Stopping Microshaft from selling their buggy, overpriced and useless software that freezes all the time and is jam packed with annoyances ?

Finally the patent laws are doing something useful for once.

There is always an exception to the rule and I completely hate Microsoft for the inferior quality of their products and services. I will migrate to Linux very soon and will never again touch a Microsoft product.

The arrogance of this company is legendary. Looks like they have been burned at their own game. They tried to force copyrights on us with their DRM technology.

Anyways, I never bought any microsoft office products since Office 97.

Open Office and Google Docs is the way to go.

I am anti-Microsoft because this is a company that uses devious tactics to force disfunctional products down our throats. This is a company that treats it’s customers like criminals and that limits the functionality of our software and hardware and multimedia content.

Microsoft is a tyrant.

I highly doubt that it’s much vaunted Windows 7 will succeed. Too many people are fed up with the complexity, complications and bugs.

Too many people have “upgraded” from Windows Vista to Windows XP after running into bugs and malfunctions with Visa.

Those people have learned their lesson and will not bother with Windows 7.

Microsoft is FINISHED !

2nd Amendment,

Microsoft’s software and platform are very good. This is why they have the largest marketshare for operating systems worldwide, and are able to sell their software for $100′s a license whereas free alternatives only hold on to a small portion of the market.

I’m using Linux right now, and I find it very useful and suitable for what I do, but I still have a few computers with windows on them because the driver support, software support, and multimedia performance (games, flash videos) is still the best.

…

This suit shows the silliness of software patents. It grants monopolies to companies that would have still made the same software had it not been for patents. Patents are just extra overhead, and a pain in the neck for the consumer as they limit competition and derivatives and alternatives of the protected product.

Unfortunately patents and intellectual property are meeting their logical conclusion– failure. It sufficiently stunts intellectual progress and fails to allow software entrepreneurs and other companies from building on and improving on other ideas.

When open source technology such as XML get wrapped up in patent suites it is very bad sign for the open source community. Open source has been the driving force behind some of the best and most useful technology developments in recent time.

It is frightening to see that the technique of reading and XML file is stamped as property.

Man, I should have done that a long time ago. Imagine all the techniques I could have patented and then sued corporations that use the same technique.

Joe,

I recently bought a laptop with Vista in it and internet explorer constantly jams.

You can’t find what you are looking for when you search for files or programs, I have to use a third party software to run the same search that was available in XP.

The list goes on.

Small, Faster, Simpler should be Microsofts motto, instead they seem high on bloatware, bells and whistles.

We shall see in the coming years if Microsoft keeps it’s market share.

My next computer is a Dell Laptop with Linux pre-installed.

If Microsoft have such a big market share it is not because their products are superior, it is because they were the first to market them and there were no serious competition up to date.

But Linux is now a serious competitor and you will see Microsoft loose serious market share in the coming years.

Windows 7 will be a flop like Vista and will not be sufficient to save Microsoft.

I will even go further to add that in 10 to 15 years, you will no longer hear about Microsoft.

Just like you no longer hear about Sega.

2nd Amendment,

You are correct in your opposition to current day software patents, as they are not contract based nor do follow the normal patenting procedure everything else uses.

I do have issue with your views towards microsoft. The way I see it, Microsoft provides the most user friendly OS on the market. Linux is catching up, although it has been a very slow process.

I attribute this to a difference in focus, discounting the obvious IP shenanigans. Linux and other open source software does not often follow the same wide spread profit and loss system that Microsoft does. Because of this, Linux is not consumer focused – but instead focused on the wants of the individual developer, who often does not need the simplicity the average user might require. Microsoft, on the other hand, is forced by the market to provide easy to use, consumer focused, software.

Another thing I saw, DRM is not state enforced copyright – but is a contract based, privately executed IP. The market will decide if Microsoft should profit or not – although I agree with you that they will probably not be the giant they are now in 10 years.

Its not much of a rant against microsoft when one is still using their products and has not quite yet switched to linux. Using ubuntu for all my new stuff these days and quite pleased.

To the larger point, the constitutional enablement of intellectual property laws states its objective of furthering progress. Its clear that software patents hinder rather than further progress.

Had we a congress attempting to do the right thing, they would have straightened out the intellectual property mess. As it is, they are religious zealots (socialism and environmentalism) bent on ideological matters and any legislation not related to that is simply delivering of legislation special-ordered by campaign contributors.

2nd Am: “how can you patent a software if the source code must remain secret ?”

Because disclosure of the source code is not (usually) needed to meet the written description, enablement, and best mode requirements. All you have to do is disclose the claimed invention in writing, disclose the best mode, and enable others skilled in the same art to practice your invention without undue experimentation. But you don’t claim the narrow code; you claim block-level flow-chart-level type processes, which could be implemented by any suitable code.

In other words, patent law is complex, tedious, nitpicky, and utterly arbitrary and arcane and specialized. But the problem with patent law is not that it fails to require adequate disclosure of source code. Requiring this would not fix the system.

