Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[Mike Meyer]

You have not disproved that. The closest you've come to a disproof is
one case where the word "theft" was used (while earlier in the thread,
actual physical force had been used, but not in that specific spot) where
the context strongly suggested that it meant theft by force.

Now you're simply lieing. I never discussed force earlier in the
thread.

You are correct that it is possible to steal something without actually
using physical force. But that's not an important difference. The hugely
important difference, and the one that you and others *are* seeking to
obliterate, is the difference between inherently unjust actions such as
force and fraud and actions that are neither forceful nor fraudulent.

And now you change your story again. You've gone from referring to all
other criminal acts as "criminals with guns" to "actual use of force"
to "using force or fraud."

That's because the only crimes that have come up in this thread are
Microsoft's crimes (that don't involve force or fraud) and other crimes
(such as theft, threats of force, and the like) which do. Duh.

Actually, they don't necessarily, but that's relevant. You simply
label *all* crime other than MS's as "criminals with guns" and refuse
to discuss them.

There were a few narrow cases where Microsoft was actually accused of
actions that I do consider force or fraud.

That's true. They committed a fraud - by lieing to federal officials
in court - and *you* responded by calling those federal officials
"criminals with guns", and using that to *excuse* MS's criminal acts
in this case.

Which is more of the same old song and dance from you: treating MS's
criminal acts as somehow different from any other criminals acts.

<mike

 

[David Schwartz]

Now you're simply lieing. I never discussed force earlier in the
thread.

I didn't say that *you* discussed force. I said it "was used". At that
time, I was responding to a lot of different people about similar issues,
and it is true that things said to me by other people will color my
responses to you. I agree that that isn't always fair.

And now you change your story again. You've gone from referring to all
other criminal acts as "criminals with guns" to "actual use of force"
to "using force or fraud."

It is an interesting debate tactic that rather addressing my claims, you
simply note that they're different to the previous ones. Why does it matter
whether they're the same or different exactly?

Actually, they don't necessarily, but that's relevant. You simply
label *all* crime other than MS's as "criminals with guns" and refuse
to discuss them.

No, not at all. If a crime came up that wasn't force or fraud (say,
possesion of "illegal" drugs), I would just as much insist that the
difference between this type of crime and a crime involving force or fraud
be kept in mind. It makes no difference to me who the actor is and all the
difference in the world what the action is.

That's true. They committed a fraud - by lieing to federal officials
in court - and *you* responded by calling those federal officials
"criminals with guns", and using that to *excuse* MS's criminal acts
in this case.

Actually, I wasn't aware of any cases where they actually committed
perjury. I was more thinking of cases where they claimed they had no
interest in developing a competing product to get advance information when
they actually were developing a competing product or cases where they
threatened a lawsuit that they knew had no merit. (These are, IMO,
fundamentally equivalent to guns, though perhaps lesser in degree.)

Morally, lying in court is a tough one. For example, suppose you are in
a court case with someone who is definitely lying in court. You are in the
right, but it's clear the court won't believe you in the face of the lying
and faked evidence. In this case, is lying in court fraud? Or is it
justified in defense against an attacker willing to use fraud against you?
So this isn't quite in the same category as force or fraud, because the
court has the ability to balance credibility and control damage. No such
balancing is available against a bullet in flight.

The Federal officials do wield force. The purpose of a trial is
precisely to determine how force will be used.

Which is more of the same old song and dance from you: treating MS's
criminal acts as somehow different from any other criminals acts.

Yes, different from the ones they are different from and the same as the
ones they are the same as.

There is a huge difference between crimes that involve the use of force,
fraud, the threat of force, and the like and crimes that don't. There is a
huge difference between crimes that creat real victims and crimes that we
have to pretend create notional victims.

DS

 

[samwyse]

news:[email protected]...

Morally, lying in court is a tough one. For example, suppose you are in
a court case with someone who is definitely lying in court. You are in the
right, but it's clear the court won't believe you in the face of the lying
and faked evidence. In this case, is lying in court fraud? Or is it
justified in defense against an attacker willing to use fraud against you?
So this isn't quite in the same category as force or fraud, because the
court has the ability to balance credibility and control damage. No such
balancing is available against a bullet in flight.

Lying in court isn't fraud. It is perjury. There are laws against it
with pretty stiff penalties, because it subverts the court system.
Committing perjury to defend yourself against fraud will often cause
any conviction and punishment relating to the fraud to be erased. So,
I'd say no, it isn't justified. Instead, you try to prove that the
other person is lying. Lawyers do this all the time; it's part of
their job and it's called discrediting the witness.

BTW, if you want an excellent example of officers of Microsoft
falsifying evidence in a trial, you need look no further that here:
http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,17689,00.html
and here:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,17938,00.html

 

[John W. Kennedy]

(e-mail address removed) wrote...

That would be a good guess, except that Microsoft's predatory and illegal
behaviour began long before OS/2 was even planned. It began in the mid
1970s, with MS DOS.

Nitpick: MS-DOS first appeared in 1981.

[slaps head]

Of course it did.

The first thing I ever bought of Microsoft's, in 1982 or so, was a
CP/M board for my Apple IIe.

CP/M, whose programmers to this day defend sticking with 8-bit CPUs
because 'they can't find a 4-bit chip they like'. Yeah, there's some
desktop innovation for you.

OS/2 1.0 was released in 1987, but the "selling" of it started in
1985 or so by IBM and Microsoft. It was a 286 OS.

Only to the extent that IBM promised a protected-mode operating system
in 1984, when the PC-AT came out.

IBM seems to have had a history of squeezing out competition in the
same way Microsoft has, if I recall correctly.

IBM was genuinely innovative, and did their best to provide value for
money. Microsoft hasn't been able to produce anything but me-too
products since the 80's. (Multiplan, Word for DOS, the QBASIC engine,
early sponsorship of mouses, and the gutsy decision to morph MS-DOS 1.0,
a CP/M quasi-clone, into DOS 2.0, a Unix quasi-clone, are about all I
can give them credit for.)


--
John W. Kennedy
"Those in the seat of power oft forget their failings and seek only the
obeisance of others! Thus is bad government born! Hold in your heart
that you and the people are one, human beings all, and good government
shall arise of its own accord! Such is the path of virtue!"
-- Kazuo Koike. "Lone Wolf and Cub: Thirteen Strings" (tr. Dana Lewis)