Re: Why Dimdows Is Dim. And What Can Be Done About It.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
coupled with a marketing refocus and a complete change to the corporate
culture, a replacement of the current top management, and a greater embrace
of interoperability at the code and data level, possibly combined with a
complete company rebranding, couldn’t fix.
Big Steel
You are nobody, so of course, noting you say means nothing you
cross-posting troll.
amicus_curious
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
news:in6i01$1jd$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
Perhaps Microsoft has not been as successful as your own companies, Larry,
but that is no reason to demean the success that they have had themselves
and continue to have. If the people running Microsoft were as smart as you,
then they, too, could be as successful, but someone has to lose!
Chump!
voodoo
that is right. there is no reason to demean the success of paying poor
african darkie countries to join iso to vote in the ooxml standard. that
was just good solid innovative marketing that any company, say google,
would do. if only they had the smart cookies at the top to think of it.
> Chump!
amicus_curious
"voodoo" <voo...@tootycar.net> wrote in message
news:4d9743fa$0$11308$c3e8da3$cc4f...@news.astraweb.com...
>
> that is right. there is no reason to demean the success of paying poor
> african darkie countries to join iso to vote in the ooxml standard. that
> was just good solid innovative marketing that any company, say google,
> would do. if only they had the smart cookies at the top to think of it.
>
You are not being very clear here, voodoo. Are you just ranting with no
purpose? The sense of it all is that you seem to be saying that Microsoft
was unethical in lobbying for their standard to be adopted in addition to
others. But did you mean to imply is that "african darkie countries" should
have no say in the matter? Or are you saying that any attempt to persuade
others to accept your point of view is somehow unethical? Or is it only
unethical if that point of view differs from your own? Try to be a little
more specific in the future!
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
amicus_curious wrote:
> Perhaps Microsoft has not been as successful as your own companies, Larry,
> but that is no reason to demean the success that they have had themselves
> and continue to have.
Who says I’m demeaning it? They had their time of growth and dominance, back
in the 1990s. The 2000s have really been a time of dominance with
stagnation.
And now the only way left for Microsoft is down.
flatfish+++
> And now the only way left for Microsoft is down.
That's pretty much true with companies that are at the pinnacle of their
industry.
IOW on top.
Now desktop Linux is at the bottom and when you are at the bottom you
know you are going to lose, so why not lose big?
That's the Linux mantra!
P.S. Are you really this ignorant Olive Oil?
Or are you trying to out troll the trolls?
--
flatfish+++
Please visit our hall of Linux idiots.
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
Desktop Linux: The Dream Is Dead
"By the time Microsoft released the Windows 7 beta
in January 2009, Linux had clearly lost its chance at desktop glory."
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/207999/desktop_linux_the_dream_is_dead.html
Big Steel
You'll be dust in your grave. So why worry about it?
amicus_curious
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
news:in8f8j$56l$6...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> In message <4d972908$0$2966$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com>,
> amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> Perhaps Microsoft has not been as successful as your own companies,
>> Larry,
>> but that is no reason to demean the success that they have had themselves
>> and continue to have.
>
> Who says I’m demeaning it? They had their time of growth and dominance,
> back
> in the 1990s. The 2000s have really been a time of dominance with
> stagnation.
>
Are all the FOSS people as inept as yourself, Larry? It would be a terrible
thing if they were! No hope at all, eh? LOL!
Microsoft has tripled their revenues during this "time of dominance with
stagnation" that you so cleverly try to construct. Starting at a $20B
level, too. No other company on the planet has had that amount of growth,
i.e. $44B, over that same time frame. It is a shame that you cannot
reconcile the success that Microsoft has had and continues to have with your
emotions. See a doctor. Soon.
Ezekiel
>
>"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" wrote in message
>news:in8f8j$56l$6...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
>In message <4d972908$0$2966$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com>,
>amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> Perhaps Microsoft has not been as successful as your own companies,
>> Larry,
>> but that is no reason to demean the success that they have had themselves
>> and continue to have.
>
>Who says I’m demeaning it? They had their time of growth and dominance,
>back
>in the 1990s. The 2000s have really been a time of dominance with
>stagnation.
>
Poor Larry, you really are a clueless fool aren't you. Try posting actual
facts for once and not the nonsense that rolls around in your empty head.
This stagnation in the 2000's only exists in your little head because the
facts simply don't backup your claims.
*Revenue*
2003 - $32.1B
2004 - $36.8B
2005 - $39.8B
2006 - $44.3B
2007 - $51.1B
2008 - $60.4B
2009 - $58.4B
2010 - $62.5B
Since 2003 revenue has nearly doubled. So you're proven to be wrong and
clueless once again.
*Profit*
2003 - $7.5B
2004 - $8.2B
2005 - $12.3B
2006 - $12.6B
2007 - $14.1B
2008 - $17.7B
2009 - $14.6B
2010 - $18.8B
Since 2003 profit has *more* than doubled. So once again you are wrong and
clueless.,
This "stagnation" that you made up allows Microsoft to make a *profit* (as
in *profit* after all bills and expenses are paid) of over $2 million/hour.
That's $600 in profit every second of every minute of every hour, 24 hours
a day and 7 days a week.
voodoo
> "voodoo" <voo...@tootycar.net> wrote in message
> news:4d9743fa$0$11308$c3e8da3$cc4f...@news.astraweb.com...
>
>
>> that is right. there is no reason to demean the success of paying poor
>> african darkie countries to join iso to vote in the ooxml standard.
>> that was just good solid innovative marketing that any company, say
>> google, would do. if only they had the smart cookies at the top to
>> think of it.
>>
> You are not being very clear here, voodoo. Are you just ranting with no
> purpose?
what? i am agreeing with you. that does not happen very often for you in
this forum so your confusion is understandable. microsoft is successful.
buying the iso votes of poor african countries is not a reason to demean
that success.
> The sense of it all is that you seem to be saying that
> Microsoft was unethical in lobbying for their standard to be adopted in
> addition to others.
there is lobbying and then there is lobbying.
> But did you mean to imply is that "african darkie
> countries" should have no say in the matter?
not at all. they have every right to sell their iso vote to the highest
bidder.
> Or are you saying that any
> attempt to persuade others to accept your point of view is somehow
> unethical?
not at all. microsoft has every right to put their bid in. they were the
high bidder. in fact, weren't they were the only bidder? how much do you
figure they paid? what form was the payment in? windows vouchers won't
mean much in places where software piracy is widespread. did these
countries stay off that list of top ip pirate countries that came out
recently?
> Or is it only unethical if that point of view differs from
> your own? Try to be a little more specific in the future!
is buying the iso votes of a few countries unethical? no crime was
involved, no laws broken. the whole episode was just good old fashioned
innovative marketing. just like i said earlier.
amicus_curious
"voodoo" <voo...@tootycar.net> wrote in message
news:4d98b5e6$0$15326$c3e8da3$4605...@news.astraweb.com...
> On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 12:44:33 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> "voodoo" <voo...@tootycar.net> wrote in message
>> news:4d9743fa$0$11308$c3e8da3$cc4f...@news.astraweb.com...
>>
>>
>>> that is right. there is no reason to demean the success of paying poor
>>> african darkie countries to join iso to vote in the ooxml standard.
>>> that was just good solid innovative marketing that any company, say
>>> google, would do. if only they had the smart cookies at the top to
>>> think of it.
>>>
>> You are not being very clear here, voodoo. Are you just ranting with no
>> purpose?
>
> what? i am agreeing with you. that does not happen very often for you in
> this forum so your confusion is understandable. microsoft is successful.
> buying the iso votes of poor african countries is not a reason to demean
> that success.
>
I still don't see where that is anything close to an agreement with my
statement, voodoo, but you at least had the sensitivity to delete the
reference to "darkie" from your second try.
>> The sense of it all is that you seem to be saying that
>> Microsoft was unethical in lobbying for their standard to be adopted in
>> addition to others.
>
> there is lobbying and then there is lobbying.
>
>> But did you mean to imply is that "african darkie
>> countries" should have no say in the matter?
>
> not at all. they have every right to sell their iso vote to the highest
> bidder.
>
>> Or are you saying that any
>> attempt to persuade others to accept your point of view is somehow
>> unethical?
>
> not at all. microsoft has every right to put their bid in. they were the
> high bidder. in fact, weren't they were the only bidder? how much do you
> figure they paid? what form was the payment in? windows vouchers won't
> mean much in places where software piracy is widespread. did these
> countries stay off that list of top ip pirate countries that came out
> recently?
>
>> Or is it only unethical if that point of view differs from
>> your own? Try to be a little more specific in the future!
>
> is buying the iso votes of a few countries unethical? no crime was
> involved, no laws broken. the whole episode was just good old fashioned
> innovative marketing. just like i said earlier.
Did anyone actually buy any votes at all? Certainly the impoverished FOSS
fans will attribute bribery and worse to Microsoft's promotions since they
have nothing to offer themselves and anything involving salaries or direct
compensation is seen as dirty pool. Honestly, I do not recognize your
reference at all, I can only presume that one or more of the African members
of the ISO committee voted in favor of some Microsoft proposal. Since these
members are people working in the business that they oversee for standards
issues and revisions, it is quite likely that many were Microsoft employees,
since Microsoft is very prominent in the software businesses.
I was once involved with EIA standards and all of the members were from
various companies that were affected by the standards that were written. It
frequently happened that a new standard was just a recognition of one
company's overwhelming success in some area or another. I don't see
anything wrong with that, particularly if patent protection is thereby
removed from use of the standard. I think that was the case with the MS
Word document format in question.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
amicus_curious wrote:
> Microsoft has tripled their revenues during this "time of dominance with
> stagnation" that you so cleverly try to construct.
And how has their share price done over that time?
Ezekiel
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
Interesting that you *never* mentioned share price anywhere in this thread
until just now.
That's called "moving the goal posts."
In other words, you made some stupid claims and were shown they were stupid.
So in a last ditch effort to save your pathetic argument you're now moving
the goal posts and trying to unilaterally decided that the topic should now
be changed to talk about the share price of the stock.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
> news:inb4pn$m5l$3...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
>> In message <4d98634c$0$25319$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com>,
>> amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>>> Microsoft has tripled their revenues during this "time of dominance with
>>> stagnation" that you so cleverly try to construct.
>>
>> And how has their share price done over that time?
>
> Interesting that you *never* mentioned share price anywhere in this thread
> until just now.
What did you think I meant by “stagnation”?
voodoo
> "voodoo" <voo...@tootycar.net> wrote in message
> news:4d98b5e6$0$15326$c3e8da3$4605...@news.astraweb.com...
>> On Sat, 02 Apr 2011 12:44:33 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>>> "voodoo" <voo...@tootycar.net> wrote in message
>>> news:4d9743fa$0$11308$c3e8da3$cc4f...@news.astraweb.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>> that is right. there is no reason to demean the success of paying
>>>> poor african darkie countries to join iso to vote in the ooxml
>>>> standard. that was just good solid innovative marketing that any
>>>> company, say google, would do. if only they had the smart cookies at
>>>> the top to think of it.
>>>>
>>> You are not being very clear here, voodoo. Are you just ranting with
>>> no purpose?
>>
>> what? i am agreeing with you. that does not happen very often for you
>> in this forum so your confusion is understandable. microsoft is
>> successful. buying the iso votes of poor african countries is not a
>> reason to demean that success.
>>
> I still don't see where that is anything close to an agreement with my
> statement, voodoo, but you at least had the sensitivity to delete the
> reference to "darkie" from your second try.
whats in a name? in this case it is an aid for getting into the heads of
the microsoft executives that put their minds to work and came up with
this wonderfully creative plan.
this is part of the bounteous success that microsoft enjoys and, as you
said, Lawrence D'Oliveiro doesnt. this iso experience is just one aspect
of the smart, creative activities that microsoft has engaged in over the
years to climb to the top of their industry. you are praising one part.
but you are forgetting all the other grinding hard work that goes on. dont
be so shy about singing all of microsofts glories to the heavens.
yes. absolutely right. after decades of slothful indolent inactivity, all
these nations just happened to recognize their duty to their local
industry ... no, the whole world ... and joined the iso's documentation
standards group. they realized that by voting for microsofts position
that all of word processing will be a better place. and this was all done
without bribes to government officials.
these countries, who showed no interest in the subject before msxml,
never participated in the standards process, suddenly woke up and bought
voting memberships in the relevant iso department. and after minimal
participation (did they actually _do_ anything besides vote?) they lost
interest and dropped out of sight. yessir, all very normal. all within
the rules. yep. on the up-and-up.
dfs, ummmm being just dfs, believes this. flatfish would say this just to
yank the chains of half the people here. but you? did you acquire an
interest in fantasy?
> Since these members are people working in the
> business that they oversee for standards issues and revisions, it is
> quite likely that many were Microsoft employees, since Microsoft is very
> prominent in the software businesses.
how many do you suppose are knowledgeable about document standards? about
iso standards process? do any document standards work in their own
country? some even got to do a proxy vote of a neighbor country! very
international stuff.
do you think they are enraged or even disappointed that microsoft has
lost interest in their standard and will not change their product to
follow it? that would be besides the "yeah! i am a big fat bonus richer."
kind of disappointment. i could be disappointed too for the right price.
> I was once involved with EIA standards and all of the members were from
> various companies that were affected by the standards that were written.
> It frequently happened that a new standard was just a recognition of
> one company's overwhelming success in some area or another.
did the "winner" follow the standard after it was voted in? did the
"winner" tweak his product to follow the standard? standards frequently
change between proposal and the final vote.
those fools in the iso went and changed microsofts perfect standard
proposal. those twits think the date calculations should be correct
instead of following microsofts fine work. you know, they tweaked the
proposal. they changed things. heh! those iso goofballs think they, not
microsoft, own the standard now. they will soon be set straight.
> I don't see anything wrong with that,
once again, did the "winner" follow the new standard?
> particularly if patent protection is thereby
> removed from use of the standard. I think that was the case with the MS
> Word document format in question.
you should ask a friend in the business about that patent stuff. i heard
that the patent protection only went as far as following the exact
released spec. anything in the annexes and supplements, the "do it like
word95" stuff was _not_ covered.
amicus_curious
"voodoo" <voo...@tootycar.net> wrote in message
news:4d993eb7$0$12969$c3e8da3$9dec...@news.astraweb.com...
Can what they do supply be said to have beneficial use in regard to
compliance with that standard? Yes. That is all that is necessary in the
spec world, voodoo, I am sure that you know that. Hair-splitting over some
exact syntax is a rather silly way to be if you are interested in being in
the business. The customers do not worry about things that have no effect
on them and would doubtless look askance at anyone insisting that such a
thing is a worthwhile issue.
I read somewhere that there is no browser that is 100% compliant with HTML
standards either, but that doesn't stop a dozen products from being
distributed to users who don't seem to mind.
> those fools in the iso went and changed microsofts perfect standard
> proposal. those twits think the date calculations should be correct
> instead of following microsofts fine work. you know, they tweaked the
> proposal. they changed things. heh! those iso goofballs think they, not
> microsoft, own the standard now. they will soon be set straight.
>
>> I don't see anything wrong with that,
>
> once again, did the "winner" follow the new standard?
>
>> particularly if patent protection is thereby
>> removed from use of the standard. I think that was the case with the MS
>> Word document format in question.
>
> you should ask a friend in the business about that patent stuff. i heard
> that the patent protection only went as far as following the exact
> released spec. anything in the annexes and supplements, the "do it like
> word95" stuff was _not_ covered.
I have not seen where any Microsoft patent has been asserted in regard to
this. Have you? I am sure that it would be a big news item if it were to
occur.
amicus_curious
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in message
news:inbcli$qda$3...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
> What did you think I meant by “stagnation”?
