check out where this is comming from
Posted on 2003-07-17 22:53:48 by rob.rice
I have already read that, I wanted to know the position of MS on the use of icons from Shell32.DLL (no way man). It seems to be a standard copyright , the Bill Gates thing is no different from the protection sought by every celebrity, the fair use law negates it's usefullness however in parody and reports. Microsoft has done no more than any other company in protecting it's property, I can't use the Symantec logo because my software passes a virus scan either (BTW Peter Norton's image is protected in a similar way).
Posted on 2003-07-17 23:29:13 by donkey
Hmm, I think, I'll chose other fonts than any of these in my apps (if I can remeber it :rolleyes: ):
    [*]Comic Sans MS
    [*]MS Sans Serif
    [*]Trebuchet MS
Posted on 2003-07-18 04:40:41 by scientica
To me this just looks like M$ looking for another excuse to sue someone.
Posted on 2003-07-18 10:03:23 by rob.rice
...more like M$ wanting to throw the book at anyone they sue. They start with a couple dozen charges against you, then they do you the 'favor' of bargaining down to just a few big charges if you want to negotiate.
Posted on 2003-07-18 10:07:46 by bitRAKE
Microsoft makes alot of products, more than any other software company. It is normal that they would protect the intelectual properties of each one. The only thing that is that they put all of the various agreements and restrictions for the products under a single web page and so it looks long and complicated. If they had done one for agent and another for fonts and another for ... it would look just like any other leagalese page: <- note that Peter Norton's likeness is trademarked as well

They have both the right and responsibility to their shareholders to protect the properties that they paid to create. I have absolutely no problems with this, if I was a MS shareholder and saw that everybody and his dog was using property that the company owned, I'd be asking where the lawyers were during all of that. People seem to think that MS is a charitable or non-profit corporation, it isn't, it exists to make money for it's shareholders and to do this it has to protect the things it sells from others who would use the results of it's massive expenditures on intelectual properties without renumeration. It does cost money to hire graphics artists to draw icons (there are thousands created by MS) and create all of those images. The professional look of their software depends on these icons and images and in some cases uniquely identify their product on the desktop, so why lament over the fact that they protect them.

You can find posts here arguing over the source of a small simple idea for a code snipplet or autocompletion list and at the same time ones attacking MS for protecting several thousand images that are it's property or the use of it's logo on software it didn't write and has no quality control over. If I had used a snipplet found on this board by Bitrake and splashed all over the about box that it was Bitrake approved, he'd be pretty pi**ed off if his name was used as a selling point for my crappy software, it is after all his reputation being used by me to advance my ends.

I have alot of problems with the business practices of Microsoft, but protecting it's property is not one of them.
Posted on 2003-07-18 10:43:01 by donkey
there were poeple giveing away old 8086 and 80286 computers
the poeple who were getting these computers coulden't
afford even these old machines and not a one of them
could run windows 3.1 let alone win 2000 (current version
when this happend) and M$ sued them for $26,000,000.00
WHY what were thay loseing out on the dos was on the
old computers in the first place at one point in time thay
got there money for the copys of dos that was on those
old computers this is just the first case I can think of there
are more times that M$ has abused the court system like this

sue some one for copying something thay have on the market
sue someone when thay copy an older product that keeps
smone from buying a current product
BUT sue someone for just passing along a computer COME ON!!

sue someone for makeing a joke with B?ll gate? likeness GET REAL

sue someone for saying a name in a bad light
Posted on 2003-07-18 18:54:27 by rob.rice
it's called laws. If you don't like them, you don't whine about it to those using them, instead you go to those *voting* them and win them in favour of your opinion. It can't be stressed enough influence your politicians. They need you, you need them. Use each other.

MS sells you a license to their products not a deed of ownership, you can not sell said license and if it's bought via OEM then that license travels along with the equipment it was bought with, not with you. So legally, yes, MS lost money and that's why they won such a suit.

Once again, influence the decision of the decisionmakers. It's the only thing that will actually help.

rob.rice if you can't put your head around the effects of slander and libel then I suggest you try. A person's reputation can be ruined by such acts and one should have the *means* to defend one's self against them.
Posted on 2003-07-18 19:21:52 by Hiroshimator
please explane to me how M$ lost money on those old computers
where could someone have bought a copy of MS DOS in 2001
Posted on 2003-07-18 19:50:12 by rob.rice

please explane to me how M$ lost money on those old computers
where could someone have bought a copy of MS DOS in 2001
They still sell it at Fry's - on the shelf with the other software.
Posted on 2003-07-18 19:52:58 by bitRAKE

I would like to see a copy of the article as it does not make sense that MS would sue these people over something that they expressly allow. Microsoft makes allowance for the transfer of license of their software as long as you are the holder of the license and you don't keep a copy of the software yourself and if it is OEM then it is still on the machine it was shipped with. You mention a 26 Million dollar lawsuit but nothing about who it is against or the circumstances involved. Microsoft owns MS-DOS and if they have been making illegal copies and putiing them on machines then they are liable. BTW if they were actually donating the computers to underpriviledged Microsoft has a very open and generous policy regarding that. Could you post a link to the article please as a google turned up nothing but about 100 billion in lawsuits against Microsoft as America feeds at the trough of it's success.
Posted on 2003-07-18 22:10:17 by donkey
I will look for that story for you I found it on an M$ bashing site ( and I know how to find thoses )
I think this is the flow up story BUT I may be wrong

I diden't read the whole story But things aren't as bad as the first story was and yes I will say M$ is willing to talk a deal with them

about that law sute the feds brought agenst M$ I think everbody who depends on M$ software lost big time on that one (thanks to computer illiterit lawers who handed M$ what amounts to a copyright on info about usesing the API in what ever will replace XP )

what M$ got out of that sute was a strangle hold on the software market for what ever will replace XP what thay are paying for this right now is a penny on the doaller for what thay will get in the long run

and there is no enforcement of the concesstions made by M$ thay are already going back on there word on this

but who am I to bitch I don't depend on M$ software ( and never will ) BUT I do have the right to bitch about them trying to remove my freedom NOT to depend on there software
Posted on 2003-07-19 19:12:09 by rob.rice