So what you're saying is that you made bank on illegally reselling retail software, $10,000 by your own words, and you hate Microsoft because you were not an authorized reseller? Then you ratted out where you bought it from and they did the same to them because they were not authorized resellers and you hate Microsoft because of all this?

I did not illegally resell software. It is not illegal to resell third party property which is rightfully yours in the state of purchase. You see, what you've done is assume that the resale was illegal, and then just ran with it.

Please show me where selling an MS product that I've purchased is illegal. Please do this.

Distribution regulations under the EULA apply only to first party owners. It is illegal for me to buy a product from MS, and then redistribute it. If anyone is legally liable here for distribution, it is the business that donated the software. Not me, and not the thrift store.

Second, I did not rat out the thrift store. You're a belligerent moderator and a flame warmonger. As already stated, there is a stamp at the bottom of all products from the thrift store that MS saw after they covertly used an ebay account posing as a consumer to purchase from me. I had nothing to do with turning in the store.

Car manufacturers have the same protection as well. I cannot go out and buy lots of GM cars and decide I want to open my own used car lot.

Actually, you can. There are used car lots all over the place that operate as independent from the manufacturer. Why? Because distribution regulation applies only to first party purchasers, and only on copyrighted items, not patented items such as vehicles for which there has not been remanufactured duplication. So again, you're wrong. I can buy up GM cars on craigslist all day long and open a car lot and resell them. You're letting your biased view and your dislike for me personally to interfere with your ability to rationally evaluate a situation.

Sorry, but I'd probably do the same if I were in charge of a company. Not because of greed, but because these kind of "reseller" programs cost my partners money, and if I'm not charging you, they're going to get angry with me for not doing anything about it while charging them. Likewise, if I were an authorized GM reseller and I saw GM doing nothing about a company that I knew did not become an authorized reseller, I would be quite angry with GM for not stepping in and taking care of the problem.

GM doesn't sell their vehicles to anyone but authorized resellers, i.e. dealerships which are btw, independent businesses. Microsoft doesn't do this however, and will sell their product to anyone directly. Then, after the fact they will try to regulate the distribution of their products once they have become private, second party property. They have no legal standing to do this. This is precisely why MS, the company you're standing up for here, LIED under penalty of perjury and said that the software was counterfeit because they had no legal claim otherwise to stop the process.

I could probably even take them to court for unfair business practices because they allowed it to happen.

Based on what? You've already demonstrated that you're not knowledgeable of the laws governing copyrighted distribution. I wonder what you know then, that I don't in this regard.

So what you're saying is that you made bank on illegally reselling retail software, $10,000 by your own words, and you hate Microsoft because you were not an authorized reseller? Then you ratted out where you bought it from and they did the same to them because they were not authorized resellers and you hate Microsoft because of all this?

I did not illegally resell software. It is not illegal to resell property which is rightfully yours in the state of purchase. You see, what you've done is assume that the resale was illegal, and then just ran with it.

...but you do not "own" the property. You bought the software for your own personal use and you chose to resell it instead.

Please show me where selling an MS product that I've purchased is illegal. Please do this.

I suggest you read the Microsoft EULA, and you look into Microsoft's reseller program for further information.

Distribution regulations apply only to first party owners. It is illegal for me to buy a product from MS, and then redistribute it. If anyone is legally liable here for distribution, it is the business that donated the software. Not me, and not the thrift store.

Incorrect on both parts. But you're right about the illegal resale distribution of donated software, however that doesn't allow the thrift store or yourself to continue the illegal process and get away with it.

Car manufacturers have the same protection as well. I cannot go out and buy lots of GM cars and decide I want to open my own used car lot.

Actually, you can. There are used car lots all over the place that operate as independent from the manufacturer. Why? Because distribution regulation applies only to first party purchasers. So again, you're wrong. I can buy up GM cars on craigslist all day long and open a car lot and resell them.

Nope, wrong again. Any company has a right to shut down any supplier in the chain if you are unauthorized. The law does not only apply to first party purchasers. I suggest you read up on ownership laws before suggesting otherwise.

Sorry, but I'd probably do the same if I were in charge of a company. Not because of greed, but because these kind of "reseller" programs cost my partners money, and if I'm not charging you, they're going to get angry with me for not doing anything about it while charging them. Likewise, if I were an authorized GM reseller and I saw GM doing nothing about a company that I knew did not become an authorized reseller, I would be quite angry with GM for not stepping in and taking care of the problem.

GM doesn't sell their vehicles to anyone but authorized resellers, i.e. dealerships which are btw, independent businesses. Microsoft doesn't do this however, and will sell their product to anyone directly. Then, after the fact they will try to regulate the distribution of their products once they have become private, second party property. They have no legal standing to do this. This is precisely why MS LIED and said that the software was counterfeit because they had no legal claim otherwise to stop the process.

You confuse Microsoft's business practices. Yes, you can buy their software directly from them, but they assume it is for your own personal use. I guarantee that if you told them you intend to resell the software for a profit as a business, they would rightfully have a problem with that.

They can claim it is counterfeit because you are not an authorized reseller, regardless if the software is directly from them or not. This would be the same as some street punk who buys illegally obtained MS software and resells them for profit. Under your claim, the punk did nothing wrong and therefore is not punishable for selling legit copies. The moment the EULA is violated, it becomes counterfeit.

I could probably even take them to court for unfair business practices because they allowed it to happen.

Based on what? You've already demonstrated that you're not knowledgeable of the laws governing copyright distribution. I wonder what you know then, that I don't in this regard.

Seemingly more than you know. If Microsoft was in the wrong, no lawyer would put their license at risk to give an illegal ultimatum to shut down a store if the move were successfully challenged at the courts.

---

...but you do not "own" the property. You bought the software for your own personal use and you chose to resell it instead.[quote]

By law I do own the property. I do not own the copyright, if that's what you're referring to, but that hardly matters because I'm not infringing on copyright. It's the same as if I sell a used book on amazon. The only difference is a contractual one which I'm not obligated to because I have not accepted the terms of the EULA and not bound by contract. The software is unopened. Yes, MS has say over the distribution rights of the product, but only in regard to FIRST PARTY PURCHASERS which I'm exempt from.

[quote]I suggest you read the Microsoft EULA, and you look into Microsoft's reseller program for further information.

I'm not bound by the EULA as it's a consensual contract that is binding upon use (product is new), and I'm not bound by reseller obligations because I'm not a first party.

Incorrect on both parts. But you're right about the illegal resale distribution of donated software, however that doesn't allow the thrift store or yourself to continue the illegal process and get away with it.

Not incorrect. MS only has legal standing within the terms of sale, which apply either to A. the first party purchaser bound by terms of sale or B. someone bound by the EULA. Neither of those fit the situation here. You know, the argument you're making suggests that ever sale of any used book on amazon, every MS product, or any patented or copyrighted work is protected from third party sale. You're wrong. Otherwise, amazon.com, ebay, almost any auction or resale site wouldn't have ever even existed because third party sale of any copyright or patented product would be illegal.

Nope, wrong again. Any company has a right to shut down any supplier in the chain if you are unauthorized. The law does not only apply to first party purchasers. I suggest you read up on ownership laws before suggesting otherwise.

Wrong. I can sell any third party product I want that is legally mine. Laws do vary from state to state, and then there are federal guidelines, ALL of which supercede company policies and unfulfilled contracts. Where I live, the resale was perfectly legal, and the fact that MS had to make a false claim without use of any legal precedent underlines this.

You confuse Microsoft's business practices. Yes, you can buy their software directly from them, but they assume it is for your own personal use. I guarantee that if you told them you intend to resell the software for a profit as a business, they would rightfully have a problem with that.

I'm not debating that, but I didn't buy the product from Microsoft. I bought the product from a thrift store that got it from someone else that bought from MS. MS only has control of distribution first party. It ends there. The fact that MS is the ONLY business trying to regulate third party sales (not GM, not Ford, not Random House, not Johnson and Johnson) says it all. You're trying to tell all of us here that you can't resale a second hand product you own because of distribution clauses binding the first party? Gee, I better cancel my craigslist ad for my BMW 740i because I'm infringing on them. Right.

They can claim it is counterfeit because you are not an authorized reseller, regardless if the software is directly from them or not. This would be the same as some street punk who buys illegally obtained MS software and resells them for profit. Under your claim, the punk did nothing wrong and therefore is not punishable for selling legit copies. The moment the EULA is violated, it becomes counterfeit.

Wrong. Reselling a product against the EULA for which one is binded to does not render the product counterfeit. MS will still support the product, the product is still original. It has not be duplicated or reverse engineered. It hardly matters if it's a street punk or a businessman; the question of a product's validity has nothing to do with whether or not the first party violated the TOS agreement or even the EULA. That is a separate matter. And besides, I'm not bound by the EULA because I didn't open or use the product, nor did I enter into a sales contract that restricted me from doing anything. You're assuming that the EULA automatically applies to every individual on the planet. That's wrong.

