Microsoft Laptop Recipient Auctioning Laptop

Salvance writes "While most bloggers who received the controversial Vista powered Acer from Microsoft are keeping them, Laughing Squid has decided to auction off his free laptop from Microsoft and donate all proceeds to the The Electronic Frontier Foundation. (EFF) He saw this as a great opportunity to support a worthy cause, and some other bloggers are following suit. What's funny is that Microsoft is now backpedaling and telling bloggers to send back the laptops. Do they even have a legal right to do so?"

Comments

This article needs to be changed.

[DrRevotron]

Microsoft isn't demanding that the bloggers return the laptops at once, which is what the wording of the article suggests - Microsoft only said that after the review is completed, he has the option of sending it back. Just my $0.02.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[LunarCrisis]

FTFA (the fourth link)

Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding of our intentions I'm going to ask that you either give the pc away or send it back when you no longer need it for product reviews. The summary is still wrong, but not as wrong as you make out.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[1u3hr]

The Slashdot editorial comment: "Microsoft is now backpedaling and telling bloggers to send back the laptops. Do they even have a legal right to do so?" is misleading. The letter from MS quoted in TFA is couched as a request. No one claimed they had a "legal right" to demand their return.

I hate MS as much as anyone, but there's no need to make stuff up.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[Anonymous Coward]

>I hate MS as much as anyone, but there's no need to make stuff up.
You must be new here.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[rolfwind]

Let us hope so, otherwise he read that joke at least a million times.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[MrShaggy]

I thought that the open-source community was suposed to be better.. There are no fan-boy-fanatics, (RMS aside)

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[NickFortune]

"I hate MS as much as anyone, but there's no need to make stuff up."

Why not? Ballmer makes shit up all the time, so does gates, so does every other CEO if every other corporation, so does president, vice president and every politician known to mankind.

Why not?

• Because we're better than they are.
• Because we don't need to lie to win this fight
• Because lying devalues our credibility, and the truth is our best weapon.
• Because telling the truth and writing better software seems to be working
• Because Microsoft has better liars than we have, and can pay for more mouths to shout the lies. To fight them on their own terms would be suicidal.

But mainly, because we're better than they are. And that should be reason enough.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[db32]

Unfortunately that tends to be "We are going to lose, but don't know it" speak. I wonder how many politicians have been elected on the platform of "We don't have to lie because we are better" great...and you also aren't elected so your policy of not lying really means about squat because the guy who is telling all the lies is the 'decider'. Not that I really advocate lying here, just playing devil's advocate a bit.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[MaGogue]

.. because we're better than they are
Define "better":
"Better" is a linear total order relation. And there are plenty of such.
Under certain rules of game, by natural selection, you get a natural "better" order.
Philosophically, under idealist rules, we are "better" than they are because we "don't lie".
Under real-world rules, though, we suck. Heavily. That's why we chatter on Slashdot, and they drink Dom Perignon.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[eeyoredragon]

Thank you... I hear this all the time in political/religious discussions. "Well, X side spreads so many lies, we're at a disadvantage, so if we exaggerate from time to time, it's ok because it balances out!"

Balances out? How about instead of the world coming down to their side or your side, it comes down to what's true and what isn't true?? And if so, how is putting out even more false information balancing anything out?

And if that isn't working... quite frankly, if you're the underdog, participating in falsifying information is especially risky from a pragmatic point of view. Why break the status quo to adopt the thinking of someone you've caught repeatedly lying/exaggerating to you? Cynicism and the idea that you can't trust any side generally seems to eventually beat people down into just accepting the status quo: which is not you.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[false_cause]

I estimate zero. All politicians lie.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[gutnor]

And how many politician lie not to do themself a favor ?
In this case, the lies is so obvious than it can only weaken our credibility.

The role of the community is to debunk their lies with facts. If you start telling obvious lies, your credibility suffer and there is no way you could outgun Microsoft in the propaganda sector.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[packeteer]

If we use the same tactics as them why do we deserve to win?

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[jacksonj04]

Well, mostly not. Except for Firefox zealots. And people who refuse to consider anything but Linux. Oh, and don't forget distro wars. Should I be using KDE or Gnome? Vi or Emacs?

Interesting? Come on mods, this one is funny.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[Anonymous Coward]

>>Because we don't need to lie to win this fight

What fight?

I was unaware there was a war being waged.

Linux zealots are a funny bunch, kind of like the religious extremists that think blowing shit up will change
their position.

I use Linux and Windows and have for many years (Slackware 1), but I could care less about your "war" I only care about what works.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[Orange Crush]

I thought that the open-source community was suposed to be better.. There are no fan-boy-fanatics, (RMS aside)

Every community has its fanatics. It just comes with the territory when dealing with people. Whether it's a religious, political, social or technological faction; there are foaming-at-the-mouth busybodies with agendas and megaphones and there are reasonable rational participants. In most cases, the fanatics are only a tiny minority. They're just a lot louder.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[mverrilli]

This entire 'scandal' is a lie. Let's ding Microsoft when they really deserve it.

Somehow the story of "Is Microsoft trying to sway popular bloggers into writing favorable reviews in return for laptops?" has turned into "Microsoft bribing bloggers with laptops" and now "Microsoft is backpedaling and TELLING bloggers to send the laptops back."

Facts are, they are looking for some cheap marketing, giving away a handful of laptops to some popular bloggers to give a review of Vista with no-strings-attached. The bloggers ethically should disclose the laptop with the review, although some won't, but that's more of a problem with trusting bloggers and not a problem with Microsoft. Microsoft didn't TELL anyone to do anything, they merely asked them not to keep the laptop afterwards because of the absurd "bribing" news.

This is just a case where Microsoft can't win because you guys are too busy trying to ding them because the ends justifies the means, right?

Pathetic.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[MECC]

There an old saying "those who don't do politics are done in by it"

The notion that (mis)leading others gets you ahead worked fine when religion ran the land. With the advent of science, however, things have begun to change (bearing in mind that lying to get ahead is all but encoded into the human genome and has been the way to get things done for thousands of years). Now, you can lie all you want, and you might get ahead doing it, but it catches up with you.

For example politicians have been trying to lie about global climate change, and now the conservative christian right and republican party are poised to be irrevocably painted as the people who fought science on climate change the most. From dying polar bears to the 41-square mile 3000 year old polar ice shelf that broke off recently, its getting harder and harder to lie about it. The conservative crusade against science, built mostly on lies, is getting its comeuppance. It worked great for awhile, and may work briefly again.

Its true - lying gets you ahead in the short term, but it catches up with you. Smart people, like most geeks and nerds are, figure this out and avoid it.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[breckinshire]

And it never gets old. I, for one, welcome our joke-repeating..

Ah, forget it. In Soviet Russia, something or other.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[Macthorpe]

Because half the things that are wrong with this fucking planet can be boiled down to "Well they did it first so it must be okay"?

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[NickFortune]

I was unaware there was a war being waged.

I didn't actually use the word "war" and I'm not sure what you intend it to mean. Still, SCO's lawsuit has been quite nakedly hostile to Linux and to the Free Software Movement in general, so I'm reasonably comfortable with the notion that there is an ongoing conflict. And given the money trail from SCO back to Microsoft (Baystar, and MS initial oversized licence fee to name but two) I'm satisfied that Microsoft are the aggressors.

I wouldn't criticise you for declining to join in the defence action, but to suggest there is no conflict seems utterly absurd.

I use Linux and Windows and have for many years (Slackware 1), but I could care less about your "war" I only care about what works.

Splendid! Then, since you don't care so much, there's no need for you to go getting your knickers in such a bunch, is there?

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hm, you're new here, right?

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[NickFortune]

Define "better":

Used in this case in the sense of moral and ethical superiority.

Under real-world rules, though, we suck. Heavily.

You speak for yourself, mate.

That's why we chatter on Slashdot, and they drink Dom Perignon.

Given how precise you are about definitions, it's interesting that you're casting these as polar activities - as if no Linux user ever opened a bottle of Champers. It's not like no Microsoft shill was ever found astroturfing on Slashdot for that matter.

More to the point, I think that's a popular misconception. Microsoft started this game in a position of overwhelming dominance. Free Software continues to eat away at their market share. The fact the Microsoft remains wealthy doesn't mean Microsoft are winning - they're just taking a long time to lose.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[Lord of Hyphens]

Well, mostly not. Except for Firefox zealots. And people who refuse to consider anything but Linux. Oh, and don't forget distro wars. Should I be using KDE or Gnome? Vi or Emacs?

Vi, obviously. Emacs is the tool of the devil.

THE DEVIL, I TELL YOU!

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[uebertroll]

I thought that the open-source community was suposed to be better..

No, we're not, we make up stuff just like the bad boys. The difference is, when we make up stuff, everyone is free to modify it in any way they want, provided they grant others the same right...

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[MaGogue]

Define "better": Used in this case in the sense of moral and ethical superiority. Anyone can define better so as to be on top by it's definition. Its just not how it works in business.

Given how precise you are about definitions, it's interesting that you're casting these as polar activities - as if no Linux user ever opened a bottle of Champers. It's not like no Microsoft shill was ever found astroturfing on Slashdot for that matter. B&W imagery serves a purpose of exaggerating differences, and symbolising them. Moral and ethical rules, whichever variant you mean, in this context, are a means of achieving a goal. Philosophically, you can go about experimenting with them, but in business, you are just using them.

More to the point, I think that's a popular misconception. Microsoft started this game in a position of overwhelming dominance Depends what you mean by 'started'. When MS 'started', it was a small witty co. against the Big Blue, remember?

The fact the Microsoft remains wealthy doesn't mean Microsoft are winning - they're just taking a long time to lose. MS is not a person, and you cannot say it's wealthy. It might so happen, that when MS lays off 10.000 programmers because of losing the battle against Free Software, those 10.000 will either join in the Free Software business, or open a competitive business, or learn some other profession. As long as you dwell in market economy, you play by it's rules.
Free Sofware, free as in beer, is like beer: even when free, somebody has to open the cask, fill the glasses, and clean up in the morning.
Oh, and if Free Software is not a business, then it also doesn't compete with MS, and all this is not relevant, right?

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[NickFortune]

Unfortunately that tends to be "We are going to lose, but don't know it" speak. I wonder how many politicians have been elected on the platform of "We don't have to lie because we are better" great...and you also aren't elected so your policy of not lying really means about squat because the guy who is telling all the lies is the 'decider'.

You know, I think that the fact that strategy can work in politics says more about how badly broken western electoral systems are than it does about the viability of the strategy.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[NickFortune]

This entire 'scandal' is a lie. Let's ding Microsoft when they really deserve it.

Well, the basic facts don't seem to be under dispute.

• Microsoft did send laptops to the bloggers in question (and possibly more that have chose to keep schtumm about it). They don't seem to dispute this.
• Microsoft did say that the laptops did not need to be returned.
• Some of the bloggers felt this was being overly generous and mentioned it on their blogs
• Apparently, Microsoft then send some emails "clarifying" their intention.

So there's no lying there, unless MS have recently denied the bloggers' claims about the initial letter.

Somehow the story of "Is Microsoft trying to sway popular bloggers into writing favorable reviews in return for laptops?" has turned into "Microsoft bribing bloggers with laptops" and now "Microsoft is backpedaling and TELLING bloggers to send the laptops back."

Fair comment about the use of the word "telling". That's how I got into this discussion - defending the proposition that the Community is better served by the truth. I'm not sure I see a distinction between "trying to sway with laptops" and "bribing with laptops" though.

Facts are, they are looking for some cheap marketing, giving away a handful of laptops to some popular bloggers to give a review of Vista with no-strings-attached.

They gave some very swish, very expensive laptops away. They could have shipped minimum spec beige boxes, and we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

The bloggers ethically should disclose the laptop with the review, although some won't, but that's more of a problem with trusting bloggers and not a problem with Microsoft.

Why try and spin this as a problem with blogger ethics? A number of the bloggers did disclose the gift/loan/whatever of the laptop. That's how the story broke.

Microsoft didn't TELL anyone to do anything, they merely asked them not to keep the laptop afterwards because of the absurd "bribing" news.

Is the bribe aspect of the story really so absurd? I think the interesting question that arises from this is "what level of generosity is appropriate in such circumstances?"

This is just a case where Microsoft can't win because you guys are too busy trying to ding them because the ends justifies the means, right?

Given that I'm the chap saying how we shouldn't stoop to mischaracterising Microsoft's clarification, I'm not entirely sure how I got to be one of the guys trying to ding them, and I'm quite specifically saying that the end does not justify the means. So I don't know where you're coming from with that one.

On the other hand, if Microsoft are finding people reluctant to give them the benefit of the doubt, I will humbly submit they have only themselves to blame. Maybe if they'd lied less in the past, we might be more inclined to believe them now.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Microsoft has better liars than we have, and can pay for more mouths to shout the lies. This goes against point 1: "Because we're better than they are." The open source community should have better liars and in more numbers since people will volunteer to lie for no pay whatsoever.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[alienmole]

And it never gets old. I, for one, welcome our joke-repeating..

...overlords! Sheesh, don't leave us hanging like that!

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[Randolpho]

I estimate zero. All politicians lie.

All generalizations are false.

Except yours. :D

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[NickFortune]

Define "better"

Used in this case in the sense of moral and ethical superiority.

Anyone can define better so as to be on top by it's definition.

Possibly. But what I'm doing here is explaining the sense in which I was using the word in order to clarify my position.

B&W imagery serves a purpose of exaggerating differences, and symbolising them.

I'm not remarking on the extremity, but rather the false dichotomy: This wasn't so much "black and white" as "green and square".

MS is not a person, and you cannot say it's wealthy.

Oh, do behave. Microsoft is a corporation, and I believe the adjective wealthy is adequately defined over the domain of corporations. It's got what? 400 billion in the bank? It's certainly difficult to think of it as impoverished.

Oh, and if Free Software is not a business, then it also doesn't compete with MS, and all this is not relevant, right?

Three points there:

• Free software is indeed not a business.
• That does not however mean it doesn't compete with Microsoft. It does however mean we have no obligation to follow ethically dubious practices in the name of shareholder value or whatever today's euphemism may be.
• All what is not relevant to what, exactly?

My point was that the free software community is best served by sticking to the truth. I can't see how our relationship to Microsoft alters this in any way.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[drinkypoo]

Unfortunately that tends to be "We are going to lose, but don't know it" speak. I

This is not a zero sum game. It's not a win or lose thing. By participating in open source we create more points so that we can all win.

Yes, Microsoft is trying to crush open source. No, I don't think they have a hope in hell. No, I don't think we can sit around and do nothing to resist them. No, I don't think we have to lie. I think our best hope lies in pointing out the obvious contradictions and lies they're making. You don't see politicians do this (for the most part) because they are almost all liars. They can't go pointing out the lies of others, because they live in glass houses themselves. The tactic is simply not available to them.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's time for Vi and Emacs users to sign a truce.
Only when these two camps come together can we truly begin to ridicule and disparage the users of Joe and Nano

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[WhiteWolf666]

While I agree with you morally, I'm not sure that's the right answer.

I haven't made up my mind on the issue, but keep in mind that Microsoft has beaten opponents "better than they are" over and over and over again, mainly through judicious application of bribes, FUD, and monopoly market power.

I hope you're right in point #2. But I'm not at all certain, and this wouldn't be the first time Microsoft beat out someone with a superior reputation, superior product, and superior starting position.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[Warg! The Orcs!!]

surely

In Soviet Russia, other or something

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[Anonymous Coward]

econ 101: maddona.. controversy sells.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversy It is controversial to have fud(fear, uncertainty, doubt) distributed even if it's not true.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[thrillseeker]

All politicians lie.

Only when their lips are moving.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[bozendoka]

In Soviet Russia, joke gives up on you?

*tap* *tap* Is this thing on?

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[mverrilli]

I wasn't directing that at you, it was "you [slashdot/ms-hater] guys" ;) I know, it's easy to assume you are being attacked when someone replies on slashdot, I agree with you regarding truth/ethics.

Now, regarding the laptops... imagine you are a software vendor, and you want your product to perform well for the people writing reviews of it. Are you going to send it out with a fully stocked laptop that will perform excellently, or a mediocre/minimum spec laptop that might expose the usable hardware requirements? That is why I don't necessarily buy the "bribe" argument. Could it be a bribe? Sure, but circumstances exist where I can see it both ways, and I'm not willing to call it a bribe because of that. Besides, that should be an exercise left to the reader to decide.

I maintain that the ethics of reviewing an OS and posting it on a blog... and receiving something in return for it... resides with the blogger. If a blogger doesn't disclose that information, I would question his ethics. I'm not saying that bloggers didn't do this, although I can imagine that *some* wouldn't have (although after this whole craziness, who wouldn't).

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[MaGogue]

..to clarify my position. OK.

..the false dichotomy.. Seeker of the Truth and Dom Perignon do not go along well. The typical dichotomy being the Professor and the Manager. While there are deviations, the case is a clear cut as any.

My point was that the free software community is best served by sticking to the truth. I can't see how our relationship to Microsoft alters this in any way.
I don't argue against sticking to the truth; I merely want to point out that "better" is sometimes a self-delusion when measured subjectively or with moral standards. One sticks to the truth because one has chosen to. It does not make him better, only "better".
Free Software does not have to compete with MS, but MS is forced into competing with Free Software.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[chris_mahan]

I ctrl-K all over your comment.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

On Soviet Slashdot, the unbelievably old joke ends you.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[NickFortune]

I haven't made up my mind on the issue, but keep in mind that Microsoft has beaten opponents "better than they are" over and over and over again, mainly through judicious application of bribes, FUD, and monopoly market power.

Well, obviously I think the moral argument is reason enough. But if we look at it from a purely pragmatic viewpoint: we don't have the bribe money or the market monopoly power to compete with them. So that only leaves us with FUD. And the trouble with FUD is that it comes apart under close examination.

If I was with Microsoft, I'd wake up each morning praying that the Community would launch a major FUD offensive. Because the moment they did, I'd pick it apart and dissect each and every one of the lies, and then spam the story around all of MS pet columnists and bloggers. And they way I'd spin it would be that the free software community talks big, but if we really had software that was any good, we wouldn't need to lie about it. And that, IMHO, would be the end of our credibility in the enterprise market. Overnight we'd stop being a social movement with a product as good as better than the professionals had to offer, and in the eyes of corporate America we'd be back to a bunch of smelly hippies and spotty teenagers who can't spell Microsoft without the use of a dollar sign.

