Live in California? Microsoft may owe you a computer!
GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Kurt, your views arent always wrong, because i see exactly where your trying to come from.
Sometimes look at the bigger picture. Would you rather have a legal system which benefits every single person living in the country (ie the restrictions on monopolies and unfair business practices) or a legal system which lets a company do whatever they want whenever they want, at the expense of every other person in the country (ie competition keeps prices low, id rather pay £150 for XP than £1500, which they could force us all to do)
sometimes laws against monopolies do seem unfair, but its important that competition is always allowed and encouraged. Total free-market capitalism may be the only moral system (or so you say), but in practise it just doesnt work. Hence you actually do have to conform to the rules, and your comments of "but those laws are invalid" means nothing.
A correct, legitimate government must always do what is right (which includes respecting the right of a creator to distribute his products under whatever terms he wishes--or not at all) regardless of the result in practice.
I, too, understand where you're coming from, Kurt. However it is your assertion that the United States government does not have the right to tell microshaft how to distribute its products, do I have that correct? If so, then I must point out that in Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, the federal government has the right to regulate commerce and make laws governing trade in the United States. Here is the exact text:
"The Congress shall have Power...........To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
The federal antitrust laws that every company has to abide by are an extension of that right bestowed the federal government by the Constitution. Since microsoft is headquarted in Washington state and the specific infraction that this thread deals with are incidents occurring in the State of California, interstate commerce is indeed involved, and the federal government has jurisdiction through the Congress and the laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, at the very least in this specific instant. Please forgive me for pointing out also that our economic system in the United States is not one of total free-market capitalism. A business entity does not have the right to do whatever, whenever, and wherever it wishes, because laws, Constitutionally sound laws, have been passed by Congress and signed into law by the President in accordance with the Constitution that govern trade practices within the United States, including, but not limited to, antitrust laws.
No, they're not. First off, they're free to choose not to buy computers at all. Second, as I have explained several times already, if you want something that was built and provided by someone else, then you've got to take it the way they choose to make it or not at all. You don't get to use the force of law to compel someone to make something to your specifications--that's called "slavery".
Mr. Weber, did you even read my last posting? These are not end-users here. These are businesses that build their own computers and that are being denied their rights to build their computers their own way, that is without installing (or paying for) Microsoft Windows. Further, the denial of their rights is deceitful in itself, because these businesses are not being forced outright to use Microsoft Windows. They are being forced to pay for it, whether or not they use it. Per your own quote above, Microsoft has and is continuing to enslave these other businesses, no doubt because of the full cooperation of the fraudulent courts in this country. Also, have you looked at the legal evidence against the United States government and the United States "economy?"
Dhimani, Tesl...
The entire economy and the entire government in this country (the United States) is a fraud (and treason). There is no free market, no capitalism, nor any approximation thereof. The proof is an illegal "money" system and an illegal court system. Please feel free to look at the details here.
Originally posted by xode Mr. Weber, did you even read my last posting? These are not end-users here.
Yes, but apparently I misinterpreted it.
Quote:
These are businesses that build their own computers and that are being denied their rights to build their computers their own way, that is without installing (or paying for) Microsoft Windows.
Wrong. You have every right to build your product however you want; however, if you need something produced by someone else to do so, then you've got to take that item under the terms the creator offers it or not at all.
Quote:
Further, the denial of their rights is deceitful in itself, because these businesses are not being forced outright to use Microsoft Windows. They are being forced to pay for it, whether or not they use it.
They're not being forced to do anything. They have a choice--they can choose not to put Windows on any of their computers, or they can choose to put Windows on some (or all) of their computers--they're free to choose either option, but if they choose the second then since Windows is produced by someone else they've got to take it under the terms the creator offers it or not at all.
Originally posted by Dhimani
"The Congress shall have Power...........To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"
Rights are not created or destroyed by government fiat or a piece of paper...just because a government (or a piece of paper) says that the government has the right to do something does not mean that it does in fact have that right.
It's more than just semantics, believe me. It's the fundamental philosophical difference between a free society and a despotism.
Originally posted by Kurt M. Weber The end does not justify the means.
A correct, legitimate government must always do what is right (which includes respecting the right of a creator to distribute his products under whatever terms he wishes--or not at all) regardless of the result in practice.
regardless of the result in practise? are you really that short minded? the end result is the important one at the end of the day, thats the one that has to be right.
Would you want Microsoft to dominate every single industry, and effectively own the entire world? which im sure they could do if they wanted to move into other industries.
