Slashdot Mirror


Slow And Steady Leads To Windows Refund Success

linuxwrangler writes "By proceeding carefully, documenting everything, being persistent and keeping his cool, Steve Oualline was awarded a $199 refund for his unused copy of Microsoft Windows XP. See his Linux Journal howto for the details. Hopefully this is the first of many victories."

774 comments

  1. Linux Documentation Project? by calebb · · Score: 5, Funny

    I noticed that the title of the story is HOWTO: Getting a Windows Refund in California Small Claims Court

    Is this going to make it into the official HOWTO archive?

    1. Re:Linux Documentation Project? by Znonymous+Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      What about the GNAA?

      --

      Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.

    2. Re:Linux Documentation Project? by Znonymous+Coward · · Score: 0

      Best burn, ever!

      --

      Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.

    3. Re:Linux Documentation Project? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or, "Getting a Windows Refund in California Small Claims Court for Dummies."

    4. Re:Linux Documentation Project? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't get it, those are things the devil would encourage.

    5. Re:Linux Documentation Project? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Is this going to make it into the official HOWTO archive?

      I don't know. Is it in DocBook or LinuxDoc format? Or, is it in DebianDoc format? I'm not sure which SGML template The Linux Documentation Project wants to accept today, so you can always try again later. Thank you.

    6. Re:Linux Documentation Project? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As I started to read the posts on this "get a refund, I use Linux" story, I couldn't help but notice the Windows Server advertisement. Too bad I'm on Debian 2.2, and don't have MozillaFirebird (browser) installed, with the "Nuke Image" extension.

    7. Re:Linux Documentation Project? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never used my used 98 and windows 2000 license
      do I get my money back.

  2. Interesting ... by Arthaed · · Score: 5, Funny

    For those of you with ADD, let me sum the article up with the following chosen quote.

    "Me: I installed Linux.

    Judge: Judgment for the plaintiff."

    It isn't everyday you get to see those two statements so close together! Very interesting (and long) article that details a process that personally, I wouldn't want to go through.

    I don't think the process is the point of the article, however. ;)

    --
    Unique signatures are rare.
    1. Re:Interesting ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but on the flip side, if SCO gets its way, those two statements would mean the poor Linux user owes SCO a bunch of money...

    2. Re:Interesting ... by fobbman · · Score: 5, Funny

      What did the judge say after the guy said that he installed Linux? I tried reading your entire post, but...oh look! A shiny!

    3. Re:Interesting ... by diersing · · Score: 2, Funny
      The author also stressed (repeatedly) to be reasonable during the process. Are there a large number of refund seekers out there acting like raging monkeys?

      As both a consumer and an employee of a large corporation, somehow I act reasonable without constantly being told to do so.

    4. Re:Interesting ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      As both a consumer and an employee of a large corporation, somehow I act reasonable without constantly being told to do so.

      And look where it's got you, a consumer and an employee of a large corporation. Wow.

    5. Re:Interesting ... by elmegil · · Score: 1

      If you had read many of the anti-microsoft articles in the Linux world, you'd understand.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    6. Re:Interesting ... by CSIP · · Score: 2, Funny

      so then if SCO get's its way, microsoft could just pay SCO directly,

      oh wait.....

      --
      "Nyquil - The stuffy, sneezy, why-the-hell-is-the-room-spinning medicine."
    7. Re:Interesting ... by diersing · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Seriously, Fight Club theology aside, what is wrong with being a consumer and an employee?

      Should I be leading a revolution somewhere, and if we were all off leading revolutions who would we be revolting against? My linux development contributions just don't seem to provide for my family, silly bastards demand food and housing on a regular basis.

    8. Re:Interesting ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And look where it got you. Ragging on people's jobwhile you sit your pasty white ass on your easy chair munching nachos while the rest of us work hard so we don't have to sleep under a bridge.

      Go hug a tree you lazy, unhygenic hippy.

    9. Re:Interesting ... by Gzip+Christ · · Score: 5, Funny
      Are there a large number of refund seekers out there acting like raging monkeys?
      Yes. Just the other day I tried to get a refund from MicroCenter by flinging dung at the cashier. It didn't work so well, so I'm thinking of giving this "acting reasonable" idea a try.

    10. Re:Interesting ... by SkankhodBeeblebrox · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well you can pay Microsoft today for windows, or you can wait and pay SCO tomorrow for Linux ;)

    11. Re:Interesting ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The judge asked which distribution he was running and if he liked KDE or Gnome better.

    12. Re:Interesting ... by nomadic · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Me: I installed Linux. Judge: Judgment for the plaintiff." It isn't everyday you get to see those two statements so close together! Very interesting (and long) article that details a process that personally, I wouldn't want to go through.

      Yep, that's the second least common response to "I installed Linux". The first least common response is "I find Linux such a turn-on in a man! Are you busy Saturday night, sexy?"

    13. Re:Interesting ... by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Might be worth it for a small business or educational institution.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    14. Re:Interesting ... by Slack3r78 · · Score: 5, Funny

      As someone with an actual diagnosis of ADHD, I take offense to the idea that all ADD people are easily distracted by shin.... ooooh, look! A new slashdot article!

    15. Re:Interesting ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nachos? What are you, Beavis? It's Twinkies all the way, man!

    16. Re:Interesting ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1009 Liberals on my Foes list!

    17. Re:Interesting ... by MuParadigm · · Score: 1


      Most large companies have compliance departments to handle legal issues with customers before it gets to the legal department.

      He might have been able to get the refund before going to small claims court by asking to speak to someone in compliance. Especially, if he had told them small claims court would be his next step if they couldn't resolve the issue. They would have preferred to refund just the software w/o the court costs and would have realized he wasn't joking.

    18. Re:Interesting ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then pointed out that he should have said Gee Enn Yuu suh-lash Lin-ucks

    19. Re:Interesting ... by Rimbo · · Score: 1

      "And look where it's got you, a consumer and an employee of a large corporation. Wow."

      Sounds like a good plan to me.

    20. Re:Interesting ... by gnovos · · Score: 2, Funny

      Are there a large number of refund seekers out there acting like raging monkeys?

      Yes. Just the other day I tried to get a refund from MicroCenter by flinging dung at the cashier. It didn't work so well, so I'm thinking of giving this "acting reasonable" idea a try.


      You just didn't hurl ENOUGH feces.

      --
      "Your superior intellect is no match for our puny weapons!"
    21. Re:Interesting ... by FxChiP · · Score: 1

      Wow, you too? :D

    22. Re:Interesting ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1120 people who think there's a significant differance between Democrats and Republicans on my mucking foron list.

    23. Re:Interesting ... by clbyjack81 · · Score: 1

      If you had read the article you would have realized that the company did offer a $199 refund, with a complimentary gag order included. In other words, he would get his money back but couldn't tell anyone. He decided that since he wanted the story to get out he would sue and get his money that way, with no restrictions afterwards.

      --
      Cole's Axiom: The sum of the intelligence on the planet is a constant. The population is growing.
    24. Re:Interesting ... by Moloch666 · · Score: 1

      You guys are halirous... I'm in the process of being diagnosed. It's so had to pay atten...

      --
      Understanding is a three-edged sword. -- Kosh Naranek
    25. Re:Interesting ... by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      Just the other day I tried to get a refund from MicroCenter by flinging dung at the cashier. It didn't work so well

      I'll bet they offered to sell you an extended warranty on the dung, though.

    26. Re:Interesting ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, I'll put you on my ultra-left wing pinko progressive commie whacko list. That's what all people are who say that there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans.

    27. Re:Interesting ... by Woko · · Score: 1

      I guess smoking all that crack really does leave you paranoid, broke and with zero sense of humour.

      Way to go mods..

      --
      ---
      Silence is consent.
    28. Re:Interesting ... by binarytoaster · · Score: 1

      I've been diagnosed, and frankly I'm appalled at all the discrimination!

      At one point, I tried to organize a march, but for some reason everyone lost interest...

    29. Re:Interesting ... by Jonner · · Score: 1

      I think Slashdot causes ADD. Or, maybe it's just the instant gratification of the web in general. I'm not going to stoop to the redundancy of losing my train of thought like every other post here, but I do think I'm less patient that I used to be.

    30. Re:Interesting ... by makapuf · · Score: 1

      Reall ADD disorder :
      Oooh : look ! a Dragon !

    31. Re:Interesting ... by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Are there a large number of refund seekers out there acting like raging monkeys?

      It's very easy to get emotional in court when confronted with an opponent who blatantly lies and misrepresents your case; especially after you've spent months arguing with them prior to the court date.

      I took my former boss to the Labour Tribunal (similar setup to Small Claims, no lawyers) when my pay was a few months in arrears, and brought my wife along for the express purpose of slapping me down if I started to foam at the mouth. It's a good idea if you can get someone along for support and help in keeping perspective.

    32. Re:Interesting ... by joshts0 · · Score: 1

      I find it kinda funny that while reading the post above mine, I read halfway through the first line and instictively went to a different webpage..

      --
      -- Josh
    33. Re:Interesting ... by MrPoopyPants · · Score: 1

      Really, though, how many career (or hobby) related accomplishments (besides huge sums of money) attract the attention of the opposite sex?

      Examples:

      I just saved the company millions of dollars by exploiting tax loopholes!

      I have formulated a variable speed of light theory that will knock the physics world on its ear!

      I baked 30 dozen donuts today!

      (ps - I know you were joking.)

    34. Re:Interesting ... by MuParadigm · · Score: 1

      Well, actually, I did read it, and that offer didn't come until after he had filed in small claims court. My point was that he *might* have been able to avoid court if he had asked to speak to someone in compliance in the first place. And that the compliance department *might* not have asked for a gag order, since there was no court claim yet and thus very little to gag.

    35. Re:Interesting ... by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

      At least you can trace it to the web specifically. It's been impossible for me to focus on anyone task for more than a few minutes since elementary school. (I was diagnosed in 2nd grade I think, though my parents refused to medicate me until middle school, and that was only sporradic to keep me from failing school). My brain just moves too much towards tackling many small problems quickly to focus on solving one on large one for an extended period of time.

    36. Re:Interesting ... by Jonner · · Score: 1

      Well, I was being semi-facetious. I don't know what an official definition of ADD or ADHD might be, and I'm quite sure I don't have either. I was merely referring to a general lack of patience that results from constant instant gratification. I know that some people have a more serious problem, which can be diagnosed as one of the disorders and I certainly don't mean to dismiss their seriousness.

    37. Re:Interesting ... by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I agree with you on that too. It's just that the instant gratification nature of the web happens to work well with the way I work. Not being argumentative at all, I was just exchanging ideas, that being the point of all this instant gratification in my mind and all. :)

    38. Re:Interesting ... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      How about owning your own modest corporation?

    39. Re:Interesting ... by 6600fud · · Score: 1

      I would hope that most slashdot readers aspire to more. Working at a job until age 65 puts you in poverty, at the mercy of public assistance in the US; see Social Security Facts & Figures. Have courage to rise above the average?!

  3. You mean I could have gotten a refund by Trigun · · Score: 5, Funny

    If I didn't pirate my software?

    Oh well.

    1. Re:You mean I could have gotten a refund by mr_luc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is miles better than outright piracy in terms of hurting Microsoft. :)

      Granted, few people are going to go to the trouble to do this. But even if you don't plan to install Linux, and you have to use Windows on that shiny new box, you might consider getting the refund anyway (zinging the OEM for a good $435 with court/filing costs), and then installing a pirated copy of Windows.

      Even if you accepted the company's offer of $299 after the filing (which the guy in the article declined to do; he went for $299 plus court costs of $135), you would be up approximately one hundred and sixty-five dollars. You would have increased the OEM's cost on that Windows-loaded system by $300, and you would have made that system a good $165 cheaper for yourself.

      And if you remain a scurvy pirate, you can do all of that without even losing the 'convenience' of Windows.

      If you're cheap, think of it as a rebate.
      If you hate MS, think of it as eroding their greatest benefit -- their OEM share.
      If you hate a major OEM, think of it as, well, hurting them, since they're obviously the most direct victims.

      If you hate complexity, however, you might just avoid the whole mess, and have a nice spot of tea.

  4. Is it worth it? by Magic+Thread · · Score: 0, Troll

    That sounds like a lot of work for $199. Are we that desperate for money?

    If this is intended as a protest of some sort, I can't see what effect it will have. I know few people who run Linux/BSD and don't also dual-boot Windows occasionally, and fewer who will proceed carefully, document everything, be persistent and keep their cool just to accomplish something as seemingly insignificant as getting a $199 refund.

    1. Re:Is it worth it? by BigDish · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It _IS_ meaningful though. I'm going to assume the copy the plantiff had was an OEM copy, so Microsoft didn't even make $200 off it-closer to $20 prob to begin with. By the time all of Microsoft's costs were added up, I'm sure it was at least $2000. In other words, if one out of every 100 people that have Windows forced upon them do this, Microsoft breaks even. If enough people do this, it will stop us from have Windows forced upon us by computer OEM's.

    2. Re:Is it worth it? by KingArthur10 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm guessing it takes at LEAST 20 hours of your life over the course of the refund being on the phone and documenting everything and such. So, let's say that you DO go for the refund. THat is $200 divided by 20 hours. So, we are making about $10 an hour for this process. Factory workers make more than that.

      --
      I came, I saw, She conquered.
    3. Re:Is it worth it? by Ed+Avis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Oh come on - you don't do it directly to cost Microsoft money, but to encourage OEMs and Microsoft to let PCs be available for purchase without the Microsoft tax. It's a matter of principle surely - if you don't want Windows, why pay for it?

      Anyone who does an analysis of monetary value (or cost) against time spent will not be reading Slashdot anyway...

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    4. Re:Is it worth it? by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      I dont know... being paid 10$ an hour for entertainment is pretty nice ;-)

      --
    5. Re:Is it worth it? by Dingleberry · · Score: 2

      The majority of work and time will be spent by those who are walking this new ground for the first time.
      I think the idea is that a precendence will be set. If certain steps are taken a refund will be issued. The fact that it was brought to court (was mentioned in a previous comment, I haven't read the story yet) and the plaintiff won will help those who follow.

    6. Re:Is it worth it? by Trigun · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Even if the PC's aren't cheaper without the Microsoft CD, I would still get it without an OS, or want to be able to sell my copy legally, for the price I choose.
      I mean it's no good to me, so why not make some money off of it?

    7. Re:Is it worth it? by StringBlade · · Score: 4, Informative
      It may help, but only if you are intelligent enough to go to court with both:
      1. All the documents he had
      2. A citation to his case as added support for your complaint
      Citing his case alone won't help you -- you have to prove that your case is the same as his and then the citation of his award will make it easier for the judge to rule in your favor (because he's not breaking any new ground). Although, I'm not sure this judge was really thinking that he was breaking new ground when he awarded Steve the judgement.

      And of course....IANAL, but I work for Westlaw.com :-)

      --
      ...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
    8. Re:Is it worth it? by haystor · · Score: 2, Funny

      And if three people do it...

      Can you imagine if three people do it?

      And if three people do it they'll think you're a part of movement...

      --
      t
    9. Re:Is it worth it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I think the idea is that a precendence will be set. If certain steps are taken a refund will be issued. The fact that it was brought to court (was mentioned in a previous comment, I haven't read the story yet) and the plaintiff won will help those who follow.

      It would help A LOT if the howto author would include more details - what was the case number in smallclaims, what was the manufacturer, etc? Details like this make for a better precedent, they're easier to research and prove accurate than the vague details in the current howto.

    10. Re:Is it worth it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the factory workers that moved to Mexico?

    11. Re:Is it worth it? by cybermace5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And the absence of the "Microsoft Tax" will equate to a whopping $10 in savings. It makes absolutely no difference at all to the cost of your system. You aren't going to see OS-less laptop prices drop $199.

      They can throw XP on there, I don't care. I might or might not use it. A massive assault on OEM-included OSes ultimately has no price impact, and it becomes obvious what it really is: a geek jihad.

      I am all about new and varied technology. I enjoy using different types of software and hardware. Linux is an excellent platform for everything from hardware tinkering to large-scale database work. But I don't approve of trying to stomp out the other guys. Microsoft is big, and has been stomping out other guys forever, I know. But Linux was supposed to built on higher ideals and such. The truth comes out: once we got a little more powerful, we're out there stomping for all we're worth.

      Sad.

      --
      ...
    12. Re:Is it worth it? by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      I don't see how wanting to buy a laptop without paying for a bundled OS is 'stomping'. You should have the choice of whether to pay for Windows, or not pay for it - and the same for any other OS. Surely that's not unreasonable?

      FWIW I disagree about 'ultimately no price impact' - the cost of Windows as a proportion of total system cost has risen a great deal over the past few years and is still rising (although I do not know what kind of sweetheart deals the major OEMs are able to get with Microsoft). The PC market is not so uncompetitive that a supplier would be able to keep all of the cost savings to itself and pass none on to customers.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    13. Re:Is it worth it? by Divide+By+Zero · · Score: 1

      By the time all of Microsoft's costs were added up, I'm sure it was at least $2000.

      Dodgy financial arithmetic aside...

      I don't understand how this is costing MS a cent. The EULA specifies that the user is to contact the computer manufacturer for a refund. That means Dell, Gateway, or Mom And Dad's Olde Tyme PC Shoppe gets the screw. They're out $200, plus court costs, plus the time of all the CSRs and lawyers and whomever else they paid to answer the refund claim.

      This is not to say that these entities don't deserve it - you buy at wholesale, you know what you're getting yourself into. But don't make this into a crusade to drain the coffers of Bill The Gates $199 at a time, unless MS is agreeing to buy copies sold at wholesale back at retail. I find this to be unlikely at best.

      IANA(Accountant), so if anybody wants to shed some light on this one, I'd appreciate it.

      --
      Dare to Hope. Prepare to be Disappointed.
    14. Re:Is it worth it? by Jason+Earl · · Score: 1

      Actually, much of the process could be boiled down to a set of form letters. There's no need to actually get on the phone and argue with the customer service personnel. Send them a letter via certified mail demanding your refund. Depending on how the company responds you send them a second certified letter that stating that you are taking your claim to small claims court.

      In court you simply show up with the evidence outlined in the article (I would include a copy of the EULA taken with a digital camera or something personally) and calmly make your case. Microsoft's EULA makes it very clear that the vendor is on the hook for a refund if the end user doesn't agree to the terms of the agreement.

      If the whole process only took 3 or 4 hours (mostly spent in small claims court) then the economics shift quite a bit.

    15. Re:Is it worth it? by BigDish · · Score: 1

      But if BCM (Big Computer Manufacturer) inc. gets grief from enough users, they will think twice about signing a contract that says they will ship windows on all their PC's, and instead make it an option, much like Dell does with the floppy drive.

    16. Re:Is it worth it? by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      It's about 4 hours total, so we're talking $50/hr,. And remember, this is tax-free, AND fun.

    17. Re:Is it worth it? by ottothecow · · Score: 1

      well...if you are a highschool student you prolly have plenty of time. Works same way for taking a spammer to small claims court as mentioned in a previous /. post

      --
      Bottles.
    18. Re:Is it worth it? by cybermace5 · · Score: 1

      What I'm trying to say is, ultimately the point of this excercise is to penalize computer vendors for shipping discounted Microsoft operating systems. It will not save anyone significant amounts of money.

      In fact, if computer vendors eventually are forced not to include OEM software, then people may have to buy their OS directly from Microsoft at the full retail value. Who benefits?

      Not Linux, they're "the guys who made me have to pay $200 for an OS Grandma knows how to use."

      --
      ...
    19. Re:Is it worth it? by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      The ultimate point of the exercise is to get computers to be available without paying for Windows, if you don't want Windows. That will save significant amounts of money.

      I don't think that asking a vendor to abide by the contract that came with the computer is 'penalizing'.

      Nobody is saying that vendors should be forced not to include OEM software. Only that you should be able to get (and pay for) Windows if you want it, and do without it if you prefer to use another operating system. Of course if you do want Windows it would probably be preinstalled on the machine, as now.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    20. Re:Is it worth it? by Pathetic+Coward · · Score: 1

      That's more than what US developers make these days.

    21. Re:Is it worth it? by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      When you buy a PC, you buy a Mobo, Memory, HDD, Screen, case, Windows and all.

      That's a commercial choice whether or not they decide to make some of these items optional or not, nothing else.

      If enough people decide to get this refund, they'll eventually offer Windows as an option. Though Windows will be more expensice than $10 after this shift...

      Oh well, that'll just tell these people not to buy it...

    22. Re:Is it worth it? by jbottero · · Score: 1

      2. A citation to his case as added support for your complaint

      But remember what the author said about acting like a lawyer... The judge is likly to not care, what's important is the evidence you bring that is directly linked to YOUR case. It's small claims court, remember...

    23. Re:Is it worth it? by RoLi · · Score: 1
      So you think that Microsoft is giving OEM-refunds just out of the love for the customer?

      The only effects a no longer forced Windows bundling would be:

      • Microsoft would have to disclose the price they charge OEMs (Oh my god!)
      • Microsoft would have to lower retail prices
    24. Re:Is it worth it? by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      And if three people do it they'll think you're a part of movement...

      Yeah, but /. is the Group W Bench, really.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    25. Re:Is it worth it? by trashme · · Score: 1

      Except... It's not Microsoft that he took to court. It's the computer manufacturer. The only way to hurt Microsoft in this way is to hurt the manufacturers enough that they restructure their license with MS and begin to offer computers with no OS installed.

    26. Re:Is it worth it? by Sebby · · Score: 1
      and don't forget:

      MS would likely have to relax its licencing terms (like the ones given to the judge as an example) if they want to keep selling their sw.

      Sure, just this one isn't much, but get enough people doing it and it'll start making a difference (though others here seem to believe otherwise)

      --

      AC comments get piped to /dev/null
    27. Re:Is it worth it? by Sebby · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Perhaps penalizing the OEM is 'unfair' but it's pretty much the only way to get things changed (ie MS's practices).

      Just like boycotting the RIAA; not buying records only gives fuel to the RIAA's arguments ("See? People aren't buying because they're pirating it").

      If you buy, then return the DRM records, the distributers have to bear the costs (that's the 'unfair' part), they'll get pissed off and demand changes.

      I don't think MS (or the RIAA) want their main means of distribution to get pissed off at them.

      So I see this as the only way to go.

      Of course, to each his own.

      --

      AC comments get piped to /dev/null
    28. Re:Is it worth it? by cybermace5 · · Score: 1

      And again, the point that it will NOT, in fact, save you significant amounts of money, if any.

      Also, getting Windows basically for free equates, in my mind, with the freedom to use or not use it.

      --
      ...
    29. Re:Is it worth it? by Znork · · Score: 1

      You are, of course, wrong. The absence of the "Microsoft Tax" will equate to $199 in savings.

      I challenge you to prove me wrong. If you can show me a signed contract by an OEM and Microsoft that the price of the bundled Windows is $10, you win. If you cant, you are just making up number off the top of your head and you lose. Like any OEM would in a court case.

    30. Re:Is it worth it? by t · · Score: 1

      I was just thinking that you could make a website that would auto-generate your form letter for you. You could just either hit the button that has the generic response from the company, or have a field to enter their response. The website would then produce a pdf/ps file for you to print out and tell you what to do at each step. If enough people do this we could optimize the whole process, the small claims judges would also get used to seeing the same exact case come up, making subsequent cases much easier.

    31. Re:Is it worth it? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      But you'd easily save more than $200 building the computer yourself, and it would probably work better and be more suited to your needs.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    32. Re:Is it worth it? by Bucky+Katt · · Score: 1
      By the time all of Microsoft's costs were added up, I'm sure it was at least $2000.
      He sued the OEM, not Microsoft. How did they incur any costs? In fact, he never dealt with Microsoft at all. All his dealings were with the OEM.
    33. Re:Is it worth it? by nathanh · · Score: 1
      And the absence of the "Microsoft Tax" will equate to a whopping $10 in savings.

      $10 is $10. I'm glad you can throw money away but many (most?) people think that's pretty stupid.

      They can throw XP on there, I don't care. I might or might not use it.

      "They can throw Autocad on there. I don't care. I might or might not use it. It's only $10000 extra on the price. Hey, Autodesk has to make money too, right?"

    34. Re:Is it worth it? by cybermace5 · · Score: 1

      It's hypocritical. If Microsoft used pressure tactics and legal action to penalize people who don't use their software, then we'd be all over them (sounds familiar). Can't criticise someone's actions and then do the very same thing.

      --
      ...
    35. Re:Is it worth it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? The fuck you talking about "hypocritical"??

      MS's license says you can get a refund. The vendor sells you this program/license, and then won't issue a refund as stipulated in the license.

      It's the vendor that is hypocitical.

    36. Re:Is it worth it? by cybermace5 · · Score: 1

      It's hypocritical because the only result of the action is to force vendors to no longer offer OEM versions of Windows. It will not lower prices one iota, therefore it is the same type of political game that Microsoft plays.

      --
      ...
    37. Re:Is it worth it? by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      I can give you a test case. Interested? I live in Thailand, and low end computers (what we're talking about, right?) with Windows typically start at around 22,000 Baht, while those without an OS or with Linux start in the 11-13,000 Bath range. Prices have fallen for OS-less computersin the three years that I have been here. Secondly, the least expensive new computer on the market is 10,900 Baht, and has sold about 100,000 machines so far, with 1,000,000 machines expected by by the end of the year. These machines all come with Linux pre-installed.
      MS's response? Lower their price for XP Home and Office Standard to 1490 Baht for the set, from an original price of 13,500 Baht MS computers are, therefore, now available for 12,390, a drop of about 40%. Significant?
      My point? OS-less computers cost less, and MS reduces its price accordingly, saving the consumer significant money, invalidating your position.

    38. Re:Is it worth it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Modded as a Troll. Lame, but predictable.

    39. Re:Is it worth it? by misterpies · · Score: 1

      2. A citation to his case as added support for your complaint

      There are a number of reasons why this won't work. First, this is a decision of a judge on the bottom rung of the courts system, so it's got very limited precedential value.

      Second, there's a virtually 0 chance that this case will be reported anywhere, even on Westlaw (cases must be cited from reports by reputable legal publishers, or the original judgement - slashdot posts don't count).

      Third, precedents are only binding on points of law. In this case, that would be that under the license not installing the software entitles you to a refund. The amount of the refund is not binding, since this is a question of fact (how much is the software worth?) and this was not even contested in court.

      Finally, what is binding as precent is the text of the judgement itself, not the arguments leading up to it. "Judgement for the plaintiff" is not really of much use in this context - the judge hasn't explained why (OK, so it's obvious), so it's worthless as a precedent anyway.

      IANYAL (I am not yet a lawyer), but I am at law school...

      --
      The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
    40. Re:Is it worth it? by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      PC builders have a choice whether to include a particular brand of hard disk (for example). If any hard disk manufacturer tried to set up a contract where the PC builder had to pay for every PC sold, whether or not it came with the manufacturer's hard disk, they would be laughed at. This is because there is competition in the hard disk market. Competition means choice for PC builders in what to include and what not to include, and makes sure they are not subjected to lock-in contracts by a single hardware supplier (with the possible exception of Intel).

      In the case of Windows, Microsoft has the monopoly power to set up contracts where the PC maker has to make Windows non-optional. They can effectively force the PC maker to include Windows (and pay for it) on all PCs sold - with the sanction being withdrawal of OEM licences, and the PC maker being forced to pay the hugely expensive retail price. (This was an explicit threat made by Microsoft to IBM.)

      So it is a purely commercial consideration, but not necessarily one that gives the best outcome for consumers. The market is not working as well as it should. The reason is lack of competition.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    41. Re:Is it worth it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So people play hardball with MS. Good. They get some of their own medicine.

      I still don't see you point.

    42. Re:Is it worth it? by cybermace5 · · Score: 1

      You made my point. It's hypocritical to point fingers at Microsoft for using hardball tactics, and then do the same thing when you get the chance.

      --
      ...
    43. Re:Is it worth it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called 'justice'; you know, that little anti-trust suit thing they got? But I guess you had your head burried in the sand....

    44. Re:Is it worth it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and besides, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE SAID, the licence says you can get a refund!!!!!!!!!!

      But you seem to have your head up your ass too far to comprehend that.

    45. Re:Is it worth it? by cybermace5 · · Score: 1

      Except that if everyone goes for a refund, then vendors will stop including the software. Then everyone gets to pay full retail price, putting more money in Microsoft's coffers.

      You have to look at the end result. The end result is that vendors will be strongarmed out of being able to offer the operating system, because every time they give a refund they're losing 200 dollars. Thus the only purpose cannot be to get the money back you paid for Windows XP...because you did not pay for it. The end purpose is to stick it to Microsoft without regard to the damage caused to vendors. It's a jihad, completely opposite from the values the Linux community has been mouthing from day one: educate, offer choices, allow free expression without underlying schemes.

      --
      ...
    46. Re:Is it worth it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thus the only purpose cannot be to get the money back you paid for Windows XP...because you did not pay for it.

      That makes no fucking sense. What, you think vendors *give* you Windows? That's bullshit. Part of the price of a system is Windows (look at Win system vs bare system prices), just like part of it is for warranty.

      If you "didn't pay for it", then vendors would be selling systems at a loss. You do know that very simple equation: $8 profit - $10 "give away Windows" = bankruptcy, right?

      Because it's bundled as part of a system, and the systems is sold at a specific price does not mean you 'get it for free'.

    47. Re:Is it worth it? by cybermace5 · · Score: 1

      Vendors pay very little for Windows. You do understand I'm talking about major vendors here, not little mom and pop stores. In my book, $10 equates to free. And the bare systems not only don't include Windows, they don't include the typical bundled software and the time to install the software.

      And is bankruptcy the goal here? If you rag on vendors to pay up $200 plus court costs, that's bankruptcy 20 times faster. And in the end it does not help you or anyone else. Except you've satisfied your urge to stick it to Bill Gates, even though he's getting richer because more people have to buy the retail version....

      --
      ...
    48. Re:Is it worth it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NTR
      (Score:-1, Beating a dead horse)

    49. Re:Is it worth it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      again, makes no fucking sense.

    50. Re:Is it worth it? by Sebby · · Score: 1
      How can it be hypocritical to exercise your right to a refund when the license says you can?

      If MS or vendors don't want their customers to do this, then perhaps they should change the terms of the license. Whatever arrangements/pricing/agreements between MS and the OEMs/vendors is irrelevant here. What's relevant is what the license says you can and cannot do.

      You can't say to someone they can do something, but then deny them the very same thing when that's what they choose to do. If anything, it's MS/OEMs that are the hypocrites here.

      --

      AC comments get piped to /dev/null
    51. Re:Is it worth it? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Even then they don't win... not many vendors turn around and sell products to consumers at cost. There is a little thing called markup and you can bet it's factored in as well. Just because they bought it at $10 doesn't mean that's what they are factoring it at in the price of the pc.

    52. Re:Is it worth it? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Give me a break, Windows "may" be easier to install, but it's certainly not any easier to use. I've yet to meet a grandma who would try to tackle a task as complex as installing a mouse without calling the grandkids or a tech.

      Your paying the $200 now, just because microsoft gives THEM deals doesn't mean they are giving YOU deals. The difference is that now it's in your face and personal.

    53. Re:Is it worth it? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      except this is a response to those tatics, beating them at their own game. This isn't attack, it's defense.

    54. Re:Is it worth it? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      It's the vendor who accepted the agreement and didn't use their weight to push different terms (the agreements aren't cookie cutter at this level, hell a local school that has about 500 pcs has a handcrafted agreement with microsoft).

      It's the vendor who decided not to offer all their models without the operating system and allow people who don't want the crap not to pay for it. And if those who want to use windows actually have to be aware they are paying for it (because believe me, they sure aren't being sold the OS at the price the OEM gets it for!), then that isn't a bad thing at all. Explain to me why exactly I should pay $200 for something I never intend to use so that you will $5 off your next copy of windows?

    55. Re:Is it worth it? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Actually no, alot of factory workers don't.

    56. Re:Is it worth it? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Then you know a small claims court case sets no precedent.

    57. Re:Is it worth it? by shaitand · · Score: 1

      With his name, the date, and county in question the text of the judgement should be requestable from the court shouldn't it? You wouldn't have to pray, just pay a $20 fee. Unless he's a minor (which I seriously doubt) then this should be open and covered under freedom of information.

  5. How is this a win? by Voltas · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That someon jumped through all the hoops that Microsoft put up to keep they're strong hold?

    Sounds more like proof that they're plan works.

    --
    -- Disclaimer: I can't really back up anything I post on /. --
    1. Re:How is this a win? by niko9 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That someon jumped through all the hoops that Microsoft put up to keep they're strong hold?

      If enoungh people jump thru these hoops, the hoops collapse like a set of dominoes.

      United we stand, divided we....yada yada yada...

      You get the point.

    2. Re:How is this a win? by bear_phillips · · Score: 1

      If you have enough people to do the work that he did, then companies will make it easier to get a refund. Sending a lawyer to fight a court case you know you are going to lose isn't cheap. Companies would find it cheaper to just give the refund rather than fight.

      That would in turn make it easier for people to choose Linux/BSD/etc because they would basically get a $199 discount on their PC purchase.

      Granted this would only work if enough people actually went to court first.

      --
      http://www.windmeadow.com/
    3. Re:How is this a win? by dildatron · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Just wanted to point out that you used the wrong "they're". "They're" is a contraction for "They are". The correct use would be "their" which implies ownership.

      Now, go do the right thing.

      --


      If you had nuts on your chin, would they be chin nuts?
    4. Re:How is this a win? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you forgot his mistake about "strong hold"... shouldn't that be "stronghold"?

    5. Re:How is this a win? by GreatOgre · · Score: 1

      If you're going to nitpick, then "someon" should be "someone".

    6. Re:How is this a win? by imaro · · Score: 1

      That's a pleasant thought, but its unfortunately wrong. Companies are not going to change their process (atleast not for the better), for two reasons:
      First, this process is too complex and expensive for the individual to make any significant change in comparission to the expense and benefit of the company. Second, should more people do this AND succeed, companies will just come up with harder and higher standards and procedures. As soon as companies, especially Microsoft don't want competition and have an adversity to money, the system will change. Until then, I'll be hiding in my cave.

      --

      Burninating the villagers, burninating the country side. TROGDOR!
    7. Re:How is this a win? by ashitaka · · Score: 1

      To be absolutely complete, that should be "stranglehold" and not "strong hold".

      --
      If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
    8. Re:How is this a win? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      For that matter, even had all the words in that statement been spelled correctly, "That someone jumped through all the hoops that Microsoft put up to keep their stronghold?" isn't any language that I speak. It's comprehensible, but just barely.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    9. Re:How is this a win? by FurryFeet · · Score: 1

      United we stand, divided we....yada yada yada...

      I really can't see how writing "yada yada yada..." was easier than writing "fall".
      I'm sure that's a metaphore for something. I just can't think why.

    10. Re:How is this a win? by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      Well, I guess it is supposed to be an answer to the post subject : "How is this a win?". That doesn't make the statement any better (grammatically and structurally speaking), but at least it is a little more understandable.

      I guess the right thing to do is to ignore those. Slashdot is for nerds, right? And CS nerds seems to be illiterate. I think we just have to deal with it.

    11. Re:How is this a win? by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      I really can't see how writing "yada yada yada..." was easier than writing "fall".

      'Yada yada yada' wasn't a long sub for 'fall' but for a Dennis Leary-ish recitation of every post-9/11 platitude put on a bumper sticker. Plus yet another heart-moving rendition of "God Bless America".

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    12. Re:How is this a win? by t · · Score: 1

      Obviously you didn't read the article to the very end. The other side in this case never even showed up, thus there are no extra lawyer fees.

    13. Re:How is this a win? by jrockway · · Score: 1

      My .sig says it all :)

      --
      My other car is first.
    14. Re:How is this a win? by bear_phillips · · Score: 1

      Actually I did the read the article.

      he offer was for $199, but I had to agree to a gag order and could not talk about the case. Do you think that Joe tech support came up with that idea? No, there company lawyer making $100/hour came up with that.

      This means someone needs to give the papers to the registered agent of the company being sued. The registered agent of a company is usaully a law firm. I doubt they work for free.

      So maybe in your world there were no lawyer fee, but in the real world there were.

      --
      http://www.windmeadow.com/
    15. Re:How is this a win? by t · · Score: 1
      Sending a lawyer to fight a court case you know you are going to lose isn't cheap.
      Why did you even bother? Are you trying to say that that is not what you said? It's a good thing that /. isn't one of those boards where one can go and edit their posts.
    16. Re:How is this a win? by bear_phillips · · Score: 1

      Sending a lawyer to fight a court case you know you are going to lose isn't cheap.

      Um, sending a lawyer to fight a court case you know you are going to lose STILL isn't cheap. It is also not cheap having a lawyer do negotiations over the phone like the article said. I guess I don't see your point.

      --
      http://www.windmeadow.com/
    17. Re:How is this a win? by t · · Score: 1
      In this case the company did not send a lawyer to fight the court case, in fact they sent absolutely no one. Thus the question of whether or not sending a lawyer to fight a court case is cheap or expensive is irrelevant. And the article does not say that a lawyer called to do negotiations. The company sent a form letter with the amount requested, $199, filled in and a probably very standard gag-clause. Nothing earth shattering there. Something a lawyer's assistant would probably do. The person who did call probably asked him if he would accept the offer they mailed, he said no, end of conversation.

      So the point is, you made an obvious mistake. Everyone can see it. The only mystery is why you insist on turning this into a circus with your denials and claims of not understanding what I said.

    18. Re:How is this a win? by tanner_andrews · · Score: 1
      THe registered agent of a company is [usually] a law firm.

      The registered agent is often the Florida Registered Agent Corporation, whose purpose in life is to provide an address at which and a person on whom process may be served. They'll forward the papers to counsel or as otherwise directed. Pay him the cost of postage.

      If the registered agent is an attorney, he's usually house counsel, paid a salary. The salary does not vary based on how many times he is greeted by deputies bearing papers.

      --
      Tilt at windmills. Occasionally one will fall over out of sheer surprise.
    19. Re:How is this a win? by bear_phillips · · Score: 1

      Oh you hurt me. It really got me right here. I mean I missed the part in the article that a lawyer's assisnt sent the form letter. I also missed the part about it being a form letter. I bow down to you, you are so smart. I mean you must be in at least 11th grade.

      --
      http://www.windmeadow.com/
    20. Re:How is this a win? by t · · Score: 1

      Wow that was childish.

  6. My question is this ... by jmays · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What percentage of people who intend to install Linux are going to jump through these hoops?

    1%?

    --
    KARMA TAG! You're it.
    1. Re:My question is this ... by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      OMG Shhhhhhhhhhh Dont tell SCO there are hoops to go through by not installing Windows!
      Those "Hoops" you have to jump through sound like loops, and since computers execute things in loops faster we are doomed - DOOMED i tell you!!!
      Soon every appliance that doesnt install Windows will have to pay an SCO license fee!!!

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    2. Re:My question is this ... by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      Especially timing loops!

      When I installed SCO ODT 2.0 on a Gateway 486-DX2/66, the Adaptec
      drivers blew up. It turns out the machine was "too fast" (which had me and my buddy ROFL). We had to patch out a timing loop in the Adaptec drivers.

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    3. Re:My question is this ... by debrain · · Score: 1

      What percentage of people who intend to install Linux are going to jump through these hoops?

      It's obviously not 0%, so this article may have some worth ...

    4. Re:My question is this ... by pavera · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well,
      installing Linux shows a great propensity towards jumping through hoops... so I would argue a high percentage.

    5. Re:My question is this ... by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1, Informative

      "What percentage of people who intend to install Linux are going to jump through these hoops?"

      As opposed to buying a computer without WindowsXP, and never spending the $199 in the first place?

      Oops, forgot, you can't do that. Even reputable computer shops now insist that you show them your Windows license before they'll allow you to buy an OS-less computer. Pity that such practises were outlawed with the microsoft settlement, but doesn't seem to have stopped anyone.

      As for Dell, near-enough the only corporate supplier, good luck getting anything without WindowsXP pro. Even if you can find redhat, they'll still charge you for the windows license.

    6. Re:My question is this ... by brakk · · Score: 1

      It's only going to take a few people doing this before manufacturers start offering systems with other OS options or no OS at all.

    7. Re:My question is this ... by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 1
      What percentage of people who intend to install Linux are going to jump through these hoops?

      Why bother jumping through hoops anyway? Just order your computer without an operating system or, if offered, choose Linux if that's what you intend to run. I don't understand this huge issue people are having. It's like complaining that whenever you go into the woman's locker room someone kicks you in the nads. Well, stop doing it!

      There are thousands of vendors out there that will configure a PC for your with the option of no operating system or many even install Linux for you. Just because Dell/HP/whatever doesn't do it doesn't mean you're stuck paying a Microsoft Windows "tax".

    8. Re:My question is this ... by orthogonal · · Score: 2

      Even reputable computer shops now insist that you show them your Windows license before they'll allow you to buy an OS-less computer.

      Amazing if true. Do you have a cite for this?

    9. Re:My question is this ... by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      The problem is that Microsoft is adding post-sale restrictions to the use of their product (beyond copyright), and are using this silly little clause to make it "legit". This refund is intended to show them that they can't just use it as a scapegoat and not follow through.

    10. Re:My question is this ... by alext · · Score: 1

      But not the decent laptops.

    11. Re:My question is this ... by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      poster asked:
      What percentage of people who intend to install Linux are going to jump through these hoops?
      Answer: not many, because we buy/assemble our own boxes, and those of everyone we know. The last time I saw a computer with a pre-installed OS was back in 1998, when someone I know won it in a golf tournament.
    12. Re:My question is this ... by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 1
      But not the decent laptops.

      Last time I checked the decent laptops do not come with Windows at all, they run Mac OS X. ;-)

    13. Re:My question is this ... by Shamashmuddamiq · · Score: 1

      One nice thing about this is that you can do it just once for a multitude of Windows licenses. In other words, a small company that just bought a dozen computers to use as Linux dev machines can get a $2400 refund! I'd say that's worth jumping through a few hoops.

      --
      ...just my 2 gil.
    14. Re:My question is this ... by John+Hurliman · · Score: 1

      The article refers to a notebook, which AFAIK you can't build yourself.

    15. Re:My question is this ... by Darth_Burrito · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've never seen anyone do this before either, however, the second they did, they'd lose my business, and that of everyone who comes to me. Why do people put up with behavior like that? I like having a brick and mortar shop for accountability but not that much. There are plenty of online dealers that will sell you computer barebones kits sans evidence of a windows license. It's our country. Vote with your wallets.

    16. Re:My question is this ... by wozster · · Score: 1

      As for Dell, near-enough the only corporate supplier, good luck getting anything without WindowsXP pro. Even if you can find redhat, they'll still charge you for the windows license.

      If you can live without an AGP slot you can purchase a server or workstation from all of the major oem's without the windows tax.

      The price of these machines are incredibly low these days (never thought I'd say that).

      Also check out powernotebooks.com for a notebook without an OS.

    17. Re:My question is this ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the laugh.

    18. Re:My question is this ... by Strudelkugel · · Score: 1

      Even reputable computer shops now insist that you show them your Windows license before they'll allow you to buy an OS-less computer.

      Are you serious? I've been buying OS-less PCs for 15 years. The idea that an OS-less PC can't be bought is one of the biggest myths out there.

      On another note, I'm pretty sure I know Steve Oulline. (How many can there be?) Nice guy, and certainly one to spend a lot of time to prove a point. My guess is that at his hourly rate, he took a loss getting his refund. Of course, he wasn't in it for the money.

      --
      Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
    19. Re:My question is this ... by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      One nice thing about this is that you can do it just once for a multitude of Windows licenses. In other words, a small company that just bought a dozen computers to use as Linux dev machines can get a $2400 refund! I'd say that's worth jumping through a few hoops.

      That is exactly what I was thinking. I am about to purchase 15 new computers for the company I do work for, and I have almost convinced them to switch to a new online accounting system. This would mean we would NOT need windows, just anything with a browser. We will purchase name brand systems, mainly because of the 3 year warranty. That is $3000 in savings.

      Its a shame that Dell doesn't allow you to purchase their computers without an operating system, except their servers. While Dell isn't the best performance, the boss knows the brand name, making it easier to sell the purchase to him, and my experience with Dell hardware has been pretty good. (i have a couple Dell low end servers, been great)

      If you get RedHat installed on their servers, they charge you $159 anyway. Funny thing is, they come with a kickstart disk that will auto install the exact same operating system (if you provide the same version of RH disks) for free :D Then again, I custom install all my stuff anyway.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    20. Re:My question is this ... by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's a Canadian thing, but no reputable shop has ever asked to see my Windows license before selling me a computer. Not once.

    21. Re:My question is this ... by wozster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not true.
      I don't think you understand the back-room deals going on.

      $,$$$,$$$.00

    22. Re:My question is this ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> As opposed to buying a computer without WindowsXP, and never spending the $199 in the first place?

      I had to buy a Windows computer (Celeron 1.7GHz+printer+15" monitor+Windows) for US$500.

      A Linux (pre-installed) Computer (Via 866MHz+15" monitor+Linux) would cost me about the same $500.

      I just pressed "Del" while booting for the first time, so XP Home never started. I guess I could install XP from the original CD which came in the bundle... but, alas, Im out of partitions (RH, Mdk, Knoppix, Slackware).

    23. Re:My question is this ... by angryLNX · · Score: 1

      Yes, because most Linux installs don't require users to jump through hoops.

    24. Re:My question is this ... by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      no reputable shop has ever asked to see my Windows license

      Have a few disreputable ones done so?

    25. Re:My question is this ... by QuarterDollar · · Score: 1

      Hmm...
      According to counter.li.org, there were about 20,000 new linux users between 2002-2003.

      If 1% of them buy a computer and go to court for a refund, and a quarter of them succeed for $199...

      That's just under $1,000,000.

    26. Re:My question is this ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the "1%?" was less of a 'guess' and more of a signifier for 'VERY LOW PERCENTAGE'. At least that is how I interpreted it.

    27. Re:My question is this ... by mibus · · Score: 1

      I didn't go through "hoops", I bought an iBook.

      I may have paid an "Apple tax", but at least I can see where my money is going - and I like their software.

      (I've since bought a 30GB iPod).

      Go Apple! :-)

    28. Re:My question is this ... by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      Depending on what state you live in $3000 may be (and probably is) above the limit for small claims court, which would mean you would have to get a lawyer or risk arguing actual law in court, in which case theres a damn good chance youd lose. Your company can probably afford the lawyer, but its definitely different from the example given here.

    29. Re:My question is this ... by binarytoaster · · Score: 1

      Wow, you just echoed my thought upon reading that, and I don't even run OS X (yet...)

    30. Re:My question is this ... by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Oops, forgot, you can't do that. Even reputable computer shops now insist that you show them your Windows license before they'll allow you to buy an OS-less computer


      That's certainly not the case in Britain - there's several suppliers who will sell you anything from a laptop to a loaded gaming machine with no OS. A bare machine is about 50-60 cheaper than one with XP Home, and about 80-90 cheaper than one XP Pro.

    31. Re:My question is this ... by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      poster wrote:
      The article refers to a notebook, which AFAIK you can't build yourself.
      Well, I checked the article again, then did a find for "notebook" or "laptop", neither word is in the original article.

      Besides, it's only a matter of time before we build our own laptops. We can already put together "luggables", w. 19" lcd screens, mini cases, etc.

    32. Re:My question is this ... by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      i think the limit is 1200 here. that could also mean I could take 6 license at a time. As to losing, I am not quite sure. The license DOES say you can get a refund. There really is no other way to interpret this. The only issue in court would NOT be IF I were owed the refund, but rather, how much. The license, while vague in almost every detail, is NOT vague about how you need to get a refund if you don't agree with the terms.

      Unfortunately, small claim courts do not have court reporters nor record cases with enough detail for the case the article is based upon to be considered a precident. My guess is that a 'real' case may not be that far off, and once a real case is won (assuming) then the flood gate will be open. At the very least, it will change the way computer sellers offer operating systems, which is our REAL goal anyway. Choice.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    33. Re:My question is this ... by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      Well, its a lot more complex when you get into arguing actual law. You would have to deal with the issue of rejection (as covered in the UCC in the areas dealing with after-sale contract terms) of the product, as well as the possibility that the software and the PC constitute one "commercial unit", which would make them refund-ly inseperable. There are many more issues to cover as well. Unfortunately TN is a very bad state to try this in as there is no small claims court at all, anything up to $25000 (?) is handled in General Sessions Court where lawyers can and do ruin things :(

  7. /.'ed already!!! by killthiskid · · Score: 2

    Two comments and slashdotted.

    Any mirrors or text???

    1. Re:/.'ed already!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Thanks to good records and a Small Claims judge, Steve Oualline got a $199 refund for his unused copy of Microsoft Windows XP. One Linux user's story shows how to establish a good refund case.

      Getting a Microsoft Windows refund from a manufacturer is seldom easy to do. In this article, I describe some techniques you can use to get your refund, including how to deal with the manufacturers (and all their excuses) and going to small claims court.

      The first step to getting a refund is to ask for on. In most every case, you immediately hit a wall of stupidity and evasion when you do this. Dealing with this part properly is important, though, because you are building a record for the court case that may follow. Your job is to be as reasonable as possible and to make them look as dumb, inflexible and unreasonable as possible.

      It's important to know what excuses the manufactures will come up with and how to counter them.

      Excuse: You aren't entitled to a refund.

      Answer: Then why did the software come with a license that said I was. Isn't the license a binding contract?

      Excuse: Contact Microsoft about the refund.

      Answer: The license said contact the manufacturer. That's you. Why should I contact Microsoft when they said to contact you?

      Excuse: The software comes bundled with the hardware and can't be separated.

      Answer: Then why did you give me a license that said they could?

      Excuse: We'll give you a refund, but not for the retail price.

      Answer: I paid retail for the computer and the software.

      Excuse: The software is only worth $10.

      Answer: Okay. Send me the check.

      Although this doesn't look like it, you've won a major victory with these words--that check is written evidence of the fact that the manufacturer owes you a refund. If you go to court, you don't have to establish that the company owes you something. All you have to do is establish the amount.

      But before you do that, you should follow up with the company. There are several ways of doing this.

      Follow up #1: I got your check for $10. You say Windows XP costs only $10, so I'd like to buy 100 copies please. To whom do I make out the check for $1000?

      You won't sell me Windows XP for $10? I'll have to pay $199 for it? Then that means the check you sent me is too low. Please send me a check for the full amount.

      Follow up #2: I got your check for $10. But your $10 price is far lower that the retail price of Windows XP ($199). Because of the vast difference in the amounts, I'm going to have to ask you for a copy of your purchase contract with Microsoft so I can verify the price.

      You can't verify the price. Well, I can only find one documented price and that's $199. You'll have to pay that amount or document your price.

      One company tried this excuse with me. When I asked for documentation, the customer service representative said, "I don't have access to price information".

      "Then how did you come up with the $10 price figure?"

      "I just know it's the right amount."

      "So what you are really doing is guessing. Well, my guess is the software is worth $1,000,000. Tell you what, let's split the difference. Send me a check for $500,005."

      Excuse: We'll give you a refund but that applies to only Microsoft Windows, not the other bundled software.

      Answer: No problem. Please provide me with a copy of all the other software on another disk so I can install it under Linux using the Wine program.

      In all of these cases, follow up the phone conversation with a written letter describing what was said and why you're unhappy with it. Remember you are creating a record for the judge.

      At some point in this process you'll either get your refund (rare) or you'll realize the manufacturer is going to be totally unreasonable. So now is the time to pr

    2. Re:/.'ed already!!! by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 0

      Bah, a small claims judgement is crap. Your typical shady company that ends up in small claims in the first place won't pay. Just try collecting on it.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  8. Yep. by wcbrown · · Score: 2, Funny

    If ever a story should lead to a Slashdotting, this would be the one.

    1. Re:Yep. by cesspool · · Score: 1

      im reading this thread at 60 total comments and the linked-to server/page is working flawlessly - oh and im not a subscriber

  9. I've had an idea.. by nother_nix_hacker · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...I know a warez site that has copies of Linux on it. I could download a couple and take them to PC world where I could ask for my money back....little do they know I didn't payt a thing!

    1. Re:I've had an idea.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hey man, Linux is freeware! That means you can share it on as many computers as you like, for free!

    2. Re:I've had an idea.. by Lonath · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Nuh uh. kernel.org isn't a warez site since the GPL allows people to distribute copies of the kernel.

      OTOH since these people don't seem to think that the kernel is under the GPL, and since the GPL is the only way you can legally distribute the kernel, this site really IS a Linux warez site.

  10. Windows ME by otl91 · · Score: 5, Funny

    What about a refund for Windows Me? I installed it but still couldnt use it. :)

  11. Refunds? by rsmith-mac · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For the love of Mike, most Slashdot readers here are geeks; they build their own machines, not buy machines bundled with Windows. All jokes/flames aside, just how many of you out there are actually using a machine that came with Windows, but you never used that copy?

    1. Re:Refunds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      One word: Laptops

    2. Re:Refunds? by Chewie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One word: Laptops.

      --
      49 20 68 61 76 65 20 74 6F 6F 20 6D 75 63 68 20 66 72 65 65 20 74 69 6D 65 2E
    3. Re:Refunds? by Deep+Penguin · · Score: 1

      Every Dell Laptop I've ever owned. :-(

    4. Re:Refunds? by garcia · · Score: 1

      well, I *tried* to use my legitimate copy of WindowsXP that came with my E-machine. Turns out that the machine actually comes with XP installed but doesn't come with an XP CD. This confused me...

      So I paid for a machine with XP installed yet I don't get a copy of XP? Sure, I get a copy, it's on the RESTORE CD. The XP key is on a tag on the e-machine itself.

      So, I buy this piece of software included in my machine purchase but I cannot use it unless I use it on the e-machine. Seems slightly ridiculous to me.

      So yes, I am using Linux on my e-machine now and I paid for XP but I just can't bring myself to install XP from a restore CD (just what I need, to spend 3 weeks uninstalling a ton of pre-installed bullshit).

      Fun stuff.

    5. Re:Refunds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One word: Lap Top Computers

    6. Re:Refunds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great minds think alike, I see. (Your comment was not there when I hit reply; but was there when my comment got submitted).

    7. Re:Refunds? by sys$manager · · Score: 1

      I'm running the included XP Home on my Dell Inspiron 8200 laptop. XP Home fo' life.

    8. Re:Refunds? by Dr_LHA · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For the love of Mike, most Slashdot readers here are geeks; they build their own machines, not buy machines bundled with Windows. All jokes/flames aside, just how many of you out there are actually using a machine that came with Windows, but you never used that copy?

      True I built my own desktop, but laptops are a different matter. If you want a x86 based laptop, getting a decent one without Windows is a chore, especially if you're like me and equate "a decent one" as "it has the Thinkpad logo on it".

      That said I can't really comment because I have my laptop dual boot with Win2K, so am not eligible for a refund. However my Windows usage has dropped so much now that OpenOffice is actually a viable alternative to MS, that my next laptop will most likely be a single boot machine, and I might be tempted to follow the advice here, as I'm guessing Windows will still come as standard with my next laptop.

    9. Re:Refunds? by Brightest+Light · · Score: 1

      For the love of Mike, most Slashdot readers here are geeks; they build their own machines, not buy machines bundled with Windows. All jokes/flames aside, just how many of you out there are actually using a machine that came with Windows, but you never used that copy?

      I have neither the time nor the inclination to build my own laptop, so I went out and bought one from Best Buy. It came with Windows XP pre-installed. I took the laptop out of the box, put in my Red Hat CD, booted it, wiped the drive, and installed linux. Not once did the laptop use the OS that came preinstalled. I wish i had done the same thing Steve did, that's a couple hundred dollars that would have come in handy...
    10. Re:Refunds? by kevin+lyda · · Score: 1

      not only that, but it's $199 off of any laptop. that kind of rocks.

      --
      US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
    11. Re:Refunds? by Zathrus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's more the principle of the thing.

      That said, it's an incomplete story... the author hasn't yet gotten his check. It's doubtful that the company would disobey the court order in this case -- you have that kind of problem with small claims rulings against small businesses and individuals, but large corps aren't likely to disappear overnight and wouldn't want to deal with the contempt of court ruling that would inevitably follow -- but until he receives the check it's still up in the air.

      Additionally, the philosophical point here is to screw MS. Well, this case doesn't do that. Maybe if a few thousand cases were lobbied against a single manufacturer, but right now it's the computer maker that's out the money, not MS. And while they've lost money, they haven't lost anywhere close to enough to revamp their licensing agreement. Worse yet, even if several thousand orders were served against a single computer manufacturer the end result is likely to be that that manufacturer goes belly up -- they'll be out a great deal of money upfront, decide to renegotiate their licenses with MS, and then lose competitive pricing due to the new pricing structure. This really is a case of squeezing the middle man.

      I don't see anything that's going to change this short of massive governmental oversight into MS contracts... if nothing else a court order stating their contracts have to be public (which would probably be unconstitutional) or equally draconian interference.

      No, I don't have a solution. Most complex issues don't have simple answers.

    12. Re:Refunds? by phorm · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think there are varying degrees though, and many are geeks of different varieties (not only the computer type, though obviously all seem to be able to use a computer).

      We have science-geeks, political geeks, lawyers, and people just generally interested in technology.

      I'm guessing that a large number of /.'ers probably haven't built a computer from scratch (whereas I'm sure still that quite many have, some very specialized with cool casemods).

      For me, I don't see much reason to build a complete system myself anymore. Individual parts warrantees such, and my computer dealer (with whom I get large corp discounts from work) will put together what I want for a good price. It doesn't really save as many bucks to build your own, so a lot of people don't.

      Note, that I do run 2 linux servers, a Mac (which I'm still trying to find time to play with) and 2 windows machines (one with a 'nix partition) - but not everyone is a sysadmin and fulltime computer geek. A lot of us still use windows, but I'm willing to bet that this information is still useful to somebody

    13. Re:Refunds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have one word for you:

      Lap top.

      These are littler computers like desktop, but they don't go on your desk. They go on your lap.

      You have to take my word for it.

    14. Re:Refunds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >not only that, but it's $199 off of any laptop. ... except those from Apple, of course. And those from Lindows, and ... etc.

    15. Re:Refunds? by k-zed · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you want a x86 based laptop, getting a decent one without Windows is a chore, especially if you're like me and equate "a decent one" as "it has the Thinkpad logo on it".

      I recently bought an Asus L3800Cx - it surely doesn't have a Thinkpad logo on it, but I like to think of it as a pretty decent one. It's quite powerful, it doesn't get too hot, it wasn't too expensive either; and there was no form of MS Windows in the package. (I was pretty surprised - and pleased.)

      --
      we discovered a new way to think.
    16. Re:Refunds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what kind of slashdotter are you?

      we know real slashdotters, and real hackers have notebooks.

      didn't you watch "The Net" with Sandra B?

      all kidding aside, you really did yourself a disservice.

      at this very moment i'm trying to convince Dell to sell me the laptop without windows.

    17. Re:Refunds? by radish · · Score: 1

      OK, maybe I'm being an idiot here, but bear with me :) I've never bought a "whole" pc, having been building them for years (like most people here) and I'm quite happy with installing most OS's. But when you bought your laptop which "surprisingly" didn't have windows - what on earth did it have? You didn't say it had preinstalled linux (that seems pretty rare, esp on laptops) - so did it just boot up to a "Insert System Disk" screen or what? Did they bundle freedos?

      Just curious :)

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    18. Re:Refunds? by b1t+r0t · · Score: 1

      One word: Apple.

      --

      --
      "Open source is good." - Steve Jobs
      "Open source is evil." - Microsoft
    19. Re:Refunds? by Sanity · · Score: 2, Interesting
      For the love of Mike, most Slashdot readers here are geeks; they build their own machines, not buy machines bundled with Windows.
      That may be pretty naive. I seem to remember hearing that the % of hits to slashdot from Internet Explorer were rather higher than one might imagine given the anti-M$ bias of the site. I am as fanatical about Open Source as they come but I use Windows because that is the primiary platform for which I develop software.
    20. Re:Refunds? by eyegone · · Score: 1

      So, I buy this piece of software included in my machine purchase but I cannot use it unless I use it on the e-machine. Seems slightly ridiculous to me.

      In this case, the OEM (E-machine) is paying Microsoft less for a license that is tied to a specific machine. In theory, they're passing this savings on to you. (If they're not, find an OEM that does.)

      I'm generally quite anti-Microsoft, but I don't think that you have anything about which to complain.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    21. Re:Refunds? by nolife · · Score: 1

      If someone really wants WinXP but wants a less restrictive license then the "this machine only" OEM version, you could take the refund route and get your $199 and then buy a copy of XP for $199 that you CAN legally move from one PC to another if you choose. That's a lot of work for the potential gain but hell, this is /. !!

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    22. Re:Refunds? by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      Since when has any Apple PC come with a copy of Windows?

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    23. Re:Refunds? by jafuser · · Score: 1

      What, you don't build your own laptops? =)

      --
      Please consider making an automatic monthly recurring donation to the EFF
    24. Re:Refunds? by Dante333 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Additionally, the philosophical point here is to screw MS.

      The point should be to get major computer manufactures to give us the choice on whether we want to pay the "Microsoft Tax" associated with getting a new PC, not to screw Microsoft. The end result of any large amount of SC lawsuits should be an option on the buy a PC from Dell(or anyother big name OEM) that doesn't come with an Microsoft OS.

      The problem with Linux advocacy through Microsoft bashing is you wind up sounding like a lot of the Democratic presidental canidates. Your saying why Bush is bad, but your not saying why your better. And if your not better, whats the point of changing things?

    25. Re:Refunds? by MuParadigm · · Score: 1


      Toshiba and (believe it or not) Dell are also making pretty solid laptops these days. And if you want a decent gaming laptop, there's Alienware.

      I wish the Sony Vaio's were better though. Still too fragile and a pain to configure with OS's other than OEM'ed version they came with.

    26. Re:Refunds? by EnlightenedDuck · · Score: 1

      As a non-computer geek (math is my poison), I am one of the /.'ers who has never assembled a computer from scratch. I could, but I could either spend a week researching what I need to know to do it right, or offer to have a friend over for dinner and get him to do it. And conidering that I like cooking far more than I like fiddling with computer hardware.....

      --
      Quack!Quack!.....QUACK!!
    27. Re:Refunds? by N7DR · · Score: 2, Interesting
      just how many of you out there are actually using a machine that came with Windows, but you never used that copy?

      Me, for one.

      I have an HP box here still with the original XP disk inside it, but disconnected. The disk that is connected is running Mandrake. The XP on the original disk has never been booted.

      I suppose this means that I should try to get a refund. But, frankly, I don't have the stomach for all the pain that would put me through. Having taken a case (unrelated to computing) to the U S Court of Appeals and lost there (after winning at the district level), I am afraid that I have had more than enough of courts for one lifetime.

    28. Re:Refunds? by climer · · Score: 1

      Laptops is the answer. Hell my laptop runs linux and has two licenses for XP. One from Dell and the other the Corp license. I don't run XP at all in any form.

      --

      Duncan Watson
    29. Re:Refunds? by Darth_Burrito · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dell Inspiron 1100 laptop: Knoppix

      Now I'm not sure I'm permitted to do this or not but I ended up giving the license to someone else because... I hate supporting windows 98.

      On another note, the more work I do with computers, the less interesting the prospect of assembling my own pcs is. It is time consuming and generally just about as monetarily expensive as buying a new Dell. Basically, my time has increased in value and my computing needs have changed in practice to the point where I no longer feel the need to get the perfect optimized uber graphics self assembled pc. So while all but my first pc have been self assembled, I'm not so sure that will be the case for the next system.

    30. Re:Refunds? by veg_all · · Score: 1

      You mean you don't build your own laptops? Hell, I've got a chip fab in the back shed.

      --
      grammar-lesson free since 1999. (rescinded - 2005)
    31. Re:Refunds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to.....

      So you can build a laptop or a tablet pc? great! where are your parts suppliers?

      who do you get to do your injection molding?

      Or are you simply clueless....

      I'm betting that you are clueless.

    32. Re:Refunds? by nathanh · · Score: 2, Interesting
      For the love of Mike, most Slashdot readers here are geeks; they build their own machines, not buy machines bundled with Windows.

      In the past, I might have agreed with you. But these days manufacturers are far more responsive to building customised machines for you. I prefer they waste their time assembling it rather than waste my time. It's way better than spending an hour or two shopping, another hour or two assembling, and crossing my fingers that there's nothing DOA. I love the convenience of ordering machines decked out with exactly the hardware I chose and picking it up, fully assembled and fully guaranteed, less than 24 hours later. Also if you buy it pre-assembled you pay OEM prices for the hardware instead of RRP. It often works out much cheaper than buying the pieces separately.

      The Windows thing doesn't affect me because in Australia (at least) several vendors will knock off the price of the OEM license for Windows. You typically get a machine with Redhat preinstalled. That really rocks.

    33. Re:Refunds? by Tokerat · · Score: 1


      ...Exactly.

      --
      CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
    34. Re:Refunds? by eweu · · Score: 1

      Since when has any Apple PC come with a copy of Windows?

      1997, to be exact.

    35. Re:Refunds? by binarytoaster · · Score: 1

      Most laptops will boot off a CD or disk. An OS-less one would boot, and say either "Invalid system disk in drive C:" or "Missing operating system" (this one happens on Thinkpads when you wipe the disk) or somesuch, and you'll need to boot it from a floppy or CD.

    36. Re:Refunds? by radish · · Score: 1

      That's what I assumed - just seems like a weird state to ship a consumer device in (it looks broken to the uninformed). I assume the "No OS" was an option in this case, I can imagine the number of returns they'd get otherwise.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    37. Re:Refunds? by crucini · · Score: 1

      Failure to pay a judgement is not contempt of court. If it were, the whole topic of collecting on judgements would hardly exist. But I agree that a large company would pay the judgement rather than letting the creditor seize some of their assets.

      I didn't see any "screw MS" in the article. Maybe the philosphical point is to pressure PC makers to unbundle the OS. Why would you expect several thousand orders to be served against one manufacturer? Wouldn't you expect even distribution among many manufacturers? And (several thousand) x $350 is not enough to make IBM or Dell go belly up. It's barely enough to get their attention.

      I don't see where your hand-wringing is coming from. The court made a just ruling. The party playing games with licensing was justly penalized. No massive governmental oversight was needed.

    38. Re:Refunds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not what the parent was referring to ... the parent B1tr0t is a turd. And bye the way, it would be STUPID to have claimed that with a DOS compatibility Mac. You COULD ONLY run Windows/DOS on that card AND you had an option to buy the system WITHOUT the card and therefore the software.

  12. Does this work with... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the devilsown release.

  13. If you wanted to hurt Microsoft by einhverfr · · Score: 1

    Figure how much fighting this really costs them...

    Lawyers, processing refunds, accountants, etc.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    1. Re:If you wanted to hurt Microsoft by Voltas · · Score: 1

      If you take the statistical odds of a cars gas tank blowing up and calculate the number of cars with a defective gas tank and you multiply the percentage change of said gas tank blowing up and you multiply that by the average cost to settle a lawsuit out of court, that give you "X". You then take then cost to recall one car with a defective gas tank, you multiply that by the number of defective gas tanks that have been shipped to get "Y". if X is less then Y, you don't do a recall.

      I butcher that story from "Fight Club" but you get my point...

      Your not going to take down Microsoft with a few, "I want my money back" lawsuits.

      --
      -- Disclaimer: I can't really back up anything I post on /. --
    2. Re:If you wanted to hurt Microsoft by Scorpion265 · · Score: 1

      This is all and well, but the other problem is how will this hurt you money wise? Your lawyers, court fees, etc.

      --
      I am full of goo... black evil goo
    3. Re:If you wanted to hurt Microsoft by weave · · Score: 1

      It costs them more than that. Now everyone knows it's possible. Why do you think they wanted to settle quickly and park a gag order on it? How many others around do you think have been gagged?

    4. Re:If you wanted to hurt Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jackass, RTFA. He sued for court costs, too, and got them.

    5. Re:If you wanted to hurt Microsoft by Shenkerian · · Score: 2

      Actually, you just supported the argument for more people to do this. The case you paraphrased from Fight Club, incidentally, was itself taken from Ford in real life. Yeah, scary.

      Back to the point, consider the equation the expected number of complaints, A, multiplied by the average cost of each complaint, B. A * B = X. If X is greater than the computer manufacturer's (not Microsoft's) profit from force bundling Windows, then it's in the computer manufacturer's best interests to stop the practice. Currently A is near zero. But since B is probably high (in administrative and legal costs), any increase in A exerts B times the pressure on the computer manufacturer to stop force bundling Windows.

      Of course, the above equation applies assuming a constant OEM price of Windows, which depends on the terms of Microsoft's antitrust settlement and how closely Microsoft adheres to them.

      --
      You tell me how "whilst" differs from "while," and I'll stop calling you a pretentious jackass.
    6. Re:If you wanted to hurt Microsoft by jmauro · · Score: 1

      Except that you then realize you did the math for X wrong or Y wrong and its really true that Y > X. It also fails to account for all the bad PR generated by not just doing Y to begin with or having a trial where your X estimate is competely destroyed. Sometimes it's just cheaper and easier to do the right thing.

    7. Re:If you wanted to hurt Microsoft by John+Hurliman · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't get a laywer for a $199 small claims fee.

      In Washington state it's only $20 of your money, find a friend of yours to subpoena the corporation (in WA a fictional entity such as a corporation can be subpoenaed, and the corporation is held liable if someone doesn't represent on behalf), and pick a day that you can take off work and learn about the legal system firsthand. Even if you lose your learn a lot by watching everyone else's claims and will be prepared if a future landlord or utilities company takes you to small claims. You file for $199 in damages, and if you win you show the judge the receipt for your small claims filing and add $20 to the damages, as well as any receipts from a laywer if you sought legal counseling. At worst you're out twenty bucks and a day for an education.

    8. Re:If you wanted to hurt Microsoft by Coz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's how actual recalls actually happen, most of the time - company A realizes "Oops, shoulda carried that 4 and not rounded down the .49" and issues a recall for their Self-Fermenting Spangulator, which out in the Real World catches fire one time in 13,321, not one time in 31,103,927.4, and there are lawyers at the door.

      Occasionally, a government or whistleblower organization gets into the fray, but usually it's the lawyers and actuaries who decide when and how to recall things. Wonder how that would change if liability awards got capped?

      --
      I love vegetarians - some of my favorite foods are vegetarians.
    9. Re:If you wanted to hurt Microsoft by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      Actually, you just supported the argument for more people to do this. The case you paraphrased from Fight Club, incidentally, was itself taken from Ford in real life [google.com]. Yeah, scary.

      All engineering draws a line somewhere. It comes down to where you draw the line, and what you're shaving on moving the line down. So, in general, be scared, because in every product, a line is drawn.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    10. Re:If you wanted to hurt Microsoft by jmauro · · Score: 1

      It actually was the case in the Ford Pinto that it would of been cheaper to recall the cars then to pay the lawsuits (before they got hit with the really big punative ones). They completely miscalculated the cost of replacing the part and made the decision not to replace it based on that fault analysis.

  14. Define "many" by The+Bungi · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Hopefully this is the first of many victories

    There are people out there - believe it or not - that think $199 is a good deal on an operating system. Myself included. If Linux worked out of the box, I'd probably attach that same monetary value to it, because once you get past the install nightmare it mostly works. Now your assesment of the value attached to the product may vary, and indeed there are people here who think paying $29 for WinZip is a rip-off, so they just pirate it. After all, all software should be "free".

    But "many" as applied to the majority of the people who buy computers is stretching it a bit.

    Instead of writing an article with epigrams about how you can "stick it to the man", perhaps you should have bought a computer without an OS to begin with. This is not a particularly efficient or visible way to prove that licenses are evil.

    1. Re:Define "many" by El · · Score: 1

      Linux is no harder to install than Win2K. I think what you mean to say is that preinstalling the OS on your computer is worth $200 to you. This is certainly true if your time is worth $50/hour or more.

      --

      "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    2. Re:Define "many" by Quino · · Score: 2, Insightful

      it's a matter of principle.

      There are some (many?) of us that have no use for MS stuff. So we bristle at being charged for stuff we don't want and will not use.

      This guy managed to get his money back after being charged for something he didn't want to buy in the first place.

      That's the victory (as in, for the rest of us that want to get our money refunded because the MS OS was the thing we didn't want -- but couldn't avoid getting charged for. That's what people refer to as the MS tax).

      It's not supposed to be proof of anything -- just how to get the money that you're owed back (the real victory would be to change things so that MS isn't in a position to charge computer users regardless of whether they ever plan on using their software).

    3. Re:Define "many" by geekoid · · Score: 1

      199 is not a good deal for an operating system if it is never used.

      "If Linux worked out of the box"
      WARNING FLAMEBAIT!
      It does.

      Its Manyu' as in Many of the people who had to pay fro an OS they didn't use.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Define "many" by elmegil · · Score: 1
      If Linux worked out of the box, I'd probably attach that same monetary value to it, because once you get past the install nightmare it mostly works.

      What are you blathering about? I haven't had any "install nightmare" on any version of Linux since 5.X ages ago. Red Hat 6, Suse 7, Suse 8, Red Hat 9 have never given me any issues on installation on any of the boxes I've installed them on.

      As for buying a computer without an OS, if for whatever reason you want one from one of the major manufacturers (Dell, HP, et. al) usually it's a huge struggle, which leads to this "refund" business.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    5. Re:Define "many" by alienw · · Score: 1

      perhaps you should have bought a computer without an OS to begin with.

      And... where can you get a laptop without Windows installed on it? Like an IBM or Toshiba model?

    6. Re:Define "many" by Zathrus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think $199 is overpriced for an OS, but I did wind up paying $149 for my copy of XP Pro. $49-100 is more inline IMO, but that's just me... the OS should not cost as much as an entire PC (sans monitor).

      That said, I suspect many people won't jump through the hoops to get a refund, even if applicable, simply because it's not worth their time. Small claims court isn't time intensive, but even if the entire process only takes 10 hours (including travel time to and from the courthouse, time on the phone with Customer No Service, writing letters, etc.) then you've only recouped $20/hour. No, I'm not paid for my offtime, but I can tell you that I do value it at more than $20/hour in order to do what *I* want. And this doesn't fall into that category. If it does for you, more power to you, but don't expect everyone to think that this is a "good deal".

    7. Re:Define "many" by kubla2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've bought five Toshiba laptops over the years and never booted into Windows with any of them.

      I'm tired of paying the tax to Mirosoft for something I've never used, can't sell on, or otherwise find a purpose for.

      In all five cases, the Linux I installed worked straight out of the "box".

    8. Re:Define "many" by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      This isn't quite true. A basic install (especially using something like redhat or mandrake) is easy, but god help you if you want to add a wireless card or something else later.

      Can it be done? sure. Is it a pain that requires significant knowledge? yup. Should I need to know all this shit to install my wlan card? nope.

      (this is from painful, and recent, experience)

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    9. Re:Define "many" by Linux_ho · · Score: 1

      That said, I suspect many people won't jump through the hoops to get a refund, even if applicable, simply because it's not worth their time. Small claims court isn't time intensive, but even if the entire process only takes 10 hours (including travel time to and from the courthouse, time on the phone with Customer No Service, writing letters, etc.) then you've only recouped $20/hour.

      In at least some states, if you can document what your time is worth (pay stub, invoices, etc.) you can include your time as part of the "court costs".

      --
      include $sig;
      1;
    10. Re:Define "many" by mccalli · · Score: 4, Funny
      And... where can you get a laptop without Windows installed on it?

      Here.

      (ducks, runs...)

      Cheers,
      Ian

    11. Re:Define "many" by 955301 · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's enough Bill. You can go back to your .Net forum now...

      The whole point is that a lot of systems cannot be bought without the operating system. That's the deal Microsoft has roped hardware vendors into. So this is an attempt to undo that.

      --
      You are checking your backups, aren't you?
    12. Re:Define "many" by Matey-O · · Score: 1

      I've gotta be in the minority then as changing video cards required a reinstall...and just this morning I went from a functional RH9 system to one I couldn't log into by installing a second network card.

      And No, I'm not a clueless newbie. I tried using FIRE to get back in, I brought it up in single user mode and passwd'd root, I still could not log in.

      --
      "Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus."
    13. Re:Define "many" by pmz · · Score: 1

      There are people out there - believe it or not - that think $199 is a good deal on an operating system.

      $199 is not a good deal for Windows. I, however, paid about $200 for Solaris 9 (media + RTU license for used workstation), and got a truly enterprise-class OS with no artificial limits (honest people would pay for extra CPU RTUs, though), no DRM, bundled StarOffice, bundled application servers and web servers, single-user Oracle 9i, a whole CD of GNU tools, and demos of BEA WebLogic and the Sun compiler suite. Solaris 9 also came fully documented.

      I believe Mac OS X goes for a similar amount of money and is also better than Windows.

    14. Re:Define "many" by TheSunborn · · Score: 1

      It is almost imposible to by any quality laptop widtout windows. That is the entire point with the case. You are forced to by windows even if you don't want it. That is the reason you can get your mony back.

    15. Re:Define "many" by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I would pay the extra money for a mac just to get macosx if i could afford it. I would gladely pay a few $100 extra to be able to run MorphOS on my hardware, and I would gladely probably pay $100 or so for a working good easy to set-up no-problems-at-all-unix on x86 to. I would however never pay for windows since i.m.h.o. even the free linux dists and *BSDs works better for my usage.

    16. Re:Define "many" by aliquis · · Score: 1

      The difficulty is that many sellers only have windows OEM machines. Atleast if you are Mr Anyone and go visit your local computer store.

    17. Re:Define "many" by Darth · · Score: 1

      Then buy a computer without the OS. What's so difficult about that?

      why should i do that?
      why dont they abide by the contract they entered into when selling me the computer?
      what's so difficult about them abiding my their legal responsibilities?

      --
      Darth --
      Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
    18. Re:Define "many" by Alien+Being · · Score: 1

      No one thinks that $200 is a good deal on an OS that they don't need or want. The EULA says the money is refundable, but the vendors who wrote and repackaged it refuse to honor it, except under the order of a court.

      What other people think about the deal is irrelevant.

    19. Re:Define "many" by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
      What are you blathering about? I haven't had any "install nightmare" on any version of Linux since 5.X ages ago

      "Blathering"? "Ages"? Let's see - the FireWire port on my Audigy card, check. My weird-ass NetGear NIC, check. My USB scanner, check. My USB mini drive. Check. My old ATI video card (or S3, I forget) Damn, I needed to turn off frame buffer for that one. Check. Misconfigured GNOME, 4 hours. Check. X not starting because I stupidly wanted to get some pretty fonts on the thing (imagine that). Check.

      Oh, and this is with the boxed RH 7.3.

      I'm sorry if you feel insulted. I'm not saying Linux can't be made to work with all of that. Just that it's a momumental pain in the ass to get it there. On the same box, Windows 2000 Pro detected and installed everything. Everything. Without problems.

      That's what I'm "blathering" about. Hope that helps.

      if you want one from one of the major manufacturers

      Vote with your money and buy something else.

    20. Re:Define "many" by CaffeineAddict2001 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Uhm, Mandrake 9.0 autodetected my wlan card just fine. I was connected to the internet on my first boot...

      Not only that, on WinXP my wireless card was real flakey, in linux it has never gotten disconnected.

    21. Re:Define "many" by geekee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So how easy is it to get a refund for MacOS, if you want to run Linux on on your Powerbook instead of MacOS?

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    22. Re:Define "many" by MsGeek · · Score: 1

      MacOS X costs $130 retail. Compare and contrast to Windows XP Home, which costs $200 retail, and Windows XP Pro, which costs $300 retail. All numbers rounded up to the nearest whole dollar figure.

      With the student discount, MacOS X costs $65. /me gets her classes today. /me gets Panther (10.3) the day it comes out. w00t.

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
    23. Re:Define "many" by harrkev · · Score: 1
      Linux is no harder to install than Win2K.


      Yeah, right. Installing Linux is easy. Getting everything to work properly is a royal pain.......

      I have an Intel Seattle-II Mobo (440BX). Yes, I know that it is old, but I can't bring myself to spend the money to upgrade.

      Mandrake 9.1 absolutely refuses to recognize my ISA modem! I would consider this to be a problem, and I have no idea how to fix it. How usable is an OS with no networking? Win98SE recognizes the modem OK.

      When I was using Mandrake 9.0, I never could get it to play a DVD. Once again, Win98SE works OK. I probably could get the DVD to work if I checked enough FAQs and HowTos, but at home my modem never reaches 30Kbps, so downloading tarballs takes a LONG time.

      I like Linux as a concept but, at least with my hardware, the reality is a little less rosy -- but I keep on hoping that I can ditch Micro$oft one day.
      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    24. Re:Define "many" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget the "family pack" of MacOS X licenses for $199. That puts it at a mere $40 per copy.

    25. Re:Define "many" by Tony · · Score: 5, Interesting

      (this is from painful, and recent, experience)

      I've had the same types of experience with W2k and (very recently) XP. Had a D-Link WLAN setup, and the machine would just randomly stop recognizing the WLAN card.

      OTH, the Suse on that same box had no problem. The WLAN was installed after both systems were installed; both XP and Suse recognized and set up the card instantly. But XP operation was quite dodgy.

      So, I think it's more of a "YMMV" situation for both operating systems.

      IMHO, both Linux and MS-Windows suck to about the same degree. The difference is this: in Linux, I see progress; in MS-Windows, I see a fast retreat in flexibility, configurability, and user control. With the stuff coming up in Longhorn (including (especially?) DRM), I don't see the future getting any better for MS products.

      Plus, I have fun with my OS, and Linux is *fun.* MS-Windows hasn't been fun for years.

      --
      Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
    26. Re:Define "many" by kevin+lyda · · Score: 2, Interesting

      apparently the laptop manufacturer didn't think $199 was a good price. they initially valued it at $10.

      and while i'm glad you've emerged from your cave - find any good paintings? - you might check some back issues of trade rags. ms has had a history of trying to block computer manufacturers from selling machines without windows.

      --
      US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
    27. Re:Define "many" by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
      find any good paintings?

      No, but I found a keyboard with a working CAPS LOCK key. I'll send it your way ASAP.

    28. Re:Define "many" by mccalli · · Score: 1
      So how easy is it to get a refund for MacOS, if you want to run Linux on on your Powerbook instead of MacOS?

      Well, my post was meant to be humorous. In answer to the question though, I believe it's impossible to get a refund for OS X. But then, the license it's supplied under never offered one. The Windows license does offer one.

      Cheers,
      Ian

    29. Re:Define "many" by Atzanteol · · Score: 1
      Then buy a computer without the OS. What's so difficult about that?
      Where do I find an OS-less thinkpad?

      You assume that I have the choice on all machines to not have an OS installed.

      Why *not* take the issue to court? After all, the binding EULA which MS would hold *you* too says that if you do not agree to its terms, then you are to be given a refund. MS wrote the frigging thing. If they don't like it, they can remove that portion of the license!
      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    30. Re:Define "many" by kevin+lyda · · Score: 1

      neat. thanks. i take it your lack of response on the other points means you agree. good to see a person admit they're wrong.

      --
      US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
    31. Re:Define "many" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      hahaha that's so funny do you think thats really bill??? hahaha OMFG!!!!!!!!!1!!! LOLOLOLOL!!!! U ROXXXX00000RZZZZZ!!!!!!!1!!!!!!
    32. Re:Define "many" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BS. I recently went to NYC Linux World with only a laptop. A compatriate lent me their orinoco wireless card on the floor to use to hook up to the wireless network for the show. Plugged the card in an was on the network in a matter of minutes.

      Redhat 7.3 or 8.0 (can't remember what it was at the time) on an old inspiron 7000 laptop (3 years old).

      I was more than happy with it. If you meant WEP config or IPSec, I'll give you some of your pain and suffering, however a friend of mine just got a brand new laptop with built in wireless and has yet to get WEP working properly with the WinXP drivers, and believe me he has spent some time on it.

      As with all things, YMMV and YRMNBT (your results may not be typical). Making blanket statements doesn't really prove anything one way or other.

      Heck, Under Windows95 which the laptop came with, and the supplied ethernet card from Dell, I couldn't get the ethernet working. I had to download a newer driver from 3Com on linux to the W95 partition and boot into 95 again to install it to get W95 networking working. This was all gear that Dell supplied along with the drivers. Needless to say that 95 didn't stay on the laptop for long.

    33. Re:Define "many" by Quino · · Score: 1

      Things change so quickly in the OSS world:

      RedHat 9 install on my win-modem, cheap PC -- flawless. Pain in the neck is installing Win98 (which, according to the sticker, it was designed for!) -- lots of downloads, tweaks and reboots.

      Of course, no matter what, I couldn't get Linux installed when I first tried about a year or a year and half ago ...

      Hopefully whatever esoteric hardware you're running will be covered soon -- it's been nice to have an OS that runs so well now, didn't realize what I was missing out on by sticking with Windows!

      Good luck!

    34. Re:Define "many" by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
      i take it your lack of response on the other points

      I must've missed them. Your "cave" thing was quite the funny quip though.

      good to see a person admit they're wrong

      *snort*

    35. Re:Define "many" by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you're assuming everybody would have to do this. If companies get the message that they'll be taken to court over it, they'll cave faster in future then eventually just refund those who ask for it anyway.

    36. Re:Define "many" by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
      MacOS X costs $130 retail. Compare and contrast to Windows XP

      And they charge for the service packs (cunningly referring to them as "upgrades" for the "oooohhh, shiny" crowd). The hardware was expensive enough to being with - so where are my savings again?

      Of course some Microsoft service packs are also cunningly referred to as "upgrades"... Win98SE would fall into that category.

    37. Re:Define "many" by Keeper · · Score: 1

      The whole point is that a lot of systems cannot be bought without the operating system. That's the deal Microsoft has roped hardware vendors into. So this is an attempt to undo that.

      Because we all know that the vast majority of consumers out there want to spend hours installing and configuring software on their new computer instead of being able to turn it on and have something that works...

    38. Re:Define "many" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RedHat 9 install on my win-modem, cheap PC -- flawless. Pain in the neck is installing Win98 (which, according to the sticker, it was designed for!) -- lots of downloads, tweaks and reboots.

      Yeah comparing Redhat9 to Win98 - what a great comarison.

      P.S. -- We're in 2003 Bro! (I'm not referring to Win2003, I mean the year. There have been a few releases of Windows since 98 - and I dont mean that crap ME. You might want to check up a bit if you want to make comparisons)

    39. Re:Define "many" by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I didn't have any problem with win2k. I think it's pretty decent overall. I refuse to buy windows FP (hey, the default theme looks like it was designed by fisher price), and as such now use both 2K and linux (KDE 3 as the gui), in preparation for the day I leave winders forever.

      Linux is fun, the sense of reliability and configurability is great. But it still has some warts and blemishes, and I'll be happier when they are gone (or at least hidden from me).

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    40. Re:Define "many" by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      Not BS :)

      I have no doubt that it _can_ be done (using the wlan), even easily for some folks and distros.

      My point is that adding devices after install is often a real pain, not that it can't be done...

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    41. Re:Define "many" by thdexter · · Score: 1

      Hmm. Funny you should post this with a Hotmail address and "gotdotnet.com" as your webpage...

      --
      I'm on a road shaped like a figure eight; I'm going nowhere but I'm guaranteed to be late.
    42. Re:Define "many" by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
      Should I change the address to my throwaway Yahoo account and link to kernel.org instead? Would that make you feel better?

      You people never cease to amaze me.

    43. Re:Define "many" by ryanwright · · Score: 1

      Because we all know that the vast majority of consumers out there want to spend hours installing and configuring software on their new computer instead of being able to turn it on and have something that works...

      (sigh), why does everything have to be an absolute with you people? They could, you know, give you $x off the price of a computer and ship it with a blank drive _at your request_. That doesn't mean they would somehow be forced to do that to _everyone_, for crying out loud...

      --
      -Ryan, with the unoriginal sig
    44. Re:Define "many" by Quino · · Score: 1

      Well, the point was that if you tried Linux a year ago, it'd be worth to try again ... the rate at which new hardware is recognized and autmagically configured is amazing.

      In terms of the OS, at work when I boot into Windows (for some corporate maintenance software stuff that requires me to be in windows) it's Win2K, which still doesn't hold a candle in terms of OS enviroment to RH9 (appearance, functionality, etc. etc.) IMHO.

      At home, I can't compare to anything other than Win98, since to run newer windows versions I'd pretty much have to upgrade my hardware since the drivers are more or less abandoned at versions for Win95/98 -- so it's still a valid comparison of what I *can* run at home (win 98, whatever Linux is most recent).

    45. Re:Define "many" by Keeper · · Score: 1

      Because you didn't say "at your request". You just made a statement stating that computers should come without an os.

    46. Re:Define "many" by nathanh · · Score: 1
      So how easy is it to get a refund for MacOS, if you want to run Linux on on your Powerbook instead of MacOS?

      If MacOS comes with a license agreement that explicitly states that you're entitled to a refund - just like the Windows EULA - then I would expect it to be easy.

      This isn't just about bundling. This is about somebody claiming a refund the license offered. His experience proves that the offer of a refund is lip-service; this guy had to go to *court* to get his refund.

    47. Re:Define "many" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux worked for you?

      This should be +5 Interesting at the least!!

    48. Re:Define "many" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please conveniently forget to mention the upgrade version of XP Home that costs $99.

    49. Re:Define "many" by Alsee · · Score: 1

      You just made a statement stating that computers should come without an os.

      Perhaps I overlooked some otehr post, but I cannot locate any statement from him (or anyone) to that effect. All I can find are requests for options.

      The only statement I can locate they you might be reffering to is a statement from someone else that "systems cannot be bought without the operating system... his is an attempt to undo that". That opposition to the situation where you often cannot buy one without an OS.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    50. Re:Define "many" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And they charge for the service packs (cunningly referring to them as "upgrades" for the "oooohhh, shiny" crowd).
      You mean like these?

      Sunday, October 06, 2002 10:08:33 US/Pacific: Installed "AirPort Software" (2.1.1)
      Sunday, October 06, 2002 10:08:43 US/Pacific: Installed "Security Update 2002-09-20" (1.0)
      Sunday, October 06, 2002 10:09:19 US/Pacific: Installed "Internet Explorer 5.2 Security
      pdate" (5.2.2)
      Sunday, October 06, 2002 10:10:53 US/Pacific: Installed "iTunes" (3.0.1)
      Sunday, October 06, 2002 10:21:30 US/Pacific: Installed "Mac OS X Update" (10.2.1)
      Wednesday, October 16, 2002 10:45:24 US/Eastern: Installed "StuffIt Expander Security
      pdate" (7.0)
      Friday, October 25, 2002 12:46:50 US/Eastern: Installed "Italian Language Update" (1.0)
      Friday, October 25, 2002 12:55:39 US/Eastern: Installed "QuickTime" (6.0.2)
      Monday, December 30, 2002 20:43:48 US/Eastern: Installed "Carbon Sound Manager Update"
      6.0.2)
      Tuesday, January 07, 2003 17:24:16 US/Eastern: Installed "iCal" (1.0.2)
      Wednesday, January 08, 2003 18:43:04 US/Eastern: Installed "iSync" (1.0)
      Thursday, January 09, 2003 17:46:08 US/Eastern: Installed "QuickTime" (6.1)
      Saturday, February 01, 2003 00:25:51 US/Eastern: Installed "iPhoto" (2.0)
      Saturday, February 01, 2003 00:29:28 US/Eastern: Installed "iMovie" (3.0.1)
      Friday, February 14, 2003 18:31:25 US/Eastern: Installed "Mac OS X Update" (10.2.4)
      Friday, March 07, 2003 17:43:42 US/Eastern: Installed "Security Update 2003-03-03" (1.0)
      Monday, March 17, 2003 11:22:55 US/Eastern: Installed "Java" (1.4.1)
      Monday, March 17, 2003 11:26:02 US/Eastern: Installed "iMovie" (3.0.2)
      Sunday, March 30, 2003 22:10:29 US/Eastern: Installed "Security Update 2003-03-24" (1.0)
      Saturday, April 12, 2003 13:23:12 US/Eastern: Installed "QuickTime" (6.1.1)
      Saturday, April 12, 2003 13:35:20 US/Eastern: Installed "Mac OS X Update" (10.2.5)
      Wednesday, April 16, 2003 08:01:14 US/Eastern: Installed "Safari Update" (1.0 Beta 2 (v73))
      Tuesday, May 13, 2003 14:17:37 US/Eastern: Installed "AirPort Software" (3.0.4)
      Tuesday, May 13, 2003 14:28:01 US/Eastern: Installed "Mac OS X Update" (10.2.6)
      Tuesday, June 03, 2003 11:45:19 US/Eastern: Installed "Safari Update" (1.0 Beta 2 (v74))
      Tuesday, June 03, 2003 12:19:44 US/Eastern: Installed "QuickTime" (6.3)
      Tuesday, June 10, 2003 12:48:00 US/Eastern: Installed "iSync" (1.1)
      Tuesday, June 10, 2003 12:49:17 US/Eastern: Installed "iMovie" (3.0.3)
      Tuesday, June 10, 2003 12:52:53 US/Eastern: Installed "Security Update 2003-06-09" (1.0)
      Sunday, June 22, 2003 15:12:53 US/Eastern: Installed "Security Update 2003-06-09" (2.0)
      Tuesday, June 24, 2003 17:55:27 US/Eastern: Installed "Safari" (1.0)
      Thursday, July 24, 2003 15:30:54 US/Eastern: Installed "Security Update 2003-07-14" (1.0)

      No charge for any of them.

      OS X 10.2 -> OS X 10.3 will in fact be a paid upgrade... for a major revision. Apple simply uses a different version numbering scheme than you seem to be used to.

    51. Re:Define "many" by Deven · · Score: 1

      Oh, and this is with the boxed RH 7.3.

      Red Hat keeps getting better at this stuff. 4.x was relatively difficult to install hardware on, but each version has been noticably better than the last. You might have had trouble with 7.3, but try 9.0 and it might work like a charm. You never know!

      --

      Deven

      "Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay

    52. Re:Define "many" by sumdumgai · · Score: 1

      "Plus, I have fun with my OS, and Linux is *fun.* MS-Windows hasn't been fun for years"

      I totally agree with that. In 1997 I had just about given up on the computer career after 15 years because Windows was driving me crazy. It was no fun anymore. Linux re-ignited my interest in computers and has made it more exciting for me.

      --
      âoeIn theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." â Albert Einstein
    53. Re:Define "many" by ratfynk · · Score: 1

      Problem when you buy a computer with windows installed on it you are not buying a copy of the Os.
      To buy a single site full version will cost you more than that. All you get with the computer is a single site none transferable ( to any other computer ) restore disk, that runs home to mama to report you as a thief if you try to use it, on any other computer for any other good reason. That is what costs you $199 US and alot more for the so called "pro" that can run on boxes that are a real computer system, again only for that single site licence. Overpriced and restrictive? It even assumes that you are a crook. Blow windows out your ass.

      --
      OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
  15. Since its /.'d... by Ktulu_03 · · Score: 3, Informative

    HOWTO: Getting a Windows Refund in California Small Claims Court
    Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 by Steve Oualline

    Thanks to good records and a Small Claims judge, Steve Oualline got a $199 refund for his unused copy of Microsoft Windows XP. One Linux user's story shows how to establish a good refund case.

    Getting a Microsoft Windows refund from a manufacturer is seldom easy to do. In this article, I describe some techniques you can use to get your refund, including how to deal with the manufacturers (and all their excuses) and going to small claims court.

    The first step to getting a refund is to ask for on. In most every case, you immediately hit a wall of stupidity and evasion when you do this. Dealing with this part properly is important, though, because you are building a record for the court case that may follow. Your job is to be as reasonable as possible and to make them look as dumb, inflexible and unreasonable as possible.

    It's important to know what excuses the manufactures will come up with and how to counter them.

    Excuse: You aren't entitled to a refund.

    Answer: Then why did the software come with a license that said I was. Isn't the license a binding contract?

    Excuse: Contact Microsoft about the refund.

    Answer: The license said contact the manufacturer. That's you. Why should I contact Microsoft when they said to contact you?

    Excuse: The software comes bundled with the hardware and can't be separated.

    Answer: Then why did you give me a license that said they could?

    Excuse: We'll give you a refund, but not for the retail price.

    Answer: I paid retail for the computer and the software.

    Excuse: The software is only worth $10.

    Answer: Okay. Send me the check.

    Although this doesn't look like it, you've won a major victory with these words--that check is written evidence of the fact that the manufacturer owes you a refund. If you go to court, you don't have to establish that the company owes you something. All you have to do is establish the amount.

    But before you do that, you should follow up with the company. There are several ways of doing this.

    Follow up #1: I got your check for $10. You say Windows XP costs only $10, so I'd like to buy 100 copies please. To whom do I make out the check for $1000?

    You won't sell me Windows XP for $10? I'll have to pay $199 for it? Then that means the check you sent me is too low. Please send me a check for the full amount.

    Follow up #2: I got your check for $10. But your $10 price is far lower that the retail price of Windows XP ($199). Because of the vast difference in the amounts, I'm going to have to ask you for a copy of your purchase contract with Microsoft so I can verify the price.

    You can't verify the price. Well, I can only find one documented price and that's $199. You'll have to pay that amount or document your price.

    One company tried this excuse with me. When I asked for documentation, the customer service representative said, "I don't have access to price information".

    "Then how did you come up with the $10 price figure?"

    "I just know it's the right amount."

    "So what you are really doing is guessing. Well, my guess is the software is worth $1,000,000. Tell you what, let's split the difference. Send me a check for $500,005."

    Excuse: We'll give you a refund but that applies to only Microsoft Windows, not the other bundled software.

    Answer: No problem. Please provide me with a copy of all the other software on another disk so I can install it under Linux using the Wine program.

    In all of these cases, follow up the phone conversation with a written letter describing what was said and why you're unhappy with it. Remember you are creating a record for the judge.

    At some point in this process you'll either get your refund (rare) or you'll realize

    1. Re:Since its /.'d... by elmegil · · Score: 1
      (really? I just read it moments ago with no issues).

      My favorite was the follow up:

      "My refund check will be arriving this month."

      you hope

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    2. Re:Since its /.'d... by Ktulu_03 · · Score: 1

      It was slashdotted at the beginning. I normally don't karma-whore, but after reading the article, someone specifically said it was down, and I still had it open in a browser, so I posted it.

    3. Re:Since its /.'d... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why you post it AC, like I did, Whore.

  16. Buy OS Free Equipment by yintercept · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The lawsuit is an interesting approach.

    If your aim is simply to reduce your contribution to Bill Gate's wealth, you best approach is to buy your hardware from the few companies that make OS free, or Linux dedicated boxes.

    1. Re:Buy OS Free Equipment by elmegil · · Score: 1

      Actually, what this really accomplishes (if many people do it) is force the major manufacturers to simply start honoring the license or provide their own no-OS options. That seems worthwhile, and isn't accomplished by simply going elsewhere.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    2. Re:Buy OS Free Equipment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If your aim is simply to reduce your contribution to Bill Gate's wealth, you best approach is to buy your hardware from the few companies that make OS free, or Linux dedicated boxes.

      If you know where to buy good quality laptops without a preinstalled OS, please post details. MANY folks would like to know.

    3. Re:Buy OS Free Equipment by AVee · · Score: 1

      I'd doubt that. You might be right, but going for the refund is far more costly for MS (or the reseller?!). You will also likely get a $199 refund, where the reseller likely paid less for it, making you system cheaper in the end...

      But most importantly it's way more satisfying to get money back this way. *grin*

    4. Re:Buy OS Free Equipment by mrseigen · · Score: 1

      A lot of the companies who make Linux-dedicated laptops have just reformatted over an out-of-the-box Windows laptop and installed Linux, so you're still paying the Microsoft tax. If you could find a laptop with no OS, I'm sure that would be greatly appreciated.

    5. Re:Buy OS Free Equipment by SailorBoy · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think the point is to change the way Dell, HP and other vendors sell their boxes. It would be much better for the cause of achieving world domination if when my grandmother or some other non-techie goes to buy a piece of hardware, they have a real choice about what OS they get. If the vendors have to go through all this small claims nonsense often enough, they'll stop bundling MS products with their hardware. I hope.

      --
      "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent" --Salvor Hardin
    6. Re:Buy OS Free Equipment by yintercept · · Score: 1

      Agreed, such lawsuits are good for opening the market. Ultimately, however, the market will be best served and maintained by building a manufacturing base that provides OS free machines.

      This is more than just the hobby market. Large businesses that want to handle their software licensing separate from the equipment fit in the market as well.

      Unfortunately, lawsuits are occasionally necessary in business, but I think people need to keep a focus on what they are building, not just what they are tearing down.

    7. Re:Buy OS Free Equipment by utexaspunk · · Score: 1
  17. new record ? by dtml-try+MyNick · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    slashdotted in 0.2 seconds, must be at least a top 10 entry ;)

    --
    Life starts at the end of your comfort zone.
  18. So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    .. How hard is it to get a refund for my unused copy of Lindows?

    1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not hard at all. Check the license agreement and use the same strategy if it says you can get a refund. If it doesn't, tough shit.

  19. I'd like to see the How-To get an installable CD by teamhasnoi · · Score: 4, Interesting
    rather than a crappy spyware-laden OEM image that erases all your data when you try to use it. (Don't forget it's in the drive, BTW, I sat through a Compaq 'restore', left the machine on with the disk in it after installing all my stuff. A power outage reset the machine, which rebooted and helpfully 'restored' all those messy programs, configurations, and data back to OEM goodness.)

    That rocks that he got his $$$ back, those OEM 'Restore Disks' aren't worth the aluminum they're pressed on.

    $199 refund!

    Now he can buy a copy of OS X! ;) (Actually, I wonder if you could do this with Macintosh - get your $$$ back for OS X. Of course, removing OS X to install Linux is equivalent to removing your liver and cooking it for dinner...)

  20. Many of us have laptops. by intermodal · · Score: 1

    Try getting an off-lease IBM Thinkpad that doesn't come with Windows in good shape.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
    1. Re:Many of us have laptops. by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      Here's a good place to start.

      No, I don't work for these people; I bought an off-lease ThinkPad from them.

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
  21. Great document, except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is a great document. My only minor quibble is i'm afraid at moments he tries to be "clever" and that could potentially make you look like a smartass in court. Which of these questions are *necessary* and which are just trying to be clever? The "WinXP is worth $10." "Okay, then will you sell me 10 copies for $200, please? I would like to make an order." sounds on first read like the author is just being a smartass, but this really is an important little interchange because later on in court you need to be able to say "i asked the company if they would sell me a copy of WinXP for $10 but they declined." However some other bits seem to just be annoyedly hacking at a customer service guy with a script:

    "Then how did you come up with the $10 price figure?" "I just know it's the right amount." "So what you are really doing is guessing. Well, my guess is the software is worth $1,000,000. Tell you what, let's split the difference. Send me a check for $500,005."

    I don't think the "tell you what, let's split the difference" is necessary. Oh well.

    Perhaps someone should make a repository of stories from people who tried to do this. Find out what worked, what didn't, who caved, who didn't, and what seemed unprofessional and pissed off the judge. I would love to see this become a widespreaed thing. I would participate in it myself, except I do not own an x86 computer :)

    4000 linux geeks going "i want a windows refund" is easy to blow off. 4000 linux geeks dragging company representatives into small claims court equates to actual policy changes...

    -- Super Ugly Ultraman

    1. Re:Great document, except by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      but this really is an important little interchange because later on in court you need to be able to say "i asked the company if they would sell me a copy of WinXP for $10 but they declined."

      It's an OEM license, not retail. It cant be sold or transferred on it's own. You cant buy 10 licenses for 100 bucks, but you could buy 10 PCs with 10 copies of windows, and 100 bucks of the total price would have gone to licenses. If you did want licenses for 10 bucks a pop, you'd have to talk to MS's sales dept, and place an order for a few hundered thousand of 'em.

      10 bucks for the OEM licenses sounds about right, actually.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:Great document, except by elmegil · · Score: 1

      So let the company prove that is the right figure, and he would have settled for $10.

      --
      7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
    3. Re:Great document, except by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OEM deals are between the manufacturer and the supplier. it has no bearing on the consumer.
      if the PC manufacturer showing proof that it only has a 10 dollar value, they might win, however they would have to disclose the contract with MS. They chose to pay 199 instead of disclosing there agreement.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Great document, except by technos · · Score: 1

      I wish they would too.. Microsoft has sued a few times to keep people from seeing their OEM pricing deals and the terms attached to them.. Release the price and bang, class action suit for overcharging in the retail channel. I'm sure if they could prove Dell pays $18/copy and Joe Retail pays $199.99, some enterprising lawyer is going to class action all over dat biznatch.

      --
      .sig: Now legally binding!
    5. Re:Great document, except by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      uhh...NO
      I've used linux since 95. Yes, I've noticed that to get a system with linux vrs one with XP/whatever is about the same price. I've even seen the linux price be more expensive. I'm all for not paying the MS "tax."
      Thing is, the difference is that the company (be it Dell, whatever) is not just selling a box with XP on it - they're seeling support for a box with XP on it. That support costs real money. Support for linux costs even more (esp if normal Joes are buying boxes with linux).
      Now, if they'd sell a computer with just hardware support...but that would be just as expensive, because through the OS the technical support can answer questions about the hardware, and can determine if its a hardware or software problem.

    6. Re:Great document, except by shaneb11716 · · Score: 1

      Good idea... "Windows Refund Best Practices"

      --
      I love teh int4rw3b!!!!!111one1
    7. Re:Great document, except by t · · Score: 1
      4000 linux geeks dragging company representatives into small claims court equates to actual policy changes...
      Sigh, did you get bored and stop reading the article half-way through too? He specifically stated that the company never showed up. You see, in small claims court not showing up doesn't cost you anything if you know you're going to lose.
    8. Re:Great document, except by Mr+Smidge · · Score: 1

      The "WinXP is worth $10." "Okay, then will you sell me 10 copies for $200, please? ...

      How on earth did you come up with that figure? If you want success in a case like this then you'll need to actually have better mathematical skills than the people who value WinXP at $10..

    9. Re:Great document, except by ReelOddeeo · · Score: 1

      Then the OEM should replace the "Windows Restore" CD with a bootable "Hardware diagnostic" CD. You put in the CD. Reboot. Disk comes up and says everything is okay with the hardware. End of support call.

      --

      Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
    10. Re:Great document, except by dAzED1 · · Score: 1
      Then the OEM should replace the "Windows Restore" CD with a bootable "Hardware diagnostic" CD. You put in the CD. Reboot. Disk comes up and says everything is okay with the hardware. End of support call.

      Didi I say they didn't make money on support? I don't remember saying that...


      Problem with your proposal is that disks thus configured are actually sold, and for good amounts of money. As soon as Joe Average Public has those disks, they no longer need to do the 4 year extended warranty - they just stick in the disk, it tells them what's wrong, and they replace it.

      Business, in many cases, relies upon keeping its customers as stupid as possible. Yes, support is an added cost. However - the companies are supposed to make a profit, right?

    11. Re:Great document, except by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.windowsrefund.net

  22. Screwing the manufacturers by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    An OEM copy of Windows XP Pro is not worth 199. It's 99 bucks everywhere online (with purchase of hardware). No doubt in bulk it's vastly cheaper.

    So linux zealots think they're stickin' it to the man, but they're really screwing the vendors. Who will no doubt make sure the price of everything that ships with windows is instantly jacked up 200 bucks to cover their losses when they're flooded with refund demands.

    Yay, more expensive hardware for everybody!

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re:Screwing the manufacturers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you believe if we all buy more vendor hardware, they'll lower software prices?

    2. Re:Screwing the manufacturers by White+Roses · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Please do. Get that Wintel hardware closer in price to Macintosh (ABM? Macorola?) hardware. Eliminate one more whiner's barrier to Mac OS X adoption.

      --
      Do not touch -Willie
    3. Re:Screwing the manufacturers by geekoid · · Score: 1

      when vendors relize there getting the short end of the stick, they'll change there methods. If the amount of people is not enough to warrent a change, then its impact on good would be minimal.

      " It's 99 bucks everywhere online (with purchase of hardware)"
      thus making the cost to get it MORE then 199.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Screwing the manufacturers by BurritoWarrior · · Score: 1

      Yeah, heaven forbid companies actually lived up to the terms of the contract they offer. How unjust!

    5. Re:Screwing the manufacturers by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      An OEM copy of Windows XP Pro is not worth 199. It's 99 bucks everywhere online (with purchase of hardware)

      Maybe, but it is up to the manufacturer to show that to the court.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    6. Re:Screwing the manufacturers by Zirnike · · Score: 1
      "but they're really screwing the vendors"

      Well, that vendor had the chance to go to court and say 'well, our purchase agreement says $99'... After all, the court can supoena the document as it relates to the case. Or, better yet, they could have refunded the money they paid for the licence without them needing to get dragged to court. That would have prevented what is essentially a $100 'you were stupid' charge.

      --
      I'm not shy, I'm stalking my prey
    7. Re:Screwing the manufacturers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the EULA says I can get a refund if I don't want Windows, why SHOULDNT I do it? Fuck you if you think I care about whether I should hold a corporation to its license agreement for the sake of "keeping prices down". If I broke the license agreement and copied that software and sold it on ebay, how long do you think it would take them to haul me off to jail?

    8. Re:Screwing the manufacturers by Bob+Uhl · · Score: 1

      If a manufacturer jacked the price up like that, he would lose business to manufacturers not jacking the price up like that. That's the beauty of competition.

    9. Re:Screwing the manufacturers by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 1

      Actually, its only more expensive hardware för Windows users since Linux users can get a refund!

      So basically it becomes a good reason to swap to Linux!

      This can mean the ed to the the MS tax!

      --
      Just saying it like it are.
    10. Re:Screwing the manufacturers by alienw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's 99 bucks everywhere online (with purchase of hardware).

      You do realize that unless it's bundled with a new computer, it's not legitimate? Read the MS OEM license agreement.

      So linux zealots think they're stickin' it to the man, but they're really screwing the vendors.

      That's the whole point. If the manufacturer gets screwed like that sufficiently often, they will perhaps start offering OS-free computers. Remember: it's not Microsoft, but rather the OEM who bundles Windows with everything. It seems perfectly logical that they should be the ones refunding the money. Also, remember that Windows is not free -- by most estimates, it costs major OEMs around $100 per machine (which then gets passed on to you).

      I don't care about who gets screwed. I just don't want to be forced to buy something I don't want. I would say that most "linux zealots" are exactly like me -- they don't care about "stickin' it to the man".

      To use an analogy: would you like it if every DVD player came with 5 bundled Disney DVDs, thus increasing its price by $100? Even if you don't really have anything against Disney, would you want to pay the extra cash for something you don't want?

    11. Re:Screwing the manufacturers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeh, and then they might give us the option of purchasing a computer without windows, and thus cheaper...

      That would really suck, wouldn't it?

    12. Re:Screwing the manufacturers by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 1

      Nope. Purchase a 12 dollar Ethernet card or maybe even a 75 dollar medium-end video card. still 199

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    13. Re:Screwing the manufacturers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your an idiot.

    14. Re:Screwing the manufacturers by fiddlesticks · · Score: 1

      NO! DONT STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS - people who wouldn't have otherwise stood up for their (legally enforced) rights might have to pay slightly more for their computer - while you save 200 bucks on yours.

      how selfish is that?

      think about the little (lazy) fella and the vendor - who obviously don't have enough money already - PER-lease

    15. Re:Screwing the manufacturers by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      Yay, more expensive hardware for everybody!

      While I agree, I also feel that this is a great thing.

      The vendors who sell OS-less PCs will now be more competitive.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    16. Re:Screwing the manufacturers by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      If they bothered to turn up in court, I guess their argument would be something like that. The cost of n licences for them was $x. They make y% profit on the sale of the whole bundle, Hence, the refund should only be $(x+ y% of x))

      The thing is, it would cost them more than $200 to turn up and argue this.

    17. Re:Screwing the manufacturers by NFNNMIDATA · · Score: 1

      Ummmm, "with purchase of hardware" is what makes it comply with the license agreement.

      From MS' OEM System Builder license: ...provided it is distributed accompanied with either a fully assembled computer system or nonperipheral computer hardware component (that will be an integral part of the computer system on which the Software Unit will be installed).

    18. Re:Screwing the manufacturers by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Except that the deals between M$ and the OEMs are secret.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    19. Re:Screwing the manufacturers by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it overrule the agreement if the court demanded to know how much the licence cost?

  23. I'll really be impressed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...when he gets refunds on those unused AOL cds

    1. Re:I'll really be impressed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I demand my check for $0.00!

      Hell, if you count the old AOL floppies and their ability to be reused, they already paid me. Those things saved me from having to buy boxes of disks.

    2. Re:I'll really be impressed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My brother bought a pc and started getting them in the post. Smashing the disks with a hammer and putting them in the prepaid envelope they provided stopped that.

  24. not for us by Josh+Coalson · · Score: 5, Funny
    From the article:

    The thing that you do not want to do is be a nut case. Don't bash Microsoft...

    I guess that eliminates all of us.

  25. Re:Mleh by The+Ancients · · Score: 1

    Ahh, I think you're missing the point somewhere along the way - why would he pirate software the manufaturer was attempting to force him to buy, as he didn't want it in the first place? Makes me think - RTFA....

  26. Mostly Redundant... by Serapth · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In the long run, this article really just points out a few things... 1) This guy has waaaaaaayyyyyyyyy too much time on his hands! 2) The guy was looking for a crusade to fight in the first place. If he was a proficent enough computer user to be able to run Linux, he should just as easily been able to buy a white box system or built his own from scratch. 3) The checks and balances Microsoft has in place to make the process difficult, indeed do work. Somehow I doubt MS cares too much about paying out 200$ in this case, do you? ;) In the end, I see this having absolutely ZERO bearing on the slashdot crowd. Somehow, I doubt anybody here is incapable of buying a system without a copy of Windows. That doesnt even mention that vast percentage that actually dual boot. Nor that majority, that probrably pirate it in the first place... not that im condoning or condeming either action. As to "the real world" I cant see this case having any effect on there lives either. In the end, its just way too much work for way to little money. This story in the end, so similar to the reason someone, may, say... build a house out of toothpic's. Because they can! No other reason. In the end, really... its a non-story.

    1. Re:Mostly Redundant... by stratjakt · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I just see a bug in his ass making a big issue and wasting time and taxpayer dollars to make some silly point that noone in the world really gives a shit about.

      It's like when idiots sue the mayor for dressing up like santa on government property, or sue a high school for having an easter parade.

      They may have some technically correct point, but are basically blowing shit way out of proportion to secure themselves a little bit of fame with their peers.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:Mostly Redundant... by Rinikusu · · Score: 1

      /* 1) This guy has waaaaaaayyyyyyyyy too much time on his hands! */

      I think it's a rather nice way to spend time whilst unemployed. ;)

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    3. Re:Mostly Redundant... by EllF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, who needs principles, anyways? Everything should be determined by its dollar value!

      --
      We who were living are now dying
      With a little patience
    4. Re:Mostly Redundant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      > 2) The guy was looking for a crusade to fight in the first place. If he was a proficent enough computer user to be able to run Linux, he should just as easily been able to buy a white box system or built his own from scratch.

      When was the last time you built a laptop from scratch?...

    5. Re:Mostly Redundant... by Anonymous+DWord · · Score: 1

      I just see a bug in his ass making a big issue and wasting time and taxpayer dollars to make some silly point that noone in the world really gives a shit about.

      I paid for a copy of XP that I don't use on my laptop. I give a shit. He asked for a refund, which he's entitled to. They wouldn't give it to him. He went to court. They gave him a refund. Who's wasting taxpayer money, really?

      --
      "If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
    6. Re:Mostly Redundant... by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1)he could have just got sick of seeing people get abused. Good for him.

      2) I know linux users that don't touch hardware, ever. well except for input perfs. but you know what I mean.

      3)the money come from the manufacturer, not MS. Perhaps MS will reimburse them, but doubtfull.

      I could argue that if you build your own computer, You have too much time on your hands.

      Its a story to all of us who just want to buy a computer from a major manufacture and not have to pay for software they don't use.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:Mostly Redundant... by Quixote · · Score: 5, Insightful
      If he was a proficent enough computer user to be able to run Linux, he should just as easily been able to buy a white box system or built his own from scratch.

      Read the article: he bought a LAPTOP. It is awfully hard to buy an x86 laptop without a Microsoft OS on it.

    8. Re:Mostly Redundant... by angryelephant · · Score: 1

      If he was a proficent enough computer user to be able to run Linux, he should just as easily been able to buy a white box system or built his own from scratch.
      http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle- ur l/index=books&field-keywords=oualline&search-type= ss&bq=1/104-6735187-0015958
      He's pretty competent.

    9. Re:Mostly Redundant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      No, they wouldnt refund him the boxed retail price for a OEM license.

      He went to court, they didnt bother to show, he got 200 bucks.

      If they had have showed up, and showed any proof that the OEM license was worth 10 bucks of the price he paid, he wouldnt have gotten shit.

    10. Re:Mostly Redundant... by (void*) · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The time is his. If the store would just return him the fair price of the Windows XP license, there would never have been a need to "waste the court's time" as it were.

    11. Re:Mostly Redundant... by freeze128 · · Score: 1

      But it wasn't Microsoft that paid the $200 for the settlement, it was the PC manufacturer. We all know that MS has tons of money (cash, even) and would love to see them pay, but small claims court is just going to hurt the middle guy... The guy who owns a small OEM computer shop, who has to enter into secret contracts with MS and other suppliers in order to make a profit. He already has a low profit margin, and now you just made it worse by making the guy loose $200. What's worse is that this OEM would have made you a plain white box if you asked for it....

    12. Re:Mostly Redundant... by smack.addict · · Score: 1
      I cannot believe your response was modded up as insightful!

      Everything can be assigned a dollar value. EVERYTHING. That is because everything has value and anything that has value can be measured and the dollar is one of many units for measuring value.

    13. Re:Mostly Redundant... by swillden · · Score: 1

      How much is your life worth?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    14. Re:Mostly Redundant... by kevin+lyda · · Score: 1

      principal, principle, they're the same thing, aren't they?

      --
      US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
    15. Re:Mostly Redundant... by pavera · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wrong,
      This is about taking on the Dells/HPs/Gateways of the world. (I being a small OEM computer shop) do what my customers ask, if a customer wants a system with windows, he gets windows, if he wants linux he gets it, if he wants none he gets it, if he wants freebsd he gets it... Most small OEM computer shops do not have contracts with MS, we just get the software wholesale at OEM prices (its not $10, more like $100) but its alot cheaper than retail.

    16. Re:Mostly Redundant... by BESTouff · · Score: 1
      Ever tried to build yourself a laptop ? Mmh ?

      This type of document will be incredibly useful to me when I'll buy my next laptop.

    17. Re:Mostly Redundant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's like when idiots sue the mayor for dressing up like santa on government property

      Well, we all know how Santa is the leader of a cult^Wreligion, so there's just cause. Who the *fuck* would sue the mayor for dressing up as Santa? Now Satan...

    18. Re:Mostly Redundant... by Tet · · Score: 1
      How much is your life worth?

      Depends who you ask. Your life insurance company certainly has a figure in mind. You may or may not agree with it, but they've put a value on your life.

      --
      "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
    19. Re:Mostly Redundant... by (void*) · · Score: 1

      I assign $5 million dollars to my socks. Is that allowed? Why or why not?

    20. Re:Mostly Redundant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything can be assigned a dollar value. EVERYTHING.

      Like that stupid book of yours you were whoring on here a month back? I think that's only worth 50 cents -- the cost of the paper, ink, and binding. After all, who would want to write a book written by a smack addict?

    21. Re:Mostly Redundant... by smack.addict · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is. Somehow, however, I doubt you actually value them at $5 million. Claiming to value them at that much is not valuing them no more than my claiming to weigh 2000 lbs means I actually weigh 2000 lbs. The true value for you is how much you are willing to pay to acquire the thing.

    22. Re:Mostly Redundant... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Your life insurance company certainly has a figure in mind. You may or may not agree with it, but they've put a value on your life.

      Ever bought life insurance? Your response make me think that you have not. Your insurance company doesn't put a value on your life, you choose the number when you buy the policy. How do you pick that number? I suppose you could buy insurance equivalent to what you think your life is "worth", though that would be pointless. Instead, what you should do is estimate the amount of your financial obligations and buy that much insurance.

      For example, I have around $750K worth of insurance on myself, about $100K on my wife and $10K on each of my children. Does that mean I'm worth 75 times as much as my children, or 7.5 times as much as my wife? Not hardly. What it means is that, as the sole breadwinner for the family, I have greater financial obligations than they do. The amount of my insurance is intended to pay off all of our debts and provide a sum that will take care of my family for 10-15 years, after which my kids will be leaving the home and my wife should be able to manage quite nicely on her own. My wife's insurance is intended to pay for her funeral and help cover day care for a few years. The insurance on the kids is strictly to cover funeral expenses.

      Life insurance has nothing whatsoever to do with the *value* of a life.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    23. Re:Mostly Redundant... by swillden · · Score: 1

      You still haven't told me how much your life is worth. Since everything can be valued in dollars, you should be able to assign a number to that as well, right?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    24. Re:Mostly Redundant... by Coneasfast · · Score: 1

      I could argue that if you build your own computer, You have too much time on your hands.

      My guess is you haven't built your own computer before. Actually it is not a long process. You can take your time and relax, and have a whole system up and running with an OS on within 3 hours.

      And we don't do it because we have too much time on our hands, its because we want/need control. Many manufacturers websites don't even give the low-level details on their computers such as motherboard model, or the exact 3d card, they may say such a thing as 32 meg integrated video card, (maybe you can get this info but you may have to search quite a bit to dig it up). Basically its mostly about full unconditional control on the system.

      --
      Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
    25. Re:Mostly Redundant... by smack.addict · · Score: 1
      You cannot be that stupid, can you?

      The one (you must be able to assign a number) does not follow from the other (everything can be valued in dollars). You also need something to help measure that value.

      Yes, I can, in principle, devise a number that would be the value of my life to me in dollars. The reservation price is a very large number. In other words, I would pay any amount given the choice to live or not to live. In practice, however, that is never the choice. So the calculation of worth is dependent on calculating other contextual values, such as the cost to society, the cost to my family, etc., etc.

      For example, assume I could manage to get hold of the entire GDP of all of the world's countries and that would keep me alive. In principle, I would do that because that is less than my reservation price. Unfortunately, taking all of the world's GDP has associated costs that make it not worth appropriating it for myself.

      So, that very large number is somewhere greater than all of the world's GDP but less than my valuation of the lives of the rest of the world.

      The fact that *I* do not have the mental capacity to calculate the exact value does not mean it does not have an exact value any more than our inability to calculate any number of scientific values suggests they do not exist.

    26. Re:Mostly Redundant... by andreMA · · Score: 1
      wasting time and taxpayer dollars.
      He was awarded filing and court costs, which go to the court to compensate the taxpayers to the tune of $135. Not a bad deal for the taxpayers; the whole thing probably consumed about 8 minutes of clerical time, 4 minutes for the judge & baliff (if there was one), and a few cents in paper and toner.
    27. Re:Mostly Redundant... by swillden · · Score: 1

      You cannot be that stupid, can you?

      I see you're a fan of my sig.

      The one (you must be able to assign a number) does not follow from the other (everything can be valued in dollars).

      What is the point in talking about how everything can be valued in dollars if it's not possible to perform the valuation? The original comment, to which you replied with your inanity was:

      Yeah, who needs principles, anyways? Everything should be determined by its dollar value!

      You claimed that "Everything can be assigned a dollar value. EVERYTHING", but now you're telling me that although things can be valued in dollars, it's not always possible to determine what this value is. So of what use is it to talk about qualitative valuations? If you can't fix a quantity, or necessarily even bound it, how is it useful?

      It's not. And here's why: Currency is not a system for measuring the value of things, it's a system for facilitating exchange. There's a very important, but somewhat subtle, distinction there. When you talk about exchange, it becomes clear that different things have different values to different people. There is no universally-applicable notion of value, including the value of the currency itself. Through markets we can arrive at notions of average valuations, but those are merely the points at which enough buyers and enough sellers can agree; for any good there are plenty of people who would pay more or less than the going price. There are many industries that rely on this fact.

      Your life has tremendous value to you, but nearly none to me, and undoubtedly there are a few people in the world to whom your value is negative (i.e. they'd be happier if you didn't exist). Given that fact, how is it possible to establish a dollar value on your life? Can we use some sort of a market to determine it? We could, and we'd find that the market wouldn't value your life very highly. Does that mean that your own valuation of your life is just wrong?

      So, clearly, it is not correct to say that "Everything can be assigned a dollar value", since many things have many dollar values. "Fine!" you may say, "everything can be assigned a dollar value by each person!" This, however, is also not true.

      There are many things which I wouldn't exchange for any amount of money, or anything else, either. For example, my children's lives. How then can I assign a dollar value to these things? Since I'm not interested in exchanging them, there is no way a system for facilitating exchange can have any bearing on them.

      So, that very large number is somewhere greater than all of the world's GDP but less than my valuation of the lives of the rest of the world.

      Eh? Your valuation of the lives of the rest of the world is greater than your valuation of your own life? Gosh, that sounds like *principle* at work, in contrast to purely cold-blooded value calculation. Or can you also assign a dollar value to your principles? How would you go about estimating *that*, I wonder?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    28. Re:Mostly Redundant... by smack.addict · · Score: 1
      What is the point in talking about how everything can be valued in dollars if it's not possible to perform the valuation?

      Even if for some things you cannot assign a specific measurement, you can still appreciate relative measurements. With respect to valuing things, relative measurements are much more generally important than specific measurements.

      You claimed that "Everything can be assigned a dollar value. EVERYTHING", but now you're telling me that although things can be valued in dollars, it's not always possible to determine what this value is. So of what use is it to talk about qualitative valuations?

      The most important principle is that we value some things more than others, and that we can provide a greater than/less than calculus for things. With respect to the topic at hand, this means that paying that I am willing to pay the $200 of a windows license even though I have no use for windows, while the author of the original article is not. It is thus not a matter of principle as to whether you seek the refund, but a matter of valuations.

      If you can't fix a quantity, or necessarily even bound it, how is it useful?

      I did not say you could not bound it. In fact, I am very specifically saying that you can bound it. In fact, I bounded the value of my life to myself.

      Currency is not a system for measuring the value of things, it's a system for facilitating exchange

      You are confusing currency with pricing. Prices, like meters, yards, liters, kelvin, etc. is a unit of measure. Currency is independent of price. It is an abstract concept that represents a value independent of the things being valued. Thus, three (or more)-way exchanges can be enabled without requiring the presence of all three players.

      Given that fact, how is it possible to establish a dollar value on your life? Can we use some sort of a market to determine it?

      I never claimed there was a meaningful market value to everything. There is a market value--but not a meaningful one--to everything. The only things that general have meaningful market values are commodities.

      So, clearly, it is not correct to say that "Everything can be assigned a dollar value", since many things have many dollar values.

      If everything has at least one dollar value, then "everything can be assigned a dollar value" is a true statement.

      There are many things which I wouldn't exchange for any amount of money, or anything else, either. For example, my children's lives. How then can I assign a dollar value to these things? Since I'm not interested in exchanging them, there is no way a system for facilitating exchange can have any bearing on them.

      This is sentimental nonsense. Just because the value is very, very high does not imply a value does not exist. Would you sacrifice your children to save the freedom of our country? To support the continued existence of the human race? The entire universe? At some point, you would agree, that yes, you would sacrifice your children. And that is beginning of the calculus for assigning a dollar value. Of course, the dollar value is really, really big and probably practically incalculable. But you can still bound it and use it to determine actions.

      Eh? Your valuation of the lives of the rest of the world is greater than your valuation of your own life? Gosh, that sounds like *principle* at work, in contrast to purely cold-blooded value calculation. Or can you also assign a dollar value to your principles? How would you go about estimating *that*, I wonder?

      I do not know whether or not you would call it principle, but, yes, you can assign a dollar value to a principle just as I noted in the part your are responding to.

      Here is your problem:

      "Gosh, that sounds like *principle* at work, in contrast to purely cold-blooded value calculation."

      You seem to think there is something inherently negative about something havin

    29. Re:Mostly Redundant... by swillden · · Score: 1

      We're arguing past one another, and I think I can see where the disconnect is.

      Most of your post consists of attempts to demonstrate that everything that is of value to someone can be related to other things that person values more or less. This is true. You're also saying that by looking at those relative values and noticing that some of them also have market values (in dollars or whatever units you like) you can then extrapolate to find dollar values (or ranges, at least) to all of them.

      I agree with all of that, at least within the context of a single, highly rational, point of view, and with the caveat that the upper end might be unboundable. I mention the "rational" bit only because it's not universally applicable to human thought.

      What I dispute is that such a statement permits dollar-based value comparisons to obviate principles, particularly when those valuation bounds reach such ludicrously high levels that exchange is impossible. Moreover, in those extreme cases the valuations are essentially dictated by the principles, rather than the other way around. Would I trade my children's lives to maintain my nation's independence? Yes, under some circumstances. That statement could, perhaps, be used to establish my valuation of my children's lives, but notice it's principle that has driven the valuation, not the reverse. How, then, can that valuation be used to replace principle? If I derived a set of valuations that seemed to contradict my principles, I would modify the valuations not the principles. It might be that such a contradiction is impossible, assuming a consistent partial ordering, but I don't recall my ordering theorems very well.

      Principles are nothing more than heuristics that help in this calculation.

      Here's the crux, I believe. You can certainly take the point of view that principles are rules that have been developed in evolutionary fashion over millenia, selected because they optimize societal good, in some fashion, and that therefore they're merely heuristics that simplify the underlying, intractable, value calculations. I think that is is an example of the hammer/nail fallacy, and that you're trying way too hard to fit the entire world into the structures developed to manage scarce resources. Whether or not the view is correct isn't really relevant unless you can actually perform the underlying calculations, because if you can't you're forced to fall back on the heuristics in any case. Futher, it has not been demonstrated that the value calculations will always lead to the same results as the principles (or better results -- heuristics are flawed, by definition). You can clearly perform dollar-based calculations which will direct a decision that violates your principles -- particularly if long-term consequences can be effectively avoided, as they often can. A critic can nearly always point out "ah, but you neglected to include *this*", and add a factor which reverses the decision, but you can also often find other factors to turn it back the way you wanted.

      At bottom, in practice, there are many circumstances in which dollar-based decisionmaking appears to contradict principle-based decisionmaking, or in which one view or the other appears to offer no guidance at all (because the dollar-based approach is intractable or because there are no principles that bear).

      Therefore, the OPs comment was meaningful. I'll agree it wasn't insightful; I considered it to be a pretty obvious statement, this conversation notwithstanding :-)

      With respect to the topic at hand, this means that paying that I am willing to pay the $200 of a windows license even though I have no use for windows, while the author of the original article is not. It is thus not a matter of principle as to whether you seek the refund, but a matter of valuations.

      This illustrates my point nicely: The original author could use his willingness to devote his time to this activity as a way to bound the value, to him, of m

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    30. Re:Mostly Redundant... by Tet · · Score: 1
      Your insurance company doesn't put a value on your life, you choose the number when you buy the policy.

      Hmmm... that's not how it's commonly done in the UK. The policy has an amount and you either buy it or not. Since most life insurance is done through company schemes or mortgage lenders anyway, you don't get any say in the matter anyway.

      --
      "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
    31. Re:Mostly Redundant... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... that's not how it's commonly done in the UK. The policy has an amount and you either buy it or not

      That's really interesting. You mean you can't just go out and buy yourself a life insurance from an independent company? In the U.S. there are a whole raft of options, tons of companies and a bewildering array of policy types. It's not entirely up to you, of course, the insurance company will generally require you to take a physical examination before they'll sell you the policy, and the higher the amount of the policy you want, the more thorough the examination will be. Based on the outcome of the exam they may refuse to insure you (they'd have to be utter fools to insure the life of a person with terminal cancer, for example), or they may increase the premiums (e.g. if you smoke, have a history of heart disease, etc.), but you don't have to involve your employer or your lender in the transaction.

      In the U.S., most (good) employers offer life insurance in an amount based on your annual income, but even that generally includes some choice. My employer, for example, automatically insures me for an amount equal to twice my annual salary, but I can request a higher/lower multiplier. Mortgage lenders generally only offer mortgage insurance, but I have found that insurance to be a bad deal relative to what I can get elsewhere. credit card companies and other lenders do the same (and it's also not a very good deal).

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  27. Shhhhh!!! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    If too many people do this, their OEM's will stop bundling Windows. Then we'll all be out an easy $200!!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:Shhhhh!!! by Magic+Thread · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, then you'll have to pay less for new computers. Also, if you RTFA (yes, the site's slashdotted, but someone posted the full text in another comment), you'll notice that the article specifically notes "Getting a Microsoft Windows refund from a manufacturer is seldom easy to do." The work involved in getting that $199 refund is not cost-effective in any sense of the word.

  28. Re:I'd like to see the How-To get an installable C by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He could buy a copy of OS X, but seeing as how he has an x86 computer I don't think it would be much use to him.

  29. Re:Mleh by shades66 · · Score: 1

    how cool is that. You can download laptops using Bittorrent now?!?

    duh...

    --
    ---- There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't
  30. Re:Refunds? -- interesting mod system by ron_ivi · · Score: 1

    Ironically one of the two identical posts, both posted at the smae minute got modded +4, the other 0.

  31. Mods on crack again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please explain how the above is a troll. It raises a good point. If you want $199, there are better ways to get that much money. If you want to protest Windows being preinstalled, there are certainly more effective ways to do that.

  32. You're forgetting something by burgburgburg · · Score: 1
    Court costs: $135

    Total: $334

  33. most certainly not the first instance. by pyros · · Score: 2, Informative

    People in Austin, TX, have been getting Windows refunds from Dell for years. I've seen comments here on slashdot over the years too.

    1. Re:most certainly not the first instance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, I give up. Which link points to someone who got a refund instead of the normal whining?

    2. Re:most certainly not the first instance. by pyros · · Score: 1
      Hm, guess I should have looked at the links rather than just make sure the titles/summaries matched the actual topic. When I was in college, at the University of Texas, I was on the siglinux (an ACM Special Interest Group) mailing list. There were people in the SIG who had obtained refunds. I'm having trouble finding a reference now, though.

      As an unrelated anecdote, the last time I had a serious problem with Dell and Linux, I sent an email to Michael Dell at the suggestion of tech. support and had a response that same day from his staff. The problem was the laptops using the Intel i830M graphics chip having an incorrect BIOS implementation. I don't think they ever fixed it, but at the time there was already a workaround in X, which I did mention when contacted.

      So take whatever you like from all this, but I still contend that this guy is hardly the first person to obtain a refund.

  34. Refund vs Preconfigured or no OS by didjit · · Score: 1

    So, maybe I'm too lazy to look into it myself, but assuming not too much runaround/rigamarole from M$, would it make sense, financially, to get a windows system from say Dell or a computer store and get a refund, buy a Lindows system, or get a system with no OS and put a downloaded distro on yourself?

  35. United we... by Euphonious+Coward · · Score: 1

    Untied we squat.

    1. Re:United we... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      go girlfriend!

  36. 1 werd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One word: Laptops

  37. Re:Mleh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, you can download a new PC off BitTorrent now? Will the wonders of technology never cease!

  38. Go Dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sticking it to the man :-)

  39. Let me remind you... by cioxx · · Score: 4, Funny

    "The journey of 1000 miles begins with the first refund for unused Windows." - Lao Tzu

  40. You are overestimating his intelligence. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "George W. Bush: Too stupid to know any better."

    You are overestimating his intelligence. He is a LOT more stupid than that.

    1. Re:You are overestimating his intelligence. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He seems to be doing pretty well cleaning up intelligence failures as well as the wrecked economy the colossal retard Clinton left us.

      Lets see, 93 WTC bombing, USS Cole, Tanzania, and 9/11...yea not going after terrorist works SO WELL. you LEFTISTS ARE SMART!!!

      Im sure Bush caused the slowdown in early 2001...wait a min he had NO ECONOMIC POLICIES IN PLACE until very late in 2001...SORRY try again.

      Idiot.

    2. Re:You are overestimating his intelligence. by Zyrmfxl · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      As opposed to the Atlantean Brilliance of the previous "administration," which, at last blush, was trying to figure out how to bankrupt Glock for the behavior of gangbangers who had stolen their products, sue McDonald's on behalf of The Fat, bar the Boy Scouts from public parks, and force Texans to pay the electric bills of Californians. Oh, wait - that's what they're still doing, only without the sack to actually run on their real platform. Pathetic.

      --
      "Oh, well I'm sorry if you don't appreciate my random murders!" - Crow T. Robot,
    3. Re:You are overestimating his intelligence. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait a minute, I thought you 'Rightists' said all during the boom years of the 90's that the president doesn't have anything to do with making the economy strong? It was the Congress that did it! (hmmm, what a shocker that we had a Republican Congress while you guys made that argument)

      Now that the economy's in the shitter, IT'S ALL CLINTON'S FAULT!! Which is it? Is the president responsible for economic expansion, or is it the Congress?

      How long are you guys going to hang on to the Clinton argument? Listen carefully now: HE HASN'T BEEN PRESIDENT FOR OVER 2 YEARS!! Let it go, dude, and take a deeeep breath...

      Besides, the 1993 WTC bombing happened when he was in office much less than a year, so it must have been, that's right, George H. W. Bush's fault, right?

      Idiot.

  41. thanks by Stalemate · · Score: 2, Funny

    that was bothering me too, but I didn't want to be the one acting like a grammar nazi and looking like a jerk! :)

    1. Re:thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not? Since when has literacy become a lost art?

      Shame the morons into going back to school!

    2. Re:thanks by randyest · · Score: 1

      OP: How is this a win? That someon jumped through all the hoops that Microsoft put up to keep they're strong hold? Sounds more like proof that they're plan works.

      > dildatron: Just wanted to point out that you used the wrong "they're". "They're" is a contraction for "They are". The correct use would be "their" which implies ownership.
      (Amazingly, this got a net +1: 40% Insightful 30% Overrated 20% Offtopic)!

      > > Stalemate: that was bothering me too, but I didn't want to be the one acting like a grammar nazi and looking like a jerk! :)
      (posted at 2, using a +1 Karma Bonus)

      > > > AC: Why not? Since when has literacy become a lost art?

      Well, I guess when people started being so afraid of the anti-grammar-nazi nazis on /. that they need to post as AC to say anything positive about literacy.

      Thank you for asking. IMHO, the anti-grammar-nazi nazis on /. are out of control. Even when grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation are so bad as to alllow for more than one likely interpretation of a post, simple and non-flaming questioning as to the actual intent will get you modded down early and often.

      Please, consider allowing grammar correction posts using the same etiquette as is used for article text reposts: post as AC to fix/question grammar or to mirror a slashdotted webpage/article texts. Then, of course, we'll need mods to cooperate and mod up the AC grammar fixes to (1) make sure people understand the original poster's intent, (2) prevent grammar-nazi karma whoring and (3) nip in the bud the long, annoying threads about how ironic it is that the grammar-corrector made a mistake also, and the intricacies of archaic English usages and origins.

      Whatta ya say?

      --
      everything in moderation
  42. Who said you had to install a free OS? by maynard · · Score: 1

    There are people out there - believe it or not - that think $199 is a good deal on an operating system. Myself included.

    There are many people who prefer not to pay for bundled software they didn't use. That you value the bundled software at $199 is irrelevant to the point at hand. My assesment of value is that which I use and am willing to pay for. I find Linux and *BSD to be a high value due to the rock bottom price and high utility. JMO. Further, I do not use Windows and as such prefer not to pay for the product. The license included with the bundled software allows for this by declining the license agreement. I decline.

    But "many" as applied to the majority of the people who buy computers is stretching it a bit.

    Who said "many" means "majority"? Certainly, given the fact that this issue has been argued by Linux users against vendors for nearly four years, there are "many" people who would like the refund promised in the license agreement. It's that simple. --M

    1. Re:Who said you had to install a free OS? by The+Bungi · · Score: 1
      Fair enough - vote with your hard-earned cash and buy a brand of computer that ships with Linux or install it yourself. What's the point of buying a computer from Dell and then badgering them to death because they do what 99.9% of their customers want? That's what I think is pointless. I'd be much more inclined to simpathyze with the guy if he was suing Dell for not selling PCs with Linux (though of course that would work even less).

      The point is, the box makers respond to market pressures. They're not going to revise their bundling policies because 50 people take them to small claims court on these grounds. They're making $$$ from the 50,000 that like and enjoy Windows.

      And if this is an attempt to save those 50,000 from themselves then I have no simpaty whatsoever.

  43. Not a Victory by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > Hopefully this is the first of many victories."

    This is a defeat, not a victory. A victory would entail proof that no matter what you do you cannot get a refund.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  44. 50% Discount on the Computer by yintercept · · Score: 1

    Well, let's say you spent $400 on the box, and sued the store and got $199.00. Well, that is bascially a 50% discount.

    The great thing about getting $199 (the full price of the software) from the vendor is that you get substantially more for the software than what the vendor paid...translation: free equipment.

    1. Re:50% Discount on the Computer by imaro · · Score: 1

      That's a great figure, if you take don't take out the cost of the process: lawyer's fees, time, effort and motivation. The end result, you lose more than you gain. Unless you are a college student with nothing but time to spare and something to prove, then this isn't for you... fortunately, I am both a college student and have a point to prove, so bring it on.

      --

      Burninating the villagers, burninating the country side. TROGDOR!
    2. Re:50% Discount on the Computer by Raffaello · · Score: 1

      Small Claims Court = No Lawyer required

    3. Re:50% Discount on the Computer by Geekboy(Wizard) · · Score: 1

      You ask for the listed price, plus court fees. That is a standard thing.

    4. Re:50% Discount on the Computer by NaDrew · · Score: 1
      Small Claims Court = No Lawyer required
      Or allowed, actually.
      --
      Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE
  45. Well, there's your problem right there... by Scratch-O-Matic · · Score: 4, Funny

    They said $10, you said $1,000,000.

    Then you said that "splitting the difference" would be $500,005, when in fact it would be $499,995.

    That magic '5' at the beginning is the psychological hump that caused them to resist.

    --


    Evil is the money of root.
    1. Re:Well, there's your problem right there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd agree with you if you were correct. Half way from $10 to $1,000,000 is definitely $500,005, even for very small values of $10.

    2. Re:Well, there's your problem right there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehe, that must be it, the psychological impact of 500K vs. almost 500K.

      But you're wrong about one thing. The $500,005 is the correct "split-the-difference" price, since when you split the difference, you just take half the delta plus the lower amount.

      Difference between $10 and $1,000,000 = $999,990
      Half the difference = $499.995
      Add back lesser amount = $500,005

      That $500,005 is the midpoint between $10 and $1,000,000 and is thus the accurate "split-the-difference" amount.

      Another example:

      A = $500
      B = $700
      Delta = $700 - $500 = $200
      Delta / 2 = $100
      Split-the-difference = $500 + $100 = $600
      $600 is the half-way point between $500 and $700

    3. Re:Well, there's your problem right there... by Scratch-O-Matic · · Score: 1

      Dammit.

      --


      Evil is the money of root.
    4. Re:Well, there's your problem right there... by (void*) · · Score: 1

      I sense a sign error in there somewhere.

    5. Re:Well, there's your problem right there... by Nordberg · · Score: 1

      But they'd already sent him the cheque for $10 at that point, so it should only be $499,995.00 more.

      --
      *Splort*
  46. Uh... exactly. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, it does depend on your definition of "many." For many people, myself included, the value of the particular OS in question is close to $0, because I already have a free OS. Nowhere did the story submitter say anything about "the majority of the people who buy computers"; you are the one "stretching it" in this instance.

    As for buying a computer without an OS, why should I have to do that? A lot of models are only available with Windows, after all. The license says I am entitled to a refund if I don't agree to the terms, so don't make it seem as if I am being unreasonable by asking for no more than what I have a contractual right to.

  47. He'll need the money by andy1307 · · Score: 2, Funny

    For when SCO demands a license fee for using linux.

  48. Cant print EULA by aardwolf204 · · Score: 1, Informative
    When you start the software, there is no way of printing the license without agreeing to it. To print it you must install the software. If you install the software, you agree to the license.
    Shift + PrintScreen
    --
    Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the /.crowd.May ur days b merry & bright & may al
    1. Re:Cant print EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your printer is not set up yet.

      Stop trolling please.

    2. Re:Cant print EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and how, exactly does Shift+Printscreen buy you anything until the OS is installed and the printer works?..

    3. Re:Cant print EULA by brakk · · Score: 1

      He could hold his scanner up to the screen! Oh, wait, it's not installed either.

    4. Re:Cant print EULA by nightsweat · · Score: 1

      Take digital photos as you scroll down and transcribe it.

      --

      the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
    5. Re:Cant print EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Won't work, the license is shown on the screen _before_ you install the OS.

    6. Re:Cant print EULA by rmjiv · · Score: 1

      Except that this is before he's installed any printers; it's the initial screen when you boot the laptop for the first time.

      --
      She came sliding down the alleyway like butter dripping off of a hot biscuit.
  49. Re:Fog Creek Diaries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Much more interesting than the bobo that crapflooded the thread with the article 30 times!

  50. Feh. by devphil · · Score: 4, Interesting


    You conveniently forgot to include the next few sentences.

    Two things should be noted about this case. [...] The second thing to note is he didn't ask me what Linux was.

    Two conclusions are possible: the judge in question already knew what Linux was. (Doubtful.) Or the judge was simply satisfied that the plantiff had installed something (i.e., not pirated the original software), and that he could name it easily (i.e., didn't pause to invent a name).

    So, don't think Linux is what won here.

    --
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
    1. Re:Feh. by rodentia · · Score: 4, Informative

      The license didn't specify that you got a refund if you installed Linux, smarty. It offered a refund if the license terms were unacceptable.

      It doesn't matter what Linux is, though most Merkins what read a newspaper do know, I reckon. The judge was making a quick, subjective read on plaintiff's truthfulness. The quick and clean answer is what got him his judgement. That and the no-show. Small claims is a gimme when the other party doesn't honor their summons.

      --
      illegitimii non ingravare
    2. Re:Feh. by Xerithane · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Two conclusions are possible: the judge in question already knew what Linux was. (Doubtful.) Or the judge was simply satisfied that the plantiff had installed something (i.e., not pirated the original software), and that he could name it easily (i.e., didn't pause to invent a name).

      Why do you automatically assume that you are some elite clubmember who knows what linux is? Let me tell you a story, about something that happened in 1998.

      I got stopped by a police officer outside of my apartment in the bay area. He immediately took a hostile attitude towards me, and accused me of being on drugs due to an genetic eye-condition that causes my eyes to not be able to contract. After dragging me out of my car, and trying to search me and being taken aback by my awareness of my prevention of search rights, he called for back up.

      The second cop car got there to cool things down (the first cop and I did get physical, but I was defending myself.) and saw my t-shirt and immediately pulled the other cop aside. He walked over to me and said, "So, are you a programmer or do you just run Linux for fun?" We then had a discussion about Linux, my programming job, and the other cop got suspended for his actions.

      This was in 1998. Don't assume people don't know what Linux is just because they aren't in an IT field, it just makes an ass out of you.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    3. Re:Feh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was arrested last week. The Dell laptop in the cop's car was running Windows 2000. Also he was chatting with another cop who was making fun of me. True story. I got out of both charges in court though. I win at the law. I shouldn't have though. The system is broken.

    4. Re:Feh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That might make for a good South Park episode - especially for those who haven't seen "Cartman Gets an Anal Probe"

    5. Re:Feh. by RoLi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it might be a good idea to also bring a boxed Linux distribution to court, just in case.

    6. Re:Feh. by devphil · · Score: 1
      Don't assume people don't know what Linux is just because they aren't in an IT field,

      Don't assume that's why I came to the conclusion I did.

      It's a safe bet that the averge small claims court judge doesn't know what Linux is. Why do I say that? Because all the people I know who work in the law offices tell me that their judges (and in one case, the judge himself saying this) aren't really aware of things like "operating systems".

      If you get a tech-savvy judge, great. But on average, in the current times, don't make any bets.

      --
      You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
    7. Re:Feh. by devphil · · Score: 4, Funny


      Yes... I believe I just said that Linux had nothing to do with the judgement. We seem to be in violent agreement here. (Smarty?)

      --
      You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
    8. Re:Feh. by Xerithane · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a safe bet that the averge small claims court judge doesn't know what Linux is.

      Uh, what? You just said, "Don't assume that's why I came to the conclusion I did." Then follow it up with a stereotype about people you know who work in law offices. Are you trying to say that there are more geeks as police officers than judges? Are you trying to say that they don't read the news?

      CNN has ran 779 stories on Linux. It is not some elite club, and most people know that Linux is an operating system. They may not know the details, but most people know that it's an operating system at least.

      You are assuming, based on stereotypes, that judges will not know what Linux is. No matter what you try to label it as, that is what you are doing.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    9. Re:Feh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I took my car in to get it fixed, and when I was leaving I saw another car in the lot that had this linux bumper sticker on it. I didn't think much of it then, but when I came back to pick up my car, The mechanic that was working on it came up all mechanic looking covered in car grime and asked me what kind of linux I was running on the computer I built into the dash of my car. That one caught me completly off guard. It turns out he had run nothing but linux at home for over a couple years. Go figure.

    10. Re:Feh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One could argue that the stereotypical car mechanic and the stereotypical Linux user have a lot in common. We know how to change the proverbial oil ourselves, while everyone else pays to remain ignorant.

    11. Re:Feh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said anything about Linux winning? :)

      This is about getting a refund for junk you neither wanted nor should have been forced to pay money for.

      It's about the consumers winning!

    12. Re:Feh. by jpetts · · Score: 3, Funny

      saw my t-shirt and immediately pulled the other cop aside. He walked over to me and said, "So, are you a programmer or do you just run Linux for fun?"

      Be gald you weren't wearing a BSD T-shirt

      --
      Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
    13. Re:Feh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You think that most people know what linux is? Hell, I bet that most people don't even know what an operating system is. I know a girl who teaches physics at a technical college, she got a computer with a blank hard drive and said she needed a copy of windows 98. I gave her a copy of windows XP and she was like "whats windows xp?" and like I said, she teaches at a technical college and is fairly young and hip.

      Many people may have heard the name linux and know that it has something to do with computers but beyond that I really don't think that the average person knows what linux really is.

    14. Re:Feh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mechanics kick arse! Sometimes I think about getting completely out of systems administration and going to school to learn how to be an aircraft mechanic or something. Then maybe computers could go back to just being an afterwork hobby that is fun again.

    15. Re:Feh. by core+plexus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I live in a small (pop. 1,200) town in rural Alaska, and a surprising majority of the people I've talked to have heard of Linux, and a few use it. I'm slated to give free lessons at our local Library on Linux this fall, so apparently there are many who are interested. -cp-

    16. Re:Feh. by frdmfghtr · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You are assuming, based on stereotypes, that judges will not know what Linux is. No matter what you try to label it as, that is what you are doing.

      Nope...read the quote again. It's not an assumption, it's a "safe bet." In other words, the odds show that the judge won't know what Linux is. In another form: When reaching into a bag of 10 dimes and 25 slugs, "It's a safe bet that the token pulled out (averge small claims court judge) is a slug (doesn't know what Linux is.)

      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    17. Re:Feh. by Zebbers · · Score: 1

      anyone who reads the news regularlly should have heard of linux

      judges are one segment of the population whom tend to keep up on current events

      and that is a stereotype ;)

    18. Re:Feh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny


      So aside from the fact that you still must not contact Natalie Portman and you must register with the local law enforcement, is this story going anywhere?

    19. Re:Feh. by The+Dobber · · Score: 0, Troll


      Actually, I have better things to do with my time.

    20. Re:Feh. by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 5, Funny
      You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem

      Then how do you explain vibrators ?

      --
      for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
    21. Re:Feh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      One could argue that the stereotypical car mechanic and the stereotypical Linux user have a lot in common. We know how to change the proverbial oil ourselves, while everyone else pays to remain ignorant.

      Actually, I have better things to do with my time.

      Couldn't figure it out, huh? That's okay, man, Linux is a lot like college... it's not for everyone; some people are better off in trade school, and some should stick to unskilled jobs. Don't be ashamed, though, the world needs electricians and garbage men.

    22. Re:Feh. by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      Nope...read the quote again. It's not an assumption, it's a "safe bet." In other words, the odds show that the judge won't know what Linux is. In another form: When reaching into a bag of 10 dimes and 25 slugs, "It's a safe bet that the token pulled out (averge small claims court judge) is a slug (doesn't know what Linux is.)

      What you are missing is that he is assuming it is a safe bet. I contend that it isn't, and hasn't been for quite some time.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    23. Re:Feh. by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      That depends on the line. If the slug is a three dollar favorite it's not a safe bet.

    24. Re:Feh. by The+Dobber · · Score: 1


      I'll take the electricians job. You know what a union carded electrician makes?

    25. Re:Feh. by Anonvmous+Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "This was in 1998. Don't assume people don't know what Linux is just because they aren't in an IT field, it just makes an ass out of you."

      In 2000 I was at a blockbuster with a friend of mine discussing how crappy Linux is. The bfd then was about Linux's uptime. My response was "well yeah, it has no apps. You can run nothing for a long time!" Some cute chick came around the corner and says "what are you talking about? Linux has lots of apps!"

      I bet you all would be stunned ridgid to know that I didn't get her phone #!

    26. Re:Feh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. About half what I make, counting bonuses but ignoring stock options (which are all under water anyway).

    27. Re:Feh. by sparrow_hawk · · Score: 1

      That's very interesting... earlier this summer I visited several colleges out East, one of which was MIT, and ended up wearing my Linux t-shirt that day. Not one person at MIT commented on it, which rather surprised me -- perhaps they're jaded and *expect* people to understand Linux. So we got onto our plane to go to Philadelphia for *more* visits, sat there on the runway for a while, and then got off because the plane was having hydraulic trouble. As we were headed up the corridor between the cockpit and the terminal, we were passed by a guy -- presumably a mechanic -- going the other way, who noticed my shirt. The entire conversation consisted of

      Him: "Hey, you use Linux?"
      Me: "Yeah."

      One of those weird, totally random things that happens occasionally.

    28. Re:Feh. by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      "most people know its an operating system" just because its mentioned a few hundred times on CNN doesnt mean most people know about it, most (defined as over 50% of the population) dont have a clue what linux is, most people wouldnt care even if they did, that the sad fact of the matter... take a poll on the street and see how many blank stares you get when you ask them what linux is, try asking them what it is if they tell you they know... good luck

    29. Re:Feh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      CNN has ran 779 stories on Linux. It is not some elite club, and most people know that Linux is an operating system.

      Damn! I guess it's back to my PDP-11...

    30. Re:Feh. by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      most (defined as over 50% of the population) dont have a clue what linux is, most people wouldnt care even if they did, that the sad fact of the matter... take a poll on the street and see how many blank stares you get when you ask them what linux is, try asking them what it is if they tell you they know... good luck

      More assumptions. Have you actually left your parents basement long enough to look at the world outside? Linux is mentioned in a news story in any major city probably twice a month. Most people read the news. Get it?

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    31. Re:Feh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an American Eagle Outfitters shirt suggest, that would be because Alaska is for Players.

    32. Re:Feh. by zbuffered · · Score: 1

      I read news.google.com, and they have a surprising amount of sports coverage of either cricket or soccer. I glaze right over it. I'm sure others skip things that don't interest them as well.

      --
      Synergy is your friend
    33. Re:Feh. by devphil · · Score: 1


      It's not sterotypes. It's statistics. 11 out of the 12 people I know in law offices have never heard of Linux. Three of them say that their colleagues (they didn't say how many, unfortunately) at other law offices have never heard of Linux either.

      From that, I extrapolate that -- again, read this slowly, since you seem to have trouble with the concept -- it's a safe bet that the average person in a law office does not currently know of Linux. So, we need to get the word out. :-)

      Nothing about eliteness, or snobbery, or sterotypes. Sorry if that offends you.

      --
      You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
    34. Re:Feh. by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      It's not sterotypes. It's statistics. 11 out of the 12 people I know in law offices have never heard of Linux. Three of them say that their colleagues (they didn't say how many, unfortunately) at other law offices have never heard of Linux either.


      Do you live in a small, podunk town? Remember, this took place in the silicon valley. In California. Not in Buttfuck, North Dakota.

      From that, I extrapolate that -- again, read this slowly, since you seem to have trouble with the concept -- it's a safe bet that the average person in a law office does not currently know of Linux. So, we need to get the word out. :-)

      And I'm saying that you are wrong. More people do know about it than your limited data set provided. If you go down to Castro district in San Francisco, and ask people if they are homosexual 11 out of 12 would probably say yes. It doesn't mean that 11 out of 12 Americans are gay. It just means that 11 out of 12 people you know in law offices don't know what the fuck is going on outside of their world.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    35. Re:Feh. by joggle · · Score: 1

      There could be a flaw in your logic. Most people who are ignorant of something tend to believe that their colleagues are ignorant of the same thing as well (no one wants to be the last to know something or appear to be so). While it is possible that all of their friends at other locations know nothing about Linux, I really doubt it--it could simply be the person projecting their ignorance on other people.

    36. Re:Feh. by devphil · · Score: 1


      No, I don't live in a small podunk town. Sorry to disappoint you. But neither do I live in California, and that's where your misunderstanding lies.

      Your analogy shoots yourself in the foot. If I go to the Castro district and 11 out of 12 are gay, you are correct, I can't extrapolate that to the rest of the world.

      Likewise, if I go to the middle of Silicon Valley and the judges there know about Linux, I can't extrapolate that to the rest of the world either. Or even the rest of the country. People at large are not as tech-savvy as people in Silicon Valley. That judge is the exception, not the rule.

      If you don't agree, if you feel Silicon Valley is the American norm and everywhere else is podunk, well, your opinion is your opinion. I disagree. And I think we can leave it at that. If you'd like to make more childish comments about professional lawyers "not knowing what the fuck is going on" because they happen to not live in California, go right ahead.

      --
      You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
    37. Re:Feh. by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      Likewise, if I go to the middle of Silicon Valley and the judges there know about Linux, I can't extrapolate that to the rest of the world either. Or even the rest of the country. People at large are not as tech-savvy as people in Silicon Valley. That judge is the exception, not the rule.

      I live on the west coast of the US. I travel frequently, although it is usually on the west coast. I would guess that the denser the population area (East and West coast) the more common it is to find people who know what Linux is.

      If you'd like to make more childish comments about professional lawyers "not knowing what the fuck is going on" because they happen to not live in California, go right ahead.

      Any lawyer who doesn't read the news, doesn't know what the fuck is going on. I wouldn't trust a lawyer who doesn't know what Linux is anymore than I would trust a programmer who doesn't know the difference between civil and criminal law. Common knowledge is something people should obtain. If they don't, it's a sad thing. Linux is common knowledge. I also know that more than 1 out of 12 people who work on an oil platform know what Linux is.

      Your initial comment, about it not being a win for Linux, was more childish than anything I ever said about your lawyer buddies. It was a victory for Linux, and the judge probably knew damn well what Linux was.

      Just because you don't experience that in your daily life, doesn't mean that's the world. All up and down the west coast, I see more news articles, stickers, magazine references, and conversations about Linux than I ever thought I would.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    38. Re:Feh. by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      Man, somebody hates you. I actually thought that was a pretty funny comment and you got nailed to -1, my apologies. If it makes you feel better, I didn't think you were trolling or flaming. Mods on crack.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    39. Re:Feh. by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 1

      most people dont live in the states... linux isnt mentioned much in the news that my paretns read/watch and if i didnt have it running on my server wouldnt have a clue what it was, and most people tend not to read computer related stories...

    40. Re:Feh. by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      most people dont live in the states... linux isnt mentioned much in the news that my paretns read/watch and if i didnt have it running on my server wouldnt have a clue what it was, and most people tend not to read computer related stories...

      But Linux has been featured in many non-computer related stories. Business, especially in Investment news, features it often. I've seen it in Forbes a few times, and other investment mags.

      The fact that this judge was in the silicon valley also makes it hard to believe he doesn't know what Linux is.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
    41. Re:Feh. by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Actually based on my experience implementing and supporting both windows and linux systems MOST people don't what either one is and if you so much as considered uttering the words "Operating System" you'd be in for trouble.

  51. fuck up their credit... by bani · · Score: 2, Informative

    so it goes on their credit history as an unpaid legal judgement against them.

    that really fucks up their credit rating... and will hurt them far more than a $199 refund ever could. typical shady company will have a very difficult time as long as the unpaid judgement remains on their record.

    1. Re:fuck up their credit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > that really fucks up their credit rating... and will hurt them far more than a $199 refund ever could. typical shady company will have a very difficult time as long as the unpaid judgement remains on their record.

      Not if typical shady company simply folds up, and the people involved move on to form a new typical shady company - only no one knows it yet.

    2. Re:fuck up their credit... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Have you ever actually tried to collect a judgement before? STFU about this 'credit report' nonsense. If you've been there, you know exactly what I'm talking about.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    3. Re:fuck up their credit... by CowBovNeal · · Score: 1

      You would think that companies like MS have to *rely* upon their credit ratings to deal with companies?

      If they want something from some company and that company decides not to sell it, MS can buy that whole friggin company itself.

      Credit ratings only matter when your a small or medium-small business.

      How naive.

      --
      Bush is on fire and its not good for my lungs.
    4. Re:fuck up their credit... by bani · · Score: 1

      too bad for you we werent talking about getting a refund from MS, but rather a refund from a vendor.

      How blind.

  52. Yah But... by tds67 · · Score: 2, Funny
    Thanks to good records and a Small Claims judge, Steve Oualline got a $199 refund for his unused copy of Microsoft Windows XP.

    So where does the unused copy of Windows XP go? Not to XP heaven, right? Can he sell that copy to someone for $199 instead of getting the refund? Does it go back to the manufacturer or Micro$oft? Does it really matter? Does anyone care? Why do hot dog buns come in packages of 8 when hot dogs come in quantities of 10?

    1. Re:Yah But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter. ALl that matters is that it gets added to the list of 10 bajillion copies of Windows out there wich gives microsoft ~100% of the desktop os market.

    2. Re:Yah But... by GreatOgre · · Score: 1

      The packages of hot dogs that I buy contain only 8. I don't see what your problem is. :)

    3. Re:Yah But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hot dog/bun ratio's not being 1-1 is obviously a conspiracy perpetrated upon helpless soccer moms with kids always asking "Why do we have buns but no dogs?" or vice versa (moms asking kids?). The inequality thus yields sales of 5 hot dog bun packages and 4 hot dog packages in order to run out of both, meaning a guaranteed 315.225% increase in revenue. Don't you see, man!?

    4. Re:Yah But... by jdray · · Score: 1

      I don't have a license available to check, but I believe the license is tied to the hardware. Corporations that buy mass quantities of PCs and have volume license agreements with Microsoft get double-whacked because of this if they don't have an agreement with the OEM that will get them PCs without OSes.

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    5. Re:Yah But... by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      The license is not tied to the hardware. That was a bit of M$ bullshit a year or two ago, when people wanted to donate their old boxes to schools that were going to use linux, and keep their OS for their new white box pc.

      None of the EULAs on OEM or retail state that the software must follow the hardware. The OEM versions state that they can only be sold (to the original purchaser) with hardware (that's why you'll see OEM versions being sold bundled w. dead motherboards or mice to make it legit). Afterwards, you can do what you want with it. If you're not going to use it, sell it to some poor schmuck.

    6. Re:Yah But... by BMonger · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why do hot dog buns come in packages of 8 when hot dogs come in quantities of 10?

      HEY! That's my .sig...

    7. Re:Yah But... by tds67 · · Score: 1

      I thought the software-tied-to-hardware thing was wrong. Is my drivers license tied to only one car? Not. (How's that for bullshit logic? ;)

      P.S. Are you the Tom Hudson who used to write game programs for the Atari 800 in A.N.A.L.O.G. magazine back in the 1980s (along with Kyle Peacock sometimes)? I loved those games. If you're not, please let me know where I can contact him. Or better yet, just call him and tell him I said "Hi".

    8. Re:Yah But... by wondafucka · · Score: 1

      The extra buns are for ketchup sandwiches (also known as wish sandwiches). They're for poor people (Like me).

    9. Re:Yah But... by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      thanks, but sorry, wrong Tom Hudson, but maybe I should take some time to write a few games (haven't done THAT in over a decade :-(

      Mind you, your logic gets you on my friends list :-)

  53. Many will say thi s is inconvenient by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is a perfect case where the public will not pursue a refund out of inconvenience, even if they wipe the hard drive and install BSD, or Linux or whatever (admittedly a rare occurence). Such as my company, we have a handful of Windows machines- everything else is wiped clean and Linux is installed.

    In the end, convenience wins out over principle. Most people would say their time is worth more than the $199 recovered here, but really what they are saying is the saved effort involved is worth more to them than the principle of recouping $199 for something they will never use.

    We need principled (or persistent) people in a capitalist economy for it to function effectively. It's difficult to be a consumer these days and comparison shopping is almost impossible with coupons and rebates and prices that are but really aren't; most people just give up and take what's given to them.

    1. Re:Many will say thi s is inconvenient by smack.addict · · Score: 1
      You are being absurd. We pay for aspects of things we buy all the time that we do not care about. That is the difference between custom-made products and mass-produced products. My TV has a PiP function I have never used in the 5 years I have had the TV. Should I try to force Sony to give me a refund for that functionality?

      If you want a computer built to your exact specs, then go to a company that does that. Otherwise, accept the fact that it comes with PS2 ports and Windows.

    2. Re:Many will say thi s is inconvenient by bagofbeans · · Score: 1

      I think you miss the point. Your PiP didn't offer a refund when you first used the product. Win XP does, as part of the EULA agreement which the user is forced to otherwise agree to.

    3. Re:Many will say thi s is inconvenient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll give ya $10 for your unused copies of windows. :)

  54. rsmith-mac got fucking OWNED by bani · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ha ha ha!

  55. Or, adjusting vendor packaging offerings. by redfenix · · Score: 1
    1. The customer writes the paycheck of everyone in the company.
    2. The customer gets value, or the company goes under.
    3. If enough people express legal, pocketbook touching interest in window-less PCs, companies will either cater to those needs or suffer monetary, legal, and PR consequences.

    I realize that the geek community is a small fraction of the world's population, but you have to admit that it's a much larger fraction of the PC hardware buying population.
    --
    "It's a very tangled subsystem." --Windows kernel guru
  56. +5 Insightful by M.C.+Hampster · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    n/t

    --
    Forget the whales - save the babies.
  57. Documenting The License You DIDN'T Agree To by Cy+Guy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The author spends a lot of time talking about his inability to document the license and the provisions he didn't want to agree to. Perhaps he could save a lot of trouble by just photographing or videotaping the license. I'd reccommend both because its easier to get a hard copy for court of the still photo, and you might want the video to provide evidence you selected NO and then reformatted the drive and then installed an alternate OS.

    Another choice might be to boot into Demolinux or Knoppix, then open the license file and print it. This combined with videotaping the process from opening the box to installation of Linux on the then formatted drive would be pretty convincing.

    Per his description of small claims court the judge isn't going to want to watch the video anyway, but having it might convince the company to refund or settle out of court.

    1. Re:Documenting The License You DIDN'T Agree To by AceCaseOR · · Score: 1
      The author spends a lot of time talking about his inability to document the license and the provisions he didn't want to agree to. Perhaps he could save a lot of trouble by just photographing or videotaping the license. I'd reccommend both because its easier to get a hard copy for court of the still photo, and you might want the video to provide evidence you selected NO and then reformatted the drive and then installed an alternate OS.

      No good. Photographs and video recordings are no longer admissible in court as they can be tampered with too easily and still look realistic.

      --
      Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
    2. Re:Documenting The License You DIDN'T Agree To by rokzy · · Score: 1

      why should you have to prove that you DIDN'T enter into a contract?

      if they're awkward, just shop them the laptop. look mom, no Windows!

    3. Re:Documenting The License You DIDN'T Agree To by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 5, Informative

      I was going to be a smart ass and give a link to the license, as I thought it would be on the first page on Google for "Windows XP license". Well, I'm on page 5 and not found it yet. I know there is a site out there that collects these things, but it's kind of surprising that it's so hard to find a copy (unless you have XP installed and running in which case you already accepted it).

    4. Re:Documenting The License You DIDN'T Agree To by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would rule out surveillance cams at ATMs then, wouldn't it?

    5. Re:Documenting The License You DIDN'T Agree To by switcha · · Score: 1
      Perhaps he could save a lot of trouble by just photographing or videotaping the license.

      Sure, but he stressed (and I believe him) that small claims court is a fastpacedthing. No time to f' around and whine and get too technical, lest you get ruled against for just being a pain in the ass.

      I don't think wheeling in AV equipment would ingratiate you with a judge trying to clear his docket in a timely manner. Since whether you installed it isn't the factor being decided here, I think you'd be wasting yours and the court's time.

      --
      You know what? ... A little club soda *did* get that out!
    6. Re:Documenting The License You DIDN'T Agree To by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I was going to be a smart ass and give a link to the license, as I thought
      > it would be on the first page on Google for "Windows XP license".
      > Well, I'm on page 5 and not found it yet. I know there is a site out
      > there that collects these things, but it's kind of surprising that it's
      > so hard to find a copy (unless you have XP installed and running
      > in which case you already accepted it).

      It's probably under copyright...

    7. Re:Documenting The License You DIDN'T Agree To by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > That would rule out surveillance cams at ATMs then, wouldn't it?

      Depends who handles the video feed from those cams, the bank or the security company contracted to run the cams. Presumably the bank branch folks can't get to that feed, only the security company.

    8. Re:Documenting The License You DIDN'T Agree To by fantastic · · Score: 1

      Are you sure of that, you are allowed photos in small claims, especially in California What kind of proof should I bring? Bring any papers that support your story. This is called "evidence." Evidence can be: * Contracts * Estimates (if you're fighting over how much it costs to fix something, bring at least 2 estimates) * Bills * Photographs * Diagrams that show how an accident happened * Police reports

    9. Re:Documenting The License You DIDN'T Agree To by Slurpee · · Score: 1


      The author spends a lot of time talking about his inability to document the license and the provisions he didn't want to agree to.

      Could he have printed the licence from a friend's windows computer?

    10. Re:Documenting The License You DIDN'T Agree To by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1
      No good. Photographs and video recordings are no longer admissible in court as they can be tampered with too easily and still look realistic.

      Please. The judge in this case accepted the email printout as evidence. It's a heck of a lot easier to make a reaslitic email than a video recording.

    11. Re:Documenting The License You DIDN'T Agree To by AceCaseOR · · Score: 1

      Well... IANAL, but I have read in several locations that video recordings were not admissable in court (not to mention that the inadmissiblity of video evidence was a key plot point in the novel by Michael Crichton, and he generally tries to do a good job at researching his plots.)

      --
      Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
    12. Re:Documenting The License You DIDN'T Agree To by misterpies · · Score: 1

      alternatively you could just take some screenshots of the page while the license agreement is showing.

      --
      The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
    13. Re:Documenting The License You DIDN'T Agree To by Cy+Guy · · Score: 1

      alternatively you could just take some screenshots of the page while the license agreement is showing.

      And what OS will the screenshot software be running on? Obviously not Windows. While it seems theoretically possible that you could install an OS such as Knoppix, and then on top of that a VMware type ap from which you could launch the Windows install-on-initial-boot routine, it seems like it would take a lot of trial and error to get right, and any one error might cost you $199. Since you can get cameras for a lot less that $199, or may already have a camera, I think I would rather go with that.

    14. Re:Documenting The License You DIDN'T Agree To by Sabalon · · Score: 1

      What I was thinking, if you are really po'ed about this (especially if it's a notebook) is not to do anything with it - leave it at that initial state until your date in court and ask for damages or something since you have been unable to use the machine as yet for fear of destroying evidence.

    15. Re:Documenting The License You DIDN'T Agree To by master0ne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ok, ill be the smart ass then, heres the WIndows XP Pro eula in full:

      Microsoft Windows XP Professional

      END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

      IMPORTANT-READ CAREFULLY: This End-User
      License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement between you
      (either an individual or a single entity) and Microsoft
      Corporation for the Microsoft software product identified above,
      which includes computer software and may include associated
      media, printed materials, "online" or electronic documentation,
      and Internet-based services ("Product"). An amendment or
      addendum to this EULA may accompany the Product. YOU AGREE TO BE
      BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY
      INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE
      PRODUCT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL
      OR USE THE PRODUCT; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR
      PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND.

      1. GRANT OF LICENSE. Microsoft grants you the following rights
      provided that you comply with all terms and conditions of
      this EULA:

      * Installation and use. You may install, use, access,
      display and run one copy of the Product on a single
      computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device
      ("Workstation Computer"). The Product may not be used
      by more than two (2) processors at any one time on any
      single Workstation Computer. You may permit a maximum
      of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each
      a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to
      utilize the services of the Product solely for File and
      Print services, Internet Information Services, and remote
      access (including connection sharing and telephony
      services). The ten connection maximum includes any
      indirect connections made through "multiplexing" or other
      software or hardware which pools or aggregates
      connections. Except as otherwise permitted by the
      NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop
      features described below, you may not use the Product
      to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other
      executable software residing on the Workstation Computer,
      nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display,
      or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless
      the Device has a separate license for the Product.

      * Mandatory Activation. The license rights granted under this
      EULA are limited to the first thirty (30) days after
      you first install the Product unless you supply
      information required to activate your licensed copy in
      the manner described during the setup sequence of the
      Product. You can activate the Product through the use
      of the Internet or telephone; toll charges may apply.
      You may also need to reactivate the Product if you modify
      your computer hardware or alter the Product. There are
      technological measures in this Product that are designed
      to prevent unlicensed or illegal use of the Product.
      You agree that we may use those measures.

      * Storage/Network Use. You may also store or install a copy
      of the Product on a storage device, such as a network
      server, used only to install or run the Product on your
      other Workstation Computers over an internal network;
      however, you must acquire and dedicate an additional
      license for each separate Workstation Computer on or
      from which the Product is installed, used, accessed,
      displayed or run. A license for the Product may not be
      shared or used concurrently on different Workstation
      Computers.

      * Reservation of Rights. Microsoft reserves all rights not
      expressly granted to you in this EULA.

      2. UPGRADES. To use a Product identified as an upgrade, you must
      first be licensed for the product identified by Microsoft
      as eli

      --
      Noone writes jokes in base 13!
    16. Re:Documenting The License You DIDN'T Agree To by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Not really, since if I click I agree and don't activate, and don't register, and then format my machine there is really no evidence I clicked it to begin with.

      The only realistic purpose to the monkeying around is proving you were able to obtain the text without agreeing if they try to stick you with that in court. In which case proving it's possible is good enough whether or not you've ever actually agreed at all. Getting the agreement back up is as easy as using the included system restore cd's, otherwise you could use them to get around agreeing at all.

  58. This is not an anti-ms article... by iamcadaver · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'll give up my three precious moderation points... this is small guy vs. corporation.

    I didn't get the feeling the writer had any intention to stick it to MS, he wanted to maek good on the agreement. I read it exactly as the judge did: It's the manufacturer's problem.

    A little deeper than that, though, is the secret deals being made between manufactures' and Microsoft. This practice has been known for a long, long time, and it has been in and out of the courts for just as long. I remember first hearing the meme way back in '95. Back in the netscape vs. IE days.

    But just like RIAA dragging thousands to small claims court ( no wonder Rosen wants out or the PR light ), civil cases do not a new company make.

    I do wonder what Lessig thinks of this.

    --
    Before I part with'em: two pennies weigh ~4.996+/-0.014g, have a zinc core, and the face of Lincoln. You can keep 'em.
  59. Try that with a laptop by maynard · · Score: 1

    First of all, vendors have traditionally bundled Windows with Windows and DOS for nearly two decades. And while lately it's been possible to buy desktops from smaller vendors, buying a laptop without paying for Windows has been an absolute nightmare. That's slowly changing. But Microsoft isn't a convicted monopolist for nothing, they've been playing the restraint of trade game all the way back to the CP/M-86, Stacker, and DR-DOS days.

    And then there's the principal of the matter: the license says I can decline and am due a refund. Well, I want that refund. Pay up Mr. Vendor, you're contractually obligated. --M

  60. System refund. by unsung · · Score: 1

    Can't the vendor just offer to refund the entire system? I mean, I see the need to want the $200 discount, but you sort of purchased the computer with the knowledge that it has Windows installed, right?

    If I was a business, I'd probably just refund the complete system rather than have to deal with the individual cases.

    Anyway, since this guy is such a stickler for license agreements, maybe now he'll have to talk with SCO. heh.

  61. I don't get it by ThunderRiver · · Score: 1

    The web site does't load, so I am just commenting based on the summary on /. I don't see why he has to go through the hassle to being with. If he didn't buy Xp, he would not have to deal with Microsoft...must be very bored of him.

    1. Re:I don't get it by Kredal · · Score: 1

      The point is he bought a system that was bundled with XP already installed. Before booting up the first time, he put in another OS (probably Linux) and then tried to get a refund for XP, since it was never used.

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
  62. Canadians? by Vargasan · · Score: 1

    Seems the article only mentions California, or references to the United States.
    Would us Canadians be able to do the same things mentioned?

    --
    Putting the romance back into necromancer.
  63. How the loop hole is closed by ad0gg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Manufactors are justing going to add this simple phrase to the computers they sell. "Free with every computer purchase: Windows XP". Loop hole closed, value of software is now $0.

    --

    Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

    1. Re:How the loop hole is closed by johnnyb · · Score: 4, Informative

      Read the article.

      Since you can't get Windows for that price separate from the computer, and they can't document how much they paid for it (because of their secret contracts), you get the list price.

    2. Re:How the loop hole is closed by shaka999 · · Score: 1

      If they give it for free the amount they pay is irrelevant.

      --
      One should not theorize before one has data. -Sherlock Holmes-
    3. Re:How the loop hole is closed by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Informative
      Poster wrote:
      Manufactors are justing going to add this simple phrase to the computers they sell. "Free with every computer purchase: Windows XP". Loop hole closed, value of software is now $0.
      Not quite. In many jurisdictions, when you buy something, the cost of the individual items that make up the purchase has to be given. This is so that, should something break, go missing, whatever, you can ask for a partial refund.

      If they set the price to $0.00, then you can buy the computer, return it the next day, and when they bitch and moan about how you didn't return the XP CD, that you'll give them back the same amount they charged you for it - $0.00.

    4. Re:How the loop hole is closed by ManoMarks · · Score: 5, Interesting

      When there's a MS License involved, there's never a simple answer.

      --

      That's gotta fit into your schema somewhere

    5. Re:How the loop hole is closed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Michael Jackson was still a celebrity (and performing), cities which outlawed scalping would sell posters of him for $200. Tickets were free to each person who purchased these posters.

    6. Re:How the loop hole is closed by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      It's not likely that you'll be able to get a refund from a scalper. You need a receipt, an address, etc., so it's just not the same (unless you bought your computer off the back of a truck, in which case you didn't pay XP anyway :-)

    7. Re:How the loop hole is closed by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Really? So those computer deals that throw in a free printer/scanner can be ripped off in the same way:
      Return the computer but keep the scanner/printer because the retail price was $0?

      Unlikely.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    8. Re:How the loop hole is closed by (void*) · · Score: 1

      Then if I refuse to honor the license, can I give it to my neighbor who does have a use for it?

    9. Re:How the loop hole is closed by ad0gg · · Score: 1
      If they set the price to $0.00, then you can buy the computer, return it the next day, and when they bitch and moan about how you didn't return the XP CD, that you'll give them back the same amount they charged you for it - $0.00.

      How would software be different than bundled games that come with game consoles? Or Buy three tires get one free that all the tire places offer? I could go on forever.

      --

      Have you ever been to a turkish prison?

    10. Re:How the loop hole is closed by qtp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How is this a "loophole"?

      It seems like straitforward business to me, as in "if I don't want a product, why must I buy it?"

      or

      "If I am willing to return a product unused, why do I not get a refund?"

      Why should a software vendor be allowed to force customers to purchase thier product if they are buying an item manufactured by a different vendor?

      To call this refund a "loophpole" is certainly questionable logic. I think you are taking the joke about the "Microsoft Tax" a bit too seriously.

      --
      Read, L
    11. Re:How the loop hole is closed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > If they give it for free the amount they pay is irrelevant.

      If they claim they get it for free, and can't/won't back up that claim in court, then the amount of free they claim is irrelevant.

      Courts are about proof, not about unsubstantiated claims.

    12. Re:How the loop hole is closed by Darth_Burrito · · Score: 1

      First, aren't those printer/scanners free after rebate? Second, do you really want that printer/scanner? In my experience, you'd have trouble convincing me to take one of those things for free.

    13. Re:How the loop hole is closed by _xeno_ · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Actually, all they have to do is "license" Windows XP to you for a cost of 0.00 for use solely on the computer you purchased. Most computer manufactors basically do this anyways with their crappy "restore" disks that simply reimage the disks, restoring the system to the state it was on purchase and deleting all your data too.

      So you can keep the license, but it's only good on the computer you purchased. You didn't get a Windows XP license, only a license to use Windows XP on the computer you bought. So if you return the computer, you void the license. I haven't bought an OEM machine - ever, actually - so I don't know if current licenses state that, but I do remember that Microsoft was moving in that direction.

      Since IANAL, I can't say if this is legally sound - the manufactor might assign the license a value of $0, but if you refuse the license, they may be forced to pay "fair market value" to recover the cost (especially if they pay Microsoft for the license). But who knows? The law is weird...

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    14. Re:How the loop hole is closed by Znork · · Score: 1

      Of course it isnt different. The tire place or the bundled console game place just has to show that the actual value of the tire is not $0.

      In the Windows case they would not have to refund the actual list price, but they would have to show the actual value of the bundled product; what they paid for it.

      That must really stink for the OEMs, as their licenses probably forbid them to tell anyone the price. Which means they're screwed into refunding list price, as that is the only price that can be provided evidence for.

      That ought to teach them to sign anything with Microsoft.

    15. Re:How the loop hole is closed by holt · · Score: 1

      The parent didn't say "get" it for free, it said "give" it for free. I think that's a good point; after all, you couldn't get a refund for the 2nd bottle of soda you get in the "buy one get one free" special at the grocery store, so why would you get a refund for the free copy of Windows that came with your computer?

    16. Re:How the loop hole is closed by nutznboltz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How do you know that you can't keep it if you got it for $0? Have you tried?

    17. Re:How the loop hole is closed by ReelOddeeo · · Score: 1

      Incorrect.

      The way they'll close the loophole is by changing the EULA in Windows.

      First, they might make it printable, or include at least part of it on paper for the Judge to see.

      Second, they'll make it say that if you don't agree with this EULA, then simply destroy the software on the disk and be done with it.

      The whole notion of taking software back for a refund dates from sometime ancient time when corporations had some sense of ethics. Just remove the "take it back" and "refund" clauses. Simply require you to destroy it.

      --

      Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
    18. Re:How the loop hole is closed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the deal was that simple, then the seller could be forced to take back the computer and not the OS.

    19. Re:How the loop hole is closed by Steeltoe · · Score: 1

      It's not free. OEM deals have strict clauses where you can't even deliver competing OSes and other such claims. Even if Microsoft PAYS OEMs to deliver XP, it's not free because free is more than just monetary..

    20. Re:How the loop hole is closed by Steeltoe · · Score: 1

      Even if Microsoft GIVES is away, the software still has the same value. That's how Microsoft can deduct on taxes so-called "donations" to schools (that contain strict clauses where the school MUST use Microsoft-products or be in breach of contract).

      In this case, the contract is secret OEM-deals, thus the judge can only use the retail price as a fair price. If Microsoft had actually shown up and proved the real price, then the judge might have ruled accordingly.

    21. Re:How the loop hole is closed by Steeltoe · · Score: 1

      How do you know that you can't keep it if you got it for $0? Have you tried?

      It's an interesting concept. However ANAL, but it sounds to me that the free-as-in-beer "gift" of the extra item is provided IF you buy the product. Thus if you return it, you should of course return the item too, because then the purchase is voided. The item is bound to the purchase, and only "free-as-in-beer-IF-so-and-so".

    22. Re:How the loop hole is closed by QuaZar666 · · Score: 1

      I believe the EULA already has a clause in there so they can not sell it back to the manufactor. in the XP EULA it states

      "To the maximum extent permitted under applicable law, Manufacturer's and its supplier's entire liability and your exclusive remedy under the express warranty is, at Manufacturer's option, either (a) return of the price paid; or (b) repair or replacement of the SOFTWARE or Microsoft hardware which does not meet the warranty and which is returned to Manufacturer with a copy of your receipt. The warranty is void if failure of the SOFTWARE or Microsoft hardware has resulted from accident, abuse or misapplication. Any replacement SOFTWARE and/or Microsoft hardware will be warranted for the remainder of the original warranty period or 30 days, whichever is longer."

      So if you just don't like windows then too bad. It has been bundled with the hardware (which is stated earlier) and there is no problems with the software other than the fact that is sucks but it doesn't have any clause in the OEM EULA saying "if you don't like the product return for a refund". it also states if you want to give the software to someone else you must also give them the computer since it is a part of the computer. you can't have one with the other according to the EULA.

      Qua
    23. Re:How the loop hole is closed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh Pleeeese hope they do.
      The first 'Pirate' prosecuted will argue the cost of his/her trangression is $0 - therefore no damage done.
      VAT an GST inspectors will have a field day.
      IRS and tax deductability - what a can of worms.

    24. Re:How the loop hole is closed by fjaffe · · Score: 2, Funny
      Loop hole closed, value of software is now $0

      But we all already knew that!

    25. Re:How the loop hole is closed by tomhudson · · Score: 1
      Look, I don't want to come off too harsh this early in the morning, but your argument has already been refuted so many times, I almost wonder if you're an astroturfer.

      Repeat after me: software that is bundled with the computer can be unbundled by the retail purchaser.

      You are NOT bound by any agreement between the retailer and Microsoft, which is a separate issue.

      And no, you did NOT get a license to use Windows ONLY on the computer you bought. You can transfer it (note - I said transfer, not copy) to another machine and install the OS of your choice on your new machine.

      Think of it, what if I buy a box and it comes with XP and M$ Office. I don't need either of them, so I give them to someone else. Have I broken any agreement? No. First, there is NO agreement between me and Microsoft. Second, there is NO provision in copyright law forbidding the transfer of rights to someone else. Consider - books are also copyrighted. I can't sell you a photocopy of the book, but I can sell you my copy of the book.

      Your argument would almost REQUIRE me to keep XP as an integral part of a computer purchase (which is what some uninformed people are actually arguing elsewhere, thanks to M$ astroturfers).

    26. Re:How the loop hole is closed by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Of course there is the issue of the EULA (which are themselves questionable in terms of legality) which attempts to go above and beyond copyright law and take away your right to transfer it to another machine or give it to a friend.

    27. Re:How the loop hole is closed by shaitand · · Score: 1

      All the EULA does is make a public statement. If it didn't exist I'd still have the right to return merchandise to the vendor. Remember I haven't agreed to the EULA and am not contracted to abide by it's terms.

    28. Re:How the loop hole is closed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you did NOT get a license to use Windows ONLY on the computer you bought.

      i suggest you look at OEM liciences that is exactly what they say. The reason that the cost is so discounted is because the are limited to one machine.

      Basically the company that this guy spoke to was stupid. All they need to do was write a letter saying.

      "while we understand that you believe you should be you have a right to $199 refund. The full retail version you are representing as equivalent grant you far more rights that the copy provided with our machine. Microsoft liciences the software pre-installed on your system and a limited or restricted licience which limits it use to the machine that you purchased. As a result microsoft is guarrenteed an additional sale if you choose to buy another machine in the future, they sell us the liciences at a deeply discounted price and we pass the cost saving directly to you by selling you the software at costs"

  64. c:\windows\system32\eula.txt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Microsoft Windows XP Professional

    END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

    IMPORTANT-READ CAREFULLY: This End-User
    License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement between you
    (either an individual or a single entity) and Microsoft
    Corporation for the Microsoft software product identified above,
    which includes computer software and may include associated
    media, printed materials, "online" or electronic documentation,
    and Internet-based services ("Product"). An amendment or
    addendum to this EULA may accompany the Product. YOU AGREE TO BE
    BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY
    INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE
    PRODUCT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL
    OR USE THE PRODUCT; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR
    PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND
    .

    1. GRANT OF LICENSE. Microsoft grants you the following rights
    provided that you comply with all terms and conditions of
    this EULA:

    * Installation and use. You may install, use, access,
    display and run one copy of the Product on a single
    computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device
    ("Workstation Computer"). The Product may not be used
    by more than two (2) processors at any one time on any
    single Workstation Computer. You may permit a maximum
    of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each
    a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to
    utilize the services of the Product solely for File and
    Print services, Internet Information Services, and remote
    access (including connection sharing and telephony
    services). The ten connection maximum includes any
    indirect connections made through "multiplexing" or other
    software or hardware which pools or aggregates
    connections. Except as otherwise permitted by the
    NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop
    features described below, you may not use the Product
    to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other
    executable software residing on the Workstation Computer,
    nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display,
    or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless
    the Device has a separate license for the Product.

    * Mandatory Activation. The license rights granted under this
    EULA are limited to the first thirty (30) days after
    you first install the Product unless you supply
    information required to activate your licensed copy in
    the manner described during the setup sequence of the
    Product. You can activate the Product through the use
    of the Internet or telephone; toll charges may apply.
    You may also need to reactivate the Product if you modify
    your computer hardware or alter the Product. There are
    technological measures in this Product that are designed
    to prevent unlicensed or illegal use of the Product.
    You agree that we may use those measures.

    * Storage/Network Use. You may also store or install a copy
    of the Product on a storage device, such as a network
    server, used only to install or run the Product on your
    other Workstation Computers over an internal network;
    however, you must acquire and dedicate an additional
    license for each separate Workstation Computer on or
    from which the Product is installed, used, accessed,
    displayed or run. A license for the Product may not be
    shared or used concurrently on different Workstation
    Computers.

    * Reservation of Rights. Microsoft reserves all rights not
    expressly granted to you in this EULA.

    2. UPGRADES. To use a Product identified as an upgrade, you must
    first be licensed for the product identified by Microsoft
    as eligible for the upgrade. After upgrading, you may no
    longer use t

  65. text of the article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    HOWTO: Getting a Windows Refund in California Small Claims Court
    Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 by Steve Oualline

    Thanks to good records and a Small Claims judge, Steve Oualline got a $199 refund for his unused copy of Microsoft Windows XP. One Linux user's story shows how to establish a good refund case.

    Getting a Microsoft Windows refund from a manufacturer is seldom easy to do. In this article, I describe some techniques you can use to get your refund, including how to deal with the manufacturers (and all their excuses) and going to small claims court.

    The first step to getting a refund is to ask for on. In most every case, you immediately hit a wall of stupidity and evasion when you do this. Dealing with this part properly is important, though, because you are building a record for the court case that may follow. Your job is to be as reasonable as possible and to make them look as dumb, inflexible and unreasonable as possible.

    It's important to know what excuses the manufactures will come up with and how to counter them.

    Excuse: You aren't entitled to a refund.

    Answer: Then why did the software come with a license that said I was. Isn't the license a binding contract?

    Excuse: Contact Microsoft about the refund.

    Answer: The license said contact the manufacturer. That's you. Why should I contact Microsoft when they said to contact you?

    Excuse: The software comes bundled with the hardware and can't be separated.

    Answer: Then why did you give me a license that said they could?

    Excuse: We'll give you a refund, but not for the retail price.

    Answer: I paid retail for the computer and the software.

    Excuse: The software is only worth $10.

    Answer: Okay. Send me the check.

    Although this doesn't look like it, you've won a major victory with these words--that check is written evidence of the fact that the manufacturer owes you a refund. If you go to court, you don't have to establish that the company owes you something. All you have to do is establish the amount.

    But before you do that, you should follow up with the company. There are several ways of doing this.

    Follow up #1: I got your check for $10. You say Windows XP costs only $10, so I'd like to buy 100 copies please. To whom do I make out the check for $1000?

    You won't sell me Windows XP for $10? I'll have to pay $199 for it? Then that means the check you sent me is too low. Please send me a check for the full amount.

    Follow up #2: I got your check for $10. But your $10 price is far lower that the retail price of Windows XP ($199). Because of the vast difference in the amounts, I'm going to have to ask you for a copy of your purchase contract with Microsoft so I can verify the price.

    You can't verify the price. Well, I can only find one documented price and that's $199. You'll have to pay that amount or document your price.

    One company tried this excuse with me. When I asked for documentation, the customer service representative said, "I don't have access to price information".

    "Then how did you come up with the $10 price figure?"

    "I just know it's the right amount."

    "So what you are really doing is guessing. Well, my guess is the software is worth $1,000,000. Tell you what, let's split the difference. Send me a check for $500,005."

    Excuse: We'll give you a refund but that applies to only Microsoft Windows, not the other bundled software.

    Answer: No problem. Please provide me with a copy of all the other software on another disk so I can install it under Linux using the Wine program.

    In all of these cases, follow up the phone conversation with a written letter describing what was said and why you're unhappy with it. Remember you are creating a record for the judge.

    At some point in this process you'll either get your refund (rare) or you'll realize

  66. Re:I'd like to see the How-To get an installable C by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    rather than a crappy spyware-laden OEM image that erases all your data when you try to use it. (Don't forget it's in the drive, BTW, I sat through a Compaq 'restore', left the machine on with the disk in it after installing all my stuff. A power outage reset the machine, which rebooted and helpfully 'restored' all those messy programs, configurations, and data back to OEM goodness.)
    That rocks that he got his $$$ back, those OEM 'Restore Disks' aren't worth the aluminum they're pressed on.


    Ok, first off, if the Compaq restore disk left in the drive performed an unattended restore, you have ghosts in your house. I use these restore CDs everyday to help fix broken computers and not ONCE have I ever seen one that does not prompt you before it begins the restore process.

    These disks are worth more than their weight in gold to me because of the time they save in restoring these machines back to their OEM condition.

    You sir...are an idiot.

  67. At most you get another Windows ME by Pac · · Score: 2, Interesting

    And not even that is certain. Noticed the EULA:
    "YOUR EXCLUSIVE REMEDY. Microsoft's and its suppliers' entire liability and your exclusive remedy shall be, at Microsoft's option from time to time, (a) return of the price paid (if any) for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, or (b) repair or replacement of, the SOFTWARE PRODUCT that does not meet this Limited Warranty and that is returned to Microsoft with a copy of your receipt. You will receive the remedy elected by Microsoft without charge, except that you are responsible for any expenses you may incur (e.g. cost of shipping the SOFTWARE PRODUCT to Microsoft). This Limited Warranty is void if failure of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT has resulted from accident, abuse, misapplication, abnormal use or a virus." (bold added by me)

    In Windows ME case, the lamest excuse for a Windows version ever to leave HellMouth, trying to use may well constitute "abuse, misapplication or abnormal use"...

  68. Mandrake: Linux without tears. by MsGeek · · Score: 1
    I haven't had any "install nightmare" on any version of Linux since 5.X ages ago. Red Hat 6, Suse 7, Suse 8, Red Hat 9 have never given me any issues on installation on any of the boxes I've installed them on.

    Vote of confidence for Mandrake 9.1. Mandrake 9 gave me a bit of trouble trying to install it on a computer with an NVidia nForce (I) chipset motherboard. But 9.1 even installs smoothly on that box. Mandrake Update is really, really easy too...just about as brain-dead easy as Windows Update. It's big and you might want to trim some apps from the install if you have limited HD space, but other than that, it rocks.

    OS-less desktops are getting easier and easier to find new. As far as OS-less laptops, you really have to go to Computer Geeks or other places like that and hunt for 'em.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
  69. software geek discrimination by ramzak2k · · Score: 1

    anyone else noticed the software geek discrimination ? i strongly object to the definition of geekdom you have pointed out there. Note - we software geeks might not be able to build our own hardware, we belong to slashdot because we write our own Windows.

    --

    Siggy Say, Siggy Do
  70. Parrot Talk by tds67 · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Hopefully this is the first of many victories.

    Hopefully this is the first of many victims.

  71. No offense to all you hopefuls out there... by fudgefactor7 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    but this guy is a dope, he EASILY could have just bought a computer (barebones) with no OS installed and saved himself a shitload of problems, but that asside, what he really wanted to do was "stick it to the man" and get $199 back on his PC purchase. That's nice and all, but how much time did he spend on the case, documentation, calls, etc? Work it out and that $199 is pittance. Even with court costs he is out money for trying to be cool.

    In short: he should have just stuck with the copy of XP and used it as a really expensive coaster or buy a barebones system and save the difference, time, and hassle.

    1. Re:No offense to all you hopefuls out there... by bricriu · · Score: 2, Informative

      RTFA. He got court costs (~$135) in the decision too.

      --

      AHHHHHHH! I'm burning with goodness again!
      - Reakk, Sluggy Freelance

    2. Re:No offense to all you hopefuls out there... by Delphiki · · Score: 1

      Read the post you're responding too. He mentioned court costs. Of course, I disagree with him, but that's another issue. With a refund like this you could get a Dell laptop for like $399 after the mail-in rebate and refund? Of course would you really want one? Anyway, it's a valid point that he did have to go through a hassle to get that cash, so it depends on how valuable your time is to you.

      --

      Feel free to mod me "-1 - Angry Jerk".

  72. showing the license to the judge by Maimun · · Score: 1
    When you start the software, there is no way of printing the license without agreeing to it. To print it you must install the software. If you install the software, you agree to the license.

    One thing you can do is get the court to issue a subpoena for the license and require that the company bring a copy of the license to court. Or you can ignore the problem and try your case without a printed copy of the license.

    I wonder if it makes sense here to print the screen somehow, or even take a picture of the screen. Will it be more beneficial to attach these pictures to your documents for the case?
  73. Re:At $10 it's WAY overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Seriously, if you have a boner about M$, like I do, don't buy a packaged PC. Build it yourself. You'll save a lot of time, money and headaches."

    I agree and have built my own in the past, but now it's getting cheaper to buy a prebuilt one than buy all the parts separately.

  74. Laptop OSes by bytesmythe · · Score: 4, Informative
    Many people seem to think you can't get a laptop without an OS preinstalled. You just have to know where to shop...

    • Discount Laptops Note the "Optional Operating System" bit...
    • PowerNotebooks.com even has pre-installed linux on selected models, if you want. Build your own system and you don't have to have an OS installed at all.

    I'm sure there are more out there... Just pop over to ResellerRatings.com and search for notebook or laptop.

    --
    bytesmythe
    Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
    -- Scott Meyer
    1. Re:Laptop OSes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Laptop OSes by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Until someone comes up wuith the ability for me to custom build my laptop I'm not interested...

      I want choice of video card (Nvidia Geforce 2 or better) mostly... I've had nothing but headaches with linux and that ATI mobility crap is it so hard to give us a laptop with a real video card?

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Laptop OSes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if you want a specific brand of laptop, and these brands that are sold by the vendors in your post don't cut it? What if I want to go to Circuit City and buy a Toshiba without WinXP?

      Whether there are vendors and manufacturers who opt out of MS licensing is not the issue. The issue is that I am forced to pay for a bundled OS even if I already have another OS I'm going to put on it.

      I've had this experience numerous times. Most recently, with a Toshiba that came with WinXP home... But I've wiped that and installed Win2K Pro from my MSDN subscription. Someone has been compensated for a WinXP install, and it wasn't me. What's more, if I wanted to install that copy of WinXP somewhere else, I couldn't -- because it's install media is on a special restore disk that only works on a Toshiba laptop. Plus, I expect it's already been activated anyway.

      So, either that copy of XP was literally free of charge, or I paid something for it. Which is it?

      A worse example is my workplace -- we have a few hundred servers running Linux. They all have OEM Win2K licenses. Even if they didn't, they are all covered under a site license, and each machine is counted for the site license fee. It wouldn't bother me at all if there was a reasonable way to correct the problem, but there isn't. There is no reason to expect compensation, and the guy in the article is just one case, that doesn't set a precedent for anyone else.

    4. Re:Laptop OSes by ColonelPanic · · Score: 1

      Well, I've wanted an alternative source for laptops comparable to the Dells I've been using, so I checked out both of the sites that you mentioned. Neither of them had a unit with 1600x1200 resolution, and powernotebooks.com showed some warning signs of being run by religious zealots. Too bad. I may just have to use the small-claims court approach to a Windows refund the next time that I upgrade my laptop -- an idea that sounds even better when I realize that it's Dell that probably has to eat the cost of the refund, a fit punishment for claiming to be a Linux-friendly company and then not making it available on their notebook gear.

      You might think that I should just stand on principle and get a 1440x1050 display or whatever it was that these guys sell, but once you've enjoyed 1600x1200 and all the code you can see clearly at once with lots of windows and tiny fonts, you just can't ever go back.

      --
      "Skill shows through where genius wears thin." -Wittgenstein || Religion: uniting aviation and architecture.
    5. Re:Laptop OSes by rosewood · · Score: 1

      Not for me sir.

      Ive purchased a handfull of laptops recently for customers and they all came from best buy. Why that damn store?

      3 years of protection, including if they travel outside of the USA. 3 years of battery replacement, etc. etc. etc.

      Those god damned PSPs are handy on a *few* things.

      SO - If I am going to spend $1000 on a laptop, getting $200 off from the MS tax makes the price just right :)

    6. Re:Laptop OSes by bytesmythe · · Score: 1
      What if you want a specific brand of laptop, and these brands that are sold by the vendors in your post don't cut it? What if I want to go to Circuit City and buy a Toshiba without WinXP?

      Toshiba may have branded the laptop, but who actually made it? I haven't looked up the specifics for that brand, but it appears that many of them are made by the same few companies. So, perhaps one of the online vendors really does have what you're looking for... just under a different brand name.

      At any rate, I hate the way the site licensing and pre-installed licensing arrangements work. Every vendor should allow you to purchase a computer without a pre-licensed OS already installed on it. Also, if you DO purchase the OS, it should come with original install disks, not those hobbled brand-only restore disks. I think those stupid disks may be due to license agreements that require that a particular installation of the OS can only be installed on a particular machine, and if you get rid of the machine, the OS license has to accompany it. What a crock.

      --
      bytesmythe
      Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
      -- Scott Meyer
    7. Re:Laptop OSes by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Really, buy a vaio from best buy and try for the battery replacement. There is NO warranty on the battery in a sony vaio, none, if it croaks the first hour of use your screwed.

  75. Re:Refunds? -- interesting mod system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's not ironic by any definition of the word (the real one or the slashdot one). One was posted before the other, you can tell by looking at the comment number. They are not the smae.

  76. Notebooks by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

    Ever try to buy the notebook you want without Windows already installed on it?

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:Notebooks by elemental23 · · Score: 1

      Yep. It came with OS X installed on it :)

      --
      I like my women like my coffee... pale and bitter.
  77. Clearly you've never installed Linux by tfriedlich · · Score: 2, Funny

    We are a people who love to jump through hoops.

  78. Re:Refunds? -- interesting mod system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But it's the one that was posted first that's at zero.

  79. Won't scale by donutello · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What this case boiled down to was that it would cost more than $199 for the vendor to fight this in court and therefore the vendor cut its losses and didn't fight it.

    Do this too often to the point where the vendor thinks their total expenses will be more than it will cost to fight it and they will. And they won't need to fight every case, just the first one and use that as precedent.

    --
    Mmmm.. Donuts
    1. Re:Won't scale by koreth · · Score: 1
      And they won't need to fight every case, just the first one and use that as precedent.

      Only if they win.

    2. Re:Won't scale by deblau · · Score: 1

      Sorry, small claims courts don't set official legal precedent. I'd give you a link, but one doesn't seem to be readily available from an official legal document site. Just google for "small claims court" and "legal precedent" and you'll get the picture.

      --
      This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
    3. Re:Won't scale by shaitand · · Score: 1

      They can't use it for the same reason we can't. It's small claim court, no precedent set. And for the little precedent it may be worth, my 20 cases trumps your one. It's not like you beat me at a higher level of the court system. One judge with equal authority ruled in your favor, 20 judges prior to that had ruled in mine.

  80. I think you mean... by default+luser · · Score: 1

    And if fifty people do it...

    Can you imagine fifty people a day singin' a bar of The Free Software Song and walkin' out?

    Why then friends, they'll think it's a movement, and that's what it is: The Free Software Anti-Taxation movement, and all you gotta do to join is sing a bar when it comes around on the guitar.

    --

    Man is the animal that laughs.
    And occasionally whores for Karma.

    1. Re:I think you mean... by haystor · · Score: 1

      Thank you for filling it in for me. I couldn't quite remember the words and I've lost the cd.

      For those of you that don't recognize it, this is a reference to Arlo Guthrie's "Thanksgiving Day Masacre" ("Alice's Restaurant").

      The thought of 50 people singing the free software song defies my imagination and gives me the creeps.

      --
      t
    2. Re:I think you mean... by PetWolverine · · Score: 1

      EULA? I'm compliant. I made my changes to it and clicked "AGREE".

      I made my changes, too. I'm now on the boards of several large companies.

      --
      I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
    3. Re:I think you mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The 30th anniversary of the Watergate scandal is rolling around about now. Arlo tells a story about running into President Carter's son Chip at some function. Chip said that when the Carters moved into the Whitehouse, the Nixon's collection of records was still in the residence. Included in the collection was "Alice's Restaurant." "Had it been opened?" Arlo asked. Sure enough. And now we know why there was a 22 1/2 minute gap in one of the most important Watergate tapes. 22 1/2 minutes is just the length of Alice's Restaurant Thanksgiving Day Masacre.

  81. Actually, a victory after all by codefool · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The point is to illustrate the the hardware manufacturers don't really mean it when they say you can get a refund, since they have no clear refund policy in place. In the end, we want M$ to stop forcing hardware manufacturers into bundling Windoze. If they have to issue enough refunds, it will happen. M$ is banking on the fact that most people won't go to the trouble.

    --
    "Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble
    1. Re:Actually, a victory after all by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      The purpose of the refund offer is to make the EULA an enforceable contract. If it can be demonstrated that the refund is not actually available in practice to an ordinary purchaser then the EULA will become unenforceable.

      > If they have to issue enough refunds, it will
      > happen. M$ is banking on the fact that most
      > people won't go to the trouble.

      They're right.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  82. Original Cost by imAck · · Score: 1

    One thing I imagine the judge may be interested in seeing would be the retail cost that you paid for the entire system, including any refunds. I imagine, if the OEM people wanted to throw lawyers at your case to make a point, they could bring the total retail cost of the system up if it helped their case. But what do I know, I May Not Be A Lawyer, But I Play One On TV

    --

    It's hard to tell the cool to chill, my favorite hotel room has a view to an ill.

  83. It is a little bit more difficult than you think. by ratfynk · · Score: 1
    Sometimes the out of the box win computers are one hell of a lot cheaper than building a comparable system yourself. Problem comes when you find a really wierd piece of hardware in the config that has not had a driver update since kernel 2.2 then you need to be a little bit of a guru to get things going. This happens alot with cheap hardware that never gets redesigned and is brought out of hiding by outfits like Gateway because they have tons of old hardware kicking around from the days before the .net disaster.

    Which is what happens with MS OEM most of the time. The trick is to buy from an oem distributor that still uses good quality hardware, most of which is Linux supported. The cheaper OEM stuff is almost always the problem. Companies like Gateway can be a real pain in the arse. HP almost always will be supported. Needless to say you can run a Dell right out of the box. So getting to know your hardware specs before you install windows can also be a problem. Quite often the guy selling it does not have a clue he just says it only works with Windows then go gets his minimum wage pay check. And displays flashes his A+ ticket at you.

    --
    OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
  84. Re:What the fuck does this have to do with Pac-Man by Burritos · · Score: 0

    Tjos goes out to the infamous MC burritos
    who wears diapers underneath his speedos

    .-. .-. .--. |
    | OO| | OO| / _.-' .-. .-. .-. .''. |
    | | | | \ '-. '-' '-' '-' '..' |
    '^^^' '^^^' '--' |
    |

  85. Dell Policy by Manip · · Score: 1

    not owned by Dell is supplied subject to licence and warranty of the Software licensor. Dell encloses the Software licence that you require with the Product where necessary; you must comply with that licence. If you choose not to accept the operating system licence at start-up, if any, Dell will only accept the return of the entire product for refund.

    No refund for me :(

  86. PERFECT EXAMPLE by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 1

    Thank you for making my point.

    I too was looking for a TV and I did not care about PIP. I was at the point of purchasing a certain model when I decided I was going to look around some more. Lo and behold I found the same TV but a model down and no PIP. Was it worth the effort? Well, I did save $100. It did take me an extra week of looking, but I did save some money. For a lot of people that extra week of effort is not worth $100 and for my company pestering a computer manufacturer for a refund on an unused copy of Windows entails a similar effort.

    Companies use this psychology against us, ubsurd or not.

    1. Re:PERFECT EXAMPLE by smack.addict · · Score: 1
      What I referred to as absurd was the original poster claiming that it was some matter of principle. It is not at all absurd for you to search for and pay less for a TV without the unused feature if you value your time less than $100.

      In short, it has nothing to do with principle. It has to do with value.

  87. Slow and steady may work for a refund... by germinatoras · · Score: 1

    But a slow and steady webserver is just plain annoying!

    Actually, there probably isn't much left of the webserver anymore. :-(

  88. dream on. by twitter · · Score: 1
    The thing that you do not want to do is be a nut case. Don't bash Microsoft...

    That's right, but you should have quoted the rest of it. You let the company you are dealing with act in an unreasonable manner and then you present the record of that to a small claims court judge. The winner is,

    "Your honor, I read the license agreement, and it said they'd give me a refund. But they won't do it." That's it. A simple contract dispute. Judges understand things like that.

    The site is very good and this is worth doing if you want to buy a fancy laptop nice and new or if you are a small company buying a few dozen computers. His little web page describing computer vendor and microsoft behavior says all he needs to about the quality and worth of Microsoft software. I avoid the whole thing by building my own computers, like most people do. Sometimes you don't have the option. 10 computers is about $2000, well worth the time and trouble.

    You and Bill Gates only hope that few people have the sense of self control it takes to do this. The EULA will have to be rewritten, because this stratagy will work. Who knows, companies might start to sell hardware with alternate or no OS if this costs them enough. Way to go Stevie! Let's make it hurt.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

    1. Re:dream on. by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      They can't rewrite that part of the EULA -- if they didn't give people the opportunity to reject the thing for their money back, they'd jeopardize the enforcability of the entire shebang. Judge Easterbrook wrote the very pro-EULA "ProCD" opinion, but take a look at it for his discussion about the need for an opportunity for rejection.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    2. Re:dream on. by ReelOddeeo · · Score: 1

      Rewrite suggestion.....

      If you do not agree with the terms of this EULA, then you must erase all of the software on the hard drive without using it.

      [I Agree] [Erase] ?


      There. How's that?

      --

      Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
    3. Re:dream on. by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Dunno. I'll have to dig out my copy of the UCC. I doubt it though -- if you're timely rejecting goods sold based on the terms, I'd imagine you get to get your money back, if you return the goods.

      If you can't do that, then it seems unlikely that the EULA is rejectable, despite not having gotten to see it when you did have an opportunity to reject. That would put it into a whole new ballpark. Probably turn it into a straight-up sale of goods like anything else.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  89. Off topic?!!! -- Give me a break! by mariox19 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Wow! I guess if a guy doesn't enclose his post in <humor></humor> the joke totally goes over the heads of the moderators!

    I would've preferred being modded down for "not funny."

    --

    quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

  90. GPL tax looming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just wait until RMS and FSF type sue enough companies so that it costs $10,000.00 or more to get a company's in house legal staff to research GPL, OSS and determine that it can be used without forcing the commercial software developed to be opened sourced.

    This legal vetting of GPL and OSS will be known as the "GPL Tax".

  91. Settlement Agreement for $10. by David+Hume · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the article:

    Excuse: The software is only worth $10.

    Answer: Okay. Send me the check.

    [snip]

    In all of these cases, follow up the phone conversation with a written letter describing what was said and why you're unhappy with it. Remember you are creating a record for the judge.

    [snip]

    If you've received a $10 check, you can say something like, "They would only give me a $10 refund for $199 of software."


    It looks to me that the plaintiff agreed to settle his claim for $10. I suspect that if the judge knew the pertinent facts, the plaintiff would get only $10. He entered into an oral contract to accept $10 as his refund, and then (presumably) memorialized that agreement in writing (i.e., by letter). I don't think the judge would be impressed by the plaintiff engaging in the "bait and switch" tactics of agreeing to accept $10.00 to settle his claim in order to establish liability (which it wouldn't), and then renegging on the deal and demanding more.

    So why did the plaintiff get a judgment for $100? Because the other side didn't show up:

    My case was even simpler. The company did not show up.


    As recounted in the story, the Small Claims Court judge properly made the plaintiff "prove up" his case. However, when the plaintiff did so he didn't bother to mention that he agreed to accept $10.00 to settle his claim:

    Judge: The defendant didn't show up, but Mr. Oualline you still have to prove your case. You say that they owe you some money. Why?

    Me: I bought a computer from them, and when I booted it up it displayed a license agreement with a long list of restrictions that limited what I could do with my computer. It also said that if I didn't agree with the license agreement, I could get a refund.

    Judge: I take it you didn't get your refund.

    Me: They sent me an e-mail yesterday offering me one, but it was only for the software. I want my court costs too.

    The judge then fumbled through my papers looking for the printout of the refund letter. He found it.

    Judge: You removed the software from your system.

    Me: Yes.

    Judge: You installed something else.

    Me: I installed Linux.

    Judge: Judgment for the plaintiff.


    1. Re:Settlement Agreement for $10. by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      As recounted in the story, the Small Claims Court judge properly made the plaintiff "prove up" his case. However, when the plaintiff did so he didn't bother to mention that he agreed to accept $10.00 to settle his claim

      He did submit the $10.00 check as evidence to the judge, so why would he need to explain that part unless the judge brought it up?

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    2. Re:Settlement Agreement for $10. by Nexus+Seven · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're misinterpreting the oral contract.

      He agreed to the settlement - the cost of the software - in good faith. The cost of the software as quoted by the company was $10.

      The company later demonstrated that had incorrectly quoted the value, since they wouldn't sell him the software at that cost.

      Therefore, he hadn't reneged on the deal at all, but the company had fraudulently quoted a deflated cost in order to reduce the agreed settlement amount. Had the company agreed to sell him 200 copies of XP for $2000, he'd have no case.

    3. Re:Settlement Agreement for $10. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, it would help his case if he never cashed the check. Just because he agreed to let them mail a check for $10 to him doesn't mean he agreed that it settled the whole matter.

    4. Re:Settlement Agreement for $10. by misterpies · · Score: 1


      That's actually a very valid point. Even if the courts don't interpret taking the $10 as being a contract, they might regard you as having promised not to pursue the claim further and so decide it would be unfair to let you now change your mind (the technical term for this is estoppel).

      The way around it is to take the check but make it clear that you're not waiving your claim to the full amount. I.e. say something like "I'll take your $10 as a part payment on my claim. I'm still claiming the full $199". Then you've clearly established that the company admits they owe you money, without any implication that you're accepting their cash in final settlement

      --
      The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
    5. Re:Settlement Agreement for $10. by David+Hume · · Score: 1

      You're misinterpreting the oral contract.

      He agreed to the settlement - the cost of the software - in good faith. The cost of the software as quoted by the company was $10.


      No, I am not misrepresenting the oral contract. The plaintiff clearly agreed to accept the sum of $10. Again, from the article:

      Excuse: The software is only worth $10.

      Answer: Okay. Send me the check.


      Contracts are interpreted according to the objective, reasonable person test. That is, how would an objective, reasonable person interpret the language used? In the above situation, a reasonable person would conclude that the plaintiff agreed to accept $10 to settle his claim. An objective, reasonable person certainly would not expect the plaintiff to accept receipt of the $10 check, and then turn around and sue for $199.

      Or consider this. You hit somebody's lawn ornament with your car. They claim it is worth $200. You say you are confident that it is worth only $50. They respond, "Okay. Send me the check." You send them a check for $50. They then turn around and sue you for $200. Do you think that would be right?

    6. Re:Settlement Agreement for $10. by Nexus+Seven · · Score: 1

      In the above situation, a reasonable person would conclude that the plaintiff agreed to accept $10 to settle his claim.

      He agree to accept the $10 because that was the quoted value of the software. Later on, it was demonstrated that value was quoted incorrectly, thus rendering the settlement void.

      Or consider this. You hit somebody's lawn ornament with your car. They claim it is worth $200. You say you are confident that it is worth only $50. They respond, "Okay. Send me the check." You send them a check for $50. They then turn around and sue you for $200. Do you think that would be right?

      That would only be a valid example if I were a lawn ornament salesman.
      If they then came to me and attempted to buy a replacement ornament for $50 and I say "it costs $200 to replace that ornament", then yes they have every right to sue me. Why? because I'd defrauded them.

      The case hinges on the fact that the company stated "The software is only worth $10". If they had said "We'll only give you $10" then there is no dishonesty, and no case.

    7. Re:Settlement Agreement for $10. by shaitand · · Score: 1

      But you never accepted any payment, you've only agreed to let them mail you a check. Until you cash it they've given you nothing.

    8. Re:Settlement Agreement for $10. by misterpies · · Score: 1


      no, they've given you a promise to pay you $10, in the form of a check. Even if they cancel the check, they still owe you the money

      --
      The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
  92. Thats 273.43 by future+assassin · · Score: 0
    199 US = 273.43 CAD.
    Thats a computer $273.43 cheaper plus two visits two the local all inclusive massage parlour :)

    Jungle/Hardcore webcast Future Assassin

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  93. Re:At $10 it's WAY overpriced. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Seriously, if you have a boner about M$, like I do, don't buy a packaged PC. Build it yourself. You'll save a lot of time, money and headaches.

    Try buying a laptop without Win XP Pro or Home, that's not so easy nowadays.

    Another caveat is the noise a DIY system is likely to make. Getting a self-assembled box to be reasonably quiet is not an easy task, whereas the systems from major manufacturers are engineered from the ground up to be very quiet. I don't care if my computer makes a manly sound under my desk, but many people do.

    BTW, I just upgraded my main system to a 2.5 GHz AMD processor and 512 MB DDR memory. This caused *lots* of headaches to me, due to the brain-damaged layout of the MSI nForce 2 board I used at first and its reluctance to work with three different brands of DDR 2700 memory I threw at it (and I'm not even talking OCing here). I junked the board, switched to ASUS and am a happy camper since.

  94. But Who Was It? by Euphonious+Coward · · Score: 1
    We need to know who the vendor was!

    By demonstrating precedent and a history of violations, we not only get a much better chance of winning, we get a much better chance of treble damages. (That means $600 instead of $200.) I'd hesitate to do this just for the $200, but for $600 it would feel a lot more fun.

    Of course it would be just a little awkward if the defendant was IBM. But only a little.

  95. Previous Ruling by mobileskimo · · Score: 1

    IANAL, but wouldn't it be easier for others to make their case if someone could, or Steve Oualline himself could, post somewhere the court order or transcript or whatever its called? That way we could all go into court with this ruling IN ADDITION TO (please, no boneheads going to court with no evidence and a copy of the transcript) the evidence of their particular case.

    --
    "Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
  96. In Other News... by jetkust · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Steve Oualline joins the crew of MTV's Jackass, writes several skits for Tom Green and TRUTH, and curses president Bush on live television while receiving an accademy award.

  97. Good Job! by corgicorgi · · Score: 1

    I like the spirit shown by this arthor. Although monetary reward is not so great considering the time spent, the arthor truly exercised his rights as a consumer. If all the consumers out there can 1) independently make a choice on the what products they want, and 2) take action against situation where a manufacturers bundle products they don't want, then that will truly be the best offense against Microsoft.

  98. Screen Shots of the License Agreement by SiO2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the article:

    There's one document that I've not talked about yet, and that's the license agreement. I never have been able to find a copy of the license agreement in any of the printed materials that comes with the laptop. The only copy I know of is on the disk itself.

    When you start the software, there is no way of printing the license without agreeing to it. To print it you must install the software. If you install the software, you agree to the license.


    Why not just take pictures of the license agreement and either have them developed (if you have a conventional film camera) or print them out (if you have a digital camera) for submission to the court? That seems fairly obvious and easy.

    SiO2

  99. Copyright by wurp · · Score: 1

    Aren't you violating copyright if you make a copy of their license without their permission? I would think that even printing the license out would be a violation.

    I'm not joking - copyright restrictions seem tight enough now that a company would at least threaten you for copying their license without permission.

    1. Re:Copyright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's fair use. Very fair. No judge, even on drugs, would deem such copying wrong.

  100. $199 per system, how many systems? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    You say most are wiped and Linux installed. How many systems? 10? 100?

    That's $2,000 and $20,000. Out of the realms of a small claims court. Perhaps you need a lawyer.

    --
    Deleted
  101. Donations... by bobthemuse · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hmm.... Can I donate all my spare XP and 2000 licenses to my favorite charity? If they got enough, it might be worth their while to pursue it in court? Would this be possible...?

    I have visions of a FSF rep in court with 10k licenses in big boxes, MSFT lawyers everywhere.....

    1. Re:Donations... by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      Would this be possible...?

      If you donate your copy of windows to a charitable organization, then you implicitly accept ownership of it (at least enough ownership to be able to donate it as your property) which would go against your claim of getting a refund for it.

      Besides, I think most Windows EULAs state specifically that the license is non-transferable.

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
  102. There's something fishy... by geekee · · Score: 1, Insightful

    First, why $199? If he didn't intend to run Windows, getting Wondows home xp is around $99. So did he buy a computer with xp pro or pay too much for xp home or rip off the OEM by getting more back than xp home is worth? Second, OEM's are not forced to ship a computer with Wondows by MS anymore (by law). Therefore, if a manufacturer decides to do this anyway, you shouldn't be able to return Windows. That's what you agreed to buy when you bought a computer with windows preinstalled. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. For cost and testablility reasons, it's easier for an OEM to install windows on a box and test and ship it, than to ship machines with differnt OS configs or no os. Anyway, so can I start taking stuff out of my car and returning it to the manufacturer now, if I didn't want it but it came with the base model (such as the radio, back seat, etc.)? That's basically the same idea.

    --
    Vote for Pedro
    1. Re:There's something fishy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think you're missing part of the point. he wasn't given the software license agreement to read and agree to BEFORE agreeing to buy a computer with Windows on it, he was only presented this license agreement afterwards.

      He points out in the article that he didn't want to accept the terms of the license, and so he wanted a refund for his now useless purchase of software.

    2. Re:There's something fishy... by Sven+The+Space+Monke · · Score: 1
      First, why $199?

      $199 because at the time of purchase, that was the retail cost of WinXP (whatever version he got, be it Pro or Home). That was all he had to prove. After that, it was the defendant's job to prove the actual cost was something different. Since they didn't show, they couldn't do that.

      Second, OEM's are not forced to ship a computer with Wondows by MS anymore (by law).

      You're absolutely right. When MS was forcing OEM's to ship Windows, the EULA was not presented and agreed to by the end user BEFORE the purchase, rendering it null and void. Essentially, the end user was allowed to do anything allowed by law that the EULA would otherwise curb. It would be like if you leased a car. The dealer still owns it, they just let you drive it for a certain period of time. But after you pay the dealer (deposit, first month, etc), you are then presented with a contract that says when and where you are allowed to drive the car, or what gas stations you are allowed to frequent. If you don't agree the contract, tough. Can't drive the car. Sucks to be you. Maybe you would have agreed had the dealer presented the contract before you paid, maybe not. The legal problem comes down to that, while the dealer still owns the car, they agreed to let you drive it for the conditions presented BEFORE you paid. They added conditions after the transaction, with no recourse if you did not like the added conditions.

      Same with Windows. You bought it without reading the EULA - it wasn't even presented to you. Any conditions added after the purchase are null and void unless you have a way of getting a refund if you do not agree to the added conditions. Basically, MS was pulling a yoink, and the courts didn't like it. MS was told that they have the right to limit the use of their software, but the consumer has a right to know what limits were in place BEFORE they buy. And if they (the consumer) didn't have a way of agreeing to the EULA contract before they purchased, they have to have a way of getting their money back if they don't like the conditions. Without that recourse, the entire EULA is rendered null and void since it is an attempt to change the deal after the fact, so to speak.

      In your example, you talk about returning the back seat for a partial refund. That would work only if you did not know the car came with a back seat before you purchased (good luck proving that), and the dealer "snuck it in" after you paid.

      --
      A man who can't pronouce "nuclear arsenal" shouldn't have one -sig ends here.
    3. Re:There's something fishy... by geekee · · Score: 1

      "And if they (the consumer) didn't have a way of agreeing to the EULA contract before they purchased, they have to have a way of getting their money back if they don't like the conditions. Without that recourse, the entire EULA is rendered null and void since it is an attempt to change the deal after the fact, so to speak."

      It seems to me the LA should be read by the EU before he buys the computer, not after. If he doesn't like it and he can't get the computer without Windows, then go somewhere else. Forcing an OEM to refund parts you don't want that you agreed to buy just seems silly since there's no reason the EULA can't be posted on the website or whereever he buys it.

      --
      Vote for Pedro
    4. Re:There's something fishy... by Sven+The+Space+Monke · · Score: 1
      Oh, come on. Can you honestly picture Best Buy, Future Shop or any other big box that pays minimum wage forcing employees to have customers read the MS EULA before they fork over the cash? For that matter, can you picutre Dell or Gateway doing it for their phone orders? For the website, sure. That's just one more click. But an in-person purchase requires copies of the EULA to be on hand, and for the customers to READ it. For the phone, the poor bastard taking the order then has to read the EULA to the customer. No retailer/OEM will go to that expense when they can do it the way it's done now.

      Right now, they (retailers and OEM's) WANT to do it this way because very few people will bother with the refund. If the customer is forced to agree before the purchase, they are afraid that the customer will be upset that they must agree to a contract restricting the way they use the computer before they buy. Your post leads me to believe that you are forgetting that most computer buyers don't even know what slashdot is. These people will agree to the EULA after purchase, but will start to get suspicious if they have to sign before they buy.

      --
      A man who can't pronouce "nuclear arsenal" shouldn't have one -sig ends here.
  103. so who was it and why stop at $199? by frovingslosh · · Score: 0
    That was unacceptable to me; I wanted $199 and court costs...... Also, I wanted to be able to tell people what happened.

    So if he wanted to be able to talk about it so bad, and even turned down the $199 offer so that, in part, he could; why in the world is he not saying who he won this judgement against? He seems to be going out of his way to avoid doing exactly what he claimed he wanted to be able to do.

    Also, in the article he mentioned that he should have been able to get not just a refund for Windows, but also for the additional software that he bought with the computer. That or get installable copies that he could install under Wine. But he got neither, since the software he had was pre-installed on the Windows system and there was no seperate installation disk. Why didn't he ask for this too when he files the claim? If you're going to go after bad manufacturer policies, centaingly this pre-installed only software with no install disk is an important one to go after too, and if he won the Windows portion of the case it's likely he could have won for "several hundred dollars "worth" of extra software" he got with the computer too. I would certainly like to see that win as it would serve the manufacturer an important message against filling half of a notebook's hard drive with bloat but giving the buyer no way to uninstall some of the software if the ever want to be able to reinstall it again.

    Not that I'm against bundeled software, but the way it's being done is a complete disservice to the customer. And the manufacturer who installs ten cents worth of software and then advertises that as "includes $1000 worth of valuable software" should be called to task for it, and since in this case it was lost due to the need to reject the Windows license terms, this would be a perfect case to hold the manufacturer responsiable for providing installable copies of software.

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:so who was it and why stop at $199? by lactose99 · · Score: 2, Informative

      So if he wanted to be able to talk about it so bad, and even turned down the $199 offer so that, in part, he could; why in the world is he not saying who he won this judgement against? He seems to be going out of his way to avoid doing exactly what he claimed he wanted to be able to do.

      According to the author's chronology of events, he had already begun the filing in Small Claims Court (costing $135) for getting his money back, and he mentioned this as part of the reason for not accepting the settlement.

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    2. Re:so who was it and why stop at $199? by frovingslosh · · Score: 1
      and he mentioned this as part of the reason

      Yes, that's why I was clear to say " turned down the $199 offer so that, in part, he could (talk about it)". This was his claim in the article that you clearly read. So the questions still stand, who was this suit against? (heck, if it's a true story then it should be a matter of public record, there is no good reason to hide this), and why not file for a refund on the other bundeled software too, since you did pay something for it and certainly can't use it if you didn't get installable media and are forced to delete the pre-installed copy.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  104. An interesting scenario for a Windows user... by taernim · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Okay, so here's an interesting idea. Most of the people here are giving scenarios that say "Oh, I don't use Windows, so give me my $200 back."

    What about those of us who DO use Windows... but may not use the version bundled with the hardware? Dell is a real pain to deal with, from my experience, because they insist you use the OS they send you... or else it "could be pirated." And how do you upgrade? You MUST buy it from them. Even buying it from Microsoft, Best Buy with receipt... none of those are acceptable.

    So I think I should be able to say "Sorry, I didn't use WinME. I want my $200 back, since I use a separate version I purchased independently."

    Feasible?

    --
    "PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
    1. Re:An interesting scenario for a Windows user... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel the pain.

      I actually got a burned copy of Win 2000 from a friend and installed that. I figured I was justified, because I left the shrinkwrapped copy of the install CDs for the OS bundled with the computer still totally intact, in a drawer. I figure, I paid them for one OS... right?

    2. Re:An interesting scenario for a Windows user... by taernim · · Score: 1

      I don't know if I would go that far. I mean a legitimate copy of the OS I purchased.

      I bought XP Pro... so why should I be forced, under penalty of voiding of the warranty, to use an inferior OS? Millenium... ugh.

      --
      "PC Load Letter? What the $@#% does that mean?!"
    3. Re:An interesting scenario for a Windows user... by CrkHead · · Score: 1

      I do break/fix repair for a manufacturer other than Dell. The reason we only support the original OS or an upgrade purchased through us is quite simple: In order to pay me, keep the shop open, and have someone on the other end of the line when you call is by selling product. If Best Buy made the proffit from your copy of Windows Whatever, they should then have the responsibility to support it.

    4. Re:An interesting scenario for a Windows user... by rosewood · · Score: 1

      For simplicity sake, just install linux until you get your ruling.

      BUT - Im sure if you show the recipt in your records to the judge saying that you installed something else then it would be the same.

      The whole idea here is that the EULA that one violates and gets them sent to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison on violation ALSO says that if you don't like it, you can get a refund.

      All of this would be mute if it just said "if you don't like it, don't install it, and eat a dick."

    5. Re:An interesting scenario for a Windows user... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      That is the exact same thing, however you came across your other OS. You have a different OS you want to run on your pc than the one the manufacturer bundled. You don't agree with the terms and persue it the same way.

  105. What if... by kavau · · Score: 1
    what if the company says, "Okay, we admit that you are entitled to a refund for the copy of Windows XP that shipped with your computer. However, since we sold Windows XP as part of a complete package, we will give you a full refund for the entire system you purchased with us."

    This seems to be a reasonable thing to do for the company, but it's not exactly the purpose of the exercise, which was to get a Windows-free system (e.g. a laptop) without paying the Microsoft tax. Any ideas how one could argue in such a scenario?

  106. Re:Fog Creek Diaries... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It would be better if it were Frog Creek. There is a Frog Creek in Florida. I once worked with a guy who lived in the Frog Creek Trailor Park. He and his mom used to get up and eat fried eggs and drink beer for breakfast.

    It must have been a wonderful place to live.

  107. It's not that easy. by twitter · · Score: 1
    buy your hardware from the few companies that make OS free, or Linux dedicated boxes.

    Sure, I do this and get far superior hardware to any of the big rip-off box sellers like Dell or Gateway. This won't work in many situations though. Laptops and company roll outs are prominent examples.

    Last time I looked, there were still no makers of OS free laptops. Two or three trolls pointed to one or two companies that sold what were really luggables or computers with many choices of Windoze. There, most people are better off buying used equipment. This sucks and it's exactly what Stevie faced.

    Company roll outs are hard to devise as well. The small business puts themselves at great risk trying to build more than a few boxes at once. Even if you have bought and used a motherboard in the past, you can't be sure you will get the same thing next time and quirks on roll out are embarasing. Things to look out for are bios changes like the addition of a "bios virus checker" that sees lilo (and perhaps others) as a boot sector virus. If you can't disable this, you are screwed and have to push the roll out back while you fix things. This potential stall added to the time it will take you to put the things together needs to be talked about upfront before you get your boss or client in a jam. It puts you at a disadvantage to big dumb companies that only sell windoze boxes.

    It would be better if big dumb companies acted honestly to begin with, and that's what cases like this will force. Steveie has presented a way to make selling windows only very expensive. It should be persued the same way big companies have been happy to persue DMCA and other abominations. Breach of contract is simple to prove but it takes time and effort big dumb companies don't expect people to put forth. Ha.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  108. Install Nightmare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What install nightmare? I'm an idiot. Yet when I installed Linux for the first time, and every time since then with multiple distros, Linux installed 10X easier than any Windows OS I've ever installed. Your posting is too laughable to be called FUD - it isn't worthy enough of that estimable title.

    1. Re:Install Nightmare? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm an idiot
      we know
  109. Both approaches seem valid by Idou · · Score: 1

    1. OS FREE or Linux pre-installed hardware:

    Obviously MS will not be getting a cut, and if they do, it is inefficient for the retailer and the market will eventually correct the inefficiency.

    2. Sue for a refund on Windows pre-installed hardware:

    MS gets their cut, however, the retailer is seriously damaged for not giving an option of an OS FREE or Linux pre-installed system (retail price of Windows AND legal costs). If enough people sue (if I could file in the same small claims court as this individual, I would definitely buy a windows pre-installed box just so that I could sue, because boring legal procedings fascinate me ;), the retailer will be forced to provide Windowless boxes or the market will remedy the situation by squashing the retailer.

    Either method seems to be effective and have its own unique benefits to the cause. One costs the retailer, while the other costs MS. I say pick either one, depending on your available time and interests.

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
  110. I dunno... think about the general case... by pomakis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm as frustrated as anyone about being forced to buy an operating system that I have no intention of using, but really, how different is this from the inclusion of software with the purchase of other computer hardware? For example, should I be entitled to a refund for the unused copy of Adobe Photo Deluxe that came with my printer (assuming that the license agreement is similar to that of Microsoft Windows and has a clause that I don't agree to)?

    1. Re:I dunno... think about the general case... by colinm1981 · · Score: 1

      should I be entitled to a refund for the unused copy of Adobe Photo Deluxe that came with my printer (assuming that the license agreement is similar to that of Microsoft Windows and has a clause that I don't agree to)?

      Yes.

      --
      -Colin
    2. Re:I dunno... think about the general case... by theroterts · · Score: 1

      I think it's VERY different. The license clearly states that a refund is available to the consumer if ho or she doesn't agree to the terms. I doubt that Adobe Photo Deluxe has anything like that specifically spelled out in its license. Seems like the author is just trying to get a company to comply with its own terms. Not get a refund simply because he had no use for a bundled product.

      --
      ?SYNTAX ERROR IN SIG

      READY.
    3. Re:I dunno... think about the general case... by ejaw5 · · Score: 1

      Most likely, your copy of Adobe Photo Deluxe is an actuall install CD (unlike those OS-restore cds) that you can give or sell to someone who can put it to use. I doubt that the EULA stipulates you must use it with the printer...

      --

      $cat /dev/random > Sig
  111. Tech Support by SKPhoton · · Score: 1

    If a company offered a computer without an operating system, chances are they would not offer tech support with an "unauthorized" OS such as XP, Linux, etc.
    This would make their job easier since it's less for them to handle after the purchase, but they would make less money since service and support is usually factored into the cost of the computer.

  112. Fees able by jefu · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Sounds feasible to me. If you read the article it looks very much like you could replace "Linux" with "Windows MMIV" (or whatever) everywhere and it would work. The distinction between the two MS OS's might end up requiring a bit more explanation, thats all.

    Sure be fun to see someone try it.

  113. Is Small Claims Court Worth It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it really worth it to take someone to small claims court? You can only collect damages and court costs. You can't get reimbursed for the time wasted. If you're employed full-time, do you really want to blow a vacation day on small claims court?

  114. An even easier solution: by zentigger · · Score: 1
    Buy from a manufacturer that doesn't force you to buy windows as part of the package. If everyone did this, the manufacturers that force you to buy windows would all go out of business and that would be the end of the story.

    Then again, maybe there are enough people out there (read: the majority) who don't give a rat's ass about Linux and are quite happy with windows because they don't want to spend weeks f*ing around just to get a functional desktop and weeks more trying to find an office application that really only works half-assed and then only works at half speed and the same for a browser and email client all this because they want to write to mom and read the joke of the day.

    --

    the above is my personal opinion and does not necessarily reflect that of the little voices in my head

  115. LAPTOP you moron by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uhmm, how many x86 laptops can you buy without a Windows license? Now, how many good x86 laptops can you buy without a Windows license? Thought so. Go boil your bottom somewhere else, you cheesy secondhand electric donkey bottom biter.

  116. amusing, but... by h4x0r-3l337 · · Score: 1

    .. notice how large parts of the article are not describing the way things actually went, but are speculation about possible alternatives.

  117. It's the principle of the thing by ajs318 · · Score: 0

    When I bought my Packard Bell laptop from Dixons, it came with Win XP Home. I tried to obtain a refund from Dixons, but they said I had paid nothing for the software, as it was included in the purchase price of the machine, and therefore they would not be able to refund me any money. I am sure there was a hole in their argument, but frankly I could have done without the hastle. That's always the trouble when you're arguing with an idiot.

    In the end, the first CD I booted up on it was Knoppix, and I used a pencil and paper to note down the configuration information it autodetected; then I installed Debian. The guy in Dixons had suggested I should sell on my copy of XP, but had no clue as to how I might accomplish this given that the original media was actually a hidden partition on the hard drive. I suppose I could pass on the licence key code to someone installing a pirated copy of XP, but I really don't know anyone I dislike enough to suggest that they install XP.

    Big respect to this guy for sheer staying power. He truly was that second mouse. Let this story be an inspiration to us all. I know that, when this laptop finally conks out and it's time to buy another, then I'll fight the Microsoft Tax all the way.

    --
    Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  118. Somewhat unrelated, but related by kalislashdot · · Score: 1

    I had a coworker that wanted to buy a powerful laptop to code on. She is an MQ programmer so needed MQSeries, DB2 and other things installed.

    She saw a good deal on a Sony laptop and purchased it. It came wiht XP Home and when she tried to install DB2 it would not stating that it would only work on XP Pro or other Server level OS.

    Ok that was first bump. She went out and bought the XP Pro upgrade, which would not overlay Home. She had to wipe the drive and install from scratch.

    After the install was done about half of the hardware did not work as the drivers were not in XP Pro. They were things like the USB controller, Modem, Video card. Sony's website had no drivers and tech supprt was no help "that laptop come with XP Home, I cant give you seperate drivers, its all on the restore disc" which did not even come wihtt he computer, you had to pay $10 for it. LAME.

    Well in the end she gave up and took it back and took the hit on the 15% restocking fee ($300) and bought a custom built Dell.

    In short order... don't buy computers from Sony.

  119. Re:Flamebait?!!! Go figure! by mariox19 · · Score: 1

    Unbelievable! Now I get my original comment modded down again for "flamebait"?!

    Again, it's a joke!!! Let me spell it out

    Oualline buys a computer package, and doesn't want a component of it, so he asks for a refund; and I -- as a joke -- write that I bought his book (which I did) and had no use for a component of that.

    See the parallel? That's a joke. Maybe it's a bit too obtuse for the 14 year olds moderating -- or maybe it's just not funny. But, it isn't "offtopic," and it isn't "flamebait," which I understand as trying to start a fight with someone.

    This is turning into an interesting insight into the sociology of Slashdot. Thanks for the education!

    </disbelief>
    --

    quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.

  120. Or get it up front by rw2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You have more leverage when you still have your money in your pocket.

    With my last two dell laptops I negotiated a discount off the web price and *then* asked for an addition $189 or so (whatever the price was on their website at the time) as a discount for the Windows I wouldn't be using.

    The first time I got a full discount. The second I got $140.

    The time to get a vendors attention is when you still have the money.

  121. Re:Refunds? -- interesting mod system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was the first post an AC post? If so, then the rsmith post would start with +2(registered + good karma), which makes it more likely to be seen in the first place.

  122. HOWTO: Screw people and have them fight for you by _ZorKa_ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This should have been the title of this story:

    HOWTO: Screw manufacturers and have them fight your battles in court

    MS could help the manufacturers out by putting a clause in their agreemtn to state the refund cannot exceed the "OEM purchase price" or not to exceed $75.00. The entire license is written so that manufacturers get screwed on this deal. Will they learn from this, probably not. The CEO probably never knew this case ever happened and it may only get told at Christmas parties while everyone sits around and laughs at how this nut crazed Linux guy sued them.

    What you would do if you were the manufacturer in this case? Could the manufacturer in this case proved the price they paid on MS Windows XP? I think they could have so I wouldn't go out trying to get $199.00 on each copy you own. I say this because I don't ever remember seeing anything when I ran a PC company that said I couldn't show my invoice from Tech Data, Ingram Micro or other distributors to a customer. Maybe they just didn't want to, who knows.

    I do know this though, because of the MS license, manufacturers get screwed.

    It will only get worse before it gets better.

    --
    "With enough memory and hard drive space, anything in life is possible!"
  123. Similar story by Dukael_Mikakis · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes, a similar thing happened to me. I was serving tables in a restaurant and I started chatting with a customer about how waiting tables was a summer job while I got my Computer Science degree. And so he says, "Oh, you're a programmer, huh? Maybe you could help me with computer. Do you know anything about Windows?"

    And I said, "Sort of, but I know a lot more about UNIX."

    "Weird," he says, and then he leans in and says, "cause I always wonder, how do they take a leak when their weiners are chopped off?"

    I was in a daze. Not everybody knows about UNIX/Linux as we do.
    ___________________________________
    I crochet because I'm lonely; I'm lonely because I crochet.

    1. Re:Similar story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be more in a daze 'cause eunuchs just lose their balls, not their penis.

    2. Re:Similar story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn you!

      Now I am sitting here busting up and the whole lab is looking at me like I'm on crack.

    3. Re:Similar story by bbtom · · Score: 4, Funny

      Kinda reminds me of this story from the deep dank archives of BSD history.

      --
      catch (HumourFailureException e) { e.user.send("You, sir, are a humourless idiot."); }
    4. Re:Similar story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats roman ones, arabian ones lose the whole enchilada.

      They wouldnt even allow something like a banana or cucumber near the harem, for fear they'd violate themselves

    5. Re:Similar story by More+Karma+Than+God · · Score: 1

      What about enchiladas?

      --
      Go here to create your own Slashdot dis
    6. Re:Similar story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that's pretty funny.

    7. Re:Similar story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If the company nurse drops by, tell her I said never mind."

  124. Hard enough just to get the licence you BOUGHT! by fishbowl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I bought a MSDN universal subscription through my student bookstore (which was actually a transaction between me and Torcomp/Studica).

    So I received a box with an activation card.

    I went to activate my MSDN subscription. The activation key was invalid ("in use by another user").

    I expected the situation to be fixed on the first call to Microsoft -- BUT NO!

    On the first call to Microsoft, they told me to pound sand: Deal with the reseller. Calling the reseller was the same: It's Microsoft's problem.

    At that point, I was *already* going to file a claim with my credit card... Fortunately, I got a call back asking me to send all the documentation: The invoice, the activation card, the box. I quickly put these items in the mail, and then realized afterwards: "I have just mailed all my evidence to Microsoft!" So much for my claim with the bank...

    There were some emails exchanged. The reseller asked Microsoft to fulfill the order, and copied me on the mail.

    A month had passed, to the day from the day I placed the order. I called to find out the status of the order: They had received my mail, but there was some issue with the invoice. I had printed the invoice on my laserjet. Somehow, that wasn't good enough for them. WTF?

    I told the rep that I had sent them everything I had, that they were obligated to fulfill my subscription, and that I wasn't going to send them anything else because I didn't HAVE anything else, and besides, the retailer had already sent them what they were asking for on my behalf.

    Next day, I got a rude message on my voice mail. I wonder how many companies can afford to have rude customer service reps? Microsoft, and maybe a collection agency. I felt like I needed a lawyer by now. Anyway I insisted on another service rep, and after explaining the whole situation to the new rep, the problem got solved.

    So I got what I paid for, but I had to beg, threaten, and wait long enough that I was never sure it would be delivered or that I was going to solve the problem without filing a lawsuit.

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    1. Re:Hard enough just to get the licence you BOUGHT! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what? You're still a Microsoft whore.

    2. Re:Hard enough just to get the licence you BOUGHT! by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Shame on me for replying to AC, but, wouldn't they have to be paying ME in order for me to be a whore? I think the roles are somewhat reversed here.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  125. World without Microsoft... by mgblst · · Score: 1

    I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change. I don't know the future. I didn't come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it's going to begin. I'm going to hang up this phone and then I'm going to show these people what you don't want them to see. I'm going to show them a world without you, a world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries, a world where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.

    ok, somebody had to do it...

  126. Indirect pricing Information can be seen by felix9x · · Score: 1

    If you go to customize feature of Dell Laptop on their website you will come to the following option:

    Dell PCs use genuine Microsoft® Windows®4
    www.microsoft.com/piracy/howtotell
    Win dows® XP Home Edition is a consumer operating system and does not support peer to peer networking of more than five computers or advanced networking such as domain authentication.
    Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition
    Microsoft® Windows® XP Professional, [add $79 or $3/month1] Recommended for Students
    Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition w/ Microsoft® Plus! [add $20 or $0.75/month1]
    Microsoft® Windows® XP Pro Edition w/ Microsoft® Plus! [add $99 or $3/month1]

    We can clearly see that they want $79 for the difference between XP Home and XP Professional. So what is retail actual difference ? The actual Retail price different of Proffesional and Home i s $100 . So Dell is asking you to pay 80% of the cost. We can then assume that one should get back $160 for XP Home edition.

  127. How to buy a computer, real cheap! by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Buy one of those $500.00 computers that comes with Windows XP preinstalled. Drag them to small claims court over the $199.00 price of Windows. The computer has just cost you $301.00. Hmmm... Good deal!

    1. Re:How to buy a computer, real cheap! by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I didn't know it was possible to run the latest version of Windows on a sub-$1000 computer. As we all know, the hardware requirements double every 18 months :)

  128. Explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's modded troll because it dares to question the motives and effectiveness of an anti-MS tactic, and we just can't allow our zealots to be second-guessed like that here on /bot, can we, now?

    1. Re:Explanation by shaitand · · Score: 1

      hmm if you hate slashdot so and believe everyone here to be zealots, then why are you here? leave, go to some other news site.

      That's like going to ilovemacs.com and posting in the forum about what horrid zealots everyone is and complaining that a majority rules moderation system punishes the minority *gasp*. Give me a break, you are the very definition of troll.

      I feel bad enough responding at all, I certainly won't debate whether what you've said is or is not valid, only that if it is, your a self proclaimed troll. Must be why your posting anonymous.

  129. His EULA must be different to mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've represented myself in Small Claims and his advice is generally good.

    The only problem I can see is that the XP EULA has clearly contemplated this. Remember, he isn't getting the refund from Microsoft but from the hardware manufacturer that bundles XP.

    The EULA reads:

    If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, you may not use or
    copy the SOFTWARE, and you should promptly contact Manufacturer
    for instructions on return of the unused product(s) in accordance
    with Manufacturer's return policies.

    It says nothing about a refund. Even if it did, the manufacturer could say their policy is not to give a refund, or only to give $10 or whatever.

    1. Re:His EULA must be different to mine by Gaccm · · Score: 1

      may I ask where you got this quote? according to this post finding the actuall text of the EULA isn't easy.

      --

      Only dead fish swim with the stream...
    2. Re:His EULA must be different to mine by locus_standi · · Score: 3, Informative
      Interesting. My WinXP Pro eula reads:

      You agree to be bound by the terms of this eula by installing, copying, or otherwise using the product. If you do not agree, do not install or use the product; you may return it to your place of purchase for a full refund.

      locus
    3. Re:His EULA must be different to mine by Evets · · Score: 2, Informative

      system:systemroot\system32\eula.txt Mine is even a little bit different than those two: you agree to be bound by the terms of this eula by installing, copying, or otherwise using the software. if you do not agree, do not install, copy, or use the software; you may return it to your place of purchase for a full refund, if applicable. Windows XP Pro, Build 2600, SP 1 It would be interesting if the EULA Changed with service packs :). Gotta dig the build number. LOL - the copy/pasted section of the agreement created this error when posting: Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!

    4. Re:His EULA must be different to mine by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 1
      If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, you may not use or copy the SOFTWARE, and you should promptly contact Manufacturer for instructions on return of the unused product(s) in accordance with Manufacturer's return policies.
      It says nothing about a refund. Even if it did, the manufacturer could say their policy is not to give a refund, or only to give $10 or whatever.

      Okay:

      • Pay for product. Check.
      • Receive product. Check.
      • Try to use product, then discover that it has license terms you are not willing to accept. Erm, I guess.
      • Return product in exchange for less than its value? I don't think so.

      Problem one with your theory is that EULA remains a legally uncertain area. There is no nationwide definitive answer on the legality of EULAs. The second problem is that the entire reason that this comes up is that the person doesn't agree with the EULA. If I don't agree with the EULA, why should I be stuck following it to get my money back? Finally, if I purchased a copy of Windows XP from a local store, got it home, declined the license, and Microsoft attempts to pay me less, we would have a problem. In the end I've paid $cost_of_windows - $refund in exchange for nothing. That would not amuse a judge.

  130. Bad analogy by nacturation · · Score: 1

    My TV has a PiP function I have never used in the 5 years I have had the TV. Should I try to force Sony to give me a refund for that functionality?

    Does your television come with a license agreement which states that if you do not accept the terms of the Picture-in-Picture license agreement, that you can return the Picture-in-Picture device to Sony for a refund?

    If you want a computer built to your exact specs, then go to a company that does that.

    Computer hardware from Dell, for example. is sold in two parts. One is the physical hardware itself, such as a laptop. The other part is the software. The license agreement which comes with the software says that if you don't agree with the terms, you are legally entitled to receive a refund. So by purchasing a Dell or IBM or whoever's laptop, I get the exact specs I need, namely: hardware and refundable software.

    You may choose to roll over and let the company pull a fast one on you, but seeking a refund for products which the company licenses as being refundable is clearly not "being absurd".

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  131. Toshiba seals the laptop along with the EULA by mst76 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Toshiba laptops are sealed with a printed license. If you don't agree, you must return the whole computer. I believe this was done exactly to prevent claims like this. If more people try to get a refund, I believe more and more companies will just seal the complete computer/laptop.

  132. Windows XP Pro EULA by John+Hurliman · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Microsoft(r) Windows(r) XP Professional

    END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

    IMPORTANT-READ CAREFULLY: This End-User
    License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement between you
    (either an individual or a single legal entity) and the
    manufacturer ("Manufacturer") of the computer system or computer
    system component ("HARDWARE") with which you acquired the
    Microsoft software product(s) identified above ("SOFTWARE"). The
    SOFTWARE includes Microsoft computer software, and may include
    associated media, printed materials, "online," or electronic
    documentation and Internet based services. Note, however, that
    any software, documentation, or web services that are included in
    the SOFTWARE, or accessible via the SOFTWARE, and are accompanied
    by their own license agreements or terms of use are governed by
    such agreements rather than this EULA. The terms of a printed,
    paper EULA, which may accompany the SOFTWARE, supersede the terms
    of any on-screen EULA. This EULA is valid and grants the end
    -user rights ONLY if the SOFTWARE is genuine and a genuine
    Certificate of Authenticity for the SOFTWARE is included. For
    more information on identifying whether your software is genuine,
    please see http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/howtotell.

    By installing, copying, downloading, accessing or otherwise using
    the SOFTWARE, you agree to be bound by the terms of this EULA.
    If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, you may not use or
    copy the SOFTWARE, and you should promptly contact Manufacturer
    for instructions on return of the unused product(s) in accordance
    with Manufacturer's return policies.

    SOFTWARE PRODUCT LICENSE

    The term "COMPUTER" as used herein shall mean the HARDWARE, if
    the HARDWARE is a single computer system, or shall mean the
    computer system with which the HARDWARE operates, if the HARDWARE
    is a computer system component.

    1. GRANT OF LICENSE. Manufacturer grants you the following
    rights, provided you comply with all of the terms and
    conditions of this EULA:

    * Installation and Use. Except as otherwise expressly
    provided in this EULA, you may install, use, access,
    display and run only one (1) copy of the SOFTWARE on
    the COMPUTER. The SOFTWARE may not
    be used by more than two (2) processors at any one time
    on the COMPUTER, unless a higher number is indicated
    on the Certificate of Authenticity. You may permit a
    maximum of ten (10) ("Connection Maximum") computers
    or other electronic devices (each a "Device") to connect
    to the COMPUTER to utilize the services of the SOFTWARE
    solely for File and Print services, Internet Information
    services, and remote access (including connection sharing
    and telephony services). The ten (10) Connection Maximum
    includes any indirect connections made through
    "multiplexing" or other software or hardware which pools
    or aggregates connections. Except as otherwise permitted
    below, you may not use the Device to use, access, display
    or run the SOFTWARE, the SOFTWARE's
    User Interface or other executable software residing
    on the COMPUTER.

    * Software as a Component of the Computer - Transfer. THIS
    LICENSE MAY NOT BE SHARED,
    TRANSFERRED TO OR USED CONCURRENTLY
    ON DIFFERENT COMPUTERS. The SOFTWARE
    is licensed with the HARDWARE as a single integrated
    product and may only be used with the HARDWARE. If the
    SOFTWARE is not accompanied by new HARDWARE, you may
    not use the SOFTWARE. You may permanently transfer all
    of your rights under this EULA only as part of a
    permanent sale or transfer of the HARDWARE, provided
    you retain no copies, if you transfer all of the SOFTWARE
    (including all component parts, the media and printed
    materials, any upgrade

  133. Re:Yah Butt... by tds67 · · Score: 1
    HEY! That's my .sig...

    You should have used the (c) symbol, then you could have sued me. I assumed that because the symbol wasn't there the sig was open-source, thus explaining my use of the word "quantities" instead of "packages".

    I should have included your original source sig along with the compiled version of my post, however. I admit that was a mistake.

    On the other hand, the whole damn thing could have been just a freaky coincidence. Or perhaps we have a psychic link because we were born conjoined twins who were fused together at the buttocks, then secretly separated and later adopted.

  134. One more step at the beginning by Macdude · · Score: 1

    As this is more likely a situation for /.'ers buying laptops, document your efforts to buy the laptop without the OS in the first place. If you can get the saleman to admit to the clause that you can get a refund on the software, so much the better.

    --
    "Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
  135. This is all fine and good... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    until I consider the fact that I had a shrink-wrap license on my laptop. Yes, the laptop, not the software, stating that by opening the laptop packaging, I agree to all the terms of the software licenses included therein.

    *Sigh* At least it keeps me from feel guilty for blatantly pirating all the other Microsoft software I use. I consider it tit-for-tat.

  136. Re:Yah Butt... by BMonger · · Score: 1

    *sniffle*

    I have a TWIN!?

    *hugs*

  137. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  138. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  139. Re:My answer is this ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I know of one anonymous coward (aka me) that has jumped through many more hoops than this.

    This is my linux box. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

  140. Legitimizing the EULA? by lnjasdpppun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is anyone else worried that the actions taken here rely on the EULA being a valid contract between Microsoft and the user? Could this lead to Microsoft having a stronger case when someone tries prove the EULA is an illegal contract?

  141. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  142. Re:'exercise in stupidty'? by errxn · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    OK, fine. Maybe building one is, but buying a late-model used one certainly isn't. The point is, machine type aside, the guy seems to have gone out of his way to make sure he got to take an OEM to court for his little crusade. It has little to do with common sense and everything to do with a jihad.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
  143. Been shopping recently? by filmsmith · · Score: 1

    Go pick up a package of buns and a package of 'dogs' and count them yourself...

  144. How I build system by PaulBartlet7 · · Score: 1

    I build custom system like most here probably do. When system is complete (and after choosing a MS O/S), I simply say can't afford that much, lets see how much it is aftering removing O/S. Thats perfect, I'll take it.

  145. Define "Intentional Fallacy" by qtp · · Score: 1

    There are people out there - believe it or not - that think $199 is a good deal on an operating system.

    And I'm one of them.

    But I'm not about to pay $199.00 for an OS that I'm not going to use.

    There is not "stick it to the man" attitude, message, or anecdote (nor any epigram of any sort whatsoever) in the article. The author is not attempting to "prove that licenses are evil". He is simply explaning what is necessary and possible when it comes to recieving one's proper refund for goods that one did not and will not use. The only opinion that seems to be implied by the article is that all parties should be held to the terms of a license agreement, not just the end user, and especially the company that is offering the license.

    You misrepresent the authors assesment of the value of the software that was offered by ignoring the fact that the author valued the Windows software at $189.00 more than the manufacturer. The value was not what he was questioning, just the usefulness as it aplied to his needs. Then, in the same sentance you attempt to associate the author with persons who advocate software "piracy", when in fact the author is the only party to the license offer that is defending the terms of the license.

    You also imply that the author's success is exagerated, and that he is clinging to false hopes of a most following in his steps, when the simple phrase that he uses states only that there be many, as in more than a few, or a good number, or any other relative amount that may be numerous but does not necessarily require a majority.

    You can't have it both ways, and neither can Microsoft, the moanufacturer or the retailer. If you expect the customer to abide by the terms of the license, then you must abide by those terms yourself. If you wish for your customer to accept the published value of your goods, you must acknowlege that those goods are indeed valued at that amount. It's not as though the author in any way diminished the value of the software by not accepting the license, nor was he attempting to return used or damaged goods.

    It really seems odd that so many customers of a company take such offense at persons choosing different tools than they do. No one is attacking Microsoft for being in business. It is simply about choice, and not allowing a large company to force us to pay for what we choose not to purchase.

    --
    Read, L
  146. He's still waiting for the check by nutznboltz · · Score: 1

    It will never come. He will have to go back to court to get his judgement enforced.

    1. Re:He's still waiting for the check by whatch+durrin · · Score: 1
      My thoughts exactly.

      No M$ rep showed up because they knew they would lose. They also figure that most people will eventually give up trying to claim the judgement.

      Big corps are very good at covering their competition in paperwork, slowing the legal process to a snail's pace. You think they won't use the same tactics here?

      --
      ***
      Radio Shack. You've got questions...we've got blank stares(TM).
  147. How to avoid the situation by OneArmedMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or you could avoid the whole situation all together, and just go down to your nearest White Box PC maker and tell em you dont want windows when they screw the machine together for you ..

    Either that, or just by the parts and build it yourself, seriously, if you are tech enough to run linux, you *should* be tech enough to build your own box..

    1. Re:How to avoid the situation by CaptIronfist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hum what if you are buying a laptop ?

      I don't think i could possibly go down to Dell's workshop and say: "Well hello buddys, you know that windows you are installing on my rig ? Please leave it out and give me a 200$ rebate." That simply doesn't work ( I could be wrong ), and building your own laptop is out of the question. I'd be glad to know if that's any close to possible for an ordinary consumer, but i doubt it.

    2. Re:How to avoid the situation by OneArmedMan · · Score: 1

      Laptops ... ??? what about em, I work for a small pc wholesaler here in .au , one of my jobs is supervising pc construction we build PC's and Notebooks / Laptops to customer spec's everyday of the week.

      The Laptops are OEM Acer / Aopen , sure they might not have all the bells and whistle's, but if you dont want Windows etc, you dont have to have it.

      But you do have the option of almost any Intel / AMD cpu, upto 1gb ram, up to 60Gb HD, wireless anyone? , onboard lan , what else is there that you really must have?

      Also if you can afford one that does have all the bells and whistles and does cost an Arm & a Leg im sure the extra $$ you have to pay really isnt going to bother you all that much now is it ?

  148. When I... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...bought my computer I specifically asked for one without XP, but they refused. When I told them I would take my money elsewhere the manager agreed to take 100 dollars off the price of the computer. You'd be surprised how many stores will let you haggle the price down.

  149. Re:I'd like to see the How-To get an installable C by wondafucka · · Score: 1

    Better to be an idiot accused than an AC. Tssssssss.

  150. that's strange.... by sirshannon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Dell computer on the front of the catalog I got in the mail last week has a computer that comes with no OS.

    I am buying a computer monday with no OS from a different 'reputable computer shop'.

    Is a post 'informative' if the information is a lie? Shouldn't it be 'disinformative'?

    1. Re:that's strange.... by blibbleblobble · · Score: 1

      "Is a post 'informative' if the information is a lie? Shouldn't it be 'disinformative'?"

      Interesting troll, but not really relevant, because the "show us your Windows-OS license" computer shops still exist. The example I gave was a laptop company (this being before Microsoft were declared criminal) who listed on their website that they wouldn't sell a computer without a copy of Windows unless you could supply them with your own licensed copy for them to install.

      Supplying a short list of companies which don't engage in such practises is hardly "proof" that the reporting of such practises are a lie. There are more than 3 computer shops in the world, sir shannon, and if your reputable computer shop allows os-less computers to be sold, it doesn't make the whole world so.

      There are no tanks in baghdad

      There are no microsoft-insistant computer shops in england


      As to your Dell computer, I think you'll find that you're paying the OEM cost of a full version of WindowsXP home, even if you are supplied with a Redhat or Os-less computer, or that Dell are paying the license on your behalf, knowing that they'll only ever sell a few tens of linux machines this decade.

      For all the "there's several suppliers who will..." or " I've been buying OS-less PCs for 15 years." comments, well it's impossible for there to be any companies which are different to the ones you deal with, right?

      Curiousity. I didn't buy the laptop from this company, but there are thousands of people who did, and they probably didn't even notice, let alone care.

      Look on the dell site. See your choice of operating systems? It says "Windows XP Pro. Alternative: Windows XP Home (60 discount)"

      Yes, things have changed since the court case. It's possible to buy OS-less computers now, but two years ago it would have been difficult if not impossible, certainly from any companies larger than one person. Calling a truth a lie is pretty optomistic guesswork when you haven't even seen any evidence.

    2. Re:that's strange.... by sirshannon · · Score: 1

      regarding the Dell, the only reason I knew it had no OS (because I never bother looking at that type of thing) is because they offered an OS as a paid add-on. So, if you're right that they charged for it, then you could actually get the OS and pay twice? Very doubtful, but you're working with your own assumptions instead of facts, so I can't do anything to correct you because you're just writing the 'truth' as you go.

      which brings me to the point of my post: when the poster said "you can't do that. Even reputable computer shops now insist that you show them your Windows license", it was a lie. Read that first sentence. It is a lie. Read the second one. Find a 'reputable computer shop' and ask them if it is a lie.

      If I told you that 'you can barely breath because the air smells like my fart', it would be a lie. Just because it is currently true in my cubical doesn't not make that lie 'the truth'.

      please explain this sentence to me: "Calling a truth a lie is pretty optomistic guesswork when you haven't even seen any evidence." I've seen evidence and none of it suggested that "you can't do that. Even reputable computer shops now insist that you show them your Windows license" was the truth. Nor did anything in your post.

  151. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  152. From Steve Oualline by theolein · · Score: 1

    The man who wrote O'Reilly's "Practical C Programming". Good on him, and his writing style isn't bad either.

  153. Who accepted what? by roystgnr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    unless you have XP installed and running in which case you already accepted it

    Installing Windows requires that someone (not necessarily the computer owner, not necessarily even an adult capable of entering into any contract) a button on a dialog box that claims to impose on you restrictions on a product after you've already bought and paid for it and for for no additional consideration to you. Maybe that's legally binding, but I'd want to see the court cases upholding it before I paid much attention.

    1. Re:Who accepted what? by roystgnr · · Score: 1

      Installing Windows requires that someone (not necessarily the computer owner, not necessarily even an adult capable of entering into any contract) a button on a dialog box...

      I hit Preview on this, but hadn't noticed that I'd managed to drop a out of the sentence anyway. Oh, well, I think it's still obvious which word I.

  154. $199?? That's NOTHING! by xigxag · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I know of a case in the New York Small Claims court where a person won a default judgment for $3000 against Microsoft. A default judgment means they never showed up in Court to defend themselves against the suit. His cause of action (claim) was that upgrading his computer to Windows XP caused his scanner and other peripherals to stop functioning, and he lost work as a result.

    The amazing thing was that Microsoft never contested the judgment. They paid him!

    --
    There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
  155. The full license by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    These words for Google searches:

    Windows XP EULA full text

    (Available in %systemroot%\system32\eula.txt for those who have already installed)

    ---CUT HERE---

    Microsoft Windows XP Professional

    END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

    IMPORTANT-READ CAREFULLY: This End-User
    License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement between you
    (either an individual or a single entity) and Microsoft
    Corporation for the Microsoft software product identified above,
    which includes computer software and may include associated
    media, printed materials, "online" or electronic documentation,
    and Internet-based services ("Product"). An amendment or
    addendum to this EULA may accompany the Product. YOU AGREE TO BE
    BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY
    INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE
    PRODUCT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL
    OR USE THE PRODUCT; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR
    PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND.

    1. GRANT OF LICENSE. Microsoft grants you the following rights
    provided that you comply with all terms and conditions of
    this EULA:

    * Installation and use. You may install, use, access,
    display and run one copy of the Product on a single
    computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device
    ("Workstation Computer"). The Product may not be used
    by more than two (2) processors at any one time on any
    single Workstation Computer. You may permit a maximum
    of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each
    a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to
    utilize the services of the Product solely for File and
    Print services, Internet Information Services, and remote
    access (including connection sharing and telephony
    services). The ten connection maximum includes any
    indirect connections made through "multiplexing" or other
    software or hardware which pools or aggregates
    connections. Except as otherwise permitted by the
    NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop
    features described below, you may not use the Product
    to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other
    executable software residing on the Workstation Computer,
    nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display,
    or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless
    the Device has a separate license for the Product.

    * Mandatory Activation. The license rights granted under this
    EULA are limited to the first thirty (30) days after
    you first install the Product unless you supply
    information required to activate your licensed copy in
    the manner described during the setup sequence of the
    Product. You can activate the Product through the use
    of the Internet or telephone; toll charges may apply.
    You may also need to reactivate the Product if you modify
    your computer hardware or alter the Product. There are
    technological measures in this Product that are designed
    to prevent unlicensed or illegal use of the Product.
    You agree that we may use those measures.

    * Storage/Network Use. You may also store or install a copy
    of the Product on a storage device, such as a network
    server, used only to install or run the Product on your
    other Workstation Computers over an internal network;
    however, you must acquire and dedicate an additional
    license for each separate Workstation Computer on or
    from which the Product is installed, used, accessed,
    displayed or run. A license for the Product may not be
    shared or used concurrently on different Workstation
    Computers.

    * Reservation of Rights. Microsoft reserves all rights not
    expressly granted to you in this EULA.

    2. UPGRADES. To use a Product iden

  156. Re:HOWTO: Screw people and have them fight for you by nathanh · · Score: 1
    The CEO probably never knew this case ever happened and it may only get told at Christmas parties while everyone sits around and laughs at how this nut crazed Linux guy sued them.

    Yeah, they can sit around and laugh at how this nut crazed Linux guy sued them... AND WON.

    I reckon the laughter would trail off pretty quickly.

  157. Nope, this rings of B.S. by King_TJ · · Score: 1

    Any "reputable" local computer shop feeding you that line about having to "show your Windows license" before selling you a PC with no OS is simply trying to be difficult on purpose, with intentions of selling more operating systems.

    (What? You can't prove you already own a legal copy of Windows? Well, this nice new system we already configured and built for you here, with that 50% up-front deposit you paid that's non-refundable isn't gonna get sold to you then, unless you pay our price for a copy of XP Pro!)

    I build new systems and refurbish used ones for sale all the time, and there's absolutely no reason I'd care about which OS the purchaser ends up using with it. That's his/her problem. I simply sell the hardware. In fact, any vendor that tries to bribe me into buying discounted hardware by bundling it with OEM software licenses, I steer clear of. I've worked for too many computer stores in the past that got screwed when their stock of unsold OEM operating systems devalued, when MS released a newer, better OS to replace it. (How much demand do you suppose there is for Windows 3.5.1 Server, for example?)

  158. Refund from M$, $50,000 suit from SCO. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now SCO will sue you for installing it's code w/o a license, and you've allready admitted in open court under oath that you installed it on your computer

  159. Yes he does by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He pulled it out of his ass. That's where he'll find his citation.

  160. What about sentimental value? by Loundry · · Score: 1

    Everything can be assigned a dollar value. EVERYTHING.

    This is true for items that do not carry sentimental value. Allow me to illustrate:

    I work in a UPS Store. A customer comes in and wants to ship some photographs. How much should the customer insure that package for? The photographs could very well be irreplaceable. More often than not, they are. The person may very well be willing to play $50,000 for those photographs (if they were in such a position). Does that mean that UPS should be obligated to pay $50,000 if the person insures them for that much?

    ($50,000 happens to be the largest claim that UPS will pay for consumer shipping.)

    --
    I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
    1. Re:What about sentimental value? by smack.addict · · Score: 1
      This is true for items that do not carry sentimental value.

      Totally false. Emotions and sentimentality have value.

      work in a UPS Store. A customer comes in and wants to ship some photographs. How much should the customer insure that package for? The photographs could very well be irreplaceable. More often than not, they are. The person may very well be willing to play $50,000 for those photographs (if they were in such a position). Does that mean that UPS should be obligated to pay $50,000 if the person insures them for that much?

      You are confusing replacement costs of an item with the value placed on them by an individual. They are very different concepts. If that person is willing to pay $50,000 for those photographs, then they are worth $50,000 to them! End of story.

      To tell the truth, UPS should not care about replacement costs. It should have a schedule of insurance values for various values and let the sender determine how much the package is worth to them.

      My only guess is that UPS is concerned with fraud. When fraud comes into play, market value, best demonstrated by replacement value, provides a company like UPS with an objective metric for the item's value to most people. As a general rule, market value works most of the time. Unfortunately, it fails in situations where one person's subjective value of an item differs dramatically from the market value.

      The important point, however, is not that some things cannot be assigned a dollar value (as you tried to argue). It is simply that people assign different values to different things.

      This principle, by the way, is a critical reason why capitalism works and communism does not. Communism fails to recognize that people place different values on things and instead attempts to assign a single, global value on an item, service, or whatever for all. Capitalism, however, leverages the disparity in valuations to create wealth. Whenever you and I engage in a capitalist transaction, we both end up richer as a result of the transaction because we are giving up things we value less for things we value more.

    2. Re:What about sentimental value? by Loundry · · Score: 1

      Totally false. Emotions and sentimentality have value.

      My statement is not "totally false", as you allege. In fact, I agree with you that emotions and sentimantality have value. They have subjective value. How much is an emotion worth? How do you measure it?

      You are confusing replacement costs of an item with the value placed on them by an individual. They are very different concepts. If that person is willing to pay $50,000 for those photographs, then they are worth $50,000 to them! End of story.

      Withhold your instructive tone. I am confusing nothing, as I agree with you that the concept of the replacement cost of an item is different from the sentimental value placed on them by an individual (not "value placed on them by an individual", as you wrote, as such may be tied directly to the market value of the item and not necessarily have any sentimental value, such as a DVD player). I was arguing against the concept that "everything can be assigned a dollar value" which implied that everything can be assigned a market dollar value (which excludes those items that are valuable to individuals for sentimental reasons).

      To tell the truth, UPS should not care about replacement costs. It should have a schedule of insurance values for various values and let the sender determine how much the package is worth to them.

      Are you saying that UPS should honor people's sentimental value in the claims it pays?

      The important point, however, is not that some things cannot be assigned a dollar value (as you tried to argue). It is simply that people assign different values to different things.

      Some things cannot be assigned a dollar value in certain contexts (such as claims payment). I agree that people assign different values to different things (as if I needed you to state the obvious).

      Capitalism, however, leverages the disparity in valuations to create wealth. Whenever you and I engage in a capitalist transaction, we both end up richer as a result of the transaction because we are giving up things we value less for things we value more.

      I agree! Notice that this does not necessarily imply sentimental value.

      --
      I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
  161. Recording phone conversations? by raw-sewage · · Score: 1
    What is the legality of taping phone conversations? In a situation such as the one described here, you are expecting to go to court; therefore, you need lots of documentation/hard evidence. Why not tape every phone conversation you have with the customer service representatives? (I would also transcribe the conversation so the judge can easily read it.) The intent, though, is to have undisputable evidence about conversations you may have had with the computer manufacturer.

    Back when I was in school, both the local and long distance phone service providers flat out lied on the phone (more than once). It's for times like these I wish I would have recorded the conversation to have sufficient evidence in small claims court. I don't want to get into a his word versus my word situation when I'm going up a huge, rich company. I want to have the hard evidence right up front: you lied, here's proof.

    So what is the legality of recording phone conversations? If it's okay, where can I get a good phone recorder?

  162. Giving Open Source Users a Bad Name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a former help desk staffer, I can honestly say that this type of behavior is by far the worst. I can't express how annoyed I got at people that tried to twist my arm around my back by using their stupid syllogistic logic. The software costs the manufacturer $10 because of the bulk quantities they get it in. That's like saying to a car manufacturer: 1. I don't use this spare tire. Give me my money. 2. OK, here's $30. Then walking up to Les Schwab: 1. I want this spare tire, please. 2. That'll be $100. 3. WHAT? USURY! Bulk pricing does wonderful things for the bottom line. And it happens in EVERY industry; it's not some MS-centric phenomenon. By whining and contesting these facts of business, this person has done all Linux users a massive disservice by casting us all as obnoxious and smart-alecky. Bend over and take it. It's just one of the things we consumers learn to do well.

  163. How about a camera? by siskbc · · Score: 1
    When you start the software, there is no way of printing the license without agreeing to it. To print it you must install the software. If you install the software, you agree to the license.

    Camera. Take a picture of the screen with EULA. Scroll. Repeat.

    Or, if you're really snazzy, install VMware first, then begin the MS "install". Screen capture the EULA as you scroll through it from linux. Print. I wouldn't recommend that last route as it would raise too many questions and I really don't want to explain virtual machines to a judge.

    --

    -Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat

  164. DELL Windows Refund for Notebooks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even though I know a number of people who finally got their windows refund from Dell it seems to take alot of time and negotiation with sales people who "never heard of it". However, they are giving now a $150 merchandise credit(in addition to the rebate) when you order an Inpiron or Latitude botebook but only without Microsoft Windows, meaning minus $150. I've ordered an Inspiron 8500 and after talking to a couple different sales people I finally got the merchandise credit. Thank you Dell!

  165. Pardon me... by TwistedSpring · · Score: 0, Troll

    "I'm going to sue you because I bought a computer that had Windows installed on it."

    I've never heard anything so ludicrous in my life. And it's clearly nonsense too, the retail copy of XP is worth $199, the OEM copy is probably not worth a fraction of that. If you get a machine with a copy of winxp on it, you probably got XP a good deal cheaper than if you'd bought it in the store, so you can't win a claim of more than the value of the OEM version of Windows XP, which ain't $199.

    A remarkably dull article about a remarkably dull man who's prepared to do this sort of thing and tell the world about it in a million pages of text. On the other hand I felt the need to comment, so it can't have been that dull.

  166. A Simpler Way by preed-man · · Score: 4, Interesting
    One easier way I've proposed to get a refund for this sort of thing (but unfortunately didn't have the time to try when I got my shiny new Dell laptop two years ago) is the following, which doesn't involve the courts at all:
    1. Buy/setup computer; read license.
    2. Decline license; have auto-installation program wipe your drive. Install Linux.
    3. Take all Windows software media, documentation, and other materials and box them up. Take pictures of the package, and include a packing list of what you're returning. Include a letter explaining that you do not agree to the license, and that you're returning the product for a refund, per the license instructions.
    4. Send the package via certified mail to the vendor (Dell, etc.); make sure someone has to sign for it.
    5. Once you know it's been received (and you have a signature), call up your credit card company (you DID pay by credit--not a check card--right?), and request a $199 hold on the payment to the vendor, explaining that you're following the license regarding returning the product.
    6. The credit card rep will ask you a bunch of questions; I can't remember exactly what they are, but they are very specific yes/no questions; be careful how you answer them (they reps are reading a standard scripted list of questions that is used to determine whether or not you qualify for a refund under credit card consumer protection laws).
    7. The credit card company will put the $199 on hold while they investigate. They may require you to send a letter explaining your request; you may have to use some of the 'responses' listed in this article as justifications for why your claim makes sense, particularly regarding the actual value of the software.
    8. Sit back and watch the mega-corps fight it out. You have your "refund," and all you had to do was follow the license terms. No fuss, no muss, no court, no court costs.
    Granted, IANAL, and I haven't tried this (but I for damn sure will next time I buy a computer)... but I had some experience with a credit processing agency and we dealt with these kinds of chargebacks all the time; I see no reason why this wouldn't work.
  167. Lunch.... I owe Steve Lunch by Patrick+(We+don't+ne · · Score: 1

    This has cost me lunch for Steve and his wife. I am happy to buy Steve lunch... I would have NEVER believed he would get a refund. Patrick ("One change in a million? Happens 9 out of ten times") Powell

    1. Re:Lunch.... I owe Steve Lunch by FloridaSage · · Score: 1

      I, too, am very pleased that justice has prevailed! This is wonderful, and a brilliant story! More, in every jurisdiction! If you lose, please note all the details! The EFF needs to get all these facts! We will fight them in the trenches, and in the streets, etc... Winston Churchill was right, of course... the computer is MY real estate, for I bought it, I maintain it, I own it, and I run it the way I want to, in MY Castle!

  168. Linux mentioned on DOJ trial by screenrc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Judges could also knwo about Linux if
    they followed the DOJ vs Microsoft trial a
    few years ago. I think it is possible that
    they head of Linux through a major and recent popular case.

  169. For those willing to do it. by CrkHead · · Score: 1
    I'm tempted to buy a computer already put together just to try. The fight seems fun. However, since I work for one of the manufacturers it may not fly too well with my boss.

    Individuals can purchase OEM'd software for less than retail. I would get pricing from a local shop that deals primarily with component sales.

    If you're lucky enough to live in the Detroit area, look here.

  170. OK, backing up my statement with raw data... by MsGeek · · Score: 1
    I was following the example of the guy who sued his computer company in small claims court and priced the copy of XP at full retail cost. Source: Outpost.Com.

    XP Home: http://shop4.outpost.com/product/3063039
    XP Pro: http://shop4.outpost.com/product/3063019

    Apple doesn't do "upgrade editions". Every time they sell a copy of their OS, they sell it as a full retail purchase. It's a bit of a bummer, but considering that their full retail price is a little over half what XP Pro full retail costs, and less than twice what XP Home Upgrade Edition costs, (XP Home is so neutered! Who'd want it?) it's clear that OS X is a bargain.

    And, mais bien sur, Mandrake Linux, a worthy competitor to either one, is available for free download or $54 for the Powerpack Edition 7 CD-ROM set or 1 DVD-ROM set. Red Hat, for those who are conscientiously objecting to anything French, can be had without support in the basic pack for $40. For those who don't like Mandrake but do like KDE, SuSE is at the exact price point.

    There is also ample evidence, even without MacOS X's liberal use of the codebase, that BSD isn't dying, exaggerated reports to the contrary.

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
  171. got root? by Linuxathome · · Score: 1

    I'm guessing you wore some t-shirt with the penguin logo? Good thing you weren't wearing a shirt that said something like "got root?" It could have easily been misconstrued as referring to illicit stuff like pot, hashish, or the like -- you'd surely have gotten into more trouble.

    1. Re:got root? by bigmoosie · · Score: 0

      I have got root on my laptop bag.
      So this guy I know, thinks he's a big shoot came up to me and said "You must be a dentist". I said no, and he wondered what "got root" ment. I asked him if he knew linux, He said "Yeah coool man I know linux". Then I responded what is root? He said "ummm ummm ... "

      So got root doesn't get you in trouble ... this was on my laptop bag and on a military post for an extended stay.

      ~ryan

      just my .02$ cents (yes that is two - one hundreths of a cent)

  172. Irrelevant advice by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    "The thing that you do not want to do is be a nut case. Don't bash Microsoft"

    Investing dozens (hundreds?) of hours of time to get a $199 refund is by definition nutty. On the second point, this is Slashdot.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  173. whahahaha by koekepeer · · Score: 1

    sorry, OT but

    this was actually the first time i was really laughing out loud while reading a slashdot comment!

    eunuchs rule(s) :)

  174. Useful links by Cronopios · · Score: 1

    I didn't read all the comments, but I'm surprised nobody posted some of these links:

    Another case in Slashdot, some years ago. An Australian got his money back.

    Windows Refund Day

    Windows Refund category in the Open Directory Project.

    I bought an used laptop (3rd hand!), and it didn't have M$ Windows, but SUSE. I formatted it anyway, and installed Debian :-)

    --
    Windows users:
    Internet Explorer is obsolete. Please upgrade to Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.
  175. Re:$199?? That's NOTHING! by rosewood · · Score: 1

    Thats interesting because one only need to read the EULA to see that MS says it is not responsible for any shit that hits the fan as a result of installing windows xp.

  176. You should have... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 2, Informative

    ... got to an small court claims, and requested that the judge force them to release how much they are paying to MS for WinXP licenses in order to set the amount you are entitled to in accordance to the EULA...

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:You should have... by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I know that now. And next time, I will. And, I'm guessing, a few other people will too after seeing this. All it takes is a few more poeple to do it. They might think it's a movement!

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  177. I do serious work with Linux. by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 1

    I don't have time to waste building my own boxes.

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:I do serious work with Linux. by OneArmedMan · · Score: 1

      WTF!! ?? You dont have time to build a PC, but you *DO* have time to waste calling up big companys, loging all your calls, writing letters, going to small claims, and dicking arround for hours on end ?? What planet are you on..

      Like i said in my first post, go to a good white box maker and have them make one for you. Oh and if you thing that DELL's or IBM notebooks are better than your average whitebox, you'd just about be wrong.

      go and read this page

      http://www.mindconnection.com/library/computerti ps /whomakeslaptops.htm

  178. Power of the Credit Card by ConfusedVorlon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Visa and Masercard enforce strict rules that say that if you don't get the goods and services you paid for, your credit card issuer must deduct the charge from your statement and send it back to the seller.

    If you buy a PC which includes an entitlement to a refund - and you don't get your refund - you should be able to charge the $199 back to the seller. This will involve calling up to dispute the charge and then (probably) writing a letter explaining why you have not got what you paid for.

    I have had huge success down this route when car repair shops have charged me for work that turns out not to have been done.

    The great thing is that it's simple and avoids the legal process. Your credit card company passes the buck back to the seller and it becomes the seller's problem to prove that you owe them money.

  179. I'm not conservative, you're just a huge tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    In fact, I'm pretty liberal on most issues. People that take empty shots at others and are proud of it are simple, hateful, and contribute nothing to society at large. You've demonstrated this time and again.

    I'm posting as AC because I KNOW this will get modded down by any of your "fans."

  180. Most people don't know what a computer is. by Anarchofascist · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You think that most people know what linux is? Hell, I bet that most people don't even know what an operating system is.

    Most people don't know what a computer is.

    If you work in an office, where non-geeks work on (non-iMac) computers all day, try this little experiment. Choose an average-looking victim and ask "Could you please point to the computer you are using?"

    You can see where I'm going with this, can't you? The person has three objects on top of the desk, and one underneath it, with a simple on-off switch. The mouse is used for pointing to things on the monitor screen, the keyboard for typing things on to the monitor screen. The monitor looks like a TV, which is a completely self-contained device. Most people will point to the monitor, and will refer to the computer as the "power box" or the "disk drive".

    People in Mercka are ignorant, happy to remain ignorant and will actively fight to preserve their ignorance, because ignorance is soft, certain, simple and comfortable. Enter GWB.

    --
    Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, Or close the wall up with our American dead!
    1. Re:Most people don't know what a computer is. by Xerithane · · Score: 1

      If you work in an office, where non-geeks work on (non-iMac) computers all day, try this little experiment. Choose an average-looking victim and ask "Could you please point to the computer you are using?"

      I work for a major education-oriented company. The only people I know that are less computer literate than these people work for the government.

      What's worse is seeing a BestBuy advert that claims, "Speed up your CPU!" with a hard disk upgrade. You wonder why people get confused with the terms.

      Just mixing up terms is not the same as not conceptually knowing that Linux is an operating system. My father is a great example of this. You could ask him what a monitor was and he would tell you it's somebody who makes sure equipment is running correctly.

      It's also hard to be aware of events and ignore linux, you do remember the major stock events surrounding Linux? Some of the biggest IPOs in history surround Linux companies.

      --
      Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
  181. Funniest post EVER. by gosand · · Score: 1
    You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem Then how do you explain vibrators ?

    This is the funniest goddamn thing I have ever read on Slashdot.

    Bravo. 1 million mod points to you.

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  182. Re:'exercise in stupidty'? by errxn · · Score: 1

    My first post gets modded as a troll, and parent as flamebait. Gee, what a surprise. How about some metamoderation? I won't hold my breath.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
  183. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  184. Re:'exercise in stupidty'? by errxn · · Score: 1

    I don't disagree with you on the "Microsoft Tax" issue. If you don't want something, you shouldn't have to pay for it. I'm just of the belief that the writer didn't bother to investigate all of his options before starting this. I find it hard to believe that there is not one single new laptop out there that doesn't come with Windows preinstalled. He seems to indicate that anything besides a Microsoft OS would be ok. If so, how about an iBook? Last I heard, a new one was pretty easy to come by (if, of course, you don't mind paying twice the price for a system in order to finance Steve Jobs' "vision"...err...cough...ego, but that's another story altogether).

    Long story short-if he was so adamant about not having any MS software on his machine, why did he purchase it in the first place? He should have made it specifically clear to the manufacturer at the time of purchase that either he got a "blank" machine, or he was taking his business elsewhere. Unfortunately, however, you don't get to tie up the court system, and you probably won't get your name broadcast all over /. and elevated to "hero" status by taking that route.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
  185. you get a nickle refund for each bottle by bigmoosie · · Score: 0

    In VT and other states, you get paid to purchase bottles & collect them. five cents for each one you return ;)

    1. Re:you get a nickle refund for each bottle by holt · · Score: 1

      Well, if you're planning on recycling your Windows media and packaging, I'm sure you can take it down to your local recycling center and get your $0.05.

      You know, I honestly don't know why people think it should be a guarenteed right to get a computer without an OS. You wouldn't ask Dell to sell you a computer without a processor or a motherboard, would you? An OS is just as necessary as those things, and if Dell (or whatever random company you want to discuss) thought it would be more profitable to sell OS-less computers, they would. (Don't tell me they can't because their contract forbids it. The contract isn't forever, and they signed it voluntarily.)

  186. Re: Free slashdot by Sleen · · Score: 1

    ...so I guess that means someone is actually paying for /.?

  187. How about getting media from reseller/MS? by leeet · · Score: 1

    Not sure if this is in the same area but I'm fighting to get the actual media. The company claims that the recovery CD *IS* the media but we all know it's not.

    Anyone actually received a real media from their dealer, manufacturer or microsoft?

    --
    -- Leeeter than leet
  188. Well maybe Dell doesn't by bigmoosie · · Score: 0

    But other computer vendors do sell you bare bones computers, many of which without cpu's, or ram, or harddrive, or other important components. This is to allow the user to customize the computer to suit their needs. The same shuld hold true for operating system choice, send the computer out with out one on it. The people that want Microsoft will purchase that at the same time as the computer, or if they want Linux they can do the same. It makes no sense to sell a computer without an OS but it makes even more sense to sell them without all the parts included. ~ryan

    1. Re:Well maybe Dell doesn't by holt · · Score: 1

      If it made business sense for these companies to do that, they would. Obviously some companies are able to sell computers without certain necessary parts (the OS being one of those necessary parts) but if it doesn't make sense for a particular company to do that, then they won't.

      This is, most likely, why you can't buy a computer from Dell without a processor. It simply isn't worth it to them to take your money to do that. The same holds true for the operating system.

      It might be more profitable to sell 1000 computers with only Windows than 1010 computers with either Windows or Linux or no OS at all. There is additional overhead that occurs when you give the users that choice, and if that overhead is greater than the income gained by the option, then the company will lose money by offering the option. Companies are trying to make a profit, and taking unnecessary or unjustified losses is illogical.

  189. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  190. What a COMPLETE waste of time.... by sputnikid · · Score: 0

    Probably took 2 days off work to make $199. This logic reminds me of a Simpsons episode.

    Homer: Okay, boy. This is where all the hard work,
    sacrifice, and painful scaldings pay off.
    Employee: Four pounds of grease ... that comes to ... sixty-
    three cents.
    Homer: Woo-hoo!
    Bart: Dad, all that bacon cost twenty-seven dollars.
    Homer: Yeah, but your mom paid for that!
    Bart: But doesn't she get her money from you?
    Homer: And I get my money from grease! What's the problem?
    [an "Acne Grease Co." truck passes by Homer and
    Bart, and Homer looks on admiringly]
    Wow! Look at that load of grease. Boy, if we're
    ever going to earn paper money, we have to expand
    our operation.
