Re: License key for home network

From: kurttrail (dontemailme_at_anywhereintheknowuniverse.org)
Date: 02/03/05 

Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 21:02:47 -0500

NobodyMan wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 21:16:45 -0500, "kurttrail"
> <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote:
>
>>> As I said before, if you don't like
>>> it, dont buy Windows - go elsewhere. If enough folks do that, then
>>> MS will be forced to change it's policies.
>>>
>>> Don't count on that happening though. Windows is currently the OS
>>> of choice for a very large percentage of the computing world.
>>
>> And MS is a proven predatory monopoly, and copyright and patent
>> infringer in the process, but not ONE individual has ever been
>> legally proven to have violated MS's EULA for installing Windows on
>> more than one computer for non-commercial use in the privacy of
>> their own home.
>
> The courts declared MS used unfair tactics, but stopped short of
> declaring MS in full violation of the Sherman Anti-trust act - thus MS
> was not broke up, as would have been required IF MS had been found to
> be a true monopoly. Anybody is free to challenge them on the open
> market. It's just that MS has more money to spend on marketing and
> can bury your product in the media - they can afford thousands of ads
> to the newbies one.
>
>> So you and MS can CLAIM that it is a violation of the EULA until you
>> are blue in the face, but that does not make your claim legally
>> true! All it is, is an unsubstantiated claim!
>
> It IS a violation of the EULA if you are doing what it says you can't
> do. MS has just chosen not to take anybody to court - or they would
> waste millions of dollars on stupid lawsuits. Why go down that path?
> WPA actually prevents many of these issues, though obviously many
> people bypass it.

Is IBM guilty of violating the UNIX license just because SCO claims it
has? Why have a trial then? MS has chosen not to practice due
diligence in enforcing by legal means it's EULA restrictions on software
that is used by private non-commercial individuals, because it is to
afraid to lose in court, and then they could use the kangeroo court of
PA to get people to buy the same software over and over again.

PA stops nothing except the OSs of MS's paying customers, and just adds
another way to break their software, and is of absolutely no benefit to
the END USER. 

-- 
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Im done with this thread - was: Alias acting like a troll
    ... >>provisions of US copyright law and that a court decision would be ... >>incumbent upon the licensor to sue the licensee in order to dispute ... >>an alleged violation of such an agreement? ... >>EULA himself, in the privacy of his own home? ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: License key for home network
    ... Jupiter Jones [MVP] wrote: ... It's not a violation of the EULA unless MS proves it in court, ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • RE: [Full-Disclosure] IDS (ISS) and reverse engineering
    ... Subject: EULA Law ... Technologies January 29, 2003, and the Supreme Court announced in June ... Ticketmaster Corp. v. ... Bowers' shrink-wrap EULA was at issue. ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • Re: Joos Sue White Woman $1.9 million for downloading 24 mp3 files
    ... The industry is full of it on that count. ... saying that breaking the encryption was a violation of the law. ... it maybe means you were just outgunned in court. ... If you file a case you have the right to subpoena ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Gathering ticket
    ... What happens if I did not appear on my scheduled court ... Does everyone who was issued a violation notice have ... constitutes a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. ...
    (alt.gathering.rainbow)