Slashdot Mirror
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.""
So again, how is this not a Monopoly?
fak3r.com
Does a move like this do anything to effect all the current antitrust cases?
TFA:
This sounds a lot like a veiled threat to me.
GeekServ Unix Consulting Services (http://www.geekserv.com)
If they are only targetting PC makers that have agreed to only sell PCs with their OS on them, then they have a legal, though morally questionable, right to do this. However, it seems they are targetting all PC makers.
Right now, this is basically just marketing, but if they actually take action against computer makers who sell "naked" PCs, such as refusing to license the Windows OS to them because of it, they run the risk of once again being brought up on charges of monpolistic practices.
To say that a PC sold without an OS will undoubtedly be used to pirate Windows is an absurd stance, and so forcing PC makers to sell PCs with Windows pre-installed in order to avoid such piracy is not valid. If Microsoft presses the issue too hard, they're going to end up making their lawyers very happy once again.
The headline talks about buying, yet TFA is about selling. Way to go...
I can't imagine a larger brag that microsoft is a monopoly. It really is straight from the horses mouth with implicit proof of monopoly abuse.
Now for some serious FUD debunking:
This quote seems popular: "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"
Now here's the rest of it: "with specifically 5 percent fewer opportunities to market software and services,"
As for the idea that MS might pay you a visit for not buying Windows...it's pure speculation and is not indicated by MS at all.
This describes the situation best:
Microsoft is trying to convince OEMs to sell more of their product? Those fiends!
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
That has to be the best post in this thread. It removes the anti-MS hype and FUD and lays this article out for what it is. A description of MS trying to protect its base and limit Linux growth. Yes, they are successful capitalist assholes, but we already knew that. Nothing really surprising here once you remove the FUD claims of MS visits.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Yes, it's wrong of Microsoft as it's wrong of you. If you were in Mainland Europe, the "agreements" your customers had signed would not be worth the paper they were printed upon: anti-competitive practices are well and truly illegal, and damn right too.
Microsoft are abusing their dominant position, which they only reached in the first place by abusing a dominant position.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
This is typical anti-everything journalism.
As some people have already pointed-out, this "information" don't relate the facts. This is just an interpretation of possible results from those facts.
The interpretation is NOT the fact. It just makes for more "entertaining" news to say that an evil company will own you in the future. Usually "evil company" is equal to "biggest company" in a given field. In this case Microsoft.
Microsoft's request isn't all that difficult to follow; just put FreeDOS on every machine. Everybody wins!
If you were in Mainland Europe, the "agreements" your customers had signed would not be worth the paper they were printed upon: anti-competitive practices are well and truly illegal, and damn right too.
How is it anti-competitive if I offer the customer a savings on a product that they want? I don't ask others not to compete with me, I just worked out a long term agreement with someone to get the product they want at a price they want.
If an employee works for me, I also make them sign a non-compete in exchange for a much higher income. If they don't want to sign with me, they can go make 50% of the money with some company that doesn't care.
Anti-competition comes only out of licensing by the state and excessive regulations causing high-barriers to entry. Anti-competition does not come from companies forcing themselves into the consumers' homes. Microsoft has definitely taken advantage of government regulations (copyrights, patents, DCMA etc) so they're not clean in my mind, but I see nothing anti-competitive about getting people to agree to certain terms so you can plan your budget and growth.
Is signing a cell phone contract for 2 years to get a free phone anti-competitive? Is signing a satellite TV contract for 2 years to get $1500 in free hardware anti-competitive? You made the decision.
God knows I hate Microsoft more than most people...but this might be a teensy bit of an overreaction.
a n.jpg says that the top four reasons people buy bare PC's is:
The actual source of this information says that:
1) This is a UK-only thing.
2) There are only TWO new MS employees doing this.
3) They discuss this during routine customer meetings.
4) There is no hint of coersion implied here.
So what this actually means is that there are a couple of extra marketeers out there trying to pursuade stores not to sell bare PC's.
Furthermore, the MS article http://www.zdnet.co.uk/i/z/nw/sp/storygraphics/sc
* To install their own software.
* To transfer software from an old machine.
* To install Linux
* To take advantage of volume licensing.
The didn't mention "To use a pirated version of windows".
What they ARE saying is that selling a bare system is a missed opportunity for the store. They suggest that if you sell someone a bare machine, you're missing a chance to sell them additional software such as photo processing, music players, etc.
So - yeah Microsoft are most definitely *evil* - but this isn't anything to panic about.
I doubt this will change the minds of many sellers - two guys in one country appealing to store owners who probably made a careful decision to let their customers avoid the MS tax.
