Microsoft has urged UK PC vendors not to give customers the opportunity to buy a PC without a pre-installed operating system.
Supplying base systems, or 'naked PCs', is a missed opportunity, according to Michala Alexander, Microsoft's head of anti-piracy.
Writing in Microsoft's Partner Update magazine, which is distributed to computer dealers, Alexander estimated that 5 percent of computers sold in the UK in 2006 would not include an operating system.
Alexander is keen to bring that number down, even though customers could want a base system because they want to install Linux, or because their firm already has a licensing agreement for an operating system such as Windows.
"We want to urge all system builders — indeed, all Partners — not to supply naked PCs. It is a risk to your customers and a risk to your business — with specifically 5 percent fewer opportunities to market software and services," wrote Alexander.
Linux vendors and free software supporters, though, believe these base systems can play an important role in supporting the open source market. Some are concerned that Microsoft may be attempting to use its powerful position in the market to hamper competition.
The European branch of the Free Software Foundation hopes that PC vendors will not be swayed by Microsoft.
"We would be happy to see any kind of hardware being shipped without an operating system, or pre-installed with free software. Furthermore, we would be happy to get in contact with any hardware vendor who wants to free his customers this way," said Joachim Jakobs, of the FSF Europe.
Alexander's role is to combat the use of counterfeit and unlicensed versions of Microsoft's software. In February, Microsoft launched an initiative called Keep IT Real, in which "feet on the street" investigators would visit technology vendors suspected of installing counterfeit software on PCs before selling them.
In the article, Alexander appeared to reveal that these investigators will also have a role in clamping down on the sale of base systems.
"Microsoft is recruiting two 'feet on the street' personnel whose role will be to provide proactive assistance during customer visits, and help you get the value proposition for pre-installed software and related services. Give us a call and let's get those feet walking," Alexander wrote.
The FSF Europe is alarmed by the prospect that customers who request a base systems would risk a visit from Microsoft's investigators.
"It looks like a private sniffing service which is supposed to spy on these who do not want to pay the Microsoft tax anymore. It is an incredible piece of impudence which any politician, customer and journalist should recognise carefully," said Jakobs.
When contacted by ZDNet UK, Alexander denied that operatives would be dispatched into the premises of customers who attempted to buy a PC without Windows.
"I can confirm that the... personnel are not participating in customer visits. This is an error in the copy and will be amended in future material on the subject," Alexander claimed.
Alexander also insisted that Microsoft was simply trying to help its reseller partners by explaining how they could grow their businesses by selling its software and services. But she did reiterate that the software giant is concerned that the sale of base systems may be linked to the use of counterfeit software.
"There will be a concern if we see an increase in businesses selling PCs without Windows and piracy goes into the sky," said Alexander, who also rejected the suggestion that Microsoft was attempting to use its powerful position in the market to hamper rival operating systems.
Both Red Hat and Novell argue that naked PCs can be an important part of the overall market.
"Microsoft is clearly concerned about the threat of Linux on the desktop and is trying to protect its base. Naked PCs provide customers with choice and lower the price of commodity PCs," said a Novell spokesman.
"Customers want to have choice and they don't want to be locked in by one vendor, such as Microsoft," said Red Hat's Dirk Kissinger. "We would like to see more hardware vendors give their customers the choice of pre-installed operation systems, be it Microsoft or Red Hat or other options, or raw hardware without an operating system."
Several PC vendors contacted by ZDNet UK were reluctant to comment on the issues surrounding base systems. One, though, did say that they hadn't encountered any difficulties.
"We've had no pressure from Microsoft, yet," said a representative from Chillblast, a UK PC vendor that sells some computers without operating systems.
Talkback
Presumably, if Microsoft were in charge of CD / DVD players then you would not be able to buy one without buying lots of music CDs or film DVDs along with it. Just another way for them to get more cash out of the punters
Well, I've got 4 copies of Windows XP Home that I have absolutely no use for (and i can't get refunds on them), because the suppliers wouldn't deliver the machines without an OS.
1 of the machines I had to buy an XP Pro license for because the supplier would only deliver it with XP Home, the rest of them are all running Linux.
I've given up on pre-built systems now, because I pretty much can't find a decent system which doesn't come with either no OS or the correct OS installed...
I would be much happier if the PC's were specced with no OS and you select the one you want, or if the supplier doesn't have the OS you want, then delivered OS free...
I demand the right to buy a PC without a preinstalled Operating System! All of my PCs since 1998 have used Linux, and all have used Linux exclusively since 2000. By what right does Microsoft dicate that I should buy useless and unwanted Windows licenses when I buy a new PC or laptop? Is this the *only* way that Microsoft expects to sell Windows Vista?
> Is this the *only* way that Microsoft expects to sell Windows Vista?<
What i want to know is when is vista going to be taken to bits to reveal the stolen GPL'ed code that is undoubtedly hidden within ...
Lets see him wrigle out of that one ..
Typical MS arrogance.
The EC (European commision) should act on this. Instead of messing around forcing MS to produce a version of windows with no media player which noone wants (partly because MS wasn't forced to sell it at a lower price why?), it should rule that all PC suppliers must give their buyers an option of not having windows and getting a reduction equal to the entire wholesale price of windows paid by that vendor. If this was a legal requirement MS would not be able to put financial pressure on PC suppliers to always include windows (as they do at present).
The EC should also force MS to stop subsidising pre-installed windows by charging much more for retail boxes (not just the usual retail markup). Both these practices by MS use their near-monopoly to distort the market and stifle competition.
If MS had its way everyone even buying a motherboard would be forced to buy a copy of windows.
err Microsoft wants to sell more copies of Windows and make more money this is the sole purpose of any business
I'll make you an offer you can't refuse....
It's interesting reading this after watching "The Godfather" series on TV the last few nights. Correlation of the two events is left as an exercise for the reader.
System builders should be able to sell PCs wihtout an OS if that is what the customer wants. It's up to the customer to insure they have a licensed OS. This just more MS greed.
Think about how old is XP? Today, the life span of Windows OS has become longer than that of hardware. You will have to purcahse new machine before you will get any major upgrade of Windows. But you cannot transplant the OS from your old pre-installed mchine to new one. It's a violation of controversial End User License Agreement. Therefore, Microsoft can keep its revenue at healthy level even though Vista is coming late.
Another example of Microsoft trying to monopolize the marketplace. What ever happened to the freedom of choice ? I personally would gladly pick up a computer with no operating system and give linux a whirl. I've already tried about 5 different distros.
mmm... Sounds like Microshaft is running scared. Good!
I never buy a system preinstalled. The only reason is I dont want all of the misc junk that come with them that I have to uninstall.
That's right, Microsoft - keep pushing me towards Linux. I'm getting pretty fed up with arrogant bastards like MS.
I've already come to the conclusion that I want nothing to do with Windows Vista - whenever the hell that's coming out - and IE 7 is ugly and amatuerish at best. I've been reasonably satisfied with Windows XP, but with the attitude MS keeps displaying, I may finally dump that too, along with MS Office and any other crap that they come out with - and I've been using their products for the past 15+ years.
Computers should come with a variety pack of operating systems or people who want a computer should be allowed to just buy the hardware without third party intervention by some sort of trust.
Every computer should be sold without an OS. Microsoft's ability to force an OS on customers is just another thing that strengthens their monopoly. They have been convicted in the EU and USA of using the power of that monopoly to strangle the free market. They should be stopped from being able to sign deals for pre installing or bundling their OS in the EU and the USA. This would give consumes a choice and promote competition. People who want Windows could still get it and install the OS, but they wouldn't be forced to buy a program they may not want.
Many more heavy-handed tactics like this and I will definitely be switching over to Linux exclusively. It's unfortunate, however, that there are still a huge percentage of consumers out there that want systems that are pre-loaded and ready to use right out of the box. For this reason alone, Microsoft will continue to be able to monopolize the OS market. Sad, but true.
---Companies Selling Preinstalled Linux---
...and no OS.
http://www.addonshop.com/
http://www.emperorlinux.com/
http://www.ibexpc.com/
http://www.koobox.com/
http://www.linare.com/
http://www.linspire.com/
http://www.linuxcertified.com/
http://www.linuxsyscorp.com/
http://www.microcenter.com/
http://www.microtelpc.com/
http://www.outpost.com/
http://shoprcubed.com/
http://www.sub300.com/
http://www.systemax.com/divisions.htm
http://www.walmart.com/
http://tuxmobil.org/reseller.html
http://www.us.debian.org/distrib/pre-installed
http://www.linux.org/vendor/system/index.html
http://tuxmobil.org/ (general information)
No OS
(Sabio made by Quanta, like Dell-latitudes)
http://www.avadirect.com/
http://www.asimobile.com/
http://www.powernotebooks.com/
Seems like microsoft thinks that free of choice is equal to piracy. Sending people if you sell naked PC's... it sounds like the behaviour of the Mob.
