one more reason to hate microsoft

[QUOTE="FirstDiscovery"]Dont like? Dont sign, its Immersions choice...sparkypants

people hes right MS made a deviant move by trying to pull this on sony...but you forget Immersion signed the contract. Immersion could have rejected the deal but they didnt and now this is the result. You cant call MS evil for abiding by the contract...thats not to say however that they are right in doing this. I hate MS' practices they are currput and dirty but completly legal so for now, theres nothing anyone can do but move on

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]So now MS is the devil for enforcing contracts? dalavos

making a contract to put the technology on their controller ok but making a contract with a clause for a USD 15 million payout if Sony ever licence the technology for their own use. Frankly i have never seen nintendo or sony use such strategies

Microsoft is a monopoly. **** scum of the earth eliminate all their competition. If I'm not mistaken, they've taken out all their competition in Hungary (not sure about gaming wise, but for something).

Microsoft is a monopoly. **** scum of the earth eliminate all their competition. If I'm not mistaken, they've taken out all their competition in Hungary (not sure about gaming wise, but for something).

Albanian_Killa

[QUOTE="sparkypants"]

[QUOTE="FirstDiscovery"]Dont like? Dont sign, its Immersions choice...FirstDiscovery

people hes right MS made a deviant move by trying to pull this on sony...but you forget Immersion signed the contract. Immersion could have rejected the deal but they didnt and now this is the result. You cant call MS evil for abiding by the contract...thats not to say however that they are right in doing this. I hate MS' practices they are currput and dirty but completly legal so for now, theres nothing anyone can do but move on

They didn't miss it, they probably figured that settling out of court with MS would help lend credence to their case against Sony so overall it would be beneficial. Then when they got their big payday they tried to get out of their obligations and MS rightly sued them.

[QUOTE="dalavos"]

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]So now MS is the devil for enforcing contracts? Albanian_Killa

making a contract to put the technology on their controller ok but making a contract with a clause for a USD 15 million payout if Sony ever licence the technology for their own use. Frankly i have never seen nintendo or sony use such strategies

Microsoft is a monopoly. **** scum of the earth eliminate all their competition. If I'm not mistaken, they've taken out all their competition in Hungary (not sure about gaming wise, but for something).

Having a monoply is not evil in itself and is the ultimate object of every commpany in a capalistic economy. Whats bad is using your position as a monoply to force your way into other markets or supress competition in your own through preditory practices. MS gained their monoply on the OS market through smart legal business practices but they then started using their monoply to suppress competition in other markets. Thats what they got sued and fined for, not for having a monoply in the first place.

[QUOTE="Albanian_Killa"][QUOTE="dalavos"]

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]So now MS is the devil for enforcing contracts? TOAO_Cyrus1

making a contract to put the technology on their controller ok but making a contract with a clause for a USD 15 million payout if Sony ever licence the technology for their own use. Frankly i have never seen nintendo or sony use such strategies

Microsoft is a monopoly. **** scum of the earth eliminate all their competition. If I'm not mistaken, they've taken out all their competition in Hungary (not sure about gaming wise, but for something).

Having a monoply is not evil in itself and is the ultimate object of every commpany in a capalistic economy. Whats bad is using your position as a monoply to force your way into other markets or supress competition in your own through preditory practices. MS gained their monoply on the OS market through smart legal business practices but they then started using their monoply to suppress competition in other markets. Thats what they got sued and fined for, not for having a monoply in the first place.

well yes and no, economiclly monopolies are frowned apone and in some cases in the US illegal. Which is why you will never find a business in the US that holds 100% rights to something. MS is a brillant company and very innovative but I have to frown apon their business practices because they will do whatever it takes to knock down their competition to give the illusion of a monopoly as aposed to improving on a product and making people want there business. Yes it is a goal for business to be on top and a dream to be a monopoly but in simple economics a monopoly will kill the company in the end. Especially if the business isnt providing anything esental. If its something like video games(as is the case here) and MS were to become a monopoly people would stop playing. Not because its MS but because with no compition the quality of games and software would deminish. Anyway Im rambling so Im gonna stop now.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="sparkypants"]Nothing illegal here and they did sign a contract but damn that was sort of a D**k move on MS' part. Oh well business is business.Shafftehr

Business allowed a company called Monsanto that specializes in pesticides and seeds immune to their pesticides to sue farmers for having plants on their land that stemmed from monsanto trucks accidentally spilling the seeds out of their trucks. Monsanto was challenged in the (canadian) legal system and won.

But I guess because its all legal business, its okay?

Just because its business and it works in the legal system doesn't mean its complete BS.

I didn't hear about that.

But originally, in the Canadian courts, they won. Notice how I wrote "canadian." The actions happened in 2000 and countless farmers were still forced to pay up, with the conditions of the contract with monstantos being that they could not tell how much they were forced to pay.

In the original deal M.S. paid for rights to the technology, a sum of 26 million dollars making M.S. coowners of the tech. At the time it seemed like a great deal for immersion so immersion went ahead and signed the deal. Now its time for immersion to pay up its share of the deal just like MS did in the original settlement. I can't see how anyone would be against MS earning their rightful share. EG101

Paying for technology to lock your competors out is nasty. Microsoft didn't invent it, its not their rightful share.

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]So now MS is the devil for enforcing contracts? dalavos

making a contract to put the technology on their controller ok but making a contract with a clause for a USD 15 million payout if Sony ever licence the technology for their own use. Frankly i have never seen nintendo or sony use such strategies

Sony actually put programs that were as bad as viruses on their CDs for a while before the word got out about it. This is called good buisness. Really, it is stupid to whine about it. Why not whine that Nintendo knew that they wouldn't make money back with their consoles, so that is why they sold the Wii and gained money. They knew that they wouldn't make enough games to make the money back later (MS and Sony sold at a lose with hopes of making the money back with games). Suspicious?

[QUOTE="EG101"]In the original deal M.S. paid for rights to the technology, a sum of 26 million dollars making M.S. coowners of the tech. At the time it seemed like a great deal for immersion so immersion went ahead and signed the deal. Now its time for immersion to pay up its share of the deal just like MS did in the original settlement. I can't see how anyone would be against MS earning their rightful share. hakanakumono

Paying for technology to lock your competors out is nasty. Microsoft didn't invent it, its not their rightful share.

So no one should be allowed to buy or license technology exclusivily? Puuulees. Rightful share my ass.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="EG101"]In the original deal M.S. paid for rights to the technology, a sum of 26 million dollars making M.S. coowners of the tech. At the time it seemed like a great deal for immersion so immersion went ahead and signed the deal. Now its time for immersion to pay up its share of the deal just like MS did in the original settlement. I can't see how anyone would be against MS earning their rightful share. TOAO_Cyrus1

Paying for technology to lock your competors out is nasty. Microsoft didn't invent it, its not their rightful share.

So no one should be allowed to buy or license technology exclusivily?

Something like that. It inhibits the progress of technology in order to benefit a small few. I'm not saying people should be allowed to make direct copies of something, but some things are just ridiculous.

It's like copyrighting a wireless mouse so no one else can make them.

[QUOTE="TOAO_Cyrus1"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="EG101"]In the original deal M.S. paid for rights to the technology, a sum of 26 million dollars making M.S. coowners of the tech. At the time it seemed like a great deal for immersion so immersion went ahead and signed the deal. Now its time for immersion to pay up its share of the deal just like MS did in the original settlement. I can't see how anyone would be against MS earning their rightful share. hakanakumono

Paying for technology to lock your competors out is nasty. Microsoft didn't invent it, its not their rightful share.

So no one should be allowed to buy or license technology exclusivily?

Something like that. It inhibits the progress of technology in order to benefit a small few. I'm not saying people should be allowed to make direct copies of something, but some things are just ridiculous.

It's like copyrighting a wireless mouse so no one else can make them.

So if I invent something I shouldn't be allowed to license it to just one company? That's just ridiculous.

[QUOTE="PBSnipes"]So now MS is the devil for enforcing contracts? dalavos

making a contract to put the technology on their controller ok but making a contract with a clause for a USD 15 million payout if Sony ever licence the technology for their own use. Frankly i have never seen nintendo or sony use such strategies

If sony never appealed the lawsuit from immersion for the rumble tech in the DS2 controllers and did what microsoft and nintendo did then this contract might have not happened in the first place. You want to hate microsoft for this yet its partly sony's fault too. Also why should you care what goes on at these companies. Seriously it has nothing to do with you.

*laughs hard* so we are supposed to believe this total lie by psu?

For your information when microsoft settled with immersion they purchased something like 15% of the company, and part of the settlement of injecting so much finance into the company is that if sony lost *what was it 100+ million sony had to pay out?* that immersion would pay microsoft like 10% of that.

PSU are liars and smeer campaigners.

FACT: microsoft never paid immersion to NOT put rumble into the ps3 controller.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="TOAO_Cyrus1"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="EG101"]In the original deal M.S. paid for rights to the technology, a sum of 26 million dollars making M.S. coowners of the tech. At the time it seemed like a great deal for immersion so immersion went ahead and signed the deal. Now its time for immersion to pay up its share of the deal just like MS did in the original settlement. I can't see how anyone would be against MS earning their rightful share. TOAO_Cyrus1

Paying for technology to lock your competors out is nasty. Microsoft didn't invent it, its not their rightful share.

So no one should be allowed to buy or license technology exclusivily?

Something like that. It inhibits the progress of technology in order to benefit a small few. I'm not saying people should be allowed to make direct copies of something, but some things are just ridiculous.

It's like copyrighting a wireless mouse so no one else can make them.

So if I invent something I shouldn't be allowed to license it to just one company? That's just ridiculous.

If its something that should be basic technology, no. Certain things should be considered as such. Furthermore, the system should be set up so that if you didn't invent it, you can't receive an excessive amount of money from it nor should you be able to prevent the progress of other companies.

If someone invented such technology they should be able to take legal action and receive compensation, but not at the level that they do now. I never want to see a world where one company makes computers, one company makes mice, one company makes tvs etc. That would be terrible for the consumer.

Businesses are not gods. We don't need to treat them like that.

*laughs hard* so we are supposed to believe this total lie by psu?

For your information when microsoft settled with immersion they purchased something like 15% of the company, and part of the settlement of injecting so much finance into the company is that if sony lost *what was it 100+ million sony had to pay out?* that immersion would pay microsoft like 10% of that.

PSU are liars and smeer campaigners.

FACT: microsoft never paid immersion to NOT put rumble into the ps3 controller.

WilliamRLBaker

Okay, then microsoft isn't really at fault.

Who do we believe playstation universe?

or yahoo biz?

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080826/microsoft_immersion.html?.v=1

""Immersion's agreement with Microsoft contained a clause requiring it to hand over a slice of any settlement with Sony -- a minimum of $15 million, plus percentages of any amount over $100 million. Immersion said the agreement with Sony did not trigger that clause, but Microsoft disagreed, and filed suit last year in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.""

Who do we believe playstation universe?

or yahoo biz?

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080826/microsoft_immersion.html?.v=1

""Immersion's agreement with Microsoft contained a clause requiring it to hand over a slice of any settlement with Sony -- a minimum of $15 million, plus percentages of any amount over $100 million. Immersion said the agreement with Sony did not trigger that clause, but Microsoft disagreed, and filed suit last year in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.""

WilliamRLBaker

Doesn't that prove that microsoft instigated this?

Sony is just stupid. Why the hell would they exclude rumble in the controllers?SneakySnake151

Why would MS exclude universal HDDs? Sometimes, these companies simply do really, really, REALLY stupid things.

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

Who do we believe playstation universe?

or yahoo biz?

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080826/microsoft_immersion.html?.v=1

""Immersion's agreement with Microsoft contained a clause requiring it to hand over a slice of any settlement with Sony -- a minimum of $15 million, plus percentages of any amount over $100 million. Immersion said the agreement with Sony did not trigger that clause, but Microsoft disagreed, and filed suit last year in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.""

hakanakumono

Doesn't that prove that microsoft instigated this?

Um....no the whole point of the PSU thing is that microsoft got immersion to sign a deal to NOT put rumble in the ps3 controllers, and immersion broke that and microsoft sued them and won.

