Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[David Schwartz]

"Mike Meyer" <mwm at mired.org> wrote in message 
news:86u0ex1cc9.fsf at bhuda.mired.org...

> "David Schwartz" <davids at webmaster.com> writes:

>>     You have not disproved that. The closest you've come to a disproof is
>> one case where the word "theft" was used (while earlier in the thread,
>> actual physical force had been used, but not in that specific spot) where
>> the context strongly suggested that it meant theft by force.

> Now you're simply lieing. I never discussed force earlier in the
> thread.

    I didn't say that *you* discussed force. I said it "was used". At that 
time, I was responding to a lot of different people about similar issues, 
and it is true that things said to me by other people will color my 
responses to you. I agree that that isn't always fair.

>>     You are correct that it is possible to steal something without 
>> actually
>> using physical force. But that's not an important difference. The hugely
>> important difference, and the one that you and others *are* seeking to
>> obliterate, is the difference between inherently unjust actions such as
>> force and fraud and actions that are neither forceful nor fraudulent.

> And now you change your story again. You've gone from referring to all
> other criminal acts as "criminals with guns" to "actual use of force"
> to "using force or fraud."

    It is an interesting debate tactic that rather addressing my claims, you 
simply note that they're different to the previous ones. Why does it matter 
whether they're the same or different exactly?

>>> The only consistency here has been
>>> trying to treat MS's crimes as somehow different from other peoples
>>> crimes.
>>     That's because the only crimes that have come up in this thread are
>> Microsoft's crimes (that don't involve force or fraud) and other crimes
>> (such as theft, threats of force, and the like) which do. Duh.

> Actually, they don't necessarily, but that's relevant. You simply
> label *all* crime other than MS's as "criminals with guns" and refuse
> to discuss them.

    No, not at all. If a crime came up that wasn't force or fraud (say, 
possesion of "illegal" drugs), I would just as much insist that the 
difference between this type of crime and a crime involving force or fraud 
be kept in mind. It makes no difference to me who the actor is and all the 
difference in the world what the action is.

>>     There were a few narrow cases where Microsoft was actually accused of
>> actions that I do consider force or fraud.

> That's true. They committed a fraud - by lieing to federal officials
> in court - and *you* responded by calling those federal officials
> "criminals with guns", and using that to *excuse* MS's criminal acts
> in this case.

    Actually, I wasn't aware of any cases where they actually committed 
perjury. I was more thinking of cases where they claimed they had no 
interest in developing a competing product to get advance information when 
they actually were developing a competing product or cases where they 
threatened a lawsuit that they knew had no merit. (These are, IMO, 
fundamentally equivalent to guns, though perhaps lesser in degree.)

    Morally, lying in court is a tough one. For example, suppose you are in 
a court case with someone who is definitely lying in court. You are in the 
right, but it's clear the court won't believe you in the face of the lying 
and faked evidence. In this case, is lying in court fraud? Or is it 
justified in defense against an attacker willing to use fraud against you? 
So this isn't quite in the same category as force or fraud, because the 
court has the ability to balance credibility and control damage. No such 
balancing is available against a bullet in flight.

    The Federal officials do wield force. The purpose of a trial is 
precisely to determine how force will be used.

> Which is more of the same old song and dance from you: treating MS's
> criminal acts as somehow different from any other criminals acts.

    Yes, different from the ones they are different from and the same as the 
ones they are the same as.

    There is a huge difference between crimes that involve the use of force, 
fraud, the threat of force, and the like and crimes that don't. There is a 
huge difference between crimes that creat real victims and crimes that we 
have to pretend create notional victims.

    DS