Purely my personal opinion, but that's how I'd play it if I were in MS's corporate shoes.

I hope you're right in point #2. But I'm not at all certain, and this wouldn't be the first time Microsoft beat out someone with a superior reputation, superior product, and superior starting position.

We don't have a superior starting position though; we came from behind with no budget, no userbase, and with software that was in many respects inferior. Now we have a range of windows managers that are as good or better than Microsoft offer and competitive software packages for just about every endeavour under the sun. And we've done this without lies, or FUD, or even marketing.

Why mess with a winning formula?

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[NickFortune]

We're not selling anything. We don't need to lie. We just need to write good software.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[Anonymous Coward]

JEEEZ! Can't you learn how to spell! It's "vi" and "EMACS".

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[NickFortune]

I don't argue against sticking to the truth; I merely want to point out that "better" is sometimes a self-delusion when measured subjectively or with moral standards.

Fair enough. Personally, I'm not entirely happy with ethical relativism personally, if only because it seems so often abused to justify patently anti-social actions performed out of naked self interest and greed.

Still, we don't need Absolute Morality for this to work, either. I think there's a broad ethical consensus; one that says that telling the truth is a good thing, and that lying is bad, and that people or groups that tend to tell the truth are "better" than those who routinely lie and deceive. It's perhaps an old fashioned use of the term, but I don't think there's any ambiguity of meaning involved.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[dilvish_the_damned]

Well, mostly not. Except for Firefox zealots. And people who refuse to consider anything but Linux. Oh, and don't forget distro wars. Should I be using KDE or Gnome? Vi or Emacs?

These are not the zealots you are looking for.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[NickFortune]

I know, it's easy to assume you are being attacked when someone replies on slashdot,

True enough :)

Are you going to send it out with a fully stocked laptop that will perform excellently, or a mediocre/minimum spec laptop that might expose the usable hardware requirements?

Well, if the minimum requirements were honestly written, it wouldn't make any difference. They could still have sent minimum price beige boxes. The ultra slim, ultra-portable Acer Ferrari machines does seem to be overdoing it somewhat.

I maintain that the ethics of reviewing an OS and posting it on a blog... and receiving something in return for it... resides with the blogger.

I'm right with you there to the extent that we shouldn't be telling bloggers what code of ethics should govern their blogging. I'm less keen on the idea that there should be no concept of impropriety for the rest of the world. It seems a bit like saying that the ethics of bribing a policeman resides purely with the officer in question. If there was no penalty for attempting a bribe then people would try it quite routinely, I suspect, which seems bound to increase the number of bribes accepted and the overall level of corruption.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[Maxo-Texas]

I worked as a contract programmer.

At first, I would give correct estimates.

The guys that gave incorrect estimates got the job.

And they *kept* getting the job even tho time after time they would tell the managers that it would be 1 week, I would say 3, and then yup- it would be 3 weeks (sometimes even 4).

So after about 8 months of this, I finally started giving "correct" estimates. I think when I said "3 weeks" the managers heard "9 weeks" since every time they heard '1 week' it was actually '3 weeks'.

After 5 years, looking back, it was an excellent decision that lead to many gigs. They cared about the quality of the finish product and I delivered that. And we had a mutual understanding that estimates were always lower than reality at that company.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[MrNaz]

No no no! It's like this: In Soviet Russia, our new joke repeating sharks with friggin' lasers welcome you!

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[NickFortune]

At first, I would give correct estimates.

The guys that gave incorrect estimates got the job.

I can see you're coming from, but I'm not sure your experience generalises well for the Free Software community. For one thing, you describe a situation where lying bore no penalty, and where there was no benefit to telling the truth. I don't think that's the case here. If nothing else, we can be sure that MS will jump all over any FUD we generate, and use it to discredit the community as a whole.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[Maxo-Texas]

Actually, my key point is that when I told the truth, people didn't hear the truth. When I told a "lie" they did.

Things get complicated in real life. Truth gets spun left, right, and sideways.

And people learn to hear the truth despite the spin after a fairly quick time. And then, I wager, that they start to lose the ability to hear the unvarnished, unspun truth. When someone tells them the truth, they automagically adjust it with their spin filters.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[Pusene]

At least in Soviet Russia the joke-repeating overlords hangs you!

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[flight_master]

Vi and Emacs suck, use Kate.

Gnome looks like a fish


Don't like my comment? When you're done reviewing it, just send it back(tm)

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[NickFortune]

And people learn to hear the truth despite the spin after a fairly quick time

Well, people certainly seem to have made that adjustment in the case of Microsoft. It's got the point that if Steve Ballmer holds a press conference and says "Hey Everybody! The sky is blue!" then I'm comfortable operating on the assumption that someone's painted green with red polka dots, at least until such time as I can get to a window and check.

The free software doesn't yet have such a reputation. Some people may think us hopeless naive, but I've never seen it seriously suggested that we are cynical habitual liars. And for the life of me, I can't see how it would benefit us to gain such a reputation.

Besides which, this isn't a case where if Microsoft tells bigger lies than we do, we don't get to eat for a month. The worst that happens is that the purchaser gets subjected to another does of the Microsoft Experience, and we get another chance to further down the line.

As someone pointed out elsewhere in this thread - this is not a zero sum game.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[RaNdOm OuTpUt]

You should be using XFCE and pico.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[null-sRc]

did i mention that we're better than them?

cuz we are.

better than them.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

[NickFortune]

glad you pointed that out. I might have missed it otherwise.

huh

[Swimport]

For the price of these laptops they could have sent out complimentary Vista discs to thousands of these so called influential people.

Re:huh

[Umuri]

Um, i think what you mean is that for the price of ONE of these laptops, they could send out vista discs to thousands of influential people. You do realize their ONLY production cost when giving out freebies on vista is the cost to press a dvd/cd/whatever it is stored on.

Re:huh

[dominique_cimafranca]

Given Vista's steep hardware requirements, I doubt if just sending out CDs would have done much good.

Re:huh

[networkBoy]

Oh come on!

There's packaging, distrobution, key management, etc. involved as well. Cost of the media is likely the cheapest part.
(not that I disagree with the point you were trying to make, but I'm tired of that particular argument (that it's only the cost of the media).

-nB

Re:huh

[iminplaya]

They look just as good as all those AOL disks I make my mobiles with.

Re:huh

[mrchaotica]

If Microsoft wasn't so bent on keeping everything proprietary, there really would only be the cost of the media. Look, for instance, at organizations like Debian -- you don't see them paying for "key management," now do you?

Re:huh

[kripkenstein]

Um, i think what you mean is that for the price of ONE of these laptops, they could send out vista discs to thousands of influential people. You do realize their ONLY production cost when giving out freebies on vista is the cost to press a dvd/cd/whatever it is stored on.

No, that's not true... think of the loss of potential revenue. Those people would have paid $300 or so per copy, which is money out of M$'s pocket... food off of their plate... money that rightfully belongs to them. Just like when you pirate a movie - regardless of whether you would have seen it legally or not - that's money that the MPAA immediately feel the loss of, when they can't afford to send their kids to college anymore.

("dvd/cd/whatever it is stored on" - it's a DVD. It has to be, since all Vista DVDs have both 32 and 64-bit versions on them, as well as all the functionality of 'Vista Ultimate', which you need to pay more for to 'unlock'. So you see, the additional 'Ultimate' functionality is already on the DVD, but if you don't pay extra for it, you are taking money off of Microsoft's plate... food out of their pocket... um... or something)

Re:huh

[Umuri]

Not particularly. Your argument in terms of piracy has one fatal flaw, and it's the same flaw the RIAA uses in its' extortion schemes in the U.S. Justice System. The loss of revenue is variable. For some people, piracy costs the RIAA absolutely NOTHING. Other's it may cost them a couple hundreds of dollars. The question here is whether or not the person would have bought it in the first place. If these reviewers, most of which from the looks of it were either against microsoft vista, or had pretty shaky views of microsoft in general, were never going to buy windows vista, microsoft loses the couple of dollars it costs to press a windows VISTA disk, because the person wouldn't have bought it anyway. It's the same reason why microsoft has abused its' monopoly status to strongarm ALL major computer assemblers to ship their computers with windows. I believe there was even a couple articles about it recently how it actually costs companies like dell and gateway MORE To ship a computer without windows then one with it. It doesn't cost microsoft anything to make a copy of a software program, and for some people, forcing them to have it is the only way they will sell it in the first place. As for the other post that replied, i know this isn't a direct thread but you cannot include management and other overhead costs in this cost evalutation, because these are not commercial sales. These are gifts from a corporation. It's the same reason why companies give employees discounts. There is no overhead, because you don't market to employees, you don't give sales pitches to employees. Most employees pay the Cost of Manufacture for items from their employers, which in this case would be a couple dollars for a dvd press. Microsoft already recoups it's devlopment, marketing, and other overhead costs in their commercial products, it's figured that way in the budget when it sets the price to sell it at.

Re:huh

[nacturation]

If Microsoft wasn't so bent on keeping everything proprietary, there really would only be the cost of the media. That's like saying if it weren't for car thieves necessitating keys and alarm systems, then the price of cars would only be the cost of the materials that go into it.

Re:huh

[julesh]

Those people would have paid $300 or so per copy, which is money out of M$'s pocket

I doubt many of these people will pay $300 for a copy of Vista. Some of them, for instance, seem to be mac users who would never do it. Others will choose not to upgrade until they buy a new machine, so will get an OEM copy, for which MS will likely only see ~$100. Others still will skip vista and not upgrade until the next version is released, which is unlikely to take as long as vista did.

Re:huh

[1u3hr]

That's like saying if it weren't for car thieves necessitating keys and alarm systems, then the price of cars would only be the cost of the materials that go into it.

Thus raising the bar for most incomprehensible and absurd "car = software" analogy.

Re:huh

[Konster]

Not really. You also have to factor in the man-hours involved with such a project. In the case of MS, such a thing might branch out into 50 employees diddling along for a week for a simple release, plus shipping, plus handling, plus bandwidth, plus media costs, +, +.

Even if you limited the whole thing to Vista, there's patch download costs and everything else. For MS, the whole patch thing could easily cost 6 figures ++++, and that's just on the first day of release, not including human costs. It's a huge cost for the most transparent stuff.

It's a shame that some knob weed at MS thought a handful of commodity items means jack and shit at all, ever.

But then, it might also be bloggers that can't read a fucking contract.

Re:huh

[nacturation]

That's like saying if it weren't for car thieves necessitating keys and alarm systems, then the price of cars would only be the cost of the materials that go into it.

Thus raising the bar for most incomprehensible and absurd "car = software" analogy. I'm glad the absurdity of it wasn't missed. :)

Re:huh

[node 3]

That's like saying if it weren't for car thieves necessitating keys and alarm systems, then the price of cars would only be the cost of the materials that go into it.

It's possible to steal a car (and it happens quite often). It's impossible to steal Windows (and has never happened, ever).

Unless you simply mean stealing the physical disc, which the key doesn't really do much to prevent.

Copyright infringement != theft.

Re:huh

[kasperd]

That's like saying if it weren't for car thieves necessitating keys and alarm systems, then the price of cars would only be the cost of the materials that go into it.

If I was going to buy a car, it would be in my best interest to have a good lock on the car. If I was going to buy an operating system, it would not be in my best interest to have loads of artificial restrictions in the operating system.

Re:huh

[node 3]

Given Vista's steep hardware requirements, I doubt if just sending out CDs would have done much good. I disagree, I think it would have done a lot of good, just not from MS's point of view.

Re:huh

[nacturation]

It's possible to steal a car (and it happens quite often). It's impossible to steal Windows (and has never happened, ever). That point of my comment is that key management for Windows is designed as a unauthorized use mitigation system much in the same way that a vehicle's keys and car alarm is designed as an unauthorized use mitigation system. I'm ignoring the distinction between copyright infringement and theft here because the point I was really trying to make (and obviously failed) is that even without key management the cost of producing software on media is *not* just the cost of the media. In the same way, the cost of a vehicle is not just the price of the parts that go into it. Unless you factor in all overhead and other costs and bundle that into one all-consuming "media cost", then the cost of the media alone doesn't even come close to what it would actually cost to send out copies of any software, be it Windows or Linux.

Re:huh

[Jaysyn]

Who said anything about signing a contract?

Re:huh

[nacturation]

That's like saying if it weren't for car thieves necessitating keys and alarm systems, then the price of cars would only be the cost of the materials that go into it. If I was going to buy a car, it would be in my best interest to have a good lock on the car. If I was going to buy an operating system, it would not be in my best interest to have loads of artificial restrictions in the operating system. No disagreement from me there. Now read the second half of what I wrote.

Re:huh

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a point of conjecture, I've been able to get Vista running without incident on two Acer laptops and and a ThinkPad that are one, two and three years old respectively. The newer two machines are both able to run Aero Glass as well. The requirements, bluntly put, aren't as steep as people make out.

They're asking for 512mb RAM, which has been standard, even on laptops for some years, and the rest is pretty much optional depending on the snazziness of the UI you wish to find. It's a lot compared to the vanishingly small footprint of some smaller Linux distributiosn, or perhaps a UI-less kernel with no drivers loaded. If you've ever used a Linux targetted at the desktop before though (Ubutnu, and some other larger distros) you'd know that while you could maybe drop the RAM as low as 256 or maybe even 128, you certainly wouldnt *want* to in terms of performance.

Regards
-Steve

Re:huh

[hazem]

For the price of these laptops they could have sent out complimentary Vista discs to thousands of these so called influential people.

And risk that it would not install and run correctly on most of those thousands of computers? That would be a marketing nightmare. Vista is already how many years late?

It's much better to have their own monkeys install and test the installation on the laptops (prescreened to be hardware compatible) to ensure it will work the best it can.

Re:huh

[node 3]

That point of my comment is that key management for Windows is designed as a unauthorized use mitigation system much in the same way that a vehicle's keys and car alarm is designed as an unauthorized use mitigation system. WTF is "unauthorized use" of a car, and how is it different from stealing? You are trying to conflate theft with copyright infringement.

You're right that the key management issues do weigh into the cost, but that's not what your car analogy was in response to. It was in response to, "If Microsoft wasn't so bent on keeping everything proprietary, there really would only be the cost of the media."

No one is denying that MS's predilection for excessive authentication adds to the cost of Windows.

Re:huh

[Znork]

"car thieves"

You must mean 'car copiers'. Of course, I have yet to see a car alarm system prevent unauthorized copying of a car.

But you can bet that if the gas station had not only a car washer but also a car copier we'd see the car industry yelling about how car copying was going to kill the industry and how cars would have to be protected from copying, and find a whole host of reasons why cars had to cost $20K+ even tho the car copier could churn out copies the whole day long for a couple of bucks worth of raw matter...

As for the issue of cost of producing the first copy, _deal_ with it. The opensource community (and other highly competetive industries) has already shown how you do it; quit it with the multi-billion dollar sink-or-swim projects, release rapid incremental changes where you recuperate investment from your first mover advantage. The days where you locked yourself in your room for ten years and came out with something great are over and gone. By the time you're finished the small daily steps of the world will have left your solitary development a decade behind in the dust; collaborative interchange is vastly more powerful than the ivory tower.

Re:huh

[trimbo]

Given Vista's steep hardware requirements, I doubt if just sending out CDs would have done much good.

Right... because PC blogging enthusiasts are currently running XP on a machine with a Geforce 2 and Pentium II.

Unless you haven't bought a PC since XP came out, Vista's requirements aren't horribly high. You can run it just fine on most PCs that are out there. I run it on 3 year old PCs and a 5 year old laptop all the time. On the ancient laptop, it doesn't run Aero, but it still runs fine.

Re:huh

[Bloke down the pub]

Thus raising the bar for most incomprehensible and absurd "car = software" analogy.

Someone should do a top ten list of them. I suspect it'd be one of the few such lists where there aren't two fictional entries to make the numbers up.

Re:huh

[TheNetAvenger]

Given Vista's steep hardware requirements, I doubt if just sending out CDs would have done much good

Ya, a 1ghz processor, 512mb of RAM and a Video Card that costs $20 (Geforce 5200) is really steep. How in the world can normal people afford such lavish computers.

(Oh and these are HUGE requirements that enable all the Glass and Aero effects.)

For the love of God, OSX wants 512mb of RAM, running a modern XWindows WM on a *nix easily likes the overhead of 512mb of RAM as well. (And should we even discuss the graphic performance of the OSX interface to Vista, Mac users would be screaming at the Vast difference Vista has over OSX even on non-Aero capable 3D Cards.)

The 512mb of RAM is the only 'hard' and 'high' requirement to run Vista. Are people this mis-informed, or is everyone trying to run their desktops with a Pentium 200mhz system with 32mb of RAM?

Argh, I'm so sick of the FUD/Ignorance and having to defend freaking Vista, it is what it is, stop making crap up!!!!

Re:huh

[Aim Here]

Economics lesson.

The COST of cars is the price of the materials that go into it, plus the cost of the labour required to make and of the resources required to move it to where it is to be sold. There's also a single one-off fixed cost to begin with that relates to the factory the car is built in, plus the cost of designing the car, plus some other small sundries. Those one-off costs become less and less important, the more cars you sell.

The price is the cost plus the profit.

Now with a copy of some piece of software, the price of the materials, the labour required to make it, and the resources required to move it is either the cost of the box and the media it comes on (i.e. very cheap) or the price of letting the internet distribute it (i.e. more or less free). There's still a one-off fixed cost, which is the cost of writing it in the first place, but that becomes less and less important as time goes on, just like the cars. Besides, it's eminently possible to get those fixed costs taken care of for more or less nothing too. Linux does it. GNU does it. (Free|Open|Net)BSD does it. You get the picture. The reason that they're generally free (as in beer) and Windows isn't is precisely because they've relaxed the need to cover the fixed costs (and, of course, curbed Linus' immense lust for profit and power) by using copyright law to proprietarise software.

Price again, is cost + profit. In this case, with the proprietary locks on, the profit margin is immense, because the marginal cost of what Microsoft sells is next to nothing, and that is why Bill Gates is the richest man in the world.

Your particular analogy is broken because a) you confuse cost with price and b) ten cars costs roughly ten times as much to make (given the initial investment in making a car factory) as one car, whereas ten copies of windows costs roughly the same to make as one copy of windows (barring the fixed costs, again). The price of both cars and software is cost + profit; however with software, the cost is next to 0, and the profit only exists because of the existence of the proprietary 'locks'.

Hope this helps.

Re:huh

[Lord Bitman]

You are wrong. While "Copyright infringement" is not theft can be argued for, it is, as an unrelated issue, possible to steal Windows, and such has happened.

"Making an illegal copy of something is not theft" != "It is impossible to steal something which Copyright Law applies to"

The gp's argument could be valid in another argument, but not this one, as we're talking about costs of distribution, not total cost.

Re:huh

[Lord Bitman]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

Re:huh

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried reading your comment, but just can't get past the word "its'." Please explain to us what the meaning of "its'" is, because if I do not know that I cannot get past the first line of your post. Also, have you heard of a newfangled invention often referred to as a "paragraph break?" Its principle use is to separate points in a written work by topic, which are generally expressed in brief groups of sentences. I know, Microsoft probably patented the paragraph break as one of their innovations, but trust me: you will not be putting anything at risk by sprinkling a few in your posts here and there. Even if Microsoft were to sue you, there is plenty of prior art to prove that Ballmer's throwing a chair at a keyboard resulting in the insertion of a linebreak was NOT the first example of a paragraph break.

I know its' confusing and --- AAHHHHHHH! Now you have me doing it! Its' contagious! HELP ME!!!

Re:huh

[Blakey Rat]

Doesn't Debian digitally sign the software available in its software repository? How are those keys managed, by magic elves?

Look, it either costs money or man-hours. Just because it's "volunteer" doesn't make it free.

Re:huh

[FirienFirien]

So by your reasoning, no-one should ever be paid for the development of ideas? MS has ploughed however many millions of dollars into the development of Vista - the cost of salary of its developers plus whatever marketing and other soft budgets you might want to count. You don't just turn around then and give the CDs away because it only takes a few cents to press them. A thousand copies of vista means a thousand times more chance of it being ripped, pirated, etc; if they send out a few tens of computers, then their pool of potential pirates is far, far, far lower.

Sure, they're getting themselves a tiny bit of extra reviewing weight by providing the material for review; they might get into the good books of the reviewer, but at the bottom line they're out there attempting to get free marketting. The tech blogs is where the leading edge of non-business buying looks to. It's a marketing expenditure.

Re:huh

[Half-pint HAL]

As for the issue of cost of producing the first copy, _deal_ with it. The opensource community ... has already shown how you do it;

Are you suggesting that Microsoft get programmers to work for free? That's a truly revolutionary business model, but I get this odd feeling that there's a flaw in the plan that I can't quite put my finger on...

release rapid incremental changes where you recuperate investment from your first mover advantage. The days where you locked yourself in your room for ten years and came out with something great are over and gone.

Incremental changes of what? An OS isn't an OS until it can operate. It needs to be complete. Hobbyists only play with early alphas of things like ReactOS because they're free -- no recuperation of investment there.

The robotics labs of companies like Honda do incremental releases, but if you compare the cyberneticists' goal of creating a replica human to Windows Vista, things like RoboRaptor and AIbo don't even boot to the login screen! They have a function as commercially viable toys, but an unfinished version of a new software package rarely does.

I am no fan of Microsoft, and I have no great hopes for Vista, but as someone who spent four years at university studying the intricate details of computing in all its forms, it rankles to be told that my labour is worthless. Or it would if it wasn't for the fact that I get paid more than a farm-hand, fisherman or factory worker, who are the only people whose jobs have any inherent value in your economic model.

HAL.

Re:huh

[Tony Hoyle]

MS' problem isn't the bloggers it's the ordinary people. Y'know, the ones that haven't bought a PC since Windows 95 came out, and probably only have XP because a friend put it on there for them.

Outside the techie world that's the vast majority - and Vista is just not specced out to run on those kinds of machines.

Re:huh

[arkanes]

Without a *prior* contract in place, anything anyone sends to you in the mail is yours, free and clear. This is due to an old mail fraud scam, where you'd send someone magazines, or books, or whatever, and then bill them for services rendered. Shrinkwrap licenses don't work (because courts and lawmakers actually gave a shit about that kind of deceptive marketing 100 years ago). So if Microsoft sent people a laptop, if they didn't have a contract *before they sent it*, then they just gave away laptops. That's why the Microsoft letter says "give away or return", and that's why it's just spin anyway. Corporations don't give stuff like this away "just for fun". You can bet that it's entered on a balance sheet as "goodwill" somewhere. But you aren't supposed to be so obvious or extravagant with your bribes, so they're taking heat and they're trying to spin out of it.

Re:huh

[drsquare]

But then again, Microsoft have to actually write their own entire OS, they can't just get everyone else's programs and put them together in a 'distribution'. They also have to make money.

Re:huh

[cloudmaster]

echo << ENDHELP >> /etc/cron.hourly
find /trusted/upload/dir -type f -name '*.dpkg' -exec autosign '{}' \;
ENDHELP

Re:huh

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Steep? As in 1GB RAM, 1GHz and a DX9 card? I have a four year old system that complies with that.

Re:huh

[nacturation]

As for the issue of cost of producing the first copy, _deal_ with it. You're the one bringing up the cost of the first copy. I'm not sure how that entered this discussion. But as many have pointed out, there are ongoing costs associated with producing each copy. Unless everybody donates all their time, resources, and materials and people transport at no charge your physical media to where you want to ship it, you are going to incur costs above and beyond the simple pressing of a DVD.

Re:huh

[Dr_Barnowl]

with software, the cost is next to 0

Total crap.

You are correct about the duplication costs being low, but ignoring the development and support costs is just living in a fantasy world.

What you mean to say is that with software, the cost tends toward the low cost of duplication as the number of copies approaches infinity. Since we do not have an infinite users on this planet, it's not zero.

Ignoring the costs of open-source development is fallacious also. All software costs time to develop, and requires infrastructure to develop and distribute. To say that this is free is tripe. Some of it is contributed for zero money by altruistic developers, yes, but they will typically be supported by other sources of income without which they could not contribute. Many OSS projects have full time developers paid for or employed by large commercial concerns, not least of which those employed by the likes of the big commercial distros, the software houses like CollabNet who sponsor the development of Subversion because it complements their paid-for infrastructure products. Or companies that work on software designed to support their other work and have the decency to open-source it if it's been based on other OSS products.

Take hardware drivers for Linux. To paraphrase a scene from Fight Club, at each hardware manufacturer, there is a man who's job it is to apply the Formula. If the number of potential first-year sales to Linux clients multiplied by the per-unit profit on the hardware minus the average cost of supporting a Linux user, is less than the cost of porting the driver software to Linux, then they don't do it. And even if they do it, they are probably not going to open-source the code if it does something clever that raises their product above the ordinary. The only way that a driver will subsequently be developed for that hardware is if someone pays the cost of doing so, whether that's with their time and skill, or by hiring someone to spend their time and skill. And the motivation is the same - someone wants to use that hardware on Linux badly enough that they are prepared to expend an effort. Which means that they must wish to benefit from that. Which is profit (in the monetary or the personal sense).

The profit exists because without it, literally no-one would develop software except for the fun of noodling around with algorithms.

Even if Linux was entirely written for no money (which it isn't), the only reason it gets written is because people want to get stuff done with their computers. The writing of operating systems and indeed all software is therefore a cost associated with the use of computers. The OSS model works because it distributes this cost amongst two groups - those who altruistically donate the fruits of their efforts to the community, and those corporates who participate in the great OSS bargain - they get a free ride on the licensing so long as they also contribute. Even the users of OSS can contribute by submitting bug reports (which are just as valuable as source code). The Windows model spreads the cost more or less evenly amongst those who use the software, but also makes a handsome profit on each unit.

Who is to say which is more efficient? I have no doubt that the Windows model promotes a tremendous amount of R&D because MS can afford it. On the other hand, even on my small scale (one developer) software projects with a user base around 10 users, I find that the ones that improve the fastest are the ones that get used the most. You can't ignore the fact that developing the software is what I get paid to do though, and for our particular itches, you're not going to find any OSS team willing to scratch them.

Re:huh

[nacturation]

Economics lesson appreciated but not required. The initial comment that sparked this discussion:

"You do realize their ONLY production cost when giving out freebies on vista is the cost to press a dvd/cd/whatever it is stored on."

My analogy's intended statement was to point out that just as cars have costs above and beyond the raw materials (eg: labor), so too are there costs above and beyond simply pressing a DVD/CD/whatever -- the fact that the original comment spoke of physical media indicates that some kind of shipping and packaging is required which implies a cost.

Re:huh

[trimbo]

The post I was replying to insinuated that it wouldn't be economical to send Vista CDs to bloggers because of hardware compatibility. My claim is that no blogger is in that Windows 95 camp you described. Most of them probably have hardware no older than a year.

BTW, a Windows 95-class machine would be a Pentium Pro or Pentium II. I just don't buy your claim that the 83% of users browsing the web with XP and 2K are on that class of machine, sorry. If you have any evidence, please post it.

As mentioned over and over by other commenters, no person with ancient hardware and Windows 95 installed would upgrade to Vista by buying it at the store. They'll buy a new PC and get Vista with it. This is just like every other Windows release. I'm not sure why /.ers are so dense in comprehending this and we keep getting front page posts that claim Vista will be a huge failure, etc..

Re:huh

[Anonymous Coward]

It's possible to steal a car (and it happens quite often). It's impossible to steal Windows (and has never happened, ever).

Incidentally, I've had a vehicle stolen, and my laptop (with NT 4.0) was inside. Therefore, given that the car is my property and the theft of it prevents me from using it, I'd say it's safe to characterize my lost license of Windows (which I am now deprived of using) as "stolen".

You don't have to pilfer a datacenter in order to "steal" Windows.

Re:huh

[agallagh42]

"it is, as an unrelated issue, possible to steal Windows, and such has happened."

No, it hasn't. Really. Sure, maybe a lot of people have had their licensed copy of the Windows CD stolen. I'm sure a lot of people have had their computers stolen, along with their licensed installation of Windows. There was even at least one incident of the source code being copied off of Microsoft's servers illegally. However, Windows itself has never been stolen.

Microsoft is the legal owner of Windows. They currently have it (the source and compiled binaries) in their possession. They have never NOT had it in their possession. Therefore, it has never been taken away from them, QED.

Re:huh

[Lord of Hyphens]

The 512mb of RAM is the only 'hard' and 'high' requirement to run Vista. Are people this mis-informed, or is everyone trying to run their desktops with a Pentium 200mhz system with 32mb of RAM?

I've seen someone run the FCKGW- copy of XP on a machine exactly like that.

It was frightening, as not only was it a blatant disregard for stated minimum hardware requirements, but the guy didn't seem to think that there was anything wrong.

So please, encourage everyone you know to carry around at least 1GB of RAM. Think of the software.

Re:huh

[nacturation]

However, Windows itself has never been stolen. Nor has someone's identity ever been stolen. However, identity theft is a convenient term for something we all understand.

Re:huh

[nacturation]

WTF is "unauthorized use" of a car, and how is it different from stealing? If I'm able to enter your car (eg: if you left your door unlocked or I have a master key) and spend the night sleeping in it, leaving quietly in the morning having caused no damage, I have used your car without authorization and I have not stolen it. Alarm systems are meant to mitigate such unauthorized use as well as much more serious problems.

And the sleeping in the car overnight thing happened to a friend of mine two weeks ago. The only reason she noticed is that her seat was pushed all the way back to accomodate someone stretching out their legs. Nothing stolen, nothing touched.

Re:huh

[wynler]

IP crimes are not theft or stealing in the legal since. For someone to steal something, the owner must be denied the item. When someone uses windows without a license, it's illegal, but it's not stealing, because microsoft can still use windows as well.

Do some reasearch on why patents, and copyright were one of the (very few) rights that were given to the government in the US Constitution. Even back then they knew that this stuff would be argued about.

Re:huh

[cloudmaster]

To clarify a couple of things which are close, but not quite right above...

From http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/cap able.mspx :

"To get an even better Windows Vista experience, including the Windows Aero user experience, ask for a Windows Vista Capable PC that is designated Premium Ready, or choose a PC that meets or exceeds the Premium Ready requirements"

This would suggest that, to get the Aero User Experience(TM), one needs a Premium Ready PC. You might ask "What's a Premium-ready PC?" Well, on the same page:

"A Windows Vista Premium Ready PC includes at least:

1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor1.
1 GB of system memory.
Support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)2, Pixel Shader 2.0 and 32 bits per pixel."

That 1GB RAM is more than the motherboard supports on two of my machines which support 1GHz processors. 512MB will work, but even with the video card (which will run $50 or so in most retail establishments I've seen), that means no Aero for me. Well, my desire to run Linux also means no Aero for me, but that's not the point...

Also worth noting, the "bit locker" drive encryption thing requires one to buy a "TPM" USB 2.0 key or have a system with the "trusted" chip integrated. So, no drive encryption for your machine with only USB 1 support.

The minimum, no-Aero requirement is an 800MHz processor (not 1GHz), 512MB RAM, and the same (basically) video card, which suggests that you'll probably want a lot more than a 1GHz processor if 800 is the bare minimum to run at all...

Re:huh

[Vellmont]

And risk that it would not install and run correctly on most of those thousands of computers? That would be a marketing nightmare. Vista is already how many years late?

Actually Microsoft did exactly this. They gave away 20,000 copies of Vista (and Office as well), to anyone willing to watch some developer videos. I got one, and while I don't have a blog, I do make recommendations to businesses. The point is that Microsoft IS willing to take the chance that Vista doesn't work properly, at least with a large portion of non-bloggers.

Though I do think you're right. They gave away the laptops to the top "influencers" exactly to make sure that Vista ran properly on it.

Re:huh

[node 3]

So now it's trespassing? The license keys in Windows were first equated to theft, now trespassing. Both of which are impossible with Windows.

I understand the point you are trying to make, but any attempt to use physical examples to justify the Windows activation system are doomed to fail.

There are certainly arguments for intellectual property laws, but trying to pretend they equate to physical analogs is the wrong way to go about it. You'll end up with laws that don't match reality (because they match the flawed analogies), and you end up alienating the people who see through the illusion, causing them to have no respect for any form of intellectual property.

Re:huh

[node 3]

Which is why I stated, in my original post, "unless you simply mean stealing the physical disc".

Re:huh

[kingturkey]

*woosh* You've just reiterated what your parent poster said, sans the cynicism.

Re:huh

[node 3]

Nor has someone's identity ever been stolen. However, identity theft is a convenient term for something we all understand. Using a flawed analogy twice does not make it true.

Identity theft is just the high tech way of saying "impersonation".

Re:huh

[swissfondue]

Do you really think Microsoft would risk all these "influential" bloggers gripping about how their existing hardware isn't up to speed for the new Vista Ultimate edition? That is why they sent them a "Ferarri" notebook; only the fastest machine is good enough ;)

Re:huh

[Lord Bitman]

Oh good, I can drop support for Windows then since nobody has it.

Microsoft is the legal owner of the TRADEMARK and COPYRIGHT for Windows, Windows being a collection of source code and the binaries derived. If you want to use such a scewed definition of "Windows", you might as well say that nobody can steal Windows since it's just a Concept which nobody owns and Microsoft has certain legal rights relating to, but not possession of (as it is immaterial).

Let's look at the conversation so far:

"If Microsoft didnt spend so much time worrying about people stealing[copying] Windows, their distribution cost would be nil"

"You can't steal[move] Windows"

"Well, you can, actually."

"I meant you can't steal[move] Windows[a concept not being discussed]"

English, learn it. Words are defined by their context. (you queezblat)

Re:huh

[drinkypoo]

It's impossible to steal Windows (and has never happened, ever).

Just to put this in perspective for the people who don't understand English out there, in order to steal Windows you would have to visit every Microsoft site and backup site, retrieve copies of the full Windows source code, and then delete those copies from every Microsoft resource as well as stealing or destroying all of the backup tapes.

This is because theft is when you take something from someone, thus depriving them of it. Copyright infringement is in some ways the opposite of theft - you're not taking anything, you're making something.

Re:huh

[Joe Snipe]

I suddenly want to make a bumper sticker that says "My other car is an analogy"

Re:huh

[nacturation]

So now it's trespassing? The license keys in Windows were first equated to theft, now trespassing. Both of which are impossible with Windows. I never said anything about trespassing in relation to Windows -- you made that erroneous connection.

Going back to the top of the thread (since this has gone off on multiple tangents) someone said that without Microsoft's various security features, the cost of distributing DVDs would ONLY be the cost of producing the media. Since distributing DVDs would likely involve some sort of shipping and packaging, that statement is trivially false. My analogy was to say that if you took various security features out of a car, would its cost simply be the car's raw materials? Of course not. Thus, it's an exercise to the reader to apply reductio ad absurdum and reach a conclusion about whether or not the statement about DVD cost is true.

Unfortunately, everyone focused solely on car/theft != software/infringement and stopped reading the sentence at that point.

Re:huh

[Vainglorious Coward]

WTF is "unauthorized use" of a car, and how is it different from stealing?

Actually, there's a big difference, and it's especially relevant when attempting to use car analogies to discuss copyright infringement : for a "theft" to occur, the owner must be permanently deprived of the item. So those who take cars for "joyrides" are never charged with theft offenses; in the UK, such offenders are even known as TWOCcers (TWOC = Taken Without Owner's Consent)

Re:huh

[Junta]

That's a really bizarre analogy.

In the car case, the features are often *optional* and the customer may want it and consciously pay more to protect their purchase. The car manufacturer/dealer from a business stance doesn't give a rats ass if that vehicle is stolen after purchase, and therefore doesn't force the alarm system down consumers throat, unless their market is overwhelmingly demanding the alarm system so that it is more expensive to maintain two options than it is just to include it across the line. Again, nothing to do with protecting the seller's interests, and everything to do with the customers. If a car is stolen, the customer is clearly victimized and the car company either doesn't care or even benefits (if customer eventually had to purchase another car).

