Bill Gates famously said: "As long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."
This is why Microsoft would point out pirating their stuff gives a company a competitive advantage over paying for it. Once a company of any size becomes dependant on Microsoft products, it's very difficult to break away. Breaking away often means changing how the company does business. Changing all of their procedures and processes.
This is because companies using Microsoft products shoehorn their business processes into those products. None of the competitions products work in exactly the same way. Software patents have made sure of that. So any company moving away from the Microsoft paradigm has to endure a lot of pain. Which most companies don't have time for.
So the plan is get them hooked. Then sue for infringement. Microsoft don't care if they put you out of business in the process. There's always someone else to screw over.
Of course Microsoft can't just come out and say "hey go pirate our stuff". They need to try and do that discreetly in an obvious way so that businesses get the message. And right now when Windows market share is dropping, Microsoft really need to get that message out in a hurry to drive up adoption in order to protect their desktop monopoly.
GNU/Linux incidentally is a major competitor for Microsoft in BRIC countries. Brazilians love GNU/Linux. Adoption rates in Brazil are very high and Dell is pushing Linux in China. In general BRIC governments have been moving more and more to GNU/Linux and FOSS products and services.
So what this guy is saying that just by using consumer technologies, bought and paid for from a high street store, consumers are infringing on patents? God help us if this is allowed to set a precedent. Can you imagine how many patents the average consumer could be accused of violating? How many patents are involved in PCs, cars, TVs, mobile phones, land line phones, cookers, microwave ovens, iPods, MP3 players, bues, power tools, toys, trains and planes and any other consumer device or object you care to name?
The Amish life is looking appealing. Although I'm pretty sure someone has a patent on the horse and cart.
If you can't use information or knowledge then what's the point of knowing about it? And that's what IP laws do. They lock-down knowledge and stop people from using it. So it really makes no difference if people kept their knowledge secrete without IP protection. It's a rare event when there's only one person working on an idea. The world wouldn't suffer without IP laws.
Steve Jobs threw a hissy fit when Windows arrived on the scene. Seems like the same old same old from Apple. Always happy to take while never giving back.
I wonder if Dr. Fox's friend had any contact with this committee?
The market has dealt with Microsoft already. It's made desktop PCs irrelevant to consumers. We have iPads, Galaxy Tabs and PS3s. Why would anybody need a Windows PC?
If this was going to seriously hurt Barns and Noble I doubt they'd have done it. I personally don't like exclusive deals. To support an exclusive comic book deal with Amazon is like supporting DRM in MP3s that locks them down to iTunes and the iPod.
I don't think any of the authors on this site are DRM lovers. So what gives? Why aren't Amazon and DC being torn apart for locking in DC's customers to Amazons platform? Why aren't DC being torn down for looking after their interests first by striking an exclusive deal with Amazon? You don't think they did that for their customers sakes do you?
Where's the consistency here?
Starting to make sense of why Microsoft won't go after Google directly for Android's supposed infringement of it's patents.
The Bing article is seems a bit off the me. At the start the author really goes out of his way to point out and make it really clear that Bing is really good. As good as if not better than Google. In fact people prefer Bing search results. Just so long as they think they came from Google. Which they likely did since MS were caught stealing Google results from users PCs.
I call FUD on that piece. It feels like it's been written for the sake of those who regard Microsoft and it's products as toxic.
Ah yes. When I walk into my local HMV I am immediately struck by the creativity HMV's elves have put into seriously trying to get me to spend more money than I intended to. And since I don't need to actually buy anything. That experience is all free!
Poor little elves must no have much to eat.
This is almost as stupid as the story in the Metro about the guy who got hassled by police for taking pictures of his own daughter eating ice cream in a shopping mall. Apparently the shopping mall has a no photographs policy to protect the "privacy" of employees who work in a public venue serving the public.
So far as I can see there is nothing "unique" about any of those dance moves.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/878105-police-question-father-after-he-takes-picture-of-daughter-in-shopping-centre
If I were being sued by a patent troll and facing the end of my business and livelihood because of it. I'd take them for a ride out to the desert. Make them strip and leave them there but naked with no way to contact civilisation.
If they survive they've won the right to sue.
Cases like this could be settled before they even get to court. The form (I'm assuming there is one. There's always a form to fill in), could just have a question on it that says something like;
"Are you a non-practicing entity?
or
Was the competitions product released before your paten application was filed?
If the answer is "YES" to either question then please do not pass go and do not collect treble damages!"
I'd be willing to bet this deal amounts to nothing more than Microsoft demanding a license is bough for each unit sold irrespective of the OS installed.
While I think this ruling is stupid. I also think Psystar were even dumber to even consider trying to use OS X. Everybody knows Apple won't share it's OS. I say that's fine. We have others to choose from if they want to get so pissy about it.
Psystar should have put it's money and efforts into build a solid Linux or BSD distro. A well polished version of either OS with well polished applications would be more than a match for Apple. Hence the reason they are fighting Samsung in the courts.
The concept of a permanent file compiled by a privet company is troubling. Facebook as quite a few questionable corporate connections. However what concerns me the most is what Facebook does with privet messages from their chat feature. Facebook has not legitimate legal reason to want to keep most of what they seem to be collecting.
I imagine the information will be sold on to data mining companies. It'll be used for targeted marketing. This makes me glad I don't use Facebook quite so much any longer. Although I do use Google+. And Google have been caught in the past collecting information they had no right to collect.
One positive aspect of the amount of data Facebook is collecting is that it's way too much for a person to go through manually. At least the voyeurism will be automated.
What these patents demonstrate is that anything can be patented if you fill in the form correctly and pay the money. Now who's patented blogging? Seriously that's got to be more lucrative than a temporary snow person.
I predict an anti-trust law suit in the next few years when Windows 8 hits the stores. Apparently Microsoft are insisting OEMs and ODMs producing "Ultrabooks" who are participating in the Windows 8 logo program use a "security" feature of UEFI which requires an OS to be digitally signed with special keys. Which will of course lock out many GNU/Linux distributions from the mainstream PC market.
Re:
The hare holders already want the company to have a clear split between patent licensing (trolling) and it's traditional software and services product based business.