On Wednesday 02 May 2001 23:31, you wrote:
> Am 02. May, 2001 schwäzte Craig White so:
> > That's BS - I have bought at least 12 boxes without OS. I put linux on
> > them.  I don't like the idea of having MS serving me with a subpoena
>
> I hope the subpoena me. I can use their money better than they do and if
> they drag me into court I intend to get some of their money.
>
> > which forces me to justify what I am doing with the boxes. I
>
> None of their business. Invasion of privacy. It's like accusing me of
> stealing ketchup because I bought a hamburger. I prefer a good salsa. And
> who's to say I don't carry my own catsup around with me :).
>
> > personally feel that it does a disservice to the open source market to
> > allow people to use software without suitable license. I shouldn't
> > have to prove that to Microsoft or any one else.
>
> They have to have reasonable cause before they can do anything. Buying a
> naked box is very, very far from reasonable cause. Unfortunately others
> might not believe it. 'Supieriority through litigation', yeah, whatever.
>
-----
I'm a firm believer that there is far too little justice in the justice 
courts. It clearly favors the deeper pockets...ask OJ

BSA has no problems getting a subpoena when they get a report that indicates 
a suspicious behavior. That's reasonable cause. When you spec out a hardware 
set that is typical of hardware that would run the Windows OS, I'm sure that 
they would have little trouble convincing a judge of the reasonableness of 
their suspicion. Statistically, they would be right. I'm sure that a strong 
argument could be made for either side.

Anyway, I thought it was very interesting that this is real policy and not 
unsubstantiated rumour.

There was another interesting announcement today - a major security hole in 
IIS 5.0 - Imagine that.

Craig