I thought that it meant that you were being rather stupid, Larry. You had
postulated that the 1990s were a time of "growth and dominance" and the next
decade was "dominance and stagnation". Clearly the dominance part is
accurate, but you contrast 1990s growth to 2000s stagnation and that is
totally false and should have been obvious to anyone who wasn't being so
foolish.
I think that your confusing share price with business growth shows a
complete lack of understanding of both. I suspect that you own no stocks
and are not in control of any sort of business, else you would not make such
statements.
voodoo
> "voodoo" <voo...@tootycar.net> wrote in message
>> you should ask a friend in the business about that patent stuff. i
>> heard that the patent protection only went as far as following the
>> exact released spec. anything in the annexes and supplements, the "do
>> it like word95" stuff was _not_ covered.
>
> I have not seen where any Microsoft patent has been asserted in regard
> to this. Have you? I am sure that it would be a big news item if it
> were to occur.
"asserted" no. not yet anyway. yes that would be big news. "claimed"
certainly. makes a smaller splash. of course the prospect of a competing
word processor that can do msxml taking a substantial slice of microsofts
profits would bring out the lawyers, as has happened with andriod.
Homer
> On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 10:11:07 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
>
>> "voodoo" <voo...@tootycar.net> wrote in message
>
>>> you should ask a friend in the business about that patent stuff. i
>>> heard that the patent protection only went as far as following the
>>> exact released spec. anything in the annexes and supplements, the
>>> "do it like word95" stuff was _not_ covered.
>>
>> I have not seen where any Microsoft patent has been asserted in
>> regard to this. Have you? I am sure that it would be a big news
>> item if it were to occur.
>
> "asserted" no. not yet anyway.
Actually they have. Here's one infamous example:
[quote]
To clarify, "Microsoft Necessary Claims" are those claims of
Microsoft-owned or Microsoft-controlled patents that are necessary to
implement the required portions (which also include the required
elements of optional portions) of the Covered Specification that are
described in detail and not those merely referenced in the Covered
Specification.
[/quote]
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx
Explanation:
[quote]
The Software Freedom Law Center, which provides services to protect and
advance free software and open source software, has warned of problems
with the Open Specification Promise for use in free software / open
source software projects. In a published analysis of the promise it
states that
"...it permits implementation under free software licenses so long
as the resulting code isn't used freely."
On March 12, 2008 the Software Freedom Law Center warned over a possible
inconsistency with GPL and in specific the limited scope of the OSP.
This applies specifically to the patent promise scope being limited to
conforming implementations of covered specifications only.
Effectively when an implementer owns a patent and builds that patent
technology in GPL3 licensed code, the implementer grants those first
party rights patent rights downline to all re-users of that code. If
you use third party OSP protected patents in GPL3 code, you cannot
sublicense those, and the OSP scope is limited to required (normative)
parts of the covered specification. This means that when the code is
reused, the OSP only applies as long as the reuse of that code is
limited to implementing the covered specifications. If the OSP was not
limited in that way, you could implement all patented technology in a
GPL3 code implementation after which the code patented technology could
be reused freely for all other possible implementations.
[/quote]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Open_Specification_Promise#Scope_limitation
--
K. | "Do you have a dot on your head
http://slated.org | and are you based in Bangalore?"
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky | ~ flatfish+++ the racist scum.
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 50 days | http://tinyurl.com/flattyracistscum
voodoo
ah. i had interpreted amicus's use of asserted to mean lawyers dancing in
public. is what you wrote about applicable to the ms-xml spec?
Homer
> On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 04:25:54 +0100, Homer wrote:
>> http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx
[...]
> ah. i had interpreted amicus's use of asserted to mean lawyers dancing
> in public. is what you wrote about applicable to the ms-xml spec?
5 of the 70-odd Covered Specifications above do indeed relate to
Microsoft's XML "standards".
I'd say the above Community Promise is as clear an assertion as one is
ever likely to get from Microsoft, given how vague their other "claims"
tend to be. It's also clear how limited and dangerous this so-called
promise is. Essentially they've granted you the right to go anywhere you
want ... within the limits of your six by four jail cell, but if you so
much as breath through the bars, Sweaty will beat you to a bloody pulp
with one of his well-battered and bloodstained office chairs.
amicus_curious
"voodoo" <voo...@tootycar.net> wrote in message
news:4d9bc35b$0$4180$c3e8da3$f017...@news.astraweb.com...
Oh don't be so naïve, voodoo! Consider how many years OO has been around
and fully capable of reading and writing Word files as well as costing
nothing and offering complete services to both Windows and Linux users.
AFAIK, maybe it even works on Macintosh. Even so, it has taken no
measurable business from Microsoft and MS Office continues to be a huge hit
for Microsoft as well as a great money maker. You people need to get your
act together and compare notes!
That said, you did say that there has been some "claim" of a patent
violation regarding this standard? Can you document even that?
amicus_curious
"voodoo" <voo...@tootycar.net> wrote in message
news:4d9be801$0$4180$c3e8da3$f017...@news.astraweb.com...
>
> ah. i had interpreted amicus's use of asserted to mean lawyers dancing in
> public. is what you wrote about applicable to the ms-xml spec?
Oh the shame of it all, voodoo! Imagine being reduced to taking advice from
Homer! That has nothing at all to do with any patent litigation, real or
imagined, involving the open document standard. And it has nothing at all
to do with any patent claims, threats, assertions, or even veiled hints of
any litigation. It is a statement that Microsoft will not sue you if you
use these things.
The SFLC jumps in and tries to split legal hairs that they have no standing
to declare in the first place. If and when Microsoft ever were to assert
one of these claims, then you might say "Dirty pool!" and have a case. But
it has never happened and never will.
I am surprised that Homer has taken himself away from his project involving
having Microsoft prosecuted for bribery in the UK. I would expect that
would more than occupy his time!
Snit
4d9d193f$0$32208$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 4/6/11 6:51 PM:
>
>
> "voodoo" <voo...@tootycar.net> wrote in message
> news:4d9bc35b$0$4180$c3e8da3$f017...@news.astraweb.com...
>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 10:11:07 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>>> "voodoo" <voo...@tootycar.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>> you should ask a friend in the business about that patent stuff. i
>>>> heard that the patent protection only went as far as following the
>>>> exact released spec. anything in the annexes and supplements, the "do
>>>> it like word95" stuff was _not_ covered.
>>>
>>> I have not seen where any Microsoft patent has been asserted in regard
>>> to this. Have you? I am sure that it would be a big news item if it
>>> were to occur.
>>
>> "asserted" no. not yet anyway. yes that would be big news. "claimed"
>> certainly. makes a smaller splash. of course the prospect of a competing
>> word processor that can do msxml taking a substantial slice of microsofts
>> profits would bring out the lawyers, as has happened with andriod.
>>
> Oh don't be so naïve, voodoo! Consider how many years OO has been around
> and fully capable of reading and writing Word files as well as costing
> nothing and offering complete services to both Windows and Linux users.
OpenOffice does not work with MS Office files in a "fully capable" way. Not
even close:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/OfficeComp/>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/OfficeComp2/>
> AFAIK, maybe it even works on Macintosh.
OO.o does work on OS X just fine.
> Even so, it has taken no measurable business from Microsoft and MS Office
> continues to be a huge hit for Microsoft as well as a great money maker. You
> people need to get your act together and compare notes!
OpenOffice is good... maybe even excellent (with v3, that is). But it is
not in the same league as MS Office.
> That said, you did say that there has been some "claim" of a patent
> violation regarding this standard? Can you document even that?
>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
voodoo
> "voodoo" <voo...@tootycar.net> wrote in message
> news:4d9bc35b$0$4180$c3e8da3$f017...@news.astraweb.com...
>> On Mon, 04 Apr 2011 10:11:07 -0400, amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>>> "voodoo" <voo...@tootycar.net> wrote in message
>>
>>>> you should ask a friend in the business about that patent stuff. i
>>>> heard that the patent protection only went as far as following the
>>>> exact released spec. anything in the annexes and supplements, the "do
>>>> it like word95" stuff was _not_ covered.
>>>
>>> I have not seen where any Microsoft patent has been asserted in regard
>>> to this. Have you? I am sure that it would be a big news item if it
>>> were to occur.
