Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Chinese Court Rules Microsoft Violated IP Rights

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the shut-down-the-pirated-versions-and-that-would-really-hurt dept.

Microsoft 237

angry tapir writes "A Beijing court has ruled that Microsoft violated a Chinese company's intellectual property rights in a case over fonts used in past Windows operating systems. The Beijing Number One Intermediate People's Court ordered Microsoft to stop selling versions of Windows that use the Chinese fonts, including Windows XP. Microsoft plans to appeal the case. Microsoft originally licensed Zhongyi's intellectual property more than a decade ago for use in the Chinese version of Windows 95, according to Zhongyi. Zhongyi argues that agreement applied only to Windows 95, but that Microsoft continued to use the intellectual property in eight versions of Windows from Windows 98 to Windows XP. Vista and Windows 7 are not involved."

cancel ×

237 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

A bit late? (3, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136668)

Shouldn't Zhongyi have reacted a bit sooner?

Re:A bit late? (4, Insightful)

shaitand (626655) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136734)

You're assuming they knew. Just because the newer versions of windows have Chinese character support doesn't mean the company automatically knows its their font being used.

The designers assumed Microsoft must have a license, and the rest of the company thought they were using someone elses font.

Re:A bit late? (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136864)

So how is it a big deal then? If the fonts are so indistinguishable should they even be copyrighted?

Re:A bit late? (4, Insightful)

shaitand (626655) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136926)

I would contend that most fonts are indistinguishable from at least a half dozen other fonts.

The guys over in the mac lab would probably disagree.

I can't distinguish between all the supposed shades of blue in a large box of crayons either (or at least not without a side by side comparison).

That's what I was getting at. Fonts can be very similar and the suits who would know about the licensing likely wouldn't know one from another without a side by side comparison. The designers would know their font at a glance but likely wouldn't know the licensing terms.

Re:A bit late? (4, Informative)

gyrogeerloose (849181) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137368)

If the fonts are so indistinguishable should they even be copyrighted?

In the United States, you can't copyright a font, at least, not exactly. You can copyright the name and code you used to create a font but you have no legal recourse if someone buys a copy of your font, prints it out, traces it exactly, creates an identical font and sells it under a different name. That's why you can find so many versions of what looks like the same font, often with similar names. Geneva and Helvetica (Helvetica being a name sometimes applied to Switzerland) comes immediately to mind. Futura and Avant Garde are the same, even if the names are not so obviously similar.

Re:A bit late? (0, Redundant)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136958)

You're assuming they knew
If you had licensed something to a company for use in one version of their only and they go and release another version without renegotiating with you wouldn't you check to see what was going on?! It would seem pretty crazy to me not to.

OTOH MS has said they are going to appeal so maybe the license wasn't very clear on exactly what MS was licensed to do. Without seeing the actual documents it's hard to tell.

Re:A bit late? (2, Funny)

digitig (1056110) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137256)

Without seeing the actual documents it's hard to tell.

And you can't see the actual documents because they're in Chinese and the fonts are copyright?

Re:A bit late? (1)

r_jensen11 (598210) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137004)

You're assuming they knew. Just because the newer versions of windows have Chinese character support doesn't mean the company automatically knows its their font being used.

How could they not? Unless this company is using Linux, OSX (even less likely than Linux) or Win95, they would have to know.

Re:A bit late? (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137050)

"they would have to know"

Why? Just because its on their desktop? I doubt the suits who handle the licensing would recognize one font from another at a glance. Especially a generic font intended for operating system text as opposed to a stylish or graphical font. Without having them side by side I certainly wouldn't claim to be able to distinguish between serif, times new roman, arial, and courier.

The graphics people would know instantly but they would just assume Microsoft had a license.

Re:A bit late? (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137556)

Why? Just because its on their desktop?

