Illegal XP owners beware, Microsoft has quite a suprise planned

[docmanhattan]

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

If you'd like to discuss MS's legal woes, start a thread about it. It has absolutely nothing to do with their intellectual property rights unless a US court decides they are no longer their's.

I may be boring, but at least I'm consistent and I don't try to change the central topic in the middle of a debate.

I have addressed every relevant point you've brought up. Do not think to accuse me of disregarding them out of hand, unless they are irrelevant to the topic at hand. MS's legal woes have nothing to do with their, or anyone else's property rights unless, and until those rights are deemed invalid by a court. Until then, it is moot as you or I cannot make the decision that their property rights do not belong to them. And as such, using their legal troubles in a discussion about the piracy of their property rights can only imply one thing and one thing only: MS is bad, therefore it's OK to pirate their products. I see NO OTHER reason to bring it up when the debate has been, all along, about the piracy of their intellectual property.

Two things:

1) Boorish !== "boring" ( i actually misspelled it earlier... )

2) I'm not trying to change the central topic. ( again with the accusations...

) I'm trying to get you to think beyond the point that we have so long ago agreed upon and further it's discussion by bringing up valid and relevant points. For the, I don't know - I lose count, time; just because you proclaim some is irrelevant, doesn't make it so. No matter how many times and how bold-faced the font is.

So why is what I'm saying relevant: ( which is a rather ironic thing to have to do on Off-Topic to begin with )

1) because I'm trying to establish, beyond a legal standpoint, whether or not MS has complete intellectual ownership of XP if it used unethical practices in it's development process. Or in a more generalized way, can you/company own something if the means inwhich it was created/gained was through unethical practices? This is relevant because if you can reasonably prove that the way inwhich MS gained something that was used in XP was not ethically procured, could you not then say that they do not own that portion, thus MS not completely owning the intellectual property to XP? Think of it like a boxing title if it were revoked from the champ because they found the champ to be using illegal drug enhancements to boost their performance. This isn't an exact analogy, obviously, but it does paralllel with my point of revoking ownership if "foul play" were discovered.

2) because A1, I like to see you stomp your foot over and over saying the sames things and calling me a MS hater.

 

[LordSnailz]

I'll regret joining this thread but wth -

1) because I'm trying to establish, beyond a legal standpoint, whether or not MS has complete intellectual ownership of XP if it used unethical practices in it's development process. Or in a more generalized way, can you/company own something if the means inwhich it was created/gained was through unethical practices? This is relevant because if you can reasonably prove that the way inwhich MS gained something that was used in XP was not ethically procured, could you not then say that they do not own that portion, thus MS not completely owning the intellectual property to XP? Think of it like a boxing title if it were revoked from the champ because they found the champ to be using illegal drug enhancements to boost their performance. This isn't an exact analogy, obviously, but it does paralllel with my point of revoking ownership if "foul play" were discovered.

okay - point taken, I agree, this is relevant to the topic being discussed. Now can you elaborate on the unethical practices that MS used that would revoke their ownership of the product. In another words, let's define what you mean by unethical practices first ... personally I think ownership depends whether it was obtain legally not whether it was obtain ethically.

-ls

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: docmanhattan

Originally posted by: AmusedOne

If you'd like to discuss MS's legal woes, start a thread about it. It has absolutely nothing to do with their intellectual property rights unless a US court decides they are no longer their's.

I may be boring, but at least I'm consistent and I don't try to change the central topic in the middle of a debate.

I have addressed every relevant point you've brought up. Do not think to accuse me of disregarding them out of hand, unless they are irrelevant to the topic at hand. MS's legal woes have nothing to do with their, or anyone else's property rights unless, and until those rights are deemed invalid by a court. Until then, it is moot as you or I cannot make the decision that their property rights do not belong to them. And as such, using their legal troubles in a discussion about the piracy of their property rights can only imply one thing and one thing only: MS is bad, therefore it's OK to pirate their products. I see NO OTHER reason to bring it up when the debate has been, all along, about the piracy of their intellectual property.

Two things:

1) Boorish !== "boring" ( i actually misspelled it earlier... )

2) I'm not trying to change the central topic. ( again with the accusations...

) I'm trying to get you to think beyond the point that we have so long ago agreed upon and further it's discussion by bringing up valid and relevant points. For the, I don't know - I lose count, time; just because you proclaim some is irrelevant, doesn't make it so. No matter how many times and how bold-faced the font is.

So why is what I'm saying relevant: ( which is a rather ironic thing to have to do on Off-Topic to begin with )

1) because I'm trying to establish, beyond a legal standpoint, whether or not MS has complete intellectual ownership of XP if it used unethical practices in it's development process. Or in a more generalized way, can you/company own something if the means inwhich it was created/gained was through unethical practices? This is relevant because if you can reasonably prove that the way inwhich MS gained something that was used in XP was not ethically procured, could you not then say that they do not own that portion, thus MS not completely owning the intellectual property to XP? Think of it like a boxing title if it were revoked from the champ because they found the champ to be using illegal drug enhancements to boost their performance. This isn't an exact analogy, obviously, but it does paralllel with my point of revoking ownership if "foul play" were discovered.

2) because A1, I like to see you stomp your foot over and over saying the sames things and calling me a MS hater.

Well, I'm glad to see how much you love me

As I said before, the legal claims of MS's intellectual property is not up to you, me, or pirates (notice how you and pirates are separate? ) to decide. That's up to a court to decide. Until that point, MS has full legal rights to their intellectual property.

This is why I believe the issues are separate at this point, and that one is irrelevant to the other.

If, in fact, it was found that MS has no legal claim to their IP, than by all means it is either transfered to it's legal owner, or made public domain. But I wouldn't hold your breath. No way is a court going to strip MS of their IP. They may break them up and do all sorts of other things to them, but the entity(ies) that is, or becomes what is left of MS will retain their IP, IMHO.

 

[ander]

Go 2k

 

[CraigRT]

Another reason to stick to W2K or go Linux.

agreed, especially since WinXP sucks bag anyways.

 

[MrPhelps]

Thursday I had pizza for lunch.

 

[Napalm]

original link is dead... is there another link that works??

N