>>
>> "asserted" no. not yet anyway. yes that would be big news. "claimed"
>> certainly. makes a smaller splash. of course the prospect of a
>> competing word processor that can do msxml taking a substantial slice
>> of microsofts profits would bring out the lawyers, as has happened with
>> andriod.
>>
> Oh don't be so naïve, voodoo! Consider how many years OO has been
> around and fully capable of reading and writing Word files as well as
> costing nothing and offering complete services to both Windows and Linux
> users. AFAIK, maybe it even works on Macintosh. Even so, it has taken
> no measurable business from Microsoft and MS Office continues to be a
> huge hit for Microsoft as well as a great money maker. You people need
> to get your act together and compare notes!
??? i have not claimed that OO had taken measurable business from
microsoft. if it had, there is no doubt that legal papers would already
be flying.
> That said, you did say that there has been some "claim" of a patent
> violation regarding this standard? Can you document even that?
that is difficult when microsoft will not specify their patents in this
area. Homer made a comment about on this very subject in this thread in
this message ---> Message-ID: <f78t68-...@sky.matrix>
an actual violation? ip laws are such a wonderful thing arent they? you
can wreak so much havoc with vague whisps of threats. microsoft has not
claimed any violations to date. do you suppose that is because OO has
such a small user base? maybe there is no violation. certainly not
because of any patent protection that the iso standard affords.
patented things go into iso standards all the time.
amicus_curious
"Snit" <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message
news:C9C27725.94295%use...@gallopinginsanity.com...
Well, voodoo, in the office automation arena, OO is the best that has ever
happened for the FOSSers and the worst that Microsoft has ever faced in
terms of FOSS competition for Office. You said " the prospect of a
competing word processor that can do msxml taking a substantial slice of
microsofts profits would bring out the lawyers" is a far-fetched hypothesis
indeed considering Microsoft's pledge not to sue and the decades of effort
already put into an Office clone that has had no such effect on Microsoft's
business.
amicus_curious
"voodoo" <voo...@tootycar.net> wrote in message
news:4d9d339f$0$15313$c3e8da3$4605...@news.astraweb.com...
I must apologize, voodoo, I confused your post with snit's above. Sorry
about that.
As I stated there, though, you have a very remote possibility that such a
thing could ever come to be, since after almost two decades, the best effort
put forth by the cloners falls woefully short of the mark. Suggesting that
this would change overnight and prompt Microsoft to renege on their promise
not to sue is as unlikely as it is unsupported.
Microsoft suing anyone after publicly stating that they would not is not
going to happen.
Snit
4d9dab98$0$26538$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com on 4/7/11 5:17 AM:
...
>> OpenOffice does not work with MS Office files in a "fully capable" way. Not
>> even close:
>>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/OfficeComp/>
>> <http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/OfficeComp2/>
>>
>>> AFAIK, maybe it even works on Macintosh.
>>
>> OO.o does work on OS X just fine.
>>
>>> Even so, it has taken no measurable business from Microsoft and MS Office
>>> continues to be a huge hit for Microsoft as well as a great money maker.
>>> You
>>> people need to get your act together and compare notes!
>>
>> OpenOffice is good... maybe even excellent (with v3, that is). But it is
>> not in the same league as MS Office.
>>
>>> That said, you did say that there has been some "claim" of a patent
>>> violation regarding this standard? Can you document even that?
>>>
>>
> Well, voodoo, in the office automation arena, OO is the best that has ever
> happened for the FOSSers and the worst that Microsoft has ever faced in
> terms of FOSS competition for Office. You said " the prospect of a
> competing word processor that can do msxml taking a substantial slice of
> microsofts profits would bring out the lawyers" is a far-fetched hypothesis
> indeed considering Microsoft's pledge not to sue and the decades of effort
> already put into an Office clone that has had no such effect on Microsoft's
> business.
>
Ran into a problem yesterday... I had a few dozen MS Office files I needed
to have combined. I could not find an easy solution on Windows, but on OS X
it was trivial:
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/CombineMSWord.png>
If these were Open Office files, what would the easiest way be?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
voodoo
i must have been sleeping the day microsoft said that. do you have a
link? after all, microsoft bought whole countries to vote the party line
in iso, so nothing they just hint at can be trusted. Homer pointed out
the sflc warning about their open specification promise, which was gone
over by lawyers. who can back up your position?
are there lawyery weasel words in the promise that make any assurances
meaningless? Homer quoted this from the promise page that he linked to:
"necessary to implement the required portions". if a program does some
small extra thing, like show the current date/time in the margins, or you
know, do some value add stuff that microsoft itself loves so much to
do ... does that invalidate the safety of the promise?
voodoo
> "voodoo" <voo...@tootycar.net> wrote in message
> news:4d9be801$0$4180$c3e8da3$f017...@news.astraweb.com...
>
>
>> ah. i had interpreted amicus's use of asserted to mean lawyers dancing
>> in public. is what you wrote about applicable to the ms-xml spec?
>
> Oh the shame of it all, voodoo! Imagine being reduced to taking advice
> from Homer! That has nothing at all to do with any patent litigation,
> real or imagined, involving the open document standard. And it has
> nothing at all to do with any patent claims, threats, assertions, or
> even veiled hints of any litigation. It is a statement that Microsoft
> will not sue you if you use these things.
>
> The SFLC jumps in and tries to split legal hairs that they have no
> standing to declare in the first place. If and when Microsoft ever were
> to assert one of these claims, then you might say "Dirty pool!" and have
> a case. But it has never happened and never will.
dirty pool is what microsoft does best! that is how they advance ahead of
other software projects that are better planned and implemented. that is
how they execute their superior marketing and business operations. you
just cannot deny their glorious history! they would never stoop so low as
to give up the right to protect their treasured patents.
why should i trust crazy you over the crazy SFLC lawyers?
amicus_curious
"voodoo" <voo...@tootycar.net> wrote in message
news:4d9e8000$0$12271$c3e8da3$aae7...@news.astraweb.com...
That is a convenient excuse for those who have lost out to Microsoft over
the years, voodoo. Just about everyone who has lost out to Microsoft in the
past 25 years has used it to explain how the fault was not in their own
abilities or strategy or whatever, rather it was due to illegal or at least
unethical or maybe monopolistic or just plain unfair practices. After all,
business and markets are all to be played on a level field and no one may
have any advantage, natural or artificial, when it comes to being able to
profit from their own efforts, they say.
Maybe Microsoft's public statements as to not asserting patents in regard to
their document standard was a ruse, designed to lure victims into their web,
but I think that a canny defense attorney would have a field day in court
pointing out the plain language of the declaration and asking Microsoft why
they think they can renege on it.
> why should i trust crazy you over the crazy SFLC lawyers?
I don't believe that you have to trust either, voodoo, unless you are
planning on writing a new office suite that relies on the Microsoft document
standard. So far no one else has indicated that they are interested in
doing that, so the field would be wide open.
amicus_curious
"voodoo" <voo...@tootycar.net> wrote in message
news:4d9e7733$0$12271$c3e8da3$aae7...@news.astraweb.com...
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx
You refer to it yourself, so you really must be sleeping!
> after all, microsoft bought whole countries to vote the party line
> in iso, so nothing they just hint at can be trusted. Homer pointed out
> the sflc warning about their open specification promise, which was gone
> over by lawyers. who can back up your position?
>
Well the SFLC is hardly an unbiased observer, voodoo. I would reply that
you need to find a corroborating opinion. The SFLC is in the business of
shaking down open source software developers who made the mistake of using
Busy Box in their embedded processor product. I don't know why you would
"trust" them in any case. They have done ever so much more damage to FOSS
than Microsoft ever could hope to do to it. Could they be secretly in the
employment of Microsoft as people suspect companies like SCO to have been?
Certainly they put some teeth in the Ballmer claim of "cancerous software"
when referencing FOSS stuff.