..because one of their businesses is fonts. They had a vested interest in them as it pertains to Microsoft products. Its like Toyota not checking out whats inside the new hybrids that hit the market this year. It is inconceivable to think that they didn't know.

Re:A bit late? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30137044)

You're assuming they knew. Just because the newer versions of windows have Chinese character support doesn't mean the company automatically knows its their font being used.

The designers assumed Microsoft must have a license, and the rest of the company thought they were using someone elses font.

I doubt they woke up Six months ago and said my God they are still using our font. Everyone waits until significant damages are accrued to make a for a juicy settlement. If they had brought it up back when 98 was launched it would have given Microsoft a chance to address the issue and seriously limit damages. By waiting until Microsoft stopped using the fonts they can sue for the entire run of OS releases. It's a troll case period and I normally side with patent and copyright holders. This isn't a buried bit of code it's a font that was used in their part of the world. There's no chance they weren't fully aware of it.

Re:A bit late? (4, Insightful)

shaitand (626655) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137190)

"It's a troll case period"

It may or may not have been a submarine case. I have already given an example as to exactly how they could have missed it. There are other scenerios.

But it is not a troll case. Troll cases are brought by companies that do not produce anything and make their money off litigation. This is a company that produces graphics that is suing because another company improperly used their IP.

Even if they did submarine it to let more damages accrue it still remains that they have legitimate IP, which Microsoft was aware of, and Microsoft used it without their permission.

Re:A bit late? (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137182)

Which I why I just upgraded all my computer to MS Windows 7. I assume that someone somewhere has a licensee. We are a big origination with many disparate computer locations. We can't be expected to micromanage all the licenses. If it turns out we don't have the license, it is not like anyone will get a huge reward and we will have to pay punitive settlements, in addition to inflated licensing costs. MS, being the nice company they are, will just allow us to buy the license from the current price sheets and let us go on our way.

Seems like it's a little late.... (1)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136672)

If one was really interested in revenue, the very next version ought to have been challenged.

convenient (2, Insightful)

badran (973386) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136674)

How convenient to stop selling older version of Windows. Does it also stop support for those version in China?

So who buys software in China???

It fascinates me... (4, Insightful)

ifwm (687373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136678)

It fascinates me that China thinks they can simultaneously not give a shit about IP in every day practice, yet still think a ruling like this will have credibility.

Re:It fascinates me... (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136692)

Yeah I had that same thought. The Chinese have as much standing to complain about IP violations as the United States has to lecture on fiscal responsibility.

Re:It fascinates me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30138004)

In China, it doesn't matter how much 'credibility' is associated with the government or legal system; They write the laws, they enforce the laws. This is why it is dangerous to ignore the insanity and pretend that you can do business as usual. If you have to deal with a corrupt society, you make sure they are never holding the cards.

Re:It fascinates me... (2, Interesting)

mike260 (224212) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136764)

Pretty easy to make the same argument but with the opposite emphasis, no?

Not really, andnot insightful at all (2, Funny)

ifwm (687373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137094)

How is this insightful? He didn't even make a coherent point?

Are you saying MS doesn't give a shit about IP?

Why does that matter when they'reneither a sovereign nation nor a court of law, thereby making it impossible for their opinion to be interchangeable with the court of law of a sovereign nation?

Please try to ACTUALLY MAKE A POINT in the future, you totally failed here.

Re:Not really, andnot insightful at all (4, Insightful)

mike260 (224212) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137208)

The converse argument to that of OP would be:
"It fascinates me that Microsoft thinks they can bug China about software theft while simultaneously stealing Chinese IP"

Re:Not really, andnot insightful at all (-1, Troll)

ifwm (687373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137292)

The converse argument to that of OP would be:

"It fascinates me that Microsoft thinks they can bug China about software theft while simultaneously stealing Chinese IP"

No, it isn't.

As I suspect, you didn't actually have a point, you were just taking a cheap shot at MS.

Sad.