Windows is popular because the market wanted a standard for the PC architecture. Windows became the standard because it gave people what they wanted, and achieved critical mass faster than its competitors. It’s not about Microsoft being evil (although they have engaged in “sharp” business practices), or people being stupid. It’s just that Windows was the best standard available at the time, and now it’s locked in.

I tried to move to all-Linux before. After quite a bit of pain, I figured out how to get PPP working correctly (this was in the days of dial-up, on Slackware). Then, after a while, my X Window-based mail client stopped working correctly, and I couldn’t for the life of me figure out what was wrong. I switched back to Windows, and it just worked.

I’m not religious about open-source. It’s nice to know that I have the source, but I’ve never, ever actually delved into the source for any Linux app I’ve ever used. So for me, there is little difference (except cost).

Besides, people have a right to not divulge source code. Part of freedom of speech is freedom to not speak if you don’t want to. It’s just applying the concept of ownership (that rightly applies to physical goods) to information (where the concept does not rightly apply) that I object to.

OH NO! I got online to buy a computer today and Microsoft FORCED ME TO BUY FROM THEM AGAIN!!

Hahaha – I love windows, it’s extremely customizable, it’s versatile, it’s a tad messy and needs to be cleaned up often, but I know my way around it and as an IT professional it’s easy to communicate with clients. I also get almost guaranteed support when it comes to software compatibility, hardware drivers and just about anything else. Plus I only need $300 for a cheap computer, a good one runs me around $1000.

And if I don’t like it, I can install linux for free….which I do – I dual boot into various flavors of linux… I just don’t like it that much because I have to master the command line commands to install anything that isn’t in the aptget repository, my wireless drivers only work half the time, and few installations can mount my NTFS partition….

They deserve my business… which is funny because unless it came with windows OEM or I don’t already own the disc (I own ‘gold’ discs for xp and vista – and I’m gonna pick up a Se7en disc soon) then I pirate all my OSes – I figure I bought it, it’s mine….

Not that tough, considering M$ is such a ‘tyrant’ and all……

LoL!

The complaints about software patents are not justified by the empirical evidence. The software industry has grown fastest when the patent laws are clear that software is patentable. Logically, if you are against software patents, you have to be against patents for electronic circuits. Anything done is software can be done in hardware – in fact software is just a way of telling the hardware how to configure itself.

Historically, the USA has had the strongest patent laws protecting inventors from intellectual property thieves. The US has been the most innovative country in the history of the world. Countries with weak or non-existent patent laws have been some of the least innovate. The empirical evidence supports a strong patent system if you desire innovation and economic growth. When the USA does not protect its innovators, it results in economic decline such as we are experiencing today – see http://hallingblog.com/2009/05/18/intellectual-property-socialism-part-iii-patent-legislation-supreme-court-rulling-since-2000/

“If you don’t like the EULA there’s a very simple remedy. Don’t buy the product.”

Looking back through the comments, the only person who said anything about deliberately violating the law, or Microsoft EULA, was an enthusiastic Windows supporter. Interesting.

I’m all for private contracts. If people were aware of the EULA terms, and the fact that they are legally accountable for those terms, it is my opinion that no one would touch the Microsoft EULA.

Few people bother to do anything more than “click through” in order to get to use what they think they bought (not “licensed”).

Did anyone notice the horror with which the media “discovered” the awful EULA that the government Cash For Clunkers web site required agreement with before they allowed it to be used? Same thing.

The GPL is also something of a contract, and if someone knew that they would be held legally responsible for the terms of either the Microsoft EULA or the GPL, I wonder which they would choose? Hey, it’s Libertopia, make a choice.

Back to patents. I don’t see anyone arguing that the law aught to be disobeyed (except the Windows enthusiast). What I see are very convincing arguments, both theoretical and practical, as to why those laws are destructive to the very “creativity” that was used to justify those laws in the first place.

So we have a situation very common under a system of statute law: The statute fails, but it is not repealed. Those who have found themselves benefitted by the failing law fight like demons to maintain (and even expand) those statute laws in order to continue to benefit at the expense of everyone else.

I, too, like the idea of private property, the free market, and one fundamental infrastructure of the free market is the idea of a binding contract.

I’ve read several different versions and addendums over the years to the Microsoft EULA. That, not just their crappy software, is another reason to avoid it like the plague.

@ Alan
“Suppose you’re a writer, you write something for a magazine or whatever, under contract, then upon submitting it they decide not to bother paying you? You just suck it up, because contracts don’t mean anything and you can’t own words on paper or something?”

If a magazine decided not to pay a writer(s), that writer(s) would simply spread the word, probably with the internet that this magazine company does not pay its writers. That would stop writers from working for that magazine, or to stop submitting their work to that magazine, the magazine would therefore not have anything to publish, and would quickly cease to exist.

However, any magazine owner with the smallest amount of drive to be successful would not take the risk of not paying a writer for fear of what that type of reputation would do to his magazine.

Therefore no contracts necessary, it is only necessary that the business (magazine or whatever) wants to be successful so it is in its best interest not to piss off the most important people relevant to the success of their business.