PC World Won't Repair/Refund After 28 Days

[Bookworm]

Hi there Bookworm, there are other manufacturers who make printers, so no monopoly would exist.

 

The microsoft thinf was nothing to do with software compatibilty.

Check out my next reply

 

I did say I wasn't too sure about the Microsoft thing!

 

As to monopoly, check this out:

 

10.What are the standards for the determination of a "monopoly" adopted by the Fair Trade Commission?

According to Article 3 of the Enforcement Rules of the Fair Trade Law (hereinafter referred to as the Enforcement Rules), the Fair Trade Commission shall take into account the following when determining whether an enterprise constitutes a monopoly as referred to in Article 5 of this Law:

(...)

 

2. the possibility of substitution of the goods or services in a particular market, giving regard to considerations of time and place;

Of course, there are other printers, but if they all only made printers where you can not use any other cartridge but their own, then they are effectively locking in the customer to their product and no other.

[StormWarrior]

the whole monopoly is actually to do with the fact that microsoft were giving all new pc customer microsoft Office for free.

SO WRONG ITS UNBELIEVABLE

 

 

Just for the record, the whole Microsoft Monopoy thing was caused by a company called Netscape, who complained that as Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer wit hthier Windows OS's they could not sell thier product.

And as soon as the anti-trust suit was underway, Nutscrape, as they were known, started to give away thier product anyway.

 

It had nothing to do with Office, which has NEVER been bundled with any Microsoft operating system, not anywhere in the world.

 

In fact Office has never been part of any of the anti-monopoly cases.

 

Oh, one other thing, microsoft offered to put quicktime and realplayer into the OS package, Apple and Realtime declined!

[StormWarrior]

Why is there only one monopolies commission?

 

Sorry to everyone if some of my comment on this thread are a "bit close to the edge" but two of my pet hates have managed to turn up in the same place.

 

I assure everyone I mean not harm...

 

 

 

well not much..

 

 

 

ok, so maybe I do think all the microsoft haters should be forced to use Linux, and look after thier own tech support problems.

 

Bookworm, have PM'ed you a little nugget Apparently I haven't, it won't go

[reidnet]

LOL Storm.. Maybe a complaint to the Monopolies Commision in the pipeline..

[Bookworm]

Bookworm, have PM'ed you a little nugget Apparently I haven't, it won't go

 

Try now, or at least when you read this. ;-)

[Guest retailerpointofview]

firstly. computers bought from major retail chains DID actually include microsoft office.

 

it was not part of the OS meaning if you just bought a OS CD it would not be on it. but it is included on the PC.

 

because internet explorer along with firefox and netscape are FREE.. there is no monopoly because no one is gaining money from it.

 

two years ago in february where the press was highlighing the whole lawsuit issue i could download netscape for free.

when i first used the internet as younger version of myself in 1995 i was using netscape, again FREE.

 

just because netscape finaly wanted to make money from their previous and now continuingly free browser does not warrenta monopoly lawsuit.

 

its a free market. you cant monopolize something that is free. because people have choices. if one offers something for free but EVERYONE else has a price tag. then a monopoly begins. but all internet broswers are free to download.

 

along with the media players which are also free. hense why till this day internet explorer is still part of the OS...

 

but office on the otherhand has a monetary value along with its competitors of the time lotus, open, etc.. which is why if you go to any retailer such as curry comet, and even dell who originally had office bundled in. no longer do!!

 

local press agents had reports about the claims of the media player row and the explorer row because microsoft allowed it to leak out because they knew there was no chance of them losing.

 

but office never got leaked and a hush hush settlement and change of ways happened without media knowledge. just imagine the share prices plumet if it actually did get leaked.

 

what is in the newspapers and books is not 100% at best its 99% but everything in life is not written down to study.

 

life experience is also required

[patdavies]

 

if you are not happy with epson ink prices may i suggest CANON. cheaper penny per page. also if it is costing over 28p per 6x4" photo may i suggest jessops or kodak processing centres.

 

I think that might somehow invoke Epson's infamous clause referred to by Stormwarrior:D:D

 

customer using parts not intended for the unit are classed as damaging the unit. the inks the manufacturers use do not clog, their thickness is way below the pigment ink you get in refills so they dont block the prinhead either.

