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?"
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.
Sell it on E-bay to someone who wants it.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
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).
We all know that MS are trying to move towards a licensing model where you pay every 3years/1 year/1 month/every day to use the software. This is interesting when you think about software as a service.
So the software is FREE, but the service is paid for. Thus the service enables the "free" software to be used and you have paid for a period of n to use that software. This could make getting a refund harder as the service is provided by Microsoft and not the OEM, also as its paid up front from the OEM to Microsoft it blurs how refunds can be obtained. Its like car insurance, you have it, you pay for it up front, the fact that you don't have a car crash doesn't mean that you can say it wasn't used and ask for a refund.
IANAL (Thank god) but a licensing change could make refunds even harder to get hold of.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
If a manufacturer won't let me buy a computer without a MS OS pre-installed, I just don't buy the computer from them. I know this can't be avoided sometimes, but I think it's better for this community to support manufacturers that are not so intimately in bed with MS.
For laptops, I would try PCTorque.com. (I have no association with the website, other than being a satisfied repeat customer.)
And, to remain on-topic, from everything I've ever experienced or read about MS and their aggressive licensing policies/ideology, I think that it will take an outcry from corporations before MS even begins to contemplate giving refunds on unused merchandise. You've already had the opportunity to see the registration key, and that's very important to them.
I ran into an annoying problem similar, myself. I purchased a Compaq laptop last year, and they wouldn't let my buy it without an OS. So, I took the lowest priced option, XP Home, but never used it, just got the machine, installed linux and was happy. Last week, I ended up needing XP, but I didn't want to wipe my linux partition. The default recovery disks repartition AND reformat the drive rather than just being a copy of XP home + additional installers. So, since I had a valid activation key and license with the machine, I figured I could just install from a different XP home disk. No dice, apparently OEMs are given activation keys that only work for their installs. Both Compaq AND Microsoft said that if I wanted the partitioning and removal of the OEM stuff, I'd have to buy another copy. How irritating, since I HAVE a valid license. Ended up having to use the recovery disk after backing up my linux partition, and then uninstall AOL, COMPUSERVE, etc. etc. Big pain in the arse.
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.
The problem is obvious - it requires the involvement of France.
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.
I purchased a laptop from Fujitsu. Naturally it came with Windows XP, so I requested a refund. After nearly 2 weeks of back and forth emails of me requesting a refund, and pointing them to various websites about the issue, and my claims against the EULA to use windows I got nowhere.
Their argument was i agreed to THEIR EULA which states i can't get a refund, when i purchased it. Either they were ignorant or refused to give a refund under any circumstance. I would have contacted a lawyer but it just isn't worth my time.
- tristan
Except for the fact that when GM bundles a product with the car, I don't have a separate license agreement with GM's vendor. What these folks are saying is that they don't want to be bound by the license agreement, and in fact want the vendor to unbundle that component.
Using the car analogy, that seems a bit unfair. This is where the car analogy breaks down. In this instance, the component supplier demands that the user agree to either follow the terms of the agreement, or the supplier agrees to not provide that component AND THE CONSUMER IS ENTITLED TO A REFUND OF THE VALUE OF THE SUPPLIED PRODUCT!
As a result of the vendor's own terms, the consumer should get what they want.
Besides this, the manufacturer is de facto forced to pay the component supplier for licenses on the products, even if the customer doesn't want it. It's like paying protection money so that "god forbid...it would be awful if something were to happen to your business......"
It's a shakedown.
Hope this sheds some light on their perspective.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
[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...
And most vendors around here charge a 15% restocking fee for notebooks, so you can see how far you would get.
As has been suggested before, if you do not want a given item (Windows or whatever), then either look for a system that does not include it, build your own, or have someone build one to your specs. This will enable you to get exactly what you want and no more at a price you are willing to pay, and it will also provide an incentive for the manufacturers to provide systems that meet your desire so that they can get your business.
