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."

Comments

That's fine

[ubrgeek]

So ship it but don't charge for the license.

Re:That's fine

[bkpark]

Except that's not what the injunction says. The quotes I can find say:

Today's permanent injunction prohibits Microsoft from selling or importing to the United States any Microsoft Word products that have the capability of opening .XML, .DOCX or DOCM files (XML files) containing custom XML.

Given that Amazon.com "sells" some ebooks for $0, I doubt that shipping Word without charging for the license would pass the "selling or importing" ban.

The injunction itself needs to be modified, and given the case Dell and HP make here, it seems like the original injunction was poorly thought out in terms of unintended consequences.

Re:That's fine

[Brian Gordon]

Given that Amazon.com "sells" some ebooks for $0

What? That has nothing to do with anything

Anyway, the injunction prohibits Microsoft from selling or importing. There's no reason that would enjoin Dell from selling their stock.

Re:That's fine

[Brian Gordon]

"Stock" of course meaning copies of Word already under license, not shares of ownership. >_<

In fact, since the licenses are already sold, Dell can probably keep selling Word through the end of their current contract..

Re:That's fine

[poetmatt]

No, the injunction was quite correct. Did you read what I4I said? They said they won't go after the existing copies, only new infringement.

Who else do you think has power to enforce this other than the patent holder?

This is an odd issue for the courts, as Microsoft did legitimately cheat I4I out (read the details), but on the flip side software patents are an unnecessary burden.

Re:That's fine

[bkpark]

No, the injunction was quite correct. Did you read what I4I said? They said they won't go after the existing copies, only new infringement.

That "easy workaround" is an opinion of a third party "expert". If you rely on "legal advices" like that, you should be sued for criminal negligence (by stockholders).

Further, making more copies from the existing image will definitely get Dell and HP into trouble here. I guess depending on the licensing agreement, some of those copies may be considered "existing" before this injunction, but that gets into a very murky detail and it's not very clear at all, but just from common sense perspective, it seems to me by the time injunction goes into effect (in 60 days) a lot of the copies to be made from existing image will not be considered to have been "sold" before the injunction, so it will be considered "new infringement".

Coming back to the "easy workaround", it still poses the exact same problem for OEMs: they need to make technically unnecessary (but legally compelled) change to their master image, which incurs more or less the same cost that removes Word would incur.

Given that this is for a case that hasn't been concluded yet (remember that MS intends on appealing), it looks like this injunction is premature and causes undue harm to third parties, which means it was poorly thought out.

Re:That's fine

[Zonnald]

Dell is not Microsoft.
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?

the injuction prohibits Microsoft from selling or importing

Re:That's fine

[KahabutDieDrake]

All of this is absurd. There is no "undue" harm or burden on Dell or HP here. I speak as someone that worked in dell's testing lab for more than a year creating these images. It would be TRIVIAL for dell to make new images and put them into production. None of the hardware is changing, only the software and only the office suite at that. There is no known case where removing Office (or just word from the office install) would cause any issues. Other than not being able to open a number of document types, but then, that's the whole point. It might take them a week or two, but they have 60 days or more, so it's not like it's going to hurt them. Further, they make new images regularly for new systems, it's not like they don't do this shit every day.

At the end of the day, this is a further play by MS's lackeys to fight this legitimate injunction on behave of MS. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Re:That's fine

[mrbcs]

Sorry I don't have mod points. This is the only correct post in this whole thread:

All of this is absurd. There is no "undue" harm or burden on Dell or HP here. I speak as someone that worked in dell's testing lab for more than a year creating these images. It would be TRIVIAL for dell to make new images and put them into production. None of the hardware is changing, only the software and only the office suite at that. There is no known case where removing Office (or just word from the office install) would cause any issues. Other than not being able to open a number of document types, but then, that's the whole point. It might take them a week or two, but they have 60 days or more, so it's not like it's going to hurt them. Further, they make new images regularly for new systems, it's not like they don't do this shit every day.

Re:That's fine

[jbengt]

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.

Re:That's fine

[jbengt]

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.

Re:That's fine

[saskboy]

I like this result. Make Dell unhappy with CriminalSoft. They can make a new image with Open Office or crappy Works.

Re:That's fine

[MightyMartian]

The fucking patent is about embedding meta-data in XML, something has been done since the 1960s. The patent is a crock of shit. If the patent holders thought they had something, why did they feel compelled to take it to the most patent troll friendly court in the United States?

As has been constantly pointed out, if this is a legitimate patent, then patenting CSS is legitimate. XML is an open standard with a built-in capacity for storing metadata. If every conceivable kind of metadata is now patentable, then we've entered a scary phase. I hope this company loses, Microsoft countersues and the owners and investors lose their shirts.

Re:That's fine

[Thinboy00]

Then i4i sues and wins (it's eastern texas. And no, I won't capitalize "texas" until the judges stop acting like twats.).

Re:That's fine

[tftp]

I doubt that Dell pays Microsoft 60 days ahead of time for software that they are going to copy onto a new harddrive

There is another reason to not pay ahead of time - the financial one. With Dell's volume, paying months in advance will result in a tidy sum of money that is on a permanent, no-interest loan to Microsoft. The current business practice is completely opposite - under the "net 30" rule Dell would pay Microsoft not later than 30 days *after* Dell created a copy.

Re:That's fine

[krenshala]

I like the idea of Open Office being an option on Dells, but you seem to be unaware that MS Works (my favorite oxymoron, btw) includes MS Word now instead of the upgraded version of Wordpad (or was Wordpad a downgraded version of the Works editor?) it used to use.

Re:That's fine

[Runaway1956]

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.

Re:That's fine

[AmberBlackCat]

What I don't get is, last time I was on Dell's site, it let you configure a computer system. The exact same system offering Microsoft Office could be configured with WordPerfect and I think they had an option of no office suite at all. That means they have images with WordPerfect and images with no office suite. So, would it kill them to just use one of the images they already have instead of complaining that they have to make a new one?

Re:That's fine

[deniable]

It sounds like a good time to get a decision on 'sell' versus 'license.' Microsoft doesn't actually sell Word, just a license to use it. I'm sure the judge would be happy to have that discussion.

Re:That's fine

[Brian Gordon]

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.

Re:That's fine

[poetmatt]

No, it's not an if, at all. Corporate licenses work in two major forms: end user and OEM's. OEM's have blanket licensing per-year ish irregardless of volume, so no, I'd not assume that they pay per-license (as the costs for keeping track by itself is atrocious)

Re:That's fine

[Chaos Incarnate]

At least previously, they only offered that on some of their machines. And their complaint isn't about using one of the other images, it's that they would need to update their existing Word one with the new version. At a minimum you're talking creating one image per motherboard design, so several dozen, plus you probably *should* be testing it with the various configurations of each.

Re:That's fine

[poetmatt]

There was no XML in the 80's, so your argument is way off. How is I4I supposed to predict the name of a product from the future? do they have magic premonition or are you full of shit? Oh right, I know the answer.

Try to read about things here, the patent is indeed about embedding meta data, there wasn't meta data at allin the 80's, and there wasn't XML even until in the mid 90s.

I4I said they would have sued sooner but were having financial problems. Gee, I wonder who might have caused those? Would it be MS who said "well, we had a business meeting with them, lets implement their plan without them and run them out of business"? Hmm. Now where is that lawsuit again? oh right.

Re:That's fine

[Penguinoflight]

I don't think that's really a solution for dell though. Any new licences purchased from Microsoft will be limited during this "interim" period, meaning that dell will have to reimage for now - then whenever Microsoft gets the patent straightened out they'll need to revert.

Re:That's fine

[Z00L00K]

Don't preinstall the software, ship blank machines and separate media to be installed.

Re:That's fine

[Stephen Samuel]

You should probably send an email to I4I's lawyers. I fully agree with what you said. It's pretty easy to 're-image' without word, or -- more likely -- to re-image with a 'patched' version of Word.

I'd expect that Dell creates images that incorporate new patches from MS all the time... The only difference in this case would be that the 'patch' would be mandated by a court rather than MS's business plan.

Re:That's fine

[zkiwi34]

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.

Re:That's fine

[Lord Kano]

OK. If the machines are already in the US and imaged, they are not being imported. If they give away the licenses for free, they're not selling. Machines currently in inventory inside of the United States can have their content given away for free and clearly not violate the incunction.

LK

Re:That's fine

[MightyMartian]

There was no XML in the 80's, so your argument is way off. How is I4I supposed to predict the name of a product from the future? do they have magic premonition or are you full of shit? Oh right, I know the answer.

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.

Try to read about things here, the patent is indeed about embedding meta data, there wasn't meta data at allin the 80's, and there wasn't XML even until in the mid 90s.

I4I said they would have sued sooner but were having financial problems. Gee, I wonder who might have caused those? Would it be MS who said "well, we had a business meeting with them, lets implement their plan without them and run them out of business"? Hmm. Now where is that lawsuit again? oh right.

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.

Re:That's fine

[MightyMartian]

Married fifteen years. That's human years, you half dog-half piece of regurgitated monkey bile.

Re:That's fine

[Zontar The Mindless]

As opposed to you (to judge by the maturity of your response) not even being old enough to have hair where it counts?

MightyMartian absolutely knows what he's talking about, as anyone familiar with the subject can see. The SGML spec dates from the mid 80s, and was preceded by GML about 20 years earlier.

Markup (and thus metadata) itself precedes the computer age, having developed in the publishing industry for use in editing and correcting printed drafts.

Much as I enjoy seeing Microsoft getting a hard time over this, the i4i patent is thoroughly groundless and should never have been granted in the first place.

Re:That's fine

[WaywardGeek]

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.

Re:That's fine

[Tom]

All of this is absurd. There is no "undue" harm or burden on Dell or HP here. I speak as someone that worked in dell's testing lab for more than a year creating these images. It would be TRIVIAL for dell to make new images and put them into production.

Where's your letter to the court pointing that out, with references?

Last I checked, intentionally lying to the court could get you into serious trouble. If what you say is true, you have a duty as a citizen to point this blatant lie out to the judge, with details, and let him rip Dell a new one.

Re:That's fine

[WaywardGeek]

I4I said they would have sued sooner but were having financial problems.

I checked out the i4i web site. My impression is that i4i had financial problems because they were a dinky little company with almost no significant products. I suspect they had no more than one software developer, and were probably lucky to stay in business all this time. I doubt MS even bothered to ever meet with them. Their business, so far as I can tell, doesn't even significantly benefit from the patented idea, and in no way competes with Microsoft. I don't see how Microsoft's patent infringement hurt them in the least.

In other words, i4i is simply patent-trolling. A lot of tiny companies do this when they have hard times.

Would it be MS who said "well, we had a business meeting with them, lets implement their plan without them and run them out of business"?

Yes, this is the traditional Microsoft business strategy. There are lots of cases where they did this:

- These guys were the disk-compression company MS drove under. They won $120M in a lawsuit considered one of the best examples ever of how software patents can protect innovation.
- Casualties include WordPerfect, and QuattroPro

There are also a lot of patent trolls sucking the life out of Microsoft:

- They were ordered to pay $521M to the "inventor" of browser plug-ins
- They were ordered to pay $367M to Alcatel/Lucent in some sort of user interface patent nonsense.
- They were ordered to pay $388M to Uniloc, for a patent about registering software during installation.
- Korea is one of the few other countries to jump on the patent-troll suck-life-out-of-MS bandwagon.

All I can say is Microsoft made their bed, and now they have to sleep in it. No other company did more to force software patents through congress. D'oh!

Re:That's fine

[WaywardGeek]

[rant]
A bit more on the software patent crud we have to deal with today:

- Microsoft and others stifle innovation and competition through an immense patent portfolio and an angry mob of lawyers. It's no longer easy to build a good product and make money, because MS will come and sue you, while stealing your idea and driving you out of business with monopolistic power.
- As a result, the one of the best ways to make money as an innovator is to file several stupid patents, and wait for Microsoft to violate one.

Have you seen what MS is doing to Google lately? It's darned hard to make freaking Bing go away and to get Google as the default search engine in IE. Not hard for you and me, but Joe Sixpack doesn't custom-configure anything. I want to strangle someone every time Norton pops up to remind me to pay them their extortion fee. The only reason I allow Windows in my house is games. It's basically a gaming platform. That's also the only reason I ever see it at my work.
[/rant]

There. Now I feel better.

Re:That's fine

[10Ghz]

I4I said they would have sued sooner but were having financial problems.

I checked out the i4i web site. My impression is that i4i had financial problems because they were a dinky little company with almost no significant products. I suspect they had no more than one software developer, and were probably lucky to stay in business all this time. I doubt MS even bothered to ever meet with them.

Well, this paints a totally different kind of picture. Few quotes:

"Nine years ago, an unusual and powerful alliance approached a tiny Toronto software company with a fateful proposition. Microsoft was helping U.S. intelligence sift through relentless mountains of documents relating to the 9/11 terrorist attacks but had few means to sort them out. This firm, i4i, had the software that could intuit crucial, revelatory patterns that its own software could not.

It wasn't long before Microsoft recognized the value of the firm's technology, and, as it is now famously alleged, pinched it."

