Microsoft sues UK retailer Comet for selling over 94k counterfeit Windows CDs
thenextweb.com
thenextweb.com
Comet seem to say that as manufacturers stopped packaging computer's with CD's they decided to make their own.
Assuming this is true. Each computer had a valid Windows license. Comet decided to burn the CD's itself so users didn't have to try to make their own recovery disks.
I don't seem the harm. I mean.. users can make their own recovery disc's anyway can't they? Comet was just saving them a step?
That said there is a question whether they were providing them free or at a cost.
"There was a number of disks made, on which there was a cost and Comet charged this to the customer."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/04/us-microsoft-idUST...
If Comet felt that their customer were not getting a good deal and that Microsoft was monopolistic, there are other recourse in law, which do not involve violating copyrights.
“Comet has sought and received legal advice from leading counsel to support its view that the production of recovery discs did not infringe Microsoft’s intellectual property.
“Comet firmly believes that it acted in the very best interests of its customers. It believes its customers had been adversely affected by the decision to stop supplying recovery discs with each new Microsoft Operating System based computer. Accordingly Comet is satisfied that it has a good defence to the claim and will defend its position vigorously.”
I have updated the article to reflect this.
> Microsoft representatives have described third-party efforts at producing Windows-based Live CDs as “improperly licensed” uses of Windows, unless you use it solely to rescue your own, properly licensed Installation. However, Nu2 Productions believes the use of BartPE is legal provided that one Windows license is purchased for each BartPE CD, and the Windows license is used for nothing else.[http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/licensing/]
I hope that Comet wins this one. What Comet was doing I think, in essence, follows the intuition that Nu2 gave. In any case, pushing back against these kinds of IP restrictions is basically a win for our freedom to tinker.
BartPE is a live environment, not a restore disk by any means.
I thought the PC manufacturers were the ones that used to give out recovery discs and not MS?
I'd imagine a certain amount of money will change hands and hasty apology made before the issue quickly disappears, especially considering Comet is currently being sold to another company.
I actually support Comet in this case - I think they're doing the right thing by their users - but I suspect legally MS have got them banged to rights.
You expect this sort of thing if you go to the Bowlers computer fair, but not at Comet!
Think I've missed something and the title seems a little misleading. Comet haven't been selling dodgy Windows knockoffs, just giving their (non-techy) customers a way to recover their (expensive) PC when (not if) it goes wrong.
It would be reasonable for them to charge a small fee for the disc and burning, as long as they made it clear the customer didn't have to buy it from them and that they could make this same CD at home.
I think Microsoft need to defend their IP, but not at the expense of a business trying to provide a genuine customer service. A conversation, rather than a court filing, may have been more appropriate in this case, especially as Comet has no money.
IMHO, a recovery disc or USB drive should be supplied as standard, as part of the Windows licence.
I have had use for it for a printer and a portable CD player. The extra warranty was about +10% of the product price, and they said it covered "anything, including kids dropping it on the floor or you spilling coffee on it".
Unsurprisingly, the CD player lid stopped working because the kids managed to knock it off a shelf. I took it back to the outlet and got a new one with no paperwork or questions asked.
A few months later the printer broke down because my hamster defecated severely into the paper feeder mechanism. This, too, was replaced with no cost to me.
That should raise a giant red flag. Unless you're extremely careless and don't look after things, you're paying for other peoples carelessness.
But, I don't think of it in terms of how much money I "save" by breaking stuff.
I pay the extra cost and try to be careful. What I get back is Less Worry. If the thingy breaks down, I get a new thingy. That's worth money to me.
The alternative is to handle the risk myself, and saving the 10%s into a "surprise expense account" to use when things break down. I'm convinced I don't have the discipline for that - both managing it and not using the money for other expenses.
It's a matter of cost vs hassle as you say though I guess. For me, if I have 10 electronic gadgets and one blows up, it's not really a big deal, because I can buy a new one with the money I saved by not having extended warranties on all 10 items.
Of course, those selling the insurance know the numbers best so it generally works to their advantage, which (in association with consumers who lose / forget their warranties) is a big revenue boon to retailers, as you note.
Recognising when you are an edge case helps - I always buy extended warranties on microwaves, because I'm a once-a-month-cooker who therefore uses the microwave a LOT more than the average consumer, and that bet has paid off for me several times now.
I actually think it is one of the rare cases where the extended warranty may be a loss leader. I only by major appliances from Sears due to their service, and tell my family to do the same.
In fact, I once thought I hadn't renewed a warranty on my fridge, when it went bad. After the repair guy was done fixing it and gave me my quote, I handed him my credit card to pay for it. After 30s he hands it back and says, "You have almost a year left on warranty." I had gotten the years mixed up.
"The seller is liable to the consumer for any lack of conformity which exists when the goods are delivered to the consumer and which arises within a period of two years from delivery. However, the lack of conformity cannot be accepted if, at the moment of conclusion of the contract of sale, the consumer knew or could not reasonably have been unaware of the lack of conformity."
But I'm pretty sure, and IANAL, that it doesn't really say that. My initial instinct is that if the goods can reasonably be expected to be of a class that may ordinarily fail within the 2 years then they are still in conformity with the contract of sale. Thus if you paid £50 for a TV then you'd kinda expect it to fail and so it conforms, if you paid £5000 then you wouldn't expect it to fail so early failure would lead to lack of conformity ...
Perhaps I'm too cynical.
Comet apparently took it upon themselves to burn these disks for their customers, and this seems to be what Laptops Direct are doing as well, albeit charging for the privilege. If Laptops Direct have an agreement with Microsoft, then fair enough.
The average computer user won't think to burn a recovery disk until it's too late, hence the conundrum.
I always buy PCs that are pre-built from components and usually get an OEM disc of windows thrown in, but I gather if you buy a branded PC from a shop you are in the same boat as the laptops.