This is an out and out lie microsoft never paid, nor had them sign a contract to not put rumble technology in ps3 controllers.

The real deal was that when microsoft settled with immersion and bought stock in the company they put a clause in the agreement that if sony appealed the case didn't settle out of court and lost that immersion would pay microsoft a percentage of that money.

The psu article makes out that microsoft got them to not put rumble tech in the controller, when thats a lie.

[QUOTE="TOAO_Cyrus1"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="TOAO_Cyrus1"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="EG101"]In the original deal M.S. paid for rights to the technology, a sum of 26 million dollars making M.S. coowners of the tech. At the time it seemed like a great deal for immersion so immersion went ahead and signed the deal. Now its time for immersion to pay up its share of the deal just like MS did in the original settlement. I can't see how anyone would be against MS earning their rightful share. hakanakumono

Paying for technology to lock your competors out is nasty. Microsoft didn't invent it, its not their rightful share.

So no one should be allowed to buy or license technology exclusivily?

Something like that. It inhibits the progress of technology in order to benefit a small few. I'm not saying people should be allowed to make direct copies of something, but some things are just ridiculous.

It's like copyrighting a wireless mouse so no one else can make them.

So if I invent something I shouldn't be allowed to license it to just one company? That's just ridiculous.

If its something that should be basic technology, no. Certain things should be considered as such. Furthermore, the system should be set up so that if you didn't invent it, you can't receive an excessive amount of money from it nor should you be able to prevent the progress of other companies.

If someone invented such technology they should be able to take legal action and receive compensation, but not at the level that they do now. I never want to see a world where one company makes computers, one company makes mice, one company makes tvs etc. That would be terrible for the consumer.

Businesses are not gods. We don't need to treat them like that.

Theres allot of things wrong with this notion but thats for another debate. Suffice to say ruble is certainly not a "basic" technology.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

Who do we believe playstation universe?

or yahoo biz?

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080826/microsoft_immersion.html?.v=1

""Immersion's agreement with Microsoft contained a clause requiring it to hand over a slice of any settlement with Sony -- a minimum of $15 million, plus percentages of any amount over $100 million. Immersion said the agreement with Sony did not trigger that clause, but Microsoft disagreed, and filed suit last year in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.""

WilliamRLBaker

Doesn't that prove that microsoft instigated this?

Um....no the whole point of the PSU thing is that microsoft got immersion to sign a deal to NOT put rumble in the ps3 controllers, and immersion broke that and microsoft sued them and won.

This is an out and out lie microsoft never paid, nor had them sign a contract to not put rumble technology in ps3 controllers.

The real deal was that when microsoft settled with immersion and bought stock in the company they put a clause in the agreement that if sony appealed the case didn't settle out of court and lost that immersion would pay microsoft a percentage of that money.

The psu article makes out that microsoft got them to not put rumble tech in the controller, when thats a lie.

No, the real deal is that Microsoft made the legal deal with immersion so that if there were ever a lawsuit between the two companies, microsoft would get money out of it. Then microsoft, not immersion, pushed for legal action against sony.

It may not be prohibiting the production of dualshock but its still rotten.

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

Who do we believeplaystation universe?

or yahoo biz?

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080826/microsoft_immersion.html?.v=1

""Immersion's agreement with Microsoft contained a clause requiring it to hand over a slice of any settlement with Sony -- a minimum of $15 million, plus percentages of any amount over $100 million. Immersion said the agreement with Sony did not trigger that clause, but Microsoft disagreed, and filed suit last year in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.""

hakanakumono

Doesn't that prove that microsoft instigated this?

Um....no the whole point of the PSU thing is that microsoft got immersion to sign a deal to NOTput rumble in the ps3 controllers, and immersion broke that and microsoft sued them and won.

This is an out and out lie microsoft never paid, nor had them sign a contract to not put rumble technology in ps3 controllers.

The real deal was that when microsoft settled with immersion and bought stock in the company they put a clause in the agreement that if sony appealed the case didn't settle out of court and lost that immersion would pay microsoft a percentage of that money.