"Their circumstances are more humble than they used to be, when i4i took up 21/2 floors of the building and employed roughly 200 people, with offices in Manchester, Paris, Amsterdam, Washington, D.C., and San Diego. âoeWhen Microsoft began offering their technology for free,â Mr. Vulpe says, âoeall of our customers went away.â"

It should be noted that it sure as hell wouldn't be the first time MS did something like this. They did it with Quicktime in the 90's as well.

Re:That's fine

[smoker2]

The only change to Dells system would be to the web page where you choose to include Office or Word. Make the checkbox for Word hidden, problem solved. No need to mess with the images at all, at least until the patent spat is decided.

Do Dell make this much fuss when MS release a new version of Office or Windows ?

Re:That's fine

[Ash Vince]

No, the injunction was quite correct. Did you read what I4I said? They said they won't go after the existing copies, only new infringement.

The problem is that this is still a legal nightmare for people who have unsold machines. They simply cannot risk selling them with word on as it exposes them to litigation. Even if you subsequently win lititgation is very expensive, this is why some companies actually settle out of court and pay a small amount even if they know they are legally in the right.

Re:That's fine

[jo42]

There was no XML in the 80's

XML is a frakin' text file! Text files have been around since before the 80's.

Re:That's fine

[rtb61]

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.

Re:That's fine

[WaywardGeek]

Nice article! Sorry I guessed wrong about i4i. They belong in the "Microsoft screwed us" list, not in the patent troll list.

Still, I personally see software patents hindering innovation more often than rewarding it. Even worse would be giving into Microsoft's demands to limit patent trolls damages, which would give Micrsoft free license to ignore everyone else's patents while suing the heck out of the rest of us.

Re:That's fine

[poetmatt]

I'm not a shill, but you are a troll. I understand what SGML is, but we're stuck with patents as they are. I do know about SGML, but just because SGML *exists* doesn't mean it automatically predates all later forms of markup languages. We are stuck with patents as they are, so we have to deal with things as they are currently. I'm not looking at this from a computer perspective, more about a law perspective. Judges are required to interpret law based off the current situation.

Oh wait, all computing is math, and we had math before computers, thus all computing has prior evidence, right?

I actually think that in a way such a concept would make sense *IF* people understood it. Meanwhile, we have patents, and MS deliberately violated someone else's. Thus, we have said current patent thicket. So in this case, the question of was MS guilty or not? Evidence shows pretty well, that they were.

You're looking at a side of things that will affect 0 in the court of law. You can harp all day, but it's not going to affect anything other than your own rage.

Re:That's fine

[poetmatt]

what about MS's XML patents? surely interesting nobody says anything about that, huh. This is the problem we have, everyone is shortsighted.

The issue here is not "oh, MS is getting screwed on a baseless patent", it's more "we need the patent system fixed (removed from software)" as this is another reminder.

Re:That's fine

[poetmatt]

If you read the many above comments (10ghz) you'll see they specifically want to go after MS, because MS has stolen their patented idea. Standard MS strategy: have a meeting with competitor, figure out the offering, release their own version for free. Machines which have been purchased but not sold (say with word on it), are in the category that I4I has nothing to do with nor a focus upon. Notice how the focus is "new infringement", which that is not.

Or, I don't know, you could use open office, which they said isn't infringing? thus, the solution is simple, and free.

That is a legal nightmare to no one, your argument is focused in a different direction than what is occurring. They are exposed to no litigation. That is why people should be careful about how they interpret the situation.

Re:That's fine

[udippel]

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.

Yes. Think through the matter: That requires re-imaging. Back at square one.
And I for one would sue the hell out of them, if the original was WORD; and I had 1000 boxes running it, and after some hardware trouble ended without. Not everyone is a single SoHo user.

GP is correct w.r.t. the minor effort. But he is a technician, not a business person, and neither a lawyer.

Re:That's fine

[udippel]

like the charges against Boeing for the repeated delays of their "dreamliner" for those who ordered them but still haven't got them.

Right-o. But there is Airbus once you p***** Boeing. MS is a monoploy - ehem - monopoly.

[Waiting for the Apple fanbois to stomp on me...]

Re:That's fine

[udippel]

Look elsewhere. The trouble is not the technical side of re-imaging; at least not the major trouble.
You simply CANT re-image PCs with a different software. If DELL delivered a box with Word and some features, there you go. Obtaining a new .iso with another software or other features can screw your whole business continuity. That will be very costly for DELL.

Re:That's fine

[Tom]

Well, nobody is talking about stuff that was already sold to the consumers, so that point is moot.

Yeah, they might have to pull some boxes back from shops and re-imagine those before selling them. Which is what happens in every product recall that has ever happened on the planet, so I fail to see where the problem is. Unless you're pointing out that Dell has no process nor procedure in place to deal with software-based product recalls, which I'm certain their SOX auditors are happy to learn about.

Re:That's fine

[Zontar The Mindless]

The issue here is not "oh, MS is getting screwed on a baseless patent", it's more "we need the patent system fixed (removed from software)" as this is another reminder.

I agree (and have always thought) that software ought to be covered by copyright rather than patents, and that this particular patent offers an example of why software patents are stupid and wrong.

However, you said earlier that

...there wasn't meta data at allin the 80's,...

Which is demonstrably false.

Your post also implied that all markup = XML, when in fact (as I pointed out above) that markup not only predates XML, it even predates electronic computing.

Arriving at the "right" confusion is not useful if it's based on invalid premises. It's sloppy thinking that, for mine, shows that you don't really understand why software patents are a bad idea.

Re:That's fine

[JAlexoi]

Would increase in penalty by "knowingly breaking patent" be enough of a reason?

Re:That's fine

[JAlexoi]

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.

Re:That's fine

[makomk]

And if you'd actually read the fucking patent you'd realise that it doesn't cover SGML and explicitly says so. It also doesn't cover using XML in the normal way as a document format, including XML with metadata - as you say, that's like SGML.

What it does cover is splitting the document into two parts - a part containing text, and a second part containing formatting information for the text that references into the first part by location. This is nothing like the normal use of XML/SGML for document formatting. It is, however, how Microsoft's Custom XML feature works.

In short, you are an idiot and have no idea what you're talking about.

Re:That's fine

[ShieldW0lf]

Given that this is for a case that hasn't been concluded yet (remember that MS intends on appealing), it looks like this injunction is premature and causes undue harm to third parties, which means it was poorly thought out.

I know what they could do. Microsoft could release the source code for Word with a disclaimer stating that it's just a research project, and that distributing binaries may be illegal in some countries.

Re:That's fine

[poetmatt]

I don't know enough about markup in general, that I admit. However, I do understand bits and bytesm hexadeciaml, etc and how they apply to current software today, and why all of that basically should nullify software patents. However, if people think we can just go back on patents that have been unfortunately granted, they have a lot to learn as much of the law doesn't work that way, sadly.

We can seek the change for future, but just like people who abuse tax loopholes, we can't stop those who have already gotten away with it, even with bilski..

For what reason do you feel that software patents should not be allowed, that I have missed or not stated?

Re:That's fine

[mabhatter654]

nope this is a "recall from the shelves" situation... Judges get to do that! Like when Walmart has to pull shelves of bad Peanut Butter.

I think it's perfect justice.. and EXACTLY how these things are supposed to work. It's what Microsoft expects to happen when they DMCA a site for misusing a few words, it's what happens all the time when other big companies get judgments against the "small guy" suck up and take your knocks Dell for selling product from a patent cheater!!!

My opinion is not for courts to "spare the pain" just because Dell is "big" it's just a ploy to sell off (presell?) 120 days of inventory while MS lawyers sort this out. Just like when US little people get DMCA'd, shut um down now, shut um down hard... just like anybody else. Too bad they took orders for "stolen" IP... they should have known better!!!

Re:That's fine

[mabhatter654]

yep.. because patent infringement doesn't have "pass thru" or "first sale" or "personal use" exceptions... A patent holder "owns" the invention EVERYWHERE, 100%. It's not a new thing, it's been abuse by such greats as Thomas Edison to control which movies got made and not just the sale of movie cameras (hence the move to the "liberal" IP federal court district in California), so the precedent isn't new and isn't going away.

i4i could potentially go after Dell and HP for reselling the "tainted" product and for individual enterprises that "used" the product as well. So even if Dell paid, THEY haven't sold the inventory to a customer yet. As it's licenses, not physical devices there's no reason to keep selling them, just start installing new images on new machines out the door. Too bad Dell has to live in the real world now where companies have to meet legal demands or turn trucks around when product doesn't meet specs.. real companies have to pay the customer actual money just for shipping bad product... they don't get to "call support in india" or "wait for returns" Real companies stop the lines when shit hits the fan and fix the problem or they lose customers.

Re:That's fine

[mabhatter654]

yes, it would kill them because they make big bucks shipping MS Office to small businesses. They're also bound by all sorts of those backroom advertising kickbacks and such the DOJ never got to hear about to put MS Office up front, and to ship lots of demo copies (remember those count too!)

Time for Dell to pony up an be one of the "real" manufacturing outfits... working for companies that supply the auto industry, the auto makers can shut you down on a single phone call. And you don't get to ship product from X plants until you call their engineers and make the problem right.. that means you go to their shop and find, sort, & take back the wrong parts on YOUR dime. You get charged for every hour the customer isn't using their machines, workers sent home wages, and THEIR late delivery charges. Dell is a toy vendor with little actual responsibility for it's products.. time to live in the real world for once.

Re:That's fine

[mabhatter654]

it's more than that. i4i's patent has to do not so much with XML but how MS Word encapsulates the old .doc format inside the XML. Remember when we all dismissed the OOXML format because large parts of it were just ".doc" binaries "wrapped" and were totally useless as an open format. i4i had a product years ago that did THAT.. wrapped a .doc binary into an XML filing system so that it could be searched with metadata but the original .doc binary was still reproducible on demand. it was way more than just "Using XML" and something things like OpenOffice and other programs don't do.

Re:That's fine

[mabhatter654]

the patent isn't useless... they were parsing out a BINARY .doc file into an XML file with metadata and cdata parts so that it could be put in a storage system and searched or reprinted into a .doc on command.

That's exactly what the NEW OOXML format does, remember when it went to ISO and many parts were just "wrapping" what .doc did rather than describing things out like other XML formats do? Microsoft could have instituted a new data type but even in being more "open" they choose to crib somebody else's technology. (after all that's how customers were using it, wouldn't want to make cribbing a business partner's customers any harder would we) On top of that, MS built the new desktop search features of Windows Vista and Server 2008 ON TOP of that XML technology... i.e. cataloging info about documents stored in directories without actually reading them all through. That's EXACTLY the product i4i was selling, back when .doc files were binary blobs nobody (even microsoft servers) could look inside without actually opening Word.

Re:That's fine

[drsmithy]

Microsoft and others stifle innovation and competition through an immense patent portfolio and an angry mob of lawyers. It's no longer easy to build a good product and make money, because MS will come and sue you, while stealing your idea and driving you out of business with monopolistic power.

If something is patented, how is doing the same thing "innovative" ? Can you give some example of offensive use of patents by Microsoft ?

Have you seen what MS is doing to Google lately? It's darned hard to make freaking Bing go away and to get Google as the default search engine in IE.

Hard, indeed. About 3 mouse clicks as part of IE's setup, or about 3 more at any other time.

Now, how easy is it to make Bing the default search engine in Chrome or Firefox ?

Re:That's fine

[DrLov3]

From what I understand from the summary of the article is that DELL is afraid that MS will make a different version of Word to comply with the ruling and that because of the new version DELL will have to re-make and re-test all of their Hard drive images for their computers. And they don't want to send money that direction. So they are asking the Judge to please think of the repercussion it will have.

Dell should sue MS for providing them with software containing code patented by someone else in the first place. But no, instead, they are trying to save themselves about 4 hours of testing a Word install and a couple images re-building, what a coincidence that it will also save MS from complying with the law at the same time.

OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[tyrione]

That's par for the course when you become an OEM. Deal with it.

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[Trepidity]

While true, it's also explicitly one of the factors that go into determining whether injunctions should be issued--- they're discretionary relief that is supposed to take into account any hardship the injunction might cause to nonparties.

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[je ne sais quoi]

While I can understand your point, the thought that crossed my mind is that Dell is arguing that companies should be allowed to willfully neglect patents just so long they're important enough? That doesn't sound very fair to me.

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[ClosedSource]

Sure, because Dell wouldn't mind losing money as long as it keeps Balmer happy.

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[Tubal-Cain]

If you're coping images as fast as you can, if you need to shut everything down to make new images you will have a massive backlog. And you don't have corporate bureaucracy double- and triple-checking that you didn't slip malware onto the image while nobody's looking.

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[jackb_guppy]

It does not seam to hard to meet the Judge's request/order...

To help you build your business in today's challenging economic environment, Microsoft is offering a mail-in rebate on select Microsoft Office products that you purchase pre-installed on your new PC.
        None
        Microsoft® Office 2007 Basic and Adobe Acrobat 9.0 STD [add $149]
        Microsoft(TM) Office® Sm Business Ed 2007 -includes Publisher + Outlook 2007) Eligible for $50 Mail-in Rebate - MORE DETAILS [add $279]
        Microsoft(TM) Office® Professional 2007 Eligible for $100 Mail-in Rebate - MORE DETAILS [add $349]

Just remove options 2-4. It seams that all of Dell's machines can be shipped with Office/Word.

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[selven]

Dell is willingly in a partnership with a criminal. That road is not supposed to be a smooth one.

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[Brian Gordon]

I'm sure someone with a hundred million dollars riding on a good image would do more regression testing than building 10 images in a day would imply.

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[porkThreeWays]

If someone steals a car, and I bought that car from the person, the original owner is still the owner of the car. If it's discovered that I have the car, I can't say "taking this car from me is really going to cramp my style." If the ruling is MS doesn't have the right to sell office, that's the ruling. Whether you agree with it or not, it must be enforced at all levels. Just because the ruling inconveniences others beyond MS has no bearing. They bought an "illegal" product.

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[Spatial]

Adobe Acrobat 9.0 STD

Honesty in advertising?

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[mgblst]

If Windows is so fragile that removing one application required a large amount of tests, then it is not ready for deployment.

My question, when will windows be ready for the desktop.

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[PRMan]

But patent lawsuits don't deprive anyone of anything. Much like illegal file sharing, nobody is deprived so it's not the same as buying a stolen car without knowing it.

Patents are all about proper licensing, and as such, judges work very hard to punish only the guilty, and not the innocent bystander.

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[ClosedSource]

Can you say "extra sanctions"? The amount of money MS would lose if this injunction stands throughout their appeal is insignificant compared to the power of the f.. Sorry, compared to the risk they would be taking if such an arrangement became known.

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[Planesdragon]

If someone steals a car, and I bought that car from the person, the original owner is still the owner of the car.

Maybe. Depending on where you are & how long this took place, you might be just fine -- although "the person" owes "the owner" $$.

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[rohan972]

While true, it's also explicitly one of the factors that go into determining whether injunctions should be issued--- they're discretionary relief that is supposed to take into account any hardship the injunction might cause to nonparties.

Is a business that is a MS partner a nonparty? I know they aren't involved in the lawsuit, but they are certainly involved in the distribution of the unlicensed product. Why should they have no hardship, since they profit from the patent infringement?

The judgement went against MS. All they have to do is license the patent from i4i. If they win the appeal, they can stop paying. If they haven't even tried to come to a licensing agreement with i4i, no court should even listen to them about lifting the injunction. What is being claimed is effectively that MS (and partners) will suffer hardship if they don't pay their bills. No shit! The obvious solution would be to pay the bill, and for Dell to sue MS for losses incurred due to their illegal practices if they don't.

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[jedidiah]

Final enforcement of the patent is part of the process. If you are going to bother
with it at all then don't sugar coat it. Make it as painful as possible. Make sure
that EVERYONE realizes what's involved. The time to "think of the OEMs" has past
already.

Don't aim a weapon and fire unless you are really sure you want the bullet to go
all the way to your target.

"Softening the blow" to Dell only serves to hide the problem here.

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[krenshala]

Dell doesn't keep "an image". It keeps the pieces required to build the required image necessary for the individual computer based on its ordered configuration, which includes what software it was supposed to ship with. That "image" (which is the parts used to build the image) is used to build pre-imaged hard drives for warranty replacements, or software recovery CD sets (boot from disk, load the factory image). I think Dell's complaint is that the injunction means they wouldn't be able to send out recovery CDs or imaged hard drives to customers that purchased the software prior to the injuction but needed the image after it took place. The 120 day time frame they mention sounds suspiciously like the TTL of pieces used to build the image.

Now, do I think the court should listen to Dell and HP about this? I'm not sure.

I do know that I think this kind of patent is crap that shouldn't be enforced. Especially considering, as someone posted above, XML was designed to support the features this patent claims to cover. I know for sure XML has been around longer than the patent has, so prior art means MS should "win" this case (despite my misgivings over letting MS "win" something like this).

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[Trepidity]

There are alternatives to injunctions if no voluntary agreement is reached, like the court imposing a license. The Supreme Court already held that whether an injunction or some other relief should be issued should be decided based on a number of factors, including relative harms to the parties, availability of alternatives, and harm to nonparties and the general public.

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't help but think that if it were open office in microsofts situation that you and most of the slashbots would change their mind quickly. Think with your head.

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[speedtux]

Well, tough. Either Microsoft is responsible to Dell for patent infringement claims against Word, in which case Microsoft has to pay for the consequences, or Dell decided to bear the risk themselves. Either way, I see no reason why Dell should be shielded from Microsoft's patent infringement.

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[rohan972]

But patent lawsuits don't deprive anyone of anything. Much like illegal file sharing, nobody is deprived so it's not the same as buying a stolen car without knowing it.

In this case, i4i lost actual customers. The loss can be shown on their balance sheet.

Patents are all about proper licensing, and as such, judges work very hard to punish only the guilty, and not the innocent bystander.

If we were to compare it to a robbery, Dell is more like the driver of the getaway car than an innocent bystander. They have profited from distributing microsoft's patent infringing software. The MS partnership with Dell is an important part of the MS distribution system. I'd accept Dell as an innocent bystander if they had no distribution contracts with MS and were buying Office at retail. That would make them a customer rather than a partner.

No-one who has entered into contracts to help MS build and maintain their market position is a bystander, they are partners.

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[WWWWolf]

If Windows is so fragile that removing one application required a large amount of tests, then it is not ready for deployment.

My question, when will windows be ready for the desktop.

It's not like it's any better elsewhere.

I'm not part of Debian or Ubuntu teams, but I bet if they had a mysterious legal showstopper, they didn't just casually pull the offending .deb out of the repository and regenerate disk images. You'd get irate people saying "My install blows up because it can't find package X and now I have red all over my package list." Oops.

Think of (for a provocative example) Mono. You couldn't just remove all Mono package because that'd break some parts of GNOME default install.

Instead, you'd see people testing that all the necessary dependencies are met even when the offending package is gone. In the previous example, you'd have to adjust the dependencies - "GNOME default install no longer depends on Tomboy etc."

(Though as far as I've understood it, Debian folks have a large number of automated tests to deal with situations like this. Microsoft probably doesn't, because Windows still doesn't have as sophisticated dependency management.)

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[sydb]

This is such a bad example. On both Debian and Ubuntu if you apt-get remove mono you'll be presented with a list of affected packages. This is the whole idea behind dependencies. You think Debian or Canonical have tested every possible combination of installed packages? Well, they haven't and they don't need to. I'm willing to bet that at least one of my systems' installed packages lists are unique in the world and it didn't need tested by Debian first.

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[Haeleth]

Translation: "Boy, this argument looks hard to win. I better find me a straw man!"

Certainly Slashdot would be more sympathetic to OOo in such a case. We mostly hate software patents, after all, so we will normally leap to defend anyone accused of infringing one. This case is different because Microsoft themselves are vocal advocates of software patents, and indeed have a history of abusing them themselves. Live by the sword...

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

it burns when i ctrl-p

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[QuietLagoon]

Microsoft, not the OEMs, should bear the cost of the re-imaging.

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[Ironsides]

The judgement went against MS. All they have to do is license the patent from i4i. If they win the appeal, they can stop paying. If they haven't even tried to come to a licensing agreement with i4i, no court should even listen to them about lifting the injunction. What is being claimed is effectively that MS (and partners) will suffer hardship if they don't pay their bills. No shit! The obvious solution would be to pay the bill, and for Dell to sue MS for losses incurred due to their illegal practices if they don't.

And if MS is correct and they don't infringe, why should they pay the bill in the first place? If MS is wrong and they do infringe, why can't i4i just wait until after the lawsuit has been completely settled to start collecting royalties?

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[udippel]

Lucky, you not an Anonymous Coward. If you were, I'd point out to you, that removing a single application from an image ... oh, wait ...!

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[udippel]

[Can someone please mod this post 'redundant', please? The poster is absolutely right, but we all have been trained to know the fact, that MS software is basically shoddy. We all know the advantages of a package manager; and we all know that MS doesn't have one.]

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[rohan972]

And if MS is correct and they don't infringe, why should they pay the bill in the first place?

um, because there is a judgement against them saying they are infringing? Because there is an injunction against them selling Word with that functionality without permission from i4i and they want to continue doing it?

If MS is wrong and they do infringe, why can't i4i just wait until after the lawsuit has been completely settled to start collecting royalties?

um, because there is a judgement in their favour? Because they've already lost a heap of money (and quite a few people have lost their jobs) due to microsoft's behaviour already? Why should they have to wait? They shouldn't have had to wait this long, it's been years.

Microsoft has a substantial legal team. You can't tell me they couldn't come up with a temporary licensing contract with payment contingent on the judgement standing. As things stand, MS owes royalties to i4i if they use that patent. Therefore if they wish to use it they should be approaching i4i, not the court.

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[mabhatter654]

Microsoft has Billions of dollars in the bank... maybe "reasonable" is $25B or $40B? How much is reasonable for i4i to ask for if M$ wants to keep the doors open? That's just cash they have lying around, right? We can sue individual citizens for $100K per copy for just 20 songs... how many copies (millions times $100k each!) of Word has Microsoft SOLD in the just the years of the case? The BSA charges "settlements" of how much per unlicensed copy they find on business computers? These are settlements the court has upheld as "fair" over and over again (Tennenbaum just got nailed for how much?), when Microsoft is the big bad wolf against individuals and small businesses many times smaller... what's good for the goose... get the idea!

Secondly, the court can clearly site dozens of these cases Microsoft has been judged against, many times more they've settled out of court and yet they continue to infringe other people's work and it's time to take the more severe next step of shutting down shipments. They've done it for Dish.. actually requiring them to remotely take away features from DVRs already bought and paid for.

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[mabhatter654]

no, they should be shut down cold. It should hurt!!!

I wouldn't want my company to be hit by this, but the point is that the gavel has hit and it's not really fair to leave MONTHS for Dell to work around or pre-ship replacements to customers to get around the judgments.

Dell would have whole drives pre-imaged in high speed copiers anyway, right at the shipping dock and just pick which install to load up off the shelf when building product... they certainly aren't going to hold up the assembly line of finished product waiting for a hard drive to image. That means they have lots of inventory WIP to flush out.. and that could possibly shut down shipping boxes, but that's not "undue" for only a few days downtime. Not being able to ship imaged replacement disks is a slightly bigger problem, but again it's Dell's problem for not shipping out all the pieces and the customer's for not keeping backups... it's not big enough to be the COURT'S problem.

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[mabhatter654]

It's the OEM's fault if they don't have a "chargeback" in their contracts.Microsoft will laugh all the way to the bank on this one!!! I know in the Auto industry there's a whole legal branch dedicated to writing up chargebacks for something as simple as a shipment being one hour late up to who pays for recalls (postage, mechanic fees, replacement parts, rental cars, etc)

You mean Dell wouldn't have something like that in place with their KEY supplier... somebody should be fired for accepting the most vital product with "no warranty or fitness for use or merchantability..."

Microsoft certainly won't pay Dell or HP one red cent not in the OEM contract for their troubles but sure as hell will do everything they can to fight the judgment or have bloody mutiny in the OEM ranks... torches and pitchforks by the bus load to Nevada (the OEM license company) and Redmond. Sounds like something for Google to post on YouTube.. being as Microsoft's causing THEM trouble lately.

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[mabhatter654]

But Dell deals in hard drives binary copied by the box full with various combinations of software products fully installed when the user first boots, then selects which hard drives have the products needed at the assembly line. The trouble is not "removing" office but in thoroughly testing the images of the removed product (and the DEMOS too!) and then catching back up on the box fulls of copies. Dell tests and ships the products mostly installed ready for users to input their info and not need CDs or downloads, it's not simple like in a linux distro that has to perform the full install each time.

All the products like McAfee, Norton, Adobe, Office, and the other pre-installed software we love is shipped in the "just installed" state, just waiting for that last user screen. So they all have to be tried out.. together (THAT is the real trick) so that when the user boots up the system doesn't wipe out.

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[WWWWolf]

This is such a bad example. On both Debian and Ubuntu if you apt-get remove mono you'll be presented with a list of affected packages. This is the whole idea behind dependencies. You think Debian or Canonical have tested every possible combination of installed packages? Well, they haven't and they don't need to. I'm willing to bet that at least one of my systems' installed packages lists are unique in the world and it didn't need tested by Debian first.

But that was not what I was chasing with that example. I was saying that blindly removing a program from Windows pre-install images is similar to blindly removing a .deb from the Ubuntu install CD or repository. When you start doing fancy-pants stuff like checking the dependencies, you're conducting quality control work - something the original poster implied wouldn't be necessary if Windows was "ready for desktop" and highly modular.

My point was that removing an application from Windows pre-install images requires all the due care. Just like removing applications from Debian/Ubuntu distros. This doesn't make either operating system any less ready for desktop. And yes, like I said, this sort of snafus are much easier to prevent in most Linux dists because we have the notion of meticulously tracked and specified dependencies.

And I'm not speaking of problems caused by combinations of installed packages. I'm speaking of problems caused by blind removal of packages that everyone up until yesterday assumed had to be there.

In conclusion, software distribution sucks no matter what OS you have.

Re:OEMs take on that burden at partnership

[Ironsides]

The case is still on appeal, meaning the justice system is still processing the case. Or should we just execute everyone sentenced to death before the appeals process is done being carried out? After all, they were found guilty already.

Heh

[Rob Simpson]

Not even Dell likes Office 2007.

Then Dell is doing it wrong.

[deprecated]

How is Dell's poor management of their imaging system anybody else's responsibility? 'Extensive testing' is just code for 'we are a bunch of conniving lazy ass middle managers who depend on our outsourced technicians to tell us what to do.'

Re:Then Dell is doing it wrong.

[risk one]

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.

Re:Then Dell is doing it wrong.

[BobZee1]

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.

Re:Then Dell is doing it wrong.

[PhunkySchtuff]

Removing the software requires them to re-do the image from scratch.
Machines these days, even if you don't purchase Office with them, generally come with what's called the OPK - OEM Preinstallation Kit installed. It's a copy of Office, sitting there on the hard drive, just waiting for a serial number to be entered to activate it. Depending on the serial number entered, it will then become that particular flavour of Office.
Even if you chose the option that they have when configuring the machine to order to not have Office installed, I'm betting that you still get office on the hard drive, you just don't get the serial number to activate it.

Re:Then Dell is doing it wrong.

[Tuoqui]

How is Dell's poor management of their imaging system anybody else's responsibility? 'Extensive testing' is just code for 'we are a bunch of conniving lazy ass middle managers who depend on our outsourced technicians to tell us what to do.'

No it's shorthand for make the change and wait a few weeks while everyone pours in complaints.

Re:Then Dell is doing it wrong.

[commodore64_love]

Are you a politician?

You completely failed to answer his question which was - How does removing Word cause problems with hardware installs? It won't have any effect.

Re:Then Dell is doing it wrong.

[ColaMan]

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.

Re:Then Dell is doing it wrong.

[TheRaven64]

Yup, removing a library or application from an install (and Office contains both) never broke anything... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt over your English and assume you're not a native speaker, but your post also makes me wonder if you've ever actually used a computer before today.

Re:Then Dell is doing it wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Removing the software requires them to re-do the image from scratch.

I can see the answer right there.

Even if you chose the option that they have when configuring the machine to order to not have Office installed, I'm betting that you still get office on the hard drive, you just don't get the serial number to activate it.

And being a HP reseller, I can confirm that yes, it's still there even if you dont purchase office with it. I assume it would be the same with Dell products.

Re:Then Dell is doing it wrong.

[electrostatic]

"I'd be winning to wager that" most users would be happy if MS Office was never shipped.

In that regard I used PC Decrapifier to nuke the "trial" version of Office. There have been no side effects subsequent to its demise.

Re:Then Dell is doing it wrong.

[denobug]

Dude you obvious was never in the business of Desktop support or selling computers. If you are you would undoubtedly knows that it is a cardinal sin to not test an image through all the possibilities, even in theories (and in practice) there should be no ill effect on making image change such as these.

Furthermore, I should also mention that the image is simply not the same, in desktop deployment side of business, that uninstalling any software and then re-install another version of it is never the same as keeping the original. There is always a slim chance of making that image becoming less stable. I can tell you from experience that the only way to keep a clean image is to load it up from scratch and redo the whole thing. By the time it is done the "new" image will have to undergo the entire testing/verification process and being documented as such. If a company of a few thousands are doing this in their own desktop deployment I have no reason to believe companies as big as Dell and HP are not doing anything more rigirous than that. And that obvious cost some dollars to do so.

Re:Then Dell is doing it wrong.

[deprecated]

Changes should be tested.
There should be more than one image - the number of targets drives is not relevant. Whining about hardships caused by completely predictable changes is bullshit.
It's inconceivable that their system is so inflexible that a change like this breaks it. Sounds like a lie perpetrated on Microsoft's behalf to me. So is Dell stupid or lying?

Re:Then Dell is doing it wrong.

[Toonol]

And removing ten lines of comments from source code shouldn't cause any bugs. But it can. Any time you touch a working system, you potentially introduce error that needs to be tested for.

Re:Then Dell is doing it wrong.

[SL Baur]

for once the Slashdot groupthink is on the side of Microsoft.

/. groupthink has been on the side of Microsoft for a long time now.

In this case, it's not a case of a patent troll, it's a company that worked with Microsoft on some sort of partnership agreement and after showing what they had, Microsoft broke off talks and used the IP anyway.

I suppose it's ironic that in one of the unique cases where patent law is on the side of the little inventor against the "big bad corporation", that /. favors the "big bad corporation".

Re:Then Dell is doing it wrong.

[SL Baur]

It's fucking Word, its not like it is tied to the OS or anything.

This is hilarious.

Supposing that MS Windows exposed a full featured command line shell, it could very logically be tied to the OS in exactly the same sense that bash is tied to readline and zsh is tied to ZLE in being a DLL required by the standard CLI.

What's funnier is that that scenario makes a hell of a lot more sense than saying that Internet Explorer is an integral part of the OS.

Muwahahahaha. This is hilarious.

Re:Then Dell is doing it wrong.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

a) The scenario in question was using a modified version of Word, not removing it. b) even if this were not the case - when you have an installation image specific to each hardware configuration, and you have to change each of those images, you'd be foolish not to test every single one of them. Because no matter how illogical it is that it would affect anything, you can't guarantee that there are no unexpected dependencies or impacts until you verify it. In that case, this means "full regression of each image".

Brilliant logic perpetuated by the microsoft apologists

Pointless hostility from someone who demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of what's involved when working with enterprise-level software management (hundreds of thousands of installations). It wouldn't matter if this was MS Word, Adobe Acrobat, internally developed software, or anything else. The impact would be the same.

Re:Then Dell is doing it wrong.

[Maxo-Texas]

I am a strong supporter of openoffice, yet I could not agree that "most users" would be happy. "Many users" sure.

A ton of people use MS Office and would be put out if they lose the ability to use it.

It looks like the office "word" format is still legal. And that ODF could be threatened (but isn't a viable target right now?)

I'll be glad when this particular patent expires. I think it's valid and non-trivial unlike 99.9% of software patents.

So many patents are the equivalent of... "I'm in the house and need to get to the car" so I will use method "Exit the house" and patent the idea. I.e. really dumb.

---

Odd thing... lately I can't post from work any more. Slashdot throws an internal server error. From IE and Firefox. No clue why. Hope it doesn't spread to other discussion boards.

Re:Then Dell is doing it wrong.

[krenshala]

weeks? try days ... or even hours.

Re:Then Dell is doing it wrong.

[Runaway1956]

Does anyone really give a damn about tech support? Seriously - the problems with tech support just illustrate that 90% + of "computer users" are clueless, and are unable to use a computer unless they follow the strait and narrow edicts of Microsoft.

Monkeys trained to ask rote questions, then respond to rote answers with yet more rote questions, for the most part.

"Good morning, Towne's customer support, how may I help you?"

"I have no connectivity to the intartubez."

"Please reboot your computer and your modem."

"I don't run Windows - my Linux has been running for months, and I don't want to reboot. Can we just discuss the lack of a signal on my telephone line?"

"I'm sorry, but we don't support Linux."

"I'm not asking for Linux suport, I'm asking for support for lack of a signal - my modem can't find your server to authenticate."

"I'm sorry, I can't help you."

"Can you not check that the server is up and runnind?"

"No, but I can escalate - oh, no, sorry, I can't do that because we don't support Linux."

"Are you aware that the modem you sold me is Linux?"

"Oh, that can't be, we don't support Linux!"

The only way to get "support" from people like this, is to lie. But, it's so easy to make a mistake when you start lying . . . . .

Re:Then Dell is doing it wrong.

[Sir_Lewk]

English isn't everyone's first language and has little to do with the topic at hand.

Jackass.

Re:Then Dell is doing it wrong.

[Stewie241]

I'll be glad when this particular patent expires. I think it's valid and non-trivial unlike 99.9% of software patents.

Interesting... most here dismiss the patent out of hand... do you have time to elaborate on what makes it valid? From the patent, it does seem to be not just regular XML, but exactly what it is, I'm not sure.

Re:Then Dell is doing it wrong.

[Helldesk Hound]

> 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.

Diddums.

Then they'll just have to bill Microsoft for the inconvenience of making a profit out of being a Microsoft re-seller. Won't they.

Re:Then Dell is doing it wrong.

[jcr]

comma followed by capital letter - something extremely rare

That's rare? It happens anytime a proper name follows a comma.

-jcr

Re:Then Dell is doing it wrong.

[Tom]

That's an interesting legal situation, then.

So I got a copy of software, without asking or paying for it. What legal status does it have? A gift? It must be a give, what else could it be?

Since it's already copied over to my machine, copyright law and thus the EULA don't come into play. What's the status of the "loading into memory" part of the copyright argument? What's the status on a netbook, with execute-in-place?

Re:Then Dell is doing it wrong.

[Maxo-Texas]

It's just my personal opinion that in 1998, the idea was novel and non-trivial.

Per Groklaw,
The '449 patented invention created a reliable method of processing and storing content and metacodes separately and distinctly. The data structure primarily responsible for this separation is called a "metacode map." According to the patent, the "metacode map" allows a computer to manipulate the structure of a document without reference to the content.

I remember when almost all data had hard coded formatting. Trying to do it the way it is done in the patent would have been extremely slow until processors got faster.

Re:Then Dell is doing it wrong.

[PhunkySchtuff]

Have you bought a Windows machine lately? No, me either.
But, from what I can tell, what you get is a computer loaded up with Windows, some trial version of the anti-virus flavour of the month, ads on the desktop, more crap 3rd party utility software installed, a 30-day trial of Office, and a whole heap of useless OEM utilities that don't do much more than serve ads up to you for the vendor from whom you recently purchased a computer.

Re:Then Dell is doing it wrong.

[BobZee1]

"missing LESS word processing software" hahahahaha. Yeah. That is what I typed. I guess the humor was too much for you. The massive capitalization was a distraction, perhaps? My UID is high because I lurked for years and posted A/C a few times and figured I shouldn't hide any longer. "Man up" so to speak... I started reading slashdot on a daily basis in 1999.

Re:Then Dell is doing it wrong.

[mabhatter654]

You are obviously not a practicing IT person because you'd know that there is NO 100% uninstall option for MS Office. It inserts itself EVERYWHERE in the system. Worse would be trying to sell Office without Word (remember only Word is the culprit here) because they are so interrelated that would be even worse. The Office install overwrites parts of Windows as soon as it kicks off, and that's how the images are built and tested.

While DLL hell is better than it once was, removing Office is the crowning list of stupid IT tricks. A clean reinstall means building all new images.. because nearly EVERY PC sold comes with that Demo copy on it.

Re:Then Dell is doing it wrong.

[mabhatter654]

This is PATENTS... There is no first sale, no take backs for gifts or personal use. Legally you can't even use a patent you discovered independently in your own HOME without paying, although that's seldom enforced that way. Patents are damn near absolute because the patent is for USE of the invention, not reproduction of the materials.

BS

[Pecisk]

Of course it is BS, it is more or less doable, comparing to penalties which they will get themselves into if they won't comply. It's interesting that they just don't use 'lost sales' argument. It could have some consequences for Dell too?

Anyway, this case is ugly as it can get about software patents. It is not traditional troll case, but still I don't like it - I don't like software patents at all.

Dell tests its images?

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to deploy OptiPlexes in an enterprise environment. SOP was:

- Remove from box.
- Start and assign computer name appropriate to asset tag.
- Install Altiris client.
- Install our image.

There were a few users who got OptiPlexes before I started working there, and were quite adamant about keeping the Dell base image. I will say this with confidence: if Dell does any testing of its base images, I sure didn't see it. I'm not really sure if their image qualifies as an operating system--it was more of a Dell advertisement.

Re:Dell tests its images?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll post as an AC since I no longer work for Dell.
I think your customer rep needs a kick up his ass. I used to work in the Enterprise division of Dell earlier and (helped) developed Altiris plug-ins to deploy customer images. If your rep is selling you the consumer imaging tools and/or has not told you about how to deploy your config specific images from Dell's factory or deploy it using Altiris/3rd party plugins on a base image, he must be slacking off.
That said, in many cases, what you are doing is the right thing. Wiping clean the base image and loading your own is often a simple way of keeping images/patch levels to corp standards and to comply with license agreements.
Dell does try to make this process simple and they can provide you more tools to do your job better.

Re:Dell tests its images?

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I will say this with confidence: if Dell does any testing of its base images, I sure didn't see it.

So - you happily proclaim that they didn't test their images, but provide as evidence the fact that you replaced their image with yours? There seems to be something missing here.

Re:Dell tests its images?

[deniable]

Even better, if you're big enough, Dell will factory install your custom image. But of course, that would take a lot of 'testing' on their part.

Re:Dell tests its images?

[ajlisows]

I Would like to add that it is not just Dell who is guilty of this...it is (nearly) all of the major OEMs. If this were true for consumer class products, fine. HP markets things under the term "Business Desktop" and "Business Laptop". The default Windows install of an HP business unit has something like 6-10 items found in the "Add/Remove Programs" window that are specifically HP. HP Support Adviser. HP Upgrade Assistant, HP Security Thingy, HP Wireless Lan Utility, HP Backup Utility..whatever. Half of those programs don't work or don't work very well. Since we are discussing Microsoft Word here...how about Microsoft Office Home Edition 30-day Trial. What a fantastic help for Business. Most companies of any size are probably going to image every machine that comes through the door anyway, but keeping all of that nonsense off might let some smaller companies stay away from imaging software if they are getting boxes in with really clean and minimal Windows installs.

Re:Dell tests its images?

[troll8901]

The ESYS brand (at least where I live) used to sell systems with minimum junkware. Just drivers, little more. Too bad their systems had a sort of "Monday blues" bootup problem.

----------

At least HP computers have an advantage - it appears to work with older HP DeskJet printer out of the box. Hooray for not having to install HP inkjet drivers.

For those of us fortunate enough not to have installed a HP multi-function inkjet device (called by various names - Print-Scan-Copy (PSC), All-In-One (AIO), or simply DeskJet), here's my experience

* The installation takes about half an hour, and involves a "Step 1 of 4" process, with a reboot in between.
* A few hundred MB worth of files are copied.
* Certain parts of the drivers, like the TWAIN scanning GUI, are (or used to be) programmed in some scripting language that is executed slowly. As a result, the TWAIN GUI is very laggy.
* New printer port types are added.
* You can't install only the print driver without the TWAIN and other junk. The print driver's INF file is designed to automatically launch the entire setup process to install the entire suite of drivers and programs - print, scan, and miscellaneous "helpful" programs.

redacted word

[reiisi]

"all"?

Maybe I'd better read the friendly article.

Re:redacted word

[reiisi]

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.)

Re:redacted word

[Quothz]

(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.)

While Dell's claim is a bit ridiculous, I don't think that assertion follows. If I buy off-the-shelf Ace brand widgets to manufacture my Whatzidoodles, that doesn't make me a subsidiary of Ace.

Re:redacted word

[ClosedSource]

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.

Re:redacted word

[rohan972]

If I buy off-the-shelf Ace brand widgets to manufacture my Whatzidoodles, that doesn't make me a subsidiary of Ace.

That analogy would be applicable if Dell was buying Word at retail.

Re:redacted word

[JakartaDean]

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.

Okay, I read it. Can't figure out what they could have deleted that would have been more damaging than the fact of the deletion itself.

Please don't buy into yet another American military obfuscation. Deleted is a perfectly acceptable word.

Grammar Nazi mode off ;-)

Re:redacted word

[Quothz]

That analogy would be applicable if Dell was buying Word at retail.

In manufacturing, buying "off-the-shelf" parts doesn't mean purchasing them at retail. It means buying parts that are not fabricated specifically for your product. It would be foolish to buy production parts at retail prices except when building a prototype.

Re:redacted word

[rohan972]

It means buying parts that are not fabricated specifically for your product.

Took me a while to realize where we had both gone wrong: MS is not fabricated specifically for Dell, Dell computers are fabricated specifically for Microsoft software. Many laptops have a label proclaiming this fact. "Designed for Windows $VERSION", not sure if Dell computers have this.

Poor excuses ...

[meist3r]

So two of the biggest hardware retailers in the world complain about how it's too boohoo complicated for them to change their OEM installation images that get automatically plastered onto every computer? No one does a manual install in the Dell or HP plants. The extensive time and resource consuming "testing" they're referring two most likely comes from the time they sit around their contracts testing how much Microsoft owes them now for this legal stunt. The most testing you'd have to do for this is to install an alternative on every model once and then you're good. I'mn not really aware of any hardware limitations that would prevent a word processor to run on any modern system.

They should be forced to ship their machines with something like OpenOffice. Microsoft can't complain themselves but that would expose them for the jerks they are so they bully their OEM holders to do their legal poo-flinging. Pathetic, just as expected.

Re:Poor excuses ...

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

Re:Poor excuses ...

[computerchimp]

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?.

Re:Poor excuses ...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

They should be forced to ship their machines with something like OpenOffice.

That would be the same OpenOffice that uses custom XML in its file formats, would it?

I think perhaps you missed what this case is all about.

Re:Poor excuses ...

[Planesdragon]

That would be the same OpenOffice that uses custom XML in its file formats, would it?

Wait, OOo has support for CustomXML? -- that is, you throw an arbitrary XML file into a file via computer magic, and then you can write an XPath/Xquery reference to show the contents in your formatted OOo file?

No?

Then STFU,.

Re:Poor excuses ...

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

o one does a manual install in the Dell or HP plants. The extensive time and resource consuming "testing" they're referring two most likely comes from the time they sit around their contracts testing how much Microsoft owes them now for this legal stunt. The most testing you'd have to do for this is to install an alternative on every model once and then you're good.

Nobody claimed they did a manual install -- although someone does in fact have to put those images onto the hard drives. Are you really so naive as to believe that they just slap some software on there (at microsoft's behest, no doubt) and push it out the door? No testing, just "hey, it seems to run, ship it!"? For each different combination of hardware and software that they support?

Re:Poor excuses ...

[meist3r]

Should you maybe READ what other people write before you complain? Oh wait, I forgot this is Slashdot after all.

They should be forced to ship their machines with something like OpenOffice.

I think perhaps you missed what this case is all about.

I think perhaps you've missed details like this: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/08/18/190227/i4i-Says-OpenOffice-Does-Not-Infringe-Like-MS-Word

Re:Poor excuses ...

[meist3r]

I certainly think they should test their OEM configurations before they go out the door but let's be honest. How hard is it really? Dell has a range of models which differ only slightly in terms of CPU/RAM etc. I can see problems with certain language options but afaik OSS is much better supported right out of the box with translations than most retail software. I've got a few issues with your points, if a "stupid error" slips through Microsoft how are you responsible for that then? Same for alternative Office software, how is Dell responsible for that? They test the software, does it work as advertised? No? File a bug report. What else can you do. Does Dell get a dedicated line into Microsofts code lab? Do they have a priority bugfix hotline? I don't think so.

The question here is: What is "good testing" and what is the alternative if a court order actually prevents you from selling/shipping the software. If I were a computer manufacturer I'd rather look into a testing cycle that would keep my shipment process running and diversifies my experience and configuration portfolio for future use rather than bitch and moan to a court how you are inconvenienced by one of your suppliers shenanigans. Then again, I'm not a computer manufacturer. I'm not really familiar with Dells modus oparandi but how much "support" do they actually give for the software installed? Do they explain customers how to use MS Word? If there is a bug in Word what do they tell them anyway? Like I said, I honestly don't know.

Re:Poor excuses ...

[troll8901]

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?.

Microsoft: Net income $17B.
Dell: Net income $3B.

How is Dell going to confront Microsoft - rope in HP, Acer and Levono?

Besides, I don't think giving no-sale ultimatums qualify as a negotiation.

Re:Poor excuses ...

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

I didn't miss that at all. In fact, in the summary of the very article you linked to, it mentions Microsoft's recent patent related to XML documents. My point was not that i4i themselves would necessarily seek to prevent distribution of OpenOffice, it was that if i4i can prevent distribution of Word in this way and someone then tries to ship OpenOffice instead, it's a good bet that Microsoft's patent people will be in there like a shot seeking injunctive relief of their own.

Re:Poor excuses ...

[91degrees]

Seems strange that Dell are the one's we should be concerned about. They must ship enough units that cost per unit for testing a new image is trivial.

Re:Poor excuses ...

[mabhatter654]

The standard MS OEM contract is basically SOL to the OEM. That part about "no warranty express or implied or merchantability...." I bet that applies to Dell and HP just like your local shop! I'd venture OEMs are stuck and have no legal means to reopen negotiations with Microsoft about this matter. Microsoft will lose installs like crazy but sales are contracted well ahead of time and tied to advertising, shipment quotas, bundling agreements, etc. Just because the court disqualifies one piece doesn't mean OEMs can stop PAYING Microsoft for the rest of them, unless their contract says they can. (I'd bet dollars to doughnuts it certainly is in Microsoft's favor)

They're welcome to try suing... and see their money piss off to lawyers. Let's see how that works out.

Re:Poor excuses ...

[makomk]

There's one slight problem with that idea... Microsoft's XML document patent doesn't cover, and couldn't cover, ODF. The patent examiner seems to have been made aware of the already existing StarOffice/OpenOffice.org XML document format that ODF was based on. It looks like they refused a whole swathe of the broader claims, and narrowed the remaining ones down to the point that they only really cover OOXML.

(For what it's worth, the patent office also took into account AbiWord's XML format, XHTML, and a whole bunch of other stuff. Looks like the examiner actually did a reasonable job on this one, though perhaps they had help.)

Cut the bloat

[Zen Hash]

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.

Re:Cut the bloat

[bkpark]

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.

Er, no. Since when do you get MS Office for free from Dell or any other OEM? I think even "free trials" of MS Office is unheard of.

More likely, they have a few different versions of the image which they install (or have pre-installed machines which they will ship) based on your customization at the time you order.

If they can no longer ship Word (which may or may not be the case, depending on exactly how the licensing agreement is worked out) then that means they have to junk all the images which previously had Word on it, presumably to replace it with a different version of Word that is considered non-infringing—or, in the extreme, don't ship any office productivity suite at all, but that would seriously hurt their business, especially in the small business section, where business owners with no IT department want to order things that "just work".

As much as I don't like bloatware (and I do repartition and format all my computers when I buy them from Dell, Asus, or anyone else), the problem is not the bloatware here.

Re:Cut the bloat

[bkpark]

Or maybe not. I guess I was wrong.

Re:Cut the bloat

[SL Baur]

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.

Another ringing endorsement for Microsoft Windows preinstalls. W00t!

Re:Cut the bloat

[SL Baur]

I think even "free trials" of MS Office is unheard of.

There was a free trial of MS Office on my Macbook Pro (Mac OS X 10.4).

Remember kids, the first hit is free ...

And the Judge replies ...

[xirusmom]

... that's your f@#$ing problem ???

Re:First post(?)

[Zen Hash]

Looks like it was posted ~6:00PM with a timestamp ~8:00AM. I was confused too, seeing it appear for the first time halfway down the page. Then it disappeared from there, when it was corrected and moved back to the top of the page. I think I should go find something better to do tonight...

Re:What, never heard of robotic jukeboxes?

[symbolset]

It seems more likely Dell requires the hard drive OEM to put the image on at manufacturing time.

Artificial costs and time requirements

[mysidia]

If re-imaging is the issue, don't re-image them. Prepare a patch to disable Word, and apply the patch to PCs before they ship out.

If the court orders you to do it, you do it.

"Months of testing" is Dell's normal procedure, not a physical requirement. They can obey the court's order by taking action to disable the software without months of testing.

A simple patch would be to delete the .EXE file required to start word (for example)

Re:Artificial costs and time requirements

[RightSaidFred99]

Brilliant argument. Dell will indeed do it, they're trying to use legal means to avoid doing it. It's called "the law" - look into it. The affected party doesn't just have to do whatever some asshole judge tells him to with no recourse in all cases.

Pure Nonsense. Word isn't a default Dell option.

[allroy63]

Anyone who has visited the Dell website with any recency knows that Word is not bundled as a default "freebie-included-in-price" option. The default option is "No Productivity Software Added." Adding MS Works (which includes MS Word 2003) costs $79. So what's the "imaging" problem? Are we supposed to pretend this particular retailer, whose model is different from others because of user-customization options, is incapable of providing machines without a software option (particularly given that this is their default configuration?).... The place this impacts Dell the most I'd imagine is in relation to Enterprise level customers, and all those Colleges and Universities they are partners with --- who sell pre-configured machines with Word installed to their students. Of course, everyone has moved into their dorms in the next "120 days" and it's not like Enterprise customers in Canada won't deal with this from every PC retailer. I smell a rat.

Re:What, never heard of robotic jukeboxes?

[shis-ka-bob]

They do not use rewritable disks. They have disks that are evaporated aluminum on a plastic substrate. They have to remaster a new disk image and start running a separate batch for the non-Window version. This will also make for one more option to manage. They didn't say it was impossible, they just wanted to tell the judge that his decision has consequences that effect a major Texas high tech company.

Ah yes

[RenHoek]

The worlds tiniest violin, let me play a sad tune for you..

Re:Pure Nonsense. Word isn't a default Dell option

[allroy63]

Correction, re-read tfa, get that this is Texas Court, and Canadian developer with rights... -- my bad.

Re:Pure Nonsense. Word isn't a default Dell option

[jonbryce]

A 90 day trial version of MS Office is generally included in the default image.

No, that's not their argument

[ClosedSource]

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.

Re:No, that's not their argument

[hairyfeet]

What I don't get is why doesn't MSFT buy them out? Seems like it would be cheaper in the long run and less of a hassle just to buy the whole damned company than risk royally pissing off the OEMs (who might even get ticked off enough to ship OO.o instead) over such a small company compared to MSFT. Besides isn't Ballmer an Co sitting on a big old pile o' cash ATM? Seems it would be better spent on just buying the tech than wasting who knows what on lawyers and appeals, meanwhile if the injunction stands they could lose a hell of a lot more than if they just bought them out. It really doesn't make any sense to me.

Re:No, that's not their argument

[ClosedSource]

I'm guessing that MS is worried that they would end up having to buy every small-time company out there.

