Posts by Lewis Mettler

not a workable solution

The only workable solution is to unbundle IE from any Microsoft OS.

For those who fear they will not know what to do if a certain application does not come preloaded, it would be fine to include download scrips for all popular browsers.

That way the consumer can pick and choose browsers just like any other application.

No. Only idiots claim that IE must be forced upon consumers because a browser is so essential.

Cloths and food is essential too. But, no body is suggesting that the government or anyone else decide what clothes you wear or what food you eat. Only Microsoft does that. And it is illegal.

I guess those who say forcing IE upon consumers is okay must still have their mommy put out their clothes on the bed each day and make them a nice lunch so that they do not have to think.

For the slow learners: Even an essential application, if there is such a thing, does not mean that consumers have to be denied their choice and denied the option not to buy certain branded technology. You see a lot of idiots (no doubt paid by Microsoft) claiming that the browser is so essential that being forced to buy IE is okay.

It is not okay. It is illegal in the US and the EU. And it about time that consumers be given the basic right to pick and choose what they buy. Forcing even more products upon them is not in anyone's best interest.

Except perhaps Microsoft. Even if other browsers are bundled in, only Microsoft is selling IE in exchange for cash. And that is not a solution to any antitrust problem.

settled but not corrected

The DOJ and Microsoft did settle the case in the US. But, the US DOJ decided it did not want to hold Microsoft to complying with US Laws. The most flagrant violation, commingling code between the OS and IE, was completely ignored by the US DOJ. That violation continues unabated to this day precluding any realistic choice for consumers, just like the DOJ wanted.

The effort by Microsoft to attempt to monopolize the browser market was also completely ignored by the US DOJ. And that decision pretty much required this action by the EU.

use of trademarks

Of course the owner of a trademark would like to be the only one permitted to use that trademark.

But, that is not the way it is.

Trademarks are even used for comparison purposes in advertisements all the time.

We have all seen the drug advertisments that say their new drug is 30% more effective than placebo. (Placebo not being a trademark at all.) But, we have also seen advertisemens saying their drug is better than the competitors. And they often times mention the other product by trademark. The famous Apple ads certainly use the Microsoft trademark, right?

All search engines are doing is making it easier to find sources for trademark goods and goods competing with trademark goods. We generally do not have a means to search print and audio ads that way but in time that may be the case too.

Individual ads on google could violate the use of a trademark. But, that is hardly the search engines fault.

To be honest, allowing the use of trademarks in ads (even on search engines) is a valuable service to the consumer. Both those looking for trademark goods and for those looking for a cheaper alternative. Or, those who do not know what they want.

As for the timing of these law suits or the new Google policy you can speculate. But, the courts in time will need to figure out this ability of consumers to conduct searches based upon trademarks. And if you only allow the trademark owner to use the word, consumers do suffer.

Search engines should not be the exclusive use of trademark holders. Perhaps some other search service could provide that feature if they wanted to. And maybe some do. But a more broad use of trademarks is in the interest of consumers.

more fraud to expect from Microsoft

Remember back in the DOJ v Microsoft anitrust trial?

Bill Gates lied by saying IE was bundled because offering it separately would cost to much in testing, etc. Like consumers had to be raped to keep the cost down. He is just a liar.

How many different versions of the OS has Microsoft released since then?

Today Microsoft is on on verge of defrauding consumers yet again (somewhat similar to the Vista capable fraud). You buy a MS product and then it says you have to send in another $30-$50 in order for it to work. You pay the money and instantly the OS runs more than 3 applications.

I wonder if Microsoft lied again to the Eu Commission saying that IE was bundled with the OS because offering the OS without their branded browser would be too expensive.

With Microsoft you are raped with IE and defrauded as well by the non-delivery of key functionality. Functionality that Microsoft knows you need but once defrauded and trapped you have to pay up even more money.

Microsoft knows that a fool and his money is soon parted.

"You" are the fool.

when is a forced sale justified?

It is funny but everytime I suggest to a Microsoft salesman that they send me their money and I'll decide what software to give them, they object.

Yet they claim that forcing consumers to purchase IE is just fine.

That only works if you illegally bundle IE with the OS.

