MSFT wins "Who's the King of R&D?" (no mention of Linux) - Linux

This is a discussion on MSFT wins "Who's the King of R&D?" (no mention of Linux) - Linux ; Snit wrote: > "DFS" stated in post > ipWAj.5249$r76.2306@bignews8.bellsouth.net on 3/9/08 12:56 PM: > >> Rick wrote: >>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 18:36:48 +0100, Hadron wrote: >> >>>> Other than 90% or more of the world using their computers? ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 48 of 48

Thread: MSFT wins "Who's the King of R&D?" (no mention of Linux)

  1. Re: MSFT wins "Who's the King of R&D?" (no mention of Linux)

    Snit wrote:
    > "DFS" stated in post
    > ipWAj.5249$r76.2306@bignews8.bellsouth.net on 3/9/08 12:56 PM:
    >
    >> Rick wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 18:36:48 +0100, Hadron wrote:

    >>
    >>>> Other than 90% or more of the world using their computers?
    >>>
    >>> Monopoly power handed to them by IBM and maintained by illegal
    >>> means.

    >>
    >> Why would IBM do that?
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>> Other than
    >>>> the fact that all the major graphics card vendors support Dx and
    >>>> work with MS optimizing graphics pipelines.
    >>>
    >>> Network effects and illegally maintained monopoly power.

    >>
    >> Like what, (p)Rick? What did MS do that was illegal that helped them
    >> maintain monopoly power?

    >
    > Rick runs from any discussion of inherent weaknesses in desktop Linux
    > by blaming MS and users.
    >
    > Pathetic.


    It is pathetic, but all cola "advocates" do it.




  2. Re: MSFT wins "Who's the King of R&D?" (no mention of Linux)

    On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:56:22 -0500, DFS wrote:

    > Rick wrote:
    >> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 18:36:48 +0100, Hadron wrote:

    >
    >>> Other than 90% or more of the world using their computers?

    >>
    >> Monopoly power handed to them by IBM and maintained by illegal means.

    >
    > Why would IBM do that?


    They need an OS for the 5150 and they didn't have one. They didn't
    realize Microsoft didn't have one either, so they did the deal. The
    agreed to license the OS from Microsoft, although they had refused a
    license deal with Digital Research earlier.

    >>> Other than
    >>> the fact that all the major graphics card vendors support Dx and work
    >>> with MS optimizing graphics pipelines.

    >>
    >> Network effects and illegally maintained monopoly power.

    >
    > Like what, (p)Rick?


    Are you that stupid and/or dishonest, Dumb ****ing ****?

    > What did MS do that was illegal that helped them
    > maintain monopoly power?


    Go read up on them. They were in all the papers.

    --
    Rick

  3. Re: MSFT wins "Who's the King of R&D?" (no mention of Linux)

    On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:03:05 -0500, DFS wrote:

    > Rick wrote:
    >> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:56:22 -0500, DFS wrote:
    >>
    >>> Rick wrote:
    >>>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 18:36:48 +0100, Hadron wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> Other than 90% or more of the world using their computers?
    >>>>
    >>>> Monopoly power handed to them by IBM and maintained by illegal means.
    >>>
    >>> Why would IBM do that?

    >>
    >> They need an OS for the 5150 and they didn't have one. They didn't
    >> realize Microsoft didn't have one either, so they did the deal. The
    >> agreed to license the OS from Microsoft, although they had refused a
    >> license deal with Digital Research earlier.

    >
    > So rather than write their own OS they "handed a monopoly" worth
    > billions to Microsoft?


    That's exactly what they did. Where do you think PC-DOS came from?

    >
    > You're an idiot, (p)Rick.


    You're an ass, Dumb ****ing ****.

    > MS earned everything they ever made: every
    > dollar and point of market share. Nothing was handed to them.


    Their monopoly power was handed to them.

    >>>>> Other than
    >>>>> the fact that all the major graphics card vendors support Dx and
    >>>>> work with MS optimizing graphics pipelines.
    >>>>
    >>>> Network effects and illegally maintained monopoly power.
    >>>
    >>> Like what, (p)Rick?

    >>
    >> Are you that stupid and/or dishonest, Dumb ****ing ****?

    >
    > Too chicken**** to answer. Figures.


    Are you that stupid and/or dishonest, Dumb ****ing ****?


    >>> What did MS do that was illegal that helped them maintain monopoly
    >>> power?

    >>
    >> Go read up on them. They were in all the papers.

    >
    > Too chicken**** to answer. Figures.


    Are you that stupid and/or dishonest, Dumb ****ing ****?

    Well, let's see. They entered into a licensing agreement with Spyglass
    and then gave away IE to rob Spyglass of their fees and to undermine
    Netscape. They put bogus warning messages into Windows to scare beta
    testers away from DR-DOS. They infringed Stac's IP. And yes, Stac lost a
    counter-suit, but they couldn't have proved Microsoft's dirty dealings
    without the reverse engineering. They told Vobis if Vobis kept shipping
    Dr-DOD, the DOS and Windows prices would be raised so high Vobis wouldn't
    be able to stay in business. They threatened Apple with stopping
    development of Office for the Mac, at a time that that may well have
    killed Apple, if Apple didn't make IE the default browser.

    .... and that's just off the top of my head. So, every time you ask me..
    what did Microsoft ever do wrong.... the above is my answer. You, like
    others of your ilk here, demand a litany of answers every time someone
    disses Microsoft. Well, you have repeatedly given the answers. And now, I
    have given you a small number of Microsoft's dirty practices.

    --
    Rick

  4. Re: MSFT wins "Who's the King of R&D?" (no mention of Linux)

    Rick wrote:
    > On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:56:22 -0500, DFS wrote:
    >
    >> Rick wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 18:36:48 +0100, Hadron wrote:

    >>
    >>>> Other than 90% or more of the world using their computers?
    >>>
    >>> Monopoly power handed to them by IBM and maintained by illegal
    >>> means.

    >>
    >> Why would IBM do that?

    >
    > They need an OS for the 5150 and they didn't have one. They didn't
    > realize Microsoft didn't have one either, so they did the deal. The
    > agreed to license the OS from Microsoft, although they had refused a
    > license deal with Digital Research earlier.


    So rather than write their own OS they "handed a monopoly" worth billions to
    Microsoft?

    You're an idiot, (p)Rick. MS earned everything they ever made: every dollar
    and point of market share. Nothing was handed to them.




    >>>> Other than
    >>>> the fact that all the major graphics card vendors support Dx and
    >>>> work with MS optimizing graphics pipelines.
    >>>
    >>> Network effects and illegally maintained monopoly power.

    >>
    >> Like what, (p)Rick?

    >
    > Are you that stupid and/or dishonest, Dumb ****ing ****?


    Too chicken**** to answer. Figures.





    >> What did MS do that was illegal that helped them
    >> maintain monopoly power?

    >
    > Go read up on them. They were in all the papers.


    Too chicken**** to answer. Figures.






  5. Re: MSFT wins "Who's the King of R&D?" (no mention of Linux)

    Rick wrote:
    > On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:03:05 -0500, DFS wrote:
    >
    >> Rick wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:56:22 -0500, DFS wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Rick wrote:
    >>>>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 18:36:48 +0100, Hadron wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> Other than 90% or more of the world using their computers?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Monopoly power handed to them by IBM and maintained by illegal
    >>>>> means.
    >>>>
    >>>> Why would IBM do that?
    >>>
    >>> They need an OS for the 5150 and they didn't have one. They didn't
    >>> realize Microsoft didn't have one either, so they did the deal. The
    >>> agreed to license the OS from Microsoft, although they had refused a
    >>> license deal with Digital Research earlier.

    >>
    >> So rather than write their own OS they "handed a monopoly" worth
    >> billions to Microsoft?

    >
    > That's exactly what they did. Where do you think PC-DOS came from?


    MS-DOS, which was developed by Microsoft.
    http://www.patersontech.com/Dos/Byte/History.html



    >> You're an idiot, (p)Rick.

    >
    > You're an ass, Dumb ****ing ****.
    >
    >> MS earned everything they ever made: every
    >> dollar and point of market share. Nothing was handed to them.

    >
    > Their monopoly power was handed to them.


    Nothing was handed to them, ever. They legally bought and/or developed
    in-house or under contract everything they ever sold. They made their
    success happen, from day one.

    And no ragtag "community" of MS haters giving away crapware can change that,
    or beat them.




    > Well, let's see. They entered into a licensing agreement with Spyglass
    > and then gave away IE to rob Spyglass of their fees


    How can you rob someone when you fulfill the terms of the contract they
    signed?



    > and to undermine Netscape.


    har! That's called competition, you lamer.

    Is it "undermining" when Linux gives software away?



    > They put bogus warning messages into Windows to scare beta
    > testers away from DR-DOS.


    The question was "What did MS do that was illegal that helped them maintain
    monopoly power?" When are you going to answer it?



    > They infringed Stac's IP.


    "However, the federal jury on Wednesday also ruled that the violation was
    not willful..." http://www.msversus.org/archive/stac.html


    > And yes, Stac lost a counter-suit, but they couldn't have proved
    > Microsoft's dirty
    > dealings without the reverse engineering.


    "The jury agreed with Microsoft's counterclaim that its technology was
    stolen by Stac and used to develop the MS-DOS Stacker."
    http://www.msversus.org/archive/stac.html


    Surprise: Only Stac did anything willfully illegal.



    > They told Vobis if Vobis
    > kept shipping Dr-DOD, the DOS and Windows prices would be raised so
    > high Vobis wouldn't be able to stay in business.


    Not illegal if it happened (it didn't). In fact - you dumbass - if you
    weren't lazy you could find the truth: Vobis went along with MS' terms - but
    not the terms you claim:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/05...id_50k_to_buy/


    Also: "Rohm gives the example of how Gates even took control in Germany
    where Vobis, Europe's largest computer manufacturer is located. Gates gave
    Vobis a bundle of Microsoft Word and Excel, along with Windows, but Lieven,
    CEO of Vobis, had to promise that, even if customers asked for it, he would
    not ship a single machine with the operating system DR-DOS (Rohm 63).
    Joachim Kempin, Senior VP, OEM sales for Microsoft even offered to buy all
    Vobis' DR-DOS holograms, like currency, as they were used for authentication
    when Vobis or other OEMs shipped a copy of DR-DOS. He said, "Even if you do
    have per processor licenses, even if you've already paid for DR-DOS, we
    don't want you selling it." Lieven testified that this was true, and in
    fact, he did not ship any more DR-DOS because Kempin "purchased the rest of
    the holograms."
    http://com.hilbert.edu/students/pape...microsoft.html



    > They threatened Apple with stopping development of Office
    > for the Mac, at a time that that may well have killed Apple, if
    > Apple didn't make IE the default browser.


    Also not illegal, and this so-called "threat" was not a one-sided thing.
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/01...and_denies_ms/



    > ... and that's just off the top of my head.


    Off your dull head, and none of it supports your claim of "illegally
    maintained monopoly power".



    > So, every time you ask
    > me.. what did Microsoft ever do wrong.... the above is my answer.


    But it's not an answer, since none of it was illegal.



    > You, like others of your ilk here, demand a litany of answers every
    > time someone disses Microsoft.


    I expect you wackos to support your claims. You generally can't.



    > Well, you have repeatedly given the
    > answers. And now, I have given you a small number of Microsoft's
    > dirty practices.


    If you had a shred of honesty, you would decry the bogus, dirty practice of
    giving away all open source crudware for less than the cost to produce it.




  6. Re: MSFT wins "Who's the King of R&D?" (no mention of Linux)

    On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 20:01:02 -0500, DFS wrote:

    > Rick wrote:
    >> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 19:03:05 -0500, DFS wrote:
    >>
    >>> Rick wrote:
    >>>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 14:56:22 -0500, DFS wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Rick wrote:
    >>>>>> On Sun, 09 Mar 2008 18:36:48 +0100, Hadron wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> Other than 90% or more of the world using their computers?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Monopoly power handed to them by IBM and maintained by illegal
    >>>>>> means.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Why would IBM do that?
    >>>>
    >>>> They need an OS for the 5150 and they didn't have one. They didn't
    >>>> realize Microsoft didn't have one either, so they did the deal. The
    >>>> agreed to license the OS from Microsoft, although they had refused a
    >>>> license deal with Digital Research earlier.
    >>>
    >>> So rather than write their own OS they "handed a monopoly" worth
    >>> billions to Microsoft?

    >>
    >> That's exactly what they did. Where do you think PC-DOS came from?

    >
    > MS-DOS, which was developed by Microsoft.
    > http://www.patersontech.com/Dos/Byte/History.html


    Actually, MS-DOS (and thus PC-DOS) was a re-worked version of QDOS.


    >>> You're an idiot, (p)Rick.

    >>
    >> You're an ass, Dumb ****ing ****.
    >>
    >>> MS earned everything they ever made: every dollar and point of market
    >>> share. Nothing was handed to them.

    >>
    >> Their monopoly power was handed to them.

    >
    > Nothing was handed to them, ever.


    Their monopoly power was handed to them.

    > They legally bought and/or developed
    > in-house or under contract everything they ever sold. They made their
    > success happen, from day one.


    I have shown you plenty examples of their underhanded tactics.

    >
    > And no ragtag "community" of MS haters giving away crapware can change
    > that, or beat them.


    There is no ragtag "community" of MS haters giving away crapware.

    >> Well, let's see. They entered into a licensing agreement with Spyglass
    >> and then gave away IE to rob Spyglass of their fees

    >
    > How can you rob someone when you fulfill the terms of the contract they
    > signed?


    They fullfill the contract, which why Spyglass sued.

    >> and to undermine Netscape.

    >
    > har! That's called competition, you lamer.


    No, it is called dumping.

    >
    > Is it "undermining" when Linux gives software away?


    "Linux" doesn't give anything away. Various developers release their
    software, openly and above board under various OSS licenses. They don't
    do it to drive competitors out of business.


    >> They put bogus warning messages into Windows to scare beta testers away
    >> from DR-DOS.

    >
    > The question was "What did MS do that was illegal that helped them
    > maintain monopoly power?" When are you going to answer it?


    They put bogus warning messages into Windows to scare beta testers away
    from DR-DOS, which is an example of Microsoft's underhanded business
    dealing.
    >
    >
    >
    >> They infringed Stac's IP.

    >
    > "However, the federal jury on Wednesday also ruled that the violation
    > was not willful..." http://www.msversus.org/archive/stac.html


    So they un-willfully broke the law. Its a pattern.

    >
    >
    >> And yes, Stac lost a counter-suit, but they couldn't have proved
    >> Microsoft's dirty
    >> dealings without the reverse engineering.

    >
    > "The jury agreed with Microsoft's counterclaim that its technology was
    > stolen by Stac and used to develop the MS-DOS Stacker."
    > http://www.msversus.org/archive/stac.html
    >
    >
    > Surprise: Only Stac did anything willfully illegal.


    Surprise, it was the only way Stac could prove that Microsoft infringed
    first.

    >> They told Vobis if Vobis
    >> kept shipping Dr-DOD, the DOS and Windows prices would be raised so
    >> high Vobis wouldn't be able to stay in business.

    >
    > Not illegal if it happened (it didn't).


    It did.

    > In fact - you dumbass - if you
    > weren't lazy you could find the truth: Vobis went along with MS' terms -
    > but not the terms you claim:
    >
    > http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/05...id_50k_to_buy/
    >
    >
    > Also: "Rohm gives the example of how Gates even took control in Germany
    > where Vobis, Europe's largest computer manufacturer is located. Gates
    > gave Vobis a bundle of Microsoft Word and Excel, along with Windows, but
    > Lieven, CEO of Vobis, had to promise that, even if customers asked for
    > it, he would not ship a single machine with the operating system DR-DOS
    > (Rohm 63). Joachim Kempin, Senior VP, OEM sales for Microsoft even
    > offered to buy all Vobis' DR-DOS holograms, like currency, as they were
    > used for authentication when Vobis or other OEMs shipped a copy of
    > DR-DOS. He said, "Even if you do have per processor licenses, even if
    > you've already paid for DR-DOS, we don't want you selling it." Lieven
    > testified that this was true, and in fact, he did not ship any more
    > DR-DOS because Kempin "purchased the rest of the holograms."
    > http://com.hilbert.edu/students/pape...microsoft.html


    Thanks for proving my point.

