Bill Gates Blackmailing Denmark

"Ted Campanelli" <> wrote in message
news:NnpQd.8012$ m...
> Ted shuffled out of his cave and grunted these great (and sometimes not so
> great) words of knowledge:
>
> What I find interesting is that monopolies are not legal in this country
> (US ). Where is the competition to Microsoft ? Please don't say Linux. I
> am referring to an OS that will run the majority of windows programs.
>
> Bill has the software manufacturers and hardware manufacturers doing what
> he wants. If they want to sell their product IT MUST BE ABLE TO RUN UNDER
> WINDOWS.
>
> Back in "the old days" you had a choice of an os. There was PC Dos, MS
> Dos, C-Dos plus a few others I don't remember. Bill managed to get rid of
> all the "threats".

No he didn't. These operating systems are still around. You can switch any
time you want to.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 08:38:27 -0800, "JAD" <> wrote:

>bill is doing what the world powers want him to..1 world -1computer -1OS-
>run by the 1 government. its in your face....yet few see it.
>
Doh! There's my cue, and I almost missed it!

"I cannot read the fiery letters," I said. "No," he said, "but I can. The letters are Hex, of an
ancient mode, but the language is that of Microsoft, which I shall not utter here. But in common
English this is what it says"
"One OS to rule them all, One OS to find them
One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them."

>
>"Ted Campanelli" <> wrote in message
>news:NnpQd.8012$ om...
>> Ted shuffled out of his cave and grunted these great (and sometimes not
>> so great) words of knowledge:
>>
>> What I find interesting is that monopolies are not legal in this country
>> (US ). Where is the competition to Microsoft ? Please don't say Linux.
>> I am referring to an OS that will run the majority of windows programs.
>>
>> Bill has the software manufacturers and hardware manufacturers doing
>> what he wants. If they want to sell their product IT MUST BE ABLE TO
>> RUN UNDER WINDOWS.
>>
>> Back in "the old days" you had a choice of an os. There was PC Dos, MS
>> Dos, C-Dos plus a few others I don't remember. Bill managed to get rid
>> of all the "threats".
>>
>> Where were our "illustrious" government watchdogs while this was going
>> on ? Where are they now ? Are they doing anything ? Nope, Bill owns
>them.
>
>

~~~~~~
Bait for spammers:
root@localhost
postmaster@localhost
admin@localhost
abuse@localhost
postmaster@[127.0.0.1]

~~~~~~
Remove "spamless" to email me.

"A Guy Called Tyketto" <> wrote in message
news:aysQd.315$. ..
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In alt.comp.hardware.amd.x86-64 Ted Campanelli <>
> wrote:
>> Ted shuffled out of his cave and grunted these great (and sometimes not
>> so great) words of knowledge:
>>
>> What I find interesting is that monopolies are not legal in this country
>> (US ). Where is the competition to Microsoft ? Please don't say Linux.
>> I am referring to an OS that will run the majority of windows programs.
>
> You just shot yourself in the foot there. "They must run
> windows programs." You want an alternative competitor to M$ that can
> run M$ programs? Something proprietary to M$? That is akin to
> antitrust, which M$ just got lambasted in court for both in the US and
> the EU.
>
> You want competition? Linux. Open Office. Or even WINE.

Ahh yes, and get half the FPS in games, Linux is not a good alternative,
WINE doesn't work with every windows program and when it does it's often
slow.

>> Bill has the software manufacturers and hardware manufacturers doing
>> what he wants. If they want to sell their product IT MUST BE ABLE TO
>> RUN UNDER WINDOWS.
>
> My Opteron 140, Gigabyte K8NNXP-940, Linksys WRT54G, ForteMedia
> sound card, and SATA drives all disagree with you. They are running
> perfectly... under LINUX.

Not everyone can get linux to do everything they need to do.

>> Back in "the old days" you had a choice of an os. There was PC Dos, MS
>> Dos, C-Dos plus a few others I don't remember. Bill managed to get rid
>> of all the "threats".
>
> Mr. Torvalds would happily disagree with you. Do more homework.
>
>> Where were our "illustrious" government watchdogs while this was going
>> on ? Where are they now ? Are they doing anything ? Nope, Bill owns
>> them.
>
> Seeing that the EU Appelate courts through his appeal out and
> made the door hit him on his way out, I don't think Gates of Borg owns
> them. If anything, they are now growing tired of him. As well as the
> people around, who keep getting all of these security updates because
> Gates can't keep his OS and programs straight. Perfect example:
>
> I'm running Slackware 10.1 on my linux box. My last security
> update for the distribution, was Oct. 31st, 2004, for crashing of CVS,
> which that ended up being a bugfix. For a real security update, it was
> Oct. 25th. Those were for 2 programs: Apache, and mod_ssl. Between then
> and now, M$ has had over 40 vulnerabilities in various programs used in
> its OS. 2 to 40. Hmmm... Should I even get into worms, virii, and any
> other trojans?
>
> BL.
> - --
> Brad Littlejohn | Email:
> Unix Systems Administrator, |
> Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! | http://www.sbcglobal.net/~tyketto
> PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFCElUFyBkZmuMZ8L8RAt4oAKDrsw+xBwNKmxEHR7T95v Z/a508BACdFx7I
> 1Og3fw/to6kv8IjqofYj79Q=
> =uikJ
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"relic" <> wrote in message
news:XztQd.2889$...
> Ted Campanelli wrote:
>>
>> What I find interesting is that monopolies are not legal in this
>> country (US ). Where is the competition to Microsoft ?
>
> There is no guarantee of Competition. Only that anyone _can_ start a
> company or sell a product that competes. Why don't you?

