Slashdot Mirror
Windows Refund Day II
pbody writes "Sorry if this is rehashing an old topic, but I was looking for advice on how
to try to get a refund for the copy of XP that is coming with the laptop I
just bought when I came across this on LinuxJournal
about windowsrefund.net. They are
organizing "Windows Refund Day II" on January 23, 2003 -- which coincides
with the LinuxWorld Expo in NYC. Knowing how the first refund day turned
out, how many out there are going to the Expo and are thinking about
participating? For that matter, has anybody had any luck at all getting a refund from a vendor lately?"
I really don't get the people that are in a huff over this. You've seen from past examples that Microsoft and the OEMS aren't going to honor that EULA, and frankly, more power too them. Its just going to tick people off so much that they either build their own (which is the real solution to this problem) or go with a reseller that wil provide whatever OS you feel like running (there are plenty out there).
Now go spend your time protesting something that is really taxing, the US Government. Sheesh!
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
I can phone up tomorow, cancel it and get a pro-rata refund.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
a manufacturer that pre-installs windows on their machines is not the devil for it. like it or not, most people use windows, and its good business practice to be able to pre-install it and probably cut the end user a little bit off the price of paying for the os retail.
not everyone likes linux and mac. not everyone can build machines. most people dont like the attitude on this web site, cuz its so intolerant. its time to quit bitching and understand that the world does not need to "be freed from microsoft."
by the way, before you get a chance to reply with all sorts of snide remarks, i built my two machines and i run linux (gentoo) and windows xp. peace.
I don't wan't to sound un/.y, but is it really fair to expect a refund for the OS when you buy a computer package? When you buy a computer from some manufacturer you don't come back with just your graphic card and demand a refund because you don't like it. Or when you buy a car, you don't return the rearbumper just because you don't like the brand of it (no auto makers don't make every part themself.) You can't demand a refund for the nVidia GPU on the Gainward card because you want an ATI chip on it. It's a package deal. You bough a package, knowing what's in it and if you're going to get a refund you'll need to return the whole package, except if it's broken. If you don't like the parts in a package you've baught you replace them yourself. You knew exactly what you were getting.
Look a monkey!
The problem that I see for you is that you accepted the purchase of XP when you purchased the laptop. You knew what you were getting, and you elected to pay for it. If you felt that the configuration did not match your needs, then why did you make the purchase? Would you buy a set of screwdrivers and then try to return the sizes you don't need? Do not burden the vendor with your own decision to purchase something that did not match your needs. They delivered exactly what they said they would.
There are vendors that will sell a laptop with Linux installed. There are major vendors that will sell you a laptop without an OS. You have to call them and specifically request it - you won't find it on their website.
To the slashdotters who are saying 'Just build your own, or go to reseller X instead', the poster is talking about a laptop. Building a laptop yourself is an excersize in futility, and once you have your eye on a certain laptop, say a Sony Viao or IBM Thinkpad, that's what you want. One shouldn't have to go with some lame brick laptop just because it came without an OS. So getting the laptop you want, without the MS tax is something that can't be solved with the 'Build it yourself or shop elsewhere' attitude. Microsoft should be help accountable for what is in their (possibly) binding EULA. MS is treating their EULA like the Bible, sticking to the parts that benefit them and ignoring the rest. That's complete nonsense and they should be held accountable!
God is real unless declared integer.
Don't you have to have the original disc/disk packaging sealed for this to work?
The wording is such that if you don't agree with the licensing agreement, you can return the package unopenned for a refund. If you open it, you can't return it. I presume that if it's windows 3.1 or DOS, the package would have been openned. At the very least in the case of DOS, since they always factory installed that.
As for getting the refund, I'd never even tried getting it from MS, but many smaller mom&pop shops will cross off the Windows line on the invoice and give you a discount if you don't want windows. The discount isn't quite as high as you might think though -- They only offered $30 (Canadian) off if I didn't want winXP. Considering that the shop across the street was (illegally, I guess) selling OEM winXP for $110(Canadian) I had expected more.
IMO, it's not really worth the bother if it's only going to be $30.
I bought my VW Golf two years ago, and i'm very pleased with it, except for that crappy in-dash radio they MADE me buy. I could not buy the vehicle without buying the radio. Maybe we can organize a Factory Radio Refund Day?
Likewise, my townhome came with really terrible, contractor grade windows. I hate them. I was not allowed to buy the townhome without these windows. Maybe I can get my money back for them as well?
Finally all the Macs in my organization run one flavor of Mac OS or another. I could not buy these things without Mac OS. Maybe I can convince Steve Jobs to give me $100 for each copy of Mac OS I don't use?
Face it, bundling is prevalent every where you look. Just because it's "software" doesn't mean you can "un-bundle" one particular aspect of a product you don't like.
-ted
[MS] If you sell just our OS you can have them at $20.00 each.
[Dell] Ok.
[Techie] Dell, will you give me a refund for this unused OS at full market value?
[Dell] No.
[Techie] MS, will you give me a refund for this unused OS at full market value?
[MS] Uh, no.
[Techie] I can't figure out why these guys won't budge...
The difference is that a graphics card doesn't come with an EULA that says you can return it for a refund if you don't agree to the ludacrisp (heh) terms.
What many people assume is that you want to install Linux on a laptop. What if I own a copy of Win2k, and don't want XP? I should be able to return XP and install my own copy of Win2k. It isn't all about Linux.
And part of what ticks people off is that they PAY for an OS that they are being forced to purchase. Microsoft has made sure that OEMs include a MS OS in the price by charging them whether they sell you one or not. Sure, you can say "then don't buy from them" but as long as the EULA exists and it says you can return it, people should do it. Not only that, you don't even get a full copy of the OS to do with as you please. If they gave you a full version, instead of those insane recovery disks, you could at least sell it or give it away.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
You're right - the OEMs are just making money, not playing ideology.
However, as I recall, years ago, you could get an OS-less PC from Dell. This was before M$ started strongarming companies, saying "put windows on everything you sell, or NOTHING." Obviously, from then on, OEMs sold windows on everything (this much is documented in the antitrust case).
Point is, are the OEMs basically refusing to sell OS-less PC's because it's convenient, or through fear? I know Dell will for some business clients, because usually they have a win site-license (could be mistaken about the details). However, they won't do it for just anyone.
I know it's hard to custom-make computers when you sell a jillion of them, but Dell does *some* tailoring of computers - it seems like formatting the HDD's of those pre-installed computers would not be that difficult to integrate into their business model. That's why I think there's still some fear of M$ involved.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
"not legal. The EULA specifically says it's legally bound to the hardware it was bought with"
IANAL, but in the valuation of a partnership for estate or gift tax filing purposes, if a partnership agreement (a contract) has terms that are more restrictive than the default statutes where the parternship was formed, then those restrictive terms are invalid - and we're talking about real contracts that you actually have to sign here.
I wonder if a similar parallel or precedent has ever been established in the realm of copyrights...that is, has a court ever thrown out a EULA because its terms were more restrictive than standard copyright law? Any lawyers care to comment?
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
Well, OS X doesn't come with a license that says you can return it for a refund if you don't agree to the terms, does it? It's not like these people demanding refunds (some slashbots notwithstanding) just decided they should be able to pick and choose parts for no reason whatsoever -- the refund clause is in the MS end-user license agreement!
in case you haven't noticed its kinda hard to buy an x86 laptop without windows. and have fun building your own.
----
All of whose base are belong to the what-now?
Actually the MAIN difference is that you can rip out and sell the graphics card if you don't want it (considering it's not on-board of course:), while Microsoft is trying to restrict the re-selling of its packaged goods. IMO EULAs are not worth the bits they are written on. Once you purchase something, it is yours to do with as you please with a few exceptions. It doesn't really matter what MS tells you you can or you can't do. You've already paid for the damn thing. (Even if it was included) If Microsoft doesn't like that, fine. They can stop packing in their OS with computers.
If you're in the US, why not take 'em to small claims court?
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
Before you go and ship your copy of XP back to anybody for a refund, be sure the company that it to you will support your system if you have any problems. I have a laptop from one of the largest computer vendors in the world, and it came pre-installed with XP. It turned out that it had a hardware problem, it has some bad memory. I used some dianostic tools and indeed confirmed that it was a hardware problem. When I tried to call them up to get this fixed it did not go well.