Re:No, that's not their argument

[Dare nMc]

Third parties will be harmed while the patent holder isn't likely to see anyone buying their product instead of Word.

one of i4i's main products is supplying this xml authoring functionality for Microsoft word. So every copy of word already providing the functionality is actually a lost potential sell for the patent holder.

Re:No, that's not their argument

[SL Baur]

Besides isn't Ballmer an Co sitting on a big old pile o' cash ATM?

That "pile o' cash" got a whole lot smaller in the stock market crash. "Cash" on a balance sheet represents to a small extent an actual account balance in a bank (most of which are bankrupt and received bailouts) and a balance between short and long term investments. If Microsoft's corporate investment assets are anywhere near a derivatives market and/or real estate, watch out.

That being said, I'm not sure why they pursued the course they did. It seems fairly clear from the sequence of events that I've read, that Microsoft had been working with these guys on some sort of partnership, broke off talks at some point, and went ahead and used the IP anyway. Maybe they thought they could get away with it?

However, considering the timing, I'll bet bald, sweaty Steve is throwing chairs at his own shadow in not following through on the Yahoo! purchase last year *before* the crash. That excess "cash" on the balance sheet is probably worth *a lot* less now than what he could have gotten from Yahoo!.

Re:No, that's not their argument

[ppanon]

That being said, I'm not sure why they pursued the course they did. It seems fairly clear from the sequence of events that I've read, that Microsoft had been working with these guys on some sort of partnership, broke off talks at some point, and went ahead and used the IP anyway. Maybe they thought they could get away with it?

Why not? They effectively have done the same thing before. That's just the most well known one where the opposition "won". Even though Microsoft settled, Stac was effectively wiped out.

Re:No, that's not their argument

[ClosedSource]

I'd say that Stac ended up with more money from MS than they were likely to make on their own. Hard disk compression was popular only for a short time.

Re:No, that's not their argument

[ClosedSource]

Let's face it, virtually nobody knew about this company or their products until the court decision. Most users won't need the functionality involved no matter who supplies it.

Re:No, that's not their argument

[Helldesk Hound]

> What I don't get is why doesn't MSFT buy them out? Seems like it
> would be cheaper in the long run and less of a hassle just to buy
> the whole damned company than risk royally pissing off the OEMs (who
> might even get ticked off enough to ship OO.o instead) over such a
> small company compared to MSFT.

What you wrote would be logical if Microsoft's only goal was that it wants to use technology that company owns.

But as you know that isn't Microsoft's only goal.

It also takes great delight in screwing over other companies - especially if they're smaller ethical companies with good people.

Re:No, that's not their argument

[ppanon]

File data compression is available on a per-directory tree basis in Windows Server. While storage is cheap enough for end users and disk compression doesn't work for most of their needs (archives of already compressed files like MP3s and video), it's still significantly used for selective storage optimization of things like document repositories in corporate environments. Its current implementation is a descendant of Microsoft's derivative from the Stac patents (though I would expect they would soon expire, if it hasn't happened already).

So, as compression continues to be specialized for the file formats themselves, (i.e. docx files which are effectively zipped XMLs), general file system-level compression is being rendered obsolete. However that's a long possibly profitable period that was cut short. I don't support software patents, but I resent their one-sided exploitation by the powerful even more.

Re:No, that's not their argument

[dakohli]

Nobody except Microsoft.

This was a company that was actually using their patent. I don't belive they fall into the "patent troll" definition.

Microsoft stole their idea, and then competed with them.

Lets face it, MS likes to play fast and free with the rules and this time they got caught.

Re:No, that's not their argument

[ClosedSource]

The main value of the technology is it's transparency. While it might be slightly more convenient to use it for something like a document repository, it's not much better than zip files for that application. Even for that application, it's doubtful that corporations are saving much money by using compressed disks.

Re:No, that's not their argument

[Tom]

Third parties will be harmed while the patent holder isn't likely to see anyone buying their product instead of Word.

Which is not the point.

As much as I dislike software patents, if there's ever been a clear case regarding them, this is it. MS partnered with i4i, took their technology and included it in their software without an agreement.

The penalty for being caught with the hand in the cookie jar can not simply be that you now have to pay for the cookies. If it were, then trying theft first would be the rational choice. A penalty like "no more cookies for you, not even if you pay, plus penalties and paying for those you took so far" sounds about right.

MS is a company with tons of spare cash, literally. Hitting them with a monetary penalty will make them laugh, and continue on their merry ways. Telling them to actually get their damn dirty fingers out of the cookie jar is what hurts them.
Yes, and their partners who sold the cookies on to others. Poor fellows. I almost feel sorry for you. It's not as if anyone would ever think that MS might be a company that's anything but spotlessly clean and nothing like this could ever happen, and contingency plans would be entirely unnecessary.

New Rule: If you put all your eggs in one basket, you don't have a right to cry if it falls.

Re:No, that's not their argument

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Dell themselves are NOT just a third party, they are also in breach of the Patent and could quite as easily find themselves on the receiving end of an injunction as well... The patent holder chose just to sue Microsoft, but are perfectly capable of suing EVERYONE who uses as well as sells copies of the offending program.

Re:No, that's not their argument

[nurb432]

But at the same time it increases the primaries power base. This is how they have come out on top before, writing legal costs off as 'part of doing business', and watch as their competition folds and dissipates into the ether.. it may be illegal what they did, but if they win in the end who cares?

  I think the injunction should stand personally.

Re:No, that's not their argument

[JAlexoi]

Now let us move to the world of criminal justice, for a second.
For example:
You buy a stolen 'something', without knowing it was stolen. Three months later somehow your 'something' is actually identified as a stolen 'something'. You will loose the 'something', no one will give you your money back. Even if the criminal that stole the 'something' is on appeal, you will not be able to ask the court to let you have the 'something' "until the legal process has been completed".
Now why should Dell be allowed to have their stolen "something"? Dell is innocent, but so is the buyer of the stolen 'something'.

Re:No, that's not their argument

[Geminii]

MS is a company with tons of spare cash, literally. Hitting them with a monetary penalty will make them laugh, and continue on their merry ways.

Perhaps a percentage-based fine? Such as a two-digit percentage of their global gross profit? Being hit with something like that, given their history of dubious practices likely to recur in future, could well see the stock price (and thus the value of assorted executives' portfolios) dipping noticeably.

Re:No, that's not their argument

[blueskies]

Wait, didn't Dell get indemnified by Microsoft when they bought the OS? If only Dell could have bought some kind of insurance to cover their losses if their OS turned out to be poisoned....

This injunction is only going to make it harder to get software companies to stand by their product.

Yes, my lord Mudd

[ClosedSource]

Fortunately for all of us, you are not King.

Dear Sir

[fermion]

I am a small business owner that provides integrated computers systems and support to other small businesses. As part of the package I provide M!cr0s0ft Offices, supplied to me, with authenticity seals by M!cr0s0ft of China.

Recently I was informed that Microsoft, USA, wants to put a restraining order on this perfectly legal software claiming that it is byte for byte copy of their suite of office products. While I disagree with this, for instance MS Office clearly uses ribbons, while M!cr0s0ft Offices uses menus, I realize that this is a decision for the courts.

All I ask is that the restraining order be revoked. The only way I can provide value to my customers is that M!cr0s0ft provides a hard disk which I use to image all my other computers. I pay a license fee for each image, but otherwise the labor is very cheap. If I had to install each piece of software, or even create a new image, this would destroy my competitive advantage I have over the other bigger firms.

Please, do not place an injunction against M!cr0s0ft. If the courts do find the software infringes on Microsoft product, then Microsoft can sueM!cr0s0ft and recover damages, and I will have time to find another supplier. If M!cr0s0ft is found not to be infringing, then you will be destroying a legitimate small business for no reason. I know the knee jerk reaction in this case is to assume culpability, but I assure you there are many differences between the two products, and M!cr0s0ft is not infringing. Trust me. I am the entrepreneurial backbone of this country.

Re:Dear Sir

[selven]

All you're missing is the mention of a hidden 25 million dollars.

Why not...

[TheShadowzero]

Just let Dell keep it's images, but next time it upgrades or changes the images in any way, Word will have to be removed? Or is that too much bureaucracy?

Don't they have to update the images often anyway?

[vxvxvxvx]

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.

monopoly situation

[drDugan]

"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!

[Redacted]

[yerktoader]

I wish Dell redacted their computers....

Reliance on Microsoft

[kregg]

Maybe this is a wake up call for people relying on *.doc and *.docx

Re:Reliance on Microsoft

[Kawahee]

Because if OpenOffice was found to be infringing on this patent and Dell packaged OpenOffice instead your post would read "Maybe this is a wake up call for people relying on *.odt", right? And that your post would also have a question mark next time.

Re:Reliance on Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

1 although if you had been paying attention you would have seen that i4i stated that OpenOffice does not infringe on the patent.
2 the odt format is a standard, not a product, not exclusively owned by OpenOffice. unlike Microsoft products, you could get other products to read/write that format

Re:Reliance on Microsoft

[Kawahee]

First - I know i4i states OO does not infringe on the patent. If you would have been paying attention you would have seen the second word in my post. Second - The DOCX format is a standard.

Re:Reliance on Microsoft

[kregg]

Because if OpenOffice was found to be infringing on this patent and Dell packaged OpenOffice instead your post would read "Maybe this is a wake up call for people relying on *.odt", right? And that your post would also have a question mark next time.

I was referring to a file format rather than Open Office. You do realise that there are other Word processors that can save odt files don't you?

Re:Reliance on Microsoft

[Kawahee]

You do realise that there are other word processors that can save doc files don't you?

Re:Reliance on Microsoft

[kregg]

Yes, OO can save in *.doc format. If you have ever tried it with something like a 100 page file with tables, indexes and pictures you will know that it is a waste of time. Word is the only option and thus the problem.

Re:Reliance on Microsoft

[Steve001]

kregg wrote:

Yes, OO can save in *.doc format. If you have ever tried it with something like a 100 page file with tables, indexes and pictures you will know that it is a waste of time. Word is the only option and thus the problem.

What specific problems came up when saving a file as described above in the .doc format using OpenOffice.org?

Re:Reliance on Microsoft

[Kawahee]

How does this invalidate my point? Have you tried opening a 100 page ODT file with tables and indexes made by OpenOffice in the various open software packages that support ODT and seen the results? The problem is universal - if OpenOffice was found to be infringing on this patent there will be similar issues.

Re:Reliance on Microsoft

[kregg]

It was around 6 months ago, but I remember that the pictures didn't show up, contents needed to be recreated, tables were an issue. Also I tried writing a resume and the formatting wasn't what it looked like in OO compared to Word.

Re:Reliance on Microsoft

[Steve001]

kregg wrote:

It was around 6 months ago, but I remember that the pictures didn't show up, contents needed to be recreated, tables were an issue. Also I tried writing a resume and the formatting wasn't what it looked like in OO compared to Word.

I've found this to be a problem with MS-Word even with short documents. I used to have to work with a special type of one-page document. The problem I ran into was that the document (in MS-Word format) that I received via e-mail looked different on my computer than it did on the originating computer. These documents had to have absolutely no changes from the original, even a single slightly different space between two words was not allowed.

At that time sending a PDF back and forth was not an option, so our only option was to have the sender FAX the document to us so we had an exact copy of the document, and then get it approved. We would FAX changes to them, and they would FAX us an updated version. Once it was approved, the sender would provide use with a hard copy of the original document for processing.

Re:Reliance on Microsoft

[kregg]

I think that main point I am trying to get across is that in general OO saving files in *.doc and *.docx format doesn't work as well as if Word was saving the file. Whether that is a bug in OO or another Word processor etc doesn't matter. Word is the only choice for saving doc files reliably and fair enough too, it is Microsoft's format. http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/FAQ/General/Is_OpenOffice.org_compatible_with_MS_Office_and_StarOffice_file_formats%3F

Blame the patents

[elashish14]

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.

Re:Blame the patents

[Mista2]

Nope, just see what happend with RIM and the claim against them for using a mobile device that gets mail pushed to it from a server. A small patent holder was completly screwed over, and the main reason there was no injunction - lots of US government offices use Blackberrys and would have been "crippled" without them.
The whole thing with the patent laws as they are enforced today is they are really only a way for the rich to keep somone else form joining them at the trough.

Microsoft to TomTom - hey, you use use a method of shortening long filenames to 8.3 characters that we patented for our FAT32 (not the code, just the same rule as to where to put the "~1". I know you use FAT as your file system and that is OK, but shortening your long filename like this is just not on. Please rewrite your primary product or pay us lots of money to settle"
Or....
Little guy to Microsoft - "Hey you know we descibed how to store format for an XML based document way back in the '90's You can't do this with your current version of Office."
"Shut up" says MS. "Lots of people would find it really hard to keep getting richer off your idea if we had to stop selling Word or change the file format to a non infringing method right now. US courts! Make them stop bugging us."
"OK, just let me roll over" Says Uncle Sam.

Or am I missing something here?

Re:Blame the patents

[Animats]

So now we see the far-reaching disaster that occurs when we enforce these stupid software patents

It could be worse. When Kodak lost a patent case against Polaroid in 1985, they were given 30 days to stop making film for instant cameras, exit the business, and buy back all retailer inventory. Which they did. Then they lost a class action suit and had to buy back the cameras already in consumer hands.

