3 ms·

And why not? Because of software patents. Microsoft isn't paying them all. No, it is threatening them all if they don't pay. In the name of "innovation".

by Create 18y ago

jm4 18y ago
Because of software patents. Did you completely miss the point I was trying to make? You and I may not like Microsoft products because of their proprietary nature, but there are plenty of customers making a conscious decision to use them despite this. In fact, quite a few of them probably choose Microsoft specifically because of this. No, it is threatening them all if they don't pay. In the name of "innovation". I don't even know where to start here. I'm going to completely overlook that "innovation" remark because your poor use of the English language makes it impossible for me to figure out what you're trying to say. Do you realize that you've contradicted yourself here? First, you cite examples of Microsoft paying people off to use their software. Now they are threatening them if they don't pay? Which one is it? If what you're getting at is all that BSA nonsense I'll bite on that. The companies that get bullied by Microsoft and the BSA have chosen to use Microsoft software. Many of them are using it illegally. Either way, that's something they have opened themselves up to by using Microsoft software. Do I think it sucks? Absolutely. That's why I choose my software carefully. Microsoft is not like the Mafia showing up at your door demanding money as soon as you set up shop. They are demanding money - whether right or wrong - from people already using their software. Ten years ago your arguments would have held a lot more water. I may have even made those arguments myself. But things have changed considerably over the last several years. We have real alternatives to Microsoft software. In many cases we have acceptable interoperability between Microsoft products and their open source equivalents. The fact is you can get by in a mostly Windows world without ever touching a Microsoft product so I tend to think the primary cause of complaints like these is the stupidity of the people who still use software that doesn't fulfill their needs.

And why not? Because of software patents. Microsoft isn't paying them all. No, it is threatening them all if they don't pay. In the name of "innovation".

by Create 18y ago

And why not? Because of software patents. Microsoft isn't paying them all. No, it is threatening them all if they don't pay. In the name of "innovation".

jm4 18y ago

Because of software patents. Did you completely miss the point I was trying to make? You and I may not like Microsoft products because of their proprietary nature, but there are plenty of customers making a conscious decision to use them despite this. In fact, quite a few of them probably choose Microsoft specifically because of this. No, it is threatening them all if they don't pay. In the name of "innovation". I don't even know where to start here. I'm going to completely overlook that "innovation" remark because your poor use of the English language makes it impossible for me to figure out what you're trying to say. Do you realize that you've contradicted yourself here? First, you cite examples of Microsoft paying people off to use their software. Now they are threatening them if they don't pay? Which one is it? If what you're getting at is all that BSA nonsense I'll bite on that. The companies that get bullied by Microsoft and the BSA have chosen to use Microsoft software. Many of them are using it illegally. Either way, that's something they have opened themselves up to by using Microsoft software. Do I think it sucks? Absolutely. That's why I choose my software carefully. Microsoft is not like the Mafia showing up at your door demanding money as soon as you set up shop. They are demanding money - whether right or wrong - from people already using their software. Ten years ago your arguments would have held a lot more water. I may have even made those arguments myself. But things have changed considerably over the last several years. We have real alternatives to Microsoft software. In many cases we have acceptable interoperability between Microsoft products and their open source equivalents. The fact is you can get by in a mostly Windows world without ever touching a Microsoft product so I tend to think the primary cause of complaints like these is the stupidity of the people who still use software that doesn't fulfill their needs.