Slashdot Mirror
MS Wants To Know Whose PC Is Windows-Free
AJGriff writes: "This article over at Aaxnet details an e-mail sent from Microsoft to computer system builders in an effort to bribe them in to handing over the customers that bought OS-less pcs from them. The more users they turn over the better, too. The prize for fingering one of your customers who was irresponsible enough to buy an OS-less pc, or more accurately a Microsoft OS-less pc: 5 Microsoft Games, a Fossil watch, and a grill and lawn chair combo." This sounds like an extension of the policy of harrassing the makers of "naked PCs" touched on a few months ago, except with some bland prizes. (It's as if Microsoft believes that all computers need to run Windows ...)
The linux lovers will ignore that fact and just keep bashing MS.
I'm all for bashing microsoft, but can we atleast get our facts straight first?
better than the 99.8% lnux is off its high...
read your EULA. MS reserves the right to knock on your door and say "Show us your CoAs" at any time. If you don't like it, you can go use that shitty linux stuff.
"Hello?"
"Microsoft?!"
"Why did I order 800 PCs without Windows?"
"Our lab is building a computing cluster. Something your OS can't do no-way no-how."
Can you imagine a 4000 node beowulf cluster of naked PCs RAMMED UP BILL GATES' ASS?!!!
SBWest@microsoft.com
That's where OEMs are supposed to turn in unwitting consumers. Let's just subscribe that email address to every porn and spam list we can find.
I'll have to send an e-mail to SBWest@microsoft.com to let him know I'm running hardware w/o MS. I'll be waiting to the MS Police^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Small Business Alliance to knock on my door and check my licensing. Is it ok to run Linux on a processor?
I'd put it right in the middle. At least as stable as Windows 95/98. Can be rock solid if you have a bare bones install and plenty of RAM.
GPL and BSD are licenses for redistribution, not usage licenses.
Given Judge Jackson's findings, I find it hard to consider any Microsoft product as "legal". MS still should be broken up. Moto Man
No, and we don't need one either. In my opinion, laws that say a person can't talk about something are a bad idea.
Or I could be upgrading 1000 486 WinNT 4 boxes to..... 1000 AMD 1.5GHz, more memory than a desktop will ever need Win NT 4 boxes... Some compainys DONT NEED WinXP ot 2K or Me, 9x &/or NT are fine, and some IT mangers know this!
It used to be impossible to get a major OEM vendor to ship you a PC without an operating system installed. That meant that if you bought from one of the major vendors, you had to pay the microsoft operating system that came with the machine, even if you had no plans to use it.
Things have progressed since then (thanks, DOJ), and now it's not nearly so difficult to buy a PC without Windoze installed. So now Microsoft is claiming that some customers might misunderstand their site licenses and believe that they can legally buy stripped boxes and install a Microsoft OS themselves. Microsoft is justifiably concerned about this. Alternatively, this is Microsoft's ingenious ploy to harrass people who aren't using Microsoft operating systems on each and every PC by threatening them with costly and time-consuming audits. Pick the former or latter depending on the needs of your personal paranoia index.
"Come and see the violence inherent in the system!"
Here I was giving an honest opinion, granted slightly inflammatory, and I get rubberstamped as flamebait. That's why there are so many trolls around here, the busted-ass moderation system turns honest posters to the dark side.
The only excuse for this is that the moderators themselves are the trolls and are trying to sow discontent in order to swell their ranks.
since this'll get modded down (from score:0, mind you) as flamebait, no matter what the hell I try to contribute to the discussion --
GOATSE!
The buisness you bought from should have a privacy policy that should cover this. If it is a good policy then they are not allowed to give out any of your information unless they ask first.
I would think that if a company purchased like lets say 2000 no os PCs and then to hear that the manufacturer gave the companies information to Microsoft without permission, there would be a lawsuit.
say my company has just scrapped 200 p90's with legal win 98's on them. Our policy is to either remove or format the drive and sell to a buyer. we still have 500 legal win98 lic's right.?
You are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty, unless you signed a contract with Microsoft
/. articles -- no MIS manager for 2 years, no procedures, paper standard was WordPerfect Office and real standard was MS Office, people using personal software, etc, etc). Your propaganda case would be better if you could find a MS victim that actually was in compliance.
You make a valid and important point, but VA Beach is horrible example. It's pretty damn clear that they were out of compliance. (Read the
I bought all five servers I use for my Internet presence USED! And they're all SPARCs!! And NONE of them came with an OS!!!
;-)
Rescue me from the Eeevyls of NetBSD, Unca Bill!! It's actually STABLE and USABLE, and stays up more than a week without a reboot!!! (We can't have that, now, can we?)
(NOT!!)
I still don't know what incentive a company has of turning another in. A fossil watch, a barbeque, and games (at a business?) provide no good reason for a company to ruin good relations with a customer. 500 pcs is at least $400,000 in revenue. Any company willing to jeopardize that kind of income for a paltry couple hundred dollars, deserves to go out of business. If they report, they will. If the companies that buy from you get screwed over for thousands of dollars, you will bite it a lot harder in the future. "Treaties are like pie crusts. They are meant to be broken."-Lenin
To me the real question is whether the Linux "community" will be smart enough to exploit MS's idiocy.
Buy a computer with a Pentium 4 or a 1.3GHz+ Athlon and you won't need a grill.
The factor that you're missing is that this is exactly the kind of thing that their monopoly position lets them get away with. You don't have to entice your customers to buy licenses if there's no practical alternative to buying Windows, which (despite the comments of the Linuxites on /.) remains the case in many, many business settings. I'm sure that MS has considered the idea of enticing people to legally license their copies of Windows but has mostly given it up as implausible.
After all, what actual value is proper licensing likely to provide that won't cost MS an essentially equal ammount to provide? An unlicensed copy of Windows is, with the exception of support from MS, a perfect substitute for a licensed copy. That's why using unlicensed copies is so prevalent in the first place. The only cost effective way that MS can make the licensed copy genuinely more valuable is by bringing their legal resources to bear against unlicensed users- effectively decreasing the value of the unlicensed copy rather than increasing the value of the licensed copy.
It states in the letter that they are looking for volume purchases where it is stated by the purchaser that the reason an OS is not needed is because of *existing* MS volume licences. It makes no mention of reporting purchases where the stated intent is to install alternate operating systems. I agree that the intro to this story is FUD. It's a shame it got marked as troll so quickly and I think Slashdot should take corrective action or at least re-word the original story.
After reading this, if I was a purchasing manager for am IT department, I would include an ironclad non-disclosur agreement with the bid for harware. This agreement would basically state that if any member of the resellers company leaked any information regarding the purchase to a third party, then I could hold them liable for damages. That way any monetary damages incurred from a MS audit could be taken out of the vendors hide.
A few years ago a sales organization I was a part of participated in a MS compliance blitz. The results:
12 Customers turned in
$ 0 in sales for my company (we were promised that we would get to sell the "upgrades" and "required" purchases.
6 lost customers and several of our contacts were fired.
All of this with the assurance from the MS brute squad that things would be handled with kid gloves, and assurances that there would be no legal threats...
Obviously you are planning to pirate music CDs and must be anonymously turned into the RIAA police.
Many companies abuse the volume licensing program, and Microsoft has every right to check up on its licensies.
You used to be able to buy an OS-less PC, and put a copy of Windows on in through volume licensing, but due to abuse, Microsoft only allows upgrades now. You have to get your OS retail or from you PC vendor.
Bottom line if you want your OS for free, get Linux instead of ripping off Microsoft. So if Microsoft going after thieves makes them switch to Linux, who am I to argue.
Run a small, MS-free business. I'm sure there are some people reading this who are already doing that. Have a friend report you. You know, the guy who cuts you a good deal on re-conditioned hardware. When MS come knocking, scream loudly to the world about harassment. Send them an immediate bill for the time you spent talking to them. And refuse to let them in. And any time you talk about it to anyone, mention the software you actually use and the performance you get.
I think Microsoft is right, you shouldn't buy a "naked pc" or for hevens sake a pc with linux already intstalled. Have you seen the Linux logos out there these days? Most of them feature an unclothed penguin mascot, and that's just wrong.
With MSFT down 50% from it's all time high and the company's growth levelling off, it should surprise no one that Microsoft's blood-lust for license-money is getting more and more desperate. Their hunger was kept at bay by massive revenues, but now that those are not as large as they once was, they are starting to really squeeze the PC buying public.
As noted by several people, clearly the intent is to turn in those companies bidding on machines who have existing (?site?) licenses with Microsoft. However, this has several significent legal and ethical problems even within that context.
There are THREE classes of companies that would do this; 1) those companies upgrading machines whole and believing they should be able to reuse their existing licenses on new machines rather than paying for windows twice! 2) those certainly that do just pirate windows onto additional desktops (very rare in the US anyway), and 3) those REDUCING their dependence on MS software by purchasing machines for use with free operating systems.
In that this could be used to get a list to threaten or intimidate companies in category 3, who are trying to reduce their use of MS software, and has significent anti-trust implications. Category 1 is simply shameless exploitation, but nothing new, as other articles have plenty of info on how Microsoft has been forcing companies to re-purchase windows multiple times for the same users thru various licensing changes, and represent either a healthy lesson in monopoly 101; the economics of why monopolies are bad and hurt their customers, or the last breath of a company desperate to make next quarter revenues.
Since they are encouraging people to turn in companies and organizations engaged in competitive bids, this could provide another significent set of potential civil "liabilities" for Microsoft, starting with restraint of trade and/or tortious interference in a contract depending on if one considers the supplier or purchaser.
Whats to say they can't have a mixed environment of both Linux and Windows machines? Sounds to me that M$ will be more worried about pilot programs using Linux instead of Windows in a company or the company jumping ship on M$ altogether. If I'm a company who is buying 500 "naked" PC's, M$ site license or not, it is NONE OF THEIR GOD DAMN BUISINESS that I bought the PC's without an OS. The seller has absolutely no right (well they shouldn't if they actually do) to go handing off my private information to Microsoft. Now if there is real evidence that I am using unlicensed versions, I can see them pushing for a license audit, but I feel they need more than just that fact that I purchased it to do that. If I go out and buy a hunting rifle, does that mean that the gun shop should give my info to anti-gun protestors so they can raid my house and dig into my background to see if might be connected with some unsolved murder? No it does not, this kind of thing should be illegal and if it is not, then we the people need to stand up to this lest we lose even more rights to the corporate pigs who seem to be running this country.
To: SBWest@microsoft.com
Subject: google.com RFP
I have been informed that google.com in Mountain View, CA. has purchased over 8,000 PCs without Microsoft OEM OS on them. They claim they're running something called Leenux and this entitles them to OS-less PCs. They must be installing Microsoft Windows on them, because we all know PC's won't even boot up unless you have Microsoft Windows.
Can you ship my eight Grills and Travel chairs to my P.O. box?
Thanks.
Just last week, the small startup company where I work was invaded by Microsoft lawyers who wanted to see proof of every piece of MS software we had. They called the invasion a euphemistic "Microsoft census". It wasn't a search warrant invasion; but since our IT is enslaved to Microsoft, they felt that they must obey.
Since we buy all of our MS software preloaded on machines, we really had nothing to fear. But why would they invade us so suddenly? The answer is connected to this article.
A few weeks before the invasion, we bought 100 rackmount PCs from Dell without any software preloaded. We needed them for development of our own proprietary operating system. This article just confirms what I already suspected, Microsoft probably found out that Dell sold 100 PC's with no MS preloaded to a startup company (which frequently like to conserve cash, and are easy to bully). Of course, MS found no wrongdoing. They just assumed we must be pirating.
I hope Microsoft's hubris comes back to bite them hard.
IE is free for use on Solaris, HP/UX and AIX...
