Secure Boot isn't the only problem facing Linux on Windows 8 hardware

As DannyBee said, I doubt a court would hold you to those terms.

Thanks for that. That leaves just one legal issue that really needs to be raised:

How is it legal to _deny_ me full access (defined by the removal of all Microsoft software, something the European Commission has repeatedly upheld) until I have completed some Microsoft-controlled procedure? I don't want Windows on the machine.

Assuming I buy from the 3 largest vendors, excluding Apple, is it not anti-competitive to _lock_ me into it since no other option is offered?

Note: I realize that it may seem redundant to beat this dead horse again, but there's a really good reason so many are upset about Secure Boot. Of course, Microsoft mandates that Secure Boot can be disabled for Win8 logo compliance, which is neatly avoided in this case.

Could the boot failure mechanism be exploited? I presume that Microsoft has a boot failure mechanism; after N failures to boot, firmware should turn off fast-boot. Is the display of the EULA screen considered a boot success? IOW, can you just reset the machine when you see the EULA screen a few times to get the ability to stop and adjust the firmware?

'PC' ('personal computer') is a general purpose computing device, based on the original IBM architecture. The point is, it was never tied to any particular operating system.

Any attempt to 'tie' the hardware to a proprietary OS can be met with a legal challenge on these grounds. So, regardless of what manufacturers would like customers to think, it is possible to obtain an OS-free computer, even if it entails refusing an EULA and getting a refund for the unused OS.

Many people think this argument applies to Apple, too. But that's a mistake: Apple computers are not marketed as 'PCs'; and their computing system, from hardware to OS, is Apple throughout.

Microsoft works with PC manufacturers to pull off this anti-competitive hoodwink on an ignorant computing public. If it were tested properly in court, the whole corrupt practice would be torn to pieces.

> In fact, i'd go so far as to say that if Microsoft ever actually tried to enforce, it would run them into serious regulatory trouble.

The main interest of Microsoft is to keep their OEMs in control. Even if it is legal for the end-user to circumvent the protection, the following will probably still hold true:

- Microsoft can still contractually bind their OEMs to implement the protection scheme

- Microsoft can still prevent installations on machines without protection

So, in the best case regulatory action will allow users with hardware implementing the protection scheme to install custom OS (i.e. free them from prosecution when cracking the protection scheme). There is no way of forcing Microsoft to allow installations or usage on devices not implementing the protection scheme or on devices where the protection scheme has been circumvented and this circumvention can be detected by the affected Microsoft OS.