Stan wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:32:04 -0700, Luis Med
> <LuisMed@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I think Microsoft can build a better mousetrap than this
>>one.
>
>
> Probably could have if the "mouse trap" was actually designed to trap
> a mouse in the first place. However, and a question for you.... Since
> your basic run-of-the-mill Pirate can run rings around the infamous
> malware WGA and is unaffected by it, and that the only people having
> this thing continually updating and phoning home on their systems are
> Honest paid for customers of M$, then what do you think the real
> purpose of the infamous malware WGA is actually all about? Keep in
> mind that M$ has already been caught red handed in a bunch of lies
> about this thing from its demented conception.

Interestingly enough, a better mousetrap does exist...but we don't
really want to go there, now do we? Imagine what an inconvenience it
would be if the licensing terms allow Microsoft and/or enforcement
agencies to set up "traps" for catching scofflaws and pirates, much
like a city's traffic enforcement detail. Of course, it means both
product registration and activation along with proofs of ownership.

OTOH, it might be worthwhile to let some of the inconveniences slip by
and get on with our lives. If it gets too inconvenient, well Microsoft
would certainly know it by the sudden migration from their product or
a serious sales slump.

And, BTW, there are many non-pirates who have the brains and knowledge
to run rings around WGA and escape from its clutches.