Indian cracks Microsoft's antipiracy program 16865

on June 23 10:42 pm billwg

Can I have a sample OEM agreement that doesn't show Microsoft leaning on the manufacturers to keep other Operating Systems off the desktop?

I'm asking you what you think. Are you seriously stating that the exact form of word in a legal finding don't matter. For someone who appears to be a keen follower of all things legal that's the silliest thing I've ever read.

Analyzing the exact meaning of text in a legal finding can hardly be called silly. It's what lawyers do all the time. If it's hairsplitting to ask does the ruling mention Windows 2000 or 2003 then the ruling could equally apply to marsh mallows or green cheese.

Does this ruling, or any other ruling mention Windows 2000 or Windows 2003.

It isn't up to the guilty party to argue the exact meaning of the judgement unless you are Microsoft that is. Who are at this moment deciding if they will acquiesce to the European Court in regard to giving access to the protocols.

I see them currently trying the same shuffle. Spend months arguing the case in pre-trial. At the eleventh hour make an offer less then you would have been convicted of. Then accuse the Judge of being biased. Then argue the real meaning of the verdict. Then go to appeal. Five years later its back to first base and we start all over again with Longhorn.

`Microsoft shall, when it makes a major Windows Operating System Product release (such as Windows 95, OSR 2.0, OSR 2.5, Windows 98, Windows 2000 Professional, Windows "Millennium," "Whistler," "Blackcomb," and successors to these'

Is Longhorn technically a successor to these? And seeing how .NET isn't technically an Operating System and the WS.Services protocols didn't exist at the time, are they covered by that agreement?

buttuming you meant this ...