Just like Bill Gates said a long time ago. If Netscape does not stay out of the Microsoft markeplace, Microsoft will just illegally bundle IE. Even that idiot knows a whole lot more about what is illegal and how illegal acts can dictate what consumers buy and use.

As for other systems and browsers, yes, they should all provide a choice of which is included or leave it out. And take off some money if it is omitted.

There is nothing wrong with including handy buttons that would download a browser of the customer's choice. Even a "DownLoad IE" button for Linux would be just fine.

Forcing all consumers to pay cash for IE regardless of what the customer wants is not.

Commingling IE with the OS is illegal in the US. (notwithstanding the DOJ refusing to enforce the law as decided in the US appellate court)

Bundling IE with the OS is harmful to all. Even the fools that pay cash for it but think they are getting a free toy in their happy meal. I guess they still have their mommy pick out their clothes and decide what food they eat.

Forcing someone to have sex against their will is insulting. Forcing everyone to buy IE is likewise insulting. And, no, claims that the sex is free does not justify the illegal act.

first step of several

This is a very good first step to challange Microsoft on those FAT patents.

Once sufficient information is accumulated (and Microsoft refuses to promise not to impose them again against Linux or other open source projects) it is possible to file for a declaratory judgment that the patents in question are not enforceable.

Otherwise Microsoft will just pick off one ISV after another forcing one at a time to either drop using the FAT file format or pay patent royalties. Or, even worse, come to some vague agreement like Tom Tom that Microsoft will just use to threaten everyone else.

One at a time, vendors may be venerable even if the various open source organizations agree to defend the use of the open code. Practically speaking, smaller companies can not afford to delay product development or even marketing while a few worthless patents are litigated.

Certainly Tom Tom was more concerned with the non-FAT patents. But, no doubt, Microsoft will lie and tell everyone that the FAT patents were the ones collecting those royalties.

So, yes, it is important to gather together the necessary evidence of prior use and bring a law suit against Microsoft if they do not promise to hold off.

antitrust button?

In the US the appellate court decided that commingled code between the OS and IE was in fact illegal and a violation of the federal antitrust laws. It was the US DOJ that decided it was not going to enforce that legal decision that lead to icons being removed instead of compliance with the law.

Three idiots from Microsoft even testified that they thought removal icons eliminated the commingled code violations. Of course they just lied about what they thought. Unless they were too stupid to understand what commingled code was.

Hopefully the EU Commission will not accept deceit, trickery and lying instead of compliance.

another law suit coming

No doubt Microsoft is planning to place those "restrictions" on the use of the NetBook unless you are willing to pay another $30 or so. Then viola, even the Microsoft netbook works like it should.

It is called fraudulently selling a deliberately crippled system in order to get the customers money and then if they do pay more they finally get what was advertised.

It is going to be the "vista capable" law suit all over again. Or, just fraudulent business practices.

Settled not the same as complying with the law

In the US, Microsoft is still violating the law as determined in the DOJ v Microsoft anitrust law suit.

Yes, the DOJ changed their client and settled on whatever terms Microsoft would accept. You are not sure? Then President Bush said it was the US policy NOT to litigate against Microsoft. In other words represent Microsoft instead of either the industry or consumers.

The truth is that the DOJ ignored the law as decided in the DOJ case. Commingling code between the OS and IE was determined to be illegal. Microsoft appealled that specific issue to the US Supreme Court and the Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal. That is NOT a remanded issue. It is an issue decided by the appeallate court against Microsoft and does in fact represent the status of the law in the US, The fake settlement does not. No settlement ever does.

The laws in the US and Europe are much closer than some claim. Refusing to enforce the law by the US DOJ does not change it either. It only harms consumers and the industry.

If ACT really thinks that all consumers should be forced to buy IE perhaps they can explain why. Microsoft needs to explain why it forces all consumers to buy IE regardless of their needs or preferences. Perhaps those at ACT could explain why that has to be a forced sale?

Hint for the slow learners: There is no reason at all that all consumers should be forced to buy IE. And that is true regardless of the current market shares. And it is true for all applications.

Consumers have the right to pick and choose their own applications. ACT and Microsoft think that all consumers should be forced to buy IE. Nothing is more clear than that.

not only on Mars

It would seem that the space shuttle could use a safer means of returning to earth.