Re:Not really, andnot insightful at all (1, Offtopic)

shaitand (626655) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137420)

"No, it isn't.

As I suspect, you didn't actually have a point, you were just taking a cheap shot at MS.

Sad."

As I suspected, you didn't actually have a point. You just took a cheap shot at China.

Pointing out that one of the parties is a hypocrite does not impact the validity of their claims. So you were right about not having a (valid) point.

No, actually, you're still wrong, and know it (-1, Troll)

ifwm (687373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137472)

"As I suspected, you didn't actually have a point. You just took a cheap shot at China."

No, I pointed out they engage in selective prosecution.

"Pointing out that one of the parties is a hypocrite does not impact the validity of their claims."

It does when the treaty requires China to police everyone, as this one does. If they only police one side, the treaty isn't being upheld by China. And MS can say so, and get away with it.

See now why you're wrong?

"So you were right about not having a (valid) point."

Thanks, but I already knew you didn't have a valid point, at least you're man enough to admit it.

Re:No, actually, you're still wrong, and know it (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30137516)

I wasn't wrong on any point. How do you expect to be taken seriously in a debate if you can't even be bothered to look who you are replying to.

Re:No, actually, you're still wrong, and know it (0, Offtopic)

ifwm (687373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137560)

"I wasn't wrong on any point."

You were wrong on this one, as I've proven.

"As I suspected, you didn't actually have a point. You just took a cheap shot at China."

"How do you expect to be taken seriously in a debate if you can't even be bothered to look who you are replying to."

Says the person to afraid to attach a name to their opinions...

Somebody mod this funny (1)

ifwm (687373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30138072)

I discuss treaty reciprocity and selective prosecution in a thread about treaties and their prosecution, and some fucking imbecile decides it's "offtopic".

So, Mr. "I'm a fucking imbecile who doesn't know what off topic means", why are you wasting time giving input on a website when YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON AROUND YOU?

Re:It fascinates me... (1)

d34dluk3 (1659991) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137580)

I agree with the other guy saying this post shouldn't be modded up. Regardless of the point he's trying to make, he's completely incoherent.

Re:It fascinates me... (4, Insightful)

shaitand (626655) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136784)

If the case is legit and the rest of the world has IP agreements with them (pretty sure they do) then this should be upheld.

The hypocrisy of China is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Do unto others... (2, Insightful)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136844)

In an ideal world, yes. Each case on its merits and all that but. But if a serial mugger chooses the wrong victim and gets kicked to death then so be it.

Rough justice has a certain poetic appeal, don't you think?

Re:Do unto others... (5, Funny)

Vainglorious Coward (267452) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136924)

But if a serial mugger chooses the wrong victim and gets kicked to death then so be it.

In most places, the would-be victim would then be up on a manslaughter charge, which I think is not the analogy you were shooting for. Maybe try something with cars?

Re:Do unto others... (1)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137012)

In most places, the would-be victim would then be up on a manslaughter charge, which I think is not the analogy you were shooting for.

What 'most places' are those? In most American jurisdictions you are well within your rights to resist a mugging attempt with whatever force is reasonably required to terminate the encounter in your favor.

Re:Do unto others... (0, Troll)

shaitand (626655) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137086)

Which is ridiculous. You should be able to shoot the mugger whether he has a weapon or not.

Re:Do unto others... (2, Insightful)

pete-classic (75983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137128)

I'm a fervent supporter of self-defense rights. But let's revisit the quote he was referring to. "But if a serial mugger chooses the wrong victim and gets kicked to death then so be it."

I live in Colorado, where we have the "make my day" law. One of the strongest self-defense statutes anywhere, ever. (This is for context, I'm well aware that it doesn't apply to a mugger.)

But I would fully expect to be prosecuted (and very possibly convicted) if I kicked a mugger to death!

Now, this, of course, depends on the details of the incident. If it were a "one in a million shot", then, as the OP says, so be it. But I don't think that's the intent here.

