Re: Tiffany v. Ebay - update

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 07:13:07 GMT, germ <germinator@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

irony that someone like M$, who used illegal tactics to develop their
business and has been investigated and convicted of such crimes, now
can use a governemnt agency to enforce their monopoly.

Different matter. An ex murderer's rights are as valid as any
person's, once he has done the time. MS done the time.

I don't think so. Neither does the EU, who just recently imposed some
heavy fines on M$, who continues in its monopolistic and predatory
practices, and will continue to do so (or try to do so) as long as they
are a de facto monopoly.

Again, that has nothing to do with their own property rights being
protected. The law does not support tit for tat actions.
MS doing underhanded trade practices, does NOT in any way empower
someone else to reverse engineer their software or steal their trade
mark, IP or software. Theft is theft, no matter who from..

Btw, your stating of that monopoly being prosecuted means that someone
somwhere, who is not quite as much a monopoly has been favored by the
law. So your argument that MS is being favored and runs the world as
it pleases, is quite a contradiction to the facts.

It's the other way around. M$, because of its position of dominance,
extracts a lot of money from all their customers, incl. the government.

ROTFLMAO. As opposed to other businesses who pass on their services to
their clients at no charge. Read Marx much ? Not Groucho, the other
one.

What? Are you arguing that a company in a monopolistic position does
not take advantage of it? Other companies certainly do not pass on
their services at no charge, but when you are the dominant player, you
can play hardball, and M$ does.

Of course they do. Name a company that does not.


Bottom line is, what OJ did just recently *is* illegal and he should
also have asked the cops to go with him. ;-)
???

Over your head, was it ?

No, just wondering what does that have to do with the discussion at
hand.

Had to do with Bruce mentioning a raid by MS. OJ did the same to
merely recover(allegedly) his(allegedly) property, but without
judicial approval..

--

Regards, Frank
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: Dear John Kerry
    ... These are basic rights which people have fought and died for in every ... combatants are not criminals and they are not Prisoners of War. ... The fact that the detainees are given physical care and comfort, ... criminal matter and I think it is a military matter. ...
    (alt.smokers.cigars)
  • Re: Technical Animism
    ... within 'organised' matter, and that the matter then becomes an ... then the sun might even not be a good performer. ... First I never claimed a causal relationship between organized ... For example for a business, ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: EU: US must show Guantanamo detainees pose no risk
    ... Mitchell Holman wrote: ... "Bill Bonde {No matter what happens, ... combatants shouldn't get more rights than legal combatants. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Can "trusted Computing" be trusted?
    ... >> control over what is installed and what is not. ... this is being done for no other reason than big business greed. ... The statement I have been making is the balancing of rights. ... > trusted computing built in, ...
    (microsoft.public.security)
  • Re: "Take your guns to work" law is wrong.
    ... Just pointing out that many business have lost some self-determination in some areas because they're incorporated--they are no longer private ownership. ... Many people are equating a business' property rights with private property rights--which doesn't always hold true, depending on the type of business, how much public access it has, how much government regulation exists already, and many other factors I'm not aware of. ... If the building or the premises are open to the public, the employer or business enterprise shall post signs on or about the premises if carrying concealed weapons is prohibited. ... A private but not a public employer may prohibit employees or other persons holding a concealed deadly weapons license from carrying concealed deadly weapons, or ammunition, or both in vehicles owned by the employer, but may not prohibit employees or other persons holding a concealed deadly weapons license from carrying concealed deadly weapons, or ammunition, or both in vehicles owned by the employee, except that the Justice and Public Safety Cabinet may prohibit an employee from carrying any weapons, or ammunition, or both other than the weapons, or ammunition, or both issued or authorized to be used by the employee of the cabinet, in a vehicle while transporting persons under the employee's supervision or jurisdiction. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)