Lawsuits against Linux?

[iago]

x86] link=topic=5363.msg62608#msg62608 date=1143667285]
Question is, can they compete with whatever lawyers MS has on it's payroll?

Well, there are two answers:

a) yes -- the trial is fair, the system works
b) no -- Microsoft's paid legal advice beats others.  That goes to prove that the US justice system doesn't work.  People with more money should not be favored. 

[deadly7]

That was the biggest dodge of a question I've ever seen.  How does me not knowing how to program affect the analogy at all?  What did I pull out of my ass?  It was a HYPOTHETICAL analogy, if you didn't get that already.

[Warrior]

Like I said, it has everything to do with it. You don't program therefore you can't begin to imagine how people program while being paid as opposed to not being paid.

You get paid for quality work, if it is anything but quality work then you don't get paid. So in the end weather you like it or not won't matter since you'll get a paycheck or you wont. It's pretty black and white.

@iago: The trial itself will be fair, but how well the lawyers can do their job is what matters. The US isn't at fault for this, they guarantee the right to a fair trial and they do give you a fair trial. How you defend yourself and present evidence is your problem.

[deadly7]

x86] link=topic=5363.msg62648#msg62648 date=1143681063]
Like I said, it has everything to do with it. You don't program therefore you can't begin to imagine how people program while being paid as opposed to not being paid.

You get paid for quality work, if it is anything but quality work then you don't get paid. So in the end weather you like it or not won't matter since you'll get a paycheck or you wont. It's pretty black and white.

No, but I do know people that program for money.  True, none of them work for Microsoft, but they program nonetheless.  My neighbor programs the software that the registers at McDonalds and whatever use.  That's for money.  He told me he programs some random things that interest him and he makes them better because they interest him.  I'm sure his goal in life wasn't to be a programmer that programs the cash registers at McDonalds, but I never got around to asking him.

Sure you make quality work in order to make money, that doesn't mean it's to the BEST of your abilties, or that you CARE for the certain kind of programming job you've taken up.

[Warrior]

That can hardly be related to working at Microsoft who strives for perfection, you don't do quality work you get fired.
The people they hire have a passion for programming and just love to do it (It shows in dev interviews on channel9)

[iago]

x86] link=topic=5363.msg62648#msg62648 date=1143681063]
@iago: The trial itself will be fair, but how well the lawyers can do their job is what matters. The US isn't at fault for this, they guarantee the right to a fair trial and they do give you a fair trial. How you defend yourself and present evidence is your problem.

It's not fair if rich companies can hire powerful lawyers that walk all over people who aren't rich. 

[Warrior]

Of course it is, they worked for the money. Besides all the lawyers in the world arn't going to save them if they break the law, proof is proof is proof and the jury wont cut rich companies any slack (As seen with MS in Antitrust hearings)

[iago]

x86] link=topic=5363.msg62675#msg62675 date=1143690779]
Of course it is, they worked for the money. Besides all the lawyers in the world arn't going to save them if they break the law, proof is proof is proof and the jury wont cut rich companies any slack (As seen with MS in Antitrust hearings)

It doesn't matter how hard they worked when it comes to the legal court.  It's supposed to be about who's right and who's wrong, not who makes more money. 

And you're right, that's what I said originally.  But justice is not what we were talking about.  To quote you:

x86] link=topic=5363.msg62608#msg62608 date=1143667285]
Question is, can they compete with whatever lawyers MS has on it's payroll?

It shouldn't matter what Microsoft has on its payroll, it should matter whether or not they did anything wrong.  We're worried about justice, not money.  You shouldn't be able to buy the result of your case. 

[Warrior]

The thing is, they DID do something wrong. They violated patents that Microsoft owns.
They would be able to defend themselves all they want, but MS has lawyers with huge checks.
They despite being right will embarass them in court.

[iago]

x86] link=topic=5363.msg62686#msg62686 date=1143691706]
The thing is, they DID do something wrong. They violated patents that Microsoft owns.
They would be able to defend themselves all they want, but MS has lawyers with huge checks.
They despite being right will embarass them in court.

I don't know how patents work, but I think if they tried to bring somebody to court over using double-click, they wouldn't get far. 

If Microsoft is right and the others are wrong, then why does it matter how big the cheques are?

[Warrior]

They have numerous others, double click was one of the more outrageous ones.
It matters simply to add insult to injury, this is all one big game. Some people have more
peices than others.

[iago]

What's all one big game?  The word "this" should be avoided at all costs, that's one of the biggest things I've learned in technical communication :P

[Warrior]

OS wars, you think Microsoft would care if it did/did not sue Linux? It wouldn't even flinch. This is just them playing games since it's fun when you have the upper hand.