Slashdot Mirror
Hardware Manufacturers Gouging Customers
rahlquist writes "An article over at infoworld discusses that buying that used router on ebay may not be a good deal if Cisco can find its way to screwing you. What's next, buy a used Ford and pay Ford to transfer the license for the onboard computer's OS or face piracy charges if you continue to drive?"
does this mean I can sell the hardware to someone, and the software to someone else?
It means you can't sell the software at all. You don't own it, and the license is not transferable.
I bought an 831 new (so I have the license for it) back in June. After reading about the recent vulnerablility I contacted Cisco to get an updated IOS version. I thought it would be a simple process, considering some of the comments I read here. I recieved an email back from them telling me if I wanted it fixed, I would have to purchase a SmartNet contract. That was July 18, and I am still running a vulnerable version using the ACL workaround.
I remember the s/36 and as/400 market place, in that the OS was licensed, and didn't transfer with the hardware. You always had to license the SW from IBM for the going list price.
With software, that is licensed, the rules are what ever the license agreement is.
Microsoft is doing the same thing, in that the software isn't a product seperate from the HW as well any more.
I was looking for a used SOHO series router on eBay, but I think I'm better off building a small Linux router and using something like Freesco instead.
I know I'm small potatoes in context to the article, but I wonder how many other large organizations, after having a experience simimlar to Mr. Tague's, will take a long hard look at a Linux based solution?
IANAL (yet) but unless the guy selling the equipment on EBay signed a contract agreeing not to resell the equipment or software, First Sale applies here (First Sale = It's ok to sell the copyrighted thing you legally acquired). The one caveat is if the seller lives in a state where UCITA has been enacted, in which case he is bound by the shrinkwrap license agreement inlcuded with the software. So chances are the buyer got a nice router on the cheap that he can legally use as is which is what you would expect when buying something from EBay.
Unfortunately, the poor buyer is still screwed for the maintenance contract because Cisco can refuse to do business with him for just about any reason under the sun. This is one of the big caveats when you buy directly from corporations and not through retail outlets. You may get a cheaper price up front but those tricky Corps will make you sign all sorts of invasive/restrictive contracts to lock you in to their wares.
My advice is to buy all of the used hardware/software you want from EBay, just don't go expecting Uber Corps to help you out afterwards.
X
I purchased a 1601 off ebay, two days before the IOS vulnerability. I called them that day, told the rep I'd purchased the router from ebay and had no service contract. He asked me what version of IOS I needed, and I had a new patch that day. He even helped me install it, and got me a different version when that one didn't work. He never once tried to shake me down.
Read. The official way on how to respond to a (possible) GPL violation.
Hate me!
Here the text - and no I aint whorin, i feel it has enough straight forward advice that could get that matter dealt with cleanly and effectively :)
.
Violations of the GPL, LGPL, and GFDL
[ Chinese(Simplified) | Chinese(Traditional) | English | Japanese | Korean | Polish ]
If you think you see a violation of the GPL (or the LGPL, or the GFDL) the first thing you should do is double-check the facts:
Does the distribution contain a copy of the License?
Does it clearly state which software is covered by the License? Does it say anything misleading, perhaps giving the impression that something is covered by the License when in fact it is not?
Is source code included in the distribution?
Is a written offer for source code included with a distribution of just binaries?
Is the available source code complete, or is it designed for linking in other non-free modules?
If there seems to be a real violation, the next thing you need to do is record the details carefully:
the precise name of the product
the name of the person or organization distributing it
email addresses, postal addresses and phone numbers for how to contact the distributor(s)
the exact name of the package whose license is violated
how the license was violated:
Is the copyright notice of the copyright holder included?
Is the source code completely missing?
Does the written offer for source, if given, only give a website and/or FTP site where to download the source?
Is there a copy of the license included in the distribution?
Is some of the source available, but not all? If so, what parts are missing?
The more of these details that you have, the easier it is for the copyright holder to pursue the matter.
Once you have collected the details, you should send a precise report to the copyright holder of the packages that are being misused. The copyright holder is the one who is legally authorized to take action to enforce the license.
If the copyright holder is the Free Software Foundation, please send the report to
Note that the GPL, and other copyleft licenses, are copyright licenses. This means that only the copyright holders are empowered to act against violations. The FSF acts on all GPL violations reported on FSF copyrighted code, and we offer assistance to any other copyright holder who wishes to do the same.
