Microsoft should come clean, admit their wrongdoings and recant doing from the following unethical practices:
1. Bullying the competition with software patents
2. Hijacking the ISO standardization process when they pushed through their OOXML specification
3. Having a man sent to prison for making Windows Restore DVDs from ISO images that you could download freely from the Internet
4. Lobbying lawmakers to block laws which promote open standards and free software for use in the government
5. Preventing users from running their own software using draconian DRM on closed devices (Windows 10 Mobile and S)
6. Enacting restrictive Marketplace policies against GPL-3 software
7. Launching misinformation campaigns ("Get the facts" etc.), Astroturfing and other ways of spreading lies, especially against Linux
So now they basically stopped #1 after already having more or less stopped #7, and while technically still on sale, the market laughed them out of #5. But they have still not owned up on anything, so someone mistrusting might think they could start at any time again.
>3. Having a man sent to prison for making Windows Restore DVDs from ISO images that you could download freely from the Internet
Please stop parroting that non-sense. They didn't even bring the case against him, US Customs did. He was also warned more than once by Customs to stop, and he didn't.
>It is not nonsense. Microsoft testified against the man in court. They wanted him to go to prison.
He was selling counterfeit disks as genuine. Was warned to stop, and didn't. You either haven't bothered to read the link provided, any of the court rulings (it was upheld on appeal), or you're just such an MS hater you're going to deny reality.
Either way, when there are literally email threads of him trying to sell disks to computer refurbishers as "genuine" and being called out for them being counterfeit, you're not going to convince me he was the innocent victim he's claiming to be.
And if you want to "prove" that MS is in the wrong, I'd suggest you link to a lawyer disputing the results of the case. Not a guy who fixes laptops for a living.
I have followed this case. I know Microsoft's position and have read their public statements.
I know that Microsoft told egregious untruths to the courts about the value of the recovery CDs. They claimed with a straight face that the value of such a recovery CD (burned from an ISO image that could be downloaded freely from the Internet) was identical to the value of a Windows OEM license. And the courts have believed their statements.
You haven't bothered to check any of the facts besides what Microsoft purports. Your distorted view of reality seems to be entirely shaped by Microsoft PR.
> I'd suggest you link to a lawyer disputing the results of the case. Not a guy who fixes laptops for a living.
The facts speak for themselves. There is even an hour+ long interview with Eric Lundgren where he clearly describes his actions and motives and what he expected to accomplish.
The "guy who fixes laptops for a living" has probably more insight into the reality of repair/refurbishing/reuse of computers and electronics than you will ever have.
> you're just such an MS hater you're going to deny reality.
Where do I deny reality? All the seven points that I listed are verified by independent observers and media.
No matter if you believe whether Eric Lundgren deserved punishment or not, it was Microsoft's testimony that was critical in convincing the court and sending him to prison for 15 months.
While this is technically an accurate statement, it sounds like he was selling counterfeit Windows CDs (that Microsoft sold). In fact, he sold bit-for-bit copies of Windows restore CDs that you can get from Microsoft or Dell for free online -- Microsoft claim in the blog you posted that they sold it for $25 but that is not true (they sold CDs with Windows licenses for that much, and you needed a Windows license to use the restore CD -- so you can arithmetically conclude they are worth $0). The court and court of appeal disagree with that point for two reasons:
1. Microsoft's expert witness claimed that you could use most of Windows with the restore CD image. This ignores the fact that you can download a trial image of Windows for free, or install Windows on many machines without a licence key and have it mostly work in the same way. It also ignores that such a system mostly working is entirely the fault of Microsoft, by their own admission, because they wrote earlier versions of Windows to only nag you for a licence -- and the 30-day free trial was actually perpetual (like WinZip, funnily enough).
2. It is difficult to believe that the defendants would spend tens of thousands of dollars to manufacture disks that are worthless -- though this is said as an aside. This ignores the fact they sold them because they knew there was a need for them, and so the value of the disks was the market value and not any intrinsic value that Microsoft claims they had. I don't buy his "just wanted to help people find the discs" comments, but I don't agree that he made them because he believed they had an objective worth of at least $25. Because he downloaded the images for free.
Obviously I disagree with their views, but more importantly the court claims their worth entirely on Microsoft's expert testimony. It's quite clear they wanted to
Microsoft claims that the software is counterfeit in their blog post you linked, which is not physically possible since it's a bit-for-bit copy. Not to mention that the court decision says that they distributed unauthorized copies of copyrighted software, which is not the same as what Microsoft said (the court effectively found that the disks were identical copies).
The key issue IMHO was that the CDs he sold had the Microsoft logo screen-printed on it in an attempt to make his customers' customers not think that the CDs were counterfeit (even though the software was not counterfeit -- it was an unauthorized copy). Obviously this was a stupid (and as the court case proved, illegal) thing to do, because it is obvious proof of him trying to to deceive people. That was obviously illegal and unethical, not to mention selling unauthorized copies of copyrighted software.
> Not a guy who fixes laptops for a living.
Bit of an odd stance from someone who is just posting links to Microsoft's view on the case, which is obviously going to be in favour of the decision (and as above possibly incorrect).
Louis has his biases, sure, but in his interview with the guy it was quite clear (to me at least) that he had an issue with the key point of the case -- that he actually sold discs with a Microsoft logo on them that were not made by Microsoft, and claimed they were genuine. He also admitted his initial video about the topic was not accurate because he wasn't aware of all the facts, and instead focused entirely on the valuation argument in the case.
>Bit of an odd stance from someone who is just posting links to Microsoft's view on the case, which is obviously going to be in favour of the decision (and as above possibly incorrect).
How so? I posted a link to Microsoft's legal counsel stating their case. I've yet to see any third party lawyer make a claim otherwise. If you want to dispute a lawyer and the justice department and their take on the law, the very least you (op) can do is provide a reference to an opinion from another lawyer.
Just as an aside, it isn't their case (you said so yourself). But I'll move on.
> If you want to dispute a lawyer and the justice department and their take on the law,
I'm not disputing the law, I'm disputing the facts presented and the conclusions drawn based on said facts. Given that you and I are technically inclined enough to understand what a Windows restore CD is and what restrictions it places, this means that we are in a position to be able to discuss the facts of the case and whether they pass muster.
In the previous comment, I explain in some detail what aspect of the facts I disagree with as well as referencing parts of both the decision and the appeal (from the link you posted). The conclusions made by the judges are clearly based on the facts presented by Microsoft, and so discussing whether those facts are actually true is a completely valid thing to do.
And finally, I don't disagree with the court that he broke the law nor do I disagree that he should be punished. I just disagree with several of the statements Microsoft made (in my opinion, in bad faith) related to the case -- and the valuation statement is particularly shady because it is simply and provably untrue. The reason why the judges explicitly decided that Microsoft's expert witness was more credible than the defendant's expert witness is not something I know -- but it doesn't mean that they were correct to do so.
> I've yet to see any third party lawyer make a claim otherwise.
You still don't get it. There is no disagreement in matters of law. Eric Lundgren even pleaded guilty to counterfeiting Dell restore discs. The only question that Microsoft was involved was how hard the punishment should be, because that is based on the value of the pirated goods.
Given that the restore disc images can be freely downloaded from the Internet and burned to disc by anyone, their value is negligible. Microsoft however lied to the court by saying that the value of the software on the restore discs is the same $25 as the value of the software and the refurbisher license. Nevermind that you need a valid license key to successfully install and activate Windows which didn't come with the restore disc.
And the court believed Microsoft's lies, and calculated the damages and prison term based on them. And this is why I stand by my original statement that Microsoft was "Having a man sent to prison for making Windows Restore DVDs from ISO images that you could download freely from the Internet"
And if you even in the face of the facts still claim that it is non-sense, then I am sorry to say: It is you who denies reality and parrots Microsoft apologism.
I stopped using Android a month ago, and it was amazing all the emails from google wondering where I was, or suddenly getting invited to various beta programs and stuff.
They really do their best to lock you in.
I just hate that WeChat had their hissy fit with Microsoft, and it blocked WeChat on Windows Phones. (I have a Wo Mobile China OEM version of a Nokia 1520 and it refuses to let me logon with the Chinese version of the app in Hong Kong, China & Macau using local SIMs in each area).
When you look at the Xbox One where Google doesn't compete it has things like YouTube, and other popular media apps, and yet the Windows Phone was denied these apps as Google's primary target for Android was to dethrone the Microsoft Windows CE world, which they did brilliantly with the aquisiition of Android, and releasing it for zero dollars to any OEM for any formfactor, while Microsoft kept too far of a strict control over the platform.
Ironically Micosoft forgot the lession of MS-DOS, which is that the money isn't in the hardware, but the end users buying software.
That's debatable, but I find Apple iOS, Google Android, and Microsoft Win10 all user-hostile. One of them being "worse" than another, in some person's opinion, in no way excuses anyone from being bad.
I will try to avoid rehashing things others already mentioned, but a few off the top of my head (without thinking about it any longer than it takes to type them) include:
* continuing to favor user interface philosophies that implicitly rely on undermining software security
* fostering vendor lock-in and exclusionary vertical integration
* using opt-out privacy violation where opt-in is the obvious ethical choice
* wielding power in the market to "compete" by preventing others from competing
Specific examples?