Blogs

Posted by unregistered user at 2/8/08 7:03 p.m.

Microsoft says: "Throughout this review, Microsoft employees raised concerns and addressed issues with the aim of making this program better for our partners and more valuable for consumers. In the end, we believe we achieved both objectives."

Then why is Microsoft's Nash complaining that he "got burnt" by buying a Vista Capable PC?

Posted by unregistered user at 2/9/08 9:36 a.m.

The scary part of all this, is that the government can coerce a company to give up their rights to these private emails. That just makes it that much seedier NEXT TIME as companies won't dare put REAL INFORMATION in email form.

Posted by unregistered user at 2/9/08 12:10 p.m.

In response to post # 96358

The government didn't just coerce a company out of the blue. This was part of a legal hearing. I am sure proper legal procedures were followed to gain access to these emails.

Do you think a company like Microsoft would have given up internal emails without a fight?

Posted by unregistered user at 2/9/08 5:07 p.m.

#96402... YOU are sure. I feel so much better knowing YOU are convinced.

Vista launched 1 year ago. And the emails obviously were written after that. So, the amount of time it took the government to coerce these out of MSFT was somewhere in the neighborhood of 6 whole months. What a knock-down drag-out fight it must've been... to be over in a scant 6 months.

Our rulers (governement) have too much power. And tiny little details like this story... prove that true time and time again. Bury your head in the sand if you want, but some of us are paying attention.

Posted by unregistered user at 2/11/08 1:30 a.m.

#96516

You got this right!

"Our rulers (governement) have too much power. And tiny little details like this story... prove that true time and time again. Bury your head in the sand if you want, but some of us are paying attention."

Are they not doing to Americans what they are doing in China? I thought "we the people" ruled America & not "we the government" & that's what makes America great. Sad to see human & Maranda rights slip sliding away, & hope for not change because that's inevitable, but certainty that leadership in Microsoft continues.

In comparing sales of XP to Vista over the same period of the first year in production & what they said is the last, why bother discontinuing an excellent product both in revues by the consumers & possibly of first & proposed last year of sales revenue merely beccause of extra features & disc usage of that "something new".

Accept the fact that new is not always better & continue developing something better for the tech enthusiasts to discover both virtues & flaws, in truth.

Mr Bishop have you done a comparative analisis of the revenues of both XP & Vista that I somehow missed? I am signing the online petition to keep XP available after June!

Posted by unregistered user at 2/11/08 1:42 a.m.

Are you seriously equating due disclosure in a legal case to government snooping?

Posted by unregistered user at 2/11/08 10:37 a.m.

"due disclosure"

hire a lawyer to dress up the wording, and all of a sudden its hunky dorey to the masses.

Posted by 7Null_Seven at 2/11/08 1:58 p.m.

It's called "discovery," and it's what prevents one party to a lawsuit from simply refusing to disclose relevant information. It's been part of American jurisprudence for decades. It's nothing new, and it's not like companies don't know how it works.

1. The act or process of finding or learning something that was previously unknown (after making the discovery, the inventor immediately applied for a patent).
2. Compulsory disclosure, at a party's request, of information that relates to the litigation (the plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery). The primary discovery devices are interrogatories, depositions, requests for admissions, and requests for production. Although discovery typically comes from parties, courts also allow limited discovery from nonparties.
3. The facts or documents enclosed (the new associate spent all her time reviewing discovery).

Black's Law Dictionary (2004, 8th edition)

Posted by unregistered user at 2/12/08 1:37 p.m.

"prevents one party to a lawsuit from simply refusing to disclose relevant information."

You mean "prevents one party to a lawsuit from simply refusing to disclose relevant information" THAT THEY OWN. You forget who OWNS the info. That info is as much theirs as the doorknobs and the drywall holding up their headquarters. They should not be compelled to give up any of that property either.

"It's been part of American jurisprudence for decades."

Doesn't make it right, to trample on the property rights of the PRESUMED innocent. You know, there is an awfully long list of things the governement has done "for decades" that aren't in the best interests of its citizens. You just named ONE.

"It's nothing new, and it's not like companies don't know how it works."

Companies living under dictatorships in Europe also knew "how it works", but that doesn't equate to it being in the best interest of the citizens.