It's very hard to develope a competing OS when so much depends on software
compatablity. Sure, you can make a great technologically advanced OS, which
won't likely do very well in the market because there will be no software to
run on it.
Patents are government inforced monopolies.

Nicholas Buenk wrote:

> "relic" <> wrote in message
> news:XztQd.2889$...
>
>>Ted Campanelli wrote:
>>
>>>What I find interesting is that monopolies are not legal in this
>>>country (US ). Where is the competition to Microsoft ?
>>
>>There is no guarantee of Competition. Only that anyone _can_ start a
>>company or sell a product that competes. Why don't you?
>
>
> It's very hard to develope a competing OS when so much depends on software
> compatablity. Sure, you can make a great technologically advanced OS, which
> won't likely do very well in the market because there will be no software to
> run on it.


> Patents are government inforced monopolies.

That *is* the point of them: That he who invents it should reap the
benefit, for a period of time, of having done so.

Why in the world should I spend the time, effort, and money to invent
something if you're going to just copy it for free? YOU go waste a few
million inventing it and *I'll* do the copying.

David Maynard wrote:
> Nicholas Buenk wrote:
>
>> "relic" <> wrote in message
>> news:XztQd.2889$...
>>
>>> Ted Campanelli wrote:
>>>
>>>> What I find interesting is that monopolies are not legal in this
>>>> country (US ). Where is the competition to Microsoft ?
>>>
>>>
>>> There is no guarantee of Competition. Only that anyone _can_ start a
>>> company or sell a product that competes. Why don't you?
>>
>>
>>
>> It's very hard to develope a competing OS when so much depends on
>> software compatablity. Sure, you can make a great technologically
>> advanced OS, which won't likely do very well in the market because
>> there will be no software to run on it.
>
>
>
>> Patents are government inforced monopolies.
>
>
> That *is* the point of them: That he who invents it should reap the
> benefit, for a period of time, of having done so.
>
> Why in the world should I spend the time, effort, and money to invent
> something if you're going to just copy it for free? YOU go waste a few
> million inventing it and *I'll* do the copying.

Okay, but don't forget to patent it too---like Microsoft. Here is their
patent (#6,727,830) on the mouse double click:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/6727830

Matt wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>
>> Nicholas Buenk wrote:
>>
>>> "relic" <> wrote in message
>>> news:XztQd.2889$...
>>>
>>>> Ted Campanelli wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What I find interesting is that monopolies are not legal in this
>>>>> country (US ). Where is the competition to Microsoft ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no guarantee of Competition. Only that anyone _can_ start a
>>>> company or sell a product that competes. Why don't you?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's very hard to develope a competing OS when so much depends on
>>> software compatablity. Sure, you can make a great technologically
>>> advanced OS, which won't likely do very well in the market because
>>> there will be no software to run on it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Patents are government inforced monopolies.
>>
>>
>>
>> That *is* the point of them: That he who invents it should reap the
>> benefit, for a period of time, of having done so.
>>
>> Why in the world should I spend the time, effort, and money to invent
>> something if you're going to just copy it for free? YOU go waste a few
>> million inventing it and *I'll* do the copying.
>
>
> Okay, but don't forget to patent it too

Well, it *would* be rather difficult to talk about "Patents are government
inforced monopolies" if it wasn't patented, now wouldn't it?


>---like Microsoft. Here is their
> patent (#6,727,830) on the mouse double click:
>
> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/6727830

I'm not going to debate the virtues of individual patents since selectively
picking one to argue against the patent concept itself is like arguing
there should be no traffic laws because you dispute the merit of a 30 MPH
speed limit on Elm.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 06:12:55 -0600, David Maynard <> wrote:

>Matt wrote:
>
>> David Maynard wrote:
>>
>>> Nicholas Buenk wrote:
>>>
>>>> "relic" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:XztQd.2889$...
>>>>
>>>>> Ted Campanelli wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What I find interesting is that monopolies are not legal in this
>>>>>> country (US ). Where is the competition to Microsoft ?
>>>>>>
>>>>> There is no guarantee of Competition. Only that anyone _can_ start a
>>>>> company or sell a product that competes. Why don't you?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's very hard to develope a competing OS when so much depends on
>>>> software compatablity. Sure, you can make a great technologically
>>>> advanced OS, which won't likely do very well in the market because
>>>> there will be no software to run on it.
>>>
>>> Patents are government inforced monopolies.
>>>
>>> That *is* the point of them: That he who invents it should reap the
>>> benefit, for a period of time, of having done so.
>>>
>>> Why in the world should I spend the time, effort, and money to invent
>>> something if you're going to just copy it for free? YOU go waste a few
>>> million inventing it and *I'll* do the copying.
>>
>>
>> Okay, but don't forget to patent it too
>
>Well, it *would* be rather difficult to talk about "Patents are government
>inforced monopolies" if it wasn't patented, now wouldn't it?
>
>
>>---like Microsoft. Here is their
>> patent (#6,727,830) on the mouse double click:
>>
>> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/6727830
>
>I'm not going to debate the virtues of individual patents since selectively
>picking one to argue against the patent concept itself is like arguing
>there should be no traffic laws because you dispute the merit of a 30 MPH
>speed limit on Elm.
>
>
I believe I will patent the concept of clicking with the left mouse button
as opposed to the right mouse button. Then if you click with that finger
you'll have to send me a nickel each time.

~~~~~~
Bait for spammers:
root@localhost
postmaster@localhost
admin@localhost
abuse@localhost
postmaster@[127.0.0.1]

~~~~~~
Remove "spamless" to email me.

Overlord wrote:

> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 06:12:55 -0600, David Maynard <> wrote:
>
>
>>Matt wrote:
>>
>>
>>>David Maynard wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Nicholas Buenk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"relic" <> wrote in message
>>>>>news:XztQd.2889$ ...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Ted Campanelli wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What I find interesting is that monopolies are not legal in this
>>>>>>>country (US ). Where is the competition to Microsoft ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>There is no guarantee of Competition. Only that anyone _can_ start a
>>>>>>company or sell a product that competes. Why don't you?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It's very hard to develope a competing OS when so much depends on
>>>>>software compatablity. Sure, you can make a great technologically
>>>>>advanced OS, which won't likely do very well in the market because
>>>>>there will be no software to run on it.
>>>>
>>>>Patents are government inforced monopolies.
>>>>
>>>>That *is* the point of them: That he who invents it should reap the
>>>>benefit, for a period of time, of having done so.
>>>>
>>>>Why in the world should I spend the time, effort, and money to invent
>>>>something if you're going to just copy it for free? YOU go waste a few
>>>>million inventing it and *I'll* do the copying.
>>>
>>>
>>>Okay, but don't forget to patent it too
>>
>>Well, it *would* be rather difficult to talk about "Patents are government
>>inforced monopolies" if it wasn't patented, now wouldn't it?
>>
>>
>>
>>>---like Microsoft. Here is their
>>>patent (#6,727,830) on the mouse double click:
>>>
>>>http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...&RS=PN/6727830
>>
>>I'm not going to debate the virtues of individual patents since selectively
>>picking one to argue against the patent concept itself is like arguing
>>there should be no traffic laws because you dispute the merit of a 30 MPH
>>speed limit on Elm.
>>
>>
>
> I believe I will patent the concept of clicking with the left mouse button
> as opposed to the right mouse button. Then if you click with that finger
> you'll have to send me a nickel each time.

Good luck. But I think you'll find that getting a patent isn't quite as
easy as you seem to believe.

For one, you just told me, and on a public forum no less, which makes it
public domain. No patent.

Btw, I can't find any reference at all to a 'mouse' in the afore mentioned
patent. It's about "Time based hardware button for application launch" and,
in particular, "on a limited resource computing device" that is described
as "Small, mobile computing devices, such as personal desktop assistants
including hand-held and palm-type computers and the like." And the
"hardware button" is not a mouse key but the buttons on PDAs for launching
specific applications, as in "Therefore, as an alternative to launching
applications by using the stylus, the Palm-size PC contains a plurality of
buttons (called application buttons) that are used to launch the more
common applications installed on a Palm-size PC."

"David Maynard" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Nicholas Buenk wrote:
>
>> "relic" <> wrote in message
>> news:XztQd.2889$...
>>
>>>Ted Campanelli wrote:
>>>
>>>>What I find interesting is that monopolies are not legal in this
>>>>country (US ). Where is the competition to Microsoft ?
>>>
>>>There is no guarantee of Competition. Only that anyone _can_ start a
>>>company or sell a product that competes. Why don't you?
>>
>>
>> It's very hard to develope a competing OS when so much depends on
>> software compatablity. Sure, you can make a great technologically
>> advanced OS, which won't likely do very well in the market because there
>> will be no software to run on it.
>
>
>> Patents are government inforced monopolies.
>
> That *is* the point of them: That he who invents it should reap the
> benefit, for a period of time, of having done so.
>
> Why in the world should I spend the time, effort, and money to invent
> something if you're going to just copy it for free? YOU go waste a few
> million inventing it and *I'll* do the copying.

He who invents it first has the advantage, patents should be greatly
reduced, maybe 6months in the software industry from release date, that is
ample time to profit from the research. Patents as they are now, are way too
excessive and cause more problems than good.