Hetz (Heunique)
BSA
DCMonkey
While we're on the subject of misleading semantics, please don't use the word "win" to refer to Microsoft's products. If you feel compelled to use shorthand for "windows" use "w" or "lose." Do not associate the idea of victory with Microsoft's product. Do it often enough and you and those who read your posts will subconsciously hear Microsoft and think "it's a win!" It sounds silly, but it's true. Words have meaning; connotation is important. Say what you mean and nobody will be confused.
From a Microsoft perspective, every PC nees Windows on it in order to function - thus, any machine sold without Windows must be running an "illegal" copy. The fact that it may not be running Windows at all simply isn't an option.
If they get the names of these horrible people, they can track them down, and get "their" money.
Hardly suprising behaviour from the company that insists they licence their OS to a single physical computer - not even a single running instance of Windows. From their point of view, if you finally trashed your old 486, then you trashed your Windows licence with it, and need to buy a new licence for your new machine - even if your "new" machine is just your "old" machine with a new motherboard, processor, and ATX case.
Sorry Billy me boyo, my "naked PC" runs Linux, and has since 1997.
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
Bullocks!
Win 3.1 was remarably unstable and so was Win 95.
However instead of only trashing the work you didn't save while running Win 3.1, Win95 might actually have trashed your registry at the same time.
It wasn't necessarily a good bargain.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
First there was just some propaganda.
Now they want VAR employees to snitch on "big offenders".
How long before the request the same for "small offenders"?
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Excuse me, but doesn't a SITE LICENCE mean that they have ALREADY PAID for the dubious priveledge of running Windows?
You're doing nothing more than defending a Robber Baron's efforts to intimidate people into buying the same thing twice.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
My favorite part of that article is "We always thought 'compliant' had decidedly negative connotations, as in: 'a spineless, compliant little boot-licker'. Leave it to Microsoft to sell submissiveness as a virtue."
Ah, the Register-- blunt, punny language + BOFH. What more could you ask?
Absolutely right! Why isn't there such a thing as a license exchange? Where people donate their old win 95 and 98, 98se licenses to charity groups and schools. I went to my library with old pIIs but they didn't want the licensing headaches. They turned the computers down! I couldn't believe it! A library turning down free computers!
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
Although Microsoft may not be targetting individual users, perhaps that's something they might consider. For all those prizes, I may be willing to run a Microsoft OS on at least one of my PCs. I'd be more than happy to be paid to run an MS OS. In fact, with all the time I've lost dealing with their OSen and all the problems associated with them, I think they *should* be paying me to run their OS! ;)
If they started doing this, they'd beat free software hands down (in terms of price, anyway.) Not only could you freely obtain MS software, but MS would be paying you to do so!
-kidlinux.
The Data Protection Act would not apply here.
The DPA applies only to personal data held about you, for instance your employee records or purchases made privately on your own credit card.
It doesn't apply to data held about companies or actions taken by employees as part of their work for a company, for instance bulk purchasing PCs for the company offices.
In short the DPA rules when you're using your home address and sucks when you're using your work address.
But since the Microsoft article seems to only be interested in companies breaching site licencing, rather than the odd bedroom warez CD, I don't think anyone really gives a toss.
--
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com
There's been a fair amount of press lately about Microsoft cracking down on licensing. They go after big targets (like towns, universities, large businesses), so I doubt this is an effort to finger *nix users.
What it does suggest is that things are getting ugly at Uncle Bill's farm. Microsoft has always preferred to litigate rather than innovate. In the early days of Windows, Microsoft benefitted from OS piracy. People wanted the OS to run applications, therefore the OS had value. Now, the PC market is nearly saturated and Microsoft has to squeeze organizations to show profits to their shareholders.
If Microsoft were a star, they'd been in the red giant phase right now. Red giants expand by atomically fusing heavier elements together, having run out of the lighter fuel (hydrogren). Fusion with these heavier elements requires a lot more engery. To anthropomorphize this process, it's like a drowning man desperating treading water while wearing lead boots. This phase doesn't last long (in celestial terms).
This is a sign of things to come for Microsoft.
From the article:
;P
By submitting bids that request PC systems without an Operating System due to a Microsoft site license, you can earn points and win!
(emphasis mine)
It's not "PCs sold without an OS", it's "*new* PCs sold to companies that possess (or claim to possess) a site license, which request that the seller not include an OS on the PCs" - Basically MS is trying to track down companies that are claiming they have a site license (in order to get a discount per unit on new PCs they order), but in fact are just using one copy of Windows that gets "passed around".
Still, it's kind of dirty pool, in a "guilty until proven innocent" way. MS calls up your IT department, and tells them they're suspected of piracy, and need to PROOVE they're innocent.
It should be up to MS to prove them guilty, not the other way around. Although I'm not entirely sure HOW that could be accomplished without covert ops...
Don't wig out.
All Microsoft is doing is offering "valuable" incentives for people to provide some basic information: who out there is buying non-Windows PCs?
This information, not-too-scientifically-obtained, will then go into some kind of statistical survey: "We offered valuable incentives to anyone who would could find somebody who doesn't have Windows on their PCs. And guess what? The statistics that came back show less than 1% of PC owners not using Windows. See? You WANT us to rule the world. Shut up and buy."
And IT analysts will say, "Oh." And Slashdot will cry, "Outrage!" and try to disprove their statistics. And we'll all see this same story come back yet again, just with a different spin.
Don't worry about it too much.
--
Breakfast served all day!
... simply require that all terms of bids be sealed behind NDAs. It's a buyer's market in IT now, and I doubt a biz manager is going to jeopardize their channel for a fossil watch..
Your Working Boy,
- Otis (GAIM: OtisWild)
How about if you are a company that runs both Redmond crap and Linux? If MS knows you've bought naked PCs they could sic the software police on you and cost you money.
"I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may laugh at my expense - I deserve it." Be's Jean-Louis Gass
Mandrake Software - MS
MS-Linux - oh no!
I wonder how hard it would be to word the RFQ such that an OEM would be legally prohibited from sharing this information. It seems like defense contractors must have already developed something like this.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
RedHat, Caldera, or someone should capitalize on this by offering a giant penguin made of Lego to the company that can demonstrate the most PCs running with non-Microsoft OSses.
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
as a M$ select customer the above post is TRUE, no need for 2 lic. anymore....
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Somebody just posted to Slashdot with the correct usage of "cite" and "site" in the same post?!? What's this world coming to?
Any organization who does this. Has no sense because they will not keep any of thier customers. The customer will find out very quickly who was the rat. Let me think a customer or a microsoft game hmmm tough to decide.
Only if your going to do it from a free email account. Hotmail comes to mind. I'd bet anyone emailing this address gets put on the "needs to be checked out" list.
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
Go to the "business software alliance"'s home page and start reading. I bet it won't take that long and you should feel properly concerned.
From what I see M$ treats the computer world as communist and they are the rullers. All are guilty unless they prove themselves otherwise or give M$ lots of money. And no M$ is not the only company in the BSA, but they use it as a goon squad.
Its a shame that in america that a company can use the system to reverse the constitution from "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty
because there is no innocent".
So lets say there is a linux/bsd shop that has 500 servers and 1000 workstations. The M$ goon squad shows up with a warrant since they buy "naked" pc's. Now they have to go through all the crap of someone searching all their machines since their automated system shows nothing they check each machine by hand. Overall this cost a company that has no M$ software lots of money. And the only way to get it back is to sue M$.
Something has to be very wrong with this.
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
A "Fast Cook & Grill Combo and Travel Chair"?
Sounds to me like they are giving you survival tools for when your customers you screwed over come looking for you.
I'd think they would add a few maps and a book on wilderness survival.
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
I don't think there's any doubt that MS is the victim of a lot of piracy. I can understand that they would want to try to climb on top of the problem, but it seems like a lot of the stuff they do -- recovery cds vs. full versions of the OS on cd, and things like harassing pc manufacturers who don't install Windows -- puts unfair burdens on their own customers and even on people who don't use their products.
People have been screaming about the new MS license servers. But if they work, won't it be a good thing for Linux users? If they can actually control piracy, what happens to their argument in situations like this? And how will they justify giving people crippled recovery CDs?
Commerical software piracy is bad for free software because it tends to blur the difference between the free stuff and the commercial stuff. MS Office is better than Star Office. If a guy can borrow the CDs from work, he's going to use MS Office. But if he has to pay $400 to run it, he's probably going to run Star instead.
So I think we should support reasonable and well targeted efforts on the part of MS to elminate piracy. Harassing naked PC people isn't reasonable and it isn't well targeted. But the license severs are both of those things.
A Mac running 9.1 can be more stable than NT if it's set up right (which takes a lot less than an NT box) and winds up being almost virus free and more secure in the bargain.
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
Who said common sense had anything to do with "modern" software companies?
Of COURSE the terms are out to get you - MS isn't a multi-billion dollar company by mistake. I'm not saying it's RIGHT, just that's how it is.
Believe what you like. Speaking for myself, I'm posting this using Opera on a Mandrake box. I work somewhere that is not Microsoft. Just because somebody is not critical of Microsoft, or corrects somebody who is obviously wrong in their interpretation of something, does not mean the comments are pro-MS.
it is your imagination.
This article does not IMPLY anything, it says it STRAIGHT OUT, and I quote:
Therefore, we strongly advise that each new PC that will be running a Microsoft Operating System be pre- installed with an OEM version of the Operating System.
Why?
Because they don't do volume site licensing on OEM OSes any more. In other words, if you know your customer intends to install a MS OS, best to make sure they purchase an OEM licence, because there's no other legal way to do it unless they buy a retail version - and that would cost more.
Yeah, they're checking for mass piraters - but they're also doing people who don't know their site licensing terms & conditions a favour.
Why don't y'all try *reading* the articles first? All the way through. Read them for content.
Oops, too much work, easier to just assume that MS is out to get you and set flame mode on.
As usual, The Reg has some intelligent coverage of this issue.
If you READ MICROSOFT'S EMAIL!!! you'll note the following tidbit:
You can't get a site license that covers new hardware.
but let's give them the benefit of the doubt
That's one of their chief weapons - create a lot of doubt (as well as fear and uncertainty) and then collect all the benefits,
and then some extra for good measure.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
In the US, we have it in our founding Constitution that there is a privacy trust between citizens and the government.
If the computer company didn't have a written policy, known to the customer at the time of sale, stating that they would keep their information private, it's probably legal (although not good for the computer company's image) to turn over the info MS is requesting.
There are other acts that apply to things like the apartments I live in. The housing office can pretty much only confirm that I live here and nothing more without my consent. That's because it affects my livlihood and it's my homestead. Buying a computer is an extracurricular activity.
The constitution might not come out and specify what the privacy rights are, but it does very clearly say that the judicial branch will interpret the document. The Supreme Court has ruled enough times on privacy rights to make an interpretation on privacy rights.
A good pattern that I've seen is that you've got privacy when something affects your livlihood except when it puts undo duress or causes danger for the nation or the livlihood of others.
I wanna change the constitution!
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Nevertheless, it's certainly legal to put it in the contract with the company that the company may not disclose the information, so that if they turn you in for a few beads and baubles, they either lose the sale or they are liable for the costs. ;)
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
OK, They get a tip from the BSA, but so what? I have NO agreement with them, so I say "No, you can't come in, pound sand, I have no business with you"
Sure, you can say "go away" but, depending on the size of the "penalties" they can recover from you, they will keep pestering you until you "prove" you're in the clear.
There is no "innocent until proven guilty" with them.
Jay (=
Let's say I have a shop with NO Microsoft software, and that has NEVER had any Microsoft software. Can they audit me, and , if they can, what gives them the right?
An anonymous tip to the BSA.
Jay (=
500 machines?
Look out Google and Yahoo (Linux and FreeBSD respectively), Billy's going to be sending you a "Come back into the fold" letter :)
Trolling is a art,
So the rumors are true then? The Windows in "Windows ME" is a verb? :-)
---
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Just DoS it - everyone in a purchasing position should take a few minutes today and ask Dell, Gateway, etc for a quote on 500 machines without any preinstalled OS. Its *another* crackable M$ 'security' scheme - stop whining and go give it the abuse it richly deserves.
I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
Turn me in! I'll take the watch, you can have the games!
Thank you for not thinking.
It's very simple. All they asked for is PCs purchased without any OS. I ordered my PC pre-loaded with Red Hat. Any company that does likewise need not be reported to Microsoft.
So you say you got a real solution? Well, you know, we'd all love to see the plan.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Not to mention the time it takes to track down all the fish sticks in the communal freezer of a medium-to-large-sized business. Hey, when was the last time anybody cleaned this thing out?
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Sounds like some strange meaning of "site license" that doesn't match up with the common-sense definition of "licenses all machines at your site". Although you are correct in your explanation of the story, it still sounds like the licensing terms are out to get you.
This from a company whose CEO couldn't define "concerned", IIRC, so perhaps I shouldn't be too surprised.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Hey, if that's what it takes to encourage thoughtful and informative posts in this forum, then I'm all for it :)
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Businesses do this all the time. If you pay by a method other than cash, companies will buy the customer lists from stores. Buy a case of Ms. Pauls's fishsticks, pay with a credit card. Now you're in the database. Gorton's Fish Products buys the customer list from the grocery store and sees that you bought a competitor's product. Now you suddenly receive a coupon in the mail for a discount on Gorton's brand of fishsticks. Of course, I expect everyone will go nuts because 1) they've never heard of this before, and 2) this is Microsoft, but hey, let's not embarrass ourselves, people.
Cheers,
As much as I hate BillCo I must defend them here. If I want to buy n PC's without OS cite'ing a MS site license for OS, then it IS their business. However if you are buying those PC's just naked it is absolutely none of their business. In fact, if Microshaft comes after you then you could probably sue the vendor.
If we are blasting at FUD, at least we should not have it from our own ranks.
I will give a 4 inch plush penguin to any Microsoft employee who will send me the the source code to Windows. Of course that's copyrighted confidential company information but so are the RFQs Microsoft is requesting (the RFQ documents are copyright whoever submitted them).
Is it a crime to make this sort of offer?
Microsoft apparently thinks not.
The problem with that is that MS licenses are generally not transferable from one PC to another, regardless of whether you have OEM or retail licenses. The license is tied to the specific machine.
Not the old licenses.
That's why I keep our old NT 4.0 licenses.
No, the example given stated that the vendor is requested to load the site license disk image onto the machines in many cases. This would be several things: 1) Violation by the company 2) Assisted violation by the vendor 3) A good reason for it to be on the RFQ
www.atacomm.com - The Leader in VoIP Product Distributi
Oh yes, very perfect.........so then when my grandmother buys a new PC, she turns it on to see "No Boot Partition Found".....
How user friendly, you idiot.
In seriousness, computers from stores or major manufacturers should come with an OS. You should just have an option; however I'd say that from the store the options would be very limited due to the fact they are either stock piled or would require a tech to install an OS for many of the users, and that would be a huge waste of money.
www.atacomm.com - The Leader in VoIP Product Distributi
"It's here, but no one wants it." - The Sugar Speaker
Oh wait. I have a new PC. At which point was my Windows license no longer valid?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
A good example of this is older versions of Purify that offer you a "free mug" if you fill in a questionare... Naturally the number of users didn't tie in with the number of licences when some idiot did this at my work...
We have the Data Protection Act in the UK, which requires companies to have your permission before they pass on any data at all about you to third parties (including other branches of the same company). It seemed rather draconian, until I read this, and suddenly began to understand :-)
Does this hold true for ME/2k? Or are retail versions of these OS's nontransferrable?
baka.
-- My Sig is a P228.
This is not "an extension of the policy of harrassing the makers of 'naked PCs'"
There's an easy solution to this. My father's a programmer at Boeing, and he needs to run on both Windows and Linux. The solution? They gave him two boxes. One runs Windows. The other runs Linux.
What I wonder is if there is a way to get around it. Most consumer PC manufacturers have custom installs with all sorts of strange stuff on them such as "tech support tools" and whatnot (Toshiba and Compaq spring to mind).
Since they (Toshiba et al) can sell machines with customized Windows installs as OEM copies (and thus pay a lower rate for each license), I imagine that an OEM copy needn't be "stock" Windows.
What, then, is to stop a company from working with a small distributor and dictating the configuration of the "OEM install" such that it mirrors the company's default install. That way there is no need to deinstall the OEM copy and then install the custom config (after paying for 2nd copy of Windows). I'd imagine any small shop would love the extra business (there may be a small "service fee" involved but it would be nowhere near the cost of new licenses) and the company would save money. Essentially, the "OEM Copy" is your custom install, with the cost savings of the OEM license.
-- "I am disrespectful to dirt. Can you not see that I am serious!"
wow, a fake press release. how funny and original. you are trully a funny man.
Joseph?
Move along, nothing to see...
I have a friend who, about a year ago, came up with this interesting scheme to get free stuff from Microsoft. He would call up their returns and exchanges number, and claim "I bought [some product] at Best Buy and it doesn't work. They said to call you." The guy on the other end would then send my buddy a brand new whatever it was (always to some proxy address) and asked my friend to please send the receipt ASAP. Of course, he never did, and the bare-bones version of the product always arrived in a timely fashion.
Over the course of a few months, I think he got every piece of Microsoft-manufactured hardware that existed and was being sold in stores. Several of those top of the line Intellimouse Optical things, as well - Christmas gifts for a bunch of people (not me, of course). The scam ended when my buddy asked for some programmable remote control that was advertised on Microsoft's site.
"Yes, I bought this remote at Circuit City and it doesn't work."
"Sir, that remote isn't being sold in stores."
Needless to say, he stopped that practice relatively quickly. I bet the scheme still works, though.
Cheers,
levine
Then what they should do is send an informative letter to dealers explaining the site licenses, so that those dealers can better advise customers.
The reason there are so many articles about Microsoft's scummy practices is that Microsoft really IS that scummy.
They know that an audit can kill most companies if they press the issues. Installing the same copy of Windows on each new for testing - then wiping the HD is *perfectly legal*. However Microsoft will claim otherwise based on their EULA and tie you up in court until the end of time.
They're thieves, trying to force people to buy a product they're not using. They realized that they can't keep selling enough OSes to sustain their growth - by supply and demand means - so they're trying to force people to buy unused copies.
Just because MS says it's one way doesn't make it so. They wrote up a little EULA, which you're free to ignore (unless you live in a state which passed the UCITA) because it's not a valid contract.
You may sign away your rights, but if you simple buy 500 licenses for software, those can be transfered as much as you wish. Follow general copyright law, that's all. Microsoft wishes otherwise, and has bought a law (UCITA) which will say otherwise, but until then...
All the CEOs I have talked to understand this. They are usually well schooled and they understand the basis of contract law. They are perfectly aware that the *only* reason MS can make us jump through hoops is that MS can afford more lawyers than we have employees.
No, an EULA isn't binding just because MS says so. But if enough people act like it, and obey it, it makes it harder for everyone else to fight. Microsoft can afford to keep a few companies tied up in court until they fold.
However, if people weren't gutless (like you seem to be) there'd be enough companies fighting this crap that MS couldn't afford that many legal battles.
The "Select" agreement may be signed, but there are MS site licenses which are not. In those, copyright law applies unless a valid contract would say otherwise. Valid contracts don't often hide in boxes, or hold software hostage until you click through.
Actually, you're wrong. If you buy a PC and Windows, then scrap the PC, you can install Windows on a new PC.
Point to the copyright law that says otherwise.
Microsoft's EULA isn't a valid contract and isn't binding. Ignore it.
You didn't even read the quote you included in your article:
..."
"...each new PC that will be running a Microsoft Operating System be pre-installed with an OEM version
They're targeting companies that buy a few hundred PCs for their WINTel shop, and say they don't want to buy windows, because they can handle getting Windows themselves.
They don't care about your single PC, and they don't care about a Linux shop. But if a customer says, "yes, I plan to run windows on these" and then doesn't buy Windows, MS wants to know.
So, yes, that's sleazy and underhanded. But it isn't what you're saying it is.
Not representing or approved by my company or anybody else.
Practices like this establish an antagonistic relationship between Microsoft and its customers. While I of course recognize that MS has the legal and ethical right to take whatever actions necessary to enforce compliance with any and all license agreements that it creates, this seems really, really stupid.
Sure, they need to combat piracy. Companies and individuals steal copies of Windows every day. I have, I'm sure many people have as well. While I think that MS charges too much for too little, they certainly have the right to do so. But again, this is a dumb way to combat piracy.
The solution is to entice people to pay for copies of Windows. Right now, there are no incentives (besides avoiding fees and fines if MS finds you) for being compliant. Thus, people pirate their copies. Simple actions like license amnesty days will not solve the problem. And now, by setting customers in opposition to MS, they have made it worse. If MS instead tried to figure out a way to make customers want to pay for licenses instead of simply ordering them to do so, they would be far more successful.
In psychology, business, and life, you catch more bees with honey than with vinegar.
Does anyone know what happened about that clause in MS's license agreement that stated if you blew away the OEM install, you had to buy another license? If that still stands, then MS is trying to get large companies to buy their OS twice, once to get their own install on, and once to avoid the MS Police pounding on the door, disrupting their entire IT operation for days/weeks/months and charging the company with whatever systems are illegal due to; negligence, user "upgrades", administrative error, or whatever.
That said, it's not just MS that does this, every member of FAST, BSA, whatever is responsible for just these sort of actions. Last company I worked for had a visit from these cowboys. The representative, who came round with a promise to help us check we were compliant, and a veiled threat of a raid if we didn't, turned out to be a salesman. He was essentially selling a "we won't break your door down" pack, and made it clear that failure to comply would be detrimental. Luckily we were bought out before they could do anything, so we just pointed them at head office. The really annoying part is we walked into the meeting with the results of our latest audit (2 weeks old) that showed we were compliant, but they didn't care.
Stealing a rhinoceros should not be attempted lightly.
How about m$ makes a "surprise audit" on your premises, shutting you down for a full 2 weeks while the BSA investigates your computers (and trade secrets, too)?
Not buying m$ software in a world of m$-only software is probable cause. Unfortunately.
A cunning way to hurt M$ would then be to buy PCs with a m$ OS on them (or not, if you're a school, university or some such and can afford for a certain number of PCs to be unavailable for a couple of weeks) and install GNU/Linux on top of the evil m$ operating system. Then the users will grow accustomed to Linux. Which is probably what M$ fears most.
define "machine".
Since "machine" is a rather silly notion, I can't understand how the concept of site licenses not being tranferrable to different machines is even relevant.
Its like "race". Define race - what is the legal basis of race (other than Native American). There is none. I am as black as James Brown on paper and as white as his toothpaste IRL.
guns kill people like spoons make Rosie O'Donnell fat.
How about running XP in VMWare, would it work?
>>You can't get a site license that covers new hardware.
Not much of a site license then.
i *almost* didn't catch the sarcasm here... ;)
to fall for this?
***At your request a letter can be sent to the issuing Company clarifying Microsoft licensing policies.
...and pissing off the potential customer so bad that you are guaranteed NOT receive the contract.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
They want to be able to prove in the future that they are not a monopoly! They can do this easily if they can generate a list of (successful) companies that are not using the microsoft OS.
The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
It's things like this that makes me wish I could moderate up and down main stories instead of just the comments on them. Someone should make a site like that.....
You forgot to engage in the requisite Mindless Link Propogation.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
a reseller who's willing to tick off the kind of customer who buys 1K PCs at a pop, in exchange for what amounts to a chance to win a free lottery ticket?
Pushing boxes is such a hardscrabble existence. The slightest chance that you could get blacklisted by a free spending customer is a much higher cost than the possibility you might be eligble to win fabulous prizes.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
nice english there, you Microsoft lackey.
...dave
Think different? I'd be happy if most people would just think...
Not to mention IE, Office, et al on MacOS.
-- iCEBaLM
OK, They get a tip from the BSA, but so what? I have NO agreement with them, so I say "No, you can't come in, pound sand, I have no business with you"
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
Having known a company that got audited, it's a bitch, but here's my question
Let's say I have a shop with NO Microsoft software, and that has NEVER had any Microsoft software. Can they audit me, and , if they can, what gives them the right?
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
In general, selling your info to 3rd parties is a legal and common practice here in the good ol' US of A. In all but a few protected areas (i.e. medical records) there is nothing to stop companies from selling off your info to the highest bidder (well, aside from ethics, morals or common sense). In fact, our "representatives" are working with upstanding members of the "consumer data marketing industry" to remove or weaken any laws that might inhibit growth in this important sector of our economy. Honestly, did you expect any different from the humble public servants that crafted the DMCA and the UCITAs?
- bridgette
And early American colonists weren't forced to live in the American colonies either. What's your point?
They appear to be doing so by exploiting their existing business relationships with distributors to allow them to intimidate people who are not necessarily their customers.
If I put out an RFQ to hardware distributors, there is no reason whatsoever for Microsoft to get involved. Their difficulties with educating site licensees about their licenses are exactly that - their problem. This is an issue that they need to address by talking to their site licensees (who they already know).
Now, in many instances, the threat of an audit or a review of license terms can be sufficiently costly as to force the installation of Windows on PCs. When faced with a nasty letter, it is often easier to go along than to fight.
That said, it is questionable how many distributors will participate in this. This kind of breach of confidentiality is precisely the sort of thing that can sour a potential business deal (and that's what this is - they are going after RFQ's, not PO's). Any employee of a distributor who participates in this program deserves to be fired for a breach of the customer's trust.
As far as antitrust goes... This and the old naked PC story come awful close to illegal product tying, even if the tie is not completely enforced...
You shouldn't at this point, which is why Microsoft is moving to get that nasty little UCITA law passed...
My apologies if this sounds brisk, but your viewpoint on this matter as expressed in that last sentence is inherently wrong. Just because I purchased 1000 machines *without* a copy of Windows doesn't mean that I'm a) going to install a pirated copy of Windows, b) mean that I'm more likely to resell them to users down the pipe with a pirated copy of Windows, or c) mean that I'm not planning on putting legal copies of Windows on those 1000 machines anyhow. At the university I previously worked for, we had a license agreement with M$ that gave us permission to install Windows on any and all machines we wanted to site-wide. We later noticed that the wording didn't exclue out users from gaining from the arragement either. Any dealer that cares as little about their customers so as to sell off the confidential information isn't worth dealing with in my opinion.
--
And for anyone who was at UIUC last October, you should know that Microsoft's first and best-selling game is fdisk ;)
------------------------
Co-founder of GerbilMechs
Note the text:
Therefore, we strongly advise that each new PC that will be running a Microsoft Operating System be pre-installed with an OEM version of the Operating System.
So if the PC is not going to be running Windows, MS doesn't care. A major shift from MS's naked PC "if it doesn't have an OS, the user is going to pirate a MS OS" policy.
So now anyone who wants to buy a bunch of hardware to put free software on needs to include a countering phrase in the RFQ.
Put a statement into every RFQ (most places already have a boilerplate of necessary statements) that warns the channel that any participation with the M$ grasser (snitch) policy is a binding agreement to pay any and all costs associated with any resulting audit, regardless of whether the bid was placed with the channel or not. That should make the channel think twice about losing customers in return for a cheap watch and a few lousy games (which they probably already have pirated). Any channel not wanting to alienate potential customers will quickly establish a policy to never contact M$.
Assuming M$ doesn't continue to use its monopoly position to force channel partners to participate, market forces will eventually punish enough snitches. Customers who are legitimately buying kit for non-M$ purposes will not want to pay 2x-3x the price for an audit, and will quickly learn not to deal with bad suppliers.
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
I hope somwone got their Grill.
Microsoft is offering US$ ************* to any ISP that can turn in at least 500,000 users not using MSN.
Probably, since we know that 2% of Red Hat users MUST be pirating (??) their software! Damn GPL infringements! :)
------
Corporate sites sign nasty contracts with Microsoft, so they could sue for breach of contract.
------
Red Hat gets paid for a product they provide, but I do not lose my liberty with Red Hat's product (by the way, I run Debian!)
At one point Microsoft did support NT4 for the PowerPC. And there was someone who hacked their OpenFirmware on their 9600 to run NT (but that was never supported). I think it has always been in Microsofts capabilities to make an OS for Macs... but why? Macs are more expensive than faster PC's. You could also ask why haven't they made Windows for Sun or RS6000 or SGI (MIPS based). Windows, like PC's are commodity hardware, and that's where the big bucks come from when all you do is sell software and not a solution like Apple, Sun, IBM, etc do.
--
Don't lead me into temptation... I can find it myself.
Last week I bought a PC that didn't include Windows... I got it from MacWarehouse.
--
Don't lead me into temptation... I can find it myself.
In the US you can move retail licenses around, but the OEM licenses that come wtih new PCs is more restricted. That's the issue here. Since a company has 500 old PCs with old OEM licenses, they can't move those to 500 new PCs.
Microsoft doesn't care that you built a cool new Athlon and put Linux on it. They aren't after you. They are after the big companies that think because they just scrapped 500 old Pentium 166MHz systems they now have 500 Win98 licenses to use elsewhere.
/.
A lot of companies think because they either have a site license or scrap old PCs they can just order new systems without buying a new Windows license, but that is not correct. They aren't going after Linux users....g'z....
Oh wait, I forgot, this is
I could see the case where some idiot user actually registered their software, but other than that..?
How about some user actually logged into a MS owned website? Do you think it impossible to get browser and OS information for the visitors of your web site? Your static NAT IP address can easily be traced back to you.
Not to mention if someone actually downloads windows based software from Microsoft or a Microsoft Partner...
Or shock horror.. Someone actually updates their software online directly from Microsoft???
Ohmigawsh! I better pull the ethernet cable out from my box!
The question seems to resolve around intent. Is Microoft trying to get a list of companies that are, accidently, or intentionally, violating their license agreement,(OK in my book) OR, are they trying to get a general list of all the people with the arrogant thought that if they bought an OS-free PC, they they should have purchased a MS-OS, so they can badger and hound them into buying an OS...
Going after mis-licensed companies is OK, in my book... going after me 'cuz I wanna run Linux is NOT OK.
I gues it's in the hands of the PC manufacturers to do the right thing...
...uh-oh.... we're fsck'd.
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
People in 1776 were not forced to drink tea either. You fail to understand the meaning of "force" and the fact that an option does not necessarily need to be the only option to be forced on someone.
What about Hotmail?
"Don't mind me cutting myself on Occam's Razor"
And for 5000 points, they give you a portable DVD player and a DVD of _Soylent Green_. ;-)
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
You weren't forced to sign the license or to use MSFT products; if you don't like the terms, you don't have to use their software. No comparison.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
Much as I hate to defend MicroSoft, notice the " PC that will be running a Microsoft Operating System " part of that sentence. You were't planning on running a MicroSoft OS. Neither was I when I ordered my last three PC's that all run free OS's.
Having encountered MicroSoft's obscure licensing rules in a corporate environment, I can understand what they're doing here. I don't particularly like it. But the vendors are free to tell them to get stuffed, and the corporate IT department that loaded Linux on their 500 PC's can laugh at them.
Never attribute to malice what can as easily be the result of incompetence...
Am I the only one who can't click that link?
Well, for anyone else who can't, here's the link.
http://www.aaxnet.com/news/M010425.html
To: sbwest@microsoft.com From: Eponymous, Showered Hello - I frequently purchase and send requests for PCs without any operating system. You see, I build Linux systems for friends and local non-profit organizations so they aren't caught on the expensive Microsoft upgrade treadmill that they'll eventually fall off of. I'm hoping to persuade our local library to switch to Linux as well. Thus, I'd like to enroll myself in the RFPs and Qs contest. Since the Microsoft game titles will not function on my Linux computers, please send the Fossil watch. If you can't do that, then I'll accept the games. I suspect I can get a few dollars for them on eBay. Thanks for such an excellent contest - my fellow open source users and I will certainly enjoy the prizes.
I don't know how much use I'd have for those games, but I'd be up for the grill! :)
Therefore, we strongly advise that each new PC that will be running a Microsoft Operating System be pre- installed with an OEM version of the Operating System. The alternative would be to purchase retail product, at greater cost and inconvenience to your customers.
Emphasis mine. They do specify this applies to computers that will be running Windows.
-----------------------
Nicotine free Amish .sig.
Generally, responses to RFQs are free.... so I think it is time to start making up fake companies, and submit massive RFQs to PC builders. Each one slightly different, such that when the Microsoft Mafia comes after the fake company, we can determine who was the fink.
They're supposed to be paying double for the operating system.
You want to give Microsoft the benifit of the doubt for demanding that thier customers pay them twice for the operating system for every PC they buy?!!??
Give me a break!!
If one day, I decided to replace all the X-terminals in our factory with PC's running Linux, I could very well run into this problem. The same would go for many of the point of sale type setups that some companies are using Linux for, with thousands of machines being involved.
This type of thing only going to get more likely in the future.
On another note, if I were buying machines from a company and they turned me in, I would never buy from them ever again.
You don't understand. It's not just after you install Win2k. Every time you reboot, the Boeing Win2K will check to see if you've installed another OS and kill access to it...
perl -le '$_="6110>374086;2064208213:90<307;55";tr[0- >][ LEOR!AUBGNSTY];print'
Polymorphism -- It's what you make of it.
Oh.. OK... I did miss the humor, but I caught it this time. No worries... :-)
perl -le '$_="6110>374086;2064208213:90<307;55";tr[0- >][ LEOR!AUBGNSTY];print'
Polymorphism -- It's what you make of it.
Sure, but the fact that Boeing would make a special build of Win2k that does this is rather disturbing... And not everyone rates well enough to get the Lazy B to cough up cash for two boxes...
I guess I'm glad I don't work there anymore.
perl -le '$_="6110>374086;2064208213:90<307;55";tr[0- >][ LEOR!AUBGNSTY];print'
Polymorphism -- It's what you make of it.
If you think this scares you, Boeing is about to unleash a special version of Win2K on it's employees. This version will scan the users machine on boot, look for any OS'es that are *not* Win2K, and erase the boot information for them... It doesn't matter that you might actually *need* Linux on your machine for your work at Boeing, that LILO boot is gonna go bye-bye the next time you boot with this Boeing Win2K edition.
Nice huh?
perl -le '$_="6110>374086;2064208213:90<307;55";tr[0- >][ LEOR!AUBGNSTY];print'
Polymorphism -- It's what you make of it.
Well, I'm sure that this is a two-sided strategy. First and most obvious is that they want to track those who are possibly using an illegal copy of Windows on their machines. I don't really know what they'll do effectively with this data, since there is no way to know if someone who bought a PC sans OS is running an illegal copy of Windows, or another OS. The second strategy is probably a way to get a feel for how many people are potentially using a non-Windows operating system. I guess every non Windows box sold is another potential Linux/BSD/BeOS box out there.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
Site licenses only cover machines you already own, not ones you'll be buying in the future. That's the long and short of it.
You don't like those rules? No one's stopping you from using another OS; they're just trying to stop big corporations from "recycling" licenses.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
The point being that if you claim you are buying the PCs without an OS because you have an MS site license that implies you are going to be putting an MS OS on them. If you are buying them to put Linux on, why would you claim you are buying them without an OS because you have an MS site license? You would buy them without an OS because you are going to put Linux on them. Even if you claim you have an MS site license and then put Linux on them, you could still very well be defrauding the computer company, because they may only sell without an OS if you plan to use a site license for the OS. In general, they are going after people who are lying about either what OS they plan to use on it or what type of OS licensing they plan on using. If you told the truth, there's nothing to worry about.
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
The UCITA legislation will give them the right. On top of that, it will give them the right to close down your business while they do the search for the unlicensed software. That's why UCITA is so damned scary. Microsoft could do something like temporarily halt a competing business' operations (e.g. Red Hat) looking for pirated software that they know doesn't exist. That's why UCITA is so damned scary.
Maybe we could force all people to teach thier kids english
I wonder if there is a higher percentage of germans in Germany wo can speak english than there is in the US or the UK.
Their grammar is better than a lot of people around me in southern England as well....
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
This is only made worse by the knowledge that the suit against Microsoft will most likely be dropped. Look at what's happened in the past when an antitrust suit has been going on at the time that a Republican entered office. (Not to mention that Shrub has already left the tobacco suit(s) out of the budget, so whether we're even choosing to continue to afford the Microsoft case is up for grabs.)
then a webcam snaps your pic, which -- and as soon as the thing boots (some 6 minutes and 6.6 seconds later) -- is sent with your dna & directly to bill gates (cc'd to satan, for his records) before you even get the prompt to enter your precious cd-key...
and then, once approved as a genuine microslave, *your* computer then immediately begins downloading demonic alien virus packs [aka microsoft update crap] from the redmond campus -- along with bill gates personal self-porn gallery -- as "preparing your asshole for the first time" flashes across the screen...
<---[singularity sig]
we strongly advise that each new PC that will be running a Microsoft Operating System be pre-installed with an OEM version of the Operating System. The alternative would be to purchase retail product, at greater cost and inconvenience to your customers.
So, uh, what... I downloaded the two Mandrake 8.0 CDs for free in about an hour, spent nine minutes burning each CD, and ended up with an OS that sure as hell has not resulted in "greater inconvenience."
the coolest club on
Hehe... and with all those FreeBSD boxes that Hotmail has...
I'm somewhat comforted by the fact that they have to ask, and don't just know.
I'm sure part of their desire to know is myopic, but part of it is certainly an attempt to be sure people aren't buying OS-less PCs and using their friend's copy of Windows on it (not that that's all that easy these days anyway). Forgive them for that.
Isn't it better that they have to ask people to tell them in order to (try to) establish that knowledge, rather than wiring Windows to beam signals back to the mothership to detect pirated copies? That's the thin end of a nasty wedge, and this question seems to suggest some evidence that they aren't being particularly nasty about this.
Could be a smokescreen too, I suppose...
TomatoMan
-- http://frobnosticate.com
Do they consider Linux PC's naked?? I would say no. They have an OS on them, just not Microsoft's!
Gorkman
But here's what Microsoft is telling the system builders, in between the lines: 1) If you sold a pc without Windows on it, you must be a software pirate because pc's cannot work without Windows. 2) Simply selling pcs without Windows is not legally reason enough to prosecute someone, so could you please tell us who is, so we may swiftly litigate them out of business? and 3) (this is the important message) You can avoid this type of hassle in the future if you just put a purchased copy of Windows on every pc you sell, and front the cost to the consumer. Microsoft is trying to use the issue of software piracy to cover up the real issue: they don't want you to have a choice of which OS you buy with a new PC.
I think history has proven that it's easy to underestimate Microsoft, or dismiss stories like these as typical Slashdot FUD. But why wait until it too late, and then complain? Again?
--- Rectum?! Damn near killed em'! - Confucius
The lost man-hours and reduced IT availability due to auditing can cost the company a substantial amount of money.
Well, what do you expect from a culture built by an idiot who doesn't understand human nature at all? "Oh gee, you'd love to narc out your friend for some Samsonite Tourister Luggage, ya sure, ya betcha!"
My name is Carlos Montoya. You share files of my music. Prepare to die.
What's the problem? You buy some PCs from your friendly local vendor for your Linux-only company. You encourage the vendor to report you to Microsoft, the vendor gets free ice-cream from Microsoft for being good and reporting the full frontal nudity of the purchase, and Microsoft can do didly squat about it.
-- Andrem
There has been a major scientific break-in
Why? It's because I recently bought the Windows98 upgrade, but couldn't get it to install. And the store doesn't take software returns.
"It's pretty clear Microsoft is targeting corporations who are trying to use their site license to load images onto all new boxes. Apparently, that's against the terms of the site license."
Hmm, I'm not clued in to the various licenses of Microsoft. What are they supposed to be doing? Install Windows and apps on thousands of machines?
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Cool! So all I need to do now is becoming a select customer instead of OEM license owner.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
You are presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty, unless you signed a contract with Microsoft.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Prizes for turning in your customers? A "Fast Cook & Grill Combo and Travel Chair"?
I think I'm finally starting to understand the secret to Microsoft corporate culture: the complete and utter lack of any sense of irony.
Honestly, this is revolting...
Keep in mind that they are targeting the employees of these companies, and that the employees could probally be fired for violation of confidentiality if they were to do as Microsoft asks.
i bought a window-less pc, it's called a macintosh.. remember people, pc stands for personal computer (unless you're talking politically correct ;-)
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
If you actually read the email, you see that they are awarding prizes and stuff for people that report requests for computers without OEM Windows installed because of a site license. Microsoft says that their site licenses do not cover new computers.
The email quoted was shown as an example and also shown to justify why they were doing it.
What MSFT is asking the OEMs to do is rat out anyone who requests a bid on PCs without asking for a quote on Windows being installed on all the machines. This is tantamount to claiming that all PCs should be running Windows or the purchasers are pirates. This then probably means that the purchaser should then expect a visit from the MSFT audit team.
It's an interesting ploy and seems reasonable when one considers that most people buying a large number of PCs would want an OS installed until one realizes that they may plan to just put Linux or *BSD on the boxes.
--
Can I stick a new processor on my mother board? Can I add a processor to a SMP machine that was running with only one? What happend if the original processor dies? Can I add/subtract RAM? Change the keyboard? Get a new monitor? Move my cpu to a new motherboard? Add a hardrive? Subtract a hard drive?
You cannot define a computer like this. And no software company should be allowed to force you to buy another copy opf their software becuase you've upgraded your hardware. I'll say it again, it's none of their business. Assuming I've paid for a copy of the software I should be able to use it as many times as I want let alone transfer a single copy to a new machine while deleting it from the old one. It's very comparable ( I know most RW analogies aren't very good) to reading a book and then lending it to a friend. Except in the case of the book, both my friend and I both have a copy of the information while in the OS case only one has the information one machine has completely forgotten it.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
In a way, I welcome this move by Microsoft.
Let them enforce licensing of their product
and let them win over all pirates. Then, many
people will realize that their software is
expensive and look at some free alternatives
like Linux, StarOffice, etc.
MS is only after those who are buying PCs in volumes, and than installing Windows on them from ONE single licensed/unlicensed CD (typically coming from MSDN subscription.)
I don't see anything wrong in MS taking this action, other than that, IANAL, if it has the legal power to enforce it, but yes it does have the marketing power to force it.
---------------
Sig
abbr.
Karma stuck at 50? Add 2-5 inches.. err.. 2-5x Karmas Count to your pen1es.. err.. Karma all naturally and private
Probably at some point between when the lawyers started and finished writing it.
Rich
The last time I heard, people doing market reseearch had to ASK and not DEMAND. And if they were doing researcg, they certainly shouldn't ASSUME THE CONCLUSION.
MS is famous for pushing the ethicality envelope of business practices. This is just another example.
What is the basis you making this assertion? If I am a company that is convinced of the value of Linux and want to deploy it in MY COMPANY, the chance that I will use an illegal license is ZERO, The chance that I will resell them is ZERO.
And if I do resell it, as long as I don't put a pirated version of Windows on it, it is not illegal. Why should MS care that I have "an increased chance of reselling a legal non-Windows PC"?
I believe people still have the right of association. I can walk into a Honda dealer, buy a Honda and couldn't care less what the Ford dealer across the street thinks. That dealer has no right, simply becuase I choose to do this, to invade my privacy. The MOST he could do is attempt to make a survey, and find out why I did that. And even for that, I am under no obligation to comply.
I could be making a purchase for a College computer lab.
Or I could be a Linux reseller, interesred in providing Linux solutions to OTHER SMALL BUSINESSES who want such a PC. I buy the computers in volume, and resell my services in installation Linux/FreeBSD.
Whatever my business it, the basis for making this claim is a narrow-minded categorization. 1000 PC's == Amazon Server Farm? Think again.
Again I assert the right not to have to my business "spied upon" by MS.
Can Red Hat do this? ;-)
-- ;-)
Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end.
Wow, I can't imagine why Google would need 8000 computers for it's search engine when you would think others do it with less.
An even better idea would be to post the 500 names/addresses/pictures on the forum so that all of slashdot can get a shot at them freebies.
I am sick and tired of people getting mad for a copropation wanting to get paid for a product that they have provided.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
Not that I support invasions of privacy in ANY way but what is the big deal? If you are a company that wants to use linux and you are all in the clear who the hell cares if MS knows. What is the worst that can happen? MS sends you a bit of extra advertising? They send you offers of discounted rates if you switch back? I mean if you don't have anything to hide then it doesn't matter if MS knows you got naked PC's or not. Quit being so scared. Open source is legal, and it works, so be proud of it instead of being scared of corporations that have NO power unless they have your money.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
I wonder if Microsoft will go after the owners of PC's sold without windows, and demand that they pay for licenses.
It would have interesting antitrust implications. "Look Mister Judge! See! Even Microsoft claims you can't possibly have a computer without paying them money..."
If you build your PC yourself :)
Peace,
Amit
ICQ 77863057
[o]_O
Basically MS is trying to track down companies that are claiming they have a site license (in order to get a discount per unit on new PCs they order), but in fact are just using one copy of Windows that gets "passed around".
Bzzzt! Wrong!
What MS is saying (and has said all along) is that a site license only covers the PCs at the site at the time it went into effect. A site license, in MS terms, does not cover new computers. If you buy a new computer, you have to pay for a licensed copy of Windows regardless of whether you already have a site license for all the computers in your organization.
I guess that's the rub. You pay umpteen dollars for a business-wide site license, but that does absolutely nothing to your licensing situation. You already paid for all the Windows licenses on the computers you've already purchased, and you have to pay for licenses on any new computers you purchase, so a "site license" is simply a sacrifice to the MS legal department to keep them from considering you for an audit (unless you buy new computers).
Do I have this at all right?
(PS, for all the jokes we make about Big Brother, it is be worth mentioning 1984 is a fantastic read and worth doing in your off-line hours.)
I read 1984 a couple of years ago. I'm glad I read it, but I'm never going to read it again; I was kind of forcing myself that time. Animal Farm, however, is a pretty good read.
I work in a workplace with a hybrid selection of pc's and the like ... theres even an old novell box dickin' around somewhere.
;-)
Have you checked your drywalls (plasterboard)?
While checking on MS licenses (and hoping to boost their income in the process), it wouldn't surprise me at all if this is a ploy by Microsoft to identify companies that are buying PCs to use with Linux, BSD etc. i.e. depriving MS of income. Once identified, these evildoers would be subject to something worse than MS auditers - MS salesmen. Expect a flood of freebies and "special" deals to follow...
If there's any "news" here, it is that there is no site license that covers new PCs. I'm sure that comes as a surprise to many large Microsoft customers.
-- Kris
Yup, the boys at MSFT really want to know what is being shipped.
Is this any different from any other company doing market research? Not at all. It's just a metric to use.
If they know that 5% of PCs are being shipped OS-free, that is a statistic that they do not need to concern themselves with. If 99.9% are being shipped OS-free, now they have something to be worried about.
It's more than a metric for market share. It is also an indication of how much software piracy is going on. This is useful information if your business is selling software to the hoi polloi.
But I bet knowing that even 5% slipped by without the Microsoft Tax being applied still gets their goat.
one has to wonder why people keep reading /.
they sure can't report accurately.
The way I see it, Windows is nothing more then a very large browser, so a PC with Windows pre-installed still doesn't have an OS.
I didn't say it was your fault. I said I was going to blame it on you.
But if I, as an individual or as a company, choose to buy PCs with no MS products on them (and since the MS Apps only run on the MS OS's, buying a non-windows pc means it's MS-free), then what on earth would give them any rights whatsoever to information about my activities?
If they want to find this info, they can ask their good friends at Intel how many x86 chips they've shipped and then compare that with the sales figures for Windows. That would be intrusive maybe, but ethically reasonable.
But to ask the suppliers for information about someone else's customers is just preposterous. And probably contrary to Data Protection laws in those countries which have them
TomV
I remember reading on Slashdot something to the effect of MS forcing clients to pay for windows twice, through licencing rules. Is this now MS is making sure from the other end that customers buy OEM products the first time before having to pay for them the second time though some corporate licencing scheme?
Help me out here...
A few Observations:
I suggest that we send this stuf including this entire thread to the Justice Department - Add more fuel to the Fire.
Also I agree we all should send one email for each PC we've bought without M$ crap to the SBWest address - That's NOT Flooding. It's informative
Finally, we should attach an invoice for Full retail to the Emails for each copy of WinBlows we've wiped of the Machine - OR - Gather All the Licenses up and put them on E-bay for $.25 each (Yes Virgina courts have upheld that licenses are transferrable.)
Posting here to remove my mod and getting back the +5:Troll this deserves...
Cheers,
--fred
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Maybe Slashdot should offer a FREE Hibachi grill to everyone who replaces the MS OS with *nix.
Dangit. I read your title as "How will the new license servers affect naked pictures." I read your whole post and didn't see any references to naked pictures. DAmn yoU!
quote: "The vendor will be responsible for installing a Company image that includes the Windows Operating Systems at no additional charge. Documentation providing proof of the Company's site license will be provided upon award of the contract." -- this is not someone intending to use a non-Windows operating system.
Do you USA folks have a privacy act? Not a flame, it's a question. My understanding, is that in Australia (where I'm from) the company you bought the machine from would possible be exposing itself to breaches of the privacy act.
I gotta admit, while I'm fairly OS agnostic, this DOES tick me off. Who gives MS the right to know whether I'm intending to put in windows or Solaris or Linux or whatever..... None of there fking business
I work in a workplace with a hybrid selection of pc's and the like. Solaris for DB's, Linux for firewallrouters & various inetd type tasks an Win+ange box, various NT workstations, theres even an old novell box dickin' around somewhere.
F*k MS if there going to profile me however. We occasionally do defence contracts and I'd be stuffed if a foreign company is gonna get it's dirty mits on info on our LAN
I'd assume American companies feel the same way. Perhaps they ain't gonna do it here tho. Whats the privacy law situ in the states?
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Maybe why this generates so much attention, is because of the fact that this is the sort of thing that appears just one step away from being a serious problem. Does the average Linux user have anything to fear here? No, not yet. Does the average company that runs several Windows machines and a few Linux machines? No, not yet. Could this information become dangerous to people that Microsoft wants to hurt? Very likely.
What if Ziff-Davis publishes something bad about Microsoft, and spends a bunch of money on "Naked PC's", then some wag at Microsoft decides it's time to do a license audit on them. Regardless of whether the systems are all legal, it's a major hassle that can do damage to a business. And what company can say for absolute certain that none of it's thousand employees will have anything questionable on a machine? And what's to say Microsoft won't give this information to the Software Publisher's Association to help compile a list of suspected pirates, and tries to snare some of it's critics in the same blow?
Is there anything to fear right now? Probably not. Could there be? Possibly.
I don't like it, either way. I don't think of myself as paranoid, but then again...
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
The MS email says to "Notify and provide copy of the bid to your Microsoft Account Manager at: SBWest@microsoft.com". I wonder if this email address would be a good place to voice concerns over this policy?
Guess they'll be going after Google pretty soon , with them buying 4,000 non windows pcs.
Nah.
Lets look at the email in general for a bit. It generally encourages you, the individual, to turn in suspected criminals.. and tho it does not say it, it does sort of give the impression that anyone requesting PC's without an OS should be suspect. (Keep a watchfull eye out for them sofware commies, they could be living next door!).
I believe this is a result of MS's license police running out of obvious people to harrass so they need our help in finding more people to 'investigate'. With our help Mc Gruff can take a bite out of non-MS licensed cpu sales.
Will they come knocking on your house door in the middle of the night?
Probably not soon, but give them time. They are just going after the juicy fish now, but the witch hunt will only get bigger and better from here as we turn each other in, brother against sister, calling MS Piracy hotline anytime we dont like our landlord or competition. Are you afraid to use the same serial for win98 on two machines? Probably not yet but you will be, which is what they intend.
And bundling is what Microsofts do best.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
Perhaps this could be another use of MS Passport too. Not only would every download be tagged to your NAT device but it would also have all your personal information flagged to it as well. Even, perhaps, a list of other company's software that you might be "violating".
I kinda see a problem when Microsoft has more power than local or even federal law enforcement.
Hey, why not have a shrink wrap agreement on driver's licenses? One that says you give the police the right to rummage through and/or confiscate your vehicle at any time. Then we know we can invade anyone's car because obviously they must agree with that provision.
Lovely.
I always wondered about this. In order to enter without a warrant they'd have to know you have a EULA backed peice of software. But if they haven't already invaded your property how would they know that?
I could see the case where some idiot user actually registered their software, but other than that..?
That is such a ridiculous provision, I can't see why the courts would allow it to go on. Why should I be required to permit M$ to check up on my software just for the "priveledge" of running that software?
I've got four (actually five) PC's at home. One's a P90 running linux, which USED to have Win98 on it. One's a Celeron 550 running Linux that USED to have win98 on it. Another's an Iopener running Win98, call it a transferred licence, and the other's a 1Ghz Athlon running win98/linux. I've _purchased_ two copies of Windows, but have five odd PC's (and a Dead K6-2)
So...I _mustn't_ be compliant as I've purchased six odd computers over the years, but only two copies of a Microsoft OS. hmmm.
(better not tell Intel the Celeron's overclocked...they'll come after me for a value added tax...)
I haven't read through all of the posts, so don't flame me if this is redundant. I noticed that the link to MS page from /. article that talks about the naked PC, is gone. in other words, MS's page no longer exists. I just thought that was worth mentioning. It seems curious don't ya think.
You're Welcome.
------
Random, useless fact: I type in startx entirely with my left hand.
I've always found it interesting that we assume we have a "right" to privacy here in the US when there really is no such right defined in our Consitution. Perhaps that isn't really appriate (I'm not a Constitutional scholar or anything) but it's always struck me as odd.
Oh, and IANAL so grab salt and start doing whatever you want to do with it.
In this article they're talking specifically about bids for OS-less PC's that will have a site-licensed Windows installed on them in violation of their terms (they say there are no site licenses that cover anything but existing PC's.) I don't think your average home or office Linux user will be much affected, nor will your average DIYer/pirate. Still, it's a pain that OEM's lately are so damned reluctant to sell you a computer without a Windows cd. (I've heard of people buying barebones - no harddrive - and still recieving one after having specifically asked not to...)
This is an act of an increasingly desperate company.
Dog is my co-pilot.
THAT's it!!! This is what happens:
1) Company A is considering migration to Linux.
2) Company A becomes aware that M$ will make them a more likely target to auditing if they quote OS-less PC's.
3) Company A is frightened, even if they're OK license-wise.
4) Company A gives up trying Linux.
Where's the DOJ when you REALLY need them?
Apple sends MS a list of all buyers and Mac users, demands booty, and disperses it among all the Mac users. Huzzah!
Everybody wins!
-------------------------------------------------
Am I the only one who read the following line in the email from Microsoft?
By submitting bids that request PC systems without an Operating System due to a Microsoft site license, you can earn points and win!
Microsoft isn't simply looking for people ordering naked PC's. They're after those who say they don't need to pay for an MS OS. Now whether they have the right to install an OS due to owning a site license is another issue. But let's not the facts wrong here folks.
Dave
~""~
I kinda wonder if they're going to give out copies of Ashron's Call. Would be a nice little bit of irony. "Here's your free game! Now sign up with us for $10/mo (or whatever it costs) to play it!"
Even if you claim you have an MS site license and then put Linux on them, you could still very well be defrauding the computer company, because they may only sell without an OS if you plan to use a site license for the OS.
Uhm... What I do with a piece of merchandise after I own it is none of the computer company's business. c.f. CueCat
There are 1.1... kinds of people.
Whats to say they can't have a mixed environment of both Linux and Windows machines? Sounds to me that M$ will be more worried about pilot programs using Linux instead of Windows in a company or the company jumping ship on M$ altogether. If I'm a company who is buying 500 "naked" PC's, M$ site license or not, it is NONE OF THEIR GOD DAMN BUISINESS that I bought the PC's without an OS.
Exactly! Even if piracy is a legitimate concern for MS, this may well boil down to randomly auditing suspects with no evidence that they've done anything wrong (including many people who are not even Windows users!)
I believe what was meant by the 'going after individuals' was they are pitching this to individuals at the distributor willing to turn in customers who buy OS-less computers.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
By the same token, if the Honda dealer doesn't have a privacy policy, and did not agree with you to keep your information private, there's nothing to prevent the Honda dealer from selling your information to the Ford dealer for a mutually agreeable price.
Never take moderation advice from sigs, including this one.
Coincidence is the Superstition of Science
What's that smell? Ah, that's my karma burning...
That way MS will open thier eyes when they see that people actually use stuff that they dont make!! Serious this should be an eye opener for them. I use to argue that MS shouldn't be broken up, but when they do stuff like that, it says they are a monopoly. I mean it would be like Chevon trying to go to all gas stations and ask for a list of people who dont use Chevon
When will M$ reps go to computer trade shows and enforce the illegal sale of OEM Windows CDs at the software only vendors.
(Moe taps crayon further into Homer's brain)
Homer: Extended Warranty? How can I lose?
Moe (exasperated): Still not dumb enough!
(Tap! Tap!)
Homer: Always trust Microsoft.
Moe: Bingo!
----------------------
Watch out, you may get sued.
Billg: You mean there are actually prople who want to buy computers without windows? Ballmer: And those damn goatse.cx vendors are selling them too. Billg: What shall we do? Ballmer: I know, lets...
Newsfollow.com
This is like me moving into a new apartment, buying a telephone (even though I haven't bought service yet) and then having Pacbell call me regarding setting up service with that new "naked" phone I just bought.
Pretty soon Microsoft is gonna start phone soliciting to get new customers.
I am currently not obliged to divulge that information as it might compromise the agents in the field
Speaking as someone who actually received the letter from MS, I wanted to make a brief comment.
MS is asking system builders to point out organizations that are misusing their licenses. That's all.
I'm not gullible enough to automatically believe that MS is merely going to explain the proper way to use the license. But, it is possible.
Of course, if the whole license issue was less complicated, the organizations would not be accidentally misusing their licenses.
Thank you, kind sir. You're a scholar and a gentleman.
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
You need to turn in customers who purchased at least 500 machines in order to be eligible for a prize.
A more descriptive (and more accurate) story is on TheRegister.
If you buy an OS-less PC and put Linux on it, they won't care, If you're buying 1000 OS-less PC's there's a far greater chance you'll resell them or use an illegal liscense.
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
But they're not the IRS, and they have no right to look into what you're running on any of your systems, the most they can really do is say "are you running windows?" which you really don't need to answer, just because you own a pc, doesn't mean you have windows on it. you can just slam the door in their face and there's not a damn thing they can do about it unless they can prove that you're running a pirate os, and the only way they can do that is through an audit that they don't have the power to run (unless you have a site license or something I guess)
read your EULA. MS reserves the right to knock on your door and say "Show us your CoAs" at any time. If you don't like it, you can go use that shitty linux stuff.
Then again... if you're not running WinXX you'd never see that EULA, so you could tell them to piss off when they do knock on your door. (and they can't prove that you have run an MS OS and read the EULA, so they have no basis to enforce the fact that they can come to you)
You may be able to transport the 3D video card to the new box, but not the OS.
The truth shall set you free!
I think having a 100% non MS shop would be the only way not to have any EULA that would permit MS a free permit to come in and inspect. If there is not a single copy of any MS product, then they do not have an agreement to inspect with out a reasonable cause and search warrent. That means even the Pocket PC's have to be banned to prevent an audit without a search warrent. Unfortunately any shop of any size has at least one person with their own WIN PDA that opens the door.
The truth shall set you free!
I especially like the line about guaranteeing privacy to the pc sellers that give away the names of companies who ask for clean pc's.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
Wow, talk about one dinosaur hand washing the other.
I wish more suppliers would offer Windowsless PCs. I am responsible for buying workstations in an office of about 25 people. Every time I order a new machine, whether it is to upgrade an older station or to add a new one, I end up with another Windows98 CD in a baggie taped to a manual. Granted, almost every workstation in my office runs Windows.. (not enough people here with PhD needed to administor Linux).. But there are rarely more than 10 stations in use at any one time.
When I lay all of the CDs out next to each other on my desk, the holograms look kinda funky... but thats hardly reason to stick me with 40 or so CDs and site liscenses that I don't need.
Contact information on customers who purchase more than one shirt, sweater or jacket, without at the same time buying shorts, pants or a skirt, will be contacted by The Gap with special offers for these items.
The Gap's management claims that this will greatly reduce the problem of public nudity and indecency, which is sure to result from too many customers owning only the top portion of a complete Gap Brand outfit.
An un-named, but high ranking, Gap Official was quoted as saying " We at The Gap feel that it would be indecent, nay! Immoral, for all those people to prance around in Old Navy shirts without matching Gap Khakis! We're just trying to protect the children. "
The REAL jabber has the /. user id: 13196
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
Do you plan on running a Microsoft Operating System? No? Then this statement doesn't apply to you. I'm sure they'd LIKE you to buy a MS OS, but this is a very reasonable statement.
I don't like their whole approach, but this section of it makes perfect sense.
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
From my understanding of the article, Microsoft is going after businesses that try to steal the operating system by selling systems that are covered under some liscense agreement when one does not exist that apply's to consumers. You see a long time ago people like you complained and said that you didn't want to have to pay for an operating system that you weren't going to use, the courts agreed and microsoft had to terminate all their deals with big OEM's to allow bulk licensing of O.S.'s. Now people are claiming to have these licenses when they don't so microsoft, like any good corporation, wants it's money. Imagine for a moment that Redhat had to give out free phone tech support to a bunch of people that didn't pay anything for their distro. Software to microsoft = tech support to Red Hat. I can't argue against the comment that Microsoft shouldn't charge for their O.S.'s that is an entirely different comment, and this is probably a good thread to have an argument about business models in. How about for every mean word you think about Microsoft you try to write an hours worth of code for some open source project. That might actually accomplish something. That would probably require a lot more work than some of you are willing to put in though. It's easier to smear Microsoft with some lame comment than to do something about it. It's the same attitude that has our landfills filling up with trash and has everyone out their trying to find the easy way out of things. I'm not aiming this specifically at you, but you do have a bit of it in you... come on I know you do. I do too. I think we all do (except maybe Carmack, what a monster :) ).
I'm turning in that one guy who posts here all the time. You know Anonymous Coward.
He must be responsible for at least 500 machines all by himself!
Lets say you upgrade 500 boxes in your shop with evergreen "PC" cards.... What then? So what happens when you...
Upgrade RAM in an existing box; is it a new computer according to Microsoft?
Upgrade a case or power supply in an existing box; is it a new computer according to Microsoft?
Upgrade a HDD in an existing box; is it a new computer according to Microsoft?
Upgrade a CPU in an existing box; is it a new computer according to Microsoft?
Upgrade a motherboard in an existing box; is it a new computer according to Microsoft?
Which part is "the computer"? What combo constitutes a new computer? Microsoft is less than helpful to define what is an upgrade and what is new when they talk about their Enterprise or Select agreements.
As a side note, this is why WinXP will also suck for those of us whose home system is in a state of flux.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
Just found the link for the parts...
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
Audits are painful - I've seen companies spend months trying to match PO's, those silly hologram logos, and what not prepping for a visit. Be careful when you kick a sleeping dragon... it may not matter if you were justified or within your right.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
that five or so local computer stores were under investigation for piracy a year or so ago. I shopped at a few of them and asked - seems Microsoft was concerned about them selling "bundle only with a new PC" copies of Office, and Microsoft and them were haggling over what a "new" PC is. This is really a can of worms for people who upgrade boxes - myself, I have had had the same hammer for years, replacing 3 heads and 5 handles - but that is another rant....
At the same time, a shop that was not on the list was selling Office 97 with a main board / hard drive at OEM prices. I was building a new box for a friend, so I bought what I thought was a legit copy. Turns out, the CD with "on-line" activation was really a replacement media CD that was priced like an OEM version of Office. They are now gone, so what do you do?
Anyhow, a few shops survived the inquisition. I see the problem, but have mixed feelings about their tactics.
(PS, for all the jokes we make about Big Brother, it is be worth mentioning 1984 is a fantastic read and worth doing in your off-line hours.)
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
I don't know how it is in the US, but here in germany you have the right to do so. If you have 500 old PCs with 500 win98 licenses you are allowed to scrap the old PCs and buy new PCs and use your win98 licenses on them. There might be difference with a site license but with simple retail or oem licenses this is legal in germany.
Microsoft tried to sue a few computer resellers that sold windows oem licenses without PC, microsoft lost in the court. When you buy software in germany it is yours and you are allowed to do with it whatever you like, but things that are forbidden by other laws like the copyright laws.
A lawyer looked at the product activation system in Windows XP, and he said that he thinks that this product activation system is against the law in germany, because it prevents you from selling it to someone else.
Jan
Emphasis mine. They're going after people who are misusing a Microsoft license, not regular customers. Microsoft's email is a bit confusing, but no more so than slashdot. Thanks for keeping me on my toes. You guys are unresponsible, unaccountable morons. More predictable than a computer.
I hope this causes the backlash that everyone has been waiting for. But it probably won't. It will either become unpopular enough for MS to stop the program, or else they will convince those convinced otherwise that they should 'come back to the light' and use MS products.
I do think, however, that the rift between those who like MS products and those who don't, will widen. And the 'OS war' will be carried from the server room and desktop to the manager's and cio's offices.
But this is a good thing, no?
They stuck me in an institution, said it was the only solution, to...protect me from the enemy, myself
But then again you Germans are evil nazi's, always persecuting poor people trying to exert their religion ($cientology), and honest companies trying to make an honest buck (Micro$oft).
What the heck is a "Fossil Watch"?
And I thought that guy on the corner was kidding when he said "pssst.. Wanna buy a windowless computer?"
Quote: "By submitting bids that request PC systems without an Operating System due to a Microsoft site license, you can earn points and win!"
But, in the first place, why do purchasers have to provide justifications for their RFQs for naked PCs?
There's an episode of the Pretty Sammy (an anime based loosely on Tenchi Muyou) in which Sammy and Tenchi fight Biff Standard, a man who dreams of installing his Standard OS on every PC in the world.
Tenchi becomes a hunted criminal and purchases a stolen copy of 'Bannana OS', which has some great multimedia features and can run his mother's kareoke program.
Sammy battles with Pixy Misa, who helps Biff to install his 'Standard OS' on every computer in Shinjuku. Sammy wins, destroying Biff Standard's giant robot of standardization, but Biff just gets up again afterwards and starts selling his OS again.
The moral of the story: If even super-powered magical girls can't stop Microsoft, then the DOJ doesn't stand a chance.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
It gets better and better: this practice is actually illegal in the European Union. Trust me on this, I work for a bank and I have seen the law (wet Bescherming Persoonsgegevens, aka the Personal Data Protection Act here in .nl) enforced, and it ain't pretty
And you know what? About a year ago, under pressure from US corporations, the US government actually threatened a trade war over this with the EU. The EU didn't cave in for a change, and I am mightily glad they did.
Mart"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
Why yes, I uh.. have several customers who bought pc's without an OS.. so can I get a whole backyard set?
-
Microsoft issues bounty for OS-less PC buyers:
Rat your customer and help them be 'compliant'
30 April 2001 5:30am
If you're using Linux/*BSD, you are using a licensed OS. Ever hear of the GPL/BSD licenses?
Some free MS and MS partner software can be run through Wine. Also, it can be handy to have a proxy that lies about what browser you are using. Like when you visit a site that says it requires IE 5.5 and won't except any other browsers. I've been known to surf the MS web from my home linux only machines (I have two linux only machines, and a linux machine with a windows partition to make Wine run better).
I'm a loser baby, so why don't you kill me.
RA7
-
"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds" - RWE
- Both machines on line at the same time would be a dead give-a-away of course.
- Processor ID's say one an athalon and one a PIII would also be pretty sure evidence.
- ID numbers from the hard drive would be strong evidence but not proof.
- two of the same OS requesting the same update would also be pretty strong too.
besides I thought that's what theApocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
However, what constititutes a machine?
Can I stick a new processor on my mother board? Can I add a processor to a SMP machine that was running with only one? What happend if the original processor dies? Can I add/subtract RAM? Change the keyboard? Get a new monitor? Move my cpu to a new motherboard? Add a hardrive? Subtract a hard drive?
Excellent questions. I have no answer for this. But Microsoft does, only they're not telling.
Anyone remember reading about the Windows XP product activation scheme? XP builds a unique ID number or some sort of checksum from the hardware on your system when you install it. You pass that ID number to MS to activate your OS. If you don't activate the OS, the OS doesn't work. If your hardware deviates substantially from its initial configuration, the ID will have changed and subsequent activation of your OS will not be possible without getting a new activation key from MS (at whatever they decide to charge for them).
Microsoft has not yet been forthcoming about just how much change in hardware can be tolerated before Windows XP decides that you've got a different machine. But I wouldn't be surprised to see the threshold change to be more/less restrictive as MS gets closer/farther from hitting its revenue targets for the quarter...just a simple Windows Update away...
In the original article about the rat out your clients game, there is a link to an article about licensing. In there you will find:
If you got your computer with an OEM license, but you "ghost" the hard disk as most larger companies do to achieve consistency, you have to buy a second Windows license for that computer. Installing this second license voids your OEM license so the OEM no longer provides support. You now have to get that from Microsoft at $350 per incident.
So in short, yes, you are supposed to install all apps individually onto a clean OEM Windows install.
This was the case up until about 6 or 7 months ago. Due to the outcry of the volume license purchasers, if you have an Open or Select agreement you are no longer required to buy an additional license in order to re-image an OEM installation with Select or Open media. I have a series of letters somewhere from our MS sales rep because we went back and forth on this very issue for several weeks.
I know this might be rundundant but, uh, microsoft sucks!
___
The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason. --Ben Franklin
I don't think I'll be losing any sleep over the fact that MS is giving five of their games away for free for every couple of users it turns in. I don't think a company wants to lose a customer, and potential customers, over the fact they snitched on them for not using Windows, over a couple of video games, besides, those games are nothing compared to what else is out there.
Slashdot Hypocrisy at work?
I guess i'm ok. The last Dell I bought had linux pre-installed, and therefore wasn't "naked". This is starting to look like a witch hunt. -ted
Most computer users are connected to the internet. If every Windows user registered his copy, or if the OS was sending IP packets back to MS (maybe through some sort of proxy, so it's not too obvious) it would be rather easy to track pirated copies for them.
Let's say, for argument's sake, that my friend was using Win2K for 3 months, then I borrowed/copied his Win2K CD and installed it on my machine using his verification number or whatever it's called. Then MS would know that machine A with IP address IP_A used their CD CD1 with verification number C for 3 months, and now both machines A and B with IP addresses IP_A and IP_B are using OSes installed off their CD CD1 using verification number C. They should come to the obvious conclusion that we pirated their product, right?
Wroot
Fossil Big Tic watch - 500 Microsoft points
Fast Cook & Grill Combo and Travel Chair - 1000 Microsoft points
The look on your manager's face as he is taken in - priceless!
Wroot
I found that article rather amusing as opposed to MS trying to take over the world. It would have been nice to include the entire email, headers and all as opposed to just posting something..
Equally funny is: Did they mean PC running Windows or are non MS based OS' illegal?
Either way I could see MS' beef with wanting to know if PC's are shipped with Windows where the buyer didn't pay MS for their oh so beautiful product. Now it would have been interesting to hear from MS sending out something similar stating they wanted to know how many PC's are shipped with alternative OS'.
What ever happened to that incident where users of Linux/BSD were demanding rebates for purchasing PC's without Windows, where they felt they shouldn't have to pay for Windows since they didnt use it.
Anyone remember that from like 2 years back or so?
360 degrees of Karma
Microsoft isn't going after individual users, they're only after larger customers, corporations and resellers maybe.
I've read the story twice, wait let me triple check it ... okay, three times now. I don't see anywhere where it says anything about "individual users."
If you follow the link, you'll see the entire email that started the whole thing. It's pretty clear Microsoft is targeting corporations who are trying to use their site license to load images onto all new boxes. Apparently, that's against the terms of the site license. (Not that the terms are clear enough to read without legal assistance. Hey, the article links to a whole story about that problem, too.)
And in case you missed it, the Register article you seem so fond uf is based on the same article that this Slashdot story is based on!
Oh, and thanks for throwing on your own FUD:
If you buy an OS-less PC and put Linux on it, they won't care, If you're buying 1000 OS-less PC's there's a far greater chance you'll resell them or use an illegal liscense.
Yup, no chance at all someone actually meant to buy all those boxes and put something other than Windows on them. They simply have to be doing something illegal.
Nope, no sig
What are they supposed to be doing? Install Windows and apps on thousands of machines?
In the original article about the rat out your clients game, there is a link to an article about licensing. In there you will find:
If you got your computer with an OEM license, but you "ghost" the hard disk as most larger companies do to achieve consistency, you have to buy a second Windows license for that computer. Installing this second license voids your OEM license so the OEM no longer provides support. You now have to get that from Microsoft at $350 per incident.
So in short, yes, you are supposed to install all apps individually onto a clean OEM Windows install.
Nope, no sig
No offense, but the odds of you finding one thousand computer users willing to keep Linux on their desktop for everyday use is also next to ZERO.
Gee, it would probably take me so long to look up a few Linux Users Group pages and ask who uses Linux for a desktop. There can't be any of them out there ...
Nope, no sig
The grill will have a 400 square inch cooking surface, but it'll only be able to heat one item at a time. You'll have to completely replace your patio with a new one before you can use the lawnchairs. The watch will display time in a non-standards-compliant proprietery format. And worst of all, you'll have to pick five games from Microsoft that don't totally suck.
Instead we have a situation where Microsoft can harass PC manufacturers who don't wish to play its game, and where the vast majority of PC buyers have to pay the Microsoft tax, regardless of whether they want Windows, a user friendly reliable alternative, or an open, reliable, and free speech alternative.
I'm not surprised the above wasn't the settlement. Microsoft is the company that's (found to have) violated antitrust laws, and the solution above would have "punished" "innocent" third parties. But perhaps this illustrates that the law doesn't work in this case. Microsoft can get away with harassing third parties, solutions that would punish it wont necessarily do anything about its monopoly, and solutions that would do something about the monopoly can't be implemented.
--
KMSMA (WWBD?)
I wonder if people who've recently bought naked pc's could:
a/ Mail me a picture...
b/ Mail me your address details - 500 mails and I get the BBQ set!!
Thx....every cloud has a silver lining for someone
**Vanuatu or bust**
And I'll turn in my university!! :)
Meanwhile in the back of the computer store:
"I'll trade you two FreeBSD users for one Linux user."
"Throw in an NetBSD user and you've got a deal, those Linux users are like gold."
Heh, I wonder if MS is intentionally trolling slashdot with this one.
I don't see anywhere in the article that indicates what MS intends to do with this gathered information. They don't have the authority to 'check up' on people, do they? (I'm ignoring businesses that own substantial copies of MS products, a la Virginia Beach) That seems to be the only place you could go with this information..
Ok, it's a stretch, buuuuttttt....
Dear Sir (or Madam),
Hello. My name is Billy Gates, and I attend the Senior High with your daughter, ________, where I am the student computer tutor and future pant-shittingly rich tech entrepreneuter.
It is common knowledge that your daughter has received a great deal of tutoring from me, yet has chosen not to allow the installation of my OS on her HD.
Therefore, I am offering you this opportunity to win one of many prizes, and all you need to do is convince your daughter to achieve some measure of installation. Simply convince your daughter to be mine for an evening, and you could win (based on, well, bases achieved):
First Base: if I am able to proceed to FB, you will receive a year's subscription to free Windows Bug Patches, er, I mean upgrades. (But remember, just registering will get you a FREE PC with a three-decade subscription to MSN!).
Second Base: Second base will earn you a shrink-wrapped, previously unowned copy of Windows NT4 Server on floppy disks, complete with all half-dozen or so updates. Also includes the option of free Hailstorm enrollment (when announced). What a deal already, and only half-way to Home!
Third Base: Should your daughter and I proceed to Third Base, you will receive a preview version of the Toast-Box, running MS Toaster-Struedel 2001. This special MS product also includes InternetRadio 2001, preset to WMSN, my favorite station here in Redmond.
Home plate: If I get to home plate, you will recieve 10 shares of Microsoft stock.
Thanks,
Billy
p.s.: Know a neighbor with a little hottie at home? Forward names and addresses to me, and if I succeed in installing my OS on their daughter's HD, you will be registered to win many more neat-o prizes!
Please send to:
MS DateGetter Services Division
Gates Compound
Redmond, Washington
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
In Russian part of Fidonet there was already published the story about MICROS~1 that has found a big company that has no registered Windows. MICROS~1 requested them to buy appropriate number of Windows, but got an answer "We don't use such a [] as IBM PC and Windows, we use MACs".
For the last several computers I have ordered at work, I would have liked not to pay for a Windows license I don't need, but the manufacturer could never figure out how to credit us for it. Now, I have to worry about having Microsoft's minions hassle our IT department if I request a PC without Windows?
(BTW, what's wrong with moderation lately? I may not agree with the opinion of the posting I'm responding to either, but that doesn't make it a "troll". Moderators seem to confuse having a different opinion with trolling and flaming.)
As Microsoft's letter points out: they don't offer site licenses for Windows in the sense you think you have. Their "site license" is for Windows upgrades; you have to buy the computer with an OEM or retail license for Windows if you want to take advantage of your site license for upgrades. So, in that regard, they are justified in being concerned about "unlicensed copies" of Windows.
Of course, this is a self-created situation: if they did offer site licenses the way you and I understand them, this issue would go away. And, in fact, the current situation is just fine with them: they get money from the OEMs, they get money from site licenses, they get to push Windows onto every shipping machine, and they have contracts with everybody and can use those contracts for business intelligence on who is jumping ship and for hassling people who do.
they're sending the information to the license enforcement division, but they certainly couldn't "enforce" anything - just try and sell them the operating system, i guess.
i can see employees getting fired for forwarding this information on to microsoft, though, as it is a breach of privacy. interesting to see how this turns out, but i, for one, am not worried about anything.
Every once in a while I like to masturbate a new word into my vocabulary, even if I don't know what it means.
How many non-Windows PCs has Microsoft bought for things like Hotmail?
This sounds more like something from a Douglas Adams novel than real life. Forget ethical/unethical, I have my doubts this is LEGAL. If it's against the law to incite or pay someone to commit a felony, what about this?
Oh, and to all you people out there who complain about anti-Microsoft flamers on this topic, going on about how Microsoft isn't the only company to do things like this: Hitler wasn't the only person to invade Poland, but that doesn't mean he also wasn't the first to set up death camps there.
Well, mine is. I run Debian Linux.. now I hope I don't get free trial copies of Windows ME in the mail.
Microsoft's "Pandora's Box" game is one of the coolest games I've played in a long time. It's definitely not for ADD-impaired First Person Shooter addicts, but it's an excellent game if you like mind-expanding puzzles.
Well that sounds a bit crappy. You pay for 500 Windows NT licenses. A new release of software obsoletes your PCs and you upgrade them. Do you then have to pay again for each copy of NT even though the old machines are being dumped? Surely not.
Does a Christian soccer team even need a goalkeeper?
I was looking for it a little while ago, but it's gone. It use to be up at http://www.microsoft.com/oem/nakedPC.htm, but alas is gone.
Anybody have mirrors?
Guy: Hello? Microsoft: Hello. I'm Bob from Microsoft piracy control. We recently received an anonymous tipoff that you recently bought a large number of OS-less PCs. Guy: Yeah. We're putting BSD on them. We power our web services with them. Microsoft: I notice you used to have an NT licence. You know you can't use those NT licences anymore, right? Guy: Yeah we tried NT, but it bombed out miserably. We're back to BSD now. Microsoft: Very good. Thankyou for not using pirated software. Guy: Cool mate. Have a nice day. Thank you for calling Hotmail support. Just send the BBQ upstairs ASAP.
--
Well I think here you have to read through the lines, let's see what the first paragraph says: Microsoft OEM Western Region Pilot Program Identifying PC Bids that do not include an Operating System for each PC Firstly, they want to identify each bid which do not include an operating system why ever. we need your help in assuring that each and every PC has a licensed and legal operating system. Secondly, they want that every system has a licensed and legal operating system... I don't know what they mean with a licensed operating system. I don't think that Linux is licensed, you can get it for free... It is to your benefit as an OEM to sell Operating Systems with each PC, especially if you will be servicing and supporting your customer. This means, that as a good vendorer you should distribute every PC with a MS Operating System. As I am German I am a lil' bit more sensed about such things. It's more or less the same way like Nazis tried to take over FULL control in 1933 to 45. They collected information about there enemies and installed spies everywhere. I would think a lil' bit more about what is really happening in this world. Microsoft is trying to get a monopoly in every important sector in the new economy. They have full control over desktop systems they have big control in servers. They wanted to have a monopoly in banking software - thank god they weren't able to do it. Then they took over control at browsers and now they want to take over control @ freemail services with hotmail. You don't know what's the real source code of MS OS's and you don't know what they do with your E-Mails but expect the worst. CU, David Weisgerber tnt@md.2y.net