> are there lawyery weasel words in the promise that make any assurances
> meaningless? Homer quoted this from the promise page that he linked to:
> "necessary to implement the required portions". if a program does some
> small extra thing, like show the current date/time in the margins, or you
> know, do some value add stuff that microsoft itself loves so much to
> do ... does that invalidate the safety of the promise?
Do you think that hair-splitting is some effective way of doing such
business? I think you are looking for things that do not exist. What Homer
conveniently ignored was that the promise was self-declared to be a "a
simple and clear way to assure that the broadest audience of developers and
customers working with commercial or open source software can implement
specifications through a simplified method of sharing of technical assets,
while recognizing the legitimacy of intellectual property. "
Now that sets the spirit of the thing, i.e. you can use the standard's
contents in your own product without fear of any patent litigation. If you
do something mean-spirited to violate the covenants, namely sue Microsoft
over some issue of your own, all bets are off. When you think about it,
that is the same deal that Microsoft makes with other big companies,
including Sun, Oracle, IBM, Apple, and Symantec, to not sue one another over
patent portfolio contents. The promise mere extends the courtesy to
individuals and small companies who are not likely to have any patented
technology to sue over in any case.
The promise does not cover a situation where you do something to violate a
Microsoft patent in some area not affected by a standard that you are
implementing, but that is not pertinent to the document standard. If a
product implemented the document standard and added something, say a GPS
navigation feature that violated a Microsoft patent on navigation, then you
could be sued, ala Tom Tom, regarding the navigation patents, but not for
the document interface technology.
voodoo
and microsoft and its management have never engaged in unfair, unethical,
or illegal actions in their whole history! what could be more ethical
than buying the iso votes of a few african countries? there is nothing
unfair about ballmer flying to france to convince the head political
honcho to ignore the country's standards body and just declare the french
vote for the microsoft ticket. all very normal stuff. happens all the
time.
here is an interesting link. must be all lies, the bad things they say.
http://www.aaxnet.com/topics/msinc.html
here is another link full of lies trying to link microsoft with theft of
intellectual property:
http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/19/corbis-infoflows-lawsuit-technology-bill-gates.html
microsoft and its people are way too ethical to do the unsavory things
that are claimed. and even if they did, its just normal business practice
to screw everyone you can touch. and you can tell its normal business
practice because gates and microsoft have been doing it for so long.
nothing special. its unfair to mark ms down for that.
> After all, business and markets are all to be played on a
> level field and no one may have any advantage, natural or artificial,
> when it comes to being able to profit from their own efforts, they say.
yeah. they do say that. but we know the truth, don't we. that is just
something to keep the small time pikers in the game, thinking they have a
chance of winning a piece of the pie. then when they fail at the
fixed game, we can say "take responsibility for your actions" and make
them feel guilty about failing. there is nothing unethical about fixing
the game so you can't lose is there amicus? like microsofts latest
adventure getting states to pass that anti piracy law
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011032316585825
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2014472018_btpiracy14.html
that is in no way fixing the game in favor of microsoft. they just want
what is due them. and absolutely not about getting more than they are
due. making sure open source software is not included in the bill's
protection is absolutely not an underhanded unethical move. just standard
business practice.
> Maybe Microsoft's public statements as to not asserting patents in
> regard to their document standard was a ruse, designed to lure victims
> into their web, but I think that a canny defense attorney would have a
> field day in court pointing out the plain language of the declaration
> and asking Microsoft why they think they can renege on it.
why amicus, you throw lawyers and lawsuits around like they were as free
as taking your next breath. you have some experience in the courts. what
do you estimate is the opening ante to defend against a microsoft patent
lawsuit? my totally unfounded guess is $10,000 just to tell the court you
want to fight. how much to actually play the game? again guessing ...
about $100,000 a month. that would be to pay for a good canny defense
attorney (hah! you will need an experienced team to fight microsoft) with
any chance to have a field day in court. do you have any personal
experience with judges taking a press release as a patent license? then
come the appeals. microsoft will not lose without a protracted fight you
know. how much do you figure the total bill to win is going to run?
what percent of you own wealth and energy would you contribute to a
defense? its real easy to put someone elses life and fortune on the front
lines.
>> why should i trust crazy you over the crazy SFLC lawyers?
>
> I don't believe that you have to trust either, voodoo, unless you are
> planning on writing a new office suite that relies on the Microsoft
> document standard.
just to be clear, that would be the iso standard, yes?
> So far no one else has indicated that they are
> interested in doing that, so the field would be wide open.
wide open. yes. not even microsoft is interested in making a word
processor for that iso standard.
amicus_curious
"voodoo" <voo...@tootycar.net> wrote in message
news:4d9f4384$0$11196$c3e8da3$cc4f...@news.astraweb.com...
What was the final outcome, anyway? Is there an ISO standard or not. I am
not involved in office automation, so I do not really care, but then I don't
really know what the fuss is all about either. Who is being victimized in
this instance?
> here is an interesting link. must be all lies, the bad things they say.
>
> http://www.aaxnet.com/topics/msinc.html
>
If that is where you go for solace for your opinions, voodoo, you are never
going to see any balanced view. Is there some specific act that you
consider unethical? Or illegal? Or what?
> here is another link full of lies trying to link microsoft with theft of
> intellectual property:
>
> http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/19/corbis-infoflows-lawsuit-technology-bill-gates.html
>
> microsoft and its people are way too ethical to do the unsavory things
> that are claimed. and even if they did, its just normal business practice
> to screw everyone you can touch. and you can tell its normal business
> practice because gates and microsoft have been doing it for so long.
> nothing special. its unfair to mark ms down for that.
>
You want to believe the worst, of course, and the matter is still on appeal,
so the issues are not yet settled. Even so, if Inflow wins the appeal as
they have won the case, they are the proud owners of some $19 million in
awards. That is not bad return for a year's effort by 6 people. Do you
make that kind of money?
>> After all, business and markets are all to be played on a
>> level field and no one may have any advantage, natural or artificial,
>> when it comes to being able to profit from their own efforts, they say.
>
> yeah. they do say that. but we know the truth, don't we. that is just
> something to keep the small time pikers in the game, thinking they have a
> chance of winning a piece of the pie. then when they fail at the
> fixed game, we can say "take responsibility for your actions" and make
> them feel guilty about failing. there is nothing unethical about fixing
> the game so you can't lose is there amicus? like microsofts latest
> adventure getting states to pass that anti piracy law
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011032316585825
> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2014472018_btpiracy14.html
>
What do you think is illegal or unethical about that? Do you think that
pirates have some right to the gains that they make from their piracy
because the victim is Microsoft? What if they were stealing from Intuit?
Google? IBM? Where would you draw the line? What if they were just not
adhering to the GPL and using some open source stuff without attribution?
> that is in no way fixing the game in favor of microsoft. they just want
> what is due them. and absolutely not about getting more than they are
> due. making sure open source software is not included in the bill's
> protection is absolutely not an underhanded unethical move. just standard
> business practice.
>
>> Maybe Microsoft's public statements as to not asserting patents in
>> regard to their document standard was a ruse, designed to lure victims
>> into their web, but I think that a canny defense attorney would have a
>> field day in court pointing out the plain language of the declaration
>> and asking Microsoft why they think they can renege on it.
>
> why amicus, you throw lawyers and lawsuits around like they were as free
> as taking your next breath. you have some experience in the courts. what
> do you estimate is the opening ante to defend against a microsoft patent
> lawsuit? my totally unfounded guess is $10,000 just to tell the court you
> want to fight. how much to actually play the game? again guessing ...
> about $100,000 a month. that would be to pay for a good canny defense
> attorney (hah! you will need an experienced team to fight microsoft) with
> any chance to have a field day in court. do you have any personal
> experience with judges taking a press release as a patent license? then
> come the appeals. microsoft will not lose without a protracted fight you
> know. how much do you figure the total bill to win is going to run?
>
Well, attorney's fees are usually awarded to the winner of the dispute, so
it doesn't cost anything if it is a valid case. Of course you never know
with a jury on a techie sort of case. That is why settlements are a good
idea.
You might note that many cases of this nature are done by attorneys who take
a share of the winnings and make no charges when they lose. If you are a
defendant, it means that you violated someone's IP and if you did not and
have a strong case, you can countersue, finding an attorney to bet on the
come line and take your case. If you can't make a good defense, then shame
on you for violating the law.
> what percent of you own wealth and energy would you contribute to a
> defense? its real easy to put someone elses life and fortune on the front
> lines.
>
>>> why should i trust crazy you over the crazy SFLC lawyers?
>>
>> I don't believe that you have to trust either, voodoo, unless you are
>> planning on writing a new office suite that relies on the Microsoft
>> document standard.
>
> just to be clear, that would be the iso standard, yes?
>
Well, it could be that or any of the other standards listed in the link.
>> So far no one else has indicated that they are
>> interested in doing that, so the field would be wide open.
>
> wide open. yes. not even microsoft is interested in making a word
> processor for that iso standard.
Oh they come very close don't they. That seems to be the way of you folk,
splitting hairs to suggest that the plain meaning of things is not factual.
IIRC there are no browsers 100% compliant with the internet protocol and
language standards that exist, but would you say that no one makes a useful
browser?
voodoo
yes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standardization_of_Office_Open_XML
> I am not involved in office automation, so I do not really care,
> but then I don't really know what the fuss is all about either.
> Who is being victimized in this instance?
only the conscientious workers in document standards committees that
think their efforts are wasted when microsoft can just buy a standard.
>> here is an interesting link. must be all lies, the bad things they say.
>>
>> http://www.aaxnet.com/topics/msinc.html
>>
> If that is where you go for solace for your opinions, voodoo, you are
> never going to see any balanced view.
solace? not at all. just pointing out the hazards of following the path
you advocate and trusting that microsoft will honor a publicity pledge
about their patents.
> Is there some specific act that
> you consider unethical? Or illegal? Or what?
its a big list, not even complete, and you want to know which one? they
all darken the character of microsoft. all are reason to think that
microsoft _will_ ignore their non-binding word. you don't really think
that microsoft will not insist on payment do you? or that the attitudes
shown toward "freetards" here is all that different in the executive
halls of microsoft?
>> here is another link full of lies trying to link microsoft with theft
>> of intellectual property:
>>
>> http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/19/corbis-infoflows-lawsuit-technology-
bill-gates.html
>>
>> microsoft and its people are way too ethical to do the unsavory things
>> that are claimed. and even if they did, its just normal business
>> practice to screw everyone you can touch. and you can tell its normal
>> business practice because gates and microsoft have been doing it for so
>> long. nothing special. its unfair to mark ms down for that.
>>
> You want to believe the worst, of course, and the matter is still on
> appeal, so the issues are not yet settled. Even so, if Inflow wins the
> appeal as they have won the case, they are the proud owners of some $19
> million in awards. That is not bad return for a year's effort by 6
> people. Do you make that kind of money?
no of course not. do you think a company that conducts itself in this
manner will honor a non-binding publicity pledge of any kind when the
chips are down?
>>> After all, business and markets are all to be played on a level field
>>> and no one may have any advantage, natural or artificial, when it
>>> comes to being able to profit from their own efforts, they say.
>>
>> yeah. they do say that. but we know the truth, don't we. that is just
>> something to keep the small time pikers in the game, thinking they have
>> a chance of winning a piece of the pie. then when they fail at the
>> fixed game, we can say "take responsibility for your actions" and make
>> them feel guilty about failing. there is nothing unethical about fixing
>> the game so you can't lose is there amicus? like microsofts latest
>> adventure getting states to pass that anti piracy law
>>
>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011032316585825
>> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/
businesstechnology/2014472018_btpiracy14.html
>>
> What do you think is illegal or unethical about that? Do you think that
> pirates have some right to the gains that they make from their piracy
> because the victim is Microsoft?
absolutely not! i think the bill does not go far enough. any country
where microsoft's rightful due is not paid should be nuked off the face
of the earth. that will teach them to stand between ms and their money.
> What if they were stealing from
> Intuit? Google? IBM? Where would you draw the line? What if they were
> just not adhering to the GPL and using some open source stuff without
> attribution?
those companies are not as important as microsoft. nothing special should
be done for them. the normal legal procedures in the locality should be
followed. if these companies do not get satisfaction from the local
governments then they can think about withdrawing from those markets.
microsoft should not have to do that of course. they have rights. when
local countries will not protect microsofts rights, our government should
step in. if our government cannot do their duty then others (like
microsoft) need to be deputized to do the job. and if protecting the
rights of microsoft dims the rights of others, so much the better.
>> that is in no way fixing the game in favor of microsoft. they just want
>> what is due them. and absolutely not about getting more than they are
>> due. making sure open source software is not included in the bill's
>> protection is absolutely not an underhanded unethical move. just
>> standard business practice.
>>
>>> Maybe Microsoft's public statements as to not asserting patents in
>>> regard to their document standard was a ruse, designed to lure victims
>>> into their web, but I think that a canny defense attorney would have a
>>> field day in court pointing out the plain language of the declaration
>>> and asking Microsoft why they think they can renege on it.
>>
>> why amicus, you throw lawyers and lawsuits around like they were as
>> free as taking your next breath. you have some experience in the
>> courts. what do you estimate is the opening ante to defend against a
>> microsoft patent lawsuit? my totally unfounded guess is $10,000 just to
>> tell the court you want to fight. how much to actually play the game?
>> again guessing ... about $100,000 a month. that would be to pay for a
>> good canny defense attorney (hah! you will need an experienced team to
>> fight microsoft) with any chance to have a field day in court. do you
>> have any personal experience with judges taking a press release as a
>> patent license? then come the appeals. microsoft will not lose without
>> a protracted fight you know. how much do you figure the total bill to
>> win is going to run?
>>
> Well, attorney's fees are usually awarded to the winner of the dispute,
> so it doesn't cost anything if it is a valid case.
"usually"? but not always. what is the ratio of "is" or "not"? what is
the criteria? does it depend on how the judge slept the night before
deciding?
> Of course you never
> know with a jury on a techie sort of case. That is why settlements are
> a good idea.
microsoft steals from you, and you negotiate how much they can keep. what
could be more fair?
> You might note that many cases of this nature are done by attorneys who
> take a share of the winnings and make no charges when they lose. If you
> are a defendant, it means that you violated someone's IP and if you did
> not and have a strong case, you can countersue, finding an attorney to
> bet on the come line and take your case.
that may be a good path to take for ambulance chasing cases. no company
of any repute will build a business plan on the prayer that a good strong
team of lawyers will magically pop up to the rescue. napster tried that
already.
> If you can't make a good
> defense, then shame on you for violating the law.
you are right again. microsoft has made a whopping good defense for all
their violations of the law, and there is not a hint of shame upon them.
is anyone the safer for it?
>> what percent of you own wealth and energy would you contribute to a
>> defense? its real easy to put someone elses life and fortune on the
>> front lines.
>>
>>>> why should i trust crazy you over the crazy SFLC lawyers?
>>>
>>> I don't believe that you have to trust either, voodoo, unless you are
>>> planning on writing a new office suite that relies on the Microsoft
>>> document standard.
>>
>> just to be clear, that would be the iso standard, yes?
>>
> Well, it could be that or any of the other standards listed in the link.
>
>>> So far no one else has indicated that they are interested in doing
>>> that, so the field would be wide open.
>>
>> wide open. yes. not even microsoft is interested in making a word
>> processor for that iso standard.
>
> Oh they come very close don't they.
sure. they are as close now as when they submitted the standard.
remember, those iso fools changed some things. "fixed" the mistakes
microsoft made. microsoft is trying to repair the damage done and get it
back to the True Pure Standard. there is a period in the post election
standard review where the spec is cleaned up. it is meant to be used for
spelling mistakes and things of that nature. you don't really think
microsofts people on the committee will limit themselves to that low
level of activity do you? there have already been "oh look! there is a 41
line misspelling" incidents. but of course, we would not want the iso to
be embarrassed by a mistake that big, would we? so obviously things like
that have to be fixed.
