Garrett: More in the series of bizarre UEFI bugs

FCC regulations are meaningless in Australia.

Those companies typically resell someone else's hardware; they don't write their own BIOS.

Would buying the same laptop but with the Windows 7 option (where it exists) kinda guarantee that we won't have to deal with this kind of issue?

Thanks for your feedback. When I talked about "all this crap", I was not referring to UEFI in general, but these "implementation details"; having another "feature" to check whether it works with Linux or not is a pain in the ass.

I too wanted to use UEFI on my new Dell Precision T3600 workstation, but I found that several recent Linux Distributions all had problems installing or running correctly once installed with UEFI enabled. I finally gave up and reenabled BIOS based booting so I could use the PERC card and get some work done. We've also seen a lot of issues getting things set just right on some IBM x3650 servers so we even have a chance at performing remote management in various problem scenarios.

I have and love an x121e, boot Linux exclusively and didn't realise that it supported EFI. Is there any reason I might consider using it?

third party use of a trademarked term can cause it to be diluted. It was millions of third parties using the word 'xerox' instead of 'photocopy' that diluted that trademark.

Two half-formed thoughts, the first is that the fun thing about _trademarks_ unlike copyrights or patents is that they require active defence.

If board vendor X happens to use Microsoft's copyrighted code without permission, and you tell Microsoft and they don't do anything about it, that changes nothing, you're no closer to being allowed to use that code. Likewise if the board vendor uses Microsoft's patented algorithm and you tell Microsoft and they don't do anything about it, that again changes nothing and you're no closer to being allowed to use the patented algorithm.

But if a board vendor burns Microsoft's trademark "Windows" into stuff and you tell Microsoft about it but they choose to take no action, that's evidence of abandonment. The mark's protected status is harmed albeit slightly, obviously one board from one vendor that goes a few months without getting a slap won't tumble the whole edifice, but if this becomes a trend and you don't see Microsoft lawyers out in force demanding it stop then yes I think you have an abandonment argument; Windows becomes available for anyone to use in this context.

The other thought is that yes, the way the courts have acted previously suggests something like this might trigger an interoperability exemption that would have the effect that you could legally fill out the UEFI OS label with "Windows" if that's the only way to get your OS to boot. I think if the arguments are brought before a court, the judge is going to ask the Microsoft lawyer (since Microsoft are the only people with standing) why they're suing /you/ the poor innocent trying to achieve interoperability and thus driving market innovation, rather than the chip/board/PC maker who started the ball rolling by abusing Microsoft's trademark.