Seemingly more than you know. If Microsoft was in the wrong, no lawyer would put their license at risk to give an illegal ultimatum to shut down a store if the move were successfully challenged at the courts.

MS sent a lawyer to an elderly mom and pop shop employing disabled youngsters. I don't know where you think this check and balance comes from, that lawyers only act legally or ethically. Must be a nice place you live in.

By law I do own the property. I do not own the copyright, if that's what you're referring to, but that hardly matters because I'm not infringing on copyright. It's the same as if I sell a used book on amazon. The only difference is a contractual one which I'm not obligated to because I have not accepted the terms of the EULA and not bound by contract. The software is unopened. Yes, MS has say over the distribution rights of the product, but only in regard to FIRST PARTY PURCHASERS which I'm exempt from.

...



I'm not bound by the EULA as it's a consensual contract that is binding upon use (product is new), and I'm not bound by reseller obligations because I'm not a first party.

...

Not incorrect. MS only has legal standing within the terms of sale, which apply either to A. the first party purchaser bound by terms of sale or B. someone bound by the EULA. Neither of those fit the situation here. You know, the argument you're making suggests that ever sale of any used book on amazon, every MS product, or any patented or copyrighted work is protected from third party sale. You're wrong.

You're confusing the sales of an individual selling second-hand stuff and a business selling stuff for profit.

What you said that I am suggesting is merely an assumption on your part. I am most certainly not suggesting that every sale of any kind is subject to reseller laws. I am stating that any company attempting to make profit through reselling an item is bound by reseller laws.

Wrong. I can sell any third party product I want that is legally mine. Laws do vary from state to state, and then there are federal guidelines, ALL of which supercede company policies and unfulfilled contracts. Where I live, the resale was perfectly legal, and the fact that MS had to make a false claim without use of any legal precedent underlines this.

The resale was illegal based upon the fact that they themselves were reselling donated software for profit. If you believe the claim was false, why not challenge them in court? It would be an easy win and I'm sure any lawyer would love to take your case. Don't tell me you don't have the money to do so because you made ten grand from the illegal sales.

I'm not debating that, but I didn't buy the product from Microsoft. I bought the product from a thrift store that got it from someone else that bought from MS. MS only has control of distribution first party. It ends there. The fact that MS is the ONLY business trying to regulate third party sales (not GM, not Ford, not Random House, not Johnson and Johnson) says it all. You're trying to tell all of us here that you can't resale a second hand product you own because of distribution clauses binding the first party? Gee, I better cancel my craigslist ad for my BMW 740i because I'm infringing on them. Right.

No, I am not telling you anything of the sort. It is perfectly legal for an individual to "resell" an item they obtained legally. eBay and Craigslist, as you mentioned, are perfect examples of companies making profit off of those doing so.

What is or was illegal is the fact that even if someone legally bought the copies from some authorized MS reseller, MS's interests do not stop there. If that person then "donates" them to a company (I assume this thrift shop was registered as a business?), and this company intends to make a profit from the donation without being listed as a non-for-profit organization, then it is illegal for them to resell it and it is also illegal for anyone to buy it.

Wrong. Reselling a product against the EULA for which one is binded to does not render the product counterfeit. MS will still support the product, the product is still original. It has not be duplicated or reverse engineered. It hardly matters if it's a street punk or a businessman; the question of a product's validity has nothing to do with whether or not the first party violated the TOS agreement or even the EULA. That is a separate matter.

Umm... no. Illegal is still illegal and the product's validity has everything to do with that.

And besides, I'm not bound by the EULA because I didn't open or use the product. You're assuming that the EULA automatically applies to every individual on the planet. That's wrong.

You're right, it's not the EULA, but the terms of contract that Microsoft has when buying software with the intention of reselling. Every authorized reseller has to agree to the terms and conditions of doing business with MS or MS does not do business with them. If you intend to "donate" your copies to any company who then intends to resell them for profit can find themselves in a very actionable position.

MS sent a lawyer to an elderly mom and pop shop employing disabled youngsters. I don't know where you think this check and balance comes from, that lawyers only act legally or ethically. Must be a nice place you live in.

So we're all supposed to have a bleeding heart because we must all "think of the children!"? Sure, not all lawyers act legally or ethically. If you feel they did not act so, you should have an easy case in court against them. I mean, you want us all to believe it is clear cut and perfectly legit, you should have no problem convincing a judge too.

---

You're confusing the sales of an individual selling second-hand stuff and a business selling stuff for profit.

What you said that I am suggesting is merely an assumption on your part. I am most certainly not suggesting that every sale of any kind is subject to reseller laws. I am stating that any company attempting to make profit through reselling an item is bound by reseller laws.

There is no difference. It doesn't matter if it's an individual or a for profit business. The rules regarding resale apply equally. The guidelines behind MS product resale define resale, and not the quantitative value of the party doing the reselling. An Inc. LLC, DBA, it doesn't matter. If you believe this to be mistaken, then please outline for me, in legal standards, where the line is crossed. I'm specifcally interested in where personal resale crosses the line into for-profit. Is this based on dollar values? Number of copies sold? What? Since you're aware of some difference, where does it become different?

There are no "reseller laws". What "laws"? ALL of the redistribution is handled on a contractual basis, not legal code because it is subjective. By subjective, I mean that the manufacturer can determine (in contract only), the guidelines by which redistribution can take place. As such, these circumstances are governed by contract and obligated parties to those contracts. So if you're calling what I did illegal, please cite either A. the law that I broke, or B. the contract that I was bound to that I infringed upon. The EULA is not a valid example as I did not open, use, or otherwise consent to the contract. The TOS is invalid because I was not the original purchaser.

The resale was illegal based upon the fact that they themselves were reselling donated software for profit.

Incorrect. The only responsible party is that which is legally bound by the TOS. The only party that qualifies for liability is the original owner. Neither myself nor the thrift store were the original owners.

f you believe the claim was false, why not challenge them in court? It would be an easy win and I'm sure any lawyer would love to take your case. Don't tell me you don't have the money to do so because you made ten grand from the illegal sales.

Whether or not I decide to challenge the claim has no bearing upon whether or not the claim is valid. I can ask the same question; if MS had a legal claim why not challenge it in court? Huh? Why not sue me for millions of dollars in copyright infringement? Let's put this into perspective; if we're going to assume that my claim isn't valid because I don't bring it before a court, and that money is no excuse, then what's the excuse for MS not seeking damages when they're worth billions?

What is or was illegal is the fact that even if someone legally bought the copies from some authorized MS reseller, MS's interests do not stop there. If that person then "donates" them to a company (I assume this thrift shop was registered as a business?), and this company intends to make a profit from the donation without being listed as a non-for-profit organization, then it is illegal for them to resell it and it is also illegal for anyone to buy it.

First, I've already mentioned that the thrift store is not for profit. But still it's irrelevant.

I'm sure you might now (or are just now learning), that laws vary from state to state. Which laws are you referring to that were violated? The only thing MS has is a contractual agreement with the original purchaser through a TOS contract. That's it. They have no laws protecting them, and no contract to claim was infringed upon, by citing myself or the thrift store as liable. None. At all. An original purchaser cannot bind me unwillfully to a contract. No. I have to enter into a contract with MS if there is no abstract laws protecting them. In this case, there is no law protecting third party distribution, and no contract they can cite that I have violated.

Umm... no. Illegal is still illegal and the product's validity has everything to do with that.

What you were doing here was trying to equivocate an illegal distribution with a counterfeit product. Counterfeit claims with ebay are restricted to those for which a third party produced. The only product produced was one by MS. Hence, their claim, by the standards of the party they complained with, was invalid. You want to call it counterfeit, that's your unique perspective.

You're right, it's not the EULA, but the terms of contract that Microsoft has when buying software with the intention of reselling. Every authorized reseller has to agree to the terms and conditions of doing business with MS or MS does not do business with them. If you intend to "donate" your copies to any company who then intends to resell them for profit can find themselves in a very actionable position.

We agree. However this is only enforceable down to those obligated by the contract. Neither myself nor the thrift store are eligible parties for action as neither of us submitted to any contract and there is no state or federal law binding us to Microsoft's wishes.

So we're all supposed to have a bleeding heart because we must all "think of the children!"? Sure, not all lawyers act legally or ethically. If you feel they acted so, you should have an easy case in court against them.

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm pointing out that they put legal pressure on a tiny, vulnerable operation. These were meek people, so it's no real gamble to make a claim (even a false one) against them.

Since your measure of truth seems to be based upon bringing the case before the court, then what excuse do you make for MS not doing so?

Where software is concerned, there are many out there with a mistaken belief...that once purchased, they own the software........Wrong.