-Peter

Re:Do unto others... (2, Insightful)

idontgno (624372) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137240)

"He kept getting up and coming after me!"

Lacking witness testimony to the contrary, it'd be hard to prove that the "victim" (deceased ex-criminal) didn't bring his own unlamented death on himself. If the basic standard of self-defense is "you're entitled to defend yourself as long as the threat exists", you may not get to stop until the assailant isn't moving any more. And death by that kind of blunt-force trauma may not be instantaneous: one well-place kick to the upper abdomen could leave dead-boy with ruptured internal organs (spleen, etc.) and internal bleeding, and still able (and mad enough) to get up and come at you again.

Now, a dead guy with 17 mortal stab wounds... that's a bit harder to finesse, self-defense-wise. Unless he's a zombie.

Re:Do unto others... (2, Funny)

argent (18001) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137424)

Zombie vs Zombie action: "Aww man, you trashed my hoodie" [deadeyesopen.com] .

Re:Do unto others... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30137348)

That sounds nice and all, but here's the catch: If you do not see that your life is in danger, you are not allowed to use lethal force to defend yourself.

I have no idea how that plays out when the choice is "get robbed and live or kill the guy and keep your stuff", so if a lawyer would like to clear that up before someone else asks, I'd appreciate it.

Posting anon because I have 3 mod points left at the moment.

Re:Do unto others... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30137550)

In most places, the would-be victim would then be up on a manslaughter charge, which I think is not the analogy you were shooting for.

What 'most places' are those? In most American jurisdictions you are well within your rights to resist a mugging attempt with whatever force is reasonably required to terminate the encounter in your favor.

While this might be true for many states, you would still likely be up on a manslaughter charge; you just wouldn't get convicted. This is especially the case if there is a "reasonable force" challenge. In some circumstances, "extreme force" is ruled, and the manslaughter charge is upheld.

Re:Do unto others... (1)

Ash Vince (602485) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137822)

What 'most places' are those? In most American jurisdictions you are well within your rights to resist a mugging attempt with whatever force is reasonably required to terminate the encounter in your favor.

Reasonable force would probably involve you not kicking him when he was on the floor and stopped being a threat. If you continued putting the boot in then your intent stopped being self defence and became revenge, at that point manslaughter charges are a serious possibility. Unless the guy is very unlucky or you are Bruce Lee, it is very hard to fatally kick someone while they are standing. Assuming you get them on the floor it is very hard to make the argument that it still self defence unless they are armed.

"Terminate in your favor" is not the same thing as "Terminate with extreme prejudice" :)

You are wrong (1)

ifwm (687373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137110)

"In most places, the would-be victim would then be up on a manslaughter charge"

No they wouldn't.

Re:You are wrong (1)

KarmaMB84 (743001) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137206)

It would depend. If you kick them to death after they're already down and disabled and there's a witness, you'll probably be charged with manslaughter.

Re:You are wrong (0, Redundant)

ifwm (687373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137324)

"It would depend."

No, it wouldn't.

The words "most places" make the statement wholly false.

"If you kick them to death after they're already down and disabled and there's a witness, you'll probably be charged with manslaughter"

No, you wouldn't.

Re:You are wrong (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137346)

If you kicked them to death after they're already down and disabled and there's a witness, I think there's a chance of a murder charge.

Re:You are wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30137850)

Murder usually requires prior intent, or malice aforethought, so it's unlikely you'd get a charge of that level given that you weren't planning to be mugged.

Re:Do unto others... (3, Insightful)

shaitand (626655) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136976)

Do unto others is fine and dandy. Somehow I doubt ignoring IP recognition treaties is something any western nation wants done unto them.

Re:Do unto others... (2, Insightful)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137112)

Do unto others is fine and dandy. Somehow I doubt ignoring IP recognition treaties is something any western nation wants done unto them.

