Slashdot Mirror
Dell Says Re-Imaging HDs a Burden If Word Banned
N!NJA writes "In an amicus curiae brief filed on Aug. 24, Dell asked the judge overseeing the Eastern District Court of Texas to reconsider its order blocking sales of Word, part of the original ruling in favor of Canadian software developer i4i. In the worst case, the brief argued, the injunction should be delayed by 120 days. 'The District Court's injunction of Microsoft Word will have an impact far beyond Microsoft,' Dell and HP wrote. 'Microsoft Word is ubiquitous among word processing software and is included on [redacted] computers sold by Dell.' 'If Microsoft is required to ship a revised version of Word in Dell's computers, a change would need to be made to Dell's images,' Dell wrote. 'Making such a change would require extensive time- and resource- consuming testing.' An addendum to the brief notes that it was authored in Microsoft Word, part of Office 2003."
So ship it but don't charge for the license.
Bark less. Wag more.
That's par for the course when you become an OEM. Deal with it.
If they hadn't preloaded all of their images with free trials and bloatware then this wouldn't be a problem in the first place. When I have to setup one of their machines, the first thing I always do is reformat and build a new image anyway without all of the extra crap that shouldn't be there.
Here I sit, all broken hearted.
Came to poop, but only farted.
Okay, I read it.
Can't figure out what they could have redacted that would have been more damaging than the fact of the redaction itself.
If these briefs aren't filed as evidence against Microsoft in all the anti-monopoly actions, I'm wondering why.
(And we can start calling assertion contrary to evidence when people say Microsoft doesn't manufacture computers, since it sounds like Dell is just a subsidiary of Microsoft.)
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
This court decision is being appealed and Dell is arguing that the injunction should be withdrawn until the legal process has been completed.
Third parties will be harmed while the patent holder isn't likely to see anyone buying their product instead of Word.
No, it means "We have a single image that goes out to tens of thousands of customers in hundreds of different hardware configurations, If the software configuration in that image changes, we have to test with the maximum level of paranoia to ensure that we don't get a flood of complaints, and requests for refunds, that each have to be verified independently and will set us back millions of dollars."
I'm sure their imaging system is in order and whipping up a new image will take at worst a few hours. But I can certainly understand the cost of testing will be considerable.
And remember that this is an issue caused by absurd software patents, so for once the Slashdot groupthink is on the side of Microsoft.
It's most likely that Dell doesn't wish to publish their sales numbers outside of the normal reporting process, which isn't at all surprising.
I actually worked at a computer manufacturer. Regardless of whether you think computer manufacturers should test their software or whether they are doing a crappy testing their product, it takes a ton of resources to get a master image out. You are testing multiple masters, not just one, based on different SKUs, etc. I admit, some of the testing we did were stupid but when you are consider MM units shipped and if a stupid error goes through you might pretty much bankrupt the company, you want to make sure you get enough testing.
As for OpenOffice, are you willing to ship out 1M+ units without good testing? Assembling your own computer is very different from shipping out 1M units all over the world + liability for computer tech support (regardless on whether you think Dell support sucks, it probably costs them $10~$20 per call; when you figure out a typical profit margin of 8% per unit, couple tech support calls will kill your margins).
How can REMOVING software from an image require testing? How does it make any sense that my computer will become less stable because it is missing LESS word processing software? Brilliant logic perpetuated by the microsoft apologists.
dumber people are doing harder things everyday
English isn't your strong suit, Sparky: "missing LESS word processing software"? Very nice.
Another high UID moron speaks up, and embarrasses himself.
With as much crap as Dell includes on it's default computers, certainly something is always in need of an update. They must have new images several times a year to keep the versions all current. One more image doesn't seem like such a big deal.
"Dear Court:
Providing a different option will be hard for us.
Please provide us relief."
Seems to me like this issue is exactly why monopolies are bad for consumers.
The last PC I helped someone fix (bloated and slow, crippled with malware) didn't even
come with system reinstall disks - they had to order and pay for them separately once the
computer arrived. Oops!
Maybe this is a wake up call for people relying on *.doc and *.docx
So now we see the far-reaching disaster that occurs when we enforce these stupid software patents - all the logistical nightmares, the impractical enforceability, the unwitting collateral damage, et cetera. Our greatest hope is that everything can blow up in everyone's face as big as possible with no real advantage to anyone in the end (that's right: dump as much spam in the fan as you can) and then we'll see how pointless it is to enforce software patents.
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
Removing all the OEM crap is a burden as well
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
How can REMOVING software from an image require testing?
You've never heard of dependencies? I'd be willing to wager that in a typical Dell install there is at least one third-party app that needs some component of Office.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
When Microsoft decides it's time to get more money and releases a new version of Office, as they have done several times in the past, does Dell charge them for having to change their image again? What about major OS service packs? They re-image for those too. It's part of their business. How is this any different from what would happen if MS released Office 2010?
What Dell and HP do not have faith that MS will put out a reliable replacement?
Then stop shipping the product! Thats what the judges order says....its says do not sell anymore.
If MS cannot provide what Dell needs they are out of luck for a bit....how about negotiating with MS and telling them they have to support this new version of Word for 120 days or its no sellly from Delly?.
Can someone explain to me how a company can ask a judge to not apply the law for purely commercial reasons? Why not let proven big drug dealers go free because they fuel the economy while they're at it?
During an appeal process the judge has a say on whether the previous judgement should be enforced before or after the appeal process. By law the judge has the authority to do so either way. So Dell is certainly within the boundary and the spirit of the law to voice their concern, especially when it has far reaching impact. It is an entirely different discussion if the judge would see the issue the same way Dell does.
Are you joking? Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. Their sentence may have been light, but they were convicted of a criminal offense.
NO.
Microsoft was found to be a monopoly, and to have committed the CIVIL wrong of using said monopoly to improperly affect other markets.
If they had been found guilty of being a criminal organization -- you know, one that commits crimes by way of its business -- there wouldn't be a Microsoft right now, because their corporate charter would have been revoked, all their stock would have become worthless, and there'd be a big chunk out of the national debt.
First of all "convicted monopolist" is the most over-used phrase on Slashdot. Can we please come up with something new?
Secondly, being a "monopolist" isn't a criminal offense, it's a civil one. So no, Microsoft was not convicted of a criminal offense. But thanks for playing.
Comment of the year
Are software patents suddenly OK when MS gets stuck? I wouldn't use their 'copy-ware' myself but still aren't /. readers against this abuse
of the patent system? There is a bigger story, but the press just haven't seen it yet. I think some of us know where the prior art is anyway for this idea that isn't patentable. Will Apple bring back 'look and feel' suits? Very bad idea, even if its just Microsoft.
Sorry, your argument doesn't hold water.
Let's look at the same argument used by Corporate America - specifically, RIAA. The statement that file sharers are "criminals" is common. It is a determined effort to alienate filesharers from people who genuinely respect the law. That inaccurate statement is incorporated into any and every PR release made by a majority of IP holders. "Criminal" are costing Corporate America billions of dollars annualy.
I've argued and pointed out many times that file sharers may or may not be guilty of infringing on CIVIL LAW, but that does not make them "criminals".
Honesty demands that we not use the same dirty trick against Corporate America. Microsoft is not a "convicted criminal". They may be a bunch of rat bastards, but being a rat bastard is not in and of itself a criminal offense.
Please, don't put me in the position of defending Microsoft again.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Honourable Judges,
Allow me to introduce myself. I am an MNC making a living through unlawful sale of copyrighted material. I heard that you are going to crackdown on people like me. Since I don't know a better way to earn a living, I request you to postpone your ruling for another year or so.
Sincerely,
MNC
PS: Please note that if we don't sell our stuff for next 120 days, world will come to an end. And, I would not prefer to pay/reach a out of court agreement with the actual copyright holder to make the entire thing legal.
Changing the master image is no big deal. Changing all the HDs of of thousands of PCs in the warehouse is another deal.
> First of all "convicted monopolist" is the most over-used phrase
> on Slashdot. Can we please come up with something new?
How about "re-convicted monopolist"?
After all Microsoft has done this multiple times and has been convicted of monopolistic bullying tactics multiple times.
'Making such a change would require extensive time- and resource- consuming testing.'
Self-made problem, I'd say. If your procedures can't handle the process of removing a piece of software, or replacing it with a newer version of itself, then your procedures suck. We're not talking about a kernel change here, are we?
Seriously? Car anology? "Dear Sirs, unfortunately, removing the radio is so much work, we'd have to remodel our entire factory."
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org