In the software case, it is the manufacturer making it a bigger pain in the ass for the consumer *and* increasing costs passed to the consumer for the sake of protecting the *seller's* interests. If a customer has his license key duplicated or his software copied, the act in and of itself is no sweat off his back, just bad for the seller *if* the recipient of the data/key may have otherwised purchased it. If the recipient would not have purchased it no matter what, it could be considered bad (no direct harm, but setting an example for others who would buy), neutral, or good (larger customer base is good for a platform you want to sell developers on).

To use a more appropriate analogy, if someone bought a tape and duplicated it for a friend back in the day, no one thought to call it stealing. Now with the act abstracted so much through putting things up for anonymous download, the copyright holders are more successful in getting people to think 'theft', but the core reality of the situation hasn't changed in a way as to make the word 'theft' any more valid. It may be bad/infringing on rights, but theft is not the correct word, and any cost/inconvenience incurred by the customer is not for their own direct good as it is in the case of actual theft.

Re:huh

[paeanblack]

No, that's not true... think of the loss of potential revenue. Those people would have paid $300 or so per copy, which is money out of M$'s pocket... food off of their plate... money that rightfully belongs to them. Just like when you pirate a movie - regardless of whether you would have seen it legally or not - that's money that the MPAA immediately feel the loss of, when they can't afford to send their kids to college anymore.

That same argument could be made for every download of Linux. Without an alternative OS, those people would have paid $300 or so per copy of Windows, which is money out of M$'s pocket... food off their plate... money that rightfully belongs to them. This is money they immediately feel the loss of, when they can't afford to send their kids to college anymore.

Your argument is based on the assumption that the consumer owes a specific supplier money before any purchase is made, simply because that supplier has the most popular product; it's the default behavior, it's the norm, and the actual business of exchanging money is a tedious detail.

You left me with the impression that you actually believe this argument has a shred of validity. I now have coffee all over my keyboard via my nostrils. That was unpleasant.

Re:huh

[nacturation]

Cost of a car. Cost of a physical DVD. That's what this discussion is about. In terms of distribution, both have costs above and beyond simple materials. The suggestion that removing key management from Windows eliminates distribution costs for physical DVDs is as bizarre as suggesting that removing keys from cars will eliminate its distribution costs.

Re:huh

[Brandybuck]

When all else fails in an argument, resort to semantic word games.

Copyright infringement == copyright infringement

Re:huh

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the difference between a misdemeanor and a felony.

Re:huh

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I think very few of the people that were sent laptops would have paid money for Vista. Aren't most of them linux or Mac users? No potential loss of revenu if there is no potential sale of a product. Then there is the guy who is auctioning off the lap top and still plans on purchasing a Vista upgrade. So basically you're wrong.

Re:huh

[node 3]

I never said anything about trespassing in relation to Windows -- you made that erroneous connection. Yes, you did. You used it to justify your car analogy.

Going back to the top of the thread Which has nothing to do with this part of the thread, other than to have initiated the chain of posts. I'm *solely* posting in reference to your flawed car analogy.

The rest of your post is sloppy and I haven't the desire to go through it bit-by-bit, but I suggest you go back to the original post that started this thread, and you'll notice that Umuri deliberately stated he was referring to *production* costs, while you are talking about all sorts of different costs.

I agree with your assertion that he's not considering all the costs involved, but as I've already stated, multiple times, I'm not addressing that issue at all. Just your silly car analogy.

Re:huh

[node 3]

When all else fails in an argument, resort to semantic word games. That copyright infringement isn't theft isn't "semantic word games", it's *making an important distinction*.

Arguing over semantics is when the word differences really aren't relevant, and are just a way of avoiding the issue. In the case of my post, the difference between copyright infringement and theft *is* the point.

Re:huh

[jZnat]

I'd buy it!

Re:huh

[GodInHell]

Without a *prior* contract in place, anything anyone sends to you in the mail is yours, free and clear. This is due to an old mail fraud scam, where you'd send someone magazines, or books, or whatever, and then bill them for services rendered. Shrinkwrap licenses Well.. unless they were to pull out some kind of unjust enrichment/ contract implied in fact claim, basically throw themselves at the judge's feet and decalre that no reasonable person would expect a lap top to be free - and that they would suffer serious financial harm if the bloggers were allowed to keep the laptops - which they probably got at a steep discount and wrote off out of petty cash.

So, yeah, they're screwed - but they could make it embarrasing for themselves.

-GiH

Re:huh

[Anonymous Coward]

It's deffinitely possible to steal windows. On the other hand, it makes much more sense to break them, and steal worthwhile stuff from INSIDE the house....

Re:huh

[Brandybuck]

The prior poster was making a valid analogy, but instead of responding with an appropriate argument in your favor, you resorted to cheap semantic games. The prior poster responded the statement, "If Microsoft wasn't so bent on keeping everything proprietary, there really would only be the cost of the media." Your response had NOTHING to do with this line of argument, and served only to derail it.

Re:huh

[Brandybuck]

Your economic ignorance is shocking. Bookkeepers worldwide are fainting away from reading your post. Where did you learn your price theory, from the Reader's Digest condensed version of Das Kapital?

I hate to single you out, because I see similar ecnomic ignorance all the time. It's a subject that is not taught in school, but should be as required as math or history. Please, go get a basic freshman economics textbook. If that's too difficult, go get Landsburg's "The Armchair Economist", for some lighter educational fair.

Re:huh

[arkanes]

Well.. unless they were to pull out some kind of unjust enrichment/ contract implied in fact claim, basically throw themselves at the judge's feet and decalre that no reasonable person would expect a lap top to be free - and that they would suffer serious financial harm if the bloggers were allowed to keep the laptops - which they probably got at a steep discount and wrote off out of petty cash.

If they sent them USPS (I'm not sure how the regulations apply to private carriers) they're out of luck. There's some USPS links elsewhere on this page, take a look at them - it's illegal to send unsolicited mail to anyone that you aren't intending to give them. If they try to get them back, they're committing felony mail fraud.

Re:huh

[Aim Here]

Development costs is a single one-off fixed cost, and I amply dealt with it.

Support yes, is a non-zero cost, but with software, the people supporting the software aren't necessarily the people who wrote it- Cygnus supports software it doesn't write, and Oracle is about to support RedHat, which it didn't write either. If software support is included as part of the price of software, then the car analogy has to factor in the cost of servicing and maintenance and road tax as part of the price of the car.

Re:huh

[Aim Here]

Instead of the insults, exactly what did I say that was wrong?

Was it some terminological inexactitude to do with the words 'profit' and 'cost' that means something slightly different to technical accountants? Everything I said seemed more or less tautological, given the naive definitions of the words I was using.

Re:huh

[elgatozorbas]

If Microsoft wasn't so bent on keeping everything proprietary, there really would only be the cost of the media. Look, for instance, at organizations like Debian -- you don't see them paying for "key management," now do you?

Duh! What did you expect? When I am not mistaking, Debian/Fedora/... do NOT develop software of their own (except maybe an installer or so). They are in the business of distributing something other people (volunteers) make.

Microsoft is in the business of creating software. Maybe it is unstable, maybe you don't like it, maybe they steal ideas - I don't know. But does Autodesk give its software away for free? With what money would they pay their developers (.. developers... developers) if they didn't try to sell as much of their OS as possible (instead of seeing it copied)?

Re:huh

[node 3]

Your response had NOTHING to do with this line of argument, and served only to derail it. It was never intended to address that issue (and I've already stated this, more than once). I don't like irrational "copyright infringement == theft" arguments. I've made it perfectly clear that I do agree with his intended point regarding the additional costs.

The prior poster was making a valid analogy, but instead of responding with an appropriate argument in your favor, you resorted to cheap semantic games. I did nothing of the kind, as I was not addressing the issue you seem to think I was.

Re:huh

[Hooya]

"My other car is (like) software" you insensitive clod.

Re:huh

[Maxo-Texas]

Actually the cost of cars includes a lot of design too.

And just like music, they design a lot of cars that don't get made.

They may pay a half a million dollars for work on a car that never gets past a clay model.

Those costs have to be covered by the cars that actually do sell.

Those costs also include a lot of very unreasonable pension promises and a lot of people who are not working.

Those costs also include a lot of very unreasonable executive salaries. They may pay 150 million in salaries for the inner circle for work that could be done just as well for a few million.

Apparently the middle class finally got tired enough of being raped by the executive classes that they elected democrats. I for one would love to see some really punitive taxes on the wealthy classes. Not be cause it is fair but because they have been unreasonable pigs for the last 12 years.

Re:huh

[squiggleslash]

And those people receiving the disk could have had to install it, thus ensuring a thousand blog entries along the lines of "Well, I kind of got Vista up and going, though I'm having to use the VESA driver because it doesn't appear to recognize my laptop's Trident 954KX Supercard, and I'm getting random crashes when I plug in my USB wireless mouse."

These days installing a recent version of Windows on a system is as hard as installing GNU/Linux, both because GNU/Linux has gotten better, and because the hardware has gone so far out of control not even Microsoft can rely upon having drivers for everything any more.

Re:huh

[Anonymous Coward]

"think of the loss of potential revenue. Those people would have paid $300 or so per copy, which is money out of M$'s pocket..."
&&
"Just like when you pirate a movie - that's money that the MPAA immediately feel the loss of."

I'm guessing you were kidding and the moderators were just trying to trick us into thinking you were trolling. But I'll answer seriously since that's what the mods seem to want.

Equating piracy with revenue loss is preposterous. They "lose" the same revenue by someone simply abstaining from their content/software/product. If I till a little patch in my back yard and grow sugar trees and some caffeine bushes, and grind up the results to make my own drink I'm not actually costing Coker Cola anything. I'm merely avoiding their product by way of a substitute. Spending time knitting instead of going to a movie or using a speak'n'spell instead of buying Vista doesn't cost those companies.

Further, let us imagine we have a cat and we put the cat in a closed box with some deadly poison, some yarn and knitting paraphernalia, and a hot new laptop with Vista. Assuming we put the poison in only for show (ie, it's placebo poison) we cannot know until we opened the box whether Microsoft encountered revenue loss from the cat's illegal use of their operating system. BUT we could leave the box closed indefinitely (the cat will not die, we built in a kitty door) and microsoft would never know whether to report it as a loss or not. We could trap them at Wall Street... they won't know whether their bottom line is really awesome or really bad due to piracy, but we're going to need a lot of cats and knitting supplies before this is all over.

Re:huh

[squiggleslash]

No, it's making an unimportant distinction. From the point of view of a copyright holder, a person who has, instead of purchasing a legal copy of their work, has instead made a copy of someone else's copy, is depriving them of the money they were owed for that copy. From their point of view, it's theft. This is why most people have no problems at all describing copyright infringement as theft, except for a minority of extreme Slashdotters. Most people understand the concept, even if we believe the world would be a better place with 100% GPL'd software, or whatever.

If you want your own copy of Windows, buy it. Those are the terms by which Windows is available.

Re:huh

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell her to check the glove box. There might be turd in there.

Re:huh

[shark72]

"No, it's making an unimportant distinction. From the point of view of a copyright holder, a person who has, instead of purchasing a legal copy of their work, has instead made a copy of someone else's copy, is depriving them of the money they were owed for that copy. From their point of view, it's theft. This is why most people have no problems at all describing copyright infringement as theft, except for a minority of extreme Slashdotters. Most people understand the concept, even if we believe the world would be a better place with 100% GPL'd software, or whatever."

Precisely. We (as the collective Slashbot) have no problem with "stolen kisses" or "stealing your thunder" or possibly even "theft of service," but if the word is applied to something that we regularly do, all hell breaks loose.

It's simply human nature. The human brain is extremely adept at rationalization, and virtually everybody wants to believe that they are a good person at heart.

Apple says: "don't steal music."

To which we say: "It's not stealing, it's copyright infringement." (see? I'm not a bad person. I'm no thief.)

The record company says: "you are hurting the record company and the artist."

To which we say: "The record companies have enough money already." and (pick one) "artists aren't hardly paid anything by the record company, so they won't miss the meager royalty payment they would have gotten from the sale" or "artists make too much money. If they're trying to become a millionaire from music, they're a businessperson, not an artist." (see? I'm not a bad person... I'm just correcting some financial inequity.)

The artist says: "I'd really rather you not copy my music without paying for it."

To which we say: "How dare you claim that I owe you a living." (see? I'm not a bad person. I'm putting a clueless, greedy person in their place.)

Re:huh

[Anonymous Coward]

You ought to make a t-shirt that says "my other t-shirt isn't gay."

Re:huh

[mrchaotica]

Hi, "top of the thread" poster here.

Going back to the top of the thread (since this has gone off on multiple tangents) someone said that without Microsoft's various security features, the cost of distributing DVDs would ONLY be the cost of producing the media.

No, what I said was that if Windows stopped being proprietary (i.e., became Free Software), the cost of distributing DVDs would only be the cost of producing the media. It was actually meant to be rather sarcastic, but hey -- if you wanna take it seriously and turn it into an amusing conversation, that's fine with me!

Thus, it's an exercise to the reader to apply reductio ad absurdum and reach a conclusion about whether or not the statement about DVD cost is true.

The (intended) absurd part was the idea that Microsoft would stop being proprietary.

Personally, I'm pretty damn surprised I ended up with a "+5, insightful" -- I was expecting something more like a "-1, troll."

Re:huh

[mrchaotica]

Are you suggesting that Microsoft get programmers to work for free? That's a truly revolutionary business model, but I get this odd feeling that there's a flaw in the plan that I can't quite put my finger on...

As the poster who started this whole thread, yes, that's exactly what I was suggesting, and yes, I was being sarcastic about it. Apprently, my half-hearted troll succeeded beyond my wildest dreams. : )

On a more serious note: similar business models work for Red Hat, IBM, Canonical, OSDL, etc.!

Re:huh

[Brandybuck]

The biggest error you made in your post was assuming a technocratic price theory. You seem to assume (given your moral harangue) that if only one could accurately discover Microsoft's costs and decide a fair profit, then a just price for Windows can be calculated. Maybe it's ten dollars a copy, or maybe only ten cents. But the assumption that there is a magical formula that one can plug numbers into is there.

While it certainly gets more complicated, in essence, price is determined only by two things: what the seller is willing to accept and the buyer willing to offer. Marginal utility and cost certainly do influence the buyer and seller, but the subjective valuation of the product trumps them both. Take the collective aggregate of buyers and sellers, and you end up with a price curve. This is something you can examine mathematically, but one must remember that it is a curve of convenience, because the actuality is that it is still a set of discrete economic transactions that the curve attempts to track.

Costs. There are costs related to the good, and also costs unrelated to the good. The seller certainly wants to recoup the latter costs by selling the goods, but they do not enter into his price calculations. And what of wages? Piece-wages are related to the cost of the good, but hourly wages and salaries are not. For a software company, such costs can be significant.

Profits. Gross profits or net? The only way your trite formula makes any sense is if you meant gross profits. But the only way your moral harangue has weight is if you meant net profits. You then say "profit only exists because of the existence of the proprietary 'locks'". Your definition of profit is very confused.

Now to your formula. What happens when Microsoft raises the price of Windows? Does its "profit" go up? According to your formula it must. But according to the price curve there is a point at which profits will fall as price increases. It's not the government that's keeping Microsoft from selling Windows at a minimum price of $1000 per copy. It's their selfish love of profits that keeps up from getting gouged! (Of course, some people will claim that they would be gouged even with a price of $10).

Re:huh

[Aim Here]

"The biggest error you made in your post was assuming a technocratic price theory. You seem to assume (given your moral harangue) that if only one could accurately discover Microsoft's costs and decide a fair profit, then a just price for Windows can be calculated. "

I wasn't talking about a "just" price. I was taking issue with some wrongheaded analogy between software and cars (actually his analogy kindof worked, but the poster didn't understand that.) But yes, you're right that the profits are determined by a price, which is usually (not in THIS case) determined by some bargain between buyer and seller.

"While it certainly gets more complicated, in essence, price is determined only by two things: what the seller is willing to accept and the buyer willing to offer. Marginal utility and cost certainly do influence the buyer and seller, but the subjective valuation of the product trumps them both. Take the collective aggregate of buyers and sellers, and you end up with a price curve. This is something you can examine mathematically, but one must remember that it is a curve of convenience, because the actuality is that it is still a set of discrete economic transactions that the curve attempts to track."

Indeed. But isn't the 'supply' of an infinitely reproducible good with zero marginal cost going to be infinite? Even looking at it with supply-demand-curve tinted glasses, the only thing keeping that supply finite IS those proprietary locks I was talking about.

"Costs. There are costs related to the good, and also costs unrelated to the good. The seller certainly wants to recoup the latter costs by selling the goods, but they do not enter into his price calculations. And what of wages? Piece-wages are related to the cost of the good, but hourly wages and salaries are not. For a software company, such costs can be significant."

Indeed and I mentioned them, using presumably incorrect terminology, when I spoke about the one-off fixed cost involved in writing a piece of software. I suppose there's some things, like an hourly-paid worker on an assembly line, whose wages aren't counted as part of the marginal cost of the car, under your scheme of things, but I probably counted them in my nebulous 'cost'.

"Profits. Gross profits or net? The only way your trite formula makes any sense is if you meant gross profits. But the only way your moral harangue has weight is if you meant net profits. You then say "profit only exists because of the existence of the proprietary 'locks'". Your definition of profit is very confused."

Well yeah, I had no clear definition in mind when I abused the word. I suppose my "profit" per copy of software was, implictly, something like 'total revenue - total outgoings) / number of items sold. I shouldn't have used the word, really, since the PRICE only exists because of the proprietary locks. You should be able to agree on that. Good luck making a profit on goods with a price of $0.
As for the 'moral harangue', I wasn't even thinking in moral terms, I was just taking issue with someone's analogy. 'Property is Theft' is something I can harangue people on some other day.

"Now to your formula. What happens when Microsoft raises the price of Windows? Does its "profit" go up? According to your formula it must. But according to the price curve there is a point at which profits will fall as price increases. It's not the government that's keeping Microsoft from selling Windows at a minimum price of $1000 per copy. It's their selfish love of profits that keeps up from getting gouged! (Of course, some people will claim that they would be gouged even with a price of $10)."