The purchase of software is for the sole use of the buyer & only for the use on one machine, unless otherwise stated, i.e., Volume license Keys. The software is still the property of the company.

Because I sometimes accept part-exchanges,& eventually sell on as 2nd user systems, I had to look into the "Refurbished" channel & found that because of the license conditions, I cannot do so without registering with Microsoft. At this time, it is not financially viable for me to do so, so I cannot refurbish any machines.

What I can do is to continue to accept part exchanges & as long as I only check that they are in a working condition without making any changes, I can resell them.

Software licenses have been causing problems for years, & until they are changed to where the purchaser owns it outright on purchase, we have to abide by the terms & conditions of said licenses, & no I'm not a lawyer.

---

... You're assuming that the EULA automatically applies to every individual on the planet. That's wrong. ...

Thankfully so. That has to be wrong.

However, that doesn't stop overzealous EULA writers from trying to dictate and control every aspect of the known world (and "their" Market)...

The rest appears to be a game of smoke and mirrors and big guns...

I'm very sure that software EULAs can be a lot simpler, less restrictive, much fairer for the customer/user, and be more profitable because of that.

(OK, so we'd need fewer lawyers but then again, they could be usefully re-employed untangling some of the legislative mess that is ever accumulating...)


For comparison, I think the music industry has lost all respect from their customers for the blatant random ("fishing") suing of people at random. There's also other real howlers such as insisting that you must buy (and pay for) the same music tracks THREE times over if you wish to play the same music at home, in your car, and on a portable player (all wrapped up in "DRM")... I simply think they are being harmfully overly restrictive of what is an important cultural resource.

There is such a thing as "fair play", "good will", and cooperation... Or...

Or are the software and music/media markets really descending into a rabid dog bloodbath of "everything and anything goes"?

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Where software is concerned, there are many out there with a mistaken belief...that once purchased, they own the software........Wrong. ... & no I'm not a lawyer.

So...

For comparison, could a car manufacturer "sell" nothing more than a "license" for the buyer to use a particular vehicle only in certain proscriptive ways?

For anything like that, I'm sure the OFT would require very different language to be used rather than the descriptions "buy" and "sell"...


Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Whatever. The law is the law regardless whether or not it's right. If wrong it needs changing. However, with such large companies, an individual has no chance to do this.

Here's an idea...all *nix users gather together & take out a class action againt Microsoft, Apple etc - they won't lose much as all their software is free....Oh wait, as their software is free, what are they doing arguing with Microsoft? Doesn't make sense....

---

Whatever. The law is the law regardless whether or not it's right. If wrong it needs changing.

Which law? The only thing they have is copyright protection. Anything beyond that has to be had on a consensual, contractual basis.

The common misconception is that a software manufacturer has absolute control over the movement of their software depending upon however they write their EULA which is the word of law. It's not true.

There is no more protection from a legal standpoint for an MS product than there is for a youtube video under the DMCA. To get that added protection, a software company has to bind someone to a contract that affords extra protection for the company. That is done either through;

A. a Terms of Sale contract whereby the company agrees to sell a product to an individual only after certain conditions are met or

B. an EULA is agreed to upon use of (in some cases opening) a product.

In any case, they must have a contract of some kind, because there are no copyright laws whatsoever that protect a company from me parting out new (and even used, so long as not duplicated) physical media. If this was a matter of law, then there would be no need to have anyone agree to a TOS or EULA because it would already be law and the company wouldn't require you to agree to anything before proceeding.

First sale doctrine;
Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 109
The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. This means that the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy end once that copy is sold, as long as no additional copies are made. This doctrine is also referred to as the "first sale rule" or "exhaustion rule."

the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/109.html

But Sirius, you're also right when you mentioned;

What I can do is to continue to accept part exchanges & as long as I only check that they are in a working condition without making any changes, I can resell them.

because there is an exception;
This subsection does not apply to—
(i) a computer program which is embodied in a machine or product and which cannot be copied during the ordinary operation or use of the machine or product

which also involves lending or leasing;
(d) The privileges prescribed by subsections (a) and (c) do not, unless authorized by the copyright owner, extend to any person who has acquired possession of the copy or phonorecord from the copyright owner, by rental, lease, loan, or otherwise, without acquiring ownership of it.

Here's an idea...all *nix users gather together & take out a class action againt Microsoft, Apple etc...

What?!

You can take out a class action suit against "business aggression" and "grievous Market harm"?!!

Or even of negligent (or malignant?) pollution of the internet?... (Viruses, malware, and all that...)