But, we cannot act on our own if we do not hold copyright. Thus, be sure to find out who the copyright holders of the software are before reporting a violation.
Return to GNU's home page.
Please send FSF & GNU inquiries & questions to gnu@gnu.org. There are also other ways to contact the FSF.
Please send comments on these web pages to webmasters@gnu.org, send other questions to gnu@gnu.org.
Copyright (C) 1999, 2001 Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111, USA
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
Updated: $Date: 2003/01/27 06:06:41 $ $Author: chstoneliu $
They have to play by US law. Now they could, of course, just stop selling stuff here and there'd be little anyone could do about it. However a US court can exert control over them so long as they have a US arm of operations. This is how the EU can exert control over Microsoft, despite it being a US company. They do bussiness in the EU and hence are subject to the laws of member nations if the wish to continue to to bussiness there.
If you win a judgement against them in the US I believe you can get the US Customs Service to block importation of their products. I suspect that a letter pointing that out would get their full attention.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Latvia will be part of European Union next spring. Europeans laws are decent ones, and they will apply to Latvia as soon as it joins the EU. That case is not as desperate as it sounds. Don't give up!
That is why most states have a Sale of Goods Act. Before you submit to this kind of bullying, see a lawyer.
Oh well, what the hell...
Did you read the article? This isn't a router from Best Buy we're talking about here. It's resales (most likely from bankruptcy settlements) of high end networking equipment - the list price of one of the items is 60 grand. The guy got it for 4.
The dot-bomb burst was especially nasty for Cisco. Sure, it was the beginning of an economic slump. And that meant customers were more likely to hold on to their funds "just in case" than shell out for networking gear - even if they could afford too. But it went further than that.
All these failed dot-coms meant there was a very large supply of premium Cisco network kit available for pennies on the dollar. Sales of this used gear directly competed against new sales. Not only was Cisco facing customers not willing to spend, but those who would be willing to spend would not neccissarily mean the sales Cisco desperately needed in these hard times.
The added twist to all this was that a good amount of that gear being auctioned off and competing directly with Cisco for hardware sales had been financed by Cisco. That's right. The used equipment that was competing with Cisco for sales hadn't actually made Cisco any real money to begin with.
I suspect there were individuals within Cisco challenged to "do something" about this situation.
Of course, it's a shame that Cisco is doing this. It may keep some strategists their jobs. It might act as a bulwark against loss of desperately needed sales. But it will cost Cisco good will of their customer base. And with the loss of good will, Cisco will eventually lose sales.
Umm, the article talks about an unspecified model netapp and a cisco 2611. Depending on model and configuration, the netapp could be in the 60k$ range, but not a 2611.
That being said, the NetApp is not worth the cost, esp. in today's world. It's a nice device, but easily reproduced in many ways for orders of magnitude less. In the current environment, equipment is replaced every few years. So, the investment in NetApp gear that will physically last decades is useless. And it's made worse by changes in storage requirements.
For routers, mid- and high-end router hardware is expensive brand new and has zero parallel in the cheap, build-it-yourself arena. Once your needs go beyond T1 speed WAN links or you need to run a real routing protocol, you've gone into an expensive area of PC parts -- if the parts even exist. And a homebrew solution may not interoperate with your provider's hardware.
I'm all for do-it-yourself -- after all "if you want it done right..." -- but there are somethings that simply cannot be done without specific, customized hardware geared directly for the task.
...there's plenty of other vendors out there who can sell you a solution for less. So why put up with the used Cisco... because of the name? Is that supposed to warrant that huge markup? They're not putting their best foot forward if that's the way they treat their (potential) customer base. They should do like Sun and offer a TRADE IN for a new model instead. Then they could cannabilze that unit for parts for existing customer.
There's not much use trying to shove Linux on a 486 when you can spend $200 and get a (faster) embedded system to do the same task. Time spent tinkering with it can be saved by going with more current (but low power) hardware, plus you'll have time to decide how you want to recycle the old box.
Fuck Beta. Fuck Dice
You seem to be under the common illusion that you NEED a "legitimate license" to use software, or to even possess it. Quick refresher course in copyright law: These are the only rights reserved for the copyright holder. HAVING a copy of a work is not on the list. USING a copy of a work is not on the list.
And, if you will check out Section 109 youll see that whoever owns the copy is allowed to sell it.