[BadVista Advocate] Fwd: LG Customer Enquiry-[Ringo Kamens]

[nixed]

member greenarrow1 wrote:
>> Not exactly.  The FSF thinks that MS is a co-distibutor under the deal,
>> and so when Novell/Microsoft distributes GPLv3 code Microsoft's patent
>> covenant will apply to all GPLv3 users, solving the problem.  I'm a
>> little skeptical, but it's worth a try.  Anyway, no deals after 3/28/07
>> are allowed.  That means the Xandros deal, and any future ones, are
>> non-compliant and those distributors won't be able to use GPLv3
>> software.  In 2012, Novell's deal will expire and they'll be in the same
>> place as everyone else.
> 
> Aok, Thank you and I did not know the Novell-MS deal expired in 2012,
> but still that is a long time away from the present.
> 
> I already dug up some dirt with Windows Genuine Advantage using my
> forensic tools.  I have to dig through all my MS files now and find the replies
> I have from MS about this program as they out right lied to me and a research
> company.  Either that or in their last update of WGA they added it back in.
> The area I have proof about is WGA accesses physical memory and changes it
> unless the user has some type of program monitor that could prevent
> this, but then
> they could not validate Vista.  Most Window users would not even know this and
> previously I pointed this out to MS with "Proof of Concept" and
> backing by GrayMagic
> from Israel.  They corrected this eventually but I tested all Windows
> and it is back again.
> Talk about a back door avenue this is it.  Since they corrected it
> last time I did not
> go public but this time I will after I get all my files together.  I
> have always been
> against this type of validation because there are other ways of
> validating a OS that
> does not punish the user making them feel like they are the ones
> pirating softwares.
> If all software was generated without proprietary codes this would not
> even be needed,
> but this program has a very high avenue for abuse.
> 
> I have packet examiner programs and can decode what is in packets and I have
> caught this program requesting and sending private data back and forth to MS,
> not only your personal info but what software and hardware is on your machine.
> MS has no reason to even know this and it is none of their business what you run
> on your computer, point blank and the European Union proved that.  The US DOJ
> are either in their pockets or lack the power to stop MS.  I am
> researching and I
> will find where the WGA program violates US laws and I already know it
> does violate
> some state laws.  Once I gather enough evidence I will find someone in legal to
> present my findings to the US Courts.  Money wise I could not do this
> myself as I
> own a small computer forensics company and could not afford a case against MS.
> I do have friends in certain US computer security companies and I am working at
> getting some insiders from IBM legal department contacts.
> 
> A lot of Vista base is built around the WGA as if one cannot get this
> program to validate
> Vista it reverts to a useless OS.  If I can place a kink in MS armor
> by getting this program
> banned by the courts it would place Vista in jeopardy.
> 
> 
> George
> greenarrow1
> InNetInvestigations-Forensic
> SuSe 10.2/TriStar/Apache
> GoBoLinux
> 
> 
> 

George,

I run THE *NIXED REPORT, a website that covers Unix and Overlooked Pop 
Culture.  The information you have provided is very interesting.  If you 
are interested in an interview for an upcoming issue of my magazine, 
please let me know.  My e-mail is: editor at thenixedreport.com

> 
> On 6/11/07, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
>> member greenarrow1 wrote:
>>> I was looking over LG products and I am trying to figure out exactly
>>> what and or if any patents they would or were infringing on that is
>>> part of Microsoft.  Anyone have any idea?
>> No, but there are lots of possibilities.  That's the whole point of FUD.
>>
>>> We need to come up with some kind of FUD to scare Window users.
>> Let's try to market without FUD.
>>
>>> I am going to relate with some of my EU buddies and see if I can fine
>>> a vulnerability that I can prove that has not been written about yet.
>>> There has to be something under all that badly written code that can
>>> be found,  maybe even use of Linux codes.
>>> Thats another area I cannot
>>> understand, if MS is stating patents, how come Linux has not fired
>>> back that there are Linux code in Window products.
>>
>> It's a lot harder to find in proprietary software, and there are fewer
>> Linux-related patents, but Microsoft is probably infringing.
>>

The closest thing I can think of is finding some BSD code in Microsoft's 
DOS FTP program.


>>> Monetary wise most companies could not fight MS in a law suit as they
>>> will just drag it on until the company could not afford to further
>>> pursue the suit.
>> There are some companies that can.  Think of IBM, Red Hat, Novell, Cisco.
>>
>>> Now I am reading that Novell is stating that the final draft of the
>>> GPL3 will allow them to pursue their MS pact.  If this is true are we
>>> bending to MS ways?
> .
>> Best,
>>
>> Matt Flaschen
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Advocate mailing list
>> Advocate at badvista.org
>> http://badvista.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/advocate
>>