Unless I'm severely mistaken about what you're saying, it's already been done on to them.

Re:Do unto others... (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137230)

"Unless I'm severely mistaken about what you're saying, it's already been done on to them."

China is not the only nation in the world nor the only nation western nations have IP treaties with. If nations welch on their IP treaties what is to stop other nations with more to gain from ignoring IP than they have to lose following China's example?

Re:Do unto others... (3, Interesting)

Archr5 (1097341) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137126)

But it IS "done unto them" on a regular and consistent basis in China.

the Counterfeiting industry in China pulls in 16 billion dollars a year and the government has done almost nothing about it. Now that they want to be involved in the WTO they're making some superficial efforts to "crack down" but so far it's been a pretty pitiful effort.

The real problem is, Hardware manufacturers in the US and other countries have been enablers of this behavior for almost as long as it has existed. Some of the hardware in Ipod's is made by a knock off Chinese company that stole patents from Hitachi. Most of the world allows Norinco to sell arms and ordnance to supply their military and civilian populace despite the vast majority of Norinco's products being direct copies of American and Russian designs.

These American companies can not expect China to take our complaints about their violation of Intellectual Property seriously if we continue to reap the benefits of cheap knockoff parts in our products increasing our profit margins.
   

Re:Do unto others... (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137318)

'But it IS "done unto them" on a regular and consistent basis in China.'

There are other nations in the world besides China. China produces things, the US doesn't produce anything but IP anymore. The US has a lot more to lose by setting a precedent of ignoring its reciprocal IP agreements than China does. Then most nations do.

If we ignore our agreements with China today then we are giving every nation in the world a good reason to stop recognizing our IP.

Too confusing. was Re:Do unto others... (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137468)

Would you please make it a car analogy?

Wow, what a ridiculous statement (3, Insightful)

ifwm (687373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137028)

The hypocrisy of China is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

I think pointing out the arbitrary nature of law enforcement is ALWAYS relevant to any issue regarding the law.

There's really no way to argue otherwise.

Re:It fascinates me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30137032)

Unlike national laws, international laws and treaties are more like guidelines.

Re:It fascinates me... (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137136)

Actually the terms of international laws and treaties may be ignored to the point of being treated like guidelines but they are not supposed to be optional.

At least for us USians IP is the only thing we still produce. The last thing we want is other countries to stop reciprocating IP recognition.

How are you people so TOTALLY wrong (3, Informative)

ifwm (687373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137406)

At least for us Americans IP is the only thing we still produce.

Nope, you couldn't possibly be more wrong if you tried.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States#Manufacturing [wikipedia.org]

"USA is the leading manufacturer in the world with a 2007 industrial output of US$2,696,880 millions. Main industries are petroleum, steel, motor vehicles, aerospace, telecommunications, chemicals, electronics, food processing, consumer goods, lumber, mining."

Please educate yourself, so you're not making claims like "At least for us Americans IP is the only thing we still produce DESPITE HAVING THE LARGEST MANUFACTURING OUTPUT OF ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD".

Although is it fun to repeatedly inform you people who like to pretend you know what you're talking about that you do not, in fact, have ANY idea WTF you are talking about and have just proven so.

Re:It fascinates me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30137414)

That may be the case, but it still puts a non-obvious resolution to this. On one hand, there's the clear arguments about morals and consistency etc - on the other hand, it might be seen in relation to punishing China. Only so ironic that the punishment might be equal to the illegal act.

E.g. if someone is seen as having broken the law by not rendering aid to a person in need, then not helping this person would be - ironic and hypocritical, but also discouraging others from not helping. In theory.

Although by common standards I suppose the former wins out, and MS/US will adhere. Depending on how much tit-for-tat is going on at the moment in the business of trading.

Re:It fascinates me... (4, Insightful)

palegray.net (1195047) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137064)

I can't disagree with the premise of your argument. Companies should be held accountable for their actions.

That said, I'd really like to see a bar graph with two values on it, one for the amount of IP theft perpetrated by US-based companies, and one for IP theft perpetrated by Chinese firms. I imagine in might look something like this [imageshack.us] .

I'm sure it's not irrelevant and that you're wrong (3, Interesting)

ifwm (687373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137250)

"The hypocrisy of China is irrelevant to the issue at hand."

No sir, the law is based on treaties, and I strongly suspect the reciprocal application of the treaty is in fact, a requirement of the law, as it is in most such treaties.

So, if China is NOT applying the law adequately in everyday practice, then MS may very well be ableto use that as evidence that China isn't upholding their end of the treaty.

So, you see, it IS relevant, despite your pontification that it isn't.

Re:It fascinates me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30137358)

said in chinese: " your honor, do you have a laptop in your chambers or in front of you? yes? could i see your license key for a moment?" ;p

Re:It fascinates me... (1)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136960)

I don't think the Chinese have a problem with being hypocrites as long as it suits their needs. Look at what they do with exchange rates. Doublethink.

Sothe guy who AGREES get insightful... (-1, Offtopic)

ifwm (687373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136984)

And I get troll.

For something that clearly isn't a troll.

You mods are fucking idiots.

Re:Sothe guy who AGREES get insightful... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30137146)

Mental note: I must remember to check the the "Anonymous" box when whinging about moderation of my posts.

Re:Sothe guy who AGREES get insightful... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30137178)

No mod, making a point about the ridiculousness of reading MY post,and modding it down, then reading a post that AGREES, and modding it up, is NOT flamebait.

And honestly, it does make you an idiot if you do so, as someone did here.

Please try to avoid being wrong when you use your points in the future, thanks.

Re:It fascinates me... (0)

xigxag (167441) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137898)

Their credibility in terms of their zeal in protecting IP is not really relevant. The only credibility that matters is their credibility in enforcing judgments. Since you seem not to comprehend this from your numerous obnoxious replies downtopic, I'll make a car analogy: Let's say there is a inconveniently placed traffic light in your neighborhood and cars fragrantly disregard it. One day you get busted running the red light, and it turns out there is a thousand dollar fine for doing so. At that point, it doesn't much matter how lax the neighborhood police have been in enforcing that traffic signal on the whole. The only thing that matters to you is how forgiving the courts will be in imposing the penalty upon you. The two aspects are not closely related at all, even though they fall under the same lazy rubric of "law enforcement."

It's not as if Microsoft can go, "Well, we know China doesn't give a shit about IP. If a judge fines us, we don't really have to pay." It doesn't work that way at all. As shaitand tried to point out.

So, "please try to ACTUALLY MAKE A POINT in the future, you totally failed here."

Reading is fun, you need to practice it (0, Troll)

ifwm (687373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137984)

The only credibility that matters is their credibility in enforcing judgments. Since you seem not to comprehend this from your numerous obnoxious replies downtopic

Really? I could have SWORN I made that point in this thread already...

Oh, I DID, here

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1447608&cid=30137250 [slashdot.org]

"The hypocrisy of China is irrelevant to the issue at hand."

No sir, the law is based on treaties, and I strongly suspect the reciprocal application of the treaty is in fact, a requirement of the law, as it is in most such treaties.

So, if China is NOT applying the law adequately in everyday practice, then MS may very well be ableto use that as evidence that China isn't upholding their end of the treaty.

So, you see, it IS relevant, despite your pontification that it isn't.

And here

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1447608&cid=30137472 [slashdot.org]

"As I suspected, you didn't actually have a point. You just took a cheap shot at China."

No, I pointed out they engage in selective prosecution.

"Pointing out that one of the parties is a hypocrite does not impact the validity of their claims."

It does when the treaty requires China to police everyone, as this one does. If they only police one side, the treaty isn't being upheld by China. And MS can say so, and get away with it.

