No to product activation

On Saturday 01 July 2006 04:30 pm, JS had this to say in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

> How about this key code: YOUR-ARE-AFULL-BLOWN-IDIOT
>

If you're going to be a smartass, at least learn the proper useage of the
English language.

--
The ULTIMATE Windoze Fanboy:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...05018226686613

A 3D Linux Desktop (video) ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUSn-jBA3CE

View Some Common Linux Desktops ...
http://shots.osdir.com/

NoStop wrote:

> On Saturday 01 July 2006 04:30 pm, JS had this to say in
> microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:
>

>> How about this key code: YOUR-ARE-AFULL-BLOWN-IDIOT
>>

> If you're going to be a smartass, at least learn the proper useage of the
> English language.
>

"Useage"?

If you're going to post on Usenet, at least use a news reader with a
spell check ;-)

Alias

Just a couple of things wrong with your message.

1. Windows 95 was never a part of product activation?

2. The number you posted (ID# 05697-OEM-0019182-74655) is not an activation code or even a product key?

3. Yes, Microsoft is a monopoly, but being a monopoly is not a crime.

4. What difference does it make how much money Microsoft has in their bank account?

It sounds like your message has more to do with a lot of jealousy toward someone who is successful.

Watch out for those black helicopters.

--

Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User


"Tarquin Mills" <person@use.net> wrote in message news:5875d53f4e.Usenet@localhost.local...

> Dear All,
> As Microsoft have a complete commercial monopoly it is time to break the
> Product Activation system. MS software prices could be regulated by
> government e.g. Oftel regulated BT telephone call charges. Or it could be
> made free for consumer or very heavy price reductions for everyone. As MS
> has alot money in it's bank account and does little actual development,
> I propose to put MS product activation codes on the Internet starting
> with this Windows 95 one ID# 05697-OEM-0019182-74655, please send me your
> codes and I will post them on alt.destroy.microsoft and put them on
> www.rebootcampaign.org.uk
>
> No I will not give into TPM, Bill.
> --
> The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) should start an investigation
> into Microsoft's monopoly, http://www.petitiononline.com/oftsucks/
> Reboot Movement (An Anti-Wintel Campaign), http://www.rebootmovement.org.uk
> Court case complete, http://www.windowshaters.co.uk

Ronnie Vernon MVP wrote:

> Just a couple of things wrong with your message.

> 3. Yes, Microsoft is a monopoly, but being a monopoly is not a crime.

Ever hear of the anti-trust act? Being a monopoly *is* a crime.

Alias

You need to do some more research.

--

Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User


"ºAliasº" <not@wga.spyware> wrote in message news:e0AGzuWnGHA.1592@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Ronnie Vernon MVP wrote:

>> Just a couple of things wrong with your message.

>

>> 3. Yes, Microsoft is a monopoly, but being a monopoly is not a crime.

>
> Ever hear of the anti-trust act? Being a monopoly *is* a crime.
>
> Alias

ºAliasº wrote:

> Ronnie Vernon MVP wrote:

>> Just a couple of things wrong with your message.

>

>> 3. Yes, Microsoft is a monopoly, but being a monopoly is not a crime.

>
> Ever hear of the anti-trust act? Being a monopoly *is* a crime.

There is no "Anti-trust" act. Perhaps you mean the "Sherman Anti-Trust Act,"
the "Clayton Act," or the "Wilson Tariff Act." However, all "trust" acts
deal with collusion amongst erstwhile competitors, not monopolies.

Even so, being a monoply is not a crime per se, in fact monopolies are
explicitly sanctioned and encouraged by the very first Article in the
Constitution (Article I, Section 8).

Virtually all knowledgeable people agree that monopolies are usually good
for the consumer. That's why there's no law against being a monopoly. The
arch-monopolist, John D.Rockefeller, drove down the price of kerosene down
from $3.00/gallon to five cents in only three years! This was, admittedly,
bad for the whale-oil industry, but it lit up America.

Microsoft is a practical monopoly, true, but there is a force equally as
powerful that serves as a Microsoft competitor: Microsoft itself. Unless
Microsoft creates new products, to compete against its existing offerings,
the revenue stream essentially becomes a trickle.

So why do monopolies have a bad rap then? It's not being a monopoly that's
bad -- it's the actions sometimes undertaken to achieve monopoly status or
the business practices once monopoly status is gained that generate the
criticism.

"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23bcUNKXnGHA.2500@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Virtually all knowledgeable people agree that monopolies are usually good
> for the consumer. That's why there's no law against being a monopoly.

What a fucktard. Maybe in the USA they condone anti-competitive monopolies
but in many countires it is a crime.

On Sun, 02 Jul 2006 05:49:33 GMT, "UVP" <no1@home.today> wrote:

>
>"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:%23bcUNKXnGHA.2500@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> Virtually all knowledgeable people agree that monopolies are usually good
>> for the consumer. That's why there's no law against being a monopoly.

>
>What a fucktard. Maybe in the USA they condone anti-competitive monopolies
>but in many countires it is a crime.
>

Well, where Microsoft has its headquarters (the USA), having a
"monopoly" is not a crime, otherwise many state monopolies on public
utilities would be in violation of such laws, if they existed. By the
way, how can European nations have laws against "monopolies", as you
claim, yet have monopolies on public utilities themselves? Isn't that
kind of hypocritical (and unlawful?) Maybe Europeans need to take a
closer look at their laws against monopolies (and their own
hypocrisy).

But Microsoft certainly has no such "monopoly", in the strictest sense
of the word. While certain jurisdictions have held that they do, it
has not yet gone to the Supreme Court of the US, which has final
jurisdiction.

==

================================================== =========
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread
================================================== =========