Microsoft Laptop Recipient Auctioning Laptop

Salvance writes "While most bloggers who received the controversial Vista powered Acer from Microsoft are keeping them, Laughing Squid has decided to auction off his free laptop from Microsoft and donate all proceeds to the The Electronic Frontier Foundation. (EFF) He saw this as a great opportunity to support a worthy cause, and some other bloggers are following suit. What's funny is that Microsoft is now backpedaling and telling bloggers to send back the laptops. Do they even have a legal right to do so?"

This article needs to be changed.

Microsoft isn't demanding that the bloggers return the laptops at once, which is what the wording of the article suggests - Microsoft only said that after the review is completed, he has the option of sending it back. Just my $0.02.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

FTFA (the fourth link)

Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding of our intentions I'm going to ask that you either give the pc away or send it back when you no longer need it for product reviews.

The summary is still wrong, but not as wrong as you make out.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

The Slashdot editorial comment: "Microsoft is now backpedaling and telling bloggers to send back the laptops. Do they even have a legal right to do so?" is misleading. The letter from MS quoted in TFA is couched as a request. No one claimed they had a "legal right" to demand their return.

I hate MS as much as anyone, but there's no need to make stuff up.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

>I hate MS as much as anyone, but there's no need to make stuff up.
You must be new here.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

Let us hope so, otherwise he read that joke at least a million times.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

And it never gets old. I, for one, welcome our joke-repeating..

Ah, forget it. In Soviet Russia, something or other.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

surely

In Soviet Russia, other or something

Re:This article needs to be changed.

I thought that the open-source community was suposed to be better.. There are no fan-boy-fanatics, (RMS aside)

Re:This article needs to be changed.

Well, mostly not. Except for Firefox zealots. And people who refuse to consider anything but Linux. Oh, and don't forget distro wars. Should I be using KDE or Gnome? Vi or Emacs?

Interesting? Come on mods, this one is funny.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

Well, mostly not. Except for Firefox zealots. And people who refuse to consider anything but Linux. Oh, and don't forget distro wars. Should I be using KDE or Gnome? Vi or Emacs?

These are not the zealots you are looking for.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

I ctrl-K all over your comment.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

I thought that the open-source community was suposed to be better.. There are no fan-boy-fanatics, (RMS aside)

Every community has its fanatics. It just comes with the territory when dealing with people. Whether it's a religious, political, social or technological faction; there are foaming-at-the-mouth busybodies with agendas and megaphones and there are reasonable rational participants. In most cases, the fanatics are only a tiny minority. They're just a lot louder.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

"I hate MS as much as anyone, but there's no need to make stuff up."

Why not? Ballmer makes shit up all the time, so does gates, so does every other CEO if every other corporation, so does president, vice president and every politician known to mankind.

Why not?

• Because we're better than they are.
• Because we don't need to lie to win this fight
• Because lying devalues our credibility, and the truth is our best weapon.
• Because telling the truth and writing better software seems to be working
• Because Microsoft has better liars than we have, and can pay for more mouths to shout the lies. To fight them on their own terms would be suicidal.

But mainly, because we're better than they are. And that should be reason enough.

Re:This article needs to be changed.

Unfortunately that tends to be "We are going to lose, but don't know it" speak. I wonder how many politicians have been elected on the platform of "We don't have to lie because we are better" great...and you also aren't elected so your policy of not lying really means about squat because the guy who is telling all the lies is the 'decider'. Not that I really advocate lying here, just playing devil's advocate a bit.

Your analysis is faulty

If your goal is to spread truth (e.g. if the main reason you oppose X is that it is based on / spread by lies) you may find yourself faced with just the sort of decision you describe. But you have mischaracterized the alternatives. Your actual options are:

1. Continue to insist on the truth, even though your opponent's lies may give them an edge and thus you might lose.
2. Start lying as well, in which case you automatically lose.

Remember, winning the battle is a means to an end. If you do something to "win" the battle that prevents you from obtaining your ultimate goal, it does your cause more harm than good.

--MarkusQ

Lie and deceit harms yourself

If you chose to lie, you deceieve others. You push a view on them that twists them from the truth, from reality.

You have then already lost. Whatever you think you can win that is not based on truth, will not prevail and will always be there in the back haunting you. Any pleasure you get out of it will come with a hook, back to the shady past.

Truth will set people free. Basically, the only evil, or rather the ignorance, in this world is when people believe the means justifies the ends. Nobody kills or steals just out of spite, or if they do, they have some serious hurt they are not able to cope with. Such self-destructive behaviour should be pitied and helped, not condemned or judged. Jesus allegedly said: For you shall yourself be judged - or put another way: When you judge others, you will judge yourself just as harsh - it's just that time makes the illusion of it not already happening.

Just happily playing God`s advocate. =)

huh

For the price of these laptops they could have sent out complimentary Vista discs to thousands of these so called influential people.

Re:huh

Given Vista's steep hardware requirements, I doubt if just sending out CDs would have done much good.

Re:huh

Um, i think what you mean is that for the price of ONE of these laptops, they could send out vista discs to thousands of influential people. You do realize their ONLY production cost when giving out freebies on vista is the cost to press a dvd/cd/whatever it is stored on.

No, that's not true... think of the loss of potential revenue. Those people would have paid $300 or so per copy, which is money out of M$'s pocket... food off of their plate... money that rightfully belongs to them. Just like when you pirate a movie - regardless of whether you would have seen it legally or not - that's money that the MPAA immediately feel the loss of, when they can't afford to send their kids to college anymore.

("dvd/cd/whatever it is stored on" - it's a DVD. It has to be, since all Vista DVDs have both 32 and 64-bit versions on them, as well as all the functionality of 'Vista Ultimate', which you need to pay more for to 'unlock'. So you see, the additional 'Ultimate' functionality is already on the DVD, but if you don't pay extra for it, you are taking money off of Microsoft's plate... food out of their pocket... um... or something)

Re:

Those people would have paid $300 or so per copy, which is money out of M$'s pocket

I doubt many of these people will pay $300 for a copy of Vista. Some of them, for instance, seem to be mac users who would never do it. Others will choose not to upgrade

Re:huh

If Microsoft wasn't so bent on keeping everything proprietary, there really would only be the cost of the media. Look, for instance, at organizations like Debian -- you don't see them paying for "key management," now do you?

Re:huh

That's like saying if it weren't for car thieves necessitating keys and alarm systems, then the price of cars would only be the cost of the materials that go into it.

Thus raising the bar for most incomprehensible and absurd "car = software" analogy.

Re:huh

That's like saying if it weren't for car thieves necessitating keys and alarm systems, then the price of cars would only be the cost of the materials that go into it.

It's possible to steal a car (and it happens quite often). It's impossible to steal Windows (and has never happened, ever).

Unless you simply mean stealing the physical disc, which the key doesn't really do much to prevent.

Copyright infringement != theft.

Re:huh

That's like saying if it weren't for car thieves necessitating keys and alarm systems, then the price of cars would only be the cost of the materials that go into it.

If I was going to buy a car, it would be in my best interest to have a good lock on the car. If I was going to buy an operating system, it would not be in my best interest to have loads of artificial restrictions in the operating system.

Re:huh

Economics lesson.

The COST of cars is the price of the materials that go into it, plus the cost of the labour required to make and of the resources required to move it to where it is to be sold. There's also a single one-off fixed cost to begin with that relates to the factory the car is built in, plus the cost of designing the car, plus some other small sundries. Those one-off costs become less and less important, the more cars you sell.

The price is the cost plus the profit.

Now with a copy of some piece of software, the price of the materials, the labour required to make it, and the resources required to move it is either the cost of the box and the media it comes on (i.e. very cheap) or the price of letting the internet distribute it (i.e. more or less free). There's still a one-off fixed cost, which is the cost of writing it in the first place, but that becomes less and less important as time goes on, just like the cars. Besides, it's eminently possible to get those fixed costs taken care of for more or less nothing too. Linux does it. GNU does it. (Free|Open|Net)BSD does it. You get the picture. The reason that they're generally free (as in beer) and Windows isn't is precisely because they've relaxed the need to cover the fixed costs (and, of course, curbed Linus' immense lust for profit and power) by using copyright law to proprietarise software.

Price again, is cost + profit. In this case, with the proprietary locks on, the profit margin is immense, because the marginal cost of what Microsoft sells is next to nothing, and that is why Bill Gates is the richest man in the world.

Your particular analogy is broken because a) you confuse cost with price and b) ten cars costs roughly ten times as much to make (given the initial investment in making a car factory) as one car, whereas ten copies of windows costs roughly the same to make as one copy of windows (barring the fixed costs, again). The price of both cars and software is cost + profit; however with software, the cost is next to 0, and the profit only exists because of the existence of the proprietary 'locks'.

Hope this helps.

Re:huh

Without a *prior* contract in place, anything anyone sends to you in the mail is yours, free and clear. This is due to an old mail fraud scam, where you'd send someone magazines, or books, or whatever, and then bill them for services rendered. Shrinkwrap licenses don't work (because courts and lawmakers actually gave a shit about that kind of deceptive marketing 100 years ago). So if Microsoft sent people a laptop, if they didn't have a contract *before they sent it*, then they just gave away laptops. That's why the Microsoft letter says "give away or return", and that's why it's just spin anyway. Corporations don't give stuff like this away "just for fun". You can bet that it's entered on a balance sheet as "goodwill" somewhere. But you aren't supposed to be so obvious or extravagant with your bribes, so they're taking heat and they're trying to spin out of it.

Re:huh

And risk that it would not install and run correctly on most of those thousands of computers? That would be a marketing nightmare. Vista is already how many years late?

Actually Microsoft did exactly this. They gave away 20,000 copies of Vista [powertogether.com] (and Office as well), to anyone willing to watch some developer videos. I got one, and while I don't have a blog, I do make recommendations to businesses. The point is that Microsoft IS willing to take the chance that Vista doesn't work properly, at least with a large portion of non-bloggers.

Though I do think you're right. They gave away the laptops to the top "influencers" exactly to make sure that Vista ran properly on it.

Can they ask for them back? Yes.

But must they be returned? Probably not. In must places, unsolicited gifts cannot have strings attached. If someone sends you something in the mail, it is yours, even regardless of what is included in it. This is to prevent people from sending out "valuable" product unsolicited and then demanding payment. This means that if someone in the shipping room makes an error and send out actual valuable product to the wrong person, typically that wrong person is under no obligation to return it.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

Well given that Microsoft clearly said they could be sent back or given away when they gave them out initally of course they can. Also Microsoft have not asked for the latops back. They asked that they be given away or returned to them when reviewed, very big difference.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

They asked that they be given away or returned to them when reviewed, very big difference.

I gave mine away, to my pet dog. He didn't like it much, so he sold it back to me for a biscuit and a tummy tickle. And I challenge any layer to prove otherwise.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

There are numerous precedents to the contrary, although not in every jurisdiction. The question of whether non-humans have property rights is one that has been largely ignored by legislation, so the courts have been forced to make it up as they go along. While there are some dissenters, the courts are usually tolerant of the idea (although you may be required to appoint a guardian to manage their estate) - on the basis that if a person wants to provide for an animal's welfare by giving them something, they should be permitted to do so.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

If someone sends you something in the mail, it is yours, even regardless of what is included in it.

And if the bank accidentally transfers money into your account you can keep it. If they ask for it back, it's entrapment. What's more, if a cop gives you a speeding ticket and he's not wearing his hat, you don't have to pay.

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

And if the bank accidentally transfers money into your account you can keep it. If they ask for it back, it's entrapment. What's more, if a cop gives you a speeding ticket and he's not wearing his hat, you don't have to pay.

Smart-ass. [usps.com]

Re:Can they ask for them back? Yes.

In the US and other places that use British Common Law; if the bank accidentally transfers money into your account, it is called unjust enrichment and they can take it back.

In the US, Canada, UK, and many other countries; if somebody sends an INDIVIDUAL an item that was unsolicited, the receiver may considered it to be a gift. The laws differ by country if a BUSINESS receives something that was unsolicited.

On a forum, a guy who sells collectibles on ebay had a big problem because he mixed up two boxes that he sent to buyers; one contained a $300 item and the other a $20 item. The seller talked to a lawyer who essentially told the seller that he was shit out of luck. The seller had the lawyer type up a (useless) letter demanding that the $300 item be returned and sent it to the buyer.

The buyers reported to ebay/paypal that they hadn't received their items. The buyer who received the demand letter then mailed a cheap toy to the seller. A week later the buyer sent the seller a letter containing the same wording as the letter that the seller had sent, demanding that the seller return the cheap toy. Needless to say, the seller's postings became quite livid at this point.

In the end the seller was out the $300 item and shipping costs, and both paypal transfers were canceled. One buyer received a $300 item as an unsolicited gift and the other buyer returned the $20 item to the seller (seller paid the shipping). I don't know what happened to the cheap toy.

Re:

But must they be returned? Probably not. In must places, unsolicited gifts cannot have strings attached. If someone sends you something in the mail, it is yours, even regardless of what is included in it. This is to prevent people from sending out "valuable" product unsolicited and then demanding payment. This means that if someone in the shipping room makes an error and send out actual valuable product to the wrong person, typically that wrong person is under no obligation to return it.

Check out the letter that Joel [on Software] Spolsky got [joelonsoftware.com]. Here are the key quotes:

• "I'm working on getting some hardware out to key community folks, and I'd like to offer you a review PC."

