Slashdot Mirror
Unbundling Windows Declared Legal in Germany
brokeninside writes "Infoworld has an article about Germany's highest court on civil matters declaring that Microsoft can not prevent dealers from unbundling OEM software. This ruling stems from a lower court ruling in 1997 on a lawsuit against a German company for selling an OEM copy of Dos/WfWG sans hardware."
I dont really think that stripping the computer of it's operating system is really a blessing. If you'll notice, it costs the same to get a computer from most places with linux as it does with windows.
...what the software world would be like if this was done with MS-DOS in the USA back in the 80's.
According to ct, the key issue is that Microsoft claimed that the strategy of selling software at two different prices was necessary to protect their copyright from pirates, but the court ruled that the stategy wasn't "necessary and worthy of protection".
Microsoft has been suing small dealers in Germany that have never entered any agreement with Microsoft for years. There are a lot of pending cases.
The court regards the strategy to be a method of promoting Microsoft's products, and in general there is no legal protection in Germany for manufacturers to sell products at different prices to different market segments.
German law does allow software companies to restrict the use of the software they have sold in some ways. For example, you can't resell single seat licences as network licences even if you don't have contract with the manufacturer. The court decided that the OEM licence wasn't fundamentally different than the normal licence, so this rule doesn't apply.
Two remarks from me: First, the ruling won't be published for weeks, so no one knows how the lawyers will react, and second, although this is the German Supreme Court (more or less) Germany has a myriad of competition laws ranging from the emminently reasonable to the mind-bogglingly stupid, and the EU is hacking away at all of them even as I write, so this may not be the final word.
I bragged about my Karma at a job interview but I didn't get the job.
any child under 18 cannot legally form a binding contract in the US...
---
any child under 18 cannot legally form a binding contract in the US
Exactly. No contract == no license == no license restrictions == you have all the rights of first sale and fair use.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Ok then, If GPL programs are included on a system that you purchase, then the buyer could take them and sell them without the source. It would be "Bundled" with the PC.
Many products are like this. Retailers aren't allowed to split up their family-size packages of.. say, shampoo(ie 2 bottles shrink wrapped together, and sold as a unit), and sell them individually, why should this be different for software?
Don't mistake "the package says" for "not legally allowed to".
You'll note that most of them don't say "this package may not be resold" anymore; most of them say "not labelled for individual sale" and have no UPC code, which makes things hard for a retailer who wants to sell them.
--
Only buy from manufacturers whose recovery CDs don't reformat your HD (i.e. they just restore c:\windows). Acer's CDs don't reformat IIRC.
Will I retire or break 10K?
They traded out enforcement of the EULA in Germany for German sales, without losing enforcement of the EULA in other markets. They knew this would happen when they brought the suit, imo.... This is a win for M$, short term, at least.
See also: another of my comments about this
"The Internet is made of cats."
On what do you base that assumption, Mr. Coward?
Will I retire or break 10K?
The key word is "marketplace". Since GPL'd software is made available without cost, I wouldn't think this could be made to apply to GPL'd software
GPL'd software is all over the marketplace. Anything from Linux to Perl can be bought in retail outlets.
I think you are confusing the notion of 'first sale' which only governs the physical media that software (or books or magazines) is sold on with 'the right to make and distribute copies on terms other than simple fair use' which the GPL specifically grants that other software doesn't
First sale has absolutely no effect on the rights of the copyright holder to prevent someone from making further copies. First sale, does say that if you buy a cd, the seller can't put restrictions on what you do with it outside of writing a seperate legally binding contract.
An example of a seperate contract would be when I worked at one company, we could buy Microsoft software at the cost of production provided we signed a contract stating that we would not sell it. Contracts such as this that are actually signed are usually enforcable. But, the usual situation is that no such contract exists in the case of most resellers that get pc's bundled with Windows from a distributor.
I stand by the numbers, although as I pointed out, they are a few years old (circa 1997), I seriously doubt that the percentages have changed much over the last 3 or so years. I will look for the resource, but I doubt it is publicly available anymore, since it was M$ hype, and they don't like to keep that sort of thing lying about where it can be used.
I have also heard that eastern europe and Russia have overwhelmingly large percentages of MSDOS installations compared to Windoze, but that is purely anecdotal information, passed as an explanation of why M$ supported the bombing and continued conflict in the balkans....
"The Internet is made of cats."
I don't think so. See, in this situation, you agreed to recieve a free copy of the software on the condition that you don't resell it. I can't be totally sure since IANAL, of course, but that's my take on it.
--
--
"I personal[ly] think Unix is "superior" because on LSD it tastes like Blue." -- jbarnett
After digesting some Ritalin, try and discover the difference between 'sponsoring' and 'bundling'.
In the immortal words of Socrates, who said; 'I drank what?'
Ok, let me ask you if you've read the GPL. It doesn't try and infringe upon your rights, it doesn't remove any rights you have under copyright law. It is related to click-wrap licenses only in the most superficial ways. Instead, the GPL grants you extra rights, saying that you are allowed to do things you normally wouldn't be allowed to. It also puts some restrictions on those extra rights, to ensure the extra rights are granted to everyone who can use the software.
Apologies for the hostile tone of that, but anyway... That entire authorship thing is incrediblty confusing. Could someone tell me what these "rights of authorship" they're going on about are? Its not copyright law, because I doubt a court would say that once someone sells something, he/she can no longer enforce their copyright. Some kind of clarification would be incredibly helpful.
-RickHunter
No, following my analogy, you'd be able to resell the computer AND windows together, but not just windows.
You gotta blast the registry, too... and it complains if there is already a folder named 'Desktop', and a few other minor things (for a fresh install w/o trashing the drive)... upgrades haven't shown to be nearly as functional. I always fresh install off of the upgrade CDs anyway...
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
True on what MS is doing. But interesting twist: what if the German courts, faced with that, rule that using technical means to circumvent the law ( eg. using hardware-specific locks to prevent legal unbundling ) is itself illegal?
BTW: I always hated the CDs that don't allow you to install the products without wiping the entire system.
Fight Spammers!
The manufacturer could easily put the nutritional information on the individual packages. The reason they do not is that they were sold as a bundle. The manufacturer never intended for the candies to be sold separately.
they might be doing serverside parsing of xml files...
What makes you think they would pirate Win2k now that this court decision clears the air for purchase of it? You don't think M$ let this come to trial by accident, do you?
"The Internet is made of cats."
What's to prevent a user from making fair use copies, then? Just make a copy of the CD and install it on two different computers that you own (which is prohibited in the contract). Because you hadn't agreed to the license agreement, does that just fall under fair use of copyrighted material? Can anyone then make unlimited personal use copies of software they "purchased"?