You DON'T need to keep re-buying windows over and over again. You DON'T need to buy a copy of Windows only to have it be overwritten with a site-licensed version at work. You DON'T need to buy a copy only to scribble all over it with Linux. You SHOULD be able to save $50 off the cost of your PC if you are in one of those catagories.
www.sjbaker.org
Abuse of a monopoly is illegal.
What's the point of getting a monopoly if you don't abuse it? The shareholders would sue you if you didn't even try to abuse it.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
If I had a nickel for every time someone pointed out that MS was not a monopoly, I'd be as rich as... well, Bill Gates. Just because they don't mean the literal dictionary definition doesn't mean it's not useful to classify them as a monopoly. The legal definition of monopoly is broader, and it is broader for a reason. When a company is in a high position of power like MS, they can do things that are detrimental to consumers, such as strongarming PC manufacturers into not selling naked PCs. When I bought a Dell notebook, I had to pay MS tax, even though I totally wiped off XP and installed Fedora. These are strongarm tactcs, and they work only because MS has such a high degree of market conrol. The fact that you put "encouraging" in quotes tells me something. Maybe it's like how the local mafia bosses "encourage" store owners to pay protection fees. Oh no, MS doesn't have any real power.. The real reason PC manufacturers listen to what they say is that Ballmer is so charasmatic.
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
"The FSF Europe is alarmed by the prospect that customers who request a base systems would risk a visit from Microsoft's investigators." I am still waiting on the day that I can buy a computer, and instead of them saying "They support Microsoft Windows only" for their computer customers, they instead ask me "What Operating system would you like on your new computer? I don't think they can come knocking on a regular consumers front door demanding to see their new computer just because they got the computer without a Operating System. If they can do this... Regardless of my choosing of Opeating System I plan to tell them to get a warrant. I advise businesses to do the same. I believe its time also for Vendors to drop the "Microsoft only" policy too. This is still forcing users to use Microsoft. Microsoft knows it too. Too bad the Courts don't see it for what it is.
PC resellers could just offer to bundle with Linux or *BSD -- which would make Microsoft's argument completely untenable.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
This something for nothing deal where somehow magically they are "owed" huge sums because they threw some inflation money at some bogus company has gotten to the point it's *nuts*. Screw the shareholders! It's time to hold SHAREHOLDERS to the full benefits of the RISK associated with so called "investing". It's RISK, and you are supposed to be watching whichever crooks you hire run the business. Failure to do that SHOULD result in a pure capitalist guilt by association deal. No due diligence in keeping your crooked managers under control, then TOO BAD.
If a company gets nailed for illegalities, over and over again, EVERY SINGLE SHAREHOLDER should get the same exact fine and or jail time. How ya like them apples? Screw them never getting any notice. And if a big corporation keeps losing in court, it should be the same as with individuals, THREE STRIKES AND YOU ARE OUT, automatic instant dissolution of the corporation, stocks made worthless, tangible assets put up for auction by the US marshalls.
That would FORCE these profit seeking they don't care about anything but money "shareholders" to think twice about throwing money at some shady company like MS or Enron or Worldcom or Arthur Andersen in the hopes of getting a lot more money for doing nothing other than already being wealthy enough to "own shares". It would make them take a LOOK at what the company is doing, to ACTIVELY take part in shareholders meetings and oversight issues. Screw em, they want the money, let them actually WORK for it.
I'm really not following you here. How exactly does pointing out that the standard bias on Slashdot is anti-Windows, help support your argument in even the smallest way?
He's saying that people with modpoints have a tendancy to be dicks, and that in all likelyhood you're just being paranoid.
As a documentar, but it wasn't correct. The GM said at the time they were being killed by the labor market in Michigan. And they were right, the contracts they signed with the UAW then to keep their plants open are the ones that are killing them right now. The Jobs Bank came into being in that timeframe.
The awards for movies are given by artists and mostly for art. Don't confuse recognition of artistic principles with statements underscoring factual correctness.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
A unloaded hard drive in not as much an invitation to pirate as it is to EXPEREMENT! Maybe that is what microsoft fears
I have a coworker who after watching us order componants and build our own PC's, go excited an ordered his own. With his former Dell, that he always felt uneasy about messing with the partition, but that new empty drive was just BEGGING to be played with, so he installed Ubuntu today.
I don't know if he will stick with it, but the chances are good as he is not a gamer. But even if he does not, Linux has mindshare between his ears, and he is not afraid of it anymore.
You Ubuntu people will be interested to know that it is your free cd's with shipping that made him pick your distro. (I am a KDE guy, so it was not me, lol)
This is pretty irritating - where I used to work, we had 120 machines in student labs set up running Knoppix from their hard drives (no Ubuntu at that time). No for-money software on them at all. I don't think the BSA's methodology adequately accounts for machines that legitimately generate $0 in software sales.
-Snorbert, somewhere in the antipodes