I consider the refund day concept to be little more than a minor publicity prank and of little practical value. What might make it beneficial would be for a group of users to purchase a product, refuse to accept the EULA, and then demand refunds per the instructions included in the EULA (supposedly this has happened with the people that would be participating in the refund day). Microsoft would probably point the users to the vendor, and the vendors would probably stand on their return policies. An ambitious and capable law firm might be able to make a case out of this, but the outcome would probably be along the lines of prohibiting vendors from charging restocking fees on items where the customer refuses to accept the EULA unless it was presented prior to purchase. The law firm wouyld also rack up fees to be paid by someone, probably the vendors. This would not amount to a significant change.
If you REALLY want to make a change in the marketplace, don't give your money to companies that you do not agree with or whose policies you dislike. If enough people do this it will force changes in the market. And if not enough people do this to make a difference, then you need to accept that you hold a minority viewpoint and are a niche customer.
IANAL, and you should pay for legal advice rather than believe anything you read here.
Bother, said Pooh, as he called in an air strike.
My friend ended up buying a Gateway PC and I told him to go back to "Gateway Country" to get his refund because he wanted to install Windows 2000 Pro-Not ME. The schmuck's at the GW store were clueless and refused to honor the EULA. A quick trip to the Washington State Attorney Generals Online Consumer Complaint Form and Corporate Gateway was calling him! They ended up (in an effort to keep a Gateway customer happy) paying him the price he paid for Winodws 2000 and the amount that I charged him to install it on his machine. The check he received from GW was around $500 US! If they had simply honored the EULA, GW would only have been out about $90? $120 tops. AND he got to keep all the software CD's that came with the PC. I don't think they ever really understood that he was entitled to the refund under the EULA.
Veritas patesco per quaestio questio. Truth is revealed through questions.
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.
That's just it - he may have accepted the purchase, but he didn't accept the EULA for Windows. After he bought it, he would have got home, opened it up, and been presented with additional terms & conditions, that he never agreed to beforehand, or even saw. That same document states that if he doesn't agree to them, he can get his money back.
The obvious way of fixing this is to present the EULA before purchase.
I could not buy the vehicle without buying the radio
Bet you could. You just didn't want to wait for one to be built and shipped from the factory. Or you could've purchased a model with an improved radio.
Likewise, my townhome came with really terrible, contractor grade windows
Did you buy the townhome from the builder? If so then you could've opted to pay for a window upgrade. If you bought it from a previous owner, well, duh.
Oh, you didn't want windows at all? Sorry, that's not up to code and would be illegal.
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 $100 for each copy of Mac OS I don't use?
You just said you're using them. Make up your mind.
Face it, bundling is prevalent every where you look
Yes, but when you get charged for the bundled item even when you don't receive it then it's illegal. Particularly when a judge says "that's not a legal contract".
Frankly, a better comparison is being charged for lettuce, tomato, and pickles on a hamburger when you ask for them not to be put on. It's a customary practice in the US. The only difference I can think of is that the tomato, et. al. don't compromise 10-20% of the overall cost.
err... how *did* the first refund day turn out?
You're right - the OEMs are just making money, not playing ideology.
However, as I recall, years ago, you could get an OS-less PC from Dell. This was before M$ 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
Actualy a wrong name.
It whould have been a wanaBeOs..
Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!
This isn't going to go very far in court... It's going to go something like this:
Judge: "So Mr. Linux user, you bought a laptop that you knew comes with WindowsXP even through you didn't want it?"
Linux guy: "Yes"
Judge: "Can you buy a laptop that doesn't come with Windows? In fact, can't you buy a laptop that has Linux preinstalled?"
Linux guy: "Yes"
Judge: "So despite having a choice, and not being forced to pick the Windows laptop, you bought it anyway and think you're entitled to a refund?"
Linux guy "YESS!!!"