I like the quote they use:
Maybe this means that we're finally going to start seeing some common sense legal decisions concerning software. This stuff should be just like any other product: I buy it - I own it. Period. I can give it away, sell it, put it on the mantle and admire it or throw it away as I choose.
They have "not packaged for individual resale" stamped on them because they don't have all of the nutrition information and ingredients listed that they are required to have by the FDA.
Now, if a store owner pops open a bag of candy, and labels them all with the nutrition information, then it is perfectly legal for them to sell the bars. It isn't the company making the candy bars that is keeping them from reselling, but the FDA.
With the OEM software, however, it is Microsoft telling retailers that they don't really have the Right of First Sale that is traditionally (read, always was until this new-fangled computer stuff came along) applied to the tranfer of copyrighted works. Also, most European companies have very strict anti-bundling laws (usually as anti-trust laws), making the practice illegal/unenforcable. It won't be that OEM software will cost more, it's that it shouldn't have ever cost so little.
Besides, M$ has every reason to keep OEM software cheap, so that everybody installs their OS, and then later runs out and buys their applications. Of course, the anti-trust case in the US may change that.
I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I don't think it's so wrong that you're not allowed to resell OEM Windows. I do think it's evil that they force their OEMs to bundle windows though.
Many products are like this. Retailers aren't allowed to split up their family-size packages of.. say, shampoo(ie 2 bottles shrink wrapped together, and sold as a unit), and sell them individually, why should this be different for software?
Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
the gpl does NOT require Costco or CompUSA to provide the source for the boxed copy of RedHat that they sell-- the source is to be obtained from RedHat (the distributor) not the value added reseller. Say I buy a 2 disk source and install debian distro for 2 bucks off linux mall. I can sell the binary cd to Joe Sixpack and the source cd to Dick Weed for 5 bucks each, unbundled. If Joe wants the source, he doesn't come to me according to the gpl, i'm just a reseller, Joe goes to the distributor, debian (who makes the source to the distro available). Imagine walking into Costo and trying to get them to give you for free the source CD for Corel Linux. Basically the distinction is that I'm selling the physical CD with what ever is on it. It is an entirely separate copywrite issue if I were selling copies of the CD, as then i am a distributor. And by this German ruling, the OEMs still can't make copies of windoze to sell, but they can sell the OEM disks as a reseller.
---
Germany contribute to wine?? You have your facts mixed up my friend! It's the french that are into wine, the Germans are famous for their Beer!
It's people like him, or our old friend OOG, that add colour to /., even if of a weird shade.
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
RedHat had the obligation of providing the source to you, but do they have it also towards your friend? With a transfer of ownership of rights you don't automaticly transfer RedHat's obligation or is this enbedded in the GPL?
That's a lovely theory, but I'm reluctant to buy it. Perhaps in the longrun, they may benefit from an increased user base, but in the shortrun, they're going to lose sales to resellers that may have otherwise been first sales. They don't get a dime from resale, so how would they think to get any short-term benefits? Historically, they've always encouraged piracy to build a userbase until such time as the market can support paying for it, upon which time they've always cracked down. The legal right to resale offers MS no benefits over that strategy, and moreover prevents that last crucial step of cracking down and enforcing new sales.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
No way. This is about ownership, not copyright.
Censorship on Slashdot
51735.
not that I have ever visited one, either ("Hey man, I was a freshman in college - I needed the program, and I only had $$ for ramen noodles!")
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
That isn't really German, dude. Your fellow AC is a Pentecostal Fundamentalist and was having a "tongues speaking" fit^Wsession...
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
>Could this mean that you could void the GPL after the initial sale in Germany?
Nope.
>If I've gotten a CD (say in the back of >O'Reilly's Apache book) can I now sell that
>CD for more than the cost of the media? Of course you can. Why shouldn't you?
Censorship on Slashdot
This seems to make sense to me, the OEM pays its licensing fees to M$ for whatever software, if they wanna sell it cheaper let them. M$ doesnt have to support the software if its OEM, may the retailer support it if they wanna do it this way.
"The Internet is made of cats."
From that page:
<I>
Point out the benefits of a legally licensed, preinstalled operating system. Customers have the original CD so they can reload the software. </I>
So what's all this about recovery CDs that aren't real? Uncle Bill says that everybody has an original CD.... or does he...
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Ehmm, unbundling just means they can separately sell the copies of Windows that usually ship only with a PC. It doesn't mean they can decompile the software.
Thank you for making me laugh again... I need a little levity on Friday afternoons at work...
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Although German law can be recognized by other countries, that does not mean that it applies in those other countries.
Still, a nice precident :).
Chivalry is not dead, it's just frequently misspelt. - M. Langley
IANAGL
Could this mean that you could void the GPL after the initial sale in Germany?
If I've gotten a CD (say in the back of O'Reilly's Apache book) can I now sell that CD for more than the cost of the media? Isn't that just another form of unbundling?
Work for Change & GET PAID!
In case you hadn't noticed, that's one of the biggest complaints about Microsoft. They force resellers to sign agreements that they will charge for a copy of Windows whether or not it is installed. So if you buy a box with Linux installed, you are still paying for a copy of MS Windows. The US DOJ sued MS a few years ago for this, and got them to sign an agreement that they would stop doing it. But I still see ads for PCs with "free MS Windows". Yeah, right.
If American laws refuse to protect consumers, Germany may be a nice place to live. How is the cost of living?
They'll bitethemselves in their rear end later when another OS Comes along and takes it places...
Who's the black private dick, who's a sex machine for all the chicks?
What makes you think they would pirate Win2k now that this court decision clears the air for purchase of it? You don't think M$ let this come to trial by accident, do you?
From what I understand, Microsoft does believe that unbundling Windows is the same as piracy. The article mentions that Microsoft is the plaintiff in the suit. Microsoft sued the hardware manufacturer because the manufacturer's sale of Win/DOS violated the license agreement between Microsoft and the manufacturer and, as such, was an act of piracy.
I wish there was a similiar suit in the US, so people could dispose of old Windows disk however they pleased. Three years ago I got five bucks out of Windows 3.1 on 5.25 floppy on ebay. Its a shame that such a thing can not happen now...
IANAL, but as I understand it, one of the principles of copyright law is the 'First Sale Doctrine' - you have exclusive rights to duplicate your copyrighted materials, but your rights to limit its use end at the 'First Sale'.
This idea has come under attack lately (the DMCA is basically an attempt to blast first-sale into the stratosphere), so it's nice to see it affirmed. It's a bigger deal than just software, though; it's a shot across the bow of all IP cartels.
> This means that OEM's who want to continue selling PC's with Microsoft products will have to start charging more for the PC's.
> And this will lead to more expensive PC's for everyone, since OEM's need to offer M$ products in order to be competetive.
