LINDON, Utah, Mar 20, 2004 -- The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX), the owner of every operating system dammit and a leading provider of Linux-based solutions, today announced a lawsuit to be filed against Microsoft Corporation for its alleged violations of its UNIX software agreement with SCO.
President and CEO Darl McBride addressed reporters from outside his bunker in Provo: "We have reason to believe that all existing versions of Microsoft Windows contain SCO intellectual property, and that this information was obtained by illicit means from the garbage cans at the Computer Science Center".
Bill Gates was too busy laughing to be reached for comment.
(This is only funny if you RTFA, and maybe not even then).
Given the trend of this discussion, I should know better than to post an unpopular viewpoint, but both sides deserve a fair hearing. Flame or mod as ye will.
I currently work for a well-known American computer retailer with a "draconian" return policy. Previously, I worked for several years as a manager of a similar store with a more liberal return policy. While I empathize with Elysium's viewpoint, my own experience tells me that such policies are necessary for a retailer to survive. A few points:
First, there are significant restrictions placed on retail stores by software manufacturers regarding their products. Many vendors will not allow opened boxes to be returned to them unless the product is defective, and a few will not accept returns at all. Some even mandate that the media and manuals be destroyed on return. Since it is illegal to repackage used or opened merchandise and sell it as new (and customer demand for opened boxes without big markdowns is extremely low), the retailers that I have worked for generally treat software returns the same way they do theft: adjust the item out of inventory and throw the box in the bailer.
Second, software piracy IS a huge problem. The article that began this discussion called this position "disengenous" and said that anyone who believed that these policies were designed to combat piracy was "more than naive". I beg to differ. A question for everyone in IT reading this: how long would it take you to get a free copy of Windows if you needed it?
I have overhead or had customers declare outright that they were going to burn and return software. I have seen staff members terminated for bootlegging software on store computers. I have seen every return scam you can imagine, and it is no way naive or disingenuous to suggest that these return policies are a measure against piracy.
(As an aside, the most popular return scam in my area is this. Buy a CD, burn it and/or copy down the key code, then scratch the disc. Return it to the store as defective, exchanging it for the same title in a sealed box. Return this one to another location for store credit. Lather, rinse, repeat. I see this daily).
Third, there are the bottom line considerations. The author of the original article stated that he did not care what the reasons were for these policies and that he intended to vote with his wallet in protest. Aside from the word of mouth Slashdot might generate, let's see how much that "vote" is worth.
Let's say Elysium finds a store worthy of his business - which is to say, a store that will take back any and all opened box software for exchange or refund. Being a hardcore gamer, let's say he spends $100 every week on software, generating five grand annually in total sales and (optimistically) $1000 profit. Let's also assume that a "burn and return" pirate also shops in this store. Pop quiz: how many zeroed-out copies of AutoCAD will it take to neutralize Elysium's vote? How many "unfit for sale" copies of Office and Photoshop will it take to completely disenfranchise him?
In closing, it is unfortunate that some retail salespeople treat honest, decent customers like criminals for trying to return software. At my store, we go to great lengths to explain the policy (and the reasons for it) to customers before they buy software and to offer options in case of problems (vendor tech support or money back guarantees, installation help from our tech department, and so on). There are federal laws demanding equal treatment of every customer, so our rules are rarely bent - lost business, while unfortunate, is better than termination and litigation.
I stand behind my employer on this issue... if you don't like it, then you can complain about me and the evil company I work for, or, more productively, you can support open source software, change the industry for the better, and make retail store policy a non-issue in your life.
I also use Yahoo mail, and I also get about 100 spam emails each and every day. The filters do an excellent job, but I still have to spend a couple of minutes double checking, reporting, and deleting the stuff.
Considering the millions of people that use free web-based email, maybe we should think of it as a bigger problem.
Wow, a Macintosh in a nuclear facility? No wonder they use a bomb to indicate a computer failure.
Now that I've subjected you to that awful joke, here's a little food for thought from Lester Thurow: "To think of alternative energy sources is to think of vigorous well-organized opponents.... The most visible are those that oppose nuclear power, but I have yet to meet anyone who wants a coal-fired, electrical-generating plant next to him".
My debate teacher used to joke that if you couldn't come up with a decent rebuttal to an argument, you could always compare your opponent to Hitler. Here we go.
In 1919, Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles. Its provisions included a break-up of the German "monopoly" on land, strict limitations on the size and capabilities of the German military, and economic restitution for damages caused during World War I. The German people were predictably dissatisfied with life under these terms, which led to the rise of a new government that chose to ignore the treaty. I can't help but imagine that if we were to ask Adolf Hitler what his motivation was, he would reply, "the freedom to innovate".
Any other similarities between Microsoft and the Third Reich are completely coincidental.;-)
Slashdot Mirror
LINDON, Utah, Mar 20, 2004 -- The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX), the owner of every operating system dammit and a leading provider of Linux-based solutions, today announced a lawsuit to be filed against Microsoft Corporation for its alleged violations of its UNIX software agreement with SCO.