It's sad that they do things like that to keep their share of the market, Has anybody told them that they could do better software to achive the same result???
As a small business owner in Seattle, I can say that the biggest reason to avoid Microsoft software is that having their software on your computers puts you at risk for being shaken down by the Business Software Alliance or some similar software goons.
A few years back, I received a notice from the BSA that basically implied that I was most likely ripping them off and they were giving me the chance to do a software audit, purchase any licences their auditing software thought I needed to buy, and then submit the whole thing to the BSA to show that I was now in compliance. In return, they would let me live in peace. The appalling guilty until proven innocent tone was not appreciated.
Being a one person shop with 4 computers, I wasn't in the habit of thinking along the lines of software auditing. Naively, I thought having one license/computer would be sufficient. However, reading the accounts of other SMB owners visited by the BSA, it seems that is insufficient. One has to have the proper accounting setup or be subject to fines! As a startup, adding yet another thing to do did not appeal to me.
Reading further, it seemed the court costs of defending one's self against these guys runs into the $10,000s! My gross that year was about that. In short, I could not afford to defend myself in court should these folks decide to prosecute. Whatever shake-down amount they would like to demand, I was likely to have to pay. That's essentially what happened to others.
At that point, I concluded that Microsoft software is a liability to the future of my business and made a policy of having no more than one Microsoft box in the biz at a time. That should be easy enough to document. The other CPUs now run Linux and freeBSD which don't require any software audits ;) I really didn't have much interest in Linux nor BSD until I received that BSA letter. For me, it was a move of self-defense.
I'll repeat, my GROSS receipts the year I got that BSA letter were about $10,000. Back then, those guys were rolling us SMB street-bums for the change in our pockets.
I agree - PCs should nopt be sold without operating systems! They should all be sold with Linux (or Open DOS) and customers that want Windows (XP/Vista/etc) can pay retail for it.
I agree with this poster 100%. I have several copies of Micrsoft software that are 100% licensed to me that I simply cannot use.
MS XP Home, MS Works, and several Office 2000 and an Office 2003 license.
These are simply due to the fact that pre-installed OS's are wasted on my environment. I need custom installations, with specific operating systems at different times.
Yes, I use Windows XP Professional, but I also have Linux, Netware, and VMWare operating systems. This demanding/strongarming from Microsoft harkens back to a point in time when Thugs and Hooligans roamed free... Now they just have a couple of Billion dollars behind them.
This has convinced me, I'm completely moving all of my systems to Linux as soon as possible. If I need XP Pro, I'll run it inside VMWare on my Linux Laptop, and make my company pay for the license.
Large OEMs will never ship without MS Windows because Microsoft pays them too much to paste that freak'n Windows logo on everything. That money comes directly from Microsoft an is their way of making sure every PC gets shipped with an MS OS. The smaller guys don't get this or get very little $$ from MSFT for that logo/advertising and this is where Microsoft is attacking. Without muscling them somehow, it's going to be a tough sell for Microsoft. So tough that if they push TOO hard, they'll push legit shops over to the other side.
I would like to see Microsoft come to my house and see my system set up with Debian Linux, or any other Open Source OS.
It would certainly save me the time of formatting a Windows OS before installing one of the above mentioned OS's. Microsoft will lose quite a bit of revenue on their OS sales on new hardware sales, especially since they are losing out already to Linux in Europe.
This makes Microsoft sound like a modern day mafia, and it's "feet on the street" personel like the goon squad. Godfather Bill Gates is going to make Dell etc an offer they can't refuse.
the more microsoft say this year the more they seem like they're clinging desperately to whatever way they can get they're os onto computers, personally now if i ever buy a prebuilt pc i will make sure the damn thing has or comes with linux installed because microsoft are losing it, perhaps its because vista is going to fall on its ass
"We want to intimidate all system builders — indeed, blackmail all Partners — not to supply naked PCs. It is a risk to our business — with specifically 5 percent fewer opportunities to market Microsoft software and services," wrote Alexander.
