About getting them to take responsibility for the boot locking: they could also argue (insert list of reasons they gave in their blog) and that most consumers use windows anyway, and installing a different OS on a computer is not normally done.<br>
<br>Just to make it clear I don't hold that view I was suggesting they could say, I was just pointing it out for the purpose of the discussion. Understanding arguments against us enables us to better understand the issue and counter those arguments :).<br>
<br>Also, a lot of things can happen between now and it getting released. Things can get dropped from the system.<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 5 October 2011 23:58, Bianca Gibson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ringwraithenator@gmail.com">ringwraithenator@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
Please don't talk about *when*, there is already enough misinformation floating around about this. ZDnet taking the automatically generated response as a sign there are definitely grounds to go after MS really didn't help, especially since a lot of people then think a more exaggerated version of what they read. Today I had someone tell me we were already going after MS in court.<br>
<br>To try and prevent the misinformation getting worse, I'd really appreciate you saying 'if'. I know you didn't mean anything bad by it, but take into account that media will be reading this and not necessarily read it thoroughly before reporting, so we need to watch out. I had unclear wording just before as well.<div>
<div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 5 October 2011 23:26, Luke Martinez <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:me@luke.asia" target="_blank">me@luke.asia</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<p>Ah, well that's the evil in it all. We can't really make them assume responsibility for the boot locking. Because they don't require them to provide the ability to turn it off. As in, in court they could just say, " we didn't force them, speak to the oems ."</p>
<p>Hopefully that argument wont stand up when we fight them in court.* </p>
<p>Luke Martinez,<br>
<a href="mailto:Me@luke.asia" target="_blank">Me@luke.asia</a></p>
<p>*unfortunantly its looking less of an if, more of a When.<br></p>
<p>-- android 2.3.4 custom build - sorry for the spelling.</p><div><div></div><div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Oct 5, 2011 10:55 PM, "Bianca Gibson" <<a href="mailto:ringwraithenator@gmail.com" target="_blank">ringwraithenator@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution">> Sorry, I didn't write clearly.<br>
> I meant that it doesn't require OEMs to allow the UEFI to be disabled or for<br>> users to add their own keys, as said in the article you (Luke) linked.<br>> <br>> Thanks, Bianca.<br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>