Microsoft has removed 500+ groups, including 21 Windows-98 groups
in [Windows 98]
|
From: 98 Guy on 20 Dec 2009 13:04 MEB wrote: > > They gave up any legal rights or protections to their property > > (according to your theory) by not taking steps to protect it. > > For more than 10 years. > > Wrong, there is no adverse possession involved. Adverse possession is an established principle in law. However, not even domain-name rights are clearly defined in law, and I continue to raise that point and you continue to be silent about it. Domain names are the closest example of internet-name-space objects that could be analogous to usenet group-names. And as I've stated many times, owners of registered copyrighted trade or busines names do not automatically have the rights to similar domain names. And you will note that the USPTO does not register domain names, and certainly not usenet newsgroup names. > > Why did they not broadcast group-delete and check-group messages > > to the rest of usenet when they remove some groups from their > > server? > > Microsoft did. > > > They did not. That is a lie on your part. > > They did, and it was received by the services. On what date were these control messages originated by Microsoft? Can you post an example of such a message? > > That's why Julien �LIE has taken it upon himself to do it. > > Do you know who he is Meb? > > This party is being fostered across Usenet as the one who will > supposedly issue the control messages for removal. The failure > here is the control messages have already been sent BY > MICROSOFT as part of the normal maintenance protocol If they were already sent by Microsoft, then why has Julien taken on the responsibility for himself to do it? Why would he perform a task that you claim has already been carried out? > > How is it consistent to allow your property to be used and > > duplicated by others for more than a decade and NOT take > > action to stop that behavior? > > Wrong. There is no adverse possession {which is what you're > attempting to invoke} involved here; You haven't explained why adverse possession can't be invoked (if this was real property, it certainly could be). You still haven't answered why Microsoft would allow this behavior to continue for over 10 years. It would not help their legal argument if they had to explain to a judge why they took no action for so long. Even the issuance of warnings, cease-and-desist, would strengthen their case.
From: MEB on 20 Dec 2009 13:35 On 12/20/2009 01:04 PM, 98 Guy wrote: > MEB wrote: > >>> They gave up any legal rights or protections to their property >>> (according to your theory) by not taking steps to protect it. >>> For more than 10 years. >> >> Wrong, there is no adverse possession involved. > > Adverse possession is an established principle in law. > > However, not even domain-name rights are clearly defined in law, and I > continue to raise that point and you continue to be silent about it. > > Domain names are the closest example of internet-name-space objects that > could be analogous to usenet group-names. And as I've stated many > times, owners of registered copyrighted trade or busines names do not > automatically have the rights to similar domain names. > > And you will note that the USPTO does not register domain names, and > certainly not usenet newsgroup names. Not relevant. The issue at hand is whether Microsoft owns and controls the groups consistent with ownership. The findings are that it does. > >>> Why did they not broadcast group-delete and check-group messages >>> to the rest of usenet when they remove some groups from their >>> server? >> >> Microsoft did. >> >>> They did not. That is a lie on your part. >> >> They did, and it was received by the services. > > On what date were these control messages originated by Microsoft? > > Can you post an example of such a message? Not relevant. The messages were sent and received. You are attempting to make a useless and immaterial extension of the discussion. > >>> That's why Julien �LIE has taken it upon himself to do it. >>> Do you know who he is Meb? >> >> This party is being fostered across Usenet as the one who will >> supposedly issue the control messages for removal. The failure >> here is the control messages have already been sent BY >> MICROSOFT as part of the normal maintenance protocol > > If they were already sent by Microsoft, then why has Julien taken on the > responsibility for himself to do it? Haven't a clue??? Likely this party is a dumb as you. > > Why would he perform a task that you claim has already been carried out? > >>> How is it consistent to allow your property to be used and >>> duplicated by others for more than a decade and NOT take >>> action to stop that behavior? >> >> Wrong. There is no adverse possession {which is what you're >> attempting to invoke} involved here; > > You haven't explained why adverse possession can't be invoked (if this > was real property, it certainly could be). > > You still haven't answered why Microsoft would allow this behavior to > continue for over 10 years. It would not help their legal argument if > they had to explain to a judge why they took no action for so long. > Even the issuance of warnings, cease-and-desist, would strengthen their > case. YOU haven't read anything relevant to the discussion... had you done so, you would find your supposed arguments HAVE NO BEARING, ARE IMMATERIAL, HAVE NO VALUE, and are baseless. Microsoft need explain nothing, it has proceeded as required. The SERVICES will be required should they fail to comply, AS WELL AS the party who falsely injected the group into microsoft.public. with criminal intent [should that be addressed]. As for adverse possession and abandonment of property [the two supposed arguments you have raise] neither apply because neither happened... nor does the First Amendment or free speech [the supposed other arguments broached in the discussion] because there is no infringement involved. These were the ONLY matters which MIGHT have brought arguable issues; since they don't apply as they were at no time an issue, there is no argument anyone can raise of value or which would bring standing for claim. -- 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: J. P. Gilliver (John) on 20 Dec 2009 16:17 In message <eN0r1cbgKHA.2164(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, MEB <MEB-not-here(a)hotmail.com> writes: [] > I don't swear at everyone. *IF* that party has NOT posted derogatory >comments or proceeded in a Troll like fashion the issues are never raised. I hadn't noticed, if that is the case - but I do feel that you swear/insult more than most who post here, even if only when responding to certain people. I'm afraid I'm more likely to remember who swears than who is sworn at, but others may notice the latter. > > OTOH, when someone, as you have upon occasion, has deliberately done so >then that party WILL receive a proper response. > > Would YOU like another one placed upon you... > Well, I've just added to the cheerful thread started by "Angel", hoping that we can all be nicer in 2010, so no, I wouldn't really, but I wouldn't dream of trying to limit your freedom of speech (-: -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar(a)T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously outdated thoughts on PCs. ** Is Jimi Hendrix's modem a Purple Hayes?
From: Anonymous on 20 Dec 2009 16:25 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia
From: MEB on 20 Dec 2009 16:30
On 12/20/2009 04:17 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message <eN0r1cbgKHA.2164(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, MEB > <MEB-not-here(a)hotmail.com> writes: > [] >> I don't swear at everyone. *IF* that party has NOT posted derogatory >> comments or proceeded in a Troll like fashion the issues are never >> raised. > > I hadn't noticed, if that is the case - but I do feel that you > swear/insult more than most who post here, even if only when responding > to certain people. I'm afraid I'm more likely to remember who swears > than who is sworn at, but others may notice the latter. >> >> OTOH, when someone, as you have upon occasion, has deliberately done so >> then that party WILL receive a proper response. >> >> Would YOU like another one placed upon you... >> > Well, I've just added to the cheerful thread started by "Angel", hoping > that we can all be nicer in 2010, so no, I wouldn't really, but I > wouldn't dream of trying to limit your freedom of speech (-: Uhuh, as the saying goes "whatever!!!". -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm Windows Info, Diagnostics, Security, Networking http://peoplescounsel.org The "real world" of Law, Justice, and Government ___--- |