[huskerlug] Re: How do you define an evil corporation?
- From: GreyGeek <jkreps@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: huskerlug@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2007 16:28:08 -0600
Apple sells a hardware and software platform integrated into a single
product, which makes OS X difficult, if not impossible to pirate in
large numbers, so they did not (and could not) turn a blind eye to
pirating until a critical mass had been reached, which they could
exploit, like Microsoft did.
Apple doesn't force independent hardware makers to install only OS X on
their hardware, like Microsoft does with Windows.
I am not in love with the way Apple EXPLOITED the Konqueror developer
team to create Safari, by returning essentially useless code back to
Konqueror. That code included callbacks (signal & slots technology of
QT) to proprietary libraries which Apple didn't share with the Konqueror
team. The Konqueror team cut them off until they began playing fair,
and the two came to an amicable agreement, but the episode proved that
Apple was not above taking advantage of weaker players.
I've read about one blogger issue and it appears to me that someone on
the inside leaked corporate secrets to the blogger, who promptly posted
them, along with comment and interpretations, which destroyed
development and PR time lines, made Microsoft and other competitors
aware of Apple's plans, and caused huge expenses for Apple, which got
reflected in the price of Apple products.
Comparing the past history of the two pirates of Silicon Valley I find
that Jobs is the lesser of two evils... MUCH LESSER, in fact.
Microsoft's ENTIRE market share was obtained by devious, unethical,
immoral and sometimes illegal means. Beginning with Windows 1.0, which
was a stolen copy of the Macintosh, Microsoft has "innovated" by
stealing other developers code. Even their convection for the illegal
bundling behaviors was rendered moot by political payoffs and judicial
corruption/stupidity. Did the Judge with the hyphenated name actually
believe that Microsoft would abide by even that toothless agreement?
How do you say "gullible", children? And, if she wasn't stupid and
gullible, then she was complicit, which is worse. I suspect the latter
because she was a member of a group of circuit judges which took
corporate paid "vacations" to luxury spots to attend "seminars" that
taught them how to circumvent the Sherman-Clayton Anti-Trust Act, and
other laws, in their rulings. http://www.tripsforjudges.org/
Generally, Apple behaves no better or worse than most large American
corporations, which doesn't say much for corporate ethicsin the USA,
except for Microsoft, which exhibits no ethics at all. Even while
Ballmer was chastising citizens of Portland for "not paying their fair
share of taxes" Microsoft was selling its products out of sales offices
in Nevada, which collects NO sales tax. Microsoft has never been shy
about being hypocritical.
I plan on helping my grandson buy an Apple Mac, and I'll probably buy
one too, after I retire in a year or so.
Does that answer your questions?
JLK
Hexadecimal wrote:
> GreyGeek, how do you feel about Apple? It seems to me like they should be
> just as bad as MS in your eyes (they harassed some bloggers - that annoys
> me).
> On 2/11/07, GreyGeek <jkreps@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> By their actions!
>>
>>
>> United States Patent Application: 0070033102
>>
>>
>> http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220070033102%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20070033102&RS=DN/20070033102
>>
>> A patent granted to Microsoft for a technology which forces computer
>> users to watch ads, with "sanctions" if they don't ....
>>
>> " ...
>> The policy may be directed to a single computer and thereby a single
>> user or subscriber. Alternately, the policy may extend to a group of
>> computers and correspondingly to a common owner, for example, a business
>> or **school**. When the limit of incorrect responses is reached as an
>> aggregate of group of computers, a sanction may be imposed or a higher
>> level of monitoring may be initiated.
>>
>> [0035] The user's actions following the verified advertising delivery
>> may be monitored. "
>>
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
>> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ----
> Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
>
>
>
--
=========
GreyGeek
=========
Remember, a consumer is a customer with no choice.
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that jail 'manages freedom.'
----
Husker Linux Users Group mailing list
To unsubscribe, send a message to huskerlug-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with a subject of UNSUBSCRIBE
Other related posts:
