From: "Rich Gauszka" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C68D4D.BD5377C0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Or like Microsoft's subverting of State freedom of information laws at =
colleges ( from several years ago ). It's only public domain if = Microsoft
says so

http://boingboing.net/2002_12_01_archive.html
Microsoft subverts sunshine laws at state colleges Lawmeme reports that
state colleges, which are often bound by = freedom-of-information-act-like
provisions that require them to disclose = their contractual obligations to
the public who fund them, are being = forced to keep their deals with MSFT
secret due to non-disclosure terms. =

  For a yearly fee, an educational institution receives the right to =
sell Microsoft software at a nominal fee to it's students and employees. =
However, as part the of the license agreement, Microsoft has been =
stipulating that the terms of the contract be kept under non-disclosure. =
Public institutions covered by public records laws are clearly unable to =
abide by such terms. There are very few exemptions to the disclosure =
requirements of these laws. Indeed, non-competitive contracts with =
convicted monopolists would seem to be expressly what these laws should =
allow to be exposed. Surprisingly, a number of public universities have =
been signing off on these non-disclosure terms in apparent breach of =
their state's public records laws. For example, both the University of =
Michigan and The Ohio State University claim that they are unable to =
disclose substantive details of their respective Microsoft licenses due =
to contract terms.=20
  "Rich"  wrote in message news:448c386f{at}w3.nls.net...
     You're confused.  You mean google.  =
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/05/technology/google_cnet/.

  Rich

    "/m"  wrote in message =
news:obvn8292rlg5f5s9j9onl3egj6a4r0l68a{at}4ax.com...
    On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 11:44:18 -0400, "Geo"
 wrote:

    Nah, Microsoft would never do something like that.  Microsoft would
    never, for example, cut off IT reporters from informaiton just =
because
    that reporter wrote something that Microsoft didn't like.

     /m
------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C68D4D.BD5377C0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








Or like Microsoft's subverting
of State =
freedom of=20
information laws at colleges ( from several years ago ). It's only = public domain=20
if Microsoft says so
 
http://boingboing" target="new">http://boingboing.=">http://boingboing.net/2002_12_01_archive.html">http://boingboing.=
net/2002_12_01_archive.html

Microsoft subverts sunshine laws at state collegesLawmeme =
reports that=20
state colleges, which are often bound by freedom-of-information-act-like =

provisions that require them to disclose their contractual obligations = to the=20
public who fund them, are being forced to keep their deals with MSFT = secret due=20
to non-disclosure terms.=20
For a yearly fee, an educational institution receives the =
right to=20
  sell Microsoft software at a nominal fee to it's students and =
employees.=20
  However, as part the of the license agreement, Microsoft has been =
stipulating=20
  that the terms of the contract be kept under non-disclosure. Public=20
  institutions covered by public records laws are clearly unable to =
abide by=20
  such terms. There are very few exemptions to the disclosure =
requirements of=20
  these laws. Indeed, non-competitive contracts with convicted =
monopolists would=20
  seem to be expressly what these laws should allow to be exposed. =
Surprisingly,=20
  a number of public universities have been signing off on these =
non-disclosure=20
  terms in apparent breach of their state's public records laws. For =
example,=20
  both the University of Michigan and The Ohio State University claim =
that they=20
  are unable to disclose substantive details of their respective =
Microsoft=20
  licenses due to contract terms. 

  "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:448c386f{at}w3.nls.net...
     You're
confused.  =
You mean=20
  google.  http://m" target="new">http://m=">http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/05/technology/google_cnet/">http://m=
oney.cnn.com/2005/08/05/technology/google_cnet/.
   
  Rich
   
  
    "/m" <mike{at}barkto.com>">mailto:mike{at}barkto.com">mike{at}barkto.com>
wrote=20
    in message news:obvn8292rlg=
5f5s9j9onl3egj6a4r0l68a{at}4ax.com...On=20
    Sat, 10 Jun 2006 11:44:18 -0400, "Geo" <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net> =
wrote:Nah,=20
    Microsoft would never do something like that.  Microsoft=20
    wouldnever, for example, cut off IT reporters from informaiton =
just=20
    becausethat reporter wrote something that Microsoft didn't=20
   
like. /m

------=_NextPart_000_0028_01C68D4D.BD5377C0--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5