<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Lindows is OK: Dutch court</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1551/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1551</link>
	<description>p2pnet.net - reader powered</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 15:11:09 -0300</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1551/comment-page-1#comment-2192</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader's Write</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 May 2004 21:06:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-2192</guid>
		<description>Surprise!  Microsoft might take a look at the dictionary, and a lot of other businesses might do the same.  Windows, as in the name of the OS, should really be changed.  If they came up with a better name that was more original, it might actually help them stop bloating their software and truly become an innovative company, rather than the &#039;Big Brother&#039; watching to make sure that whenever you open a Window, it&#039;s a Microsoft one.  Windowing style front ends for an operating system have been ubiquitous for many years, and the only reason MS had such a big start on the market was their outright piracy of the windowing paradigm from the Palo Alto Research folk.  If it weren&#039;t for the dumpster diving and other assorted mopery and dopery that MS has engaged in for the last many years, MS would probably be long gone.  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Surprise!  Microsoft might take a look at the dictionary, and a lot of other businesses might do the same.  Windows, as in the name of the OS, should really be changed.  If they came up with a better name that was more original, it might actually help them stop bloating their software and truly become an innovative company, rather than the &#8216;Big Brother&#8217; watching to make sure that whenever you open a Window, it&#8217;s a Microsoft one.  Windowing style front ends for an operating system have been ubiquitous for many years, and the only reason MS had such a big start on the market was their outright piracy of the windowing paradigm from the Palo Alto Research folk.  If it weren&#8217;t for the dumpster diving and other assorted mopery and dopery that MS has engaged in for the last many years, MS would probably be long gone.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Reader's Write</title>
		<link>http://www.p2pnet.net/story/1551/comment-page-1#comment-2171</link>
		<dc:creator>Reader's Write</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 May 2004 21:22:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">#comment-2171</guid>
		<description>good for Robertson.  I&#039;m starting to think he will be successful in the US in proving that Windows should never have been granted as a trademark.

lousy thing is that Lindows has already been railroaded in various parts of Europe b/c of MS&#039;s legal stick weilding and threats and limitless dolla&#039;s...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>good for Robertson.  I&#8217;m starting to think he will be successful in the US in proving that Windows should never have been granted as a trademark.</p>
<p>lousy thing is that Lindows has already been railroaded in various parts of Europe b/c of MS&#8217;s legal stick weilding and threats and limitless dolla&#8217;s&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>