And for the purposes of the original argument, that's irrelevant. There's a price per copy of windows, and that there's some *cough*nebulus and poorly defined 'costs' involved. It doesn't matter if the price is due to a supply/demand curve with rational economists doing their profit maximisation, or if Bill Gates wore a blindfold and put a pin in a phone directory or the price was l

Re:huh

[illumin8]

If I was going to buy a car, it would be in my best interest to have a good lock on the car. If I was going to buy an operating system, it would not be in my best interest to have loads of artificial restrictions in the operating system.

Or, to put it another way, would you let the car dealership install an extra lock on your car that only they had the key to and could lock you out of at any time? Of course not, the thought would be silly, but that's exactly what you are doing if you buy Vista or update Windows XP to include "Windows Genuine (dis)Advantage."

Re:huh

[TheNetAvenger]

Also worth noting, the "bit locker" drive encryption thing requires one to buy a "TPM" USB 2.0 key or have a system with the "trusted" chip integrated. So, no drive encryption for your machine with only USB 1 support.


Do you even understand what you are typing? Go look up the Boot USB requirements. That is why what USB is supported and what USB is not supported. All Vista takes is a bootable USB device. Now go look up why so you don't sound silly.

"A Windows Vista Premium Ready PC includes at least:


This is for NEW OEM manufactuers to get the Vista LOGO. This is not about legacy hardware. Quit trying to distort this.

Vista will run well on any system with a P3 processor or newer, and 512mb of RAM.

Also all it takes to get AERO effects is a PS2.0 Video card and Geforce 5200FX does this just fine, and costs about $20 bucks (go look it up).

Even if your Video card does not have PS 2.0, Vista will STILL use the 3D Portions of the card to accelerate the UI, as it goes back to Direct7 Support for WPF and GDI acceleration through the 3D GPU.

Yes I go agree 1GB of RAM will run better on Vista, as Vista uses systems memory for more things than XP or most OSes do. Thinks like virtualizing GPU RAM, and a quite advanced precatch system. So YES more RAM is always better!

But none of this means that people with only 512mb of RAM, an old Video Card and a PIII processor will not run Vista just fine. On lower end systems Vista turns down loaded services intelligently, and will perform equally with WindowsXP. The reason it will perform as well as XP is because of the new video subsystem and other features that accelerate portions of the display and the caching/paging changes in the system, and this is even with all the 'extra' features Vista is running that XP just doesn't have.

So back to my original post. Vista's requirements are NOT EXTREME in any regard, and will even take advantage of 1999 DirectX7 Video cards to speed up normal display operations.

Re:huh

[nacturation]

You used it to justify your car analogy.

[...]

I agree with your assertion that he's not considering all the costs involved, but as I've already stated, multiple times, I'm not addressing that issue at all. Just your silly car analogy. Yes, it's a silly car analogy and cars don't have a perfect 1:1 mapping with software. Mea culpa.

Re:huh

[808140]

One nitpick: "goodwill" has a very specific definition in accounting and one cannot write whatever one wants off as goodwill. "Goodwill" comes from the acquisition of one company by another. Suppose Company A makes a bid for company B. Now, suppose that the total value of Company B's assets is 10 million dollars, but because Company B is worth more to Company A as a going concern, that is, worth more than the sum of its parts (assets), Company A actually purchases it for 15 million dollars. Then an accounting problem has presented itself: after the acquisition, when Company B's assets are merged in with Company A's, there is a discrepency of 5 million dollars. This "value in excess of base asset value" is termed goodwill. It is generally amortised or re-evaluated, depending on whether one is following FASB rules (US GAAP) or IASB rules.

Re:huh

[toddestan]

And the chances of these people running computers nearly a decade old going out, buying Vista, and trying to install it is nearly zero. These people will either get Vista on a new computer, or will just keep running their old hardware as long as it still boots up.

Re:huh

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be a disaster, as the software will not run optimally in existing machines, especially those older than a year. Not to mention lack of drivers, etc. How many bloggers keep upgrading machines every 6 months?

What most people will say is, 'Vista is so slow/broken' without realizing that they don't have the recommended hardware setup (not the minimum required, which would be really worse than not working at all)

Re:huh

[Anonymous Coward]

god, this is the most boring thing i've ever read on slashdot, and to prove my theory, your username is 808140, which by laborious machinations you got to match your usernumber. you should make falling asleep tapes.

Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[j-beda]

But must they be returned? Probably not. In must places, unsolicited gifts cannot have strings attached. If someone sends you something in the mail, it is yours, even regardless of what is included in it. This is to prevent people from sending out "valuable" product unsolicited and then demanding payment. This means that if someone in the shipping room makes an error and send out actual valuable product to the wrong person, typically that wrong person is under no obligation to return it.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[Timesprout]

Well given that Microsoft clearly said they could be sent back or given away when they gave them out initally of course they can. Also Microsoft have not asked for the latops back. They asked that they be given away or returned to them when reviewed, very big difference.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[Bastard of Subhumani]

They asked that they be given away or returned to them when reviewed, very big difference.

I gave mine away, to my pet dog. He didn't like it much, so he sold it back to me for a biscuit and a tummy tickle. And I challenge any layer to prove otherwise.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[Bloke down the pub]

If someone sends you something in the mail, it is yours, even regardless of what is included in it.

And if the bank accidentally transfers money into your account you can keep it. If they ask for it back, it's entrapment. What's more, if a cop gives you a speeding ticket and he's not wearing his hat, you don't have to pay.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[pakar]

That's how it is here in sweden...

The basic idea for this law is that nobody should be able to force you into buying something. And if they still send you something it's yours to use until they send someone to collect it. But that's easily avoided, just never be around when they come to collect the item(s).

I think that this is not comparable with the bank-account comparison since you have not recieved anything, just got an accidental increase in the allowed withdrawable amount (accidental credit). But if the bank somehow sends you letter with a few thousands and requests payment for it it should be a completley different story. =)

Without any law like this it would be terrible... Just imagine a company that sends out a couple of million cheap items and charging the same price for the item as it would cost to send it back...

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[CrackedButter]

Did you learn this in 2006?

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[badfish99]

Same in the UK. They have a limited amount of time (6 months IIRC) to collect the goods at their own expense: after that they become yours.
The company I work for got a nice IBM server like this, because someone sent it to us by mistake.

The law was introduced because companies would send out expensive goods (such as sets of encyclopedias) and then demand that people either pay for them, or send them back immediately.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

The kicker is how they received it and what the prior to receipt emails constitute. I went through a bunch of blogs and most just say they received it but not how. One simply said a courier arrived (suggesting not USPS) but one did specifically mention DHL. So the below may not apply....

In the ENTIRE United States, if MS sent the item by the POSTAL SERVICE without contacting them first, it's considered unsolicited merchandise. And they can keep it.

http://www.usps.com/postalinspectors/fraud/merch.h tm

Not only that, it's considered ILLEGAL practice by Microsoft to do so in the first place if by USPS, not sure if in general though (someone may want to look into that).

Not to mention, insisting that you return it MAY also be illegal (if received by USPS) esp. if they demand it, since they are under no obligation to do so, and if they are asking you to incur some debt to return the item.

Note that I'm aware that companies do this all the time by sending stuff to reviewers in hopes of getting a review posted. There is a private courier versus postal system distinction here it seems, so this all may not apply. Furthermore, it's not clear what sending you an email and you replying with your address constitutes--are you agreeing to solicitation or not?

It seems it depends on what the PR department said or contacted the blogger; if they say "gift" or "present" then my guess is that the blogger can do whatever. However, it does not seem that all the bloggers had the same communication with MS (not to mention received the same thing).

Regardless, this is great. MS tried to buy off bloggers. Bloggers blow who tried to pay them off with gifts. Bloggers give Vista bad reviews. MS tries to STUPIDLY backpeddle, thus making it more public that they tried to pay off the bloggers, have a crappy OS, and now have sour grapes and want their crappy OS back, showing their immaturity at reaping what they sowed, crappy PR, and anti-competitive tactics.

Win. Win. Win. Win.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to buy myself a MacBook.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[JurgenThor]

6 months? Damn, wish I'd know the period earlier. I have received a bunch of stuff (almost) this way over the last year. A canon EOS 350D, a complete set of agatha christie's, and a scsi harddrive.
I've waited a year for the to come after them, and meanwhile the eos 400 has been released, seriously degrading the amount of free money I'll get.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[nacturation]

But must they be returned? Probably not. In must places, unsolicited gifts cannot have strings attached. If someone sends you something in the mail, it is yours, even regardless of what is included in it. This is to prevent people from sending out "valuable" product unsolicited and then demanding payment. This means that if someone in the shipping room makes an error and send out actual valuable product to the wrong person, typically that wrong person is under no obligation to return it. Check out the letter that Joel [on Software] Spolsky got. Here are the key quotes:

• "I'm working on getting some hardware out to key community folks, and I'd like to offer you a review PC."

So right away we know its purpose is as a review PC and that it's being offered, conditional upon acceptance by the blogger.

• "Also, you are welcome to send the machine back to us after you are done playing with it, or you can give it away on your site, or you can keep it."

Additionally, this lays out a gentleman's agreement on what can be done with the laptop: send it back, give it away, or keep it. Of course, I'm assuming that all bloggers got a similar letter. So this wasn't an unsolicited gift. They get a letter saying "Hey, I'd like to send this to you... do you agree?" and if they say "Yes, send it" then they should adhere to the gentleman's agreement they made. Does it have any legal teeth? Maybe... or maybe not. But who cares? Selling or auctioning it off, regardless of where the money goes, is not part of what they accepted the laptop for and behaving in such an apalling fashion doesn't seem honorable in the least.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

And if the bank accidentally transfers money into your account you can keep it. If they ask for it back, it's entrapment. What's more, if a cop gives you a speeding ticket and he's not wearing his hat, you don't have to pay.

Smart-ass.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[node 3]

In other words, if someone (let's not dissemble, some corporation--you don't make a "gentlemen's" agreement with a corporation. It's not like the MS employee paid for the laptop himself) gives you a free laptop for review, you should not give your honest reaction?

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[nacturation]

In other words, if someone (let's not dissemble, some corporation--you don't make a "gentlemen's" agreement with a corporation. It's not like the MS employee paid for the laptop himself) gives you a free laptop for review, you should not give your honest reaction? Where did I infer that an honest reaction should not be given?

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[lukas84]

Your dog is not a legal person, and thus can not enter any sale contract.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[Dunbal]

So now PC's come with licenses too?

Also, you are welcome to send the machine back to us after you are done playing with it, or you can give it away on your site, or you can keep it.

      OK, I decided to keep it. Now it's mine. End of contract. 5 minutes later, I decide to sell it on Ebay. Big deal.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[LiquidCoooled]

Also Microsoft have not asked for the latops back.
They asked that they be given away or returned to them when reviewed, very big difference.

Hmmmmm, something is wrong with your logic, sure, they might want it given away, but they do also want it back.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[jellomizer]

What you are saying that his Dog is illegal and immoral, thats deformation!

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[nacturation]

So now PC's come with licenses too?
 
  Also, you are welcome to send the machine back to us after you are done playing with it, or you can give it away on your site, or you can keep it.
 
      OK, I decided to keep it. Now it's mine. End of contract. 5 minutes later, I decide to sell it on Ebay. Big deal. A valid point. However, to me it's like someone giving me their grandfather's antique watch and saying "I'm giving this to you, but only if you agree that you'll wear it." I accept and then I wear it for a day [fulfilling my obligation] and put it up on eBay the next day. Just doesn't seem right.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[asuffield]

There are numerous precedents to the contrary, although not in every jurisdiction. The question of whether non-humans have property rights is one that has been largely ignored by legislation, so the courts have been forced to make it up as they go along. While there are some dissenters, the courts are usually tolerant of the idea (although you may be required to appoint a guardian to manage their estate) - on the basis that if a person wants to provide for an animal's welfare by giving them something, they should be permitted to do so.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[Secrity]

In the US and other places that use British Common Law; if the bank accidentally transfers money into your account, it is called unjust enrichment and they can take it back.

In the US, Canada, UK, and many other countries; if somebody sends an INDIVIDUAL an item that was unsolicited, the receiver may considered it to be a gift. The laws differ by country if a BUSINESS receives something that was unsolicited.

On a forum, a guy who sells collectibles on ebay had a big problem because he mixed up two boxes that he sent to buyers; one contained a $300 item and the other a $20 item. The seller talked to a lawyer who essentially told the seller that he was shit out of luck. The seller had the lawyer type up a (useless) letter demanding that the $300 item be returned and sent it to the buyer.

The buyers reported to ebay/paypal that they hadn't received their items. The buyer who received the demand letter then mailed a cheap toy to the seller. A week later the buyer sent the seller a letter containing the same wording as the letter that the seller had sent, demanding that the seller return the cheap toy. Needless to say, the seller's postings became quite livid at this point.

In the end the seller was out the $300 item and shipping costs, and both paypal transfers were canceled. One buyer received a $300 item as an unsolicited gift and the other buyer returned the $20 item to the seller (seller paid the shipping). I don't know what happened to the cheap toy.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[node 3]

Where did I infer that an honest reaction should not be given? Implied. But anyway, when you put down how he responded. At least, that's how I inferred it.

He's auctioning the notebook and donating to the EFF is clearly a statement of protest against MS.

As for breaking the agreement, he's essentially giving away the notebook.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Its OK... I'll pay one forest and he'll reform next round.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[SolitaryMan]

And if the bank accidentally transfers money into your account you can keep it.

This is what happened to me recently. In my case, however, it was the correspondent bank who made the mistake: they accidentally processed the payment twice and voila! I have an extra $1k at my account. Then my bank called me and told that the correspondent wants his money back.

The funny part is that when I came to local dept. of my bank they told me that they simply cannot 'cancel' a wire. There is simply no business process for this.

3 months passed and I still have the money at my account :)

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[ocean_soul]

In Belgium they can't ask it back. If they send something to you they can never ever get it back :-) (unless you give it back ofcourse). I think some items, I think for everything except letters and other paperwork, you can even demand that they come to take it back at there costs. This is because it's not easy to get rid of something like a laptop (or any other electonic thing); You can't just put them in the garbage, have to bring them to special recicling stations. So if someone sends you a laptop you can ask them to come and get it back at ther own costs.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[tjark]

It's not been like that in the UK for years. Under the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000, if someone sends you (as an individual) unsolicited good you may treat them as a gift - they are instantly yours. If they request payment they have committed an offence.

Only businesses still have to wait 6 months, or have to inform the sender that the goods are unwanted.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[Golias]

He's not giving it away, he's selling it. What he does with the money doesn't change that.

If a blogger wants to write a savage review of Vista, that's awesome. I hate Microsoft, and enjoy seeing them fail.

If a blogger wants to donate his own money to the EFF, that's also awesome. The EFF rocks, and deserves our support.

If a blogger wants to sell something which he accepted on the condition that he would "return, give away, or keep", that's dishonest.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[Bigbutt]

Obviously you don't live in California.

[John]

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[TheLink]

1) Is that someone your friend or your enemy?
2) This is Vista not some family heirloom.

If my enemy gave me a watch, I'd either give it back or get rid of it some other way. I'd probably not wear it just in case ;).

If MS had given me one of those laptops to review I'd have poked around to see what Vista was, backed up the vista keys (and compressed drive image) for future use (might come in handy ;) ). Then wipe and install another O/S for review and use.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[Registered Coward v2]

Well given that Microsoft clearly said they could be sent back or given away when they gave them out initally of course they can. Also Microsoft have not asked for the latops back. They asked that they be given away or returned to them when reviewed, very big difference.

Not really, in the US at least. If someone mails you an unsolicited item you are under no obligation to pay for it or return it; no matter what the sender suggests or requests.

Most review items either require a signed agreement - when they want the item returned - or they generally tell you to keep it after you've reviewed it. We'd get random items to review in the mail on occasion as well, and depending on what they were we'd run it or not.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[Tony Hoyle]

If someone sends you something in the mail, it is yours, even regardless of what is included in it.

There's a charity that mailshots like this every year. They send out a bunch of 20 christmas cards and say 'if you want to keep them, send xxx otherwise send them back'.

I've even met people who fell for it. It must be profitable because they keep doing it...

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[justinbach]

If someone sends you something in the mail, it is yours, even regardless of what is included in it. This is to prevent people from sending out "valuable" product unsolicited and then demanding payment.

Hahaha...clearly you've never belonged to a BMG music club.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[fotbr]

Ah, but the "music club" racket has fine-print that spells out an agreement you make when you join.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful? Phhhft!

Well given that Microsoft clearly said they could be sent back or given away when they gave them out initally of course they can.

It doesn't matter what Microsoft said initially. As GP stated, if someone sends you something you didn't ask for, you may keep it or sell it or pitch it, no strings attached. Recycle it as a door stop. Install Debian Etch on it. Heck, use it to blog about getting a free computer.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[nacturation]

1) Is that someone your friend or your enemy? I suppose I'm just a simple guy. If I make an agreement with a friend regarding their laptop, I'd honor that agreement. If it's an enemy, then I suppose I wouldn't be likely to make any agreements in the first place. However, if I did I'd make sure the agreement was surely in my favor... and then I'd honor it too. If the deal with Microsoft means that keeping it is an option, I'd probably do the same as you... wipe the drives and install some other OS onto it.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Legal? He said "layer", not "lawyer".

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[node 3]

He's not giving it away, he's selling it. What he does with the money doesn't change that. Yes, it does. You might have a point if he sold it, then later decided to give the money away. But he's already promised the proceeds to charity. Functionally, it's no different than had he donated the notebook to the EFF directly for them to auction off.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[Golias]

Functionally, it's no different than had he donated the notebook to the EFF directly for them to auction off.

Functionally, donating the proceeds gained from selling it is very different from giving it away to somebody.

For one thing, it's a tax write-off. For another, it's outside the scope of the agreement he made when he accepted it.

It wasn't a legally binding agreement, but it's still a dishonest thing to do. Resale is resale, regardless of what you're doing with the money.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[drinkypoo]

It wasn't a legally binding agreement, but it's still a dishonest thing to do.

