Printable View
I'm sorry you are unable to read the story.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Seriously, did people here READ the story? And if you did, did you actually understand it?Quote:
Originally Posted by jonas
His goal was to fight the suit being brought against him by Microsoft, because he felt that he had done nothing wrong. He got the suit dropped, and got a small settlement that just covered what it had taken to get the suit dropped. Thus, he got exactly what he wanted.
Well, no, strictly speaking that is what the guy tried to do. I just think it's hilarious that a board full of people who no doubt have all kinds of pirated software, and who would be breathing fire at MS if something like this happened to them, and who would no doubt have caved like everyone else did, are taking Microsoft's side here.Quote:
Originally Posted by shidoshi
I mean, I think it's pretty clear what's actually fair here. The kid sold something he owned, then Microsoft tells him to sell his car and give them the money because they lost...absolutely nothing.
I'm glad for the kid. Although if he worked this hard on paying off his debt he might not be in the pickle he's in right now, financially.
I'm sure MS payed him more than is being revealed. It's not like the guy would shut up for a couple hundred $$. Slide the guy $10k and all is forgotten.Quote:
Originally Posted by jonas
I'm not pirating software. If I was, and this happened to me, guess what? It would suck, but that's the rules. He bought the software, the software was to be returned within X days, he didn't, so he thought selling it was OK. Well it's not because not everyone is allowed to get that software (and at that price). He's undercuttin MS by selling it for less than what the buyer would pay for it at a store, but more than what he paid for it, and MS isn't seeing any of the profit that is rightfully theirs. I'd have more of a heart if he fixed the price at what he paid for it (and at least that way, wasn't having a net gain).
That isn't the way the law would actually look at it, though. Microsoft's lawsuit was completely frivolous, they basically got caught with their pants down here by sending out a generic form letter. They accused him of piracy - he didn't even open the product - and that they suffered "substantial impact". There's no way in hell they could prove that they had; the impact was anything but substantial to them, and it didn't place their educational discount system in jeopardy because the guy didn't enter into this with the intention of trying to take advantage of it, and could prove it. The case would have been thrown out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Civil law is there to preserve social balance and fairness, not be wielded as a weapon to bully people around. No judge in his right mind would tell a college kid he has to go bankrupt and sell his car over this. The court's role is to protect the greater common good, and that wouldn't be served here. Perspective has to enter into interpretation of the law too.
Nothing like a college with an unofficial slogan from its students of "Kent read, Kent write."Quote:
Originally Posted by BrAnDX105
"The case would have been thrown out."
I would agree. All I was doing was commenting on the fact that I hardly feel sorry for him. He was trying to profit off of something that he's not allowed to.
I do not think we are supposed to feel sorry for him. We are supposed to be inspired for his tenacity to go after such a big company all by himself. Whether or not you think his actions were noble or stupid or whatever, you have to admit that it is pretty damn impressive for somebody to just dive into law the way he did.
That makes sense, but I see this as just as another "AWESOME SOME KID STUCK IT TO THE MAN" things, with a little bit of "YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO WHAT YOU WHEN YOU'RE ONLY HURTING A LARGE COMPANY" mixed in.