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."
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This court decision is being appealed and Dell is arguing that the injunction should be withdrawn until the legal process has been completed.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
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?
If they have paid Microsoft for the right to Sell x Million copies of Office, then Microsoft has already sold x Million copies to Dell.
Does the injunction apply to resllers?
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?.
Anyway, the injunction prohibits Microsoft from selling or importing. There's no reason that would enjoin Dell from selling their stock.
It's doubtful that Dell has a pre-bought stock of CDs to sell for the preloaded software that is the subject of of their brief. They probably pay MS quarterly or monthly on the number of copies they make. That would make any copies Dell preloads onto their machines new copies sold by Microsoft.
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.
If they have paid Microsoft for the right to Sell x Million copies of Office, then Microsoft has already sold x Million copies to Dell.
That's quite a big "if" there. I doubt that Dell pays Microsoft 60 days ahead of time for software that they are going to copy onto a new harddrive when and if they sell it. They might have paid MS for the master, but the copy doesn't exist to be licensed until they make it - I would expect that moment of copying would be the moment the legal infringement takes place.
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.
I saw this article a couple times, and finally clicked it to see what's being said. Good post you've made there.
I'd like to add though, that Dell jumped on the bandwagon years ago when MS demanded exclusivity agreements in exchange for distribution rights. Even if Dell were to suffer a loss if ordered to distribute no more Word products, I couldn't feel sorry for them. Dell assisted, even if indirectly, in creating the Microsoft monopoly. A little hardship might make them reconsider pushing Linux and No-OS machines a little harder. It would be good to see such offerings on their FRONT page. It would be even better to see the end of "Dell recommends Windows Blah" on every page.
"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
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
Then let them sue. Until Dell is served with a court order they have no reason to go out of their way to help i4i.
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.
Don't preinstall the software, ship blank machines and separate media to be installed.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
I still don't get why Dell, HP and whoever else aren't suing Microsoft for lost income. You know, kind of like the charges against Boeing for the repeated delays of their "dreamliner" for those who ordered them but still haven't got them.
There was SGML, which XML is simply a derivative of. Besides, SGML and its descendants are not the only type of markup languages. TROFF and its descendants are also forms of markup that allow metadata inclusions. This company did nothing that hadn't been foreseen since the 1960s. In short, the patent is absurd.
A couple of points:
1. You're a moron who knows nothing about the history of markup languages. Before you pontificate or defend these guys, at least try not to look like a retard.
2. Allowing any company to patent specific kinds of metadata in a markup language is insane, considering that markup languages, and in particular SGML (which XML is a form of) have permitted it for four decades. I4I did nothing that wasn't foreseen since the development of SGML (and even it, as I recall, had precessors).
3. You're a moron. Or maybe you're a shill for these con artists. If you are a shill, then tell your masters that only the clinically stupid try to build real estate on concepts that probably predate half their engineers year of birth.
4. Even if you're a shill, you're still an ignorant stupid moron.
5. You're a moron. Now go away.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
> 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
I went and read the patent. It's actually about separating formatting from content. This is similar to CSS, but in this case, there would be no tags at all in the 'content' portion of the document at all. Instead, a 'metacode map' would be a code, like 'bold', and the start/stop address of the text affected. SFAIK, this is different than what other document formats do. I certainly haven't seen it before.
However, I totally agree that this sort of patent is bogus, and scary. We should not be able to patent such nonsense. And, we have Microsoft largely to blame for this situation. Back when the debate over software patents was hot in DC, they swarmed all over the place lobbying for software patents. I have to chuckle a bit when I see what it's gotten them into. Microsoft had fooled themselves into thinking they were the ones with the innovation, and they'd be the ones with the most important patents. In reality, they are most famous for stealing the innovation of others, and for having deep pockets, a patent-troll heaven.
Now we're seeing insane damages, like $240M. Microsoft isn't significantly benefiting from the idea in this patent, it just got caught accidentally in violation of a more-or-less useless idea. This patent only barely passes the 'is this useful' test required for patents. Now big companies like Microsoft who fought for software patents want to 'cap' damages, so settlements will be more reasonable. However, when Microsoft sues a small company, damages of even $1M could kill it. Simply capping damages would effectively make Microsoft immune to law-suits, while they trash all the little guys with their lawyers. It's the perfect situation for Microsoft, and the worst possible situation for innovation.
The best solution is to stop issuing software patents. They hurt everybody.
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
When it comes to Dell and HP, the majority of Word licences are part of works and not part of office. In that case works is just a wedge to get office in the door and is a marketing exercise on M$'s part and to keep OpenOffice.org out as such the price is likely to be very low, free and could even generate a discount on windows. So M$ makes a gain from word continuing to be installed, as such Dell's and HP's requests are likely not so much their own but being done a upon M$'s promptings.
M$ lied cheated and stole and they are meant to be penalised for it, so in this case the problems caused to Dell and HP by M$, should be solved in court by Dell and HP suing M$. As for disgruntled customers Dell and HP can simply install OpenOffice.org in the interim.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
You are missing the hidden point here. There is no technical reason why HP or Dell would do this. Only a political one. Microsoft "asked" them to do this, obviously. By "asking", I mean that they might have hinted that there might be some technical difficulties in calculating volume discounts, if companies do not spend just a little of their lawyer payrolled time.