Re:Blame the patents

[SL Baur]

Little guy to Microsoft - "Hey you know we descibed how to store format for an XML based document way back in the '90's You can't do this with your current version of Office."
"Shut up" says MS. "Lots of people would find it really hard to keep getting richer off your idea if we had to stop selling Word or change the file format to a non infringing method right now. US courts! Make them stop bugging us."
"OK, just let me roll over" Says Uncle Sam.

Or am I missing something here?

If you're missing something so am I. That's how I read this situation. You missed the part though that they attempted a partnership with Microsoft long before Microsoft used that technology in Microsoft Word.

Re:Blame the patents

[Tom]

Uh, no?

This has little to do with software patents. If MS had been found guilty of a copyright infringement, for example, the same result could have happened.

Re:Blame the patents

[Geminii]

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.

Much more likely: Whoever has the money at any given point will have the rules created and/or enforced largely to their personal preference. Anyone who might be in a position to counteract this will either be unable to extract themselves from a large pile of money, or will be outshouted by paid activists at all levels. Any progress will be tied up and delayed by paid lawyers and politicians, any proposed new law against their practices will have to swim uphill against a river of greased money, and in the very unlikely event that the relevant legal entities are ever brought to account, the individual people responsible will have already slipped out the back door with a bag of cash the size of Manhattan and have legged it for the horizon.

oh cry me a river

[Errtu76]

So a hardware manufacturer made a deal with a software manufacturer. That software has a problem and needs to be altered. Hardware manufacturer then says "yeah but that will cost us time, and time is money". Judge will hopefully say "Review your deal and next time make a better one to account for these kinds of things. For now, stop complaining and start re-imaging disks".

Re:oh cry me a river

[ClosedSource]

I don't know what the outcome will be, but I doubt that the judge will be reading from the anti-MS playbook.

Re:oh cry me a river

[Errtu76]

I don't know what the outcome will be, but I doubt that the judge will be reading from the anti-MS playbook.

what anti-MS playbook? This could be any software manufacturer. The point is that the previous ruling has nothing to do with hardware manufacturers. It's like saying to an engine manufacturer they can't use one type of bolt anymore. Then car manufacturers will complain saying they already implemented the entire engine and can't replace the offending bolt without taking out the entire engine and rebuild it.

Re:oh cry me a river

[ClosedSource]

Remember, this is just a request to temporarily stop enforcement of the trial courts order until the appeal process is finished. Any party has the right to file such a brief and if they can show that the injunction harms them more than the delay harms the party who won the original case it's perfectly reasonable.

The final word on this case won't be decided based on the harm it may cause to Dell or HP.

Re:oh cry me a river

[SL Baur]

This could be any software manufacturer.

That is pure BS, Barry Soetoro. Little company attempts partnership with big company, demos software. Big company ends up saying "no". Little company sues that big company stole their ideas.

Only Microsoft has a reputation and a court record of doing that.

Boo Hoo

[pembo13]

Removing all the OEM crap is a burden as well

Re:First post(?)

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously no one gives a flying fuck, that's why there were not comments.

I know Bill Gates and MS aren't criminals

[ClosedSource]

so who are you talking about?

Re:I know Bill Gates and MS aren't criminals

[erroneus]

Are you joking? Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. Their sentence may have been light, but they were convicted of a criminal offense.

Re:I know Bill Gates and MS aren't criminals

[Planesdragon]

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.

Re:I know Bill Gates and MS aren't criminals

[Blakey Rat]

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.

Re:I know Bill Gates and MS aren't criminals

[jedidiah]

You might find the term inconvenient but it is essentially accurate.

While not precisely correct for technical reasons, "convicted monopolist" is entirely accurate.

They were found to have a monopoly and to have abused that monopoly on numerous occasions.

It's a useful shorthand to avoid overly technical jargon that would primarily serve as euphemism.

Re:I know Bill Gates and MS aren't criminals

[BBandCMKRNL]

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.

Incorrect. Being a "monopolist" is neither a criminal nor a civil offense. Using a monopoly to improperly profit in the marketplace is a civil offense.

Re:I know Bill Gates and MS aren't criminals

[Runaway1956]

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.

Re:I know Bill Gates and MS aren't criminals

[Helldesk Hound]

> 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.

Re:I know Bill Gates and MS aren't criminals

[ClosedSource]

It's not "essentially accurate" because if had it been a criminal case the DOJ would have had to prove their case "beyond a reasonable doubt" which is much higher burden of proof than a civil case's burden of "preponderance of evidence".

So it's quite possible that Microsoft would have be found innocent had it been a criminal case.

Re:I know Bill Gates and MS aren't criminals

[ClosedSource]

How about "re-corrected poster"?

Re:I know Bill Gates and MS aren't criminals

[ClosedSource]

In the US you cannot accurately say "Microsoft has committed crimes" unless they have been convicted in a criminal court. Innocent until proven guilty is still the law of the land.

Re:I know Bill Gates and MS aren't criminals

[Geminii]

If they had been found guilty of being a criminal organization --

- They'd have claimed to be too big to fail? :)

Easy fix...

[B1oodAnge1]

Why not just make Microsoft compensate Dell for the extra work and expense required to change the images?

This makes no sense

[Feanturi]

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?

Re:This makes no sense

[Sfing_ter]

Obviously M$ is pushing the oems to whine - and Dell being a Boy-Howdy TEXASS company, well that may just make the judge changed his mind... ya'll.

Re:This makes no sense

[denobug]

Don't mess with Texas, BUDDY!

Re:This makes no sense

[BitZtream]

You have got to be at least 15 years old, probably more like 13 or 12 but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say 15 so that way you at least can claim you could type when the usage of stupid things like M$ and TEXASS would have been cool, trendy and mildly amusing.

Law subject to commercial pressure?

[loufoque]

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?

Re:Law subject to commercial pressure?

[denobug]

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.

Re:Don't they have to update the images often anyw

[Blakey Rat]

People keep saying this on Slashdot, but have you ever bought a computer from HP? Compared to HP, and other computer retailers (most of them at least), Dell ships hardly any crapplications at all. In addition, Dell actually ships you a clean and working OS disk (with the crapplications on a completely different disk), HP puts both on the same disk making it impossible to reinstall your HP OS without also reinstalling the crapplications.

In short, Dell's one of the absolute best when it comes to shipping clean OSes.

such whining

[Odinlake]

Wouldn't the fair thing be to make Microsoft pay for Dell's expenses regarding the injunction on Word?

This is excellent, absolutely fantastic news

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

This is an odd issue for the courts, as Microsoft did legitimately cheat I4I out (read the details), but on the flip side software patents are an unnecessary burden.

This "odd issue" is an excellent situation for just about everyone not involved in the case, though.

Firstly, arguably the biggest player in the software business is now on the wrong side of a software patents lawsuit, which is going to mean probably the most powerful legal team in the business is going to be looking for all sorts of arguments to get such patents overturned.

Secondly, there are going to be some hard questions about what constitutes "copying" in the case of software, which the big players have been carefully avoiding answering in court for a very long time, for fear that the already dubious legal basis for their EULAs and reseller-based sales models will be invalidated. Answering those questions definitively cannot help but clarify a lot of the ambiguity surrounding those issues. Does the act of installing a piece of software for which you have already paid constitute making a copy? Does the mere act of running software already installed constitute making a copy? It's going to be very unpleasant for players like Dell and HP if the injunction stands, even for a few weeks, and those things are found to constitute making a copy. But if they're not making a copy for the purposes of this software patent-related case, then logically they can't be affected by copyright either, and EULAs fall apart.

I wouldn't like to predict the outcome here, but I'm guessing some big players in our industry are going to be pretty upset one way or another. And given that consumers (and smaller players in the industry, for that matter) are almost always on the wrong side of status quo, hopefully that means we're all going to be pretty happy one way or another.

Re:This is excellent, absolutely fantastic news

[poetmatt]

No, they're going to try to get it overturned for themselves. Notice the issues they are and *aren't* appealing. They are staying far far away from overturning patents by themselves because it is a cash cow for them too.

Re:This is excellent, absolutely fantastic news

[Helldesk Hound]

> Firstly, arguably the biggest player in the software business is now on
> the wrong side of a software patents lawsuit, which is going to mean
> probably the most powerful legal team in the business is going to be
> looking for all sorts of arguments to get such patents overturned.

How did IBM get involved in this case? And why would IBM get its own inhouse lawyers to do this for Microsoft?

Re:This is excellent, absolutely fantastic news

[udippel]

[I can only hope the mods have sufficient sense to mod this up. And I am out of mod points, alas.]

This is, in case you can't add it up yourselves, Funny+1

Re:This is excellent, absolutely fantastic news

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Notice the issues they are and *aren't* appealing.

Sure, but as far as I can see, they're in danger of being in a no-win situation. I'm sure they'd like a ruling that allows them to carry on here without affecting anything else to do with software patents, but even if they manage to get something that specific, they're going to have to make some sort of argument to justify it given that a ruling has already been made against them. I'm not an expert on the US legal system, but I assume if those arguments are made in a sufficiently senior court and result in the original decision being adjusted or overturned, that would be considered a precedent. And of course, there's no guarantee that a court case like this will result in such a narrow ruling (though in my limited experience, US courts do seem to prefer those to suggesting general principles).

Re:This is excellent, absolutely fantastic news

[h4rm0ny]

They are staying far far away from overturning patents by themselves because it is a cash cow for them too.

What software patents does Microsoft make money from?

a lot of resorces to waste

[Kloplop321]

not only the hard drives, but also restore disks, if you think about it, they will have to trash all those disks and burn new ones. It must be a frustrating situation, even though I do not like dell at all.

Re:Pure Nonsense. Word isn't a default Dell option

[mysidia]

This isn't a sold or imported product. It's a temporary trial that will become invalid if MS isn't allowed to sell the license to use it.

Re:Don't they have to update the images often anyw

[mysidia]

They ship with old versions. I would guess they don't bother to update all that often.

Re:And? Who cares?

[Boltronics]

Like the ReiserFS analogy. Seems correct - corporations always get taken more seriously than individuals. Probably something to do with having money. :)

Re:Don't they have to update the images often anyw

[MightyMartian]

I've never bought a consumer-grade Dell, but I've bought many business systems from Dell (Vostros and Optiplexes), and I have to concur. There are a few Dell shortcuts on there, but guys like HP literally stack their OEM machines with garbage. Dell isn't perfect, but I'd recommend them any day of the week over their competitors.

Burn in Hell Dell

[therufus]

Before you mod me down as a troll, read what I have to say.

I am completely sick and tired of manufacturers putting MS Office and Norton Antivirus on computers from factory. These programs come pre-loaded with Asus/HP/Compaq/etc computers but only as 30-60 day trials. And since 90% of people that buy brand name computers are idiots (and 11 years in computer retail tells me this), they think they have the whole program. So the antivirus runs in 60 days but they still think they're protected (not that Norton is very effective in any case) or they create documents in Word/Excel only to be unable to open them without paying more money. What makes it worse is that some people actually start using MS Outlook, then get locked out of their emails.

Deceiving customers with trial software should come to an end. And if this is the straw that breaks the camels back, then so be it.

Re:Don't they have to update the images often anyw

[CmdrPorno]

"Current" is a relative term. It takes months for a critical update to make it into Dell's system images. The latest batch of crippleware/shovelware, on the other hand, is certain to be included.

Welcome to fascism

[AHuxley]

When the Michael Dell does it, that means that it is not illegal..
When you image from Mircrosoft, run a long cable.

Re:You, sir, are fucking retarded.

[jedidiah]

That process should be rediculously automated by now.

They had tools for testing graphical applications back in the 16-bit days.

If this is anything more than a minor nuissance for Dell, then they're doing
things wrong. They are doing things VERY WRONG for an organization their size.

No, the idea that this will cause some testing nightmare is total BS.

They are simply worried about the BUSINESS implications of all of
this and they are using BS like testing as a smokescreen. They don't
want to have to tell their customer that they can't buy Word. That's
all there is to it.

Microsoft this time: Software patents now right?

[billsf]

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.

Please... let me steal for another year or so...

[fly1ngtux]

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.

Have a cry dell...

[ufoolme]

Grow some balls and change to Open Office. Just create some new images, and use them from now on - I believe that would cover your cowardly asses. I know big firms like to cry poor, but come on suck it up. And stop upgrading to the new ms office suites they suck, open source all the way! If not replace word with VIM! FTW

Re:Have a cry dell...

[MadMaverick9]

Until OpenOffice can properly open docx documents created by Omnipage Professional 17 (OCR Software), OpenOffice is not an option. I am sure there are more examples like this.

Re:Sounds like someone is trying to fool a judge

[Shados]

Changing the master image is no big deal. Changing all the HDs of of thousands of PCs in the warehouse is another deal.

Probably a manufacturer

[Skapare]

Most likely the original statement named the company that manufactured the computers, and it was redacted because Dell wants to keep that secret. We can guess at names.

Re:You, sir, are fucking retarded.

[rohan972]

They don't want to have to tell their customer that they can't buy Word. That's all there is to it.

That's pretty much it. A modified Word which won't read existing files in an organisation would cost them a heap in customer support.

Re:Microsoft this time: Software patents now right

[rohan972]

aren't /. readers against this abuse of the patent system?

