New Microsoft contract orders PC manufacturers to stop selling hardware without operating system

Slashdot.org ^ | August 10, 2002

[HAL9000]

Dell No Longer Selling Systems w/o Microsoft OS

Posted by CmdrTaco on Saturday August 10, @01:17PM
from the yer-bringing-me-down-man dept.

Some Sys Admin sent in an email that he got from Dell which basically says Microsoft will no longer allow Dell to sell PCs without an operating system. Please note that Microsoft is not a monopoly, and does not use their monopoly power to squish competition in the market place. The message itself is attached below, and is worth a read, especially the last bit.

UPDATES

1. Effective 8/26 - New Microsoft contract rules stipulate that we can no longer offer the "NO OS" option to our customers beyond September 1st. As such all customers currently purchasing a "NO OS" option on either OptiPlex, Precison or Latitude for the express purpose of loading a non-MS OS will have the following options:

1. Purchase a Microsoft OS with each OptiPlex, Precision or Latitude system.

2. For OptiPlex and Precision - purchase one of the new "nSeries" products (offered for GX260, WS340 & WS530 - details in the attached FAQ) that are being created to address a different OS support requirement other than a current standard Microsoft OS.

We must have all "No OS" orders shipped out of the factory by September 1st. The "No OS" legend code and SKUs will be I-coded on 8/19 and D-coded on August 26th to ensure shipment of orders prior to September 1st. FYI - this effects all of our competitors as well.

[AaronAnderson]

Are you implying that Dell can include a 10 cent floppy containing a linux boot kernel on it and that would appease m$?

You assume too much when you think that if someone purchase a bare PC they will automatically put winblows on it. Dell only recently started shipping PC's with linux, and only one flavor linux. Why should anyone pay Dell (and m$) for an OS when they can get one for free?

[Knitebane]

Somethings are just beyond explaining, I guess. I think it is obvious that this individual has a problem with Microsoft.

Of course we have a problem with Microsoft. We would have a problem with any company that violates an agreement with the US Government, especially a voluntary agreement.

When you have a ruling handed down by a court and you think it's unfair, well, you might have a point.

When Microsoft voluntarily agrees not to force OEMs to ship Windows on every PC, signs a consent decree with the government to that effect and then blatently violates said agreement, there is no defense.

[HAL9000]

Your clip only tries to show that Microsoft forced Gateway to always include Windows.

Only? The main point of the testimony is that Microsoft is working to prevent manufacturers from selling computers with no operating system preinstalled on the hard drive.

If a Dell customer wants to buy a computer with an empy, unformatted hard drive - why is it necessary for Microsoft to interfere in that transaction?

[Quix]

Through a set of chaotic events, I ended up shipping back to the U.S:

1) My old machine as a Linux machine and

2) A new machine with 2 AMD high speed advanced CPU's on the motherboard (I forget the specs); a mirrored pair of 80 GIGABYTE HD's; a high level video board; 1 GIG Registered RAM upgradable to 4 GIG . . . etc. and an interesting miscommunication--I asked for a flat panel . . . surprised that a 19" would cost approx $500 U.S. . . . only to discover that the shop guy thought I meant a flat faced CRT. . . so I settled for a 15" LCD.

I'm curious, what is Registered memory cost in the U.S. and what do 19" LCD's cost in the U.S.?

[Bush2000]

Nice try, but the email is correct. It's not like we didn't know that this is something that Microsoft has been pushing for.

That's pretty hilarious; unfortunately for you, it doesn't jibe with reality because Dell sells a boatload of Linux-based servers. So much for Joaquin Kempin's so-called "pressure".

[Bush2000]

But it is covered in the 1995 consent decree that held off the previous anti-trust suit. If my memory serves, Microsoft promised to stop per-processor licensing in exchange for not being hauled into court. You have referred to this decree in other threads so I know that you aren't ignorant of it.

Different issue altogether. MS signed a consent decree with the DOJ 8 years ago to stop charging OEMs a fee for every box they sold. The current contract doesn't charge per-processor fees. It merely establishes that Dell needs to ship an OS -- any OS -- on its boxes. You guys are going to have to try harder. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.

So, what we have here is a consent decree agreed to by Microsoft seven years ago that says that they will not require OEMs to ship Windows on every PC,

And they've complied with it. The current practice of avoiding naked PCs isn't illegal and you know it.

..we have evidence that Microsoft has made a concerted effort to sink any OEM from shipping any other OS and now we have evidence indicating that Microsoft is using it's muscle to keep OEMs from shipping naked PCs.