 

B*llcks

 

3. a print head is replaceable and manufacturers class this too as a consumable. they state after three cartridge changes the print carriage /head on printer should be changed to keep the high quality of their product.

 

Sweeping generalisation there methinks. This is dependent entirely on the make and model of the printer. In some, there is no separate printhead - it is a part of the cartridge.

[patdavies]

firstly. computers bought from major retail chains DID actually include microsoft office.

 

it was not part of the OS meaning if you just bought a OS CD it would not be on it. but it is included on the PC.

 

because internet explorer along with firefox and netscape are FREE.. there is no monopoly because no one is gaining money from it.

 

two years ago in february where the press was highlighing the whole lawsuit issue i could download netscape for free.

when i first used the internet as younger version of myself in 1995 i was using netscape, again FREE.

 

just because netscape finaly wanted to make money from their previous and now continuingly free browser does not warrenta monopoly lawsuit.

 

its a free market. you cant monopolize something that is free. because people have choices. if one offers something for free but EVERYONE else has a price tag. then a monopoly begins. but all internet broswers are free to download.

 

along with the media players which are also free. hense why till this day internet explorer is still part of the OS...

 

but office on the otherhand has a monetary value along with its competitors of the time lotus, open, etc.. which is why if you go to any retailer such as curry comet, and even dell who originally had office bundled in. no longer do!!

 

local press agents had reports about the claims of the media player row and the explorer row because microsoft allowed it to leak out because they knew there was no chance of them losing.

 

but office never got leaked and a hush hush settlement and change of ways happened without media knowledge. just imagine the share prices plumet if it actually did get leaked.

 

what is in the newspapers and books is not 100% at best its 99% but everything in life is not written down to study.

 

life experience is also required

 

I'd just like to point up that this post is total nonsense, and waste no more bandwidth on this clown.

 

The world's press apparently didn't know, but this joker did - unbelievable.

 

And BTW, not all browsers are free. You can only have IE 'free' with a MS OS

[Guest retailerpointofview]

I'd just like to point up that this post is total nonsense, and waste no more bandwidth on this clown.

 

The world's press apparently didn't know, but this joker did - unbelievable.

 

And BTW, not all browsers are free. You can only have IE 'free' with a MS OS

 

a monopoly is about MONEY.. MONEY MONEY ill say again MONEY

ok now that si all sorted. the reason why only IE is included in windows yes, is because its a microsoft product. along with solitaire, paint, notepad, media centre etc etc etc

 

does not mean its a monopoly.

these are free products. other manufacturers also make free products too so there is a consumer choice. if however microsoft programmed a way that would not allow netscape or firefox to run on windows then there is a monopoly. but this aint the case. consumers have a choice consumers are not going to be out of pocket either way so it is a free choice.

 

goto Netscape Browser Main

 

there is a massive image that says: free download (see below)

 

for firefox - again free

Firefox - Rediscover the Web

 

there is no monopoly if its free..

 

also at the time two years ago microsoft made it a big hype about the explorer and media player to international presses. but the office situation was hushed up. some presses got wind of it. by this time it was too late and office on PC's were already not in production so no big hype occured.

 

it was a secret at the time two years ago but if you done your research it then leaked out last year when computers started coming off the production line without office.

 

just because it is not front page news and as the news headlines on BBC news 24 does not mean it is not true. if you are in the business of selling computers it is common knowledge. also news/media companies did get wind of it but after the matter was settled and officeless production started it was too late to make it a big hype like other law suits. and so it did not hit the front pages internationally. probably hit page 5 or 6.

[Guest retailerpointofview]

erm, actually no, it's nothing to do with the thickness of the ink, well not according to the tech stuff I've seen. It's more down to the type of solvent that hold the pigments in suspension, and the pigment particle size.

But close no points 1 out of 3

 

Not quite right again I'm afraid. Canon printheads are usually consumables, and therefore should be added to the cost per page, but HP carts have the printhead built in, new cart = new printhead. ( patent on the head also stops 3rd party carts being manufactured, refilled only)

Epson print heads are part of the printer, and may be a service item, but certainly not a consumable.

No points there I'm afraid 1 out of 4

 

4. pcworld have proved it not fault from purchase because it was noted that there were non genuine ink cartridges in the printer. and yet as a gesture of goodwill they replaced the whole printer.

 

Not even sure where tha tone came from so we'll just forget it!

 

your techy stuff you mention about partical sizes and not thickness. sorry if my science is weak but if we have a volume of space with lots of little small particals that can move around easily. then wouldnt that be like water. unlike bigger fatter particles which would fill up the gaps between be less fluid like and feel thicker??

so isnt the particle size and thickness the same thing. i know that its also to do with number of particles etc but arnt we both right.

the thickness...particles.

 

sorry i have a business degree not a science degree. if my science aint 100% then fine dont give me the point. but you see where im coming from

 

also hp heads and epson heads point.. lets use hp as an example as they have the heads included so its easier to calculate

cartridges for the current models of hp in a couple retail shops i just check (all of them) use a 33X series black and a 34X series colour. where X shows a different number depending on model etc.

 

i noticed a black hp for instance at £19.99 retail price which contains 5ml of ink

 

Canon have a printer that uses a black 40 cartridge which at £14.99 contains 16ml ink

 

so for HP to contain the same amount of ink as one canon cartridge would cost £63.97 (lets be generous lets make it £60)

 

so i also checked the price of a canon replacement cradle/head which needs replaceing every third cartridge £35

 

so every third cartridge. lets divide that £35 by 3 seeing as we only talking about 1 canon cartridge being used. thats £11.66

ok so lets be very generous here lets add on postage and lets make it special delivery for the printhead. £45. so thats £15 per cartridge.

 

so £14.99 for the ink and £15 for the printhead. thats £29.99 again how much would it cost you with HP for equivelent ink?? oh, i rmember now £60. generous me

 

saving me £30 thats 50%

 

so give em that point i deserve it. even being generous by reducing the expensive HP and increasing the Cheap canon i reccommend is still saving 50%

 

point 4 was about the poster bill gates saying that after finally getting the store to check the printer they come back saying its because the printer was not recognising the non genuine inks. this would automatically void the manufacturers warrenty and also prove that the customer was neglecting the printer by using these cartridges. and so the store did not have to do a thing! but as a gesture of good will they did.

 

so whats my point total

[Guest retailerpointofview]

I think that might somehow invoke Epson's infamous clause referred to by Stormwarrior:D:D

 

 

 

B*llcks

 

 

 

Sweeping generalisation there methinks. This is dependent entirely on the make and model of the printer. In some, there is no separate printhead - it is a part of the cartridge.

 

last comment to you

 

when i said about try canon as they are cheaper penny per page.. i meant BUY A CANON PRINTER as the inks are cheaper.

 

the particles size/ thickness and even colours are not the same as manufacturer based. it has been proven that after a couple months of using non genuine inks non stop you can ruin a printer.

 

and lastly the sweepingly generalised statement thing.. well lets burst your bubble. bill gates said when his CANON printer failed. not HP but canon which have separate in carraiges/heads which preferably need replaceing every third cartridge.

[Guest retailerpointofview]

 

Of course, there are other printers, but if they all only made printers where you can not use any other cartridge but their own, then they are effectively locking in the customer to their product and no other.

 

no cos the consumer can just buy a new printer!! they are not contracted to keep the printer..

 

things to think about

car designers are monopolising the market by not allowing consumers to put petrol into their deisel engine. or even vegetable oil into petrol cars. or even water as a cold fusion method of fuelling the car.

or even that you cant put 21" allow wheels on a 1980's mini cooper ur stuck with 14" or a sofa on your mountain bike instead of the uncomfortable seat they supply.

 

where are the limits to our imagination!!

 

the limits are about choice if there is only one choice or if the price difference is soo vast it forces consumers to choose one option for an intended task this is monopolising.

 

just because you bought a printer with expensive inks which you can get cheaper elsewhere aint monopolising. its just like saying about you buying a 4x4 and using that red deisel farmers use which is cheaper.. your not suppose to use it you naughty person. even if it is cheaper

 

yet again webbrowsers, media players solitaire games are all free, its all a websearch and click away. no monopoly there

[StormWarrior]

The world's press apparently didn't know, but this joker did - unbelievable.

 

I have to totally agree.

You would have think that one of the Microsofts first OEM licensing specialists in the world, (not the uk, the world) would have some sort of clue as to how the distribution of the product would work.

BUT, apparently not. Damn the press, you'd have thought they would have told me, even if Microsoft didn't !!

Or maybe it didn't happen.

 

If it did, show me any sort of proof. Anything

 

Maybe Microsoft would give away a £300+ product with a OEM licence that costs £50(ish) at trade. Maybe NOT!

 

Maybe if the financial bod's at Microsoft had a 'business degree' they could make that into a good business model. Maybe NOT!

 

As for the anti-trust case that started it all

 

United States v. Microsoft 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000) was a court case filed Microsoft Corporation on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and twenty U.S. states. Joel I. Klein was the lead prosecutor. The plaintiffs alleged that Microsoft abused monopoly power in its handling of operating system sales and web browser sales. The issue central to the case was whether Microsoft was allowed to bundle its flagship Internet Explorer (IE) web browser software with its Microsoft Windows operating system.

 

Funny Office does not seem to be mentioned at all. But I do know where he's got his facts mixed up.

 

I'm so tempted to shoot this guys arguments to pieces, but I think I'm gonna have to go with Pats comment as it's way past bedtime.

waste no more bandwidth on this clown.

[Guest retailerpointofview]

ok that single case which you were referring to this was filed in 1998!!! it got thrown out and you need proof. well look 2000, NT, ME, and on vista which were all made after that case was brought up. do you still see IE in its operating system?! i think so

 

later on there were other law suits noteably 2 years ago in february that would be 2005 (not the 1998 case you refer two) the news companies of the world were hyping up the whole media player lawsuit. why was this. because microsoft allowed it to get out and used their press agents to inform as many as they could. but in the background along side it was the microsoft lawsuit but the press only heard one side of the story which is what microsoft released.

 

and yet again this was thrown out due to the fact that that like the media players were fighting turf wars over something that was a free market.

 

but what you do not hear about because the microsoft press agents at the time kept it inhouse was the office row. it all got settled and microsoft stopped giving away free OEM office to the computer manufacturers.

 

it did then get released later to the press but because microsoft already actioned and changed their ways there was not alot to report and so it did not hit the headlines, it just hit a few backpages and middle pages.

 

the reason microsoft not realse it about the office lawsuit is simple. their share prices would have dropped like a bomb due to the fact that microsoft had no leg to stand on. but because with the IE and media player suits which microsoft had both legs, they made it into a big international hype, because, well free advertising, etc

 

need proof. go into any retailer and see whats on the computer. go online to dell and check out their systems. to to acer.com and check theirs. hp.com. sony etc etc o look every manufacturer has not got it.

 

wait it was a freebie from microsoft so with it not costing the manufacturers to have it on their machines.. why take it off Hmmmm

 

i wonder

[gyzmo]

What really gets me about things like this, is:

 

Are people really bothered? Sometimes consumer choice is little choice at all. Look at all the mobile phones and the packages that are available. Is there much difference between them? I don't really think so. They won't change their offers to suit you, and most of the packages are more or less the same as each other.

 

As far as I am concerned, the MS software downloaded - office, explorer, media player etc - all do their job. If I were offered a computer, and had to pick which packages etc, I wouldn't have a clue where to start. As far as I'm concerned, Bill Gates can have his monopoly, so long as someone keeps a leash on him!

[StormWarrior]

it got thrown out and you need proof.

 

One of the many explanations as to what happened

United States v. Microsoft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

While I know wiki is not an 'authority' they are a lot closer than you.

 

need proof. go into any retailer and see whats on the computer. go online to dell and check out their systems. to to acer.com and check theirs. hp.com. sony etc etc o look every manufacturer has not got it.

 

During the period 1998 to 2002 one of my companies manufactured and sold more pc's at retail than the local Curry's, Dixons, etc all put together ( town catchment 40k ) this include schools, businesses, and the local Police station. And not once did I see anyone give away office! Not us not them. Some bundled a product called Works Suite, which also contained WORD, but not office.

 

Now please do everyone a favour, Either a) supply ANY form of proof that they did, or b) as Eddie Murphy used to say " Shut the f@*K up" ! (appologies to all of sensitive nature)

 

It is quite apparent that you have little, if any knowledge of the situation.

 

because microsoft already actioned and changed their ways there was not alot to report and so it did not hit the headlines

You also do not have a clue about how the modern media work!

 

Your wrong information is miss-leading and if your 'business degree' education, gave you the impression that a company like microsoft would give away thier flagship product, losing an average of £400+ a time, and then manage to keep it secret from the share holders, even when the share holders would probably be buying those very products, then I suggest you take you 'business degree' and ask for your money back!

[Guest retailerpointofview]

One of the many explanations as to what happened

United States v. Microsoft - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

While I know wiki is not an 'authority' they are a lot closer than you.

 

During the period 1998 to 2002 one of my companies manufactured and sold more pc's at retail than the local Curry's, Dixons, etc all put together ( town catchment 40k ) this include schools, businesses, and the local Police station. And not once did I see anyone give away office! Not us not them. Some bundled a product called Works Suite, which also contained WORD, but not office.

 

Now please do everyone a favour, Either a) supply ANY form of proof that they did, or b) as Eddie Murphy used to say " Shut the f@*K up" ! (appologies to all of sensitive nature)

 

It is quite apparent that you have little, if any knowledge of the situation.

 

You also do not have a clue about how the modern media work!

 

Your wrong information is miss-leading and if your 'business degree' education, gave you the impression that a company like microsoft would give away thier flagship product, losing an average of £400+ a time, and then manage to keep it secret from the share holders, even when the share holders would probably be buying those very products, then I suggest you take you 'business degree' and ask for your money back!

 

ok

1. wikipedia is an encyclopedia edited by people. it is not a news broadcaster with hundreds of reporters. it is a self editing encyclopedia. so if you only get your information from wikipedia then that is not enough. with the microsoft lawsuit not hitting front pages and it being covered up then people cant ad facts to wiki's pages. like many other lawsuits before which only get released way after things have been changed.

 

to avoid bad press and drop in share prices it was settled behind the scenes. also mixing in the media player lawsuit took the eyes off of the real discussions.

 

2. office is not £400+ i can step into pcworld and get office for £100.. yep me joe bloggs no special "im a microsoft certified blah blah" required. if you honestly believe its worth £400 then your company are purchasing licences from the wrong people

 

heres some help for you, could save your company over £350 on each system you produce:

[edited: NO link to commercial sites allowed]

 

oh look £21.55 for a license of OEM office PROFESSIONAL

 

the lawsuit was to do with the fact that office was pre installed on PC's at manufacturing creating the monopoly. customers did not have to purchase it separetly so to the buyer it was a freebie thus they not bother spending their hard earned cash on lotus etc.. this was not a included in the OS option, this was not a freebie microsoft offered everyone. so sorry your business had to pay if they wanted to give your buyers office pre installed but oh well.. thats the benefit of multinational manufacturers such as HP who have good communications with microsoft unlike your employer who manufacture computers

 

so you dont have the same communications channel and so are not included in major discussions.

 

well i think that microsoft would give packard bell HP, etc that £22 licence for free knowing that it will monopolise the market.

 

oh look they did that. and oh look in 2005 the office lawsuit began because of it!!!

 

i cannot see why you refer to the 1998 lawsuit or your workings of between 1998 to 2002 have any validity as the office lawsuit was 3 years after 2002 and 7 years after 1998.

 

but anyway.

 

oh now i think about it i do know. before office 2003 there was no home or student version so retailers were charging £400+ for office.. sorry my mistake. but the licence of OEM which PC manufacturers use were not £400 they were substantially less.. and before 2003 they were included on PC's but not on commodity (basic) PC's but on high-end machines because microsoft say fine lets lose £22 and monopolise the market. sorry if microsoft were not willing to offeryou free licences for your customers or sorry your business did not know about licences only costing £22 (even the office 97 and 2000 were about £22)

 

and one last thing to note. your company supply for a town catchment of 40k.

 

well in 1999 pcworld in devon supplied 10thousand pc's for schools and councils etc in devon (that was one store in one day) it was majorly publised as the councils were happy with the purchase so it was good PR. now imagine the normal customer purchases ontop .. about 10 customers a day (=3640) computers a year. right now imagine that on another day that pcworld store had another council or big contract. i think youll find if you just add up the 3640 a year domestic computers over 4 years (14,560) then those 10,000 from that one days trade (=24.560) and any other big contracts they come across in the other 3 years 363 days. and to mention thats only one store.. multiply that by their hundred stores. i dont think your company really competes against the likes of retail chains.

 

as a footnote i said 364 days not 365 because i dont class christmas as a trading day. its not poor maths or a way to allow you to knit pick my knowledge of the calender its just no one includes christmas so its 364 not 365.

 

the share holders did know about office included on PC's they were all for the monopoly. because if the lotus company and sunmicrosystems went bust all that would be left is microsoft who could then chage as much as they like.

 

the reason why it was hushed up is to do with the share holders. again imagine the share price plummit if the lawsuit got out too early that microsoft is being asked to no longer offer pc manufacturers office for free. becaquse no consumer would really want to buy a computer for £400 and then spend another £400 on office software

 

instead they release products like microsoft office student 2003 which was £100 not £400 to make it more affordable for customers. and home and student 2007 also at £100.

 

thus no longer monopolising the market and kinda keeping the share holders happy. in november 2004 the price of their shares was over 29.90 but they really started falling drastically down to a low of 24.12 in april 2005.

 

hang on didnt i earlier say that in february 2005 it was hitting headlines about the media player issues but behind the scenes other talks about office were being discussed. everyone knows even in november that the media player issue was not gonna folow through as it was free.. but what share holders did know about in november 04 was the office discussions which is why they were abandoning ship. and again in about october 05 after microsoft changed there ways people started realising the changes and others previously not priveledged to this information now knew it and again they abandoned ship to which is why share prices plummetted again.

[StormWarrior]

i can step into pcworld and get office for £100

 

True, that would be the retail student product.

 

Lets check out a FULL Package Product of Office 2007 Pro. from Dabs, a large online discount reseller, £368.98 inc vat

 

oh look £21.55 for a license of OEM office PROFESSIONAL

 

Right now follow your link again, and get someone to read it for you!

For everyone else I'll post what it says in BOLD right near the top of the info

 

This product is a replacement media CD only. A full product license must already be owned to use this item.

 

Ask someone to explain "replacement media CD only" to you as well

 

Feel a quite silly yet ? NO ? then let me continue

 

the fact that office was pre installed on PC's at manufacturing

 

Still waiting for some sort of evidence !!!

 

the benefit of multinational manufacturers such as HP who have good communications with microsoft unlike your employer who manufacture computers

Apart from the fact that I was the employer, well actually I wasn't, one of my businesses was. I've checked the web archive of HP, Dell and PCWorld and guess what, not one suggestion that Office was ever bundled free with anything.

Do you not know how to use the Web Archive?

 

and oh look in 2005 the office lawsuit began because of it

Still no evidence, just 'cause you said it happened, doesn't mean it did

 

Feel very silly yet ? NO ? then let me continue

 

before office 2003 there was no home or student version

 

Then this product package shot taken from Amazon, as in available to buy today, must be an illusion by Microsoft, created to lull distributers into false advertising. Actually Student Office was available for the 97 version, Part Number 503-00003. Launched Sept 1996

 

Feel incredibly silly yet ? NO ? then let me continue some more

 

well in 1999 pcworld in devon supplied 10thousand pc's for schools and councils etc in devon (that was one store in one day)

Councils do not buy large quantities of computers from retail stores!

And cetainly not 10,000.

 

Some evidence please, Which of the PC World stores in Devon, there are more than one! Which Devon Council, in 1999 there was more than one.

 

But personally, I think you are talking a load of crap.

[demon_x_slash]

PMSL to ALL of the above

[Guest retailerpointofview]

ok the office on HP machines

Why Office 2003 with HP

 

read the second paragraph

 

"Having Microsoft Office 2003 pre-installed now saves you the hassle of having to hunt for software to manage your business"

 

also to note. pc's were bundled with microsoft office basic/standard/student.. not pro so the price you quote as saying "Maybe Microsoft would give away a £300+ product with a OEM licence that costs £50(ish) at trade. Maybe NOT!"

 

is again innaccurate the OEM that microsoft supply HP, PB DELL were not pro (£50 licence at trade) but the basic office which is less then £50 at trade price. so my point was that micosoft were willing to lose less then £50 to monopolise the market and look what happened they got sued.

 

an apology

ok i admit i was in a rush not to read every bit of the pcwb page. but from my experience of buying the licence and pcworlds advice to check out the software licensing section of their pcwb website i automatically assumed that section was pureley for licencing and not the CD. so i apologise.

but £22 was about the price of the licence at the time and your own words that Pro was £50 at the time proves that basic was below £50 as it contains less. so would not be a loss of £300+ to microsofts & share holders. but under £50. and actual cost prices of a licence well lets not go into how little it costs microsoft and its share holders.

 

the microsoft lawsuit.

actually there were many pages against microsofts office monopoly

lets show you yahoo for instance:

Microsoft settles Iowa lawsuit | Yahoo! Finance UK

 

even this page states

The $179.95 million settlement means individuals in Iowa who bought certain Microsoft products separately or preinstalled on computers between May 18, 1994, and June 30, 2006, will be eligible for cash

 

care to read???

 

councls DO get into bed with retailers

ok cannot find a website to prove the devon council getting into bed with PCWorld.

but how about surrey

http://www.pcwb.com/microsites/catalist/casestudies/Surrey_County.pdf

 

how about stafford

Catalist - PC World Business

 

north lincolnshire (they are a list of contractor on bottom of page 3)

http://www.northlincs.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/3BC59C74-7657-44E5-86DF-AAE110F34FD8/18345/ListofPrimeContractors0906.pdf

 

peterborough

Peterborough City Council - Executive Decisions Database

 

need i continue.

i will find referable proof about what i been told about devon council but its the weekend and .. well ill get back to you when i enjoy the rest of my weekend

 

also to note i did not know student versions were available pre 2003.. do you know why?? because i did not need them, did not need to purchase or sell them separetly. the PC's i purchased to sell on to customer already included it. and so i did not have to search high and low for a copy. neither did retail chains which is why from my knowledge they did not sell it which is why i never seen it in my frequent visits.

what you may find is that image is of a office box which was given to the buyers at purchase incase they ever needed to re-install it. i have never seen it sold separetely in a retail store. is it english or could it be one they sold separetly in america.. who knows.. i certainly did not need to at the time

 

many thanks

[Guest retailerpointofview]

after enjoying my weekend further i will spend some time finding some website to prove more indepth your claims that councils do not use retaillers.

 

also i will find other reports where microsoft were monopolising the market.

 

by the way some tips instead of using wikipedia

 

try typing into google

 

"microsoft office lawsuit"

 

"pcworld and council"

 

and "hp with microsoft office"

 

i found many websites id suggest google is a better research tool then wikipedia especially when the articles are placed on it by individuals and not reporters etc

[StormWarrior]

OK here we go again ! My bits in red this time, just to make it easier to follow

 

"Having Microsoft Office 2003 pre-installed now saves you the hassle of having to hunt for software to manage your business"

Yep, OEM version of office are designed to be pre-installed. But nowhere on that page, or any of the other pages does it say free.

 

also to note. pc's were bundled with microsoft office basic/standard/student.. not pro

That would be a choice of Std. Small Business, or PRO. Student licencing never used to be available as an OEM product.

 

so the price you quote as saying "Maybe Microsoft would give away a £300+ product (meaning retail price) with a OEM licence that costs £50(ish) (meaning the Operating system) at trade. Maybe NOT!"

I was refering to YOUR suggestion that they gave Office free with windows!

that microsoft were giving all new pc customer microsoft Office for free.

See post #47

 

is again innaccurate the OEM that microsoft supply HP, PB DELL were not pro (£50 licence at trade) but the basic office which is less then £50 at trade price. so my point was that micosoft were willing to lose less then £50 to monopolise the market and look what happened they got sued.

Actually HP, Dell, PB, and my own companies all had/ have the same choices. if you follow your own link and goto the next page you will read

Before making a choice, it’s good to take stock of what you really need for your business.

if Microsoft only 'gave' them the basic office to give away 'free',why ask you to choose??