No, you ignore the case where OEMs do not want to bundle MS products. They may now have an opportunity to be competitive price-wise by bundling less.
And then there's always the heretical idea of bundling non-MS products. (Assuming any non-MS Windows software companies are still left in the game.)
Some of you guys need to get away from the idea that everything depends on having MS stuff on your system. That, BTW, is what all these court cases are trying to protect. If you want MS stuff that's fine, but don't make me buy it too just so you can get a discount.
Grrr.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
You can go to a candy store where there's a big bin of gummy bears and scoop them into a plastic bag and pay by the pound. Even if you squint, I don't think you'll be able to find a label on each gummy bear. I believe I've seen also seen bins with those "bite-size" miniature candy bars.
To get back on topic, it would still be in MS's best interest to offer a volume discount to OEMs.
Besides the reduction in packaging costs, it would encourage the OEM to buy more copies if they come at a lower price. If the OEM then decides to sell those copies at a loss, why should MS worry?
He calm down...
Don't know if leo.org is right with it's translation...Of course "slashdotish" is not my native language, as you could have seen from my post.
The 98% are just what I regocnize, when I look around here in Germany. And of course has everyone on slashdot tonns of secret M$ Paper laying around. So please stop shouting or smoke something different.
Michael
can be found here. It is, however, in German legalese and may be hard to understand.
Laudamus veteres sed nostris utimur annis.
The principle of first sale or in this case, unbundling simply relates to the transfer of ownership or rights. If I sell you my T-shirt, I give up my rights to it. I can't wash it, dry it, wear it, whatever becuase it is no longer my shirt. It is your shirt now and you can do anything you like with it, in the same way that I could have done anything with it when it was mine.
With my MS Office CD, I can copy it for backups, poke at it using a debugger, and so on. The only thing that copyright law prevents me from doing is to copy it and then Sell those copies. But I can transfer my ownership of that CD to someone else, thus giving up my rights to use it.
Same with GPLed software. NO DIFFERENCE. I can simply take that RedHat CD (which only has bionaries) and sell it to my friend cheap. If I keep no further copies around, I am not redistributing it, but transfering it to my friend. So I don't have to give sources. I can just tell the friend - go to ftp.redhat.com for the sources. RedHat's obligation of providing the source is now to my friend, not me. I am clean.
But since the GPL grants me the right to redistribute it, I can also choose to make copies of it to sell away! As long as I obey the conditions that I should give the binaries I must give the source. So if I make changes, if I make copies, then too bad, I am a reseller or distributor and must obey the GPL.
So the question of copyright or copyleft as the GPL attempts to be is is orthogonal to the idea of transfering ownership, regardless of whether it is for profit or not!
IANAL, but I should be!
What's surreal is that the EU has been fighting vigorously to prevent "grey market" sales of products (i.e. Chanel sells a case of #5 to Saks, Saks discovers they have too much, unload 1/2 of the case on a distributor, and the distributor sells it to Wal-Mart), by prohibiting non-authorized distributors from selling the products, thus keeping prices high. Seems that some contracts are more equal than others.
We have to recognise that we generally do not "own" the software, we merely buy a licence to the use of ONE copy on a SINGLE machine.
In my world that means I use the stupid installation CD of Qompaq/Toshiba/etc. only as a proof of owning a licence and do my installs/maintenance from the copy of a regular uncrippled CD.
As far as I know (here) in Holland there are court rulings supporting this.
It's not the copying that's illegal, it's the use of copies WITHOUT a licence that's illegal!
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
According to the article, This ruling effects the "Rights of Authorship" that Microsoft is trying to extend by disallowing post purchase sales.
:(
i.e. They said that if you have a copy of Windows that you purchased along with a computer, you can now sell it to whoever.
This ruling only effects the RESALE of the MS software, not the actual bundling of the software. Microsoft can still require manufacturers who purchase OEM products to do all that other nasty stuff (i.e. only sell MS OSs, only sell them with hardware, etc)
So it is a small victory. It doesn't mean bundling is now illegal...
--Alex
This is a signature virus...
It seems you are proposing that the actions taken by Big Monopolies such as Microsoft should be ruled illegal by high courts rather than dealed with by antitrust ligitation.
Somehow that line of thought contains the idea that single Microsoft actions have not been unlawful per se. But that's just plain untrue -- Microsoft has been found to be involved in unlawful acts in a US court.
So to sum this up, just having specific methods for leveraging a monopoly ruled illegal doesn't change anything. Most of them, in fact, are already illegal. And Microsoft, for one, doesn't seem to care at all.
Marko Karppinen
You made some good points in your post. However I can only laugh at the method used to put them across.
If you were a nicer human being (I use the term in its loosest sense), you may have got some appropraite replies, though actually I doubt this was your intention.
Learning at some schools is like drinking from a Firehose
You are correct, this will have little baring on the US, but only because the US does not derive legal precedents from other countries. Were this a case in England, it may be different and a judge may be willing to consider this as an advisory ruling (not binding, mind you), however the US has no history in following Germany in laws, and a judge would laugh an attempt to present this out of court.
On the other hand, making copies of a book and selling those copies is very different than selling the original book. In the case of selling IP, you have purchased 1 license of the product, and can thereby sell that one licesnse. Copyright protects a book or software the exact same way, "fair use" applies to personal backup copies, but in the event that you sell the original, you must either destroy all backup copies or give them to the person you sold the original to.
There is no reason the doctrine of first sale is different here. Just as you cannot take apart a patented car and sell an exact replica, you cannot take a copywrighted software product and produce an exact replica. But you can take your used (or unused) software, book, or cd and sell it all you want.
I am not sure whether or not a copycat suit would fly in the US, but it would not fail for the same reasons you specified.
-Alison (not a lawyer)
..In Germany, but let's be honest, just how much will this ruling effect the North American market? Hell, up here in Canada, we don't expect to see much effect on the DOJ case against Billy boy.
It's an interesting legal precedent in Germany, and does show promise in terms of slapping down the M$ arrogance, but until there's some sort of binding international court for these sorts of things, legal ruling in one country against a intinational corporation just won't hurt it that much.
I have to say, I'm getting tired of this anti-MS stuff all the time. Lets just get on with improving Linux on the desktop, and take over the market--that'll learn Microsoft!
Beware the Whyte Wolf.
With a gun barrel between your teeth, you speak only in vowels...
Even more than the predatory tactics used against Netscape, the contract deals requiring HW folks to bundle Mickey$oft and their associated products has always seemed to me to be heavy handed for a company with monopoly status.
If the company backed off of this part of the contracts I think M$ would have a much better time defending itself in court. I do not think it means a whole lot in terms of legal precedent. I think it would help in the hearts and minds of future judges looking at this case on review.