I'm not sure how you come to that reasoning. If he gave it away to someone else who sold it and donated the money to the EFF, he would be following the letter of the "agreement" (is there a signature on that agreement? no? then it's arguably not legally binding anyway) and still achieving his goal. Given that, is there really any functional difference between that, and doing it himself? This is clearly a rhetorical question, because just as clearly, there is no damned difference.

If someone gives you something and says you can give it away, then clearly they don't care what you do with it and they have relinquished their claim to it. He could also give it to someone else who would give it back to him; if they are willing to testify to same in court then clearly a legal transaction has taken place. At that point it would more obviously be his, free and clear; yet nothing has really happened.

As such, arguing that giving it away is substantially different from selling it in this context is ridiculous. Microsoft released their claim to it. It's over.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[swillden]

The seller had the lawyer type up a (useless) letter demanding that the $300 item be returned and sent it to the buyer. The buyers reported to ebay/paypal that they hadn't received their items. The buyer who received the demand letter then mailed a cheap toy to the seller. A week later the buyer sent the seller a letter containing the same wording as the letter that the seller had sent, demanding that the seller return the cheap toy.

An excellent example of how legality != morality.

The "lucky" buyer is an asshole, and deserves lots of negative feedback.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[Golias]

Are you even reading my posts, or just guessing at what my points are. You even cut and pasted the line where I said that is was not a legally binding agreement before snapping back with "(is there a signature on that agreement? no? then it's arguably not legally binding anyway)".

My point is that he's going against the spirit of the agreement, not the letter of it.

I never said he was breaking any laws, just that he was being dishonest.

Holy shit. Learn to read.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[swissfondue]

After the blogger kept it, it is his property, correct? He can then dispose of, sell, gift or do anything he wants to with his property.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[drinkypoo]

Holy shit. Learn to read.

Take your own advice, kiddo. I explain from two different angles why he is not breaking the spirit of the agreement.

Of course, this is all completely hypothetical, because he never received the email that the other "reviewers" received in any case. Meaning that he was never asked to return it or give it away - the email (supposedly) included the specific words "no strings attached".

Thus is is breaching neither the spirit NOR the letter. But simply enough, even if he HAD been asked to give it away or keep it, "sell it" is close enough to equivalent to "give it away" that frankly they would have had no right to bitch anyway. When you tell someone they can give something away when they're done with it, that's a pretty clear statement that you don't care what happens to it. Otherwise, I think you have an obligation to spell out what you want done (I assume you are reading it as "give it to someone who will review it"?) with it. They didn't do this with the people who actually got the letter, let alone this dude.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[LearnToSpell]

I'll sell you my laptop for a biscuit and a tummy tickle.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[Secrity]

Yeah, I agree that legality != morality.

I am not sure, but I suspect that if the buyer received negative feedback about this incident that he could contest the feedback and have it removed. It appears that the buyer paid for the $20 item in good faith and that the item that he had "won" was not sent to him, he was well within his rights to stop payment on the item that he didn't receive. The buyer's conduct concerning the $300 item is none of Ebay's business.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[twigusa]

And I challenge any layer to prove otherwise. A layer screwed me once...

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[wordsnyc]

I gave my dog some lima beans and she sold them back to me in the middle of the living room rug. I think it was the dorky Ferrari emblem on the can that did it.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[swillden]

I am not sure, but I suspect that if the buyer received negative feedback about this incident that he could contest the feedback and have it removed. It appears that the buyer paid for the $20 item in good faith and that the item that he had "won" was not sent to him, he was well within his rights to stop payment on the item that he didn't receive. The buyer's conduct concerning the $300 item is none of Ebay's business.

I disagree. If the seller offered to pay the return shipping and ship the correct item, but the buyer refused, I think the buyer deserves the negative feedback as a warning to any others that might consider doing business with him. "This guy will shaft you if he can get away with it".

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[node 3]

Functionally, donating the proceeds gained from selling it is very different from giving it away to somebody.

For one thing, it's a tax write-off. Which is a function that has nothing to do with Microsoft.

For another, it's outside the scope of the agreement he made when he accepted it. What "scope"?

Resale is resale, regardless of what you're doing with the money. The form of resale he's going through is equivalent to giving it away. The "agreement" never said he couldn't resell it, in fact, it didn't list anything he *couldn't* do with it. It merely listed things he *could* do. One of those things was to give it away, which is arguably what he's doing.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[multisync]

After the blogger kept it, it is his property, correct?

Exactly. You can not attach strings to a gift. Once given, the person receiving the gift may do as he pleases with it.

Even if the original letter had spelled out conditions such as the laptop may not be auctioned off to raise money for the EFF, unless the blogger specfically agreed to those conditions prior to receiving the laptop, I would say Microsoft can pound salt. They may never send that blogger anything again, which is their perogative, but the laptop is his and they are in no position to attempt to attach conditions to it now.

A while back, a pan handler I had given my pocket change to moments earlier passed by me in the liquor store. He was buying beer with the money I and others had given him. Would I have felt better had I observed him buying food with that money? Sure. But once I had given him the money, it was his to do with as he pleased. I had no claim over it or how he disposed of it. I could choose to never give that pan handler money again, but the money I had given him was his and what he did with it later was none of my business.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bloke down the pub wrote:

And if the bank accidentally transfers money into your account you can keep it. If they ask for it back, it's entrapment

I'm pretty sure you're being sarcastic here. Still, not sure where you're getting entrapment. That doesn't even make sense. In any case, look up midnight deadlines. Basically if the bank makes an error in your favor then they have a limited time to correct the problem before the money is yours (if this ever does happen to you, you'll want to close out your account and open a new one elsewhere and deposit the money because I can pretty much guarantee you that, legal time limits or not, once they figure out their mistake, they'll just take the money back out of your account). The same applies if they make an error in their own favor, you have to take action within a time limit.
You also wrote:

if a cop gives you a speeding ticket and he's not wearing his hat, you don't have to pay

Obviously if you're not being sarcastic then you must be on crack. However, there are certain requirements for the police officer to identify themselves properly. For example, they have to give you their badge number. This should be on the ticket or at least identifying information about the officer should be. If that is missing, then you shouldn't need to pay the ticket because it wasn't filled out properly. As for uniform, there may actually be specific uniform requirements in specific jurisdictions that are required for local police that actually might give you a legal case if they're not met. However it wouldn't be much of a case, and it probably wouldn't be worth fighting.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sarcasm aside, the grandparent is correct: http://www.usps.com/postalinspectors/fraud/merch.h tm

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[Sosarian]

But he can give it away to his roommate/employee/boss/girlfriend/randomguy, who can then sell it?

Why not just skip the first step.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

That is wrong. In the US, you are obliged to make one attempt to correct the action. You must fully explain the situation, and leave it up to the company to apply a fix to the problem at no cost to you. If they fail to do so within 30 days of your notification, then, and ONLY then, are you allowed to keep the items sent in error.

The UCC applies here.

I suspect it is similar in other countries, though the UCC would not then apply.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

*chuckle* Only on Slashdot would a post which says only "Smart-ass." be marked +5 informative. :)

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[Threni]

> If someone sends you something in the mail, it is yours, even regardless of what is included in it.

No, if someone sends you my laptop without my permission then it's theft, and therefore it's mine, no matter who possesses it. If you then sell it to someone, I can take it back from that person too, even if he bought it in good faith. (This is UK law, anyway).

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[__aajqwr7439]

However, to me it's like someone giving me their grandfather's antique watch and saying "I'm giving this to you, but only if you agree that you'll wear it."

It's the very least you could do considering the seven long years of suffering...

DN

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[dangitman]

That's how it is here in sweden... The basic idea for this law is that nobody should be able to force you into buying something.

So, where does the cop not wearing his hat come into it?

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously if you're not being sarcastic then you must be on crack.

Obviously if you can't recognise a sarcastic parody of the uninformed legal advice found on slashdot you obviously must be an American.

unconcious bias

[purplelocust]

Presumably, Microsoft read the same New York Times Op-Edon bias as everyone else, that basically says that people claim to be uninfluenced by things like this but that they really are fooling themselves and are biased. Microsoft wouldn't have done this laptop giveaway if they didn't think it would work- that is, result in at least slightly better reviews than they would have gotten otherwise.

Re:unconcious bias

[mrchaotica]

I don't know about that... using the gift to help the opposition sounds like pretty good evidence of resisting bias to me! In fact, I wish more people would do the same -- imagine how much better the world would be if, for example, politicians took bribes from Big Oil and then donated them to alternative energy research instead of letting them influence them.

Re:unconcious bias

[Anonymous Coward]

Unconcious bias? Wonder if that is why CowboyNeal selected this item for posting.

Let's have a slashdot poll on who should get the laptop!

Think the result would influence Laughing Squid's decision process any?

1: Microsoft

2: EFF

3: The Mod Squad ( low flying )

4: Paris Hilton (If all of you give her a Ferrari she will be busy a while *cough*)

5: CowboyNeal

Re:unconcious bias

[Gregory Cox]

But there are other benefits to Microsoft besides unintentional bias.

Just having enough influential bloggers get used to using Vista and writing about it may well help to increase its popularity by word of mouth (assuming it's not actually dramatically worse than XP). This is the "first hit is free" or "cinema preview" effect.

Letting bloggers who are likely to try Vista use a super-fast PC to give them the best possible user experience is also likely to cut down on negative comments.

At this stage, when Vista adoption rates are not yet decided, Microsoft would be happy to give away Vista machines or even pay people to take them. But that looks too much like bribery, which is bad PR, and it looks like they backtracked because they realised that.

In retrospect, they probably should have only sent out review copies and asked for them to be sent back, to get the positive effects of publicity without the accusations that they were trying to buy good reviews.

Re:unconcious bias

[Anonymous Coward]

...and to add to your post, not just MS does this. I used to work for a newspaper before tech jobs. You can barely see over the desk some days with the amount of "free" gifts that show up. I guess that on Slashdot all those people were evil and that's why they sent it. What is the freakin story here? because I don't see MS doing anything that a lot of other companies do, especially for a new product launch. OH, let me guess, if people didn't get product reviews for MS there would also be a Slashdot story about how that was wrong too. I'm all for corporate bashing and MS, but geez, at least come up with a story that makes them look bad in some way. unless you believe every video game review site on Earth, purchases all of their games and hardware, Tom's hardware picks all hardware out of stores and doesn't get sent review items, etc....

Re:unconcious bias

[_Sprocket_]

Microsoft wouldn't have done this laptop giveaway if they didn't think it would work- that is, result in at least slightly better reviews than they would have gotten otherwise.

I agree. It's obvious that reviewers with different hardware are likely to come back with different opinions based on their own experiences. Those running Vista on sub-optimal hardware are going to have less-positive experiences. They will wonder why other reviewers have glowing reviews. Unfounded claims of shilling and payola will follow.

Microsoft is simply trying to clear this up. By providing expensive, top-of-the-line hardware they are able to clear up the confusion and provide foundation to the claims of shilling and payola.

Hey

[Deliveranc3]

Any publicity is good publicity...

cough

Re:Hey

[Opportunist]

For reference, see SCO and their trialmania.

Re:Hey

[Stormwatch]

That one is different. A legit company would make money from selling a product or service; SCO exists only as a Microsoft-sponsored FUD-spreading device.

Auction link

[dtfinch]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item =160068144458

Re:Auction link

[jellomizer]

At that price you can get yourself a faster MacBook Pro. With a bigger screen, Faster Processor, 3 times as much RAM. And comes with a real OS with option to to install a Fake OS as well.

Re:Auction link

[TaoPhoenix]

So it's selling for $1000 more than it's worth!?

It's gonna become a cult item.

Re:Auction link

[Tony Hoyle]

At that price you could buy an MSDN sub and a Laptop and also get Vista 'three weeks before it's on sale'.

Anyway, I thought Windows licenses weren't transferrable?

Re:Auction link

[runderwo]

I love the slashdot tags on this article.

"Do they even have a legal right to do so?"

> haha, no, eff, microsoft (tagging beta)

Read it phonetically.

Slashdotters heads explode

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a day ago we were all jealous and against anyone who'd dare to keep a laptop from Microsoft, and already we have to defend them? *BOOM* Good God, I can't figure out how I should blame Microsoft now. Please help me out, folks.

Re:Slashdotters heads explode

[Dunbal]

The rules are simple.

1. Microsoft is always wrong
2. See rule 1

Re:Slashdotters heads explode

[X-treme-LLama]

I'm sure I'll ding my karma, but why is the parent flamebait again? I mean really, that's pretty much the accepted order of things around here isn't it? Microsoft could literally, directly put food and medicine in to the hands of starving, dying people, and the posts on slashdot would rail them for it. Blame them of trying to keep people alive just to buy windows or something...

Re:Slashdotters heads explode

[Anonymous Coward]

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. It's why I rarely come here for news anymore.

Re:why should they

[flimflammer]

I once had an Acer Ferrari laptop a while back (I helped someone get an ebay business started and they gave it to me as a gift)

It actually was a very decent machine. It was pretty fast. The price tags are a little enormous though, especially considering the speakers were such crap you'd hear static on even low volume settings.

Yawn

[WalterGR]

Yawn is all I can say.

Okay, not the EFF, but how about

From Lawrence Lessig's blog: "So we have 10 days left in the Creative Commons campaign. This is not a drill. We are down to the last $100,000, and really need your support..." (source) And then a few days later... "At 12:30pm, an envelope from Redmond appeared at the Creative Commons office. Inside, a check for $25,000. From Microsoft." (source))

Re:Yawn

[SeaFox]

You realize you're posting about events that happened in 2005, right?

Re:Yawn

[niconorsk]

Seems more recent than a lot of the "news" posted here.

Re:Yawn

[Adelle]

Is you sig *intentionally* incorrect? My head hurts.

Re:Yawn

[Mprx]

Effect and affect are each both nouns and verbs. "Affect their opinion", "Flat affect", "Special effect", "Effect a change".

Re:ummm okay

[Opportunist]

Actually, as far as I can tell, the guys were not really brownnosing MS. That's why MS sent them the laptops to "convince" them.

In other words, it pays to piss corps off.

Wait a minute... I've been doing that for years! Steve? Where's my laptop?

Re:why should they

[Compaq_Hater]

Well I did not mean to sound so harsh towards the Acer they gave out but it would seem to be under powered for an OS such as Vista,Unless it was a stripped down version of it such as the office edition or something like that.

As for cost I think Toshiba is a little on the High side too but for 2,000 dollars it would have been a better match for Vista I think (I maybe wrong though) couple that with the fact I have never had good luck with anything Acer at all Laptop or Desktop.

but hey if i could get one for free i would take in a heart beat my kid would love it and it would save me money too.

CH

Blogger control

[kahei]

The real news here is how snobbish, foppish and whiny that blogger is. Is this what the blogosphere is like?? Is it really ruled by Mac-obsessed almost-hipsters with unwise facial hair and diagonal black-and-white photos of themselves? Do they really whinge on about how they're too clever to use Vista and how their webcasting startup will change the face of the Internet (sidebar on the right)?

Is this it, after 10 years of evolution?? Nathan Barley writ small, throwing a hissy fit because the wording of the letter on a review item was vague? THAT is a blogger important enough to merit unsolicited review junk??

Yeesh.

Re:Blogger control

[Bazman]

No, its much worse, this is it after four and a half billion years of evolution.

Re:Blogger control

[antic]

Sounds like a wanker to me.

MS suggested the reviewers either return the laptop or give it away to someone else to give the impression that any reviews were a little less influenced and this guy sooks? Gee. Just give the laptop to a charity who could make use of it or a free-software project or something.

Re:Blogger control

[Conanymous Award]

"Is this what the blogosphere is like?? Is it really ruled by Mac-obsessed almost-hipsters with unwise facial hair and diagonal black-and-white photos of themselves?"

Maybe. But what's wrong with being Mac-obsessed? (Being almost-hip follows automagically.)

Re:Blogger control

[jellomizer]

Well it is more of an issue for Tech Bloggers to blog for things they care about or feel strongly against things they hate. Mac/Linux and other alternative OS people feel strongly about their Minority OS, and feel deep anger towards the majority OS they feel that culture is pushing them to use. There are very few people who a huge MS Fans, Because it is the number 1 OS. So people don't feel the need to explain how good it is to the world. Even a person who is technically skills who honestly likes windows and know about the other OS's (Yes they are out there and no they are not stupid people), do not need to blog much except for stating the ovious that the New Version is better then the Old Version... Well Duh. As well many of them don't know any better so they are not blogging about tech stuff but more about other things they care about. So yes you will get more Mac/Linux Bloggers who Openly Hate MS.

Re:Blogger control

[vishbar]

Is it really ruled by Mac-obsessed almost-hipsters with unwise facial hair and diagonal black-and-white photos of themselves?

Welcome to the blogosphere, kahei. Welcome to the blogosphere.

Re:Blogger control

[Legion303]

I'm not sure how you overlooked the other bloggers doing their fine impression of remoras by linking their own blogs in the comments, as if they had something important to say. Welcome to blogging!

Re:Blogger control

[Blakey Rat]

Is it really ruled by Mac-obsessed almost-hipsters with unwise facial hair and diagonal black-and-white photos of themselves?

The real top dogs also don't capitalize sentences and use grey-on-grey color schemes. But you hit it pretty much on the head.

Re:Blogger control

[kahei]

Heh, yeah, that's pathetic. Incidentally, check out my largely-uninteresting page about traditional Korean architectural decoration, linked to in my .sig... and thus... pathetically... in all my comments...

*bursts into tears*

Re:Blogger control

[roaddemon]

He can't help it. That's the way he was designed.

Re:Blogger control

[NormalVisual]

I actually learned something from your site, as opposed to merely being annoyed as I am with so many sites that exist only to extol the superiority of their authors' opinions and denigrate those who disagree with them.

Plus, the buildings are pretty. :-)

Re:Blogger control

[Brandybuck]

The blogosphere is much better than that. There are good blogs and bad blogs and it's up to you to pick and choose the ones you want to pay attention to. You don't question the usefulness of the internet just because someone on a one-hit-per-day site uses the tag, so don't question the usefulness of blogs just because one of them is written by twit.

p.s. Figure out a way to filter this crap out, and Google will beat a path to your door.

