Buy PC Without an OS... Get a Visit From MSFT?

sebFlyte writes "'Don't sell PCs without operating systems or we'll send the boys round.' That seems to be the general message coming out of microsoft's antipiracy unit, according to ZDNet. While MS seems to accept that people might want to get hold of PCs without Windows so they can put Linux on them, they don't think that's a good enough excuse. "We want to urge all system builders -- indeed, all Partners -- not to supply naked PCs. It is a risk to your customers and a risk to your business," says Microsoft. The FSF has given this policy short shrift, saying: "It looks like a private sniffing service which is supposed to spy on these who do not want to pay the Microsoft tax anymore. It is an incredible piece of impudence.""

Comments

Re:Ummm....

[mlmitton]

Absolutely correct. And it should be noted that in the antitrust trial, the findings of fact said that one of the ways in which MS abused its monopoly power was by charging OEMs per processor, not per copy of Windows shipped. Telling them not to ship without Windows at all is dangerously close to the same thing, and I can't imagine it wouldn't be considered an abuse of monopoly power as well.

Before anyone tries to complain about the findings of fact, remember that the appeals court never disagreed with the facts Judge Jackson found, only the remedies he demanded. So that the original practice was an abuse of monopoly power still stands. As would the present case of strong-arming people into always including Windows.

MSDS

[NemoX]

As an annual subscriber to a Universal MSDN package I don't think I should have to pay for it twice. That is called racketeering - a federal offense.

Re:Ummm....

[Kelson]

Okay... And trying to force the bundling of your software isn't abusing an abuse?

Oh, it is, but they were convicted in a US court, which doesn't have jurisdiction in the UK (much to the consternation of the RIAA and MPAA). Even then, they got off lightly enough that they don't seem to be terribly concerned with risking a repeat.

Re:Here we go again

[kimvette]

Microsoft USED to have a 30-day unconditional money back guarantee but now they engage in fraud by claiming it is still in effect. See http://www.digg.com/software/College_Student_Beats _Microsoft_in_$143.50_Legal_Battle

Re:Microsoft engages in foul play even here on /.

[Acer500]

I think Hanlon's Razor might apply here: "Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice."

IMO your friend's post was not worded that well, not enough that I'd mod it down, but I wouldn't mod it up either unless I knew that the statement accusing Daniel Lyons was true (and I don't know whether it is).

Plus, there are many Slashdot readers that either work with very closely with Microsoft or directly are Microsoft employees (for example http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/30/132125 1&from=rss has several posts by either Microsoft employees or ex-employees), which might have felt that the post was a troll (it is a strong acusation).

I would be surprised if at least some of them didn't have mod points (just reading regularly and being reasonable when posting seems to give you some).

That only leaves the timing to explain, but I guess they would naturally be attracted to a Microsoft story.

Of course, your explanation might be true as well, I definitely hope it isn't so (the implications would certainly be disturbing).

BTW which of these explanations fails Occam's Razor?