Talk:Microsoft patent to make ads disable computer
Add topicLatest comment: 17 years ago by Towsonu2003
Well hopefully they're sue the crap out of anyone else who trys to do this :). Bawolff ☺☻ 04:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, it sounds rather illegal. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 05:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think they can do this if they own the hardware (just like banks can cut up credit cards as you don't really own them) . Bawolff ☺☻ 05:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- how about giving them a call and asking them what they want to use it for? article can use a little balance. might be used in places like kiosks and such, don't think it's anything like illegal, especially if the license agreement makes it clear what to expect. — Doldrums(talk) 05:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm reasonably certain that as long as they own the computer, this is technically legal, so I can only see it being used in situations where you don't own the computer you're using. Maybe at internet cafes or something.--TelevisedRevolution 06:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- They also applied for patents on "crippled computers" (did we cover that?). That is: say you buy a computer. And you buy it dirt cheap. But it can only do some basic stuff. I donno, like, it cannot access local networks. You pay a bit more and buy its feature to access local networks. It goes parallel to this patent in the article. I mean: if they can, they will probably sell crippled computers for dirt cheap saying "hey we help poor people", and then unfairly charge for features or force people to see ads etc. That is why I put the links to Bad Vista and Defective by Design at the bottom of the article (to hint the implications of this stuff without introducing POV reaction from other editors)... As per legality, their EULA is already very restrictive. Knowing that no one reads the EULA, even if they put more restrictions like that, people would still be happy with MS. See this article or google for many reviews of the Vista EULA... Well, monopoly is powerful. Towsonu2003 07:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm all for free software and all, but bad vista site seems kinda pointless. They don't say what's wrong with vista (even though is in their commonly asked questions, they say very little except linking to some bad press vista got). I personally think they should be promoting free software by saying good things about free software, not saying M$ sucks!!!!!. Bawolff ☺☻ 11:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that they don't have any content. They are either in development or they abandoned the project. Or just out of ideas? Towsonu2003 16:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- Linux for all of us!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.155.114.230 (talk • contribs) 16:42, February 11, 2007
- I agree that they don't have any content. They are either in development or they abandoned the project. Or just out of ideas? Towsonu2003 16:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm all for free software and all, but bad vista site seems kinda pointless. They don't say what's wrong with vista (even though is in their commonly asked questions, they say very little except linking to some bad press vista got). I personally think they should be promoting free software by saying good things about free software, not saying M$ sucks!!!!!. Bawolff ☺☻ 11:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- They also applied for patents on "crippled computers" (did we cover that?). That is: say you buy a computer. And you buy it dirt cheap. But it can only do some basic stuff. I donno, like, it cannot access local networks. You pay a bit more and buy its feature to access local networks. It goes parallel to this patent in the article. I mean: if they can, they will probably sell crippled computers for dirt cheap saying "hey we help poor people", and then unfairly charge for features or force people to see ads etc. That is why I put the links to Bad Vista and Defective by Design at the bottom of the article (to hint the implications of this stuff without introducing POV reaction from other editors)... As per legality, their EULA is already very restrictive. Knowing that no one reads the EULA, even if they put more restrictions like that, people would still be happy with MS. See this article or google for many reviews of the Vista EULA... Well, monopoly is powerful. Towsonu2003 07:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm reasonably certain that as long as they own the computer, this is technically legal, so I can only see it being used in situations where you don't own the computer you're using. Maybe at internet cafes or something.--TelevisedRevolution 06:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- how about giving them a call and asking them what they want to use it for? article can use a little balance. might be used in places like kiosks and such, don't think it's anything like illegal, especially if the license agreement makes it clear what to expect. — Doldrums(talk) 05:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think they can do this if they own the hardware (just like banks can cut up credit cards as you don't really own them) . Bawolff ☺☻ 05:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Removed link
[edit]Can you re-instate them as per my answer above (they hint about the implications of this patent)? Or atleast put this one as related news: http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000176 (Microsoft Tries to Patent a Crippled Baseline OS). I'm not gonna do it so I don't get reverted Towsonu2003 07:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- external links shld be sparingly used. any "analysis" or comment on the news event should be written into this article (with suitable attribution, of course) rather than simply linked to.
- WN articles are not like slashdot posts, where a gist of an offsite report is provided along with a link. this allows us to exercise our editorial role - identify notable bits of the external discussion, provide adequate balance with MS' rebuttal of such comments or failing that, its prior statements regarding such analysis.
- in particular, adding a bunch of pov external links whose relevance to the article is questionable is a big no-no: WN:NPOV. that, anyway, is my $0.02 — Doldrums(talk) 09:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have added the Groklaw source, which could significantly change the article is much was lifted from it, the focus there is not on just this one aspect of the patent. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)