Comment Re:And so therefor it follows and I quote (Score 1) 353
That doesn't make much sense. I am not sure what the relevance is. Assuming Dell pays MS $30 per copy, are you implying that the judge ordered Dell to refund $99.99 to the customer who didn't want Windows? If you don't think the court did that, what is the relevance of the existence of the $99.99 copy again?
You're getting way too lost in details, which is disappointing for someone plastering a link to an analogy all over the comments section. Microsoft sells a number of flavors of Windows, all of which cost $ >= 0. Including the OEM edition. Apple doesn't. Not one. Not comparable. That isn't the product Apple sells.
If, for arguments sake, MS pulls Windows from the retail market completely and only sells to OEMs, Dell needn't refund anything anymore even if they continue to pay MS $30 per copy? Is that your argument?
No?
I don't actually have any dog in the fight about what some Windows OEM should refund. I don't live in Italy, and I don't buy OEM Windows machines. The only reasons I'm participating in this discussion are:
1. I find it interesting. The ruling is an interesting one for those customers (of which I'm not one).
2. There is some impressively wrong logic being thrown about, used to draw some questionable conclusions, and since someone on the Internet is wrong here I am.
If you believe the court ordered Dell to refund the $30, can't Apple calculate how much OS X development for Macbooks costs them?
The court didn't order Dell to refund how much development of Windows cost Microsoft. I don't understand how this is relevant.
Are you implying it's hard to calculate so they needn't refund?
No, I'm stating over and over that it's not comparable, because the products are different.
What if some of the patrons in #2 don't like the eggs benedict or the view but just wanted a place to sleep because they think the beds(hardware) are superior? Should they be denied a refund solely because there are fewer of their kind?
Honestly, I'm not sure. That would make an interesting case. It's not the same case, but I would be curious about it.
Your earlier argument as more like if the caterers in #1 sold the same food also in their restaurant, somehow O's customers are eligible for a refund, but A's are not.
I'm not really interested in talking about what anyone deserves in the context of a conversation where people can't tell the difference between categories of things. We still haven't reached a consensus on that simple distinction.