Yes

Very bad idea, even if its just Microsoft.

He who lives by the sword will die by the sword. Just like most of us don't agree with murder but don't shed a tear if a mercenary gets killed in action.

Software patents shouldn't be considered valid but MS has lobbied and argued for them so it is justice for them to be harmed by them.

So, use the image that doesn't include Office

[SmallFurryCreature]

As others have pointed out, but it is worth repeating. Dell DOES sell Windows PC's WITHOUT office. So all they have to do, is use that existing and presumably tested image that they have used for years.

Dell is blowing smoke here. It is basically saying: "Dear Judge, we sell coffee with sugar, taking the sugar out would be insanely hard. Please don't tell us to sell coffee with the sugar taken out."

The only issue here is Dell's bottom line. The profit margins on software are insane. Sure, it costs a fortune to produce, but the cost of selling it is nearly zero for these PC's. Just an option checked, different image used and foila. Money in the bank.

Dell has been very helpful in creating a monopoly for office and now it is once again lying on MS behalf.

There ARE images, that DELL is using RIGHT now, that do NOT include office. That is ALL they need to do. Oh but the issue is with Word, not with office? So? That is MS problem. Nobody is going to buy office without word, for that matter you can't.

Dell can just stop selling office and let MS take the damage for trying to come with a way to still sell office without word. Not their problem.

What an opportunity.

[jcr]

I'm pretty sure that Safari and iTunes aren't going to be the last Apple software products that ship on Windows. If Apple offered iWork on Windows right now, Keynote alone would be worth a hundred million bucks or so a quarter in new revenues.

-jcr

causation

[Tom]

'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."

but who is to blame - OEM or MS?

[MoreDruid]

I can understand that an OEM has to deal with this kind of stuff. But should they be held liable for the errors the software company they OEM for makes? And infringements? That would mean that they would need to scrutinize every software update, every new patch and every program as well. For large OEMs this might be feasible, but for small shops it would be an extra workload, driving up computer prices (or they'll go Linux and don't have to worry about all that crap - I can dream right?)
That would make the cost of OEM so high that you'd be better off buying retail. What if an Adobe program is next in line? And then Norton or McAfee? Should the OEM burden that cost completely? Or would it be wiser to give the software producer a hefty penalty or paying for the cost of _their_ fault - by either having them fix the issue (create new images, etc) or just billing the extra cost to them.

The OEMs _could_ hit MS hard by telling them to fix it ASAP so they can deliver according to contract or they can break the contract (they cannot be expected to sell infringing software right?) and bundle a free software replacement for Word. They now have a heavy lever to pull on MS if ever there was one.

Re:but who is to blame - OEM or MS?

[Haeleth]

That sounds reasonable. It's not really fair for OEMs to suffer for Microsoft's misdeeds, but likewise it would not be acceptable for Microsoft to dodge reasonable injunctions just because they would inconvenience OEMs.

"Too big to be illegal" is a ludicrous concept. It makes "too big to fail" look positively sensible.

Re:but who is to blame - OEM or MS?

[Tom]

But should they be held liable for the errors the software company they OEM for makes?

No, and they aren't. Or did I miss the memo that tells Dell to pay penalties?

They just simply lost their license to distribute Word, though not because MS terminated it, but because a court said that MS never had the right to license (this version of) it in the first place.

but for small shops it would be an extra workload, driving up computer prices

Yes. And the argument is what, exactly? Following the law is more expensive than not, so we should give companies some wiggle room? I don't exactly see how that's going to be a convincing argument.

Should the OEM burden that cost completely?

The cost of what, exactly?

The cost that results from their process and procedure in creating the product that they sell? Hell, yes!
If it really is so terribly difficult and expensive to remove a program from the image due to the way that Dell creates the images, then yes, it's Dells image, Dells process, Dells decision to create and implement this process, Dells failure to not have other options. I don't see who else should "burden that cost" as you say it. Who would you propose?

Heck, if they have smart lawyers, their contracts with MS will allow them to recoup the extra costs from MS, since the party whose illegal activities have caused them damages is MS. Exactly the preconditions for a liability lawsuit.

They now have a heavy lever to pull on MS if ever there was one.

Are they going to pull it? Not if MS can just up their OEM license costs at the next opportunity. You never have a heavy lever against a monopoly provider, that's one of the reasons we don't want monopolies, you know?

Re:but who is to blame - OEM or MS?

[JAlexoi]

Look at it this way, if you buy any stolen goods, knowingly or unknowingly, you are will be basically deprived of the goods and you will not receive anything in return. So, yes, OEM's have to have that on tabs.

Re:but who is to blame - OEM or MS?

[mabhatter654]

that's up to Dell to put those kinds of things in their contract with Microsoft. My company supplies Automakers and we're responsible for EVERYTHING related to our product because it's in the contract. If the product is late, we pay for downtime, if it's out of spec, we pay for downtime, and the cost of their employees to tell us it's wrong. If bad product gets to customers, we pay the cost of the auto maker to tell the customer and pay the cost of the repair guy to buy a new part and replace it. If we violate a patent in our operation, and it costs them.. it all comes down on us.

If Dell didn't negotiate the cost of having to "rework" the OEM copy the get from Microsoft into their contracts it's their problem (and another score for the MS EULA guys!) Something Microsoft is very good at is running their contracts so OTHER people take the hit for patching, poor performance, bugs, late shipments, etc. I agree with some other posters, shutting down OEMs ruins MICROSOFT'S credibility and ability to make these one-sided contracts leaving no fall-back option for the OEMs... these are the kind of nails needed to get OEMs to "second source" their options for OS and Office programs (i.e. real, interoperable competition) so their customers aren't stopped cold. This is shutdown, this is actual reworking costs that aren't covered under contract, this is the kind of pain the DOJ couldn't find the balls to inflict!

Because sure as hell Dell is interoperable with HP or with Acer from the customer's point of view.. if they have to feel the pain, why should MS not get some too!!

Re:Don't they have to update the images often anyw

[MoreDruid]

It may be a while back, but HP gave me the option to reinstall only the OS and if needed/wanted a selection of the bundled software. Mind you, this was a business laptop, and they are more expensive for a reason. Better build quality is one, and probably the optional software install is another. That said, my current Lenovo 3000 N200 (cheap/midrange laptop) has this option as well - just the OS, and the install of bundled software is optional. YMMV of course.
Oh I just remembered one: a Packard Bell (yuech!) budget laptop (a friend of mine bought it against my stringent advice)... that software image is just utter crap - I don't support that thing as a result :-).

Re:Microsoft this time: Software patents now right

[rohan972]

Troll? WTF?

Re:Don't they have to update the images often anyw

[rhook]

You can get both the OS and driver discs from HP when you order online. Their business machines usually come with them by default.

Re:Pure Nonsense. Word isn't a default Dell option

[jonbryce]

It still violates the patent.

Re:Sounds like someone is trying to fool a judge

[computerchimp]

I thought Dells business model was well known...my mistake for assuming:

Dell is a JIT manufacturer. There are no thousands of PCs in the warehouse.

The minimal inventory that Dell keeps should have dwindled significantly by now.

HP is almost in the same boat when it comes to stared inventory. companies cannot afford to have that much unpaid for and idle inventory.

Translation

[Spy der Mann]

Translation:

Dear District Court: We made a shitload of money by making a contract with Microsoft. With your Word injunction we'll have to spend a little of that shitload of money to fulfill your requirements, and we don't like that.

Sincerely,
Dell.

Translation of the translation:

Dear District Court: We made a shitload of money by making a contract with Dell, and we're sick tired of you banning our products. So we're asking Dell to tell you some bullshit so you can stop fucking with us.

Sincerely,
Microsoft.

Whaaaaa

[nurb432]

Cry me a river.

You knowingly assist your criminal partner, you pay the piper too.

Find the Nash Equilibrium...

[javabandit]

One of the earlier posts talked about the difficulties around "too big to fail" or "to big to succeed". To me, this is where the concept of finding a Nash Equilibrium is critical.

To resolve this situation optimally, a means to an end must be found where all of the affected parties benefit the greatest as a whole. You can't simply issue a patent judgment and say "have a nice day, you have X days to comply". That might benefit i4i, but it really hurts a lot of other stakeholders in the system -- including consumers (who do you think will bear the cost of that judgment?). Like it or not, by the law, i4i deserves something for the infringement (if the court finds the patent valid).

However, this is where our legal system in the free market breaks down. You've got to make sure you can come to judgments where the market isn't overly harmed, but everyone gets a taste of what they deserve.

This is correct

[zoomshorts]

All OEM's regularly create new images for their products.

Then, when the machines are attached to a network, they
often use the PXE feature to blast the correct image to
the units before they go out the door. This is often done
in a multicast scenario whereby an entire production run
is copied to thousands of machines at once.

Been there, done that, had to create a new image when the customer
choose to add some software they forgot to tell us about. Yes,
we checked their license before we did that :P

Really...

[jopsen]

'Making such a change would require extensive time- and resource- consuming testing.'

Really... Those preinstalled computers have the worst possible configuration... As if the entire software stack was written by a highschool student... Can it really take time to reconfigure them... And are they really tested ? :)
- Those images sucks so bad, are you really going to claim that it take time to make them... (Surely, installed 3 toolbars is difficult)

Re:Don't they have to update the images often anyw

[Blakey Rat]

When you order a consumer laptop/tablet, as I did about a year and a half ago, the "OS Re-install" is kept on a separate partition of the HD, and they give you the option to *pay more* for a physical OS disk.

I did so (because I'm a sucker), figuring that when you pay extra they give you a disk without any of the crapplications on it. I was wrong; the backup partition *and* the DVD they shipped with the computer *both* were loaded to the gills with crap. (I know; the very first thing I did when I got the thing was to re-install the OS from the physical DVD.)

Between that, and their crazy idea of "styling" (which is basically: more vaguely-shaped icons with blue LEDs behind them! More! MORE!!), I'm never buying an HP again. Even if they do make an affordable, relatively-quality tablet.

If you've had a better experience with them, more power to you.

Re:You, sir, are fucking retarded.

[jedidiah]

Hardly.

They simply refer them to the recent court ruling and CNN press clippings.

They might even go so far as to ask the customer what rock they've been hiding under if they were so inclined.

Re:Don't they have to update the images often anyw

[rhook]

You know they have a "recovery" disc you can order AND an OS reinstall disc + drivers cd. You must have ordered the recovery disc.

Re:Don't they have to update the images often anyw

[Blakey Rat]

Well, whatever. Either way, HP charges you $20 for the privilege of NOT having a ton of bullshit on your computer, and that's assuming the consumer is smart enough to figure out which of the options you need to choose to get the bullshit-free version.

I refuse to play their little game. I'll just order a company that doesn't pack in the bullshit in the first place, *and* gives me the correct OS disk for free. Fuck HP.

I can only assume you work for them, or something, to actually attempt to justify their dumb process.

Re:Don't they have to update the images often anyw

[adolf]

In my experience, the consumer Dells are a little bloated (though perfectly useable), and the more corporate-oriented models are quite stark.

Neither, though, is as barren as an Alienware box (note: Alienware is owned by Dell). These things come up, out-of-the-box, with only a proper install of Windows, a couple of tech support links on the desktop, and licensed/legit/nonexpiring PowerDVD and Nero preinstalled. They're just about as bare as they would be if I'd built the machine myself and installed a couple of light-weight, essential programs.

Alienware includes an OEM OS disk, a driver disk, and a disk which allows you to recover that particular computer to its factory as-shipped status.

(I'm not sure why I felt this was relevant, since we're mostly talking about corporate machines, but...)

Re:Don't they have to update the images often anyw

[rhook]

I don't work for them but I have been using their products for years. The only way you're going to get a system without a shit ton of crap preinstalled from anyone is to get one with linux or freedos. There is also a reason HP doesn't include the OS reinstall disc with consumer systems anymore, 99% of the people who buy those systems will never use it. Forcing them to burn their own restore disc set is messed up though. However I alway purchase the business class systems and have never had any issues with missing OS discs or preinstalled crap.

Re:Don't they have to update the images often anyw

[mjwx]

People keep saying this on Slashdot, but have you ever bought a computer from HP? Compared to HP, and other computer retailers (most of them at least), Dell ships hardly any crapplications at all. In addition, Dell actually ships you a clean and working OS disk (with the crapplications on a completely different disk), HP puts both on the same disk making it impossible to reinstall your HP OS without also reinstalling the crapplications.

Dell is about the only OEM still shipping OS disks. Lenovo and HP aren't, although HP used to ship the images on the HDD so you could burn yourself a copy of Windows without the crapware but the last time I got a new HP was three years ago. No OEM is as bad as Sony for installing crapware, one of our users recently bought a Vaio and Vista 64 idled at 3.4 GB (even Vista shouldn't be idling at more then 2 GB on a fresh install) out of the box, good thing he has 6 GB of RAM and doesn't do much around here anyway. Sony do not provide OS disks in any way.

Bad business decision?

[zlel]

I thought creating images is a company's business strategy to gain competitive advantage, essentially the equivalence of raising QC level to lower customer dissatisfaction? If circumstances cause a competitive edge to become a burden, isn't it simply a bad business decision that nobody else needs to be responsible for?