I'm having trouble with that statement.

The Government chooses MS based upon their criteria and needs - whatever they may be - and they would know exactly how MS does business because they investigated the products and licenses - right?. Now, after choosing MS, they decide after the fact that they don't want to do business anymore based on the terms they implicitly and explicitly agreed to so, via the law, they change the agreement.

Basically, this sets up a precedent where a company in good faith makes a deal with a Government, and then the Government throws everything out the window and they decide what you will take - maybe give them nothing.

That's scarier than any Microsoft's business practices.

Oh, and they do have an alternative - just ask Richard Stallman.

A couple of reasons:

1. They don't have over 90% of the OS market.
2. They don't have a bunch of cry-baby fellow Silicone Valley entrepreneurs with a case of sour grapes using their money and political power to push the DOJ into attacking them.
3. They're creating markets as opposed to controlling them.

Plus it's ironic that Microsoft, the "king" of software development is having all those problems with subcontractors writing code for them.

Well, if Microsoft is the "King" and Apple has the second largest share of the PC market, I guess that would make Apple the "Queen" of software development?

....

Yes, I know. I'm going to get it from the fanboys with mod points but, I just couldn't resist!

Well, there were some electronic parts missing. And there was that theft of radioactive isotopes from the local medical school....

Less fuel == less pollution and greenhouse gases.

Are the airlines doing this to be nice and "Green"? Nope.Were they doing it because they were legislated to? Nope. And they're (engines makers, plane makers and airlines) always pushing for more fuel efficiency and noise reduction.

Burn less fuel saves money and it just so happens to reduce green house gases.

I think there's some sort of lessen here.

I once had a pet octopus. It was small about the size of a fist all curled up. It was always moving things around the tank and rebuilding his or her stone "house".

They're horrible. You have guys flipping and attacking you with their feet while standing on their hands. You have two other guys with one sitting on the other's shoulders while they punch down on you. You try to fight back and they just do backflips away or jump and balance on some pole way above your head.

Yikes! I hate acrobat attacks!

Back when I had TV, TBS was god awful! And worse if you're watching something with Joaquin Phoenix with his dramatic whispering - you have the volume up to hear WTF he's whispering about and then BAM! to commercial you're jumping out of your skin! And even worse when it was Billy Mays(RIP) doing the commercial!

Hence the million dollar price tag.

Yeah. Unfortunately, I was sued when I wanted to make sure the ladies restroom was being used properly. I did it discretely with a peep hole and I didn't do it personally (I'm not a perv) - I had a video cam taking movies and I put them on the web for others to check for me so I wouldn't be accused of being a peeping Tom - all for a small fee to pay for bandwidth, of course.

God! You just can't please some people!

From the GPL FAQ:

It looks to me that I can charge $1,000,000 for my GPL software and charge another $1,000,000 for the source.

Point taken. And I'm split regarding loser pays or out current system here in the US. (Your post gave me more to chew on - so thank you.)

But I have to wonder, what about the people who are being sued and the case isn't so cut and dried where you're not sure if you have a chance at winning?

I had naive libertarian beliefs about talented and competent people winning out in the free market against those types.

Sure they talent and were competent - at bullshitting.

Oops. I hope I didn't add to your despair. I have found a cure for that - see sig.

That position is a blame-taking position,' Spafford said."

Someone who's actually paid to be the goat.

I can do that! Were can I get a job like that.

I'll try.

In a nutshell, big corp, no matter how much in the wrong the are, can wave in front of the 'little guy's" face that they'll keep him in court for years and if he loses, he'll be on the hook for millions of dollars in legal fees. I don't care how sure you are about your case, that's a huge disincentive to stick up for one's self. Now, add in the fact that the laws are skewed in the corporation's favor, it's a system that's ripe for even more abuse than we have now.

Imagine the RIAA going after folks and saying that they could fight and not only have to pay their own legal bills but also the RIAA's if they lose. No one would even think about it. The EFF would have to become very selective of the cases it took - even more than they are now.

And one last thing: there's a huge difference with an individual being stuck with the legal bills as opposed to a corporation. With a corporation, at least the big ones, they lose a lawsuit it's not a big deal - any legal costs an individual runs up they can pay out of their toilet paper budget. An individual loses and they're ruined.

For a loser pays system, I would want restrictions placed on what a corporation can do - maybe even preventing them from collecting legal fees when litigating against an individual in a "loser pays" system.