"So basically you are saying the same thing as the judges: monopoly (by M$) is good!"
No. I'm saying these are two completely different cases with different facts.
I read the previous report. It turned on reimbursement of the cost of the licence for an unwanted piece of software which had been removed.
This, should it come to court, turns on the locking of the device to prevent the removal of the unwanted software. In the report here there's no mention of wanting reimbursement for the licence and if that continues to be the case then the complaints are quite different.
I doubt, however, that you'll want to prevent facts getting in the way of a good rant so please continue.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