Of course the shuttle only uses fuel to slow its orbit so that it enters the atomosphere. But, relying only upon a heat shield has proven deadly.

Maybe a donut is not the best shape. And materials are key. But, the idea of using a large lightweight object of some kind to slow reentry/entry might make a lot of sense (economics/engineering). And maybe a propeller shape of some kind might even serve to recapture some energy. Maybe a big corkscrew? Adjustable of course. And perhaps one that breaks down into an autorotational set of blades.

if you have a copy of IE

If you have a copy of IE, your opinion does not count.

You were forced to buy it and use it. And Microsoft controls your opinion.

It is like asking someone who is raped to approve the sex after the fact. Only in this case Microsoft paid munnions actually claim they liked it. No consumer would ever agree to such things. Yet, you see them.

Remove IE completely.

Microsoft can compete just as well as everyone else. If not being bundled with the OS is good enough for Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Safarie, then it is good enough for Microsoft. Of course Microsoft is having a real hard time trying to figure out what they are going to say in their effort to continue forcing inferior software on consumers. It is just like forced sex. Microsoft thinks they can continue because the sex was good. Or, the rape should continue because consumers need it, right?

You wait. Just wait until Microsoft explains why they think they must be permitted to continue to control and manipulate their dumb customers. You know, the ones that claim they liked the forced sex.

one more admission

Just one more admission by Microsoft that Ie is an application not an OS.

Only idiots and fools should be surprised here.

hasn't needed to advertise

In the past Microsoft thought it did not need to advertise.

Now that has changed.

So what does Microsoft do?

Begin to lie like a used car salesman.

Microsoft management approves PR claims based not on the truth but rather the ability for deceit to get customers money from them. They have done that for years. This is just more of the same.

We do not have a monopoly.

IE is part of the OS.

The DOJ presented no admissible evidence against Microsoft.

And now this.

It is pure and simple fraud. Fraud designed to get your money. More precisely deceit designed to commit fraud and get your money from you.

Microsoft will never change.

Linux distributors need to get off their duff

Linux distributors do need to get off their duff and begin advertising Linux.

It would be really interesting to see Linux advertise and Apple squeeze from the other side. Everytime Microsoft claims to be cheaper solution, Linux needs to prove that Linux is the lowest option. And everytime Microsoft tries to get its premium price because of features, Apple needs to step forward.

About the only thing Microsoft can say that would be true is that consumers are forced to buy Microsoft products primarily because of other applications that have the platform as a prerequisite.

Microsoft simply does not provide the lowest cost solution. Neither does it provide the highest quality of product.

And the more you know about systems the more likely you will benefit from Linux not from Microsoft or Apple.

so glad

So glad I am completely devoid of any and all Microsoft products or services.

more deceitful than meets the eye

Microsoft hopes to get TomTom to settle this case. I doubt Microsoft wants to litigate the FAT patents. But, if a settlement is in the works, language will imply that the FAT patents are covered as well.

If you read the case it is not only about FAT patents. Several deal with GPS stuff. And they may or may not be valid. But everyone knows that most litigation is in fact settled. So Microsoft and TomTom get a settlement and Microsoft can claim one more patent license on Linux.

IE must be unbundled

It is pretty clear that if you force consumers to take IE when they pay cash Microsoft gets a huge advantage in the marketplace.

You do not think so?

Allow the EU to replace IE with Firefox on day one and Microsoft will tell you so.

if you have IE your opinion does not count

It is pretty simple really.

Microsoft makes certain your opinion does not count by making sure you have to pay for IE each time you get their OS.

There is a solution out there. You just have to find it on the Internet.

remember why IE was bundled?

At least under oath Microsoft said they bundled IE to keep down their testing costs?

Like one version is all they could afford to release?

But, they were just lying anyway.

Screw the consumers and then lie to them too.

not as simple as it sounds

It may surprise some but lawyers do not go to law school to find out what the law is.

Rather they educate themselves on "how to determine what the law is" given certain facts and in certain jurisdictions.

And there is a big difference between the two.

Once educated (no longer a lay person) certain methods and procedures can be put into play in order to make that determination.