Hopefully, this will mean more penetration for Linux in Germany and provide the basis of reform in the US. The worst part of the monopoly status is not the mediocre performance of Windows but the natural lack of alternatives in a world taken over by the Gates borg.
ACK
Did your friend BSOD during the Halloween Parties?
Humorless sig goes here.
Maybe I'm just too dumb to realize it but if the first sale doctrine is enforced, wouldn't it be a threat to GPL?
I mean, if Red Hat (or anyone else) sells me a piece of Linux with the source code, can I resell it legally without source code? Is the license valid only the first time something is sold?
Am I clueless or what?
no, he doesn't have that right. the other shareholders of microsoft would have to agree with them. and since they lose money when microsoft stops selling in germany the shareholders wouldn't agree.
Your refering to the 1997 rulling and NOT the news story BTW.. Your a tad off topic...
The candy bars are a "bulk liccens" the end user is buying the bulk at a discount for doing so. This anolog to Microsoft selling bulk liccenses something I know people object to but I'm not one of those people.
The OEM deal says the OEM must buy a copy of Windows for EVERY box he sells. The 1997 rulling says he may then sell it alone instead of with the computer.
This means the end user is not FORCED to buy Windows as part of the pacage but may then buy Wndows as a seprate pacage. As it should be. This means the consummer gets to pick his own operating system.
Saying otherwise is anolog to every home built by contractor X must then install appliences from company Y even if the home owner wants appliences Z.
OEM's need to OFFER Microsoft products to compeate but the end user should be allowed to say "No" to Windows and buy something else for this computer.
Pacage deals are good when it's an OEM working to offer a better deal to the consummer. It's bad when it's a software company trying to rob consummers of the ability to NOT buy a product they will not use.
The accual story... OEMs desiring to sell PCs with Windows preinstalled can do so an remove pacages such as IE and replace them with pacages such as Netscape. This is exactly what Compaq did in the United States and Microsoft sued them over it.
Now in Germany if Microsoft wants to preinstall IE thats fine... but then an OEM in Germany dosn't have to install it. They may instead go with Netscape.
Other posablitys with this... A DrDos as a functional replacement to the Dos that Win9X runs ontop of.
If Microsoft wishes to preinstall MsOffice with MsWindows fine but then an OEM can then rip the two appart and sell them as two diffrent products.
That reduced price has allways been a sham. Windows is over priced to start with....
The reduced price is something like $25 to $50... I rember when $25 was what you charged for high quality software. $200 and up was for mainframes and other such deals where you expected there to be 4 to 200 users using a single computer. I personally object to pricing policys based on the estimated amount of users on a given box. But that was how it was done and still is by some companys.
The whole idea of selling Windows for $100 to $200 is really obnoxous.
I don't actually exist.
Thx I have a nephew who is a Script Kiddie well.... VB kiddie.... I never know what he is talking about
Yes I can not spell...Wait....for a second there I almost cared.
There is a great amount of contention over this issue. My opinion (and this whole matter has _barely_ been touched on in the courts) is that if you buy it, you own it. You can agree to a restrictive license later on, but unless you have to agree to one in order to get it out of the store, you're not bound.
Thus, if you go to CompUSA (what a mistake already!) and buy a copy of Windows, it's yours. You own it. Not the copyright, mind you, just the one copy. If you can install it without having to agree to the EULA, good for you - the EULA doesn't apply. Still doesn't mean that there's a hell of a lot that you can do with it, but you're only bound by regular copyright law and not the damn license.
Managing to install it w/o their installer is an exercise left to the reader.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
No. This doesn't significantly effect the GPL at all.
There is nothing stopping you from NOT agreeing to the GPL, and still being able to resell legally made copies you acquire, use them, or modify them. But if you don't agree to the GPL, regular copyright law applies. Which means that you can't sell copies you make, you can't sell copies you modify (unless there are REALLY SIGNIFICANT modifications that effectively turn the software into something totally different) but you can sell copies that the copyright holder or GPL licensors make or modify provided that you legally got them from them.
The GPL does not restrict what you can do with software it covers when you agree; you never had the right (w/o holding the copyright or agreeing to the GPL) to make and distribute changed copies anyway as long as it's covered by copyright. The GPL lets you, provided that you make the source available. It's stupid to say that giving some permission to do additional stuff is restrictive, b/c it only would be if they gave you permission to do even more stuff.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
What If I want to install the Quicken program that was included, after wiping it because I was using Microsoft Money?
Fight Spammers!
So unbundling is now legal in Germany
It always was, that's what the court was asked to determine.
what about Microsoft no longer selling anything in Germany?
They can do that, they can't stop other people from selling their products in germany though, that's the point.
What if they decide to close up shop entirely in Germany and no longer support their OS or any Microsoft applications in Germany?
They can do that too.
Or better yet, what if the Supreme Court here in the states decides that MS needs to be broken up and Billy says "Naw, screw it, I'll just close the company instead." And then does it.
Whether that was lawful or not would depend on the requirements of the court order, I would imagine that the two new companies would have to be formed but of course their members could then liquidate them. It's not a choice for Bill Gates though in any event, he gets to vote along with the other shareholders, but he probably would only retain shares in one company or the other.
Weeks later millions of people and numbers of businesses bitch to the government about how they can't get any support for their personal computers anymore.
I'm lost as to what your point is supposed to be, you just want to point out that a sufficiently big company that doesn't like the law of the land can make things difficult for people?
The right that an author acquires for copyrighted works is the exclusive right to sell copies that he makes. Of course, the author can charge any amount for copies when he sells them, but he can't force other people who he _sells_ to, to set particular prices. (e.g. Alice sells Bob her book for $100. She tells him that Bob can't sell it unless he does so for $200. Alice has no actual power to force Bob to agree)
Of course, rather than sell copyrighted material outright (which is totally distinct from selling the copyright, btw) it is possible to license it. This is a whole different kettle of fish. If you can only acquire a work through license, and not sale, then the author can indeed impose additional restrictions that normal copyright law prohibits.
However, the Supremes have IIRC taken the line that unless you agree to a license as a precondition to acquiring the work, it's a sale. Thus when you buy a book and pay money for it, unless you had to agree to a contract FIRST, you aren't legally obligated to do anything the author wants. In the case of the GPL, in order to acquire even more rights (like the right to make and redistribute your own copies of a work that is GPLed but which you do not hold the copyright to) you can agree to it. But you can use and modify the software w/o agreeing to the GPL. You just can't distribute more copies than you legally acquire, nor can the copies be modified.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Besides, most of the people who would buy PC's without an OS are in the same segment of people likely to use Linux/*BSD/BeOS/etc. Of course, included in this group are the w4r3z d00ds likely to pirate Windows anyway. (BTW, I know some people who like warez who like Linux 'cause it's free as in beer, so there is overlapping, too.)
