Slashdot Mirror
Dell Says Re-Imaging HDs a Burden If Word Banned
N!NJA writes "In an amicus curiae brief filed on Aug. 24, Dell asked the judge overseeing the Eastern District Court of Texas to reconsider its order blocking sales of Word, part of the original ruling in favor of Canadian software developer i4i. In the worst case, the brief argued, the injunction should be delayed by 120 days. 'The District Court's injunction of Microsoft Word will have an impact far beyond Microsoft,' Dell and HP wrote. 'Microsoft Word is ubiquitous among word processing software and is included on [redacted] computers sold by Dell.' 'If Microsoft is required to ship a revised version of Word in Dell's computers, a change would need to be made to Dell's images,' Dell wrote. 'Making such a change would require extensive time- and resource- consuming testing.' An addendum to the brief notes that it was authored in Microsoft Word, part of Office 2003."
Except that's not what the injunction says. The quotes I can find say:
Given that Amazon.com "sells" some ebooks for $0, I doubt that shipping Word without charging for the license would pass the "selling or importing" ban.
The injunction itself needs to be modified, and given the case Dell and HP make here, it seems like the original injunction was poorly thought out in terms of unintended consequences.
That's par for the course when you become an OEM. Deal with it.
Not even Dell likes Office 2007.
Of course it is BS, it is more or less doable, comparing to penalties which they will get themselves into if they won't comply. It's interesting that they just don't use 'lost sales' argument. It could have some consequences for Dell too?
Anyway, this case is ugly as it can get about software patents. It is not traditional troll case, but still I don't like it - I don't like software patents at all.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
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.
If they hadn't preloaded all of their images with free trials and bloatware then this wouldn't be a problem in the first place. When I have to setup one of their machines, the first thing I always do is reformat and build a new image anyway without all of the extra crap that shouldn't be there.
Here I sit, all broken hearted.
Came to poop, but only farted.
Okay, I read it.
Can't figure out what they could have redacted that would have been more damaging than the fact of the redaction itself.
If these briefs aren't filed as evidence against Microsoft in all the anti-monopoly actions, I'm wondering why.
(And we can start calling assertion contrary to evidence when people say Microsoft doesn't manufacture computers, since it sounds like Dell is just a subsidiary of Microsoft.)
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
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.
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.
Think global, act loco
A 90 day trial version of MS Office is generally included in the default image.
This court decision is being appealed and Dell is arguing that the injunction should be withdrawn until the legal process has been completed.
Third parties will be harmed while the patent holder isn't likely to see anyone buying their product instead of Word.
No, it means "We have a single image that goes out to tens of thousands of customers in hundreds of different hardware configurations, If the software configuration in that image changes, we have to test with the maximum level of paranoia to ensure that we don't get a flood of complaints, and requests for refunds, that each have to be verified independently and will set us back millions of dollars."
I'm sure their imaging system is in order and whipping up a new image will take at worst a few hours. But I can certainly understand the cost of testing will be considerable.
And remember that this is an issue caused by absurd software patents, so for once the Slashdot groupthink is on the side of Microsoft.
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.
"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..
It's most likely that Dell doesn't wish to publish their sales numbers outside of the normal reporting process, which isn't at all surprising.
I actually worked at a computer manufacturer. Regardless of whether you think computer manufacturers should test their software or whether they are doing a crappy testing their product, it takes a ton of resources to get a master image out. You are testing multiple masters, not just one, based on different SKUs, etc. I admit, some of the testing we did were stupid but when you are consider MM units shipped and if a stupid error goes through you might pretty much bankrupt the company, you want to make sure you get enough testing.
As for OpenOffice, are you willing to ship out 1M+ units without good testing? Assembling your own computer is very different from shipping out 1M units all over the world + liability for computer tech support (regardless on whether you think Dell support sucks, it probably costs them $10~$20 per call; when you figure out a typical profit margin of 8% per unit, couple tech support calls will kill your margins).
How can REMOVING software from an image require testing? How does it make any sense that my computer will become less stable because it is missing LESS word processing software? Brilliant logic perpetuated by the microsoft apologists.
dumber people are doing harder things everyday
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.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
With as much crap as Dell includes on it's default computers, certainly something is always in need of an update. They must have new images several times a year to keep the versions all current. One more image doesn't seem like such a big deal.
"Dear Court:
Providing a different option will be hard for us.
Please provide us relief."
Seems to me like this issue is exactly why monopolies are bad for consumers.