<I>Well, I've got 4 copies of Windows XP Home that I have absolutely no use for (and i can't get refunds on them), because the suppliers wouldn't deliver the machines without an OS.</i><P>
No big deal... All you have to do is refuse to accept the license agreement. (the fact that you've had the PC for more than 6 months will help here). Then call up the vendor (or microsoft, depending on what the 'license' says), and say "I reject the license. What do I do now?"
<P>
Then document what happens next. If microsoft doesn't give you an <b>easy</b> way to refuse the license (about as easy as accepting it is), then I'm sure that there are some linux legal types who would <b>love<b> to help you with their problem.... (( <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/">groklaw.net</a> is your friend).
What makes things worse is that the vendor, in this case HP, voids its warranty on my laptop when I wiped Windows and installed Linux. I'm lucky I had a spare hard drive around, so that the original Windows image sat on it unused, ready to be popped in if the computer experienced problems. This is BS. The choice of OS should have nothing to do with the hardware. I can see withholding support for an OS not supported, but ducking out of a warranty just because I installed Linux was not right.
This is in addition to the fact that I paid the Windows tax for an OS that sits in the drawer.
It was surprise to know that Microsoft is using shameful Marketing
strategy to compete with it competitors.
Microsoft's strategy is to combat the use of counterfeit and unlicensed
versions of Microsoft's software and telling vendors not to sell Naked
PC saying “It is a risk to your customers and a risk to your business”.
Hmm……this need to re-think again.
Another interesting Quote "There will be a concern if we see an increase
in businesses selling PCs without Windows and piracy goes into the sky".
There are so many alternatives in the Market other than Windows and No
piracy issue at all.
Disadvantage of Microsoft is, its inherently insecure and cannot make
savings on open source advances. Everything you have to buy.
I could not find a laptop without Microsoft Windows preinstalled to
install the Tomahawk Desktop (www.tomahawkcomputers.com), this is a very nice multimedia Linux OS,
its secure and you can make tremendous savings on open source advances.
Microsoft's shameful marketing strategy makes us unnecessarily pay for
Microsoft Windows even if we don't use it at all. How unreasonable?
Gump, you are a god damned genius....
I wonder if being forced to buy something you specifically DONT want is an infringement of your human rights?
There are a number of issues here.
The first is M$'s outrageous business practices which, amongst other things, seek to disadvantage and destroy the 'opposition', primarily Linux, as a matter of deliberate policy.
The second is the matter of personal freedom and choice, which M$ seek, and more or less succeed, to deny.
The third is the presumed guilt of the innocent. Many of us are not 'Pirates', but decent citizens. I quote from a poster adverting a film in UK 'In 1976 I was responsible for my own sins, today I am responsible for every else's sins'
The fourth is the so-called 'Microsoft Tax', which also tends to support the first issue above. I also have (too) many copies of Windows.
The fifth is the power that M$ hold enjoy and exploit almost unchallenged. I didn't vote for them and cannot vote them out. I do not share their vision of the future.
The sixth is that I believe that, as an ordinary citizen, I could not act as M$ does without falling foul of the law. Blackmail and extortion, inter alia, come to mind.
The seventh is M$'s anti competitive practices which specifically mitigate against our freedom and choices, and damage innovation.
The eighth is we don't all want M$ bloated and over complicated software and inflated costs, and I for one do not want Vista having trialled it briefly. In any case it's far from ready. I wonder that they use the name Vista unchallenged when two not insignificant programmes already exist in UK with the name of Vista and I remember how they hound anyone else for marginal infringement of their copyright, even kids and their ' (M$) friends'.
The ninth is that I do not appreciate the likes of M$ setting themselves up as 'enforcers' setting their own agenda to control, manipulate and police us almost unchallenged. We already have a justice system and this must not be privatised, it is already excessively beholden the big business and increasingly does not support the interest of the individual and society as a whole.
The tenth and final point is that in general, I fear for our children in a not so science fiction world of 'Big Brother' where they are all controlled. This is all beginning to happen now. America, in particular, should pay attention to their very excellent constitution and other apt advice from Abraham Lincoln.
Apologies for the length of this post and any possible repetitions, but there are serious issues to be considered impacting on the future, the most serious of which is presumed guilt. Shame we WILL all pay for those who would do wrong.
I forgot some issues in my earlier post.
The eleventh point is that M$ are in effect requiring a Windows licence to run Linux. This will, of course, discourage the spread of alternative operating systems
The twelve point is that M$ try to make their standards proprietry rather than open, a restrictive practice which they seem able to get away with to lock people into their products, e.g. the upcoming XML format in Office 2007.
And, like others, I wonder how much illegal code is included in Windows.
All systems without M$ on it is a potential pirate system? It is the same mentality we heard "If you are not for us you are against us". It comes from the fundamentalist versions of the world views forming the nurturing bed of religions like rampant capitalism, Christianity of the bible belt, Muslims misusing the fatwas, some Hindu fanaticisms and other ideologies (Peter L Berger's 'Pyramids of sacrifice' is a must read – see Amazon).
What makes H/W vendors "bend over" to M$? What do they get from bundling H/W & S/W as a default without other options like “NO OS” or Linux? If I am forced to buy such a bundle, I demand a rebate to the cost of a standard M$ OS and the other S/W. If they do not want to do it, I go somewhere else. I have never bought a bundled H/W & S/W of the close to 160 systems I personally installed to date; Workstations or Servers.
As a professional I can do that, but the man in the street is locked in because most of them are glad to unpack and switch on a PC that works within minutes; it is true for a start, until the M$ malware hits back later. Some time ago I had business dealings with Compaq. They supplied all computers with an installation CD, where you could choose your OS and then obtain a license key for the one U wanted (and then only paid for - this system was available in Germany). Maybe a DVD that boots and can install various OS's can be included in the boxed bundle everyone buys, but with a virgin HD. This must be forced by EU legislation, to allow all Distros a chance.
I thought that capitalism is where everyone has an equal right to trade (on a fair playing ground - definition of economics according to Sameulson's standard work 'Economics' at business schools). The catch 22 is that some are more equal than others, like those with a lot of cash e.g. M$ that can distort this equal playing field. Is this the democracy with its religion of capitalism that GWB wants to export to the world? Then he is surprised why the world hates his guts!
Think about it seriously and you will see where microsoft are coming from.
Read between the lines and it screams 'less opportunity for piracy' if all pc's are shipped with an OS then there is less need for piracy, everything should in theory have a legit license and all is well for software auditors. Yes this is more money for microsoft (which is good business sense even if there opperating systems are daft prices).
They dont necessarily say they need to be shipped with an MS OS do they? Although that would be the aim of the article. Hardware suppliers / retailers should offer to sell boxes with Linux opperating systems etc and not just limit to windows, which I think would make good sense for vendors.
Techy, you have it backwards. This is "more money for MS" *masquerading* as a righteous anti-piracy drive. Doesn't MS already use activation codes and online verification to stop pirates? Don't these measures work? The only difference between a naked PC and PC preinstalled with a zero-cost OS is a few seconds with root access and the fdisk command anyway!
Personally, I will *always* prefer to buy a naked PC. The probability of a vendor installing my chosen Linux distribution the way that I want is infinitessimal, and so I'm almost certainly going to reinstall immediately. So it makes more sense if I don't waste the vendor's time in the first place.
The last computer I purchased, pre built, was in 1997.
I would much rather buy the pieces and build my own, then I get what I want and not something I may never use. I had XP installed for about a month. When daylight savings time changed XP fell apart. Redmond can keep their fragment of excrement, I'll take stable, secure Linux first. It should be my choice, not M$'s.
I think this goes into the same category of whats going on with choice of media player, web browser and now operating system. Microsoft see this as a threat to their majority of the operating system field, afraid that customers will choose other OSes, therefore MS losing out on profit.
This is something we can refer to Trading Standards the first time we encounter it. They were careful not to mention specifically that Windows is what they are recommending and that installing Linux would have consequences for those companies' dealings with Microsoft. Perhaps next they will suggest that you shouldn't be allowed to buy PC parts unless you have a Windows licence. In the old Soviet Union, you were free to choose any car you liked as long as it was a Lada, so in keeping with that system, Microsoft's take is that you should be free to choose any operating system you like as long as it's Windows.
Of course this is nothing other than a LINUX rant. No one could put themselves in the shoes of a basic user who would have to make that OS choice. Build your own PC if you need your own OS. It is not that difficult.
ms's bullying is well known and I, like most, am apalled by it.
However, the average user doesn't want to install their own os (be it Windows, linux, apple....) with all the potential problems it can create (drivers anyone???). I agree that vedors should give the option of naked PCs, but seriously, outside of the techy community, how many "home" users will buy one???? There in lies the problem...