Judge: "Bailiff, please escort these Birkenstock-wearing geeks out of my courtroom"
In general tying laws restrict when a manufacturer may tie in two products without offering the individual products for sale separately as well.
However, as long as we look at "a computer" as the product, a manufacturer may get away with tying without providing a bare box as an option in many countries by pointing to the fact that a consumer has many alternate sources of bare hardware.
On the other hand, though, a manufacturers offering a hardware platform with unique capabilities would have bigger problems doing this, as a consumer could claim that the manufacturer was utilizing it's monopoly in the manufacture of that specific hardware to pressure him/her to buy a product they don't want or need.
Various countries have wildly different laws here, but assuming that manufactureres are automatically free to decide what their system is made up of is wrong almost everywhere.
(ObDisclaimer: IANAL)
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
Now, since what you bought was actually a copyrighted item, not a licensed item (after all, were you presented with a licensing agreement at the time of sale? Didn't think so. And those EULAs don't count - they're an attempt to impose a license after after the sale) you can do whatever you want with it, except make copies in violation of the copyright.
Buy the machine with XP, install linux, and sell your copy of XP to whomever you want. They're free to register it, or not.
If you don't believe me, google the quebec consumer protection act,
You should realize though that most of these companies purchase the hardware from companies like Sager (Linux forum) and Compal, and those companies also supply the big-name guys like Compaq, HP, Dell, and Toshiba. So when you find some no-name laptop, it is usually equivalent to some branded laptop that never touched the hands of HP/Compaq/Toshiba/Dell. (And figuring out exactly *which* brand-name laptop it is equivalent to can be extremely difficult) Some of the below claim to manufacture their own notebooks, but what this means is that they buy them from Saeger/Compal or someone else, and put in a hard drive/CPU/RAM, which is why you will find identical looking cases at several of these vendors.
If you find a HP/Compaq/Toshiba/Dell/IBM/Sony branded laptop that has linux preinstalled, it means that the vendor paid for windows and removed it. I do not list them below because I think this is a despicable and deceptive practice. These manufacturers do not (yet) sell no-os or linux laptops. (But please, call them and ask!! The squeaky wheel gets the grease!) Also if you order a no-OS laptop, please request linux to be installed anyway, and tell them you'll pay for it! Let them know there is demand!
-- Bob
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
The whole "Windows Refund Day" is not about bundling. Yes, Microsoft, or any other vendor/manufacturer is perfectly free to bundle their software on your spiffy new PC, just like VW is free to bundle crappy stereos with their cars.
Where the important difference comes in is a quasi-legal contract called the End User License Agreement which you must agree to be bound by if you wish to use the software. 99% of the population don't read them and simply accept them. I suggest you take an afternoon some time and comb through one. The highlights of a typical EULA are this:
Frankly, I doubt your VW Golf, or your townhome came with such an agreement. (Your Mac is a different story, since EULAs are a standard practice in the software industry...although I am not familiar with Apple's EULAs, I suspect they have a similar clause.
The whole idea behind the Windows refund day is to illustrate that not even the software manufacturers pay any heed to their own EULAs. It's not about Microsoft-bashing, they just happen to be a very convenient target for too many reasons to list here...
I just want to take over the world...Why does that automatically make me EVIL?
Going to small claims court REALLY isn't that big of a deal, you don't need a lawyer, there's no jury, just you, the company you are suing, and the judge. It costs something to file a claim, no matter where you live, but really not very much, and you can usually get the claim fee back if you win.
Just take your receipt and your laptop with no windows on it to the court, along with the EULA. You've got a good chance of winning, and merely filing the lawsuit will probably prompt the company to settle out of court. Make sure they pay your filing fee, of course.
If you have to miss a day of work to go to court, in some places you can sue for that too (assuming it's an issue where you work).
To reiterate: small claims is really no big deal, and the company probably won't let it get to that point anyway. Too bad you have to sue the vendor, and don't get to drag M$ into small claims court. That would be too cool.
WWJD? JWRTFA!