Basically what it boiled down to is that they refused to provide any service under my warranty unless I ran the operating system that came with the laptop. I asked the guy, "is my warranty effectively invalid if I run Linux?". He said that, unfortunately, that was, in essence, the case.
So, just a word to the wise that if you don't install XP on your system, you may in fact be making your warranty irrelevent even for hardware specific problems.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Honestly, it's this type of attitude which gives M$ the teeth it needs to hang on to the consumer's wallet. "...it's only going to be $30." is a pretty lame excuse.
If I go to a nice restaurant and have a $20 dinner and pay with a $50, you better believe I'm going to be waiting for my $30 in change.
Additionally, it's not so much the money in refund which makes the difference but the statement being made about refusing to take monopolistic abuse.
--If you code for the exceptions, the rules fall into place
The point, however, is that the legal contract (EULA) entitles the user to a refund. End of story. It does not matter what other choices you had - if the contract says you can have a refund, then you can.
The problem (hypocrisy) is that the same Slashdot crowd who complain "You can't hold us liable to a click-through EULA - I didn't even read it" then complain when Dell doesn't want to be held to it either.
Full-Featured GPL Web Hosting Control Panel
Ever buy something sight unseen? I have - you takes your chances. I agree that when you buy a laptop from a vendor that only supports Windows, "You bought your tickets, you knew what you were getting into..."
BUT.. The real issue here is the incredible language the makes up the EULA - that's the sight unseen part. Simply getting Windows with a purchase isn't the point - it's the bullsh*t language you are forced to agree to. Or not. That's where THEIR OWN STATED REFUND POLICY comes in.
Who is agreeing to this contract? You? The OEM? Both? Since everyone knows that Microsoft will sue YOU so much as look at you, why is it wrong to hold them to their own incredible refund language? Note: it's THEIR policy we hold them to. Linux people didn't just 'make this up.'
Forget the Penguinista arguments. This isn't being unreasonable, it's called preserving your rights.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
In the case of computers, that demand is provably there, as several manufacturers do sell reasonable quantities of computers without operating systems, and the cost of doing so is low.
Whether or not the OS or the computer "do much" without the other isn't relevant. A card doesn't "do much" without fuel, yet you don't consider a car and fuel to be one product and allow the auto industry to sell cars bundled with a lifetime supply of petrol. In fact, if GM tried that, their dominant position in the US car market would mean they'd instantly get slapped with an antitrust lawsuit for violation of the tying provisions in US antitrust law if they tried a stunt like that.
Actual laws regarding tying wary quite a bit between countries, but I'd be willing to be you'd be unable to find any country where the courts wouldn't agree that a bare computer and an OS are two separate products.
Whether or not you deserve a refund, however is more complicated than that. In the Windows case, your purchase is essentially defect unless you agree to contract terms (Microsofts EULA) that you likely weren't informed about at the point of purchase). Defect in the way that you will be unable to legally use a part of the bundle that you paid for (Windows). Again, depending on where you live that may give you the right to a refund for the OS, or it might "only" give you a right of refund for the whole system, or if you're unlucky none at all.
However all of this is a digression from the point of the message you replied to. My only point was that believing that manufacturers are free to include whatever they want is naive. There are lots of regulations restricting what manufacturers may do - in particular with regards to tying of products that there is separate demand for as long as they don't offer the products unbundled as well.
The analogy would be buying a car, then returning the motor for a refund. Whether you buy another motor, or get one for free (as in beer), is not important to the analogy. A computer OS is not like a radio or leather seats
Not sure what point I'm trying to make here, just that the car analogy as has been previously used is comparing apples (no pun) with oranges.
I still don't buy the "they cannot bundle" argument, but the EULA argument is compelling. I could find a copy of the Win95 handbook that came with my old laptop. On page 1 there is the EULA. It says:
So, they promised a refund. They should comply.
Ciao
----
FB
My computer came with Red Hat. Where can I send the software for a refund?
AFAIK there is no EULA delivered along with Red Hat that says you are entitled to a refund if you do not accept the terms.
Most of the distribution is GPL'd but that grants you additional rights on top of those given by normal copyright law, so you don't have to accept it to use the system.
In short, forget it. You can't even use this to make the rhetorical point you were aiming at.
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.