Re:Blogger control

[bar-agent]

But you're right, Korean wood architecture is pretty and colorful.

And I had planned to follow the link even before I saw this post (which ought to be modded up funny).

Re:Blogger control

[TJ_Phazerhacki]

Just too sad that I had to scroll through 9 bazillion comments to get to the biggest issue I took with this whole thing - I would say an awful lot of nice things about the company that sent me an actually rather attractive laptop. I like the Acer ferrari design - just wish that there wasnt a 400$ premium for it.

I'm not sure what was worse - reading the guy's rant about the unusability of Vista vs MacOS, or the insults he heaped on what is really a rather nice (if a bit gaudy) machine.

Maybe next time MS can save us the time and actually send boxes filled with steaming feces to bloggers, so the rhetoric will have some basis in fact.

This article is misleading.

[wng_z3r0]

First: a disclaimer (though I think it's irrelevant) I am a Microsoft MVP Now then, The little news blurb is misleading. The first time I read the post, I thought that Microsoft was unhappy that the blogger was donating his machine to charity and demanded the laptop back. Upon thorough reading of the included links, it is apparent that Microsoft has asked the blogger to give the laptops away (in support of the auction) or send them back to Microsoft. If you are going to include everything that Microsoft has done wrong, you might as well nail when they *actually* screw up. Trust me, there are enough of those to keep /. busy without misrepresenting stories. wng

Re:This article is misleading.

[Dunbal]

Microsoft has asked the blogger to give the laptops away (in support of the auction) or send them back to Microsoft.

      Only problem is, see, if you give me something - then it's mine. I can do whatever the hell I want with it. Or is Microsoft implying that they don't really OWN the laptops, but rather have licensed them?

Re:This article is misleading.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or is Microsoft implying that they don't really OWN the laptops, but rather have licensed them?

I've never seen MS take any other attitude regarding technology in the hands of the public... Have you?

Re:This article is misleading.

[Blakey Rat]

Microsoft didn't phrase it as an order, though, just as a polite request.

There's nothing wrong with what Microsoft did.

Re:This article is misleading.

[Anonymous Coward]

In a not so subtle form of bribery, MS sent a bunch of free laptops to bloggers in hopes that they'd review Vista well. When it was exposed, they backpedaled in hopes of not looking so bad. So, there's nothing illegal, but whether there's something "wrong" depends on your idea of ethics.

Re:This article is misleading.

[Brandybuck]

To some people, anything Microsoft does is wrong.

Re:This article is misleading.

[wng_z3r0]

And I agree with you. My only problem was the slant of the /. article.

Context for this "article"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would have been nice if the submitter had posted some background on this whole thing. Not everybody reads crappy blogs all day. WTF is this all about?

Re:ummm okay

[Anonymous Coward]

If you piss of MSFT, you get a Ferrari Laptop.

If you piss Steve off really well, you get the chair.

INNACURATE

[Anonymous Coward]

The writer for this article is spinning this article. According to the links, MS is asking them to return the laptops *OR* give them away as a gift. By reading the submission alone we are led to believe that MS is merely asking for them back. I'm not condoning their actions or anything but let's call an orange an orange!

Re:INNACURATE

[j00r0m4nc3r]

You are correct, but the person is still in no way obligated to do either.

Aw, why didn't I think of that?

[gafisher]

I turned mine into a picture frame. Laughing Squid, you rock.

I think your bias is getting in the way

[ctid]

The article isn't misleading at all. One blogger has decided to auction his laptop and give the proceeds to the EFF. Separately, Microsoft has decided that keeping the laptops is no longer an option. That's how I read the article summary. On reading the linked articles it becomes clear that they are concerned about the conflict of interest so they either want them back or they want them donated to somebody else. All of this seems reasonable (if a little odd) to me. The only unreasonable thing about the whole affair is that Microsoft didn't seem entirely clear about what the conditions should be when they sent out the laptops.

Re:I think your bias is getting in the way

[node 3]

Actually, it's sillier than that.

He actually *is* giving the laptop away. He's giving it (the monetary value) to the EFF. He's not profiting from it directly at all.

Re:I think your bias is getting in the way

[AK Marc]

Microsoft became aware that one of the "gift" laptops was being sold at a profit. They asked that the laptop be returned or given away. Please note, the person selling this laptop is perfectly free to pocket the proceeds of the sale and give nothing away. If they wanted to make a donation of the laptop, the least complicated method would be to actually give the laptop away. I'm sure the EFF wouldn't mind the donation of a new laptop. Perhaps he could donate it, then offer to sell it for the EFF? The only known thing is that the owner of the laptop is selling it for a profit. Any possible donations after the sale are future events that may not happen.

Re:I think your bias is getting in the way

[LurkerXXX]

He said the 'little blurb' was misleading, not the article, and the blurb is.

The blurb states 'What's funny is that Microsoft is now backpedaling and telling bloggers to send back the laptops.', when MS asked to send them back or give them away to their readers

Re:ummm okay

[node 3]

If you piss of MSFT, you get a Ferrari Laptop. Which is why I'm extremely careful to never piss off MS.

They hate M$...

[dgregory1981]

But, they don't mind being able to make a buck off them. Fristly, as everyone has already pointed out, the article in the fourth link talks about how MS asked for the laptop back after they completed their review, or give it away to someone in their community. NOT take it and sell it on eBay. Ya, we get it, everyone loves Mac and hates MS. Companies are out to make money and they only reason why people love macs is image. Mac is as much about making money as anyone else. They're not in business to make your life easier...they're in business to make money...

Re:They hate M$...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. Mr. Obvious, did you just take Business 101? Businesses are there to make money? Really? And Slashdot is there for trolls like you to shout out obvious things. So what? Next time try to get some meat into your post. Mods, mod parent offtopic or troll.

Re:They hate M$...

[pandrijeczko]

Actually, his point is well made because Slashdot is already infested with far too many fanboys who seem to forget that Apple is out to make just as much money as Microsoft wants to.

And the sooner these fashion followers/brand junkies start making informed decisions about what to spend their money on then the better it will be for the rest of us - because then these corporations need to start creating good, value for money products rather than something with a pretty logo on it.

And as for your post, sitting there in your anonymous little dark cupboard ready to just throw abuse at anyone who posts something you don't personally like (perhaps you're a fanboy yourself?) is trollish behaviour if ever I saw it.

Re:They hate M$...

[Maximum Prophet]

No, Apple is not out to make money. As hard as this is to understand, it's true. Many years ago, Bill Gates gave Steve Jobs the outline of how to dominate the computer industry. Steve, arguably a smarter guy than Bill, didn't follow that advice. Who's on top now.

If Apple's not out to make money, "what are they business in for?", you ask. Like most businesses, they make their decisions based on the egos of the leaders, not on the basis of maximizing profits. Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel prize by combining economics and psychology to show that people often don't make decisions that fit what mathetmatical models say are optimal. One would think that leaders of multi-billion dollar companies would always choose the path of maximal long term profit, but they don't. (Some times they don't even pick maximal short term profit)

Steve really wants to change the world. He doesn't want the world changed, he wants Steve Jobs to be the world changer. Money is just a means to that end.

Re:They hate M$...

[Lord of Hyphens]

Steve really wants to change the world. He doesn't want the world changed, he wants Steve Jobs to be the world changer. Money is just a means to that end.

Hold that thought for a minute while I go sell my Apple stock.

Re:They hate M$...

[benicillin]

Ah, it's the gullible ones like you!!

Steps to Apple's success:
1. Apple says 'we're not after money, we want to change the world.'
2. Ten million idiots who have never taken a course in business think 'wow they must be for real, let's buy THEIR products instead.'
3. Apple makes money.

This is a typical advertising scheme in an industry where a major corporation exists... Think different, buy our products. A lot of people buy into this too. Product differentiation. Come on now, don't be so gullible.

Re:They hate M$...

[Maximum Prophet]

Nice theory, but it's not working. Apple's market share has been in the single digits ever since BillG and company released Windows 3.1.
Most business courses will not teach you which computer will work best for you, but they will teach you which is the best computer company to invest in.
I ask you. If you are going to invest your hard earned dollars, that are going to take care of you in your retirement, are you going to invest them in the loon that wants "To Change the World", (Steve) or the guy that wants to take over the computer business and make money? (Bill)

Re:They hate M$...

[benicillin]

Problem is you are speaking of finance, while I speak of marketing. Most business courses will tell you to invest in Microsoft because they have the numbers that you want to see in terms of profits, sales, spending, etc. However, my point is that the marketing scheme that Apple is using to make their profits jump is that kind of product differentiation. This is a common marketing scheme and I would be surprised if you took a marketing course without being introduced to this. I agree that 10-15 years ago Microsoft was a great buy as a stock. But my point is that Apple is trying to steal some market share by convincing folks that they don't want money - rather they want to change the world. It's a great way of convincing the 'think different' kiddies out there that they aren't money hungry capitalists.

Re:ummm okay

[AxminsterLeuven]

I pissed off Ferrari once, and they sent me a Microsoft sports car. I had a feeling they were trying to kill me when I was doing 200 KM/H on a German highway and my front windshield windows turned blue.

Wrong approach...

[gamer4Life]

Microsoft should have done it in their typical approach -- pay for excessive amounts of advertising. By doing that, they blogger knows what's feeding him and will more likely write positive reviews of Microsoft and bash their competitors.

Expect more Acer Ferraris on eBay...

[error406]

I mean, after all this, who would dare to show up at any blogger-/tech-/geek- conference with an Acer Ferrari?

Re:Expect more Acer Ferraris on eBay...

[Provocateur]

Wouldn't mind showing up at those conferences with a Ferrari. Might be able to pick up chix.

Oh, wait...

This is the problem with Capitailsim

[Anonymous Coward]

All businesses will lie to try to get the monopoly. The solution, eliminate evil capitalism and go Communism and Open Source.

!EULA

[clashdot]

No strings attached? In other words, the EULA does not apply? These bloggers now all *own* a copy of Vista, which they can for instance share with their friends as per their local fair use regulations, reverse engineer or do with whatever else they please?

Re: Cheap Laptops!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Great. It'll be obsolete in 3 years anyway. So can I get one of these cheap?

No way you have to send it back

[Taco John]

If Microsoft had wanted them sent back, then they should have written the bloggers and had them agree to send it back in the first place, before sending the computers. The letter from Microsoft is just a suggestion about what what Microsoft thinks you should do.

No good deed goes unpunished..

[d_jedi]

Too bad MS didn't send me one of these. Maybe it's time to update the ol' blog..

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

What do they have to do with this article?

http://microshaft.com/

I only see the domain for sale. Hmmm.. OH! I see. You were trying to be clever! Since that isn't working out for you...

D- (and stay after class)

Re:ummm okay

[fferreres]

Mh, you live in Soviet Rusia?

Yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

They're *so* gay.

Well

[mtec]

You can't un-ring a bell
once the sound waves get out.

When I read a review
there always be doubt.

Were the words to critique?
Were the words to describe?

Is that glowing review
the result of a bribe?

They sent Ultimate insults
with Ferrari toupees

When they should have
just let the chips
fall where they may.

Re:Well

[CCFreak2K]

Burma shave?

It is just like MS software....

[raidient]

....you may possess it, but you do not own it.

It is a Gift

[Compulawyer]

Laws vary among jurisdictions, but generally:

1. There was an intent of a donor to make a gift of an item;
2. The item was delivered to the recipient by the donor or donor's agent; and
3. The item was accepted by the recipient; therefore
4. There is a completed gift and the item is the property of the recipient, free and clear.

Additionally, many states have statutes that provide that if a person receives an item that they did not order or request, that person cannot be required to pay for or even return the item. This is to prevent mail order scams.

Re:It is a Gift

[Anonymous Coward]

All of this talk about "gifting" sounds hollow.

Is it likely that Microsoft already had names and addresses for every one of these bloggers AND also knew they had it? Statistically it COULD happen. But practically speaking, I would highly doubt it.

So, does anybody really believe that MS just drop-shipped these laptops to these bloggers? Or do you think it makes better sense to believe that MS contacted them and asked them if they would like to review Vista Ultimate? And isn't it easier to believe that MS then sent something to those who responded to the positive explaining exactly what the deal was? And that it is likely they said they could use the laptops during their period of review, after which they were to be returned? And that absent a properly filled out and signed document, no laptop would be forthcoming?

Personally, I think it is much more likely that the above happened than MS just will-nilly mailed out laptops to bloggers.

Once you drink from that cup of reality, it's kind of hard to opine about "free gifts". And from there, we can see a situation in which it is much more likely that MS, through consent documents signed by the bloggers, is damned well able to demand the laptops be returned or given to charity as a gift.

But it's so much more fun to slam MS, isn't it?

Bah! AMD played a part in this, as did Acer. So why aren't they also being damned along with MS?

The emperor has no clothes.

Re:It is a Gift

[Anonymous Coward]

we can see a situation in which it is much more likely that MS, through consent documents signed by the bloggers No consent documents were signed. Next time, try to find out what actually happened, instead of speculating. You'll save yourself (and others) a lot of time.

Just a helpful hint.

Your analysis is faulty

[MarkusQ]

If your goal is to spread truth (e.g. if the main reason you oppose X is that it is based on / spread by lies) you may find yourself faced with just the sort of decision you describe. But you have mischaracterized the alternatives. Your actual options are:

1. Continue to insist on the truth, even though your opponent's lies may give them an edge and thus you might lose.
2. Start lying as well, in which case you automatically lose.

Remember, winning the battle is a means to an end. If you do something to "win" the battle that prevents you from obtaining your ultimate goal, it does your cause more harm than good.

--MarkusQ

Re:Slashdot shows its skirt again

[mtec]

tone deaf is tone deaf... in any community.
Despite what you see on YouTube, people are smarter than you think.
Oh, and make sure to turn this post in with your application. You'll get the job for certain.

You're all so sad

[suv4x4]

Few signs that some bloggers are very very sad: a company is sending free laptop, no strings attached, and the bloggers are rushing to embarrass Microsoft (and themselves) by auctioning their presents.

A sign that some Slashdotters are very very sad: the "haha" tag. What exactly is funny here? How poor said bloggers skew the world around them and their inept behavior?

Re:You're all so sad

[Yosho]

A sign that some Slashdotters are very very sad: the "haha" tag. What exactly is funny here? How poor said bloggers skew the world around them and their inept behavior?

No, the funny thing is that Microsoft's marketing attempt backfired on them. People don't want the laptops they were given for free, and they using them to fund the EFF, which is perceived as an anti-Microsoft organization. Does it make sense now?

Here's a solution.

[Robot Randy]

Why don't all of the recipients stand in a circle and pass the laptops to the blogger to their left? That way you have "given the laptop away".

Nowhere does the letter say you can't receive a different one as a gift!

my laptop was sent without return instructions

[laughingsquid]

There seems to be quite a bit of misinformation here regarding my "agreement" with Microsoft (there wasn't any) regarding what I can do with the laptop. I've updated my blog post with the following:

As I mentioned in my original post on the laptop, the only communication I received about this was an email from Edelman. The email stated that Microsoft was sending me a "present" with "no strings attached" (those were the exact words used in the email). They did not include any instructions at all regarding what to do with the laptop. Also, I did not receive the same email as the other bloggers, including the follow-up email that was sent by Microsoft to Marshall Kirkpatrick asking him to return or give away the laptop. I have asked Edelman for an explanation regarding this inconstancy, but have not yet received one. So just to be clear, I was never sent any kind of instructions on what to do with the laptop and I did not sign anything, including an NDA.

Quick return those laptops before

[Anonymous Coward]

someone realizes they are loaded with elite double secret spyware to allow M$ to keep tabs on bloggers.

Re:why should they

[Anonymous Coward]

I helped someone get an ebay business started and they gave it to me as a gift

So just how DID you come to be called "flimflammer?"

But...

[Anonymous Coward]

Would it work as well as AOL?

Presents and Bribes

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, when you send someone a gift at the same time you want something from them, you're bribing them. Bloggers aspire to be considered respectable sources of information (like journalists) and by exposing the bribes, they're trying to heighten their credibility.

A "present" is only a "present" if you give it without expecting someone to deliver something you want in return.

A "present" is particularly admirable when you give it to someone who really needs it and you don't expect anything at all, including publicity.

Re:Presents and Bribes

[NormalVisual]

A "present" is particularly admirable when you give it to someone who really needs it and you don't expect anything at all, including publicity.

Then just give the gift to the person in need without saying anything about it, instead of splashing it all over the internet knowing that it will be controversial. Posting about it is inviting publicity, i.e. page hits, i.e. advertising revenue.

Easing the burden

[AlHunt]

I'd like to offer my services to any blogger needing to get rid of their review laptop from MS/AMD. I will gladly accept your laptop for free. Only to help you ease your conscience, of course. I offer this as a free public service to any and all bloggers who find themselves burdened with these laptops. I even promise to install some flavor of Linux and write reviews. I'll even donate my Toshiba laptop to some worthy cause. No, really - I promise.

Lie and deceit harms yourself

[Steeltoe]

If you chose to lie, you deceieve others. You push a view on them that twists them from the truth, from reality.

You have then already lost. Whatever you think you can win that is not based on truth, will not prevail and will always be there in the back haunting you. Any pleasure you get out of it will come with a hook, back to the shady past.

Truth will set people free. Basically, the only evil, or rather the ignorance, in this world is when people believe the means justifies the ends. Nobody kills or steals just out of spite, or if they do, they have some serious hurt they are not able to cope with. Such self-destructive behaviour should be pitied and helped, not condemned or judged. Jesus allegedly said: For you shall yourself be judged - or put another way: When you judge others, you will judge yourself just as harsh - it's just that time makes the illusion of it not already happening.

