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.
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.
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.
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.
"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).
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!
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
> 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.
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.