 

an apology

ok i admit i was in a rush not to read every bit of the pcwb page. (NOT EVEN THE FIRST ,BIG BOLD BIT !!) but from my experience of buying the licence and pcworlds advice to check out the software licensing section of their pcwb website i automatically assumed that section was pureley for licencing and not the CD. so i apologise.

but £22 was about the price of the licence at the time ( never has ANY office product been that cheap, not even OEM)and your own words that Pro was £50 (never said that, see above) at the time proves that basic was below £50 as it contains less. so would not be a loss of £300+ to microsofts & share holders. but under £50. (No, Microsoft would lose a prospective sale of the full price software) and actual cost prices of a licence well lets not go into how little it costs microsoft and its share holders. Actually lets ! The cheapest office, Office Basic 2007 Student OEM Medialess is currently £82

the microsoft lawsuit.

actually there were many pages against microsofts office monopoly

lets show you yahoo for instance:

Microsoft settles Iowa lawsuit | Yahoo! Finance UK

 

even this page states

The $179.95 million settlement means individuals in Iowa who bought certain Microsoft products separately or preinstalled on computers between May 18, 1994, and June 30, 2006, will be eligible for cash

 

care to read??? Yep, the FIRST paragraph states

a class-action lawsuit that claimed the company had a monopoly that cost the state's citizens millions of dollars extra for software products

Nothing to do with giving away anything, It basically aledged prices were artificially high, and microsoft

caused customers to pay more for software than they would have if there had been competition.

The alledged monopoly was caused by people WANTING the product, not because there was no competition, just no viable competition

 

councls DO get into bed with retailers

 

but how about surrey

http://www.pcwb.com/microsites/catal...rey_County.pdf

PC World Business,

 

how about stafford

Catalist - PC World Business

PC World Business, 10 machines to individual councilors

 

north lincolnshire (they are a list of contractor on bottom of page 3)

http://www.northlincs.gov.uk/NR/rdon...tors090 6.pdf

PC World Business, only for Supplier of Printers and Peripherals,

 

need i continue.

i will find referable proof about what i been told about devon council but its the weekend and .. well ill get back to you when i enjoy the rest of my weekend

This I can't wait to see!

also to note i did not know student versions were available pre 2003.. do you know why?? because i did not need them, did not need to purchase or sell them separetly. the PC's i purchased to sell on to customer already included it. But surely the price would have been a key indicator?

 

and so i did not have to search high and low for a copy. neither did retail chains which is why from my knowledge they did not sell it which is why i never seen it in my frequent visits. ROTFLMAO

what you may find is that image is of a office box which was given to the buyers at purchase incase they ever needed to re-install it. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS WITH OEM PRODUCTS,THATS THE WHOLE IDEA !!

i have never seen it sold separetely in a retail store. Thats because you are not allowed to sell it separately in a store !

is it english Yes it's englishor could it be one they sold separetly in america..no it was never sold separately who knows..I do, i certainly did not need to at the time

 

You must be holding a huge bunch of straws by now!

[Darren]

i found many websites id suggest google is a better research tool then wikipedia especially when the articles are placed on it by individuals and not reporters etc

 

of course - if it is said by a reporter it must be true. We all believe everything we read in the papers 100%

[Shoestring]

I wonder if "retailpointofview" is employed by the retail industry? This poster stated they "know" of three small claims court cases and I wondered if this meant they had, in some manner, represented the retail sector in these three cases, or are anything to do with representative assocation of the retail sector?

 

Clearly, the poster seems to want to insert doubt into the minds of readers of this site with unfounded accusations of money-spinning, when even a lazy reading of various sections of this site demonstrate again and again the generosity of contributors in providing advice and guidance on a completely free and gratis basis. "Caveat Lector", I say.

 

Yours in indulgence.

 

Shoestring

[Guest retailerpointofview]

I wonder if "retailpointofview" is employed by the retail industry? This poster stated they "know" of three small claims court cases and I wondered if this meant they had, in some manner, represented the retail sector in these three cases, or are anything to do with representative assocation of the retail sector?

 

Clearly, the poster seems to want to insert doubt into the minds of readers of this site with unfounded accusations of money-spinning, when even a lazy reading of various sections of this site demonstrate again and again the generosity of contributors in providing advice and guidance on a completely free and gratis basis. "Caveat Lector", I say.

 

Yours in indulgence.

 

Shoestring

 

I dont know of three CASES. in my shop i dont have time to sit in a court room. but i do know of three JUDGES.

 

the SOGA is worded in a way that DOES leaves some area's grey, and so should be dealt with in a case by case way. but as to the facts about PCWORLD local stores not dealing with the issue the contract is with the company and all legal actions are with the company. the local stores can advise and help but legally are not binded to the contract. by them mentioning a contact to call or repair service to use they are helping. this is a customer satisfaction issue. legally they don't have to do a thing.