But the Government isn't threatening violence against Microsoft and they're not allowed to prevent Microsoft trading in a way that harms others? I don't think your argument holds any water Kurt.

You're not making sense...I have no idea what you're trying to say...

I think what he is trying to say is that anyone's rights aren't only in the form of if its violent or the such.

Just because its not violent or physically harming someone doesn't mean it should be allowed..... What your saying is its okay to rob a bank, as long as you don't harm anyone in the process.. well, that's what I get from your posts and stance.

Oh well.. that's my two cents.. just trying to clarify the last response you don't understand for some reason.

Robbing a bank is inherently violent--even if you don't actually harm anyone, you are still taking what rightfully belongs to someone else (and thus harming his property).

So me buying a PC and forced to pay for Windows preinstalled is taking my money from me as a consumer, thus harming me financially.. so case in point really. That is why our government setup these laws to protect consumers from Businesses abusing and harming us in the long run.

Regards.

PS. What if the bank robber lies and said he had a gun but really didn't.. all he is doing is taking money from an institute setup to handle our money, I don't see anything violent about that, if he walked in quietly, asked for the money, then walked out...

I wish that I could get a computer for free. If any one lives in California and would like to give it to me that would be nice.

I would wish that other states would file similar law suits and that way we could help the linux community and get free computers! We could all have free computers to use for our schools, libraries and ourselves. Since linux is free why can't hardware be free? (Well, at least paid by Microsoft)

I'd go along with that, so long as there aren't any microshaft products preinstalled on the machines. Heck, it might actually save the schools some money.

I think it makes perfect sense Kurt, your argument is that Microsoft can do whatever it likes so long as they don't threaten violence, but the Government cannot dictate terms of trading even though they don't threaten violence.

Violence is not the only form of crime. If I sneaked into your house and stole the contents I'm pretty certain you'd agree I'd broken the law... but then I could claim that the Government has no right to tell me what I can and can't do so long as I don't threaten or carry out a violent act. This however is what you are arguing for. How can you justify allowing a company to ignore the rights of individuals?

But the choice of whether or not to buy the PC ultimately lies with you. If someone were holding a gun to your head and saying, "Buy this or I shoot," you would have a point--but that's not what you're talking about.

True, in today's world life without a PC may be difficult. It might even get to the point where it becomes literally impossible. However, as long as you decide you want to use something that SOMEONE ELSE has created, you must take it under the terms that the creator offered or not at all. After all, it is the creator's creation to distribute or not as he wishes. You don't have a right to it, period.

I don't think you understand my point...theft is inherently violent, regardless of whether or not any person is actually harmed. The mere act of taking what belongs to someone else without his consent is a violent act against that person's property.

But you did commit violent act, as I explained above.

No, it isn't.

I'm not--you're instead trying to justify allowing individuals to ignore the rights of other individuals (namely the right to design and build something of his as he chooses and to offer it under whatever terms he chooses).

So when I have no idea how to build my own computer and rely on going to the store to buy one in which I'm forced to buy a computer with Windows on it, that in turn is harming me as me being a consumer am forced to buy something I don't want in which this case is about and why they setup this MSFreePC site which isn't setup by the courts or M$, only Lindows set this up to get others to turn their profit from the lawsuit into something good for those that bought a PC and forced to use, err buy Windows on it, per se.

And no, I do not believe all theft is violent. I think you need to look up the word in the dictionary cause what you percieve as violent is not what defines violence. Bottom line, so like you tell everyone else here with an opinion like your always right in some way or another and no one else's opinions count, YOUR WRONG sir regarding violence... and what you percieve as it.

Violent -
1. Marked by, acting with, or resulting from great force: a violent attack.
2. Having or showing great emotional force: violent dislike.
3. Marked by intensity; extreme: violent pain; a violent squall. See Synonyms at intense.
4. Caused by unexpected force or injury rather than by natural causes: a violent death.
5. Tending to distort or injure meaning, phrasing, or intent.

So if I was stealing something, lets say candy out of a convienent store, and I was doing it with a smile on my face, laughing on the way out, that isn't a violent crime, I only just took or stole a dollar and maybe some change from the business. That would be classified as, well, stealing, not commiting a violent crime.

Anyone can steal something without doing any of the following that defines violence....

Good day..

You're free to do without altogether, you know.

Although others fit as well, this is the easiest to explain. Taking what belongs to someone else without his consent is in fact an injury to him--just like when I break your leg I am injuring you by taking what rightfully belongs to you (your health and safety), so am I injuring you when I take a candy bar that belongs to you.

Seriously man, breaking someone's leg compared to taking their candy bar from them are totally opposite. I'd feel no sympathy for anyone who thought the person that stole their candy bar commited a violent crime against them... maybe only if the person held a gun to their head, yah.. but your wrong still.

PS. Injury is defined in many different ways as well.. but not all injuries are violent as well..

Cheers.

Keep'em coming.. you keep eating your own words it seems..

Violence need not be against one's body...property is an extension of the self.

That didn't back up from what you said previously of what violence is defined as?? I didn't say only bodily injury is violent and or property wasn't either.

But from your previous posts, you clearly indicate that if I took a candy bar from someone, say they left their desk at work and I stole it when they weren't around, that is a violent crime? I don't think so bud.