Hmm, did the composition level of those posts exceed your reading ability, or does there existence uncomfortably give lie to your previous assertions, that being the reason you pretend they don't exist?

So, "please try to ACTUALLY MAKE A POINT in the future, you totally failed here."

Ok, how about, you're a liar when you say "Since you seem not to comprehend this" as I have irrefutably proven by posting points I made well before you decided to shoot off your d-sucker?

Oh no! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30136708)

Since when does anyone in China actually buy Windows XP?

Hahahahah (4, Interesting)

Ritz_Just_Ritz (883997) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136740)

A Chinese company trying to pinch Microsoft for IP theft. That's funny.

I'm no Microsoft fanboy, but I have to wonder what minuscule percentage of Chinese Windows installations are actually using legit copies of Windows. Based on my few years of time in Beijing and being in Chinese GOVERNMENT offices where every copy of the OS and Office that I saw used a pirated license key (yes, every last one), I can't help but get a big belly laugh out of this.

I'd type this in Chinese, but I fear that would just be piling on. :)

Stop selling to China (4, Funny)

Haxzaw (1502841) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136758)

MS should just stop selling Windows in China, it isn't like anybody actually buys it over there anyway.

Re:Stop selling to China (1)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136914)

There may be more pirates in China than anywhere else, but there's also more people than anywhere else. Do you really think MS would give Linux/Mac OS the world's largest economy with a billion potential customers? China's economy is experiencing unprecedented growth and the U.S. is massively in debt to them, so if there's any market worth fighting for that's it. They do have massive piracy problems now, but the pirates would probably just use a free version of Linux if they were unable to get unauthorized copies of Windows. If MS pulled out of China Linux would likely become a legitimate consumer desktop OS. It would also give Blizzard an incentive to make a Linux version of WoW, and I couldn't see anything hurting Windows market share more than popular games on a free OS.

Re:Stop selling to China (2, Informative)

Haxzaw (1502841) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137236)

Woosh

The road to future global irrelevance (2, Insightful)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137242)

will be paved with companies that don't think doing business in China is important.

Re:The road to future global irrelevance (3, Interesting)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137954)

Did you learn nothing from the dot-com bust? A business must earn money. If people pirate your wares and cause loses then what is the point? The Chinese Government pretends to care about copyright and patents while in actuality they care about who pays them the most to do something. By the time one endures all of the corruption, knock-offs, copying, theft, etc that goes on in China it always "just on the verge" of being profitable. Some businesses are profitable in China, but software is not among them right now and probably never will be. The Chinese are the ultimate pragmatists: inward looking, amoral, and opportunistic. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Yesss... (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136832)

Yesss... du du du, duh du dut dut Hammertime....

Errr... I mean it is terrible that and IP abuser evil monstrosity... errr a respectable innovator like Microsoft would be the victim an IP attack like this.

In China of all places ROFLMFAO

Like XP sells well in China anyway... (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136834)

It's used all over, but no one's paying money for it.

Re:Like XP sells well in China anyway... (2, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#30138092)

It could be that there are a lot of Chinese speaking people that don't live in China. Possibly. And they might use Windows. Statistically, they likely do. :)

Year of Linux (1)

Carra (1220410) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136888)

And that's why 2010 will be the year of Linux... in China.

Hmmmm (2, Funny)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136916)

Will the capitalist running dog Steve Balmer kowtow to the Chinese after writing a self-criticism?

Pass the eggrolls.....this is going to get interesting.

Why fight it? (5, Funny)

Reason58 (775044) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136944)

Why fight it? It seems like a much cheaper solution would be for Microsoft to pay a fee for each copy of Windows sold in China.

Re:Why fight it? (1, Redundant)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137130)

Why fight it? It seems like a much cheaper solution would be for Microsoft to pay a fee for each copy of Windows sold in China.

What, all five of them?