> That seems to be the way of you
> folk, splitting hairs to suggest that the plain meaning of things is not
> factual. IIRC there are no browsers 100% compliant with the internet
> protocol and language standards that exist, but would you say that no
> one makes a useful browser?
it has been a few years since the standard was accepted by the iso. have
there been any announcements from microsoft, who is not shy about singing
the joys of vaporware products, that a compliant product will be out
soon? last i heard was a message from a very high executive that the
company was 100% committed to ignoring any future evolution to the
standard (and standards do evolve) unless it was something that microsoft
had already decided to do.
i know! they are waiting for the iso bozos to fix their broken standard
and bring it back in line with what microsoft actually makes. ahhh! the
joys of being microsoft.
amicus_curious
"voodoo" <voo...@tootycar.net> wrote in message
news:4da0cb05$0$19250$c3e8da3$a909...@news.astraweb.com...
Has something changed dramatically in the past few years, voodoo? When I
was on such committees, all of the participants were from the companies that
used the standards in their own products and whatever information went into
the standard came from the committee members themselves. For a document
standard that was expected to describe the syntax used by Microsoft for
their Office product, I would expect that all of the work would be done by
Microsoft employees on the committee.
>>> here is an interesting link. must be all lies, the bad things they say.
>>>
>>> http://www.aaxnet.com/topics/msinc.html
>>>
>> If that is where you go for solace for your opinions, voodoo, you are
>> never going to see any balanced view.
>
> solace? not at all. just pointing out the hazards of following the path
> you advocate and trusting that microsoft will honor a publicity pledge
> about their patents.
>
>> Is there some specific act that
>> you consider unethical? Or illegal? Or what?
>
> its a big list, not even complete, and you want to know which one? they
> all darken the character of microsoft. all are reason to think that
> microsoft _will_ ignore their non-binding word. you don't really think
> that microsoft will not insist on payment do you? or that the attitudes
> shown toward "freetards" here is all that different in the executive
> halls of microsoft?
>
No I do not think that MS execs really pay any attention to you all. They
all have incredibly high salaries and bonuses tied to financial
profitability and fussing around with FOSS is barren ground. No one is
likely to be converted and even if they were, they are essentially penniless
and couldn't contribute any measurable revenue. The pre-occupation with the
notion that MS is scared or even concern is a myth passed around by FOSSers
who see some need to cheer one another up.
>>> here is another link full of lies trying to link microsoft with theft
>>> of intellectual property:
>>>
>>> http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/19/corbis-infoflows-lawsuit-technology-
> bill-gates.html
>>>
>>> microsoft and its people are way too ethical to do the unsavory things
>>> that are claimed. and even if they did, its just normal business
>>> practice to screw everyone you can touch. and you can tell its normal
>>> business practice because gates and microsoft have been doing it for so
>>> long. nothing special. its unfair to mark ms down for that.
>>>
>> You want to believe the worst, of course, and the matter is still on
>> appeal, so the issues are not yet settled. Even so, if Inflow wins the
>> appeal as they have won the case, they are the proud owners of some $19
>> million in awards. That is not bad return for a year's effort by 6
>> people. Do you make that kind of money?
>
> no of course not. do you think a company that conducts itself in this
> manner will honor a non-binding publicity pledge of any kind when the
> chips are down?
>
Is Microsoft a party to this lawsuit? Nothing in your cite said that.
>>>> After all, business and markets are all to be played on a level field
>>>> and no one may have any advantage, natural or artificial, when it
>>>> comes to being able to profit from their own efforts, they say.
>>>
>>> yeah. they do say that. but we know the truth, don't we. that is just
>>> something to keep the small time pikers in the game, thinking they have
>>> a chance of winning a piece of the pie. then when they fail at the
>>> fixed game, we can say "take responsibility for your actions" and make
>>> them feel guilty about failing. there is nothing unethical about fixing
>>> the game so you can't lose is there amicus? like microsofts latest
>>> adventure getting states to pass that anti piracy law
>>>
>>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2011032316585825
>>> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/
> businesstechnology/2014472018_btpiracy14.html
>>>
>> What do you think is illegal or unethical about that? Do you think that
>> pirates have some right to the gains that they make from their piracy
>> because the victim is Microsoft?
>
> absolutely not! i think the bill does not go far enough. any country
> where microsoft's rightful due is not paid should be nuked off the face
> of the earth. that will teach them to stand between ms and their money.
>
Be honest, now, voodoo!
>> What if they were stealing from
>> Intuit? Google? IBM? Where would you draw the line? What if they were
>> just not adhering to the GPL and using some open source stuff without
>> attribution?
>
> those companies are not as important as microsoft. nothing special should
> be done for them. the normal legal procedures in the locality should be
> followed. if these companies do not get satisfaction from the local
> governments then they can think about withdrawing from those markets.
> microsoft should not have to do that of course. they have rights. when
> local countries will not protect microsofts rights, our government should
> step in. if our government cannot do their duty then others (like
> microsoft) need to be deputized to do the job. and if protecting the
> rights of microsoft dims the rights of others, so much the better.
>
Ditto.
Well, all such disputes could be submitted to you for your adjudication and
you would apply your principles of fair play to the matter, I am sure.
Unfortunately the laws of torts are written so as to require the services of
an impartial judge and sometimes a jury regardless of whether the party
deemed to be in the wrong is Microsoft or Google or Mother Theresa's Pie
Works. If we cannot rely on the justice system, then the problem goes far
beyond quibbling over who had an idea first.
>> Of course you never
>> know with a jury on a techie sort of case. That is why settlements are
>> a good idea.
>
> microsoft steals from you, and you negotiate how much they can keep. what
> could be more fair?
>
And vice-versa, of course. That is the nature of things, voodoo.
>> You might note that many cases of this nature are done by attorneys who
>> take a share of the winnings and make no charges when they lose. If you
>> are a defendant, it means that you violated someone's IP and if you did
>> not and have a strong case, you can countersue, finding an attorney to
>> bet on the come line and take your case.
>
> that may be a good path to take for ambulance chasing cases. no company
> of any repute will build a business plan on the prayer that a good strong
> team of lawyers will magically pop up to the rescue. napster tried that
> already.
>
I think you are missing the point here. You cannot rely on contingent fee
lawyers to defend you if you infringe on someone's IP, but you can find such
services if you are a valid plaintiff. Can you say "class action"?
>> If you can't make a good
>> defense, then shame on you for violating the law.
>
> you are right again. microsoft has made a whopping good defense for all
> their violations of the law, and there is not a hint of shame upon them.
>
> is anyone the safer for it?
>
If there is any company on the planet that would willingly do away with
patents and copyrights both, it is Microsoft. They have the ability to
defend themselves against the pirates of software and have suffered far more
losses than gains in regard to patent issues.
You are making allegations, but offer no particulars. It is not very clear
just what you mean in any case. Are you saying that Microsoft somehow
changed the substance of the standard after it was approved under the guise
of correcting errata?
>> That seems to be the way of you
>> folk, splitting hairs to suggest that the plain meaning of things is not
>> factual. IIRC there are no browsers 100% compliant with the internet
>> protocol and language standards that exist, but would you say that no
>> one makes a useful browser?
>
> it has been a few years since the standard was accepted by the iso. have
> there been any announcements from microsoft, who is not shy about singing
> the joys of vaporware products, that a compliant product will be out
> soon? last i heard was a message from a very high executive that the
> company was 100% committed to ignoring any future evolution to the
> standard (and standards do evolve) unless it was something that microsoft
> had already decided to do.
>
> i know! they are waiting for the iso bozos to fix their broken standard
> and bring it back in line with what microsoft actually makes. ahhh! the
> joys of being microsoft.
>
I am not sure just what you are for or against here, voodoo. You are
plainly saying that Office does not apparently comply 100% with the issued
standard and MS is not actively changing Office in order to be more
compliant. What is the so what of that?
voodoo
documenting the output of a microsoft product does not need to be a
standard. standards are to let multiple unattached organizations produce
the same output. and of course, once the standard process begins, there
will be opinions on what should be changed. some parts of msxml are
wrong, some parts suck. part of a standard process is resulting in
something everyone can live with. you are confusing a standard with a
decree.
