[ Date Index ][
Thread Index ]
[ <= Previous by date /
thread ]
[ Next by date /
thread => ]
Two years ago, Microsoft sold their software on the argument that of course it was more expensive, because it was better, and you get what you pay for, have top pay for quality etc.
One year ago, Microsoft sold their software on the basis that the free (Free/Libre/Open) software that you didn't have to buy licences for was actually more expensive. This was actually an abandonment of the claim their software was better.
This year, they sell their software on the basis that if people (governments!) don't buy it, they will be sued.
That appears to be an abandonment of the claims that the software is cheaper (in TCO) as well as abandoning the claim that it is better.
My understanding of business is that you are unlikely to profit much for long by threatening your customers.
My understanding of politics is that governments retain to themselves a response they deny to businesses, "the last argument of kings", and dislike being threatened.
Governments also like to have armies and to keep the most destructive weapons technology to themselves.
Though it's probably quicker and easier to invoke the concept of "sovereign immunity".
Unless MS owns a sizeable government they could find themselves in more trouble than they need.
I suspect Microsoft think they own the government of a North American country between Mexico and Canada.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature