Hacker News Reader

Comment by rplnt | Hacker News Reader

What exactly is illegal? Selling a machine with OS or not selling it without one?

And as for the "this explains then why ThinkPads must come with Windows" - no. It doesn't explain it. Secure boot has to be present on Windows certified machine, not the other way around. Lenovo can sell whatever they want (but apparently it's beneficial for them economically to only sell Windows machines).

Also, certified machine has to have secure boot disable-able. So it's not about you not being able to use the machine with Linux, it's about not being able to use Secure Boot with Linux.

View on HN

What is illegal is not selling a computer without an operating system. From what I understand, brazilian law considers the PC and OS two different products and it is illegal for a company to only sell you one product if you also buy another one tied together. In my company, we buy all our servers and workstations from Dell and it never comes with a Windows license unless you explicitly request to the sales person. Although, I remember at least one case where we bought a laptop and the seller said it would come with the most basic windows 7 version because it was free for that particular laptop model. I don't know what would have happened if we insisted in having it shipped without it.

>What is illegal is not selling a computer without an operating system

Does that apply to Macs, Chromebooks, iPads too?

IANAL, but I think the key difference is that these operating systems are not sold as a standalone component you can buy and install on any pc you like. That's why it applies to a Windows license and not to a Mac OS license for example.

If it's like France; it's technically illegal too, apple just never has been in front of a judge about it (and when they do, I guess they will argue that they sell the disk and not the license to use the OS).

I didn't think of that, I agree this is more likely the explanation.

Responding from a French point of view, so that might not match Brazil (but does match Germany): you can not tie a material product with an immaterial one, if you do not also sell the material product as a stand alone.

You cannot sell a car with an insurance if you don't sell the car alone.

You cannot sell a phone with a plan if you don't sell the phone alone (see: iPhone 1 release in Europe).

You cannot sell a computer with an OS license if you don't sell the computer alone (you're not buying the disk, but the license to use the software on it).

Interesting, I know that in Brazil the same law applies even if both products are immaterial. For example, it was common for nightclubs here to give you an option of charging less (or nothing at all) for the entrance into the nightclub if you spent a certain amount of money in drinks or whatever else they sold inside. This was also prohibited by the same law since it was tying two separate "products". Wikipedia article (in portuguese) on this law cites that even ( http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venda_casada ).

Drinks seem like a material product to me, they're a consumable physical liquid.

The right to enter the nightclub is an immaterial good, along with software or cellphone service.

Actually this is a really well-thought-out law.

You cannot sell a computer with an OS license if you don't sell the computer alone (you're not buying the disk, but the license to use the software on it).

Sure you can. I bought a very nice MacBook Air in Paris a couple of months back - and you most definitely can't buy a MacBook Air without OS X.

The fact that something is illegal doesn't mean people are never doing it; it only means they lose when they go to court.

You cannot drive over the speed limit in France, but "sure you can, I just did this morning".

There are plenty of court cases, all won by the buyers, where the complaint was that the computer was sold with a windows license, and couldn't be bought without.

In France you can ask the store to erase the default OS install and be refunded of the price of a standalone OS X. So there you have it.

I think the issue is: to buy a Lenovo machine is to buy Windows. There is no other option but to have to pay for Windows with your machine. One can't just buy a laptop with nothing on it. This can be seen as unfair to the customer in many countries and therefore, illegal.

Don't buy Lenovo, then. Places like e.g. http://www.pcspecialist.co.uk/laptop-computers/ sell custom laptops without the Windows tax.

Can I buy a Toyota car without the Michelin tires they bundle and get a discount? I want to install my custom tires and have no need for the tires they bundle.

If they put a mechanism to specifically total the car if you try to use any other brand, I'd say they would be getting sued before you can say "anti-trust".

Trying to boot Linux does not "total" the computer.

Turn it off , and you can boot whatever you want.

The analogy is sorely broken.

Trying to install it can total the computer, esp. if you are unaware of the relatively new locking measures.

Of course you can. You just haggle with the dealer.

I did something similar to this with my Volkswagen. I wanted different tires, wheels, and a different stereo from what was on the car they in the lot. I ended up paying about $500 more, but received exactly what I wanted.

Having firmware locked to only work under a given OS. It's pretty much a textbook definition of anticompetitive practice.

First of all, the firmware does not prevent you to use other OS. Only one function is locked to Windows and it seems Microsoft is open to allowing others to boot with it [sidenote].

Secondly, every single iPhone/iPad is locked to boot iOS; most of the phones with Android are locked as well. (And obviously Windows phones are locked too). And by locked I mean locked, not few clicks away from using the device as you wish (as is the case with notebooks and desktop computers). How come it's not rendered illegal?

Sidenote: I agree with the fact that Microsoft shouldn't be the one deciding who gets the key and who doesn't. My opinion on this is that if everyone can't agree on one impartial organization then hardware manufacturers should be the one deciding it. Obviously it would be best if users could add their own keys.

It would be suicidal to accept that, it would settle a tremendously dangerous precedent.

This should never be accepted, full stop.

Google ships Chromebooks with secure boot enabled too. Does it get a free pass because it's not a monopoly?

Not sure why you seem to assume I give Google a free pass.

Hope they get sued to high hell, but in the meanwhile I'm just not buying them as a computer that's useless outside of Google's cloud is also outside of my interests.

To be fair, they also clearly publish how to enable "Developer mode" which lets you do more or less whatever you want for each new model of Chromebook.

Admittedly, it's harder for some than others: http://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/developer-information-fo...

>Does it get a free pass because it's not a monopoly?

That would not be unprecedented. Part of the US anti-trust code says you cannot tie one product to a monopoly product. It's one of the reasons MS lost their anti-trust case vs the US DOJ back in the 90s, illegally tying secondary products to their Windows monopoly.

That might not directly apply in this case, not sure, but to answer your question, yes being a monopoly or not does effect how anti-trust laws are applied to you.

How about multi-boot? From my understanding that isn't going to be possible anymore.

It is possible with disabled secure boot. Windows 8 doesn't need Secure Boot or even UEFI to work. It's only about the "Certified" sticker.

And theoretically, Grub (or something) can have the key signed.

(Asking out of ignorance...) Signed by whom? Who are the trusted CAs for secure boot? Can you import an arbitrary certificate as trusted?

Microsoft is the trusted CA.

> It is possible with disabled secure boot. Windows 8 doesn't need Secure Boot or even UEFI to work. It's only about the "Certified" sticker.

And you dont think that is a political choice?

I think I'm largely out of touch with the average computer buyer of today but is it literally only about a sticker? What if instead of "Windows 8 Certified" the manufacturers put a "With Windows 8" and completely disregard the entire secureboot fiasco? Is there an option to NOT play Microsoft's game at all? I assume that MS would allow manufacturers to bypass the SecureBoot requirement if they don't want to avail of the "Windows 8 Certified" sticker.

More importantly, how much would this sway a decision of a consumer (one place where I find 'consumer' better than 'customer') who sees two similar laptops with very similar prices except one say "With Windows 8" and the other says "Windows 8 Certified".

Could the manufacturers not come up with their own marketing campaign or something like "OpenSource Initiative Certified" or something like that[obviously they can't use OSI's name but you get the idea].

I'm not sure Microsoft would let you sell Windows on non-certified hardware. That is you would have to use non-oem license and it will be more expensive for you. So the prices probably wouldn't be similar.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com