[plug] [link] a lawyer Switches

[Peter J. Nicol]

>  In this case, I think that there is a significant advantage to both IBM
>  and their customers.

Craig, nothing personal, but this is the daftest thing I have ever had the
misfortune to read on this list.  Are you really going to stand by this?

My assertion is provable, scientifically [by that I mean it can be proved to be
correct, and that there exists a criterion of falsifiability.  It is impossible to
refute the assertion that it costs the customer extra, and the arguments that it
saves them money are tortuous, unproven, and probably, unprovable, rendering the
value of them no better than opinion, and in all likelihood, worthless.]

It is undeniably bad for the customer.  Their computers cost more money for things
that they can do already.  You must install more hardware to do something that the
machine is capable of without it, and they are deliberately crippled for
run-of-the-mill tasks.

For fucks sake, stop defending the indefensible, you open yourself up to a myriad
of other attacks.  By your logic, nearly everything Microsoft has ever done is
defensible on these grounds.

IBM's behaviour in this instance is morally and ethically reprehensible, as are
all other examples of such blatant and shameless rip-offs.


PS

As an intellectual exercise, I will defend any business practice ... ummm ...
practiced by Microsoft using only arguments used to defend IBM by yourself in this
thread.  You need only to send me the examples to test me.