and hardware manufacturers could
> unload older, less powerful machines.
>
You are too.
Vincent Fritters
> What the fuck are you talking about? Poor people can have LIunx for free
> and run it on a "for free" junk pile from 10 years ago.
I'm talking about the legal system, Microsoft vs TomTom for example.
>> The system should allow for the little guy to be able to present his case without
>> being bankrupted by big money even before the trial even starts.
>
> You sound more and more like that shallow cretin Phil Da Cryte. Nothing
> thought out, just aimless musings based on some sort of lunacy.
Hopefully you don't get falsely accused or something, sued for infringement
or similar.
What would you do if the RIAA subpeana you because they found pirated software
on your system?
What if the BSA stormed your office and filed suit?
Do you think you have the resources to fight them?
Unless you happen to be an attorney, and a good one, or you find
one willing to work pro bono to make a name for himself, you are in
trouble.
>> Microsoft doesn't even have to win. Hell they don't even have to go to trial. All
>> they have to do is delay and delay all the time draining the little fry's resources
>> until he has to give up.
>> The system is biased in favor of the rich and the criminal system is just as bad.
>> Do you think OJ or Robert Blake would have been acquitted if they were poor?
>>
>> That's why the laws need to be changed.
>
> You're an idiot.
And you are naive.
Why do you think the majority of lawsuits never make it to trial?
Because the reality that one side will crush the other comes into play
and it has little to do with who is legally correct it has to do with
who has the most money.
Hadron
> On 2009-03-02, Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What the fuck are you talking about? Poor people can have LIunx for free
>> and run it on a "for free" junk pile from 10 years ago.
>
> I'm talking about the legal system, Microsoft vs TomTom for example.
>
>>> The system should allow for the little guy to be able to present his case without
>>> being bankrupted by big money even before the trial even starts.
>>
>> You sound more and more like that shallow cretin Phil Da Cryte. Nothing
>> thought out, just aimless musings based on some sort of lunacy.
>
> Hopefully you don't get falsely accused or something, sued for infringement
> or similar.
> What would you do if the RIAA subpeana you because they found pirated software
> on your system?
> What if the BSA stormed your office and filed suit?
> Do you think you have the resources to fight them?
> Unless you happen to be an attorney, and a good one, or you find
> one willing to work pro bono to make a name for himself, you are in
> trouble.
You're mad. Go see a shrink.
Matt
Ha ha, well it was a bit of a let down ... lose the battle but win the war.
Matt
No, but it was important enough for them to list that patent first in
the brief. Apparently some or all of their claims fall away without it.
Maybe this case will let us see some of the 200 mysterious secret
MS-patented elements of Linux. I doubt it. BTW when MS refuses as they
do to list the supposed infringements of Linux, they will have a harder
time proving willful infringement and collecting triple damages.
Doug Mentohl
> Is there some point that you are trying to make?
"the lowest category was created at OEM request .. Everything was out in
the open here .. Did OEMs and MS rely on stupid people being misled?"
In what parallel universe did this happen?
Phil Da Lick!
>>> The system should allow for the little guy to be able to present his case without
>>> being bankrupted by big money even before the trial even starts.
>> You sound more and more like that shallow cretin Phil Da Cryte. Nothing
>> thought out, just aimless musings based on some sort of lunacy.
>
> Hopefully you don't get falsely accused or something, sued for infringement
> or similar.
> What would you do if the RIAA subpeana you because they found pirated software
> on your system?
> What if the BSA stormed your office and filed suit?
> Do you think you have the resources to fight them?
> Unless you happen to be an attorney, and a good one, or you find
> one willing to work pro bono to make a name for himself, you are in
> trouble.
You're wasting your time. Hardon is a big business worshipper with no
sense of what is fair or right for the masses. Corruption is just a rule
of the game for knobfucks like him.
Hadron
And Phil is a lazy, good for nothing free loader and thief who advocates
stealing other peoples work for the good of the common man.
Phil Da Lick!
Prove that statement.
> advocates stealing other peoples work for the good of the common man.
I advocate no such thing, as you'd know quite well if your first grade
teacher had taught you how to read properly.