Re:Why fight it? (1)

omni123 (1622083) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137332)

That was the joke, yes. If only these jokes were as rare as Chinese XP sales...

Re:Why fight it? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30137624)

A fee for each copy *SOLD*?

So, that's like, 14 cents total?

10+ years? (3, Insightful)

markdavis (642305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30136986)

>Zhongyi argues that agreement applied only to Windows 95

It took them over 10 years to notice their fonts were also being used in 98, 2000, xp, vista, and 7???

Re:10+ years? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30137082)

Vista and Windows 7 are not involved.

I just it's a major task to even ask that people be able to read the blurb anymore.

Motherfucking idiots. Welcome to the new Digg.

Re:10+ years? (1)

markdavis (642305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137116)

Good grief. Take a chill pill, anonymous *coward*. So I misread the last line. It doesn't change hardly anything. It still took them 10 years to notice it was being used in 95, 98, 2000, and xp.

Re:10+ years? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30137398)

go fuck yourself, dumb *ass*. so you take it out on the people who point out your fucking illiteracy. how rich is that? you're a fucking retard and you can't handle it. a fucking stupid bitch ass retard.

go back to reading your comic books or pirating music or pounding your pud.

this place was so much better in the day before we had to start dealing with fucktards like this.

Re:10+ years? (0)

markdavis (642305) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137630)

What a completely intelligent and useful response. Eight curse words and a few completely unfounded accusations... impressive.

Re:10+ years? (1, Troll)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137910)

Don't feed the trolls, dude.

Your point still stands... obviously they have chosen to wait this long to act in order to get a bigger settlement out of Microsoft.

Re:10+ years? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30137944)

lol!!!!!oneelevenone!!!!~! thanks for the laughs you sack of cow shit. you've been played like the bitch you are.

Go to sleep with itchy bum... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30136994)

... wake up with smelly finger.

You'd think a people who came up with such wisdom would have known better.

Pot----"black!"---->Kettle (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137010)

Wow, now if this isn't a prime example of the Pot calling th Kettle black, I don't know what is.

so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30137376)

is there any proof of any of these operating systems actually legally bought in china?

China & IP?! (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137508)

All i can say is "LOL" :D

China, Microsoft, China Microsoft (1)

d34dluk3 (1659991) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137600)

Who to hate? Talk about Sophie's choice.

Only one thing to do (5, Interesting)

dododuh (806858) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137716)

Clearly, Microsoft MUST withdraw WIndows 98, ME, 2000, and XP from the Chinese market, and refund the purchase money paid for said products. This should not cost Microsoft very much; after all, there can't have been more than one legitimate copy of each OS sold in-country. Microsoft would then be well-placed to declare all other copies of the affected products in the PRC illegal, and use the automatic-update feature to download a deactivating code. Microsoft should also apologize profusely to the font-sourcing company for the fact that their fonts would then be completely unused, then sell lots of Windows 7 upgrades. Oh wait, they can't actually sell Windows 7 in China, since they can't afford to pay for it due to the manipulated exchange rate for the Yuan.

Did I miss a russian reversal joke somewhere? (1)

Gruturo (141223) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137736)

Did I miss a russian reversal joke somewhere? Chinese government suing over IP infringement?

April Fools? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30137778)

Seems a little early/late for April Fools, did someone pick this story up from the Onion?

HA. (1)

DuoDreamer (1229170) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137852)

I think someone in China would actually have to BUY a copy of Windows first...

XP is irrelevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30137926)

XP is no longer relevant at all. Microsoft does not sell it. It's all about royalties

Send Balmer!!! (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 4 years ago | (#30137940)

I hear that this sort of thing is a capital offense over there.

A Chinese company suing over IP? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30138088)

Awesome.

I'll be sure to put on my Nykes and Leyvis and jump into my new Ferd Focus to drive over to the court house to support their case. And as I drive I'll probably watch my "screener" of the new "Twilight" movie on my iPhoon.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>