Phew! That would be some real good business for the industry of lawyers.


There must be a Dilbert cartoon strip about that somewhere...

Cheers,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Or even of negligent (or malignant?) pollution of the internet?... (Viruses, malware, and all that...)

How highly offensive!

lol

Or even of negligent (or malignant?) pollution of the internet?... (Viruses, malware, and all that...)

How highly offensive!

lol

Oooooops... Slightly ambiguous pun there... Nothing directed to any posters here!

Shall we just say that I'm just reminding people of certainly highly offensive (in at least two meanings of that word) and very well publicised comments made by one of the major software companies... And of how the internet is afflicted...


All very expensively silly stuff.

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

So now all you afflicted ones have got this great company goin',
with all these donated computers running your free *nix software;
instead of illegal Microsoft Software...
...that's great for all involved--
and you didn't even hafta go to jail...

---

Back in the real world, for the software that runs on top of whatever OS kernel(s) is/are used:

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." -- Lao Tzu

Increasingly, computers are expected to be useful tools in our children's education. But today, most children whose education involves computers are being taught to use [just] one company's product: Microsoft's. Microsoft spends large sums on lobbyists and marketing to procure the support of educational departments.

The case against Microsoft and proprietary software

* Education
* DRM
* Security
* Monopoly
* Standards
* Lock In
* Privacy

My own thoughts are that Microsoft and Apple abuse their own customers and a large part of the computer and IT industry. Is that any 'worse' than any other business practices? There certainly are other businesses and business aspects that I consider are far worse. However, the big difference for the "desktop computer" market is that there appears to be just the one company with near total dominance. You have no choice. Or can you make your own choice?

The apparent view of the main posters on this thread suggest that Microsoft has such dominance that there is no profit (for whatever reasons) in anything outside of Microsoft...

So we should meekly lie down and accept any abuse given? All in the name of good business?


Computers should just simply work. Your computer should just simply work for you.

I agree that there is no need to "hate" any company or business. However, in considering cause and effect and wider implications, you need not agree with how they do their business.

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

LOL!

Microsoft is NOT racist

LOL!

Microsoft is NOT racist

Ouch! That looks to be very obviously very crass and silly. But then again, that looks to be more of a very sloppy job done by whoever did the advertising touch-up.

Unfortunately, there's many examples like that to try to pander to the stereotypes guessed/assumed by Marketing for pushing a product.

I think that one is a Dilbert-ism that is repeated across many companies, large and small, all around the world.


Aside: Note also the "touched up" Apple Mac in the advert!

Very silly.

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

The case against Microsoft and proprietary software

[...]
* Monopoly
[...]
* Lock In
[...]

... Or can you make your own choice?

The apparent view of the main posters on this thread suggest that Microsoft has such dominance that there is no profit (for whatever reasons) in anything outside of Microsoft...

Well, another recent surprise:

Review: Ubuntu 9.04

The latest version of the free Linux operating system boasts a number of welcome additions

That review gives a rather lukewarm verdict and is almost negative about the updates that go with it for what is now four months of updates to both the OS and all the many bundled applications. There's also an implication in there that presupposes that there can't be anything better than Microsoft Office.

What is a little strange is for the review to appear in there at all.

Curious stuff indeed...

Perhaps Linux is getting to be more "mainstream".

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Perhaps the thread shold be renamed Microsoft IS NOT a disease.
Some time ago they foisted on one machine of mine IE8 which I had to blow away, change my update preferences, and reinstall my previous system!
THIS WAS A VISTA SYSTEM.
a Few days later - DITTO on one of my XP Systems - same problem - same remedy!
A few days later Ditto for my third machine!
SO NOW IE8 is BANNED and I told MS all about it!
Guess what!
They just sent me another download of IE8!
I have NO INTENTION of doing ANYTHING with MICROSOFT - my confidence with their software can be best described as
Lower than whale residue in the Mariannas Trench!
The thing didn't work on 3 different systems - and they now want me to fork out my retirement money for a NEW kluge? Nay Nay - get thee behind me Satan!

Ouch! That looks to be very obviously very crass and silly. But then again, that looks to be more of a very sloppy job done by whoever did the advertising touch-up.

Unfortunately, there's many examples like that to try to pander to the stereotypes guessed/assumed by Marketing for pushing a product.

Sure enough... Bandwagons 'n' all that...

Here's my favourite for a 'gotcha':

10 More Tech Company Photoshop Disasters

(And there's other graphics packages other than photoshop...)

Cheers,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)