Hadron
You do it all the time. Saying I don't understand is one thing. But
proving it is another. You constantly harp on about wanting things for
nothing. As you did in this thread when laughing at the idea that the
freeloaders and sponges would otherwise have paid for it.
Be honest and admit it : you download stuff and don't pay for it. Lots
of people do. It doesn't make them right.
Phil Da Lick!
> nothing.
You have proof for these statements, of course? Because if you don't
you're just blowing your usual load off.
> As you did in this thread when laughing at the idea that the
> freeloaders and sponges would otherwise have paid for it.
As *I* did? I suggest you go back and read through the thread. I've made
no mention of freeloaders, spongers or payments in this thread. Or even
the subject in disucssion in this thread. No mention at all, which of
course you'd know if you could comprehend the language in front of you.
> Be honest and admit it : you download stuff and don't pay for it.
Yep. download.com's got some good stuff on it.
> Lots of people do. It doesn't make them right..
Ah. You're accusing me of being a copyright infringer. Without any
evidence whatsoever. Wrong. As usual.
Hadron
Oh, the old "make him work" avoidance tactic. It's as clear on the ever
growing nose on Liarnut's face.
>
>
>> As you did in this thread when laughing at the idea that the
>> freeloaders and sponges would otherwise have paid for it.
>
> As *I* did? I suggest you go back and read through the thread. I've
> made no mention of freeloaders, spongers or payments in this
> thread. Or even the subject in disucssion in this thread. No mention
> at all, which of course you'd know if you could comprehend the
> language in front of you.
You seemed to defend Vincent. 1+1==2 old boy.
>
>
>> Be honest and admit it : you download stuff and don't pay for it.
>
> Yep. download.com's got some good stuff on it.
>
>
>> Lots of people do. It doesn't make them right..
>
> Ah. You're accusing me of being a copyright infringer. Without any
> evidence whatsoever. Wrong. As usual.
Garbage. One only has to read your posts.
Phil Da Lick!
Prove it then dumbass. That'd be a neat trick because I don't infringe
copyrights.
Hadron
Sure you do. All the time. You believe people's research should be made
available for free. 1+1==2. YOu know it. I know it. Anyone who reads
your posts knows it.
Why else were you gloating about the thieves earlier?
amicus_curious
Well, Intel then. So what? The case is closed anyway.
amicus_curious
> amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>> "Matt" <ma...@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote in message
>> news:piSql.11254$Tp5....@newsfe13.iad...
>>> Doug Mentohl wrote:
>>>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If Tom-Tom has not infringed on the Microsoft patents, they will win
>>>>> their case and be able to show how their algorithms, etc., do not
>>>>> infringe.
>>>>
>>>> You got that the wrong-way-round, MS has to prove there is a patent
>>>> infraction, not the other way round. All Tom-Tom has to show is
>>>> prior-art or similar functionality in Open Source. Microsoft's entire
>>>> claim would then evaporate.
>>>
>>>
>>> Or they could show that the "inventions" in the patents are obvious.
>>>
>>> Now who would ever think of putting a computer running a multitasking OS
>>> in a vehicle?
>>>
>> Do you think that is the limit of the patents?
>
>
> No, but it was important enough for them to list that patent first in the
> brief. Apparently some or all of their claims fall away without it.
>
the FAT patents in 6th, 7th, and 8th place.
See it at http://media.techflash.com/documents/tomtomComplaint.pdf
The FOSS world has a fixation with themselves, it appears, assigning their
interests to a much higher prominence than the real world actually
considers. It is like the Dark Ages when the people then thought the earth
to be flat and at the center of the universe, which was rather small too.
> Maybe this case will let us see some of the 200 mysterious secret
> MS-patented elements of Linux. I doubt it. BTW when MS refuses as they
> do to list the supposed infringements of Linux, they will have a harder
> time proving willful infringement and collecting triple damages.
First off, there is nothing to sue about until there is someone of means
obtaining beneficial use from infringing on some Microsoft patented method.
Most PC companies are cross-licensed in general ways with Microsoft due to
conventional practices, so MS could not sue, say, Acer for selling a Linux
netbook. Companies that get specific licenses for products that may use
various Microsoft patents doubtless get a pass, too. Garmin, for example,
licenses some Microsoft patents. Hundreds of other companies do as well.