The psu article makes out that microsoft got them to not put rumble tech in the controller, when thats a lie.

No, the real deal is that Microsoft made the legal deal with immersion so that if there were ever a lawsuit between the two companies, microsoft would get money out of it. Thenmicrosoft, not immersion,pushed for legal action against sony.

It may not be prohibiting the production of dualshock but its still rotten.

Not that's completely false. Immersion had already sued all the major console manufacturers. Immersion's lawsuit against Sony was already proceeding when they settled with MS.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

Who do we believeplaystation universe?

or yahoo biz?

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080826/microsoft_immersion.html?.v=1

""Immersion's agreement with Microsoft contained a clause requiring it to hand over a slice of any settlement with Sony -- a minimum of $15 million, plus percentages of any amount over $100 million. Immersion said the agreement with Sony did not trigger that clause, but Microsoft disagreed, and filed suit last year in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.""

TOAO_Cyrus1

Doesn't that prove that microsoft instigated this?

Um....no the whole point of the PSU thing is that microsoft got immersion to sign a deal to NOTput rumble in the ps3 controllers, and immersion broke that and microsoft sued them and won.

This is an out and out lie microsoft never paid, nor had them sign a contract to not put rumble technology in ps3 controllers.

The real deal was that when microsoft settled with immersion and bought stock in the company they put a clause in the agreement that if sony appealed the case didn't settle out of court and lost that immersion would pay microsoft a percentage of that money.

The psu article makes out that microsoft got them to not put rumble tech in the controller, when thats a lie.

No, the real deal is that Microsoft made the legal deal with immersion so that if there were ever a lawsuit between the two companies, microsoft would get money out of it. Thenmicrosoft, not immersion,pushed for legal action against sony.

It may not be prohibiting the production of dualshock but its still rotten.

Not that's completely false. Immersion had already sued all the major console manufacturers. Immersion's lawsuit against Sony was already proceeding when they settled with MS.

" Immersion said the agreement with Sony did not trigger that clause, but Microsoft disagreed, and filed suit last year in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington."

Explain this to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what it says.

[QUOTE="TOAO_Cyrus1"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"][QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

Who do we believeplaystation universe?

or yahoo biz?

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080826/microsoft_immersion.html?.v=1

""Immersion's agreement with Microsoft contained a clause requiring it to hand over a slice of any settlement with Sony -- a minimum of $15 million, plus percentages of any amount over $100 million. Immersion said the agreement with Sony did not trigger that clause, but Microsoft disagreed, and filed suit last year in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.""

hakanakumono

Doesn't that prove that microsoft instigated this?

Um....no the whole point of the PSU thing is that microsoft got immersion to sign a deal to NOTput rumble in the ps3 controllers, and immersion broke that and microsoft sued them and won.

This is an out and out lie microsoft never paid, nor had them sign a contract to not put rumble technology in ps3 controllers.

The real deal was that when microsoft settled with immersion and bought stock in the company they put a clause in the agreement that if sony appealed the case didn't settle out of court and lost that immersion would pay microsoft a percentage of that money.

The psu article makes out that microsoft got them to not put rumble tech in the controller, when thats a lie.

No, the real deal is that Microsoft made the legal deal with immersion so that if there were ever a lawsuit between the two companies, microsoft would get money out of it. Thenmicrosoft, not immersion,pushed for legal action against sony.

It may not be prohibiting the production of dualshock but its still rotten.

Not that's completely false. Immersion had already sued all the major console manufacturers. Immersion's lawsuit against Sony was already proceeding when they settled with MS.

" Immersion said the agreement with Sony did not trigger that clause, but Microsoft disagreed, and filed suit last year in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington."

Explain this to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what it says.

Its just a contract dispute I don't see how it means MS pushed for litigation with Sony. Especially considering Sony lost the first round and where in the process of appealing around the time MS settled out of cort. Part of their agreement was MS would get a cut of any settlement with Sony. When Immersion won against Sony they tried to get out of that agreement.

