Microsoft has removed 500+ groups, including 21 Windows-98 groups
in [Windows 98]
|
From: MEB on 19 Dec 2009 14:48 On 12/19/2009 02:24 PM, 98 Guy wrote: > Full-Quoter MEB wrote: > >> here is a copy of the questions posed to Microsoft earlier this >> morning: >> >> To: >> CNTUS.GNCS.NA.00.EN.000.000.CS.CMR.CUS.00.WB(a)css.one.microsoft.com > > Where the hell did you find that e-mail address? It is the verification... care to continue showing your ignorance... -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___---
From: 98 Guy on 19 Dec 2009 14:53 MEB wrote: > WRONG. The distinct intention is to defraud Microsoft and the world > into the false belief the newsgroup > "microsoft.public.it.windows7" is, in fact, from Microsoft. Your logic is flawed for this reason: Currently, and for at least the past decade, it has been possible to read and post to any microsoft.* group from many non-microsoft servers. Microsoft does not, and can not, act as a central collection and dissemination point for posts to those groups. You only need to look at the PATH header line for any post to see which servers it actually traversed through between the sender and you (the receiver). Your assertion that it would be fraud for these groups to exist without the continued peering of Microsoft's servers ignores the fact that Microsoft never had any authoritative or controlling effect on those groups, just as no NNTP server ever does have any such role for any usenet newsgroup. Your argument is also specious because simply moving the entire existing microsoft hierarchy into an existing hierarchy - eg; microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion \ \ -> comp.microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion Throws your argument on it's head. Regardless how you argue that such a move is either "legal" or "illegal", it would not be congruent with any arguable position regarding the continued existance of these microsoft groups in their current form in the absence of participation by Microsoft. And you fail to address something more relavent and valuable than a newsgroup name - which is a domain name. If a domain name containing a trademarked or registered name can be LEGALLY registered by a third party, then that in effect is an acknowledgement that these names are not automatically the defacto property of the registered entity in the eyes of the law. > NO ONE has the right to intentionally and falsely portray > being Microsoft. Usenet is a distributed messaging system - a messaging protocal. You can't accuse a protocal of fraud. Newsgroup names exist as catagories or channels for information. There is nothing implied in the name that denotes who controls or sponsors it (activities which can't exist on usenet in the first place). Your argument is equivalent to saying that I can't send someone an e-mail that contains "Microsoft" in the subject line because the receiver might think that the e-mail was sanctioned or approved by Microsoft itself, even if the receiver knows that I sent it. Microsoft can no more control what I put in the subject line of e-mail that I send to a third party any more than it can control the names that I assign to the newsgroups that I carry on my usenet server.
From: MEB on 19 Dec 2009 15:12 On 12/19/2009 02:53 PM, 98 Guy wrote: > MEB wrote: > >> WRONG. The distinct intention is to defraud Microsoft and the world >> into the false belief the newsgroup >> "microsoft.public.it.windows7" is, in fact, from Microsoft. > > Your logic is flawed for this reason: > > Currently, and for at least the past decade, it has been possible to > read and post to any microsoft.* group from many non-microsoft servers. > Microsoft does not, and can not, act as a central collection and > dissemination point for posts to those groups. You only need to look at > the PATH header line for any post to see which servers it actually > traversed through between the sender and you (the receiver). > > Your assertion that it would be fraud for these groups to exist without > the continued peering of Microsoft's servers ignores the fact that > Microsoft never had any authoritative or controlling effect on those > groups, just as no NNTP server ever does have any such role for any > usenet newsgroup. > > Your argument is also specious because simply moving the entire existing > microsoft hierarchy into an existing hierarchy - eg; > > microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion > \ > \ > -> comp.microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion > > Throws your argument on it's head. Regardless how you argue that such a > move is either "legal" or "illegal", it would not be congruent with any > arguable position regarding the continued existance of these microsoft > groups in their current form in the absence of participation by > Microsoft. > > And you fail to address something more relavent and valuable than a > newsgroup name - which is a domain name. > > If a domain name containing a trademarked or registered name can be > LEGALLY registered by a third party, then that in effect is an > acknowledgement that these names are not automatically the defacto > property of the registered entity in the eyes of the law. > >> NO ONE has the right to intentionally and falsely portray >> being Microsoft. > > Usenet is a distributed messaging system - a messaging protocal. You > can't accuse a protocal of fraud. > > Newsgroup names exist as catagories or channels for information. There > is nothing implied in the name that denotes who controls or sponsors it > (activities which can't exist on usenet in the first place). > > Your argument is equivalent to saying that I can't send someone an > e-mail that contains "Microsoft" in the subject line because the > receiver might think that the e-mail was sanctioned or approved by > Microsoft itself, even if the receiver knows that I sent it. > > Microsoft can no more control what I put in the subject line of e-mail > that I send to a third party any more than it can control the names that > I assign to the newsgroups that I carry on my usenet server. WRONG ARGUMENT AGAIN. There is NOTHING ANYWHERE that supports your contentions. THE SOLE activity that is allowed per the case that was mentioned, is that newsgroups EXTERNAL to those NOT OWNED may be created. And that is what you USENUTTERS fail to grasp... and, in part, WHY Usenet support is being dropped by many of the former carriers and corporations. Usenet IS BOUND BY LAW, it isn't some magical ether-like thing. And there are NUMEROUS cases which show that... -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___---
