The story is misleading. It say's that Comet sold 94k counterfeit Windows CD's.
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?
Just guessing without the details of the case, Comet most likely had a license to sell Windows pre-installed on their computer, but not for supplying a recovery disc. Microsoft is well within its right to sell Windows which ever way they like, as long as they don't abuse their monopoly.
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.”
Well I bloody hate it when you go round to fix your uncle's PC and then ask for the recovery CD and there isn't one because MS didn't want him to have one. Go Comet!
There is generally a way to burn your own if you want them. That would be your Uncle's fault and not Microsofts. I am not an MS fan either. While I understand what Comet is saying to try and defend themselves, they cannot in this in this case.
> 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.
Did Comet seek Microsoft's permission to start mass producing recovery discs? Did they make any profit by selling them?
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.
You'd have thought that MS and Comet would have discussed this before MS launched legal action. The fact it's come to this would suggest that at least initial attempts to reach a settlement have failed.
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.
Oh man I used to go that fair when I was young with my dad, buying the latest upgrades for my computer so i can play the latest games. There was a lot of pirating as you say. I haven't really been for 10 years, since everything's online now and i'm not really into hardware anymore. Memories.
So, was Comet burning a recovery disc on behalf of their customers? Therefore, you need a Windows machine for the disc to recover? Doesn't every IT tech carry a recovery disc in their wallet in case of an emergency?
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.
Comet are a shady bunch... they're well known over here for selling extended warranties that they refuse to honor. I've been stung by it myself but stupidly didn't do the research until it was too late.
That summary appears to say there is a 2 year warranty from delivery:
"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 ...
Sorry to say it, but if you buy an extended warranty on anything you're wasting your money. The whole 'extended warranty' business is how retailers make their money, but are a complete scam. Hardly anything goes wrong these days, and the price of the extended warranty is far far higher than the risk of it going wrong.
It can work, though. Some retailers do it properly.
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.
Or I could think of it as gambling that enough other people either 1) are lucky, 2) don't bother with the return ("I don't really need it/want another.") or 3) forget about the return.
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.
A recent survey found that something ridiculous like 0.5% of TVs break down within 5 years. Yet people are paying out a lot of money for extended warranties on them.
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.
Like any insurance, it's a numbers game - homo economicus will gladly pay an extra 10% for extended warranty if they believe there's a >10% chance it will require replacing in that time.
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.
Sears appliances and extended warranties actually seem like a good deal. I've certainly come out ahead fairly consistently on them, and the service is excellent.
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.
Unfortunately this seems to be common in the UK. If you go to http://www.laptopsdirect.co.uk they do the same thing. When you add a laptop to your basket they add a “Restore and Recovery Disk” to your order for £15 (~$24) even though laptops come with this CD sealed in the box or you can create it from an image file on the laptop. When I questioned them via telephone they quickly backed off and took it off the order.
The whole point of this lawsuit is that most manufacturers don't provide recovery disks anymore; hidden recovery partitions are the norm these days.
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 could understand if their supplier had "tricked" them, but they willingly produced and sold the counterfeit copies themselves? No wonder they're falling apart.
If you buy a laptop you are pretty much guaranteed to have make a set of recovery discs as your first task (before cleaning off all the trialware and then trying to find a way to get rid of the hidden partition). Last time I did it the recovery discs weren't even a full windows install as such.
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.
Not bundling a recovery disc with a laptop is a major disservice to customers. Especially when the program to produce the recovery discs requires two blank DVDs, runs into errors on the second disc, and makes you start the whole process from the beginning (instead of letting you only burn the second disc). That was my experience with a laptop I acquired a few months ago. I needlessly burned two or three copies of the first disc while trying to get the second disc to burn correctly.
Most manufacturers now rely on a hidden recovery partition on the HD instead of a recovery disc, though there is generally an option to burn one in the start menu.
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?