Just happily playing God`s advocate. =)

Re:Lie and deceit harms yourself

[db32]

What about the placebo effect for example? The doctor lies to the patient, but it can benefit the patient. There are lots of situations like this. What about when you tell the wounded soldier "It isn't bad". These are lies, but are they wrong? There have been tons of cases where misrepresenting the threat something poses leads to people taking a more active role in defending themselves from the threat. In relation to politics, threats to freedom should always be oversold to ensure that they will be defended against. In relation to atrocities (and to invoke Godwin's law just for fun) there were Nazi soldiers who killed themselves when they found out they had been washing with dead jew brand soap. The atrocity shouldn't be covered up, but I think given that most Nazi soldiers had no idea what was going on, that it may have been better for them to not have ever known about the soap. Even Santa and the Easter Bunny are lies (and for a fun poke, I can see a relation to a fat guy giving out presents on the representation of the J-mans bday, but what the hell does a egg laying bunny have to do with him coming back from the dead?)

I don't think the ends always justify the means, but it isn't always a clear cut line.

Re:Lie and deceit harms yourself

[Drgnkght]

If memory serves me correctly, the christian church co-opted a pre-existing holiday for the day of Christ's rebirth. The original holy day was a pagan fertility celebration. (And one must imagine it was a great deal more fun to celebrate than anything the christian church had to offer.)

The Easter bunny and Easter eggs have nothing to do with Christianity. It makes little sense in the context of rebirth. It makes a great deal of sense when you consider that both are symbols of fertility.

</offtopic>

Re:Lie and deceit harms yourself

[Steeltoe]

Whenever someone speaks of truth, it is not meant in terms of rules - what you can do, or can`t do.
But rather, cause and effect.

Just like hitting your head with a hammer will cause pain, so do actions which are often associated with guilt and remorse.

What has been done to death is to take what someone says as a rule, and then forgo common sense - yes, even feel guily for not doing what other people say! However, any text should be understood to open your mind, not close it. Someone who makes you aware of your freedom, will not tell you what you can`t do, but will tell you that hammering your own head is the source of pain.

So do as you want, just be aware. :-)

Re:Lie and deceit harms yourself

[killjoe]

"You have then already lost. Whatever you think you can win that is not based on truth, will not prevail and will always be there in the back haunting you. Any pleasure you get out of it will come with a hook, back to the shady past."

I hate to say this and break your rose colored glasses but those rich CEOs living in their mansions, driving cars that cost more then you will make in ten years are not miserable.

Re:Lie and deceit harms yourself

[Steeltoe]

"I hate to say this and break your rose colored glasses but those rich CEOs living in their mansions, driving cars that cost more then you will make in ten years are not miserable."

They may not be miserable now. But do true happiness and joy rely on material comfort and a jet-set life? True joy will not rely on something external, because when that one day disappears, it turns into misery.

I`ve visited cities in India where people have been begging for money for food and clothes, yet, there`s a liveliness, an innocence and a spark of joy that is very rare in Western countries. They are begging, as a profession, not fighting for survival. Everyone gets food and rarely do you see someone completely forgotten.

Now, nothing of these circumstances are better than the others. But clearly, when you have knowledge of yourself and how your own mind works, you can better cope with life and find true joy, regardless of how rich or poor you are. The poor people have to do this more, because their life depends so much more on their relatives, friends and neighbours. But we, being rich, really have the opportunity to use our resources and use more time to explore ourselves fully.

huh-Thunk!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Copyright infringement != theft."

Is this your legal opinion, or the opinion of OSTG's lawyers?

Re:huh-Thunk!

[node 3]

Is this your legal opinion, or the opinion of OSTG's lawyers? No, it's my literary opinion. Words have meaning. Theft can only happen to physical items. Copyright infringement is illegal, it is similar to theft, but it is not theft.

As for the legal definition, I think a *HUGE* clue here is that it's not called "theft", it's called "copyright infringement". Theft is just something those with vested interests call it in order to gain sympathy from the unobservant.

Re:huh-Thunk!

[istartedi]

As he lay dying in the gutter, the officer consoled him: "manslaughter != murder".

"Murder requires intent. That guy only meant to knock you out, maybe give you a black eye". "Oh. I feel much better", he gasped. His eyes closed.

Re:huh-Thunk!

[Brandybuck]

You bring a tear to Richard Stallman's eyes.

Re: Almost Hip

[Anonymous Coward]

Justin Long called. He wants his career back.

Re:Slashdot shows its skirt again

[SoulRider]

I think what the blogger is doing is noble, he doesnt need the laptop so he is selling it and donating the money to a worthy cause who has helped him in the past. Where is the anger on the bloggers website? (I dont even need to look to find the anger(angst) on slashdot) In fact laughingsquid states right in his blog that he is not sure why he was sent a laptop, he also states that he is going to buy Vista when it comes out, how is this slamming MS in any way? Personally I think this makes MS look like a bunch of children who are angry because the other kids arent playing the way they want to so they want their toy back.

How does it run linux?

[anwyn]

Has anybody tried running under Linux except for this guy?

No, you're wrong.

[mmell]

Consider: Microsoft sends these men an unsolicited item - a laptop. They say "When you're done with it, give it away or give it back."

KRAPTV sends you an unsolicited veg-o-matic slicer. They say "Pay us $19.95 plus S+H".

Both situations are equally binding. Period. You own whatever they sent you. Period. That's black-letter law here in the USA. Period. It happens to be Federal law, which means the individual states cannot enact contravening laws. Period.

Besides, for coolness factor, I'd rather have one of the OLPC machines (except it wouldn't be cool of me to take such a machine from its intended recipients). Oh, well.

...but isn't a blogger a journalist?

[Half-pint HAL]

Microsoft's main blurb gave three options: return, give away or "hold onto for as long as you like". Sell was not an option.

This is really interesting in a legal, pedantic way.

Consumer law should may support the claim that "hold onto for as long as you like" = "you own it". Certainly, no court case that I'm aware of has ever supported the "not for resale" clause attached to practically every video and piece of software on the shop shelf.

But does consumer law apply here? Bloggers have been touting themselves as "citizen journalists" for some time now and here Microsoft have taken the very bold step of taking that claim seriously. With the odd exception (when the marketers foolishly described the laptop as a "gift for you"), the review kit was sent out in accordance with standard journalistic practice. I'm not in the press, but it's pretty common practice to send review kit with the option to give away. In the press, give away generally means a competition prize. What Microsoft wanted was more than just a bunch of reviews -- they wanted a few dozen free computers that everyone on the internet wanted to win. Off the back of this, they wanted Vista to become a prestige item.

Of course, being "citizen" journalists, the bloggers just weren't used to this sort of thing and didn't know what the letter meant, but the professional journalists would have understood it perfectly well.

If these bloggers are the journalists that they claim to be, then they should be able to take the bold step of adhering to journalistic conventions, rather than hiding behind consumer protection laws.

Bloggers can't have it both ways: either they're journalists, free to protect their sources (cf the leaks from Apple), or they're consumers.

Oh, and if they don't adhere to journalistic conventions, neither Microsoft nor any other major company will ever offer them competition prizes again.

Citizen journalists score own goal.

HAL.

Re:...but isn't a blogger a journalist?

[a.d.trick]

"Citizen Journalist" as opposed to a journalist who isn't a citizen?

Re:...but isn't a blogger a journalist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bloggers can't have it both ways: either they're journalists, free to protect their sources (cf the leaks from Apple), or they're consumers.

They're citizens. Just because you are a journalist doesn't mean you are exempt from laws protecting citizens (not fucking "consumers"), nor does it mean that you're subject to a contract when you haven't signed it, nor does it mean Microsoft has any right to cry foul (not that they are). And I think it's quite clear that this guy doesn't particularly want bribes, so he's not going to be worried that no one will offer him "competition prizes" again. Maybe the companies will learn that if they want to offer people "competition prizes" they should get them to sign a contract first, not just send them in the mail as gifts.

Global warming shows danger of exaggerating

[alexhmit01]

The environmental left, which seems to be run by anti-capitalist intellectuals and the general misfits, though the foot soldiers are normal caring people that want to leave the world better, not worse, adopted the Marxist/Leninist ends justify the means, and it blew up in their faces. For example, there is now pretty much incontrovertible evidence that humans ARE causing an unprecedented shift in certain chemicals that tend to correlate with climate change in the past, and evidence that we are causing climate change. However, the champions of this are the same malcontents that championed global cooling, zero population growth because we were going to run out of food, and other problems that do not exist. They BLEW there credibility.

The peak oil analysis is interesting (I don't agree, I think that the Saudi Prince put it best, the stone age didn't end because people ran out of stones), but the market is more resilient than the "keep trends constant" analysis that it does, and ignores that as the long-term price goes up (not short-term spikes), certain fields become profitable and oil flows, in addition, alternative energy sources that weren't viable at $20/barrel are at $40, more are at $60, and at $80-$100/barrel, a whole bunch of technologies championed by environmentalists become economically viable.

However, when you blow your credibility, then people trust you less. Fighting Microsoft on the business communications front is stupid, that is their strongest point. They have never hit their shipment or technology targets, never released innovated software, but they DO put out roadmaps and communicate well. Fight them in software land, and keep nibbling their market. Remember, software is a high fixed cost, zero marginal cost game, every lost sale to them comes directly off the bottom line, weakening them for the next round. It costs the same to develop NT 7.0 whether they hold 95% of the market or 80% of the market, so losing 15% of the market no doubt hits profits by 30% of more. It's a game of inches.

However, if you blow your credibility, its REALLY hard to get it back. Microsoft's Cairo and Longhorn debacles have strained their credibility, which is why both Linux and OS X are making strides, Microsoft's miss-execution invited competition. There is no need to blow your own credibility.

Re:Global warming shows danger of exaggerating

[MECC]

The environmental left, which seems to be run by anti-capitalist intellectuals and the general misfits, though the foot soldiers are normal caring people that want to leave the world better, not worse, adopted the Marxist/Leninist ends justify the means, and it blew up in their faces. For example,there is now pretty much incontrovertible evidence that humans ARE causing an unprecedented shift in certain chemicals that tend to correlate with climate change in the past, and evidence that we are causing climate change. However, the champions of this are the same malcontents that championed global cooling, zero population growth because we were going to run out of food, and other problems that do not exist.

Actually, scientists also "championed" global climate changes being correlated to rising CO2 levels. The above statement almost lumps them in with all anti-capitalist leftists. Some hippie scientist also 'championed' the idea that the earth revolved around the sun at a time when it was politically unsavory . He paid for it in the short term, but he was still right, and the lies of his opposition ultimately caught up with them.

The interesting thing about the environmental commie leftists is that now George w. Bush has to start agreeing with them, at least with respect to polar bears. But, polar bears may stage a comeback and totally blow the hippies' credibility out of the water. One can only hope.

Re:Global warming shows danger of exaggerating

[Blain]

Um, Galileo got in at least as much trouble for writing a book that labeled the Pope as an idiot (not a really brilliant move) as he did for supporting the Copernican model. And he didn't get in all that much trouble in real terms even at that. Lots of Italians would have been happy to have had as good a life as he had being "punished."

It wasn't like he faced the Spanish Inquisition.

Re:Global warming shows danger of exaggerating

[MECC]

No one ever expects the spanish inquisition...

Linux?

[mspohr]

... but does it run Linux?

Who says..

[Junta]

The phrase 'identity theft' doesn't make us cringe? I am about of sick of that phrasing as I was 'information superhighway' when it was popular...

Re:Who says..

[Bloke down the pub]

How about a top ten list of those, too? Maybe divided into 2.0 groups of five...

Re:Can they ask for them back? Sure but tuff titty

[Anonymous Coward]

But again as the parent post points out, since MS sent these laptops out unsolicited, they have no further claim on them, regardless of whether they ask nicely, demand or place conditions on what they want the user to do with them.

Now what happens if the user accepts the click-wrap license on Vista may be another matter.

yeah but...

[microcars]

does this apply only to items sent through the US Postal Service?

What if the item was sent through FedEx or UPS?

thanks for that link btw...

Re:yeah but...

[Leebert]

does this apply only to items sent through the US Postal Service?

What if the item was sent through FedEx or UPS?

The linked item refers to 39 USC 3009. Browsing through Title 39, it sure seems to me that it is specific to the USPS. Indeed, Title 39 is entitled: "The Postal Service".

But the costs are not equivalent...

[Junta]

Car alarm cost is something that buyer would have a possibility of voluntarily ponying up.

Anti-piracy measures are something a buyer would almost never voluntarily pay extra for given a choice.

Both have costs, but you can't directly link issues anti-piracy in software to protect the seller to something like anti-theft which is not controversial because it protects the consumer.

And removing anti-theft and key systems allows for cost reduction of a car somewhat, it's not a bizarre suggestion, but the difference would be a customer wouldn't *want* to not have locks and keys for a car.

Give up, your analogy is bad, it doesn't make the core concept easier to understand than the raw concept and it makes false comparisons. Analogies are *supposed* to bring something beyond understanding into a context understandable. Everyone knows exactly why MS wants to lock down their software, so you don't need an analogy to 'get it'.

Re:But the costs are not equivalent...

[nacturation]

This isn't about car alarms and anti-piracy in Windows. It's about the cost of distributing a physical DVD vs. the cost of distributing a physical car.

I'm Not Sure I Agree

[Petersko]

"Mac/Linux and other alternative OS people feel strongly about their Minority OS, and feel deep anger towards the majority OS they feel that culture is pushing them to use."

I think this blogger LOVES Windows. After all, he clearly defines himself by his refusal to use it. I don't think deep anger is a part of this - I think if Windows suddenly vanished he would miss it immediately, and desperately. He fishes for acceptance from other OS snobs by shitting on Windows, and validates himself through it.

After all, it's not like "Splashcast" is gonna turn him into a somebody.

Re:I'm Not Sure I Agree

[Anonymous Coward]

The desperately sad thing is that this is all about computer operating systems. I mean, who cares that much anyway?

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes. / no

[mlwmohawk]

The post to which you responded was erroneous, but based on a sound premise. If something is delivered to you, regardless of value, you are under no obligation to return it. The key words in that sentence are "to you."

If a bank makes an error, then it is an error and should rightfully be corrected.
If something is delivered to your residence, but not addressed to you, you are obligated to notify the person making the delivery. (Actually, I think this only applies to U.S.P.O., not UPS or FedEX as the U.S.P.O is a government agency.)

If, however, a properly addressed item is sent to your home, addressed to you, with no conditions placed upon reciept (COD etc.), then, sorry, no matter what the sender thinks, its yours.

That, on top of the original email that said the laptop could be kept, seals the deal. It belongs to the bloggers. They should quickly put Linux or FreeBSD on it so that they can use it to its full potential, and of course, review said laptop and compare/contrast Vista vs Kubuntu or something.

Too Mnay Bad analogies...

[Junta]

In one thread... going... to make head.... explode....

Where's Gutmann's Ferrari?!?

[unitron]

At this point Peter Gutmann seems to be the most read of the Vista bloggers but something tells me the only laptop he's likely to get from Microsoft is exploding battery kind. :-)

Not a M$ lover, but...

[mcohrs]

It just seems to me that they are covering their butts. The do not wont to be in a position of being accused of bribing bloggers for favorable reviews, there is no nasty demand, no threats. If you are such a Mac lover (perhaps for excellent reasons), go with the facts, not some contrived diatribe (or send me the vile thing!)

Re:Not a M$ lover, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bribing bloggers for favors is exactly what they tried to do. Now, that it has been exposed, they're trying to do damage control.

Bid now over $20,000 AND CLIMBING

[Jerry]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item =160068144458

We got a media center PC from them instead

[drusoicy]

We also have received a fully loaded Media Center PC from Microsoft as part of this campaign. People need to stop complaining - in reality, it really seems that those complaining are those who weren't chosen. It is COMMON PRACTICE from companies to get their products into the hands of those who review said products, prior to a launch. How else are you supposed to review them before they are available to the general public? This isn't just for the tech industry - Ebert and Roeper see movies - for free - before they are available to the public. Any problem there? Probably not. Plus this is a part of something bigger that Microsoft is doing - the Vanishing Point game, where Loki is the one "planning" these giveaways.

and the end result?

[Adam Hazzlebank]

I ended up looking at a ebay auction for an Acer laptop and thinking "hey that looks like a cool laptop", Acer gets cheap advertising.

I end up looking at screenshots of Vista something I'd not normally bother to do. It didn't do anything for me, but most probably has raised my unconscious desire to check it out at some point.

Someone, will get Vista early and probably write a blog post on it, creating some buzz.

I'm forced to read the words Vista and laptop about a million times in a 24hour period.

I ended up writing a friggin post on /. about Windows Vista

And nobody ended up hating Microsoft any more than they already do (or don't).

huh-Thunk!-Clunk!

[Anonymous Coward]

"No, it's my literary opinion."

Your first mistake.

"Words have meaning."

Legal meaning.

"Theft can only happen to physical items. "

Then there's no such thing as Identity theft, or theft of service.

"As for the legal definition, I think a *HUGE* clue here is that it's not called "theft", it's called "copyright infringement"."

Neither Larceny, embezzlement, robbery, burglary are called theft, but their basis is theft.

Asking for their gifts back?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have they got Larry David running Microsoft now? (I hope so, since nothing ever goes right for him)

huh-Thunk!-Clunk!-Bonk!

[Anonymous Coward]

True, that kind of rationalization is transparent . However I have three things to say here. One most people try to argue legal issues using a laymans understanding. If I tried that with computing, CS or any of the other professions around here? I most likely would get some aspect wrong.* Second regardless of weither it's called "copyright infringement" or "theft". The intent behind it all remains the same, and society has already ruled that that's not good for it's long term health. And last the true heart of the thief is the one who "borrows" from the artist who has offered his stuff for free, but on his terms. e.g. come to my site to see.

*Which is why we all go to school to learn our professions. Not grab a dictionary and a thesaurus and muddle our way though. Nor do we ask a biologist to understand aeronautics even though he may have some of the same tools as the other. e.g. logic, math, etc.

BTW I find the "they're using words for emotional effect" argument a bit hypocritical since I see the same behaviour against the content creators.

Compelled to return the item? Prior contract?

[fishbowl]

What were the exact terms of the agreement before the laptops were sent? If there was no agreement, there is no way to compel the recipient to return the product. It is the sender's responsibility to avoid sending an item, addressed to an individual, that he means to retain.

Anything sent to you, addressed to you, is yours. If there is some contract that compels you to return it, then you must return it or be in breach.
No such contract? No grounds to demand return of the merchandise.

Re:ummm okay

[Opportunist]

Thanks for the warning. Chairman of MS would really ruin my CV.