From: MEB on 19 Dec 2009 15:26 On 12/19/2009 03:12 PM, MEB wrote: > On 12/19/2009 02:53 PM, 98 Guy wrote: >> MEB wrote: >> >>> WRONG. The distinct intention is to defraud Microsoft and the world >>> into the false belief the newsgroup >>> "microsoft.public.it.windows7" is, in fact, from Microsoft. >> >> Your logic is flawed for this reason: >> >> Currently, and for at least the past decade, it has been possible to >> read and post to any microsoft.* group from many non-microsoft servers. >> Microsoft does not, and can not, act as a central collection and >> dissemination point for posts to those groups. You only need to look at >> the PATH header line for any post to see which servers it actually >> traversed through between the sender and you (the receiver). >> >> Your assertion that it would be fraud for these groups to exist without >> the continued peering of Microsoft's servers ignores the fact that >> Microsoft never had any authoritative or controlling effect on those >> groups, just as no NNTP server ever does have any such role for any >> usenet newsgroup. >> >> Your argument is also specious because simply moving the entire existing >> microsoft hierarchy into an existing hierarchy - eg; >> >> microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion >> \ >> \ >> -> comp.microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion >> >> Throws your argument on it's head. Regardless how you argue that such a >> move is either "legal" or "illegal", it would not be congruent with any >> arguable position regarding the continued existance of these microsoft >> groups in their current form in the absence of participation by >> Microsoft. >> >> And you fail to address something more relavent and valuable than a >> newsgroup name - which is a domain name. >> >> If a domain name containing a trademarked or registered name can be >> LEGALLY registered by a third party, then that in effect is an >> acknowledgement that these names are not automatically the defacto >> property of the registered entity in the eyes of the law. >> >>> NO ONE has the right to intentionally and falsely portray >>> being Microsoft. >> >> Usenet is a distributed messaging system - a messaging protocal. You >> can't accuse a protocal of fraud. >> >> Newsgroup names exist as catagories or channels for information. There >> is nothing implied in the name that denotes who controls or sponsors it >> (activities which can't exist on usenet in the first place). >> >> Your argument is equivalent to saying that I can't send someone an >> e-mail that contains "Microsoft" in the subject line because the >> receiver might think that the e-mail was sanctioned or approved by >> Microsoft itself, even if the receiver knows that I sent it. >> >> Microsoft can no more control what I put in the subject line of e-mail >> that I send to a third party any more than it can control the names that >> I assign to the newsgroups that I carry on my usenet server. > > WRONG ARGUMENT AGAIN. > > There is NOTHING ANYWHERE that supports your contentions. > > THE SOLE activity that is allowed per the case that was mentioned, is > that newsgroups EXTERNAL to those NOT OWNED may be created. That may be misinterpreted.. sorry.. the meaning is owned EXISTING forums/newsgroups created BY, as in this instance, Microsoft, are a "property right" protected by Law. One could go further in that this activity being discussed MIGHT be considered as, potentially, criminal attempts. And that is > what you USENUTTERS fail to grasp... and, in part, WHY Usenet support is > being dropped by many of the former carriers and corporations. > Usenet IS BOUND BY LAW, it isn't some magical ether-like thing. And > there are NUMEROUS cases which show that... > -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___---
From: 98 Guy on 19 Dec 2009 18:28
Full-Quoter MEB wrote: > There is NOTHING ANYWHERE that supports your contentions. Except for pure logic, which constantly escapes you. > THE SOLE activity that is allowed per the case that was > mentioned, is that newsgroups EXTERNAL to those NOT OWNED > may be created. You seem to think that just because Microsoft originally created these groups on it's own NNTP server, that such an event constitutes ownership of them regardless where they subsequently exist. You don't seem to realize that when Microsoft created those groups on it's own server, it's server was not peered with the rest of usenet. It was an isolated NNTP server. Some unknown third party arranged an automated process to retrieve posts from the Microsoft server and inject them into the same newsgroups on the collective usenet. In order to perform this "sucking" and injection, a duplicate set of newsgroups had to be created on the world-wide usenet (the required group-create and checkgroup messages DID NOT ORIGINATE FROM MICROSOFT). So this "sucking" formed a bridge between microsoft's isolated NNTP server and the world-wide usenet. At some point later (at least 10 years ago) Microsoft began a *real* peering relationship with the world-wide usenet, and the third-party message-sucking was no longer required. So: 1) Microsoft did nothing when a parallel set of groups was created on the world-wide usenet that mirrored it's own internal set of groups, 2) Microsoft took no steps to stop the "sucking" of messages from it's server for the purpose of re-injection back into the separate world-wide usenet, 3) Microsoft recognized the legitamacy of those external usenet groups by peering with usenet in a cooperative manner, and 4) Microsoft has never tried to exert any control or influence on the microsoft.* hierarchy of groups as they exist on Usenet by issuing external group-create, group-delete or check-group commands. The recent deletion by microsoft of some 500+ groups on it's own server was an internal house-keeping event. Microsoft issued NO parallel control messages to the rest of the public usenet to carry out those same group-removals on other servers. Each of those 4 facts are indicative of the realization by Microsoft that it knows it has no legal claim or rights over the microsoft.* hierarchy of usenet groups as they exist on world-wide usenet servers. When taken together, the evidence is clear that Microsoft has no interest in the future of those groups as they exist on usenet because it never owned or controlled them in the first place. |