Re: Yes, I had forgotten a lot of those.
I would also explicitly allow vendors to alter their contracts with Microsoft prior to signing them.
Why?
What contracts?
That's the point - there's no *need* for contracts anymore. If you want Windows, you buy Windows. You do what you want to, if you're supporting it. Why do you need the contract with Microsoft? :)
I would shorten it to 60 or perhaps 30 days. And the product must ship within that time or ... or what? Criminal fines until it ships?
90 days was what was slapped on IBM before, and it seemed to work fine, so why change that?
If you're a network admin, do you want a month's notice when there's something new, or do you want a LITTLE bit of warning... Otherwise, you go and buy something, and golly NOW you find you could have.. etc.
90 days would work - else force them to publish their expected schedules and feature lists. As for what do you, if they don't ship? Its enjoined from shipping for say, another 90 or 180 days *after* the original date, and probably fine them, as well.
That's a pearler!Damn right, though. "The law has been applied and you have been found guilty. Settlement prior to sentencing requires acceptance of wrong-doing." Isn't there some legal precedant here?
I think so. In pleading guilty, the about-to-be-convicted has to tell what happened in the commission of the crime. They don't have to regret it, or even apologise - just relate what they did.
Forcing that into Microsoft *would* fix a lot of problems, up front, as people started getting out of the "this is unfair, and its not true" mindset.
Addison