It may also surprise many to learn that judges do not research and determine the law by their own efforts. By and large they rely on lawyers (at least one on each side) to do that research and make the argument as to what law applies. And, yes, if those lawyers are not adequately trained or skip the process, there is no telling what the decision might be.

No database is going to help the untrained. And yes, law school is between a 3 and 4 year study program not to mention the very tough bar exams that follow. And, those exams do not ask anyone what the law is on any point anywhere. Rather they are designed to bring out the ability of the student to evaluate the facts in light of what the law might be.

There are many reasons why lawyers have their own profession. And, yes, most judges are trained lawyers too. But, as pointed out, judges rely very heavily upon the lawyers to dig up the relevant law and argue how it should be applied to the case before the court.

If that system breaks down (or one side does not hire a lawyer or pay enough to get the work done) the decisions do come out wrong. Just like a pile of code that won't compile. The only difference is that few people know the decision was wrongly decided. Certainly not the lawyers and judge in the case. They did their best. But, it may still be wrong.

first force the purchase of IE

And then this?

95% of consumers do not know they have been ****** with IE. They think it is free even when they paid cash money when they got it.

And, yes, some even claim IE is free (so shut up and use it).

not as simple as it seems

Banks normally will never commit to funds being valid. About all they can ever tell you is that it has not turned up bad "yet". There is no point at which the bank is liable for a bad deposit.

The trouble with the scheme here is that the theif is beyond reach. And that the bad check and the "client" were working together.

It is very easy to fall for such a trap.

There are things you can do if you suspect bad money. But, if you are not suspecting such practices become weak. No oral statement from the bank is a certification of funds. You can take the physical check to the issuing bank and have them certify it. That was not done here. You can also take the check to the other bank and cash it. Also not done here. And if the bank is out of town or out of the country, those options are not readily available.

So about all you can do is deposit the money and wait, wait and wait. But, even weeks later it is unlikely that the bank will guarantee the funds are good. They are not in that business. They collect money for your convenience. They do not certify it unless you use one of their certification procedures. And only the issuing bank can certify it.

Yes, business would almost grind to a halt if everyone mistrusted funds given to them. You can do all kinds of things if you suspect bogus money. But, when you do not, you incurr a number of risks.

unbundle Internet Explorer

The only fair solution is to remove IE from Microsoft systems.

If the OEM wants to include a browser in the box or preloaded, then give them the choice to offer whatever browser they want to include. And the option to change that over time so that if new and better technology comes along they can go with that. If the OEM wants to offer a choice of browsers so be it.

The point is that your choice of browser should never be determined by the fact that you think you want one. That is a totally independant criteria. If you need a tire should you be forced to buy Firestones? If you need to ware clothing should you be forced to wear a state uniform? If you need to eat lunch should you be forced to consume food decided by someone else?

Only idiots and fools argue that your choice should be out of your control and determined by someone else. Themselves most likely. They only lie about who they really are.

Microsoft employees argue that IE should be forced on consumers. Consumers would never suggest such a thing. Consumers always want a choice.

if you got IE...

If you have a copy of IE (any version) your opinion just does not count.

And now Microsoft wants all their employees to help supress any chance their friends might have had.

It is bad enought that consumers have to pay cash for IE.

wanting a browser is not the same as buying MS

Strange it is that anyone would give up their right to buy products of their choice. But, just look at the Microsoft salesman.

I guess they still have their mom put out their cloths on the bed each day so that they do not have to decide what to wear. Their mommy also packs their box lunch so that decision need not be made either.

Needing to wear cloths or eat lunch NEVER means you have to give that choice to someone else.

But, look at the Microsoft salsman (if you can call them that). They think your choice only extends to the plastic numbers you use to pay for IE.

needing a browser does not mean you have no choice

Needing a browser does not mean you should be required to buy a particular brand.

If you are hungry does it mean you must buy a Big Mac?

If you want to wear a shirt, must it be a Polo brand?

Needing a product NEVER means you are denied your choice as a consumer. Unless it is done illegally.

If you think everyone should be required to buy a browser with their OS then they should have the choice of which browser not forced to buy IE. Unbundle it from the OS or give consumers the choice.

Just like a burger or shirt for your back. If you must wear one, at least give the consumer the choice over which one they buy. Being free does not change that.