So right away we know its purpose is as a review PC and that it's

unconcious bias

Presumably, Microsoft read the same New York Times Op-Ed [nytimes.com]on bias as everyone else, that basically says that people claim to be uninfluenced by things like this but that they really are fooling themselves and are biased. Microsoft wouldn't have done this laptop giveaway if they didn't think it would work- that is, result in at least slightly better reviews than they would have gotten otherwise.

Re:

But there are other benefits to Microsoft besides unintentional bias.

Just having enough influential bloggers get used to using Vista and writing about it may well help to increase its popularity by word of mouth (assuming it's not actually dramatically wor

Auction link

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item =160068144458 [ebay.com]

Slashdotters heads explode

Just a day ago we were all jealous and against anyone who'd dare to keep a laptop from Microsoft, and already we have to defend them? *BOOM* Good God, I can't figure out how I should blame Microsoft now. Please help me out, folks.

Yawn

Yawn is all I can say.

Okay, not the EFF, but how about

From Lawrence Lessig's blog: "So we have 10 days left in the Creative Commons campaign. This is not a drill. We are down to the last $100,000, and really need your support..." (source [lessig.org]) And then a few days later... "At 12:30pm, an envelope from Redmond appeared at the Creative Commons office. Inside, a check for $25,000. From Microsoft." (source [lessig.org]))

Re:

You realize you're posting about events that happened in 2005, right?

Blogger control

The real news here is how snobbish, foppish and whiny that blogger is. Is this what the blogosphere is like?? Is it really ruled by Mac-obsessed almost-hipsters with unwise facial hair and diagonal black-and-white photos of themselves? Do they really whinge on about how they're too clever to use Vista and how their webcasting startup will change the face of the Internet (sidebar on the right)?

Is this it, after 10 years of evolution?? Nathan Barley writ small, throwing a hissy fit because the wording of the letter on a review item was vague? THAT is a blogger important enough to merit unsolicited review junk??

Yeesh.

Re:Blogger control

No, its much worse, this is it after four and a half billion years of evolution.

This article is misleading.

First: a disclaimer (though I think it's irrelevant) I am a Microsoft MVP Now then, The little news blurb is misleading. The first time I read the post, I thought that Microsoft was unhappy that the blogger was donating his machine to charity and demanded the laptop back. Upon thorough reading of the included links, it is apparent that Microsoft has asked the blogger to give the laptops away (in support of the auction) or send them back to Microsoft. If you are going to include everything that Microsoft has done wrong, you might as well nail when they *actually* screw up. Trust me, there are enough of those to keep /. busy without misrepresenting stories. wng

I think your bias is getting in the way

The article isn't misleading at all. One blogger has decided to auction his laptop and give the proceeds to the EFF. Separately, Microsoft has decided that keeping the laptops is no longer an option. That's how I read the article summary. On reading the li

Re:

Actually, it's sillier than that.

He actually *is* giving the laptop away. He's giving it (the monetary value) to the EFF. He's not profiting from it directly at all.

INNACURATE

The writer for this article is spinning this article. According to the links, MS is asking them to return the laptops *OR* give them away as a gift. By reading the submission alone we are led to believe that MS is merely asking for them back. I'm not condoning their actions or anything but let's call an orange an orange!

my laptop was sent without return instructions

There seems to be quite a bit of misinformation here regarding my "agreement" with Microsoft (there wasn't any) regarding what I can do with the laptop. I've updated my blog post with the following:

As I mentioned in my original post on the laptop [laughingsquid.com], the only communication I received about this was an email from Edelman. The email stated that Microsoft was sending me a "present" with "no strings attached" (those were the exact words used in the email). They did not include any instructions at all regarding what to do with the laptop. Also, I did not receive the same email as the other bloggers, including the follow-up email that was sent by Microsoft to Marshall Kirkpatrick asking him to return or give away the laptop. I have asked Edelman for an explanation regarding this inconstancy, but have not yet received one. So just to be clear, I was never sent any kind of instructions on what to do with the laptop and I did not sign anything, including an NDA.

Re:

For reference, see SCO and their trialmania.

Re:They hate M$...

Actually, his point is well made because Slashdot is already infested with far too many fanboys who seem to forget that Apple is out to make just as much money as Microsoft wants to.

And the sooner these fashion followers/brand junkies start making informed decisions about what to spend their money on then the better it will be for the rest of us - because then these corporations need to start creating good, value for money products rather than something with a pretty logo on it.

And as for your post, sitting there in your anonymous little dark cupboard ready to just throw abuse at anyone who posts something you don't personally like (perhaps you're a fanboy yourself?) is trollish behaviour if ever I saw it.