Talk:Microsoft Corp. v. Lindows.com, Inc.

Add topic
Active discussions

Souce for estimated payoutEdit

Could someone look up a source for the estimated payout? --Canageek 22:10, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

In fact, we could do with quite a few references for this, I think. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 12:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Settled when?Edit

The original version of the page says they settled in April. This was changed to "immediately", suggesting it was in February. Do we have an exact source?

Cheers,

Samsara (talkcontribs) 22:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


Original text was confusing about who paid who...Edit

I simply reworded one sentence to make it clear that Microsoft paid Lindows to become Linspire. When I read the first version, it seemed as if Lindows was out $24 million in addition to giving up their name. I made the same changes on the Linspire page, which is where I first became confused. The two pages had almost identical sentences on the matter.

I did check a couple of the links on the "Microsoft vs. Lindows" page to verify who paid who, but didn't read deep enough to note other details. I'm not sure when the settlement occured, or even the exact amount; what was important to me was making it clear that Microsoft paid a large sum to settle the dispute, not Lindows.

The wording at this time, on both the "Microsoft vs. Lindows" and "Linspire" pages, seems easy to understand and makes the outcome clear.

Thanks for your concern,

Gotaug 05:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I just didn't understand why you removed the explicit date. But as you say, Mmmbeer looked it up and even added a reference, so all is good. - Samsara (talkcontribs) 09:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete Microsoft generic name section?Edit

"Many analysts concluded that Microsoft appeared to have been unwise in choosing generic names for many of its products, such as Office for an office productivity suite, Pocket PC for software for a pocket-sized computer, and Project for project scheduling software."

Can this paragraph be deleted? It doesn't have much to do with the article's topic. Perhaps it would be better suited to the Criticism of Microsoft article. --Geekosaurus, 9 Oct 2007

NeutralityEdit

I believe that this page gives very little support to what Windows had against Lindows and even remarks with "for a case that they brought" in a sort of mocking way to Windows. Also, the references guide to no articles that are in favor of Windows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.230.148 (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That is correct. The article is biased against Microsoft. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Microsoft Corp. v. Lindows.com, Inc.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)