As mentioned previously, Dell does ship Linux on its server machines; so apparently, the supposed "pressure" from MS didn't work.

[Bush2000]

Are you implying that Dell can include a 10 cent floppy containing a linux boot kernel on it and that would appease m$?

Assuming that Dell will sell you a machine without a hard drive, sure.

You assume too much when you think that if someone purchase a bare PC they will automatically put winblows on it.

I could care less that you don't agree with that assessment. Point is, it ain't illegal. But it definitely does put a dent in Windows piracy if people have to pay for Windows when buying a new machine.

Dell only recently started shipping PC's with linux, and only one flavor linux. Why should anyone pay Dell (and m$) for an OS when they can get one for free?

You'll have to take that up with Dell. You don't honestly expect Ford or Chevy to give you a Porsche engine, do you?

[Bush2000]

Only? The main point of the testimony is that Microsoft is working to prevent manufacturers from selling computers with no operating system preinstalled on the hard drive.

BFD. It isn't illegal.

If a Dell customer wants to buy a computer with an empy, unformatted hard drive - why is it necessary for Microsoft to interfere in that transaction?

When was the last time you bought a car without an engine?

[HAL9000]

BFD. It isn't illegal.

It depends on Microsoft's reason for preventing OEMs from selling OS-less systems. It Microsoft is doing it to drive out competition, it may be illegal. Now that Microsoft requires authorization codes for Windows installation, it may be difficult for them to prove that OS piracy is a sufficient reason for the restriction.

Sorry I wasn't able to respond to your earlier messages on this thread. I was helping a Windows user move files to his new iMac. He seems very happy with the improvement.

I'm going to purchase another iMac today too. Price reductions are rumored for this morning.

[Michael Barnes]

Re #11

Here's the problem SA76 (SysAdmin??)...When I buy something that "must" be loaded at purchase time, I have to take the time to wipe..etc...That time cost's me in the long run. Furthermore, where do I haev an assurance that I am not somewhere along the line not paying for that OS license? Any manufacturer that is going to go this route is shooting themselves in the foot.

[Bush2000]

It depends on Microsoft's reason for preventing OEMs from selling OS-less systems. It Microsoft is doing it to drive out competition, it may be illegal.

Considering that there's nothing preventing Dell or Gateway or anybody else from installing whatever OS they want, the issue of illegality is a dead issue. It isn't even a subject of settlement in the antitrust case.

Now that Microsoft requires authorization codes for Windows installation, it may be difficult for them to prove that OS piracy is a sufficient reason for the restriction.

As you (hopefully) know, no copy protection is foolproof. Hackers posted hacked copies of Windows XP before it was even released. So your argument doesn't hold a lot of water. Saying MS should do less to uphold its copyright is ridiculous.

Sorry I wasn't able to respond to your earlier messages on this thread. I was helping a Windows user move files to his new iMac. He seems very happy with the improvement.

That's quite alright. If he's anything like the morons in the Apple commercials, it's probably better that he have a dumbed-down experience with an iMac.

I'm going to purchase another iMac today too. Price reductions are rumored for this morning.

I'd buy one, too. But I'm straight. ;-p

[Knitebane]

Dell does indeed sell a lot of Linux servers. And Dell servers running Linux cost more than servers running Windows.

When you buy a Dell PowerEdge server with Linux on it, you also paid for a copy of Windows, though you didn't receive it.

It is impossible to buy a machine from a major OEM without paying the Microsoft tax.

[Bush2000]

When I buy something that "must" be loaded at purchase time, I have to take the time to wipe..etc...That time cost's me in the long run.

Too bad. It's a fact of life. Try getting your Ford dealer to install a $2000 aftermarket stereo with a new purchase. You're SOL.

[Bush2000]

When you buy a Dell PowerEdge server with Linux on it, you also paid for a copy of Windows, though you didn't receive it.

That's a lie. Per-processor licensing was terminated 8 years ago.

[AFreeBird]

Try getting your Ford dealer to install a $2000 aftermarket stereo with a new purchase. You're SOL.

BWAHAHAHA.. Too funny.

If I go into a Ford dealership and tell them I want to buy this brand new $40K Explorer but I also want this $2000 aftermarket sound system or I'll go elsewhere; I guaran-damn-tee it will be in there. He'll charge me for it, but it will be there.

[HAL9000]

That's quite alright. If he's anything like the morons in the Apple commercials, it's probably better that he have a dumbed-down experience with an iMac.

No, he's a professional. He probably earns more in two or three years than you will in your lifetime. He just doesn't want to waste any more time with Microsoft's low quality crap.

[Bush2000]

No, he's a professional. He probably earns more in two or three years than you will in your lifetime.

That's pretty funny, Hal. My bar tab is probably higher.

He just doesn't want to waste any more time with Microsoft's low quality crap.

Rrrrrright. He'd rather waste time with Apple's low quality crap, instead.

[Knitebane]

MS signed a consent decree with the DOJ 8 years ago

I looked all through the decree and didn't see an expiration date on it. How long ago it was is not relevant.

The current contract doesn't charge per-processor fees. It merely establishes that Dell needs to ship an OS -- any OS -- on its boxes.

Of course, considering how hard Microsoft has worked to stop OEMs like Dell from shipping Linux on any platform (and succeeded with Dell laptops and desktops) means that the obvious goal is for OEM's to ship PCs with any OS, as long as it comes from Microsoft.

Section IV, paragraph G. states that Microsoft revenue can only come from a per-copy or per-system license. There are no exceptions for Microsoft to charge for systems with no license. In fact, it is prohibited in several of the other sections. For Microsoft to use it's licenses to force any company to ship Microsoft products that it doesn't want violates the subparagraphs of paragraph G.

And they've complied with it.

The US Government, as early as 1997, disagrees. The DOJ filed a petition in US District Court requiring Microsoft to show cause why they should not be found in civil contempt for violating the decree. Microsoft later settled by promising not to do it again, the result of that promise is why Microsoft has been found to be a monopoly by the court and we are now waiting for the penalty.

Currently in the bullpen, awaiting the outcome of the current anti-trust trial, are numerous lawsuits all based on Microsoft's violation of that decree.

Microsoft's own officials have issued memos stating that they have no intention of complying with the decree. And they haven't.

Microsoft's attempt to stop shipping PCs sans OS plus Microsoft's continuing harrasment of OEMs to drop other operating systems adds up to only one thing.

Trying to spin this off as an "anti-piracy" campaign won't work, given Microsoft's track record with obeying the law and the evidence from their own officers memos.

[Knitebane]

That's a lie. Per-processor licensing was terminated 8 years ago.

It would be a lie if Microsoft had actually obeyed the consent decree, which they didn't, haven't and have no intention of.

But since Microsoft has already been hauled into court because they violated the decree, it's less likely that it's a lie.

And since Microsoft officials have been caught sending out memos and email directing subordinates to use their licensing power to force OEM's to do things Microsoft's way, it's much less likely that it's a lie.

And since several OEM representatives have testified under oath in front of the current anti-trust court that Microsoft has indeed used it's licensing power to get OEM's to sign contracts that covered all of the PCs that the company shipped, well, that makes it the truth.

[Bush2000]

the obvious goal is for OEM's to ship PCs with any OS, as long as it comes from Microsoft.

Wishing it so won't change the terms of MS's contracts with OEMs -- which clearly state that any OS can be installed.

Section IV, paragraph G. states that Microsoft revenue can only come from a per-copy or per-system license. There are no exceptions for Microsoft to charge for systems with no license. In fact, it is prohibited in several of the other sections. For Microsoft to use it's licenses to force any company to ship Microsoft products that it doesn't want violates the subparagraphs of paragraph G.

Sorry, you're wrong. Dell isn't being forced to ship Windows. Read the contract.

The US Government, as early as 1997, disagrees. The DOJ filed a petition in US District Court requiring Microsoft to show cause why they should not be found in civil contempt for violating the decree.

This is really getting tiresome now. You're willfully misreading the DOJs petition. The DOJ wasn't saying anything about per-processor licensing fees. They were complaining about MS requiring the distribution of IE with Windows.

Currently in the bullpen, awaiting the outcome of the current anti-trust trial, are numerous lawsuits all based on Microsoft's violation of that decree.

You sound like the Black Knight now: "I'm not dead yet. Come back here y'coward..."

Microsoft's own officials have issued memos stating that they have no intention of complying with the decree. And they haven't.

Whoopie. Boys talking tough. Big deal.

Trying to spin this off as an "anti-piracy" campaign won't work, given Microsoft's track record with obeying the law and the evidence from their own officers memos.

I'm not the one fighting for change: You are. As it stands, your side isn't getting anywhere. You're outflanked.