@M$employee, idiots

"Businesses make money, in fact they have a legal responsibility to share holders to do so" - not quite right. Businesses do sometimes lose money, to their shareholders' distress, but that in itself is not a crime. Of course, it may point to something blackguardly going on in the background, but it might be due to environmental pressures, it could well be above board (pun alert).

However, apparently in the US it is a legal requirement for publicly-owned businesses to make as much money for their shareholders as possible - a totally different challenge, and one that apparently gives carte blanche to all sorts of evil attitudes and behaviour (connection to M$ thereby established). That is legitimized greed.

Truly the NYSE (along with many others, no doubt) needs a large person with stentorian voice to bellow across the trading-floor at start and close of business each day, "The LOVE of money is the root of all evil". Inbetween which he could perhaps take a quick trip to Washington DC and repeat his message to the House of Representatives and the Senate. And whomever happens to be in the White House at the time.

@MS employee

"Businesses make money, in fact they have a legal responsibility to share holders to do so"

Not quite. Businesses that lose money do not break the law by doing that, although there may of course be some illegal behaviour behind the loss but it may all be above board (pun alert).

The problem is that (in the US, and possibly many other places now), businesses have a legal obligation to make AS MUCH money as possible for their shareholders. While this may seem like a Good Thing, it in fact encourages and appears to sanction all sorts of evil attitudes and behaviour (connection to M$ now established).

The NYSE (at the very least) needs someone with a large and solemn voice to intone across the floor, at start and close of business every day, "The LOVE of money is the root of all evil".

Re: MS Employee laughs at the idiots

"Software is licensed for use, its not a new thing, its not exclusive to MS, its pretty standard practice. It's the same with the music and films and books and well lots of things."

Not quite. Many recent software licences ARE rental-based; that is, they only allow you to use the software for a limited period, after which you have to "upgrade" or "purchase" (read: "rent") the new version. When I buy a book, CD or DVD however, it is mine to keep and read/listen to/watch for the rest of my life if I want, without having to pay again and again for the same item. That's the difference Anton was referring to.

But then, since you are such a proud capitalist, I suppose that making such a distinction, thereby not deceiving or ripping off the consumer, isn't part of your morality is it? Profit before people, eh?