I think that since there is a clear conflict of interest with Vod in these cases since he has a financial interest in Microsoft that he should not be giving negative trust for the sole reason that the sellers are selling MSDN keys.
Everyone who buys a copy of Windows has a financial interest in Microsoft. You want the product you paid for to keep getting patched, don't you?
In my case, I've invested time and money to become certified. I don't work for Microsoft - I work
with their products. If Microsoft were to go under, all the money and time I spent would become useless.
It does seem a bridge to far to me that you've decided that since you value the IP of a particular company that you're going to neg-rep anyone who does anything in violation of that IP. I'm not saying you don't have a right in general to put negative trust on people, but given your status in default trust, I think you should reconsider what actually deserves to be neg-repped.
Imagine if Microsoft comes out with something like google-wallet or apple-pay and then becomes a direct competitor of bitcoin. Perhaps at some point Microsoft lobbies congress of USA to pass laws to prohibit usage of bitcoin in order to promote their own objectives. Would you then decide that Microsoft's opinion is what should dictate who and who isn't neg-repped on this forum?
Another example, ASCAP, the trade group for music and arts publishers, would have us believe that any media file which doesn't contain DRM is prirated. This is not actually the case but if ASCAP gets its way, eventually laws will be passed to regulate all DRM-free media. If someone appeared on this forum and began selling DRM-free music (and doing so successfully, not scamming but actually going through with sales as advertized), would you decide that because ASCAP doesn't like this behavior and has lobbied to create laws to restrict it that the person selling DRM-free music should be neg-repped "trade with extreme caution".
Or, consider the OP's suggestion, perhaps if you go this route you need to be consistent and make sure to neg-rep anyone selling anything which might have questionable IP status. I think the more sane route is for you to stay out of the copyright enforcement business and focus on actual scams in which someone doesn't provide the service they purport to.
In my opinion, as someone on default trust who does a lot of work "scambusting" you need to consider carefully what counts as a scam. It's seems quite clear to me that selling microsoft accounts, if they are actually selling them, is not scamming. It may be dishonest in your opinion, but if they are providing the service they advertize to provide then how are they "scamming"?
Perhaps another option would be to represent yourself more openly. Change your username to "microsoft intellectual property patrol" and see if Theymos leaves you default trust.
I think that since there is a clear conflict of interest with Vod in these cases since he has a financial interest in Microsoft that he should not be giving negative trust for the sole reason that the sellers are selling MSDN keys.
Everyone who buys a copy of Windows has a financial interest in Microsoft. You want the product you paid for to keep getting patched, don't you?
In my case, I've invested time and money to become certified. I don't work for Microsoft - I work
with their products. If Microsoft were to go under, all the money and time I spent would become useless.
This is the sad state of affairs that RMS predicted a long time ago. You've given away your own freedom in exchange for the hope that someone else can manage that for you. Too bad you're not interested in learning about free/libre open-source software that doesn't die just because a company does. Real software is owned by the community of users and lives as long as that community exists (eg: bitcoin!), not according to the vagaries of a capitalist market.