>>>> here is an interesting link. must be all lies, the bad things they
>>>> say.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.aaxnet.com/topics/msinc.html
>>>>
>>> If that is where you go for solace for your opinions, voodoo, you are
>>> never going to see any balanced view.
>>
>> solace? not at all. just pointing out the hazards of following the path
>> you advocate and trusting that microsoft will honor a publicity pledge
>> about their patents.
>>
>>> Is there some specific act that
>>> you consider unethical? Or illegal? Or what?
>>
>> its a big list, not even complete, and you want to know which one? they
>> all darken the character of microsoft. all are reason to think that
>> microsoft _will_ ignore their non-binding word. you don't really think
>> that microsoft will not insist on payment do you? or that the attitudes
>> shown toward "freetards" here is all that different in the executive
>> halls of microsoft?
>>
> No I do not think that MS execs really pay any attention to you all.
> They all have incredibly high salaries and bonuses tied to financial
> profitability and fussing around with FOSS is barren ground. No one is
> likely to be converted and even if they were, they are essentially
> penniless and couldn't contribute any measurable revenue. The
> pre-occupation with the notion that MS is scared or even concern is a
> myth passed around by FOSSers who see some need to cheer one another up.
FOSS gets some interesting ink in their SEC filings. those high salaries
and bonuses are good reason to ignore any press-release patent promise
and squelch an upstart that eats into the income stream.
>>>> here is another link full of lies trying to link microsoft with theft
>>>> of intellectual property:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/19/corbis-infoflows-lawsuit-technology-
>> bill-gates.html
>>>>
>>>> microsoft and its people are way too ethical to do the unsavory
>>>> things that are claimed. and even if they did, its just normal
>>>> business practice to screw everyone you can touch. and you can tell
>>>> its normal business practice because gates and microsoft have been
>>>> doing it for so long. nothing special. its unfair to mark ms down for
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>> You want to believe the worst, of course, and the matter is still on
>>> appeal, so the issues are not yet settled. Even so, if Inflow wins
>>> the appeal as they have won the case, they are the proud owners of
>>> some $19 million in awards. That is not bad return for a year's
>>> effort by 6 people. Do you make that kind of money?
>>
>> no of course not. do you think a company that conducts itself in this
>> manner will honor a non-binding publicity pledge of any kind when the
>> chips are down?
>>
> Is Microsoft a party to this lawsuit? Nothing in your cite said that.
it is a bill gates company. close enough to taint the honesty of anything
microsoft says.
ditto? what do you think is dishonest here? what i post? or my style of
writing as if i really think this way? microsoft is getting special
rights and powers that put their interests above everyone elses. the
great beauty of this new anti-piracy law is that absolutely everyone
except microsoft will violate it. some flagrantly, some small scale, some
by mistake, and microsoft will use their complex license schemes to
deliberately trick others. any company that wants to buy from outside the
usa will have to ask permission from microsoft.
microsoft knew the score in these countries before jumping in. now they
are whining to the government to help them out. they want others to obey
the law while at the same time are not willing to follow the inconvenient
ones themselves. flatfish and dfs have expressed their scorn for whining
to mommy state over anti-trust problems. did you join them? do you think
this is different? do you think microsoft should be embargoed while it
violates _any_ usa law?
its not a matter of my taking over. some organizations will spend $10
million to fight a $10 thousand fine. even when they are flat out guilty.
the chances of getting your fees back will factor in whether you will be
willing and able to fight for your cause.
so again. what is the ratio of "is" or "not" for getting legal fees back?
what is the criteria? does it depend on how the judge slept the night
before deciding? is it just a crap shoot? you are promoting a sucker's
gamble.
>>> Of course you never
>>> know with a jury on a techie sort of case. That is why settlements
>>> are a good idea.
>>
>> microsoft steals from you, and you negotiate how much they can keep.
>> what could be more fair?
>>
> And vice-versa, of course. That is the nature of things, voodoo.
honor and trust aren't worth shit in this case. we are talking about
trusting microsoft to not sue here.
>>> You might note that many cases of this nature are done by attorneys
>>> who take a share of the winnings and make no charges when they lose.
>>> If you are a defendant, it means that you violated someone's IP and if
>>> you did not and have a strong case, you can countersue, finding an
>>> attorney to bet on the come line and take your case.
>>
>> that may be a good path to take for ambulance chasing cases. no company
>> of any repute will build a business plan on the prayer that a good
>> strong team of lawyers will magically pop up to the rescue. napster
>> tried that already.
>>
> I think you are missing the point here. You cannot rely on contingent
> fee lawyers to defend you if you infringe on someone's IP, but you can
> find such services if you are a valid plaintiff. Can you say "class
> action"?
yes i can. what will the class win? vouchers for 50% off the next windows
purchase? a business plan that starts out depending on lawyerly help like
this is silly, especially if they run their business plan with the idea
that they will not just win, but get millions in legal fees restored.
>>> If you can't make a good
>>> defense, then shame on you for violating the law.
>>
>> you are right again. microsoft has made a whopping good defense for all
>> their violations of the law, and there is not a hint of shame upon
>> them.
>>
>> is anyone the safer for it?
>>
> If there is any company on the planet that would willingly do away with
> patents and copyrights both, it is Microsoft. They have the ability to
> defend themselves against the pirates of software and have suffered far
> more losses than gains in regard to patent issues.
ummm, you do not speak for microsoft or their executives. you are an
outsider. considering the fact that their high level executives will lie
in other situations does not ease my suspicion that ms will turn on a
dime and sue when the rewards are enticing enough. how is the suit
against andriod manufacturers doing?
here is a place to start. follow some links and you can find more
examples.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2009102810072196
maybe dfs will jump into this and shriek "liar! thats not 41 lines!" if
you poke around there will be examples of bigger changes. but dfs may be
right. there might not be a 41 line spelling error.
>>> That seems to be the way of you
>>> folk, splitting hairs to suggest that the plain meaning of things is
>>> not factual. IIRC there are no browsers 100% compliant with the
>>> internet protocol and language standards that exist, but would you say
>>> that no one makes a useful browser?
>>
>> it has been a few years since the standard was accepted by the iso.
>> have there been any announcements from microsoft, who is not shy about
>> singing the joys of vaporware products, that a compliant product will
>> be out soon? last i heard was a message from a very high executive that
>> the company was 100% committed to ignoring any future evolution to the
>> standard (and standards do evolve) unless it was something that
>> microsoft had already decided to do.
>>
>> i know! they are waiting for the iso bozos to fix their broken standard
>> and bring it back in line with what microsoft actually makes. ahhh! the
>> joys of being microsoft.
>>
> I am not sure just what you are for or against here, voodoo. You are
> plainly saying that Office does not apparently comply 100% with the
> issued standard and MS is not actively changing Office in order to be
> more compliant. What is the so what of that?
a company that is willing to get the iso to whore for them will not be
shy about suing a competitor (using the msxml spec) into the ground and
beyond the grave.
Homer
>> Has something changed dramatically in the past few years, voodoo?
>> When I was on such committees, all of the participants were from the
>> companies that used the standards in their own products and whatever
>> information went into the standard came from the committee members
>> themselves. For a document standard that was expected to describe
>> the syntax used by Microsoft for their Office product, I would expect
>> that all of the work would be done by Microsoft employees on the
>> committee.
>
> documenting the output of a microsoft product does not need to be a
> standard. standards are to let multiple unattached organizations
> produce the same output. and of course, once the standard process
> begins, there will be opinions on what should be changed. some parts
> of msxml are wrong, some parts suck. part of a standard process is
> resulting in something everyone can live with. you are confusing a
> standard with a decree.
I've changed my mind, "amicus_curious" really is the paid2post Bill
Weisgerber shill.
--
K. | "Linux hackers are on a mission
http://slated.org | from God" ~ The Vatican
Fedora 8 (Werewolf) on sky |
kernel 2.6.31.5, up 57 days | http://tinyurl.com/linuxmission