On Sep 25, 5:33 pm, "Joe Potter" <not-h...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "Rex Ballard" <rex.ball...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>
> news:c9103a40-a5bc-49f0-8bab-01173eeaf056@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> On Sep 25, 5:08 am, "DFS" <nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > ness...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >Now, if Microsoft were to accidentally put "Black Screen of Death" on
> >a PC that had been purchased with an OEM Windows license, that would
> >constitute fraud, since the buyer purchased a legal license.
>
> It certainly wouldn't be "fraud" - learn the definition of fraud before
> throwing such words around.
>From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fraud
fraud
7 dictionary results for: fraud
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
fraud /frɔd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[frawd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence,
perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud;
election frauds.
3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a
waste of time.
4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.
The Microsoft License agreements are intentionally deceptive and can
result in Microsoft geting huge gains, unfair, and dishonest
advantage.
Using deceptively worded loopholes to revoke a license and then demand
additonal money - would be fraud.
Using deceptively worded contracts to gain a legal, technical, and
economic advantage over competitors would be fraud.
Using trademark rights to limit direct comparisons between competitor
products in which the competitor's product is found to be superior in
some way, and using trademark rights to prevent publication of those
findings, would be fraud.
Using trademark and copyright licenses to prevent the promotion of
competitor products would also be fraud.
Just because somebody breaks the law, doesn't mean that they will be
prosecuted. And even if they are prosecuted or sued, a carefully
worded
settlement can nullify the claims and even thwart prosecution.
The Bush administration gave Microsoft a really "cushy deal". But he
also have similarly cushy deals to Merril Lynch, Fannie Mae, Freddie
Mac, Bear Sterns, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, and Citibank.
These deals were made during Bush's FIRST term in office. But the
bill came due a month before the election.
In each of these cases, these companies were found to be engaging in
fraudulent activities, but were able to craft cushy settlements with
federal investigators (many of the investigations had been started
during the Clinton era, or under Harvey Pitt).
In most cases, the settlement was handled almost exactly the same as
Microsoft's case. A do-nothing compliance officer was appointed, and
was paid by the marketing organization, including bonuses for NOT
disrupting revenue and profits. The carefully crafted settlements
permitted "business as usual" including the illegal practices, and the
judges hands were tied because public complaints were blocked by the
"Justice" department (shades of 1984).
Bush put the interests of Big Business, including big banks, and
Microsoft, ahead of the interests of the American Citizen. And now,
he is asking the American Citizen to pay for all of the ill-gotten
gains.
I wouldn't be surprised if those "unreviewable deals" included amnesty
and immunity for every one of those companies, and their employees,
for all crimes committed in racking up $700 billion in currently
worthless financial paper.
|
|