This topic has shown me the light and convenced me to sell my 360 for a ps3, sony is GOD

YOU HEARED IT HEAR FIRST FOLKS! :o

[QUOTE="TOAO_Cyrus1"]

Not that's completely false. Immersion had already sued all the major console manufacturers. Immersion's lawsuit against Sony was already proceeding when they settled with MS.

hakanakumono

" Immersion said the agreement with Sony did not trigger that clause, but Microsoft disagreed, and filed suit last year in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington."

Explain this to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what it says.

That's about Microsoft filing suit against Immersion.

It's kind of obvious...

Now thats how you do business and thats a fine way to make money. To everyone moaning about their strategy please grow up becouse this is the way most people get rich and successful, its not like sony and nintendo are saints.RevenMan

the problem is microsoft involves itself in non-competetive practices...and this means no innovation and less efficient products...

so the consumer ends up losing...microsoft rarely innovates anything!

[QUOTE="RevenMan"]Now thats how you do business and thats a fine way to make money. To everyone moaning about their strategy please grow up becouse this is the way most people get rich and successful, its not like sony and nintendo are saints.slystallion26

the problem is microsoft involves itself in non-competetive practices...and this means no innovation and less efficient products...

so the consumer ends up losing...microsoft rarely innovates anything!

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"][QUOTE="TOAO_Cyrus1"]

Not that's completely false. Immersion had already sued all the major console manufacturers. Immersion's lawsuit against Sony was already proceeding when they settled with MS.

The_Game21x

" Immersion said the agreement with Sony did not trigger that clause, but Microsoft disagreed, and filed suit last year in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington."

Explain this to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what it says.

That's about Microsoft filing suit against Immersion.

It's kind of obvious...

Yeah, I guess I wasn't paying close enough attention. :( My bad.

[QUOTE="slystallion26"]

[QUOTE="RevenMan"]Now thats how you do business and thats a fine way to make money. To everyone moaning about their strategy please grow up becouse this is the way most people get rich and successful, its not like sony and nintendo are saints.Shafftehr

the problem is microsoft involves itself in non-competetive practices...and this means no innovation and less efficient products...

so the consumer ends up losing...microsoft rarely innovates anything!

Well, considering that this is talking about technology that has been around for ages, what technology has microsoft "bought" that is new or innovative?

why should you hate microsoft? they haven't affected the way you live.

Fanboys should keep hating on companies. THey'll just miss out what this generation has to offer.

Well, considering that this is talking about technology that has been around for ages, what technology has microsoft "bought" that is new or innovative?

hakanakumono

[QUOTE="Shafftehr"][QUOTE="slystallion26"]

[QUOTE="RevenMan"]Now thats how you do business and thats a fine way to make money. To everyone moaning about their strategy please grow up becouse this is the way most people get rich and successful, its not like sony and nintendo are saints.hakanakumono

the problem is microsoft involves itself in non-competetive practices...and this means no innovation and less efficient products...

so the consumer ends up losing...microsoft rarely innovates anything!

Well, considering that this is talking about technology that has been around for ages, what technology has microsoft "bought" that is new or innovative?

In this case MS licenced a technology and did absolutely nothing to prevent its use by their competitors. They did nothing wrong.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

Well, considering that this is talking about technology that has been around for ages, what technology has microsoft "bought" that is new or innovative?

Shafftehr

Example? Only one I can think of is the whole concept of a GUI but everyone stole that from Xerox.

Eh, it's MS. What do you expect. Money, money, money. Business, as usual.

Eh, it's MS. What do you expect. Money, money, money. Business, as usual.

carljohnson3456

Yup. most businesses aren't in it for the money.

[QUOTE="carljohnson3456"]

Eh, it's MS. What do you expect. Money, money, money. Business, as usual.

xsubtownerx

Yup. most businesses aren't in it for the money.

Why the sarcasm? It's all about "money, money, money", so it's "business, as usual".

So again, why the sarcasm?

[QUOTE="xsubtownerx"][QUOTE="carljohnson3456"]

Eh, it's MS. What do you expect. Money, money, money. Business, as usual.

carljohnson3456

Yup. most businesses aren't in it for the money.

Why the sarcasm? It's all about "money, money, money", so it's "business, as usual".

So again, why the sarcasm?

Because you said it as if MS were the only ones doing this kind of thing.