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
When you have a NFR (not for resale) product from Microsoft, is it legal to GIVE IT AWAY for free? Many people need Windows. If these people got it free and legally, this would prevent that much more money going into Microsoft.
They need an installed base to get NGWS off the ground, and they weren't getting it (contrary to US popular opinion, the M$ user-base remains relatively small outside the US).
M$ foreign sales has two problems: Poor Quality, and Odious Licensing Terms, (there is also the problem of predatory tactics failing, but they are addressing that separately).
M$ can't go head-to-head with anybody based on quality, but they could do something about the EULA. What they have done is make it a) legal and b) cheap (for the end user, which is who counts in this strategy) to install M$ software.
In the short term, M$ (installs) in Germany will go up, since they are now legal, and everybody and his brother will be selling Windoze for ... [whatever currency conversion] ... on the street corner. M$ isn't losing anything, since they're not making money on that market now.
Once there is an installed base, M$ starts moving it to NGWS (probably without even asking for the users' permission, if there are enough copies of win2k involved).
It's the classic 'captive audience' scenario applied with a twist, with a little extra effort to make the capture, since the audience is mostly disinterested...
"The Internet is made of cats."
Uh, that's more like selling the engine out of a car and not the radio. Selling the radio would be like selling off the computer speakers. A computer will not run unless it has (at least one) OS on it. If I decide to buy a brand new Dell computer and uninstall Windows from it, I have a nice, non-bootable piece of hardware. I'd have to install a new OS in it's place to use it. (Whether it be FreeBSD, MacOS, whatever.)
(A better car analogy might be something along the lines of the steering wheel, or the frame, or something, but there's few things in life which really make a good "hardware vs. software vs. OS" analogy...)
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
I guess Leonard Cohen got it wrong. His lyric was "first we take manhattan, then we take Berlin" :-)
Help fight continental drift.
Since Germans can now buy and sell windoze like any other piece of work, M$ hopes their sales will increase, undercutting the strong Linux/BSD support that has been emanating from .de this last decade or so.
I don't know about German copyright law, specifically, but I believe under International copyright agreements, the principle of right of secondary sale has been pretty much what it is for some long time now. The German court just affirmed that Yes, this law applies to M$ just like it does to everyone else. This is not a precendent except WRT to M$, who always seems to feel that they should me exempt from laws that they don't like.... As a copyright holder, you don't have any right to control secondary sales. Period. That was already the case, and the court affirmed it.M$ has long tried to gain control of secondary sales through use of an EULA. This EULA legally invalidates their copyright (as I understand it). Hence, the judge could have struck down either their copyright, or their EULA....
It would have been better for the consumer if the court had invalidated the M$ copyright, imo, but I'm sure M$ knew that before they allowed this to go to trial. The decision they recieved will benefit them (M$) far more than it will anyone else, since it clears the way for M$ sales in germany. Such sales were legally very dubious prior to this decision by the court.
I think it's very clear where this will lead: To an attack by M$ on the established Open Source/Linux/BSD communities in Germany.
"The Internet is made of cats."
Heh.
Who's the black private dick, who's a sex machine for all the chicks?
It's in Europe and it's using the Euro, which is rapidly becoming worthless (see also: Lira). I'm in the UK, which is also in Europe, and is using the Pound, which is rapidly becoming worth too much.
I'm sure none of that makes sense economically, but what does?
IANAL, but as I understand it, even under US law, you have no right to control the terms under which an item that you sell is resold by the person who bought it from you. This is called the Doctrine of First Sale, if I remember correctly (and it's how, for instance, restrictive covenants on real estate get struck down). Software companies get around this by pretending that it's not a sale at all, but a contractual arrangement granting you the use of the software under the terms of the license.
What the German court seems to have done is declared that under German law, the legal fiction that it's not really a sale by Microsoft to the OEM isn't valid. Microsoft has sold the goods to the OEM, and loses control once the goods have entered the stream of commerce.
"Once the product has entered the marketplace, with the author's agreement, he can no longer engage rights of authorship" to interfere with secondary sales."
I hate to engage in reckless speculation, but this sounds like it could put the kibosh on clauses in licensing that place restrictions on relicensing such as the GPL.
Any German speakers that read the decision care to comment?
If I've gotten a CD (say in the back of O'Reilly's Apache book) can I now sell that CD for more than the cost of the media? Isn't that just another form of unbundling?
IIRC (and I'm too lazy to look it up) the cost of media provision in the GPL only applies to providing source code for GPL software that was distributed without source and only then in the event that the source is requested by the person to whom the software was distributed.
In other words, if I sell a binary only cd of GPL licensed software and someone requests the source on cd, I am not allowed to sell him or her a cd with the source at above the cost of the physical media.
However, (from my understanding) I am allowed to sell cd with the source for GPL licensed software for whatever I feel like, provided I have not distributed the software prior to the sale. It is only if I distribute GPL software without source code am I obligated to provide source code at the cost of the media (and then only to people that I have distributed it to).
Of course, IANAL and its been a heck of a long time since I've actually read the GPL, so YMMV...
a situation at my school? Microsoft signed some deal, and basically all of us students were able to acquire free copies of Visual Studios 6.0, WinNT 4.0 w/SP4. We had to sign an agreement saying we would not resell the software.
If I went to a German university and had software given to me for free does this mean I could turn around and sell it? Or, because I did not actually purchase the software and it was given to me am I prevented from doing this?
I don't understand how many people say this ruling makes sense. As mentioned by many other posters, it is nearly akin to being able to sell just the shampoo from a shampoo/conditioner pair sold shrinkwrapped together. Maybe it's more like buying a new car, pulling the engine out and selling that? Except selling the OS that runs a computer seems to me to be much more useful than selling the engine out of a new car.
Then again, what's to prevent the retailers from installing their OEM copies of the software, selling those systems without the OEM Software CD's, and then turning around and selling the OEM Software? Would they be able to get away with that, and how would they be caught? hmm...
Because you hadn't agreed to the license agreement
While we're on that topic, why not have your grandma, your toddler, or your cat click the "agree" button? That's the fatal flaw of shrink- and click-wrap license agreements. This would also help the Wine project, as it allows legal reversing of Windows.
Will I retire or break 10K?
It is Odd that you say that becasue all the warez sites (s1t3s...z1t3z...51t35?) that I know of are in Germany or Russia.
So I just assumed that the laws were... less over there....
Not that I or any one I know would EVER vist a warez site.
That would be WRONG.
Yes I can not spell...Wait....for a second there I almost cared.
I really should do that.. Blue spandex leotard, a cape, a glue gun, and fifty or so NT5 developers discs. Carrying a 2x4, I'd be the Blue Screen Of Death.
Or perhaps go out to the Army/Navy surplus store and pick up a dress uniform and the appropriate insignia. I still have my ID badge from a trip out to Selfridge; I'll just do a little digital magic to make it read "General Protection Fault, Microsoft Corporation".
I think I'll pull the latter on Halloween. I look far better in uniform than in spandex.
.sig: Now legally binding!
This means that OEM's who want to continue selling PC's with Microsoft products will have to start charging more for the PC's.
And this will lead to more expensive PC's for everyone, since OEM's need to offer M$ products in order to be competetive.
Your logic is correct, but there's more to this scenario:
1) They can sell the machines with alternate, free less-expensive OSs like Linux
2) They can sell the machines like this:
With Windows: 2800 DM
Without Windows (OS-less or with Linux or BeOS or whatever): 2500 DM
with all the standard disclaimers. Leave it to the user whether he wants to install the OS on his own, ask for a friend's help, buy Windows, pirate Windows, pirate QNX, install FreeBSD, whatever. Either that or he pays US$ 150 more for the convenience. (1 DM ~ US$ 0.5)
Yes, this may indirectly boost illegal copying. However, the PC manufacturer is not endorsing it in any way. They're clear.
Is this any different from a store owner opening up a bag of bite sized candybars and selling them despite the fact that they all have "this item is not packaged for individual retail sale" written on the label?
No, it isn't, and yes, I think the store owner should have the legal right to do that too (as long as the unpackaging doesn't damage the product in any way).
"Standing up to an evil system is exhilarating." --Richard Stallman
I must agree with a few other comments posted above as well: it looks like a European court can figure out simple things that we have such a hard time with here in the good 'ol US of A.
---
Gort! Klatu Barata Nikto!
Let's make a good thing : send our unused MS software to a charitable organisation in Germany, where they could legaly sell the software and use the money for whatever good cause we support (suing MS, the RIAA or MPA for example :)
I stand by the numbers, although as I pointed out, they are a few years old (circa 1997), I seriously doubt that the percentages have changed much over the last 3 or so years. I will look for the resource, but I doubt it is publicly available anymore, since it was M$ hype, and they don't like to keep that sort of thing lying about where it can be used.
I'm not saying that I don't believe you. Well, yes I am saying that I don't believe you. Your assertion runs contrary to my perceptions. Since I don't have any hard numbers, my perceptions might very well be wrong. But, without some hard numbers and/or some convincing arguments (preferably the former), I'm not willing to change my mind.
cheerio
(The ramifications are that two separate legal entities could possibly conspire to start an outfit for mass distribution of binary-only, GPL-derived software products. And that just wouldn't be nice, now would it?)
Personally, I don't see what the problem would be. Big deal if someone figures out a way to weasel out of providing source. The only situation where it would have an impact on the open source community is in the situation of the company A making source level changes, distributing to company B binary only media and company B sells the cd's. And, if this situation occurs, then I'd be willing to wager that the original authors could take both of the companies to court. Most of law deals with intent and a good case could probably be made that two companies colluding to intentionally circumvent the GPL does in fact break the contract so that neither company can keep the right of re-distriution.
Again, I'm not a lawyer, so YMMV.
Lost Customers.
f.
So, how about this scenario:
You sell me a copy of your awesome Broken Inside Linux 7.0 distribution, which you distribute on two CDs: one is the source CD, and the other one is the binary CD.
Well, because I only bought the package to get a decent source collection on a CD, I'm willing to put the other, binary-only CD to the market, and in fact sell it to my cousin who happens to be a Linux newbie.
Now, what has happened is the following:
- I haven't been involved with making any additional copies of any GPL-ed software. In fact, I sold a CD without knowing anything about its contents -- I never cared to even mount it. In this transaction, I considered the CD I sold to just be a physical object.
- My cousin, the end user, has received a copy of GPL-ed software without a source. That's fine, according to the GPL, but now someone has the obligation to give the source to my cousin for a reasonable cost. Who? Me? Or you, the original seller of Broken Inside Linux?
Marko Karppinen
The French are just better at marketing
(and they make the better red wines)
f.
I think the more interesting ramification here is that software is a more directly "functional" sort of thing than traditionally copyrighted materials. It's easy to argue that you don't get more "functionality" out of having two copies of a book you bought. You may get more personal convenience by having a copy for home and for the office, but it still provides you with the same amount of intellectual "power", if you will.
Software, on the other hand, can increase your "power" by copying it. If you never used two computers simultaneously, you'd have a good fair use argument, but what about installing five copies of Windows on a home network where they're all always on? It may still just be for personal use, but there's definitely an qualitative difference between that and ripping a CD, for example.
Also, I wonder how "personal use" extends to a corporation. (A legal "person".) It's probable the whole origin of sofware "licenses" rather than sales is to prevent just this sort of thing by corporate "people".
No, I'm sorry, that's wrong.
If this was still back in the bad old days where they were required to buy a license for every machine they made, that would be the case. It isn't.
An OEM copy of MS software doesn't necessarily have to come with a complete machine. There's any number of UK dealers who'll sell it to you with a big enough component to suggest you're building a new system. This is saying that they can go further than that, and sell software intended for bundling with new hardware by itself. That's ridiculous, and a dangerous precedent. The softwrae has been sold on condition that it's only resold with hardware, yet the reseller is now free to breach that contract.
Loads of manuacturers sell OEM copies at a reduced price, the idea being that if it's bundled with the machine you get possible future upgrade sales and reduce the likelihood of a sale for a competitor. This case effectively kills that market in Germany as they can't really carry on with this or people will always buy the OEM part rather than the retail, losing them a fortune.
Plenty of non-MS software gets bundled, too. When I bought this machine, it came with Lotus SmartSuite, IBM WorldBook and ViaVoice. True, none were installed but all were bundled.
Your last paragraph betrays a total lack of knowledge verging on paranoia. Calm down, get off your high horse. OEM software deals are a good idea, they're not anywhere near as restrictive as you make out and this ruling knocks the market for them on the head. It's daft.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Not to mention the fact that, should your fancies take you that way, you can buy windows seperately.
Eg. When I worked at an HP reseller, HP didn't sell w2k. However, you may want to buy HP hardware and install w2k on it yourself.
Learning at some schools is like drinking from a Firehose
I've wondered about why it is so common in the US to lump everything into one big basket and then try to sell it as a package deal. The Microsoft anti-trust case is rife with Good Stuff (basically it just upholds the intent of the law -- though shalt not smite thy opponents through illegal means), but there is a huge amount of hogwash mixed in. I'd have very mixed feelings if it came to stand (even though I'd hate to see MS get off the hook scott free).
But it seems to be the American way: Congress, the Senate and the White House seem to be constantly tacking provisions to bills that just should not be there. What do abortion, Medicare and nuclear weapons have in common? To a European, it seems very odd: in parliament, you discuss an issue, propose a law, discuss it again, then vote on it. I do not think there is less horse trading going on in Europe, but it sure makes a cleaner impression.
Maybe an American citizen can comment. I just don't understand where it is coming from.
Bert Driehuis -- All I asked was a friggin' rotatin' chair. Throw me a bone here, people.
First, comparing the retail upgrade version to the OEM full version is a bit misleading. The upgrade version takes into account that you're a repeat MS customer and as such, gives you a price break.
With Windows 98, you can get the retail upgrade for about $80, but the retail full version costs about $150. If you can get the OEM full version of Windows 98 for $100, you are way ahead.
Second, I'd be willing to wager that the big reason that there is not a whole lot of differentiation in price between OEM and retail pricing is supply and demand. There are relatively few mom and pop system builders for people to make money on selling small numbers of OEM Windows licenses to. Anywhere the demand is relatively small, there will likely be an inflated price. If you're price is too high, look for another distributor.
When will we get a ruling on the Microsoft tax on new hardware?
Remember refund day? what ever happened to that effort?
---
Interested in the Colorado Lottery?
Interested in the Colorado Lottery or Powerball games?
check out http://colotto.com
Has anybody given any thought to the impact this ruling might have on the legality on the GPL, at least as interpreted in Germany? The court ruled: "The right of authorship can only be exercised once. Once the product has entered the marketplace, with the author's agreement, he can no longer engage rights of authorship". Isn't that what the GPL is, though? An attempt to compel specific behaviours based on rights of authorship? The legal fuzziness of the GPL as already seen in a slashdot conversation earlier, might only get worse. Linux fragmentation as a result? Who knows.
Maybe there is a god...
and Maybe he/she is GERMAN?!?!
Any David Bowie fan could tell you that God is an American :-)
Will I retire or break 10K?
The dealer is allowed to unbundle them, but unfortunately, it won't boot...
Unless it includes a CD of FreeBSD or Red Hat Linux or some other OS.
Will I retire or break 10K?
You make it sound like Microsoft has desperately wanted people to be able to resell Windows, but if it weren't for this court ruling, Microsoft would have no recourse of its own to allow that. They themselves have been the ones enforcing EULAs with that very prohibition. Did you mispeak, or did I misread?
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
I live in Canada. I am not going to tell you how our dollars doing ;)
Buying a Dell computer is equivalent to dropping the soap in a prison shower.
Das Vindowsdisk ist nicht fur die redistributen und debundilen. Ist easy traschen der harddisken, blowencarten und blauscreenovdeathen. Ist fuer gewerken bei das dumpkopfen. Das rubbernecken sichtseeren keepen das cotten-pickenen disken in das boxen; relaxen und watchen das blinkencursor.
So unbundling is now legal in Germany, what about Microsoft no longer selling anything in Germany?
How is that a bad thing? Computers will come with a BSD or GNU/Linux system installed on the HD. If the Deutsch want their precious Winblowz apps, software developers will contribute to Wine.
what if ... Billy says "Naw, screw it, I'll just close the company instead."
Again, how is that a bad thing?
Will I retire or break 10K?
The key word is "marketplace". Since GPL'd software is made available without cost, I wouldn't think this could be made to apply to GPL'd software. The notion is that by selling something, you give up rights. But by not selling it, presumably you retain them.
Does this means I can finally part with the 200+ OEM copies of Win95 OSR2 and Windows98SE I have sitting in the back room, and do it legally??
Man, does it suck to have to pay for the software and then not be eligible to sell it... Not for resale, my ass..
.sig: Now legally binding!
You are bound to the license agreement even if you dont read it.
Thank you for buying Microserf Winders.
Its even funnier when its true!
-Brook Harty
-=-
Micros~ still wont even let people sell windows on EBAY.
German courts ruled today that computer manufacturers are alllowed to bundle non-Microsoft software with their computers. Speculation abounds about whether or not this applies to other operating systems as well. If so, this has the potential to allow OEMs to bundle computers with Linux or MacOS against Microsoft's wills. Microsoft is expected to file an appeal later today.
satire=false;
Sheesh. It's amazing that the courts have to uphold what should be common sense. Maybe this says something about our legal system?
Friends don't let friends misuse the subjunctive.
Does anyone somehow feel that this is the way Big Monopolies should be dealt with? A clear concise ruling yet far reaching ruling that prevents MS (and fture companies) from attempting to leverage its monopoly is far far better than an expensive anti-trust lawsuit. Germany seems to be getting it right, IMHO.
My machines never stay in one piece forever. Eventually they disgorge their innards into other machines, the HD going into one box, the video/sound into another, the mobo/CPU yet another one. Which of these pieces is the Windows CD supposed to stick with? Where does its loyalty lie?
Personally, I believe in the buy-once-use-on-all-machines-in-the-house approach, and unless the FBI comes tearing down my door, I don't give a shit what others say. That's the beauty of software, that you can do that sort of thing. If you could also do it with hardware--books, TVs, phones--I'd never buy more than one of anything, but alas...
Uwe Wolfgang Radu
They need an installed base to get NGWS off the ground, and they weren't getting it (contrary to US popular opinion, the M$ user-base remains relatively small outside the US).
Well, in the UK MS has just about got the entire market. Since I left IBM I don't think I have seen a PC running a non MS OS. MS also have a huge wedge of the market in Asia, it's just all pir^H^H^H unauthorised.
What effect (if any) will this have on other OS'es in Germany
Do you think that it will encourage Linux\BSD et all? Or are they just going to pirate Win2K.
Yes I can not spell...Wait....for a second there I almost cared.
They need an installed base to get NGWS off the ground, and they weren't getting it (contrary to US popular opinion, the M$ user-base remains relatively small outside the US).
I've seen a post from someone in Germany that states that Microsoft has 98% of the desktop marketshare in Germany. I think I recall the number in France being something like 80%. I'd be highly interested to have a resource which states otherwise.
These types of rulings make me wonder how long it will be until the first war is fought over software/internet policy. Copyright infringements are one thing but when things like this begin to effect the way commerece is regulated throughout the world I think it's only a matter of time before someone goes to far and civil litigation won't be able to offer a solution.
Now, supposing he does decide to board up M$ and move along his merry way. There will be a huge void in the support market, and anyone worthy of being called an entrepeneur would enter that market in a second.
Capitalism solves these problems all the time. Don't think that the world would end if microsoft would go away.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
Selling a computer is one thing, selling an OS is another. However, M$ says that if you buy a PC from, let's say, Dell, and it comes with their (Microsoft's) OS, then you cannot take that license and resell it to someone else - even if you have no intention of using it.
Also, let's say I prefer Corel or Lotus Suites to Office. If it came with my 'bundle' M$ says I can't sell it to a friend. If I buy a 4X4 and I don't like the rims, I can buy new ones and then sell the old ones to someone who likes them. Why can't I do this with software?
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
I imagine that a number of companies offering support and training for MS products would spring up very quickly. Later you'd see the outfits offering bundled platforms with WINE, for those needed to continue to run MS products. And the number of clones of MS applications would take off. All in all a boost to the software industry.
If you're trying to address the question of the .. ethical asspects of hammering MS, I'd say you need to take a close llok at its early history. If I steal your automobile, is it wrong to prevent me from making money by using it as a taxi?
Maybe that is why Microsoft is insisting that companies does not include a seperate Windows CD and just use the "recovery" CD to reinstall the WinBlows Image.
According to the story, the "Windows recovery" CDs probably just unzip a Windows folder straight from the CD and leave the rest of the HD alone.
BTW: I always hated the CDs that don't allow you to install the products without wiping the entire system.
Two words: deltree windows
Will I retire or break 10K?
First off, IANAL so take my words with a couple shovels full of salt
I mean, if Red Hat (or anyone else) sells me a piece of Linux with the source code, can I resell it legally without source code? Is the license valid only the first time something is sold?
If I understand the idea of first sale, it only applies to the media which has physically changed hands. First sale does not invalidate the copyright on the content of the media, but only the further distribution of the actual physical media.
In other words, theoretically, a person could buy a binary only Linux cd, and turn around and resell it without being liable for distribution of the source. However, if that person decides to make copies of the binary only cd and sell them, they can only do so under the fair use clause of the copyright act (which would likely prohibit the selling of the copies) or under the licensing of the GPL.
What you have to understand is that GPL in no way invalidates the idea of first sale, but it does confer priveledges that go far beyond what first sale allows, provided you play by the terms of the contract.
Because fair-use isn't a boundless priviledge to make infinite copies without use restrictions. There are specific uses for which you're allowed to make fair-use copies (such as backup), and infinite installs isn't one of them.
What is far more interesting is the implication for reverse engineering, since absent a liscense or contractual obligation to the contrary, reverse engineering is permitted for all normal products.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
The next time one of your friends travels to Germany send them with your coaster^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Win 98 Cd to sell for you.
It might be worth enough to buy you a coffee
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
Well, at least one country upholds the Right of First Sale.
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
Obviously MS can't enforce bundling any more than they can enforce casual Fridays. Presumably the court decision was they can't enforce bundling even if their contract says they can.
What's the diff? It raises the question: What other stuff in a standard MSContract is illegal? And when do the lawsuits start?
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Someone I know writes device drivers for a living. One Halloween he put together a costume out of free NT installation CD's he had been given that he was never going to use.
:-)
:-) (Actually he probably would have.)
I nearly died laughing when I saw it.
I am not sure that he would have resold them. Something about it being an, "abuse of computer rights"...
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Windoze recovery CDs restore a disk image complete with drivers, apps, and branding. It's not just as simple as you suggest.
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
Microsoft Chips signs deals with every major sandwhich chain in the world. This deal allows the individual sandwhich shops to buy Microsoft Chips at a great discount - but only if they agree to only: (1) sell sandwhiches packaged with Microsoft Chips (2) don't sell Microsoft Chips by themselves (3) don't sell sandwhiches by themselves (i.e. sans chips) (4) Never EVER sell any other brand of chip.
Personally, I'd rather pay a bit more and have a choice!
---
Gort! Klatu Barata Nikto!
WOW Just imagine
My toaster on Win2K....
Knowing Microsofts love of overkill they will use lasers to heat everything.
The toaster "freezes" for no apperant reason casuing my toast to comeout as carbon.
Script Kiddies get a hold of it and now the lasers burn "I love you" in every piece of toast. The rest is uncooked.
You can surf the web from the touch screen on the side of the toaster, but you burn your fingers when you use it.
You would press the done button to start toasting.
you need to reboot the toaster every morning.
There are rumors that the Linux toasters spread Black Death....
Yes I can not spell...Wait....for a second there I almost cared.
http://www.microsoft.com/OEM/nakedPC.htm
At first I thought this was a fake, but I went there anyway. Scary stuff, especially that fact that they completely ignore Linux/BDS/other free software. They just assume that if you buy a "naked PC" you will install a pirated copy of WinBlows.
Does this now imply that this is the case within the entire EU? I suspect so, but could be wrong.
If you buy a truck you own the truck. If you buy Micro$oft Software you own the right to use the software. (Which is squatt)
Because Micros~1 will equal the price of OEM and non-OEM products they have to lower the price of the non-OEM-Product.
Now resellers could sell copies in the US for the price of the OEM-Version, which is for Win2K P 240 here in Germany (~250$). Due to this reimports Microsoft must change the prices in the US. .
btw what does Win2K P non-OEM cost in the US?
This does not affect the GPL *at all*.
The GPL is only in effect if you wish to distribute (make copies of) the software to give to other people. It does not affect you if you are making a copy to install on your system.
This ruling affects the resale of items, not the copying of items. AFAIK, the GPL does not restrict your ability to resell, say, a Redhat CD. It does restrict your ability to, say, make and distribute a knockoff of Redhat *cough*Mandrake*cough*.
Is this post not nifty? Sluggy Freelance. Worshi
nt
Is this post not nifty? Sluggy Freelance. Worshi
This means that OEM's who want to continue selling PC's with Microsoft products will have to start charging more for the PC's.
And this will lead to more expensive PC's for everyone, since OEM's need to offer M$ products in order to be competetive.
Is this any different from a store owner opening up a bag of bite sized candybars and selling them despite the fact that they all have "this item is not packaged for individual retail sale" written on the label?
Amazing magic tricks
I find it interesting to note how a seemingly small article lacking a lot of specifics needed to truly understand this is found to be very newsworthy specifically about MS. I found the article generally uninformative about Microsoft...
However, after having read the article, (unless I misunderstand the article) I think this has more to do with every software vendor selling items in Germany. The whole spiel about how once an item enters the marketplace, the author loses some rights to control the terms of secondary sales. This seems like a very big deal considering how big secondary sales are. This ruling could have a serious effect on sales of software in Germany. Its a ruling that may cause serious reform. If I am a big software company, do I want to sell it to a secondary sales company and lose my rights to protect the terms under which that item is resold? This would definitely worry me as a secondary sales company, while the big companies might begin to shy away from contracts for this sort of product sales. This ruling seems like it would be big for any type of vendor in Germany...and it definitely will be interesting where it will lead to.
Well, one difference is that in the US, labeling laws require nutritional information on any processed food sold. It's probably illegal for that reason to sell the candy individually. I don't think it's a nefarious scheme by the candy company to increase their profit margin.
Yo dawg, I heard you like the Ackermann function, so OH GOD OH GOD OH GOD