Also, supplying a choice of OS is a major head achet ovendors too...for each one there would be 100's of hours testing required, in order to be able to sell with a warrenty (a big revenue generator)....
MS should not be allowed to do this, but if their stopped, don't expect a change from vendors any time soon...
I work for a small foreign company who have a licence agreement with Microsoft so I can install any operating system on the PCs I buy and use. These PCs are used to develop and test code for the company. Therefore I have tended to buy raw components rather than PCs. This is now proving to be more expensive.
I do not need the packaged software so why should I be expected to pay for it or pay more to build it myself. This is becoming even more important as we will soon be looking at moving into the Linux market.
First you must understand that your average citizen is a dishonest and despicable being. You cannot trust them!
Take a look at the media industry generally. Piracy is rife. The music industry has been in terminal decline since the advent of the Compact Cassette ("Home Taping is Killing Music", remember).
It is the duty of the corporate world to stem the urges of the citizen to steal, for their own good. The following measures should be implemented, to help them.
1. Outlaw all non-fixed writeable media.
2. Change formats rapidly before they are hacked. This also means that there will be less temptation to build illegal libraries. (DRM can help). Obsolescence leads to honesty.
3. Keep formats proprietary and closed.
4. Ensure full payment for all services. Lack of usage of such services does not mean payment should not be made. There may come a time when a citizen may require the service and therefore, should be expected to contribute towards innovation. Opting out should therefore not be an option in the interests of equality.
5. Close monitoring of the citizenship, is required to serve and protect them.
A thriving and healthy business community means a happy citizenship.
The rights of the citizen cannot outweigh the rights of corporation. Corporations are best able to safeguard citizens rights, as they best understand the citizen.
Well, I personally won't buy a computer that has Microsoft's operating system on it.
I always buy "naked" systems because I only use linux.
maybe the Vendors should have it pointed out that by listening to Microsoft they will lose business, the business they would have gotten by offering the "naked" systems.
Give customers (us) a wider choice & adhere to that! As a PC technician I'll roll my own flavour of OSS thank u!
If I were in charge, which I'm not, I would give the option to buy a "naked PC" along with Windows XP/Vista/etc, some of the more popular linux distros, Ubuntu and Xandros, and a "naked PC" bundled with whatever OS install disk they want, just incase that doesn't cover it.
Undoubtably some idiot who doesn't understand what an OS is will buy the "naked PC" because it's cheeper and the name might even attract them, so Iff you picked the "Naked PC" the online selection system would warn you that a "Naked PC is designed for advanced users. If any of the following words confuse you, buy one of the proloaded PCs: OS, BIOS, Installation".
There is the end of all argument. The person who wants a "Naked PC"gets what they want, the person who wants Pre-Installed Linux/Windows gets what they want, and the loser who couldn't find his/her own butt with both hands is protected from themselves.
Geez man have you guys got nothing better to do?
Do YOU honestly think MS give a crap what you think?
All I ever see is Linux is better than XP, XP is better than Linux
Grow up!! For once! Each has it's place get over it.
Mr Anonymous Developer, this has nothing to do with Linux being better than XP, or vice versa. This is a opposition to "the Microsoft Tax" being levied on prebuilt machines, be they PCs or laptops. Please read before you rant.
Why not build your own PC?
Or I can custom build one for you. Just email me: zolar1 at hot mail dot com
Note: Custom building PC's is quite a bit more expensive than buying an off the shelf PC and installing a freeware version of Linux (Ubuntu is a good one) on it.
I have been custom building PC's for a few years now (since 1999).
It's very easy too. The hardest part is getting Linux to work with some of the newer hardware like soundcards (Realtek AC97) and nVidea video card drivers. Other problems is that Linux has trouble working with RAID configurations (haven't found one that properly recognized my array yet, except Ubuntu - which sees each of the drives independently).
Perhaps a class action lawsuit to put them out of business could make life easier?
I personally never heard of such nonsense. My software licenses are between me and the copyright holders - not some fly by night auditing group.
Why didn't you just deny that you even had a computer? Or told them you had a Mac?
If you even had to go to court, by the time they got a court order to search (even if they could), the 'evidence' would not be there. I.E. put linux on all of them before they showed up. Then you could counter sue for Millions....
Have all computers preinstalled with some version of Linux, then set the OS up to run Windows in a virtual environment if people wanted it.