Id rather live in a country where the system benefits the people living in it, rather than a few fat cats at Redmond
I'd rather live somewhere where the individual rights of EVERYONE are respected and protected, and no one is punished for being good at what he does simply because it might be inconvenient for others.
They're not being forced to do anything. They have a choice--they can choose not to put Windows on any of their computers, or they can choose to put Windows on some (or all) of their computers--they're free to choose either option,
Mr. Weber, your assertion above is false. These businesses are being forced to "use" Microsoft Windows and the manner that they are being forced to is by being forced to pay for Microsoft Windows whether or not they use it. This is my whole point here about Microsoft's predatory business practices and was Dhimani's original point. You might be wondering how something like this could possibly happen in this "great free-market economy." Did you look at the legal evidence that I have mentioned to you?
Quote:
I'd rather live somewhere where the individual rights of EVERYONE are respected and protected, and no one is punished for being good at what he does simply because it might be inconvenient for others.
The fraudulent courts in this country respect the rights of no one.
Originally posted by xode Mr. Weber, your assertion above is false. These businesses are being forced to "use" Microsoft Windows and the manner that they are being forced to is by being forced to pay for Microsoft Windows whether or not they use it.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by xode
Mr. Weber, your assertion above is false. These businesses are being forced to "use" Microsoft Windows and the manner that they are being forced to is by being forced to pay for Microsoft Windows whether or not they use it.
From Dhimani post on 10-16-2003 at 07:27 AM
...Then, a few years later, there was the settlement where Microshaft was caught trying to edge other operating systems out by forcing computer manufacturers to pay them every time a computer went out, regardless if windows was pre-loaded or not (source: OS/2 Magazine, June 1994)...
There it is, the proof of Microsoft's bad faith and its denial of the rights of other businesses. If you are really skeptical about Microsoft's bad faith and it appears that you are, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, it would seem that OS/2 Magazine, June 1994 would be your next stop. As for myself, I have seen more than enough bad faith on the part of large corporations in general (not just Microsoft) to doubt that Microsoft wouldn't try to pull a stunt like this. No doubt the class action case, that is the original topic of this thread, is another stunt similar to the one discussed by OS/2 Magazine, June 1994 that Microsoft got caught trying to pull. Further, I also know that the entire "economy" and government in this country are frauds. I can easily see the fraudulent courts in this country fostering and encouraging this kind of bad faith.
Originally posted by Kurt M. Weber I'd rather live somewhere where the individual rights of EVERYONE are respected and protected, and no one is punished for being good at what he does simply because it might be inconvenient for others.
And the problem with your argument is that if you take away such laws, and MS takes over, your rights will be taken away from you and replaced with what one big rich ass thinks is best for you. At what point is enough enough? Humans require a right to choose what we want, when choice is taken away from us, we do crazy shit and people end up dying. (Revolutionary wars). This is extreme, yes, but from what u are saying, it seems as if you are ok with this as long as it doesnt infringe on the rights of those causing things to go to hell. It is simplly not possible for any company to hold a monopoly and at the same time protect the rights of EVERYONE. So you take the better route, please the majority while the minority is still rich as hell.
Plain and simply put, the laws are there to protect the basic rights of the majority.
Originally posted by xode There it is, the proof of Microsoft's bad faith and its denial of the rights of other businesses. If you are really skeptical about Microsoft's bad faith and it appears that you are, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, it would seem that OS/2 Magazine, June 1994 would be your next stop.
If I can find a copy of it, I'll take a look.
But here's the thing--that quote you put doesn't tell the whole story. For example, how was Microsoft "forcing" them to pay for Windows? Was it part of some agreement between Microsoft and the OEM that both parties voluntarily entered into in order for the OEM to get something produced by Microsoft, or did Microsoft come out of nowhere and say "Pay us a fee for every computer you sell or we'll kill your firstborn!"?
Originally posted by Robert0380 And the problem with your argument is that if you take away such laws, and MS takes over, your rights will be taken away from you and replaced with what one big rich ass thinks is best for you. At what point is enough enough? Humans require a right to choose what we want, when choice is taken away from us, we do crazy shit and people end up dying. (Revolutionary wars). This is extreme, yes, but from what u are saying, it seems as if you are ok with this as long as it doesnt infringe on the rights of those causing things to go to hell. It is simplly not possible for any company to hold a monopoly and at the same time protect the rights of EVERYONE.
False.
As long as the company isn't threatening violence against people except in self-defense or with their consent, no one's rights are being violated.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.