Are Review Units Better Than Store Versions?

Anonymous Howard writes "Every now and then you hear about hardware manufacturers optimizing their hardware for certain tests or games to make their hardware look superior. I was surprised to hear of a new controversy brewing over reviewer units sent to hardware reviewers. This article claims that Samsung is sending LCD monitors with a contrast ratio of 700:1 when the consumer version of the same monitor has a contrast ratio of 450:1. Various sites list different specs for the same model, so it's somewhat confusing to know for sure which is correct. I don't doubt this happens, but I'm surprised that it would be this blatant. Has anyone heard of other stories of manufacturers being deceptive so that they could get better reviews?"

Comments

Faster, Stable, More Secure

[youngerpants]

Microsoft, obviously

Oh, let's not forget the EULAs

[Quixotic Raindrop]

EULAs often make the problem very clear: many (not all) EULAs for software, and even some for hardware, make it a violation of the EULA to post benchmarks, reviews or to even use the product in benchmarks and/or reviews. This would mean, in a perfect world for manufacturers/ISVs/whatever, that you can only review selected products, and only in an environment set up by the creator of the product. In a way, reviews could be considered marketing, and the "consistent" and "coherent" image of the product is something that product creators will want desperately to control.

My problem is this. The EULA creates a set of conditions which is more restrictive than regular copyright law, but in order to argue that the EULA's provisions are contrary to case and codified copyright law, and therefore invalid, you open a very, very nasty case of worms which makes SCO's GPL complaints appear quite valid. It is clearly legal to review products, post satires, perform academic research and publish the results of that research, on items which are covered by Federal Copyright law*. It is wholly unclear if "click-wrap" and other "buy before you read" EULAs are valid on their face for the purposes of covered exemptions under copyright law, which would make (many, not all) instances of reviews of released products impossible, unless they were provided by the product creator.

I don't think we can have it both ways. If the GPL is valid on its face, and disagreeing with its terms means you cannot use GPLed software, then EULAs are valid on their face, and you cannot post reviews of a product which forbids such reviews in its EULA (if you want to continue using the product). I hope someone can post a convincing argument that we can have our GPL and eat the EULAs, too. I am sure there are some out there

*: Of course, the DMCA might have something to say about that ...

Re:Ah, the Sad Effect of Technology

[Eccles]

Notice to all personnel: Please do not wear brown shirts to work. It makes it too obvious what we're doing here--G.W.B.

They're working for UPS? The mind boggles...