None of this is particularly public information, nor is it very newsworthy.
Doug Mentohl
> "Doug Mentohl" wrote in message
>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>> Is there some point that you are trying to make?
>> "the lowest category was created at OEM request .. Everything was out in the open here .. Did OEMs and MS rely on stupid people being misled?"
>> In what parallel universe did this happen?
> Well, Intel then. So what? The case is closed anyway.
So what, the OEMs and the customers were lied to, that's so what,
fuddie. And if it don't matter, then why do you continue to lie about it
"the lowest category was created at OEM request to allow for machines
lacking the hardware", amicus funkentroll ...
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/248691/vista-capable-plaintiffs-target-class-action-renewal.html
amicus_curious
>
> So what, the OEMs and the customers were lied to, that's so what, fuddie.
> And if it don't matter, then why do you continue to lie about it
>
very own cites! They may not have been wholely in agreement initially, but
they accepted the final decision. Some were even in favor of it.
Doug Mentohl
> How were the OEMs lied to? The OEMs were deep in discussions based on your very own cites! They may not have been wholely in agreement initially, but they accepted the final decision. Some were even in favor of it.
No, MS reduced the specs to give Intel a leg-up, and lied to the rest of
the OEMs, that's what the court case was/is about. Unless you can
produce contrary statements from OEMs other than Intel, and Microsoft .. :)
chrisv
> Quack snotted:
>>
>> Garbage. One only has to read your posts.
>
>Prove it then dumbass. That'd be a neat trick because I don't infringe
>copyrights.
I see you're letting the Quack asshole pull your strings, again...
Vincent Fritters
He does seem to be a waste of time like that other consistant GUI
person.
He's at the edge of the bin on my system.
amicus_curious
What was the lie told to the OEMs?
Phil Da Lick!
:p
Doug Mentohl
> What was the lie told to the OEMs?
er, they told them to put a sticker on the computers saying "Vista
Capable", and they weren't ...
"if we have a two tier program where lower tier is "Capable", higher
tier is "Ready or Optimized", Rajesh Srinvasan Aug 2005
"Late, changing and conflicting messaging and program details,
especially the late requirement to include written messaging on/in the
box .. Totally inadequate amount of time to plan and execute"
"In the end, we lowered the requirement to help Intel make their
quarterly earnings so they could continue to sell motherboards with 915
graphics embedded", John Kalkman Feb 2006
"Is it true that Vista Ready doesn't necessarly mean Aero capable? I got
a Dell Lattitude that is Vissa Ready but doesn't have enough graphics
h/w", Sinofsky July 2006
"I was in bestbuy listening to people and can tell you this one did not
come clear to customers. We set ourselves up", Sinofsky Aug 2006
"I personally got burned by the Intel 915 chipset issue on a laptop that
I PERSONALLY (eg with my own $$$). Are we seeing this from a lot of
customers? I know that I chose my laptop (a sony TX770P) because it had
the vista logo and was pretty disappointed that it not only wouldn't run
Glass, but more importantly wouldn't run Movie Maker(I guess that is
being addressed). I now have a $2100 email machine", Mike Nash Feb 2007
"I upgraded one of the two machines I use a lot to Vista. The most
persistent and so far hardest to fix issues are both with MSN products,
Portfolio in MSN Money and Music(downloads that I had bought in the
past)", Jon Shirley (to: Steve Ballmer), Feb 2007
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/library/vistaexhibitsone.pdf
--
'One of Enderle's main warnings to Goffe concerned Microsoft overplaying
its hand with the Aero Glass hype"
"OEMs weren't united with Microsoft's decision. Dell and HP both raised
concerns about the decision-making process regarding the 915 chip set"
amicus_curious
> amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> What was the lie told to the OEMs?
>
> er, they told them to put a sticker on the computers saying "Vista
> Capable", and they weren't ...
>
things and even argued about them with Microsoft and Intel. That is hardly
a "lie". You might say it ultimately was coercion, but it was really not
much more than a difference of opinion. In any case it is all water under
the bridge and of no matter to anyone anymore.
Doug Mentohl
> From your cites ..
Show where the OEMs were aware the 'Vista Capable' didn't really mean
Vista Capable. And lying and coercion only don't matter to you are you
are congenitally immune to ethics.
"In the end, we lowered the requirement to help Intel"
'Vista Capable' plaintiffs try to resurrect class-action status ..'
chrisv
> Rat wrote:
>
>> From your cites ..
>
>Show where the OEMs were aware the 'Vista Capable' didn't really mean
>Vista Capable. And lying and coercion only don't matter to you are you
>are congenitally immune to ethics.
"Nevermind if the game is fair or not, it is the winning and the
losing that matters, eh?" - Rat
amicus_curious
> amicus_fudrious wrote:
>
>> From your cites ..
>
> Show where the OEMs were aware the 'Vista Capable' didn't really mean
> Vista Capable. And lying and coercion only don't matter to you are you are
> congenitally immune to ethics.
>
> "In the end, we lowered the requirement to help Intel"
>
attributes that statement to one John Kalkman as "an unidentified Microsoft
source", but Intel themselves say:
"Today, Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy told me that "John Kalkman has no idea
what internal Intel financial or forecasts might be for chip sets,
motherboards or any other products. The statement would be entirely
speculation on his part." "
So John was just bullshitting here and had no firm knowledge of anything it
would seem. Furthermore, the same article that you cited clearly states:
"OEMs weren't united with Microsoft's decision. Dell and HP both raised
concerns about the decision-making process regarding the 915 chip set. "
If the OEMs are raising concerns in the middle of the process, they are
hardly in the dark about it and so are aware of the circumstances and so are
not being lied to. They put the logo on their machines, not Microsoft.
Microsoft merely allowed them to do it with the clear understanding that
"Computers equipped with this chip set were and are capable of being
upgraded to Windows Vista Home Basic." No lies were told by Microsoft to
the OEMs.
> 'Vista Capable' plaintiffs try to resurrect class-action status ..'
>
> http://www.techflash.com/microsoft/Plaintiffs_try_to_resurrect_Vista_Capable_class_action_40404262.html
Do you think they will have any luck?
Doug Mentohl
>> "In the end, we lowered the requirement to help Intel"
> .. Your own cite attributes that statement to one John Kalkman as "an unidentified Microsoft source", but Intel themselves say:
"In the end, we lowered the requirement to help Intel make their
quarterly earnings so they could continue to sell motherboards with the
915 graphics embedded,"
Microsoft's John Kalkman wrote in a February 2007 e-mail to Scott Di Valerio
Phil Da Lick!
No proof offered. Noted.
> Why else were you gloating about the thieves earlier?
I wasn't. You're imagining things again.
Hadron
What kind of proof? You're not playing the "demand a link" game are you?
You know it will all end in tears. Anyone who has read your posts knows
your views. And I have no interest in educating anyone who hasn't.
>
>
>> Why else were you gloating about the thieves earlier?
>
> I wasn't. You're imagining things again.
Yes. Yes you were.
You found it hilarious that anyone would expect the thieves to have paid
for it had they not stolen it.
Peter Köhlmann
> "Phil Da Lick!" <phil_t...@REMOVETHISSPAMTRAP.hotmail.com> writes:
< snip >
>>>>> Garbage. One only has to read your posts.
>>>> Prove it then dumbass. That'd be a neat trick because I don't
>>>> infringe copyrights.
>>>
>>> Sure you do. All the time. You believe people's research should be
>>> made available for free. 1+1==2. YOu know it. I know it. Anyone who
>>> reads your posts knows it.
>>
>> No proof offered. Noted.
>
> What kind of proof? You're not playing the "demand a link" game are you?
Well, that cetainly would do the trick. You know, the one trick where you
could prove that /this/ time you are not lying, as you usually do
> You know it will all end in tears. Anyone who has read your posts knows
> your views. And I have no interest in educating anyone who hasn't.
>
Again at your "I could provide links" trick, Hadron Snot Quark?
>>
>>> Why else were you gloating about the thieves earlier?
>>
>> I wasn't. You're imagining things again.
>
> Yes. Yes you were.
Good. Should be easy for you to prove then
> You found it hilarious that anyone would expect the thieves to have paid
> for it had they not stolen it.
Another fine "true linux advocacy post" from the
"true linux advocate", "kernel hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert",
"X specialist", "CUPS guru", "USB-disk server admin", "defragger
professional", "newsreader magician", "hardware maven", "time
coordinator", "email sage", "tripwire wizard", "Pulseaudio rockstar" and
"OSS culling committee chairman" Hadron Quark, aka Hans Schneider, aka
Richard, aka Damian O'Leary, aka Steve Townsend, aka Ubuntu King
--
"Last I checked, it wasn't the power cord for the Clue Generator that
was sticking up your ass." - John Novak, rasfwrj
Phil Da Lick!
You made an accusation and can't back it up with anything other than
"because I say so". Noted.
>>> Why else were you gloating about the thieves earlier?
>> I wasn't. You're imagining things again.
>
> Yes. Yes you were.
>
> You found it hilarious that anyone would expect the thieves to have paid
> for it had they not stolen it.
Yes. That is hilarious. Anyone that believes that *every* illegal
download stopped will result in a sale is clearly nuts. There's a clear
reason this statement resulted in laughter in the court.
And that is not a comment about the rights and wrongs of illegal
downloading.
Ezekiel
"Phil Da Lick!" <phil_t...@REMOVETHISSPAMTRAP.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:GZWdnfqhf7sUpyzU...@posted.plusnet...
> You made an accusation and can't back it up with anything other than
> "because I say so". Noted.
You mean like the Kohlmann freetard who claims to have "evidence" that I'm
Scott Nudds but can't back it up with anything other than "because I say
so."
Sermo Malifer
In the case where you accuse someone of infringing copyrights, you certainly
do have an obligation to provide proof of it.
> You know it will all end in tears. Anyone who has read your posts knows
> your views. And I have no interest in educating anyone who hasn't.
IOW, you're just lying through your teeth again.
>>
>>
>>> Why else were you gloating about the thieves earlier?
>>
>> I wasn't. You're imagining things again.
>
> Yes. Yes you were.
Then prove your claims.
> You found it hilarious that anyone would expect the thieves to have paid
> for it had they not stolen it.
I find it hilarious you think anybody believes anything you post based on
your own say-so.
Doctor Smith
We are still waiting for you to prove that you objected to Dooogie's 25
year old (approximate) data, spermo.
Doctor Smith
Kohlmann is an idiot.
Sermo Malifer
I hope whoever you're addressing won't make you wait too long.
Doctor Smith
I never wait for Freetards to do anything, Roy Culley.
Sermo Malifer
IOW, you're saying two wrongs make a right?
Or are you just saying Hadron is as bad as you're trying to make Peter
appear?
Why did you snip out any reference that showed Hadron could not support his
claims? Because you're just as dishonest as he is?
Sermo Malifer
Does that mean you're going to prove I'm Roy Culley?
Matt
>
> "Matt" <ma...@themattfella.xxxyyz.com> wrote in message
> news:piSql.11254$Tp5....@newsfe13.iad...
>> Doug Mentohl wrote:
>>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>>
>>>> If Tom-Tom has not infringed on the Microsoft patents, they will win
>>>> their case and be able to show how their algorithms, etc., do not
>>>> infringe.
>>>
>>> You got that the wrong-way-round, MS has to prove there is a patent
>>> infraction, not the other way round. All Tom-Tom has to show is
>>> prior-art or similar functionality in Open Source. Microsoft's entire
>>> claim would then evaporate.
>>
>>
>> Or they could show that the "inventions" in the patents are obvious.
>>
>> Now who would ever think of putting a computer running a multitasking
>> OS in a vehicle?
>>
> Do you think that is the limit of the patents?
No, but it was important enough for them to list that patent first in
the brief. Apparently some or all of their claims fall away without it.
Maybe this case will let us see some of the 200 mysterious secret
patented elements of Linux. I doubt it. BTW when MS refuses to list
the infringements of Linux, they will have a harder time proving willful
infringement and collecting triple damages.