President and CEO Darl McBride addressed reporters from outside his bunker in Provo: "We have reason to believe that all existing versions of Microsoft Windows contain SCO intellectual property, and that this information was obtained by illicit means from the garbage cans at the Computer Science Center".
Bill Gates was too busy laughing to be reached for comment.
(This is only funny if you RTFA, and maybe not even then).
The open source community is, according to the article, "a vast flock of very creative, un-sheeplike sheep".
;-)
I have little to add to that... it's just a great line. Beware of getting fleeced by SCO.
Given the trend of this discussion, I should know better than to post an unpopular viewpoint, but both sides deserve a fair hearing. Flame or mod as ye will.
I currently work for a well-known American computer retailer with a "draconian" return policy. Previously, I worked for several years as a manager of a similar store with a more liberal return policy. While I empathize with Elysium's viewpoint, my own experience tells me that such policies are necessary for a retailer to survive. A few points:
First, there are significant restrictions placed on retail stores by software manufacturers regarding their products. Many vendors will not allow opened boxes to be returned to them unless the product is defective, and a few will not accept returns at all. Some even mandate that the media and manuals be destroyed on return. Since it is illegal to repackage used or opened merchandise and sell it as new (and customer demand for opened boxes without big markdowns is extremely low), the retailers that I have worked for generally treat software returns the same way they do theft: adjust the item out of inventory and throw the box in the bailer.
Second, software piracy IS a huge problem. The article that began this discussion called this position "disengenous" and said that anyone who believed that these policies were designed to combat piracy was "more than naive". I beg to differ. A question for everyone in IT reading this: how long would it take you to get a free copy of Windows if you needed it?
I have overhead or had customers declare outright that they were going to burn and return software. I have seen staff members terminated for bootlegging software on store computers. I have seen every return scam you can imagine, and it is no way naive or disingenuous to suggest that these return policies are a measure against piracy.
(As an aside, the most popular return scam in my area is this. Buy a CD, burn it and/or copy down the key code, then scratch the disc. Return it to the store as defective, exchanging it for the same title in a sealed box. Return this one to another location for store credit. Lather, rinse, repeat. I see this daily).
Third, there are the bottom line considerations. The author of the original article stated that he did not care what the reasons were for these policies and that he intended to vote with his wallet in protest. Aside from the word of mouth Slashdot might generate, let's see how much that "vote" is worth.
Let's say Elysium finds a store worthy of his business - which is to say, a store that will take back any and all opened box software for exchange or refund. Being a hardcore gamer, let's say he spends $100 every week on software, generating five grand annually in total sales and (optimistically) $1000 profit. Let's also assume that a "burn and return" pirate also shops in this store. Pop quiz: how many zeroed-out copies of AutoCAD will it take to neutralize Elysium's vote? How many "unfit for sale" copies of Office and Photoshop will it take to completely disenfranchise him?
In closing, it is unfortunate that some retail salespeople treat honest, decent customers like criminals for trying to return software. At my store, we go to great lengths to explain the policy (and the reasons for it) to customers before they buy software and to offer options in case of problems (vendor tech support or money back guarantees, installation help from our tech department, and so on). There are federal laws demanding equal treatment of every customer, so our rules are rarely bent - lost business, while unfortunate, is better than termination and litigation.
I stand behind my employer on this issue... if you don't like it, then you can complain about me and the evil company I work for, or, more productively, you can support open source software, change the industry for the better, and make retail store policy a non-issue in your life.
I sell Apples for a well-known retailer and our best guess is roughly a year from now. To substantiate this claim, check out Mac Rumors.
I also use Yahoo mail, and I also get about 100 spam emails each and every day. The filters do an excellent job, but I still have to spend a couple of minutes double checking, reporting, and deleting the stuff.
Considering the millions of people that use free web-based email, maybe we should think of it as a bigger problem.
Wow, a Macintosh in a nuclear facility? No wonder they use a bomb to indicate a computer failure.
Now that I've subjected you to that awful joke, here's a little food for thought from Lester Thurow: "To think of alternative energy sources is to think of vigorous well-organized opponents.... The most visible are those that oppose nuclear power, but I have yet to meet anyone who wants a coal-fired, electrical-generating plant next to him".
So you're saying that you didn't get the joke, right?
My debate teacher used to joke that if you couldn't come up with a decent rebuttal to an argument, you could always compare your opponent to Hitler. Here we go.
;-)
In 1919, Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles. Its provisions included a break-up of the German "monopoly" on land, strict limitations on the size and capabilities of the German military, and economic restitution for damages caused during World War I. The German people were predictably dissatisfied with life under these terms, which led to the rise of a new government that chose to ignore the treaty. I can't help but imagine that if we were to ask Adolf Hitler what his motivation was, he would reply, "the freedom to innovate".
Any other similarities between Microsoft and the Third Reich are completely coincidental.