The last PC I helped someone fix (bloated and slow, crippled with malware) didn't even
come with system reinstall disks - they had to order and pay for them separately once the
computer arrived. Oops!
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.
Specialist Mac support for creative pros, Melbourne
Maybe this is a wake up call for people relying on *.doc and *.docx
So now we see the far-reaching disaster that occurs when we enforce these stupid software patents - all the logistical nightmares, the impractical enforceability, the unwitting collateral damage, et cetera. Our greatest hope is that everything can blow up in everyone's face as big as possible with no real advantage to anyone in the end (that's right: dump as much spam in the fan as you can) and then we'll see how pointless it is to enforce software patents.
I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
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.
Removing all the OEM crap is a burden as well
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
How can REMOVING software from an image require testing?
You've never heard of dependencies? I'd be willing to wager that in a typical Dell install there is at least one third-party app that needs some component of Office.
You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
There is a lot of hype here.
When Microsoft decides it's time to get more money and releases a new version of Office, as they have done several times in the past, does Dell charge them for having to change their image again? What about major OS service packs? They re-image for those too. It's part of their business. How is this any different from what would happen if MS released Office 2010?
If they have paid Microsoft for the right to Sell x Million copies of Office, then Microsoft has already sold x Million copies to Dell.
Does the injunction apply to resllers?
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.
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.
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?.
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.
Comment of the year
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.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
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.
I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
Anyway, the injunction prohibits Microsoft from selling or importing. There's no reason that would enjoin Dell from selling their stock.
It's doubtful that Dell has a pre-bought stock of CDs to sell for the preloaded software that is the subject of of their brief. They probably pay MS quarterly or monthly on the number of copies they make. That would make any copies Dell preloads onto their machines new copies sold by Microsoft.
Can someone explain to me how a company can ask a judge to not apply the law for purely commercial reasons? Why not let proven big drug dealers go free because they fuel the economy while they're at it?
During an appeal process the judge has a say on whether the previous judgement should be enforced before or after the appeal process. By law the judge has the authority to do so either way. So Dell is certainly within the boundary and the spirit of the law to voice their concern, especially when it has far reaching impact. It is an entirely different discussion if the judge would see the issue the same way Dell does.
If they have paid Microsoft for the right to Sell x Million copies of Office, then Microsoft has already sold x Million copies to Dell.
That's quite a big "if" there. I doubt that Dell pays Microsoft 60 days ahead of time for software that they are going to copy onto a new harddrive when and if they sell it. They might have paid MS for the master, but the copy doesn't exist to be licensed until they make it - I would expect that moment of copying would be the moment the legal infringement takes place.
They ship with old versions. I would guess they don't bother to update all that often.
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
"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.
Sent from my iPhone
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.
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.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
I saw this article a couple times, and finally clicked it to see what's being said. Good post you've made there.
I'd like to add though, that Dell jumped on the bandwagon years ago when MS demanded exclusivity agreements in exchange for distribution rights. Even if Dell were to suffer a loss if ordered to distribute no more Word products, I couldn't feel sorry for them. Dell assisted, even if indirectly, in creating the Microsoft monopoly. A little hardship might make them reconsider pushing Linux and No-OS machines a little harder. It would be good to see such offerings on their FRONT page. It would be even better to see the end of "Dell recommends Windows Blah" on every page.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Are software patents suddenly OK when MS gets stuck? I wouldn't use their 'copy-ware' myself but still aren't /. readers against this abuse
of the patent system? There is a bigger story, but the press just haven't seen it yet. I think some of us know where the prior art is anyway for this idea that isn't patentable. Will Apple bring back 'look and feel' suits? Very bad idea, even if its just Microsoft.
Sorry, your argument doesn't hold water.
Let's look at the same argument used by Corporate America - specifically, RIAA. The statement that file sharers are "criminals" is common. It is a determined effort to alienate filesharers from people who genuinely respect the law. That inaccurate statement is incorporated into any and every PR release made by a majority of IP holders. "Criminal" are costing Corporate America billions of dollars annualy.
I've argued and pointed out many times that file sharers may or may not be guilty of infringing on CIVIL LAW, but that does not make them "criminals".
Honesty demands that we not use the same dirty trick against Corporate America. Microsoft is not a "convicted criminal". They may be a bunch of rat bastards, but being a rat bastard is not in and of itself a criminal offense.
Please, don't put me in the position of defending Microsoft again.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
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?
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.
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
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.
Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
Honourable Judges,
Allow me to introduce myself. I am an MNC making a living through unlawful sale of copyrighted material. I heard that you are going to crackdown on people like me. Since I don't know a better way to earn a living, I request you to postpone your ruling for another year or so.
Sincerely,
MNC
PS: Please note that if we don't sell our stuff for next 120 days, world will come to an end. And, I would not prefer to pay/reach a out of court agreement with the actual copyright holder to make the entire thing legal.
Changing the master image is no big deal. Changing all the HDs of of thousands of PCs in the warehouse is another deal.
Don't preinstall the software, ship blank machines and separate media to be installed.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
I still don't get why Dell, HP and whoever else aren't suing Microsoft for lost income. You know, kind of like the charges against Boeing for the repeated delays of their "dreamliner" for those who ordered them but still haven't got them.
There was SGML, which XML is simply a derivative of. Besides, SGML and its descendants are not the only type of markup languages. TROFF and its descendants are also forms of markup that allow metadata inclusions. This company did nothing that hadn't been foreseen since the 1960s. In short, the patent is absurd.
A couple of points:
1. You're a moron who knows nothing about the history of markup languages. Before you pontificate or defend these guys, at least try not to look like a retard.
2. Allowing any company to patent specific kinds of metadata in a markup language is insane, considering that markup languages, and in particular SGML (which XML is a form of) have permitted it for four decades. I4I did nothing that wasn't foreseen since the development of SGML (and even it, as I recall, had precessors).
3. You're a moron. Or maybe you're a shill for these con artists. If you are a shill, then tell your masters that only the clinically stupid try to build real estate on concepts that probably predate half their engineers year of birth.
4. Even if you're a shill, you're still an ignorant stupid moron.
5. You're a moron. Now go away.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
> First of all "convicted monopolist" is the most over-used phrase
> on Slashdot. Can we please come up with something new?
How about "re-convicted monopolist"?
After all Microsoft has done this multiple times and has been convicted of monopolistic bullying tactics multiple times.
'Making such a change would require extensive time- and resource- consuming testing.'
Self-made problem, I'd say. If your procedures can't handle the process of removing a piece of software, or replacing it with a newer version of itself, then your procedures suck. We're not talking about a kernel change here, are we?
Seriously? Car anology? "Dear Sirs, unfortunately, removing the radio is so much work, we'd have to remodel our entire factory."
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I went and read the patent. It's actually about separating formatting from content. This is similar to CSS, but in this case, there would be no tags at all in the 'content' portion of the document at all. Instead, a 'metacode map' would be a code, like 'bold', and the start/stop address of the text affected. SFAIK, this is different than what other document formats do. I certainly haven't seen it before.
However, I totally agree that this sort of patent is bogus, and scary. We should not be able to patent such nonsense. And, we have Microsoft largely to blame for this situation. Back when the debate over software patents was hot in DC, they swarmed all over the place lobbying for software patents. I have to chuckle a bit when I see what it's gotten them into. Microsoft had fooled themselves into thinking they were the ones with the innovation, and they'd be the ones with the most important patents. In reality, they are most famous for stealing the innovation of others, and for having deep pockets, a patent-troll heaven.
Now we're seeing insane damages, like $240M. Microsoft isn't significantly benefiting from the idea in this patent, it just got caught accidentally in violation of a more-or-less useless idea. This patent only barely passes the 'is this useful' test required for patents. Now big companies like Microsoft who fought for software patents want to 'cap' damages, so settlements will be more reasonable. However, when Microsoft sues a small company, damages of even $1M could kill it. Simply capping damages would effectively make Microsoft immune to law-suits, while they trash all the little guys with their lawyers. It's the perfect situation for Microsoft, and the worst possible situation for innovation.
The best solution is to stop issuing software patents. They hurt everybody.
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
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.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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.
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!
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
[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.
Celebrate failure, and then learn from it - Nolan Bushnell
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.
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
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.
When it comes to Dell and HP, the majority of Word licences are part of works and not part of office. In that case works is just a wedge to get office in the door and is a marketing exercise on M$'s part and to keep OpenOffice.org out as such the price is likely to be very low, free and could even generate a discount on windows. So M$ makes a gain from word continuing to be installed, as such Dell's and HP's requests are likely not so much their own but being done a upon M$'s promptings.
M$ lied cheated and stole and they are meant to be penalised for it, so in this case the problems caused to Dell and HP by M$, should be solved in court by Dell and HP suing M$. As for disgruntled customers Dell and HP can simply install OpenOffice.org in the interim.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
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?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
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.
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.