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 ...)
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)
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.
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!
Mandrake Software - MS
MS-Linux - oh no!
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
Somebody just posted to Slashdot with the correct usage of "cite" and "site" in the same post?!? What's this world coming to?
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
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.
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); }
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 (=
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.
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.
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.
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?
This is not "an extension of the policy of harrassing the makers of 'naked PCs'"
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!"
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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...
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.
--
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
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!)
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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
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...
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.
And on top of everything else, this would include consumers who have traded up their pc's for a new one. Myabe they allready have a copy of windows, why should they be hassled in any way? I'm sure the click through prevents you from running(*) the same copy of windows on two or more of your personal machines at once (which is bullshit in my book but I digress), but as long as it's only running(*) on only one machine at a time you should be allowed.
* Note --- I use the word running for lack of a better term to describer the state of windows operation on a machine.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
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.
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,"
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?
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
There is no claim in this article that Microsoft is forcing new PC's to have Windows. Microsoft is trying to determine whether people are buying new OS-less machines and then installing Windows without a license, or whether people are buying Microsoft software from non-Microsoft sources.
-- 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.
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
Maybe Slashdot should offer a FREE Hibachi grill to everyone who replaces the MS OS with *nix.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
It's even more than that. In the example letter they showed, a company was asking the supplier to pre-install Windows for them at no cost because they claimed their site license already covered the OSes on the new machines, which it doesn't.
--
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
Apple sends MS a list of all buyers and Mac users, demands booty, and disperses it among all the Mac users. Huzzah!
Everybody wins!
-------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
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
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.
What constitutes the OEM machine? If I do a memory upgrade? A CPU upgrade? Add a hard drive? New video card? New motherboard? New case? New monitor?
At what point do you say "this machine is not the machine that I licensed the OEM copy of Windows 98 on. My current primary system started out as an OEM machine, and I have literally, one at a time, upgraded nearly every component in the box (except for the floppy drive). So when did I become "non compliant" with the OEM license agreement?
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
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
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!
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
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?
If you're using Linux/*BSD, you are using a licensed OS. Ever hear of the GPL/BSD licenses?
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
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**
Yes, and quite frankly this story and the resulting spin on it is quite ridiculous. Most people here (with the exception of Slashdot editors) seem to realize that. 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.....
I propose that for next April 1st, Slashdot pretend to show some journalistic integrity and overall neutrality in the stories they post. Every story lately seems to turn into an editorial with the addition of that one liner. It's especially bad with stories involving Microsoft. It just gets old after a while.
I know this is a linux site and is going to have a "prolinux" spin, but that should be expressed in the stories they choose to post, and not in editorial comments in each and every single story - especially when the editorial comments misinterpret or are just plain ignorant. It's irresponsible.
And I'll turn in my university!! :)
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.
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.
Unless you purchased retail-box copies of Windows 98 that you put on those two new machines, you're in violation of the license terms on the OEM copies that you moved to the other machine.
Actually, the Retail box version of Windows, even at the higher cost, is a pretty good deal (albeit only from a non Freenix point of view) because you basically have the right to a completely transferrable copy of Windows that you can run forever on any single machine that you choose. A 'free' OEM license dies when the machine it was purchased on dies.
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