    >
    >
    >
    >> They threatened Apple with stopping development of Office for the Mac,
    >> at a time that that may well have killed Apple, if Apple didn't make IE
    >> the default browser.

    >
    > Also not illegal, and this so-called "threat" was not a one-sided thing.
    > http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/01...and_denies_ms/



    Underhanded. Immoral. Unethical. And, IIRC, illegal:

    US Court of Appeals Opinion June 28, 2001

    Finally, the District Court held that Microsoft’s dealings
    with Apple violated the Sherman Act.

    The agreement also prohibits Apple from
    encouraging users to substitute another browser for IE, and
    states that Apple will ‘‘encourage its employees to use [IE]

    This exclusive deal between Microsoft and Apple has a
    substantial effect upon the distribution of rival browsers.

    Accordingly, we hold that the exclusive deal with Apple is
    exclusionary, in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act.

    >
    >
    >
    >> ... and that's just off the top of my head.

    >
    > Off your dull head, and none of it supports your claim of "illegally
    > maintained monopoly power".


    Gee... I just quoted the US Appeals Court opinion showing ONE of
    Microsoft's Anti trust violation. I am not going through the opinion and
    finding the others one by one. You do it.



    >
    >
    >
    >> So, every time you ask
    >> me.. what did Microsoft ever do wrong.... the above is my answer.

    >
    > But it's not an answer, since none of it was illegal.


    Do you never tire of being wrong. And I said illegal, immoral and
    unethical. I also added underhanded.

    >
    >
    >
    >> You, like others of your ilk here, demand a litany of answers every
    >> time someone disses Microsoft.

    >
    > I expect you wackos to support your claims. You generally can't.


    I generally did.

    >> Well, you have repeatedly given the
    >> answers. And now, I have given you a small number of Microsoft's dirty
    >> practices.

    >
    > If you had a shred of honesty, you would decry the bogus, dirty practice
    > of giving away all open source crudware for less than the cost to
    > produce it.


    You bigotry and stupidity shows itself.

    --
    Rick

  7. Re: MSFT wins "Who's the King of R&D?" (no mention of Linux)

    Richard Rasker wrote:

    >Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> raylopez99 writes:
    >>
    >> The same Dicky Rasker who told us that MS do NO R&D? Seriously. He
    >> claimed that.


    Yet another Quack bald-faced lie. Documented.

    >I didn't. I just said that I couldn't find evidence of Microsoft's R&D
    >efforts having any serious influence on society.



  8. Re: MSFT wins "Who's the King of R&D?" (no mention of Linux)

    Jim Richardson espoused:
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On Tue, 04 Mar 2008 19:27:20 -0800,
    > Tim Smith wrote:
    >> In article
    >><28c1c4ef-6ea0-4de7-a7fb-6353a35f9142@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
    >> raylopez99 wrote:
    >>> When R&D Magazine presented its annual survey ranking the World's Best
    >>> R&D Companies in October, 2007, several companies got to share the
    >>> spotlight. The magazine's editors compared data such as patents
    >>> received, R&D headcount, and new-product sales for 130 R&D-intensive
    >>> companies. Then they surveyed readers to get additional input. IBM
    >>> (IBM) ranked No.1 overall. When it came to which company's R&D has the
    >>> strongest influence on society, however, Microsoft (MSFT) won the top
    >>> spot.

    >>
    >> Keep in mind that almost no one here actually keeps up with research.
    >> You won't find many who read peer-reviewed journals, conference
    >> proceedings, and things like that. They have no clue what is going on
    >> in the world of research.
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    > "Keeps up with research" is about as vague and meaningless a phrase as
    > "knowing science"
    >
    >
    > I keep up with research in some areas. Areas that interest me, I would
    > expect that many others do.
    >


    Research means investigation... it's not some kind of special magic
    which only people with pointy hats in darkened rooms can do.

    Of course, some of us present regularly at conferences... does that
    count? Hehe...

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3