Dell Says Re-Imaging HDs a Burden If Word Banned 376
N!NJA writes "In an amicus curiae brief filed on Aug. 24, Dell asked the judge overseeing the Eastern District Court of Texas to reconsider its order blocking sales of Word, part of the original ruling in favor of Canadian software developer i4i. In the worst case, the brief argued, the injunction should be delayed by 120 days. 'The District Court's injunction of Microsoft Word will have an impact far beyond Microsoft,' Dell and HP wrote. 'Microsoft Word is ubiquitous among word processing software and is included on [redacted] computers sold by Dell.' 'If Microsoft is required to ship a revised version of Word in Dell's computers, a change would need to be made to Dell's images,' Dell wrote. 'Making such a change would require extensive time- and resource- consuming testing.' An addendum to the brief notes that it was authored in Microsoft Word, part of Office 2003."
That's fine (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That's fine (Score:5, Informative)
Except that's not what the injunction says. The quotes I can find [mckoolsmith.com] say:
Given that Amazon.com "sells" some ebooks for $0, I doubt that shipping Word without charging for the license would pass the "selling or importing" ban.
The injunction itself needs to be modified, and given the case Dell and HP make here, it seems like the original injunction was poorly thought out in terms of unintended consequences.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What? That has nothing to do with anything
Anyway, the injunction prohibits Microsoft from selling or importing. There's no reason that would enjoin Dell from selling their stock.
Re:That's fine (Score:5, Interesting)
"Stock" of course meaning copies of Word already under license, not shares of ownership. >_<
In fact, since the licenses are already sold, Dell can probably keep selling Word through the end of their current contract..
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then let them sue. Until Dell is served with a court order they have no reason to go out of their way to help i4i.
Re:That's fine (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, the injunction prohibits Microsoft from selling or importing. There's no reason that would enjoin Dell from selling their stock.
It's doubtful that Dell has a pre-bought stock of CDs to sell for the preloaded software that is the subject of of their brief. They probably pay MS quarterly or monthly on the number of copies they make. That would make any copies Dell preloads onto their machines new copies sold by Microsoft.
Re:That's fine (Score:5, Informative)
No, the injunction was quite correct. Did you read what I4I said? They said they won't go after the existing copies, only new infringement. [slashdot.org]
Who else do you think has power to enforce this other than the patent holder?
This is an odd issue for the courts, as Microsoft did legitimately cheat I4I out (read the details), but on the flip side software patents are an unnecessary burden.
This is excellent, absolutely fantastic news (Score:5, Interesting)
This is an odd issue for the courts, as Microsoft did legitimately cheat I4I out (read the details), but on the flip side software patents are an unnecessary burden.
This "odd issue" is an excellent situation for just about everyone not involved in the case, though.
Firstly, arguably the biggest player in the software business is now on the wrong side of a software patents lawsuit, which is going to mean probably the most powerful legal team in the business is going to be looking for all sorts of arguments to get such patents overturned.
Secondly, there are going to be some hard questions about what constitutes "copying" in the case of software, which the big players have been carefully avoiding answering in court for a very long time, for fear that the already dubious legal basis for their EULAs and reseller-based sales models will be invalidated. Answering those questions definitively cannot help but clarify a lot of the ambiguity surrounding those issues. Does the act of installing a piece of software for which you have already paid constitute making a copy? Does the mere act of running software already installed constitute making a copy? It's going to be very unpleasant for players like Dell and HP if the injunction stands, even for a few weeks, and those things are found to constitute making a copy. But if they're not making a copy for the purposes of this software patent-related case, then logically they can't be affected by copyright either, and EULAs fall apart.
I wouldn't like to predict the outcome here, but I'm guessing some big players in our industry are going to be pretty upset one way or another. And given that consumers (and smaller players in the industry, for that matter) are almost always on the wrong side of status quo, hopefully that means we're all going to be pretty happy one way or another.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The fucking patent is about embedding meta-data in XML, something has been done since the 1960s. The patent is a crock of shit. If the patent holders thought they had something, why did they feel compelled to take it to the most patent troll friendly court in the United States?
As has been constantly pointed out, if this is a legitimate patent, then patenting CSS is legitimate. XML is an open standard with a built-in capacity for storing metadata. If every conceivable kind of metadata is now patentable,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I went and read the patent. It's actually about separating formatting from content. This is similar to CSS, but in this case, there would be no tags at all in the 'content' portion of the document at all. Instead, a 'metacode map' would be a code, like 'bold', and the start/stop address of the text affected. SFAIK, this is different than what other document formats do. I certainly haven't seen it before.
However, I totally agree that this sort of patent is bogus, and scary. We should not be able to pat
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I checked out the i4i web site. My impression is that i4i had financial problems because they were a dinky little company with almost no significant products. I suspect they had no more than one software developer, and were probably lucky to stay in business all this time. I doubt MS even bothered to ever meet with them. Their business, so far as I can tell, doesn't even significantly benefit from the patented idea, and in no way co
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
[rant]
A bit more on the software patent crud we have to deal with today:
- Microsoft and others stifle innovation and competition through an immense patent portfolio and an angry mob of lawyers. It's no longer easy to build a good product and make money, because MS will come and sue you, while stealing your idea and driving you out of business with monopolistic power.
- As a result, the one of the best ways to make money as an innovator is to file several stupid patents, and wait for Microsoft to violate one
Re:That's fine (Score:5, Informative)
I checked out the i4i web site. My impression is that i4i had financial problems because they were a dinky little company with almost no significant products. I suspect they had no more than one software developer, and were probably lucky to stay in business all this time. I doubt MS even bothered to ever meet with them.
Well, this [theglobeandmail.com] paints a totally different kind of picture. Few quotes:
"Nine years ago, an unusual and powerful alliance approached a tiny Toronto software company with a fateful proposition. Microsoft was helping U.S. intelligence sift through relentless mountains of documents relating to the 9/11 terrorist attacks but had few means to sort them out. This firm, i4i, had the software that could intuit crucial, revelatory patterns that its own software could not.
It wasn't long before Microsoft recognized the value of the firm's technology, and, as it is now famously alleged, pinched it."
"Their circumstances are more humble than they used to be, when i4i took up 21/2 floors of the building and employed roughly 200 people, with offices in Manchester, Paris, Amsterdam, Washington, D.C., and San Diego. âoeWhen Microsoft began offering their technology for free,â Mr. Vulpe says, âoeall of our customers went away.â"
It should be noted that it sure as hell wouldn't be the first time MS did something like this. They did it with Quicktime in the 90's as well.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And if you'd actually read the fucking patent you'd realise that it doesn't cover SGML and explicitly says so. It also doesn't cover using XML in the normal way as a document format, including XML with metadata - as you say, that's like SGML.
What it does cover is splitting the document into two parts - a part containing text, and a second part containing formatting information for the text that references into the first part by location. This is nothing like the normal use of XML/SGML for document formattin
Re:That's fine (Score:5, Insightful)
If they have paid Microsoft for the right to Sell x Million copies of Office, then Microsoft has already sold x Million copies to Dell.
Does the injunction apply to resllers?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If they have paid Microsoft for the right to Sell x Million copies of Office, then Microsoft has already sold x Million copies to Dell.
That's quite a big "if" there. I doubt that Dell pays Microsoft 60 days ahead of time for software that they are going to copy onto a new harddrive when and if they sell it. They might have paid MS for the master, but the copy doesn't exist to be licensed until they make it - I would expect that moment of copying would be the moment the legal infringement takes place.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I doubt that Dell pays Microsoft 60 days ahead of time for software that they are going to copy onto a new harddrive
There is another reason to not pay ahead of time - the financial one. With Dell's volume, paying months in advance will result in a tidy sum of money that is on a permanent, no-interest loan to Microsoft. The current business practice is completely opposite - under the "net 30" [wikipedia.org] rule Dell would pay Microsoft not later than 30 days *after* Dell created a copy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When it comes to Dell and HP, the majority of Word licences are part of works and not part of office. In that case works is just a wedge to get office in the door and is a marketing exercise on M$'s part and to keep OpenOffice.org out as such the price is likely to be very low, free and could even generate a discount on windows. So M$ makes a gain from word continuing to be installed, as such Dell's and HP's requests are likely not so much their own but being done a upon M$'s promptings.
M$ lied cheated a
Re:That's fine (Score:5, Informative)
At the end of the day, this is a further play by MS's lackeys to fight this legitimate injunction on behave of MS. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Re:That's fine (Score:5, Insightful)
I saw this article a couple times, and finally clicked it to see what's being said. Good post you've made there.
I'd like to add though, that Dell jumped on the bandwagon years ago when MS demanded exclusivity agreements in exchange for distribution rights. Even if Dell were to suffer a loss if ordered to distribute no more Word products, I couldn't feel sorry for them. Dell assisted, even if indirectly, in creating the Microsoft monopoly. A little hardship might make them reconsider pushing Linux and No-OS machines a little harder. It would be good to see such offerings on their FRONT page. It would be even better to see the end of "Dell recommends Windows Blah" on every page.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
All of this is absurd. There is no "undue" harm or burden on Dell or HP here. I speak as someone that worked in dell's testing lab for more than a year creating these images. It would be TRIVIAL for dell to make new images and put them into production.
Where's your letter to the court pointing that out, with references?
Last I checked, intentionally lying to the court could get you into serious trouble. If what you say is true, you have a duty as a citizen to point this blatant lie out to the judge, with details, and let him rip Dell a new one.
Re:That's fine (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't preinstall the software, ship blank machines and separate media to be installed.
OEMs take on that burden at partnership (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership (Score:5, Informative)
While true, it's also explicitly one of the factors that go into determining whether injunctions should be issued--- they're discretionary relief that is supposed to take into account any hardship the injunction might cause to nonparties.
Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership (Score:4, Interesting)
No, that's not their argument (Score:5, Insightful)
This court decision is being appealed and Dell is arguing that the injunction should be withdrawn until the legal process has been completed.
Third parties will be harmed while the patent holder isn't likely to see anyone buying their product instead of Word.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No, that's not their argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Third parties will be harmed while the patent holder isn't likely to see anyone buying their product instead of Word.
Which is not the point.
As much as I dislike software patents, if there's ever been a clear case regarding them, this is it. MS partnered with i4i, took their technology and included it in their software without an agreement.
The penalty for being caught with the hand in the cookie jar can not simply be that you now have to pay for the cookies. If it were, then trying theft first would be the rational choice. A penalty like "no more cookies for you, not even if you pay, plus penalties and paying for those you took so far" sounds about right.
MS is a company with tons of spare cash, literally. Hitting them with a monetary penalty will make them laugh, and continue on their merry ways. Telling them to actually get their damn dirty fingers out of the cookie jar is what hurts them.
Yes, and their partners who sold the cookies on to others. Poor fellows. I almost feel sorry for you. It's not as if anyone would ever think that MS might be a company that's anything but spotlessly clean and nothing like this could ever happen, and contingency plans would be entirely unnecessary.
New Rule: If you put all your eggs in one basket, you don't have a right to cry if it falls.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That sounds reasonable. It's not really fair for OEMs to suffer for Microsoft's misdeeds, but likewise it would not be acceptable for Microsoft to dodge reasonable injunctions just because they would inconvenience OEMs.
"Too big to be illegal" is a ludicrous concept. It makes "too big to fail" look positively sensible.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
But should they be held liable for the errors the software company they OEM for makes?
No, and they aren't. Or did I miss the memo that tells Dell to pay penalties?
They just simply lost their license to distribute Word, though not because MS terminated it, but because a court said that MS never had the right to license (this version of) it in the first place.
but for small shops it would be an extra workload, driving up computer prices
Yes. And the argument is what, exactly? Following the law is more expensive than not, so we should give companies some wiggle room? I don't exactly see how that's going to be a convincing argument.
Should the OEM burden that cost completely?
The cost of what, exactly?
The cost that r
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I know Bill Gates and MS aren't criminals (Score:2)
so who are you talking about?
Re:I know Bill Gates and MS aren't criminals (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you joking? Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. Their sentence may have been light, but they were convicted of a criminal offense.
NO.
Microsoft was found to be a monopoly, and to have committed the CIVIL wrong of using said monopoly to improperly affect other markets.
If they had been found guilty of being a criminal organization -- you know, one that commits crimes by way of its business -- there wouldn't be a Microsoft right now, because their corporate charter would have been revoked, all their stock would have become worthless, and there'd be a big chunk out of the national debt.
Re:I know Bill Gates and MS aren't criminals (Score:5, Interesting)
You might find the term inconvenient but it is essentially accurate.
While not precisely correct for technical reasons, "convicted monopolist" is entirely accurate.
They were found to have a monopoly and to have abused that monopoly on numerous occasions.
It's a useful shorthand to avoid overly technical jargon that would primarily serve as euphemism.
Re:I know Bill Gates and MS aren't criminals (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, your argument doesn't hold water.
Let's look at the same argument used by Corporate America - specifically, RIAA. The statement that file sharers are "criminals" is common. It is a determined effort to alienate filesharers from people who genuinely respect the law. That inaccurate statement is incorporated into any and every PR release made by a majority of IP holders. "Criminal" are costing Corporate America billions of dollars annualy.
I've argued and pointed out many times that file sharers may or may not be guilty of infringing on CIVIL LAW, but that does not make them "criminals".
Honesty demands that we not use the same dirty trick against Corporate America. Microsoft is not a "convicted criminal". They may be a bunch of rat bastards, but being a rat bastard is not in and of itself a criminal offense.
Please, don't put me in the position of defending Microsoft again.
Re:I know Bill Gates and MS aren't criminals (Score:5, Insightful)
> First of all "convicted monopolist" is the most over-used phrase
> on Slashdot. Can we please come up with something new?
How about "re-convicted monopolist"?
After all Microsoft has done this multiple times and has been convicted of monopolistic bullying tactics multiple times.
Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership (Score:4, Interesting)
It does not seam to hard to meet the Judge's request/order...
To help you build your business in today's challenging economic environment, Microsoft is offering a mail-in rebate on select Microsoft Office products that you purchase pre-installed on your new PC.
None
Microsoft® Office 2007 Basic and Adobe Acrobat 9.0 STD [add $149]
Microsoft(TM) Office® Sm Business Ed 2007 -includes Publisher + Outlook 2007) Eligible for $50 Mail-in Rebate - MORE DETAILS [add $279]
Microsoft(TM) Office® Professional 2007 Eligible for $100 Mail-in Rebate - MORE DETAILS [add $349]
Just remove options 2-4. It seams that all of Dell's machines can be shipped with Office/Word.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Adobe Acrobat 9.0 STD
Honesty in advertising?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But patent lawsuits don't deprive anyone of anything. Much like illegal file sharing, nobody is deprived so it's not the same as buying a stolen car without knowing it.
Patents are all about proper licensing, and as such, judges work very hard to punish only the guilty, and not the innocent bystander.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, because Dell wouldn't mind losing money as long as it keeps Balmer happy.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you say "extra sanctions"? The amount of money MS would lose if this injunction stands throughout their appeal is insignificant compared to the power of the f.. Sorry, compared to the risk they would be taking if such an arrangement became known.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
If Windows is so fragile that removing one application required a large amount of tests, then it is not ready for deployment.
My question, when will windows be ready for the desktop.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is such a bad example. On both Debian and Ubuntu if you apt-get remove mono you'll be presented with a list of affected packages. This is the whole idea behind dependencies. You think Debian or Canonical have tested every possible combination of installed packages? Well, they haven't and they don't need to. I'm willing to bet that at least one of my systems' installed packages lists are unique in the world and it didn't need tested by Debian first.
Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure someone with a hundred million dollars riding on a good image would do more regression testing than building 10 images in a day would imply.
Heh (Score:5, Funny)
BS (Score:3, Informative)
Of course it is BS, it is more or less doable, comparing to penalties which they will get themselves into if they won't comply. It's interesting that they just don't use 'lost sales' argument. It could have some consequences for Dell too?
Anyway, this case is ugly as it can get about software patents. It is not traditional troll case, but still I don't like it - I don't like software patents at all.
Dell tests its images? (Score:3, Interesting)
I used to deploy OptiPlexes in an enterprise environment. SOP was:
- Remove from box.
- Start and assign computer name appropriate to asset tag.
- Install Altiris client.
- Install our image.
There were a few users who got OptiPlexes before I started working there, and were quite adamant about keeping the Dell base image. I will say this with confidence: if Dell does any testing of its base images, I sure didn't see it. I'm not really sure if their image qualifies as an operating system--it was more of a Dell advertisement.
Re:Dell tests its images? (Score:5, Informative)
I think your customer rep needs a kick up his ass. I used to work in the Enterprise division of Dell earlier and (helped) developed Altiris plug-ins to deploy customer images. If your rep is selling you the consumer imaging tools and/or has not told you about how to deploy your config specific images from Dell's factory or deploy it using Altiris/3rd party plugins on a base image, he must be slacking off.
That said, in many cases, what you are doing is the right thing. Wiping clean the base image and loading your own is often a simple way of keeping images/patch levels to corp standards and to comply with license agreements.
Dell does try to make this process simple and they can provide you more tools to do your job better.
redacted word (Score:2)
"all"?
Maybe I'd better read the friendly article.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, I read it.
Can't figure out what they could have redacted that would have been more damaging than the fact of the redaction itself.
If these briefs aren't filed as evidence against Microsoft in all the anti-monopoly actions, I'm wondering why.
(And we can start calling assertion contrary to evidence when people say Microsoft doesn't manufacture computers, since it sounds like Dell is just a subsidiary of Microsoft.)
Re: (Score:2)
(And we can start calling assertion contrary to evidence when people say Microsoft doesn't manufacture computers, since it sounds like Dell is just a subsidiary of Microsoft.)
While Dell's claim is a bit ridiculous, I don't think that assertion follows. If I buy off-the-shelf Ace brand widgets to manufacture my Whatzidoodles, that doesn't make me a subsidiary of Ace.
Re:redacted word (Score:5, Insightful)
It's most likely that Dell doesn't wish to publish their sales numbers outside of the normal reporting process, which isn't at all surprising.
Cut the bloat (Score:5, Insightful)
Pure Nonsense. Word isn't a default Dell option. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A 90 day trial version of MS Office is generally included in the default image.
Ah yes (Score:2)
The worlds tiniest violin, let me play a sad tune for you..
Dear Sir (Score:5, Funny)
Recently I was informed that Microsoft, USA, wants to put a restraining order on this perfectly legal software claiming that it is byte for byte copy of their suite of office products. While I disagree with this, for instance MS Office clearly uses ribbons, while M!cr0s0ft Offices uses menus, I realize that this is a decision for the courts.
All I ask is that the restraining order be revoked. The only way I can provide value to my customers is that M!cr0s0ft provides a hard disk which I use to image all my other computers. I pay a license fee for each image, but otherwise the labor is very cheap. If I had to install each piece of software, or even create a new image, this would destroy my competitive advantage I have over the other bigger firms.
Please, do not place an injunction against M!cr0s0ft. If the courts do find the software infringes on Microsoft product, then Microsoft can sueM!cr0s0ft and recover damages, and I will have time to find another supplier. If M!cr0s0ft is found not to be infringing, then you will be destroying a legitimate small business for no reason. I know the knee jerk reaction in this case is to assume culpability, but I assure you there are many differences between the two products, and M!cr0s0ft is not infringing. Trust me. I am the entrepreneurial backbone of this country.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't they have to update the images often anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't they have to update the images often anyw (Score:5, Informative)
People keep saying this on Slashdot, but have you ever bought a computer from HP? Compared to HP, and other computer retailers (most of them at least), Dell ships hardly any crapplications at all. In addition, Dell actually ships you a clean and working OS disk (with the crapplications on a completely different disk), HP puts both on the same disk making it impossible to reinstall your HP OS without also reinstalling the crapplications.
In short, Dell's one of the absolute best when it comes to shipping clean OSes.
Re:Don't they have to update the images often anyw (Score:3)
"Current" is a relative term. It takes months for a critical update to make it into Dell's system images. The latest batch of crippleware/shovelware, on the other hand, is certain to be included.
monopoly situation (Score:5, Insightful)
"Dear Court:
Providing a different option will be hard for us.
Please provide us relief."
Seems to me like this issue is exactly why monopolies are bad for consumers.
The last PC I helped someone fix (bloated and slow, crippled with malware) didn't even
come with system reinstall disks - they had to order and pay for them separately once the
computer arrived. Oops!
[Redacted] (Score:2)
Reliance on Microsoft (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Because if OpenOffice was found to be infringing on this patent and Dell packaged OpenOffice instead your post would read "Maybe this is a wake up call for people relying on *.odt", right? And that your post would also have a question mark next time.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
1 although if you had been paying attention you would have seen that i4i stated that OpenOffice does not infringe on the patent.
2 the odt format is a standard, not a product, not exclusively owned by OpenOffice. unlike Microsoft products, you could get other products to read/write that format
Blame the patents (Score:4, Insightful)
So now we see the far-reaching disaster that occurs when we enforce these stupid software patents - all the logistical nightmares, the impractical enforceability, the unwitting collateral damage, et cetera. Our greatest hope is that everything can blow up in everyone's face as big as possible with no real advantage to anyone in the end (that's right: dump as much spam in the fan as you can) and then we'll see how pointless it is to enforce software patents.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nope, just see what happend with RIM and the claim against them for using a mobile device that gets mail pushed to it from a server. A small patent holder was completly screwed over, and the main reason there was no injunction - lots of US government offices use Blackberrys and would have been "crippled" without them.
The whole thing with the patent laws as they are enforced today is they are really only a way for the rich to keep somone else form joining them at the trough.
Microsoft to TomTom - hey, you use
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So now we see the far-reaching disaster that occurs when we enforce these stupid software patents
It could be worse. When Kodak lost a patent case against Polaroid in 1985, they were given 30 days to stop making film for instant cameras, exit the business, and buy back all retailer inventory. Which they did. Then they lost a class action suit and had to buy back the cameras already in consumer hands.
oh cry me a river (Score:2)
So a hardware manufacturer made a deal with a software manufacturer. That software has a problem and needs to be altered. Hardware manufacturer then says "yeah but that will cost us time, and time is money". Judge will hopefully say "Review your deal and next time make a better one to account for these kinds of things. For now, stop complaining and start re-imaging disks".
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what the outcome will be, but I doubt that the judge will be reading from the anti-MS playbook.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what the outcome will be, but I doubt that the judge will be reading from the anti-MS playbook.
what anti-MS playbook? This could be any software manufacturer. The point is that the previous ruling has nothing to do with hardware manufacturers. It's like saying to an engine manufacturer they can't use one type of bolt anymore. Then car manufacturers will complain saying they already implemented the entire engine and can't replace the offending bolt without taking out the entire engine and rebuild it.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, this is just a request to temporarily stop enforcement of the trial courts order until the appeal process is finished. Any party has the right to file such a brief and if they can show that the injunction harms them more than the delay harms the party who won the original case it's perfectly reasonable.
The final word on this case won't be decided based on the harm it may cause to Dell or HP.
Boo Hoo (Score:3, Insightful)
Removing all the OEM crap is a burden as well
Easy fix... (Score:2)
Why not just make Microsoft compensate Dell for the extra work and expense required to change the images?
This makes no sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously M$ is pushing the oems to whine - and Dell being a Boy-Howdy TEXASS company, well that may just make the judge changed his mind... ya'll.
Law subject to commercial pressure? (Score:2)
Can someone explain to me how a company can ask a judge to not apply the law for purely commercial reasons?
Why not let proven big drug dealers go free because they fuel the economy while they're at it?
Microsoft this time: Software patents now right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are software patents suddenly OK when MS gets stuck? I wouldn't use their 'copy-ware' myself but still aren't /. readers against this abuse
of the patent system? There is a bigger story, but the press just haven't seen it yet. I think some of us know where the prior art is anyway for this idea that isn't patentable. Will Apple bring back 'look and feel' suits? Very bad idea, even if its just Microsoft.
causation (Score:3, Insightful)
'Making such a change would require extensive time- and resource- consuming testing.'
Self-made problem, I'd say. If your procedures can't handle the process of removing a piece of software, or replacing it with a newer version of itself, then your procedures suck. We're not talking about a kernel change here, are we?
Seriously? Car anology? "Dear Sirs, unfortunately, removing the radio is so much work, we'd have to remodel our entire factory."
Re:What, never heard of robotic jukeboxes? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it means "We have a single image that goes out to tens of thousands of customers in hundreds of different hardware configurations, If the software configuration in that image changes, we have to test with the maximum level of paranoia to ensure that we don't get a flood of complaints, and requests for refunds, that each have to be verified independently and will set us back millions of dollars."
I'm sure their imaging system is in order and whipping up a new image will take at worst a few hours. But I ca
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Then Dell is doing it wrong. (Score:4, Informative)
Removing the software requires them to re-do the image from scratch.
Machines these days, even if you don't purchase Office with them, generally come with what's called the OPK - OEM Preinstallation Kit installed. It's a copy of Office, sitting there on the hard drive, just waiting for a serial number to be entered to activate it. Depending on the serial number entered, it will then become that particular flavour of Office.
Even if you chose the option that they have when configuring the machine to order to not have Office installed, I'm betting that you still get office on the hard drive, you just don't get the serial number to activate it.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you a politician?
You completely failed to answer his question which was - How does removing Word cause problems with hardware installs? It won't have any effect.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Removing the software requires them to re-do the image from scratch.
I can see the answer right there.
Even if you chose the option that they have when configuring the machine to order to not have Office installed, I'm betting that you still get office on the hard drive, you just don't get the serial number to activate it.
And being a HP reseller, I can confirm that yes, it's still there even if you dont purchase office with it. I assume it would be the same with Dell products.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How can REMOVING software from an image require testing?
You've never heard of dependencies? I'd be willing to wager that in a typical Dell install there is at least one third-party app that needs some component of Office.
Re: (Score:2)
In that regard I used PC Decrapifier to nuke the "trial" version of Office. There have been no side effects subsequent to its demise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is Dell's poor management of their imaging system anybody else's responsibility? 'Extensive testing' is just code for 'we are a bunch of conniving lazy ass middle managers who depend on our outsourced technicians to tell us what to do.'
No it's shorthand for make the change and wait a few weeks while everyone pours in complaints.
Re:Poor excuses ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I actually worked at a computer manufacturer. Regardless of whether you think computer manufacturers should test their software or whether they are doing a crappy testing their product, it takes a ton of resources to get a master image out. You are testing multiple masters, not just one, based on different SKUs, etc. I admit, some of the testing we did were stupid but when you are consider MM units shipped and if a stupid error goes through you might pretty much bankrupt the company, you want to make sure you get enough testing.
As for OpenOffice, are you willing to ship out 1M+ units without good testing? Assembling your own computer is very different from shipping out 1M units all over the world + liability for computer tech support (regardless on whether you think Dell support sucks, it probably costs them $10~$20 per call; when you figure out a typical profit margin of 8% per unit, couple tech support calls will kill your margins).
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What Dell and HP do not have faith that MS will put out a reliable replacement?
Then stop shipping the product! Thats what the judges order says....its says do not sell anymore.
If MS cannot provide what Dell needs they are out of luck for a bit....how about negotiating with MS and telling them they have to support this new version of Word for 120 days or its no sellly from Delly?.
Yes, my lord Mudd (Score:2)
Fortunately for all of us, you are not King.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They should be forced to ship their machines with something like OpenOffice.
I think perhaps you missed what this case is all about.
I think perhaps you've missed details like this: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/08/18/190227/i4i-Says-OpenOffice-Does-Not-Infringe-Like-MS-Word [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Changing the master image is no big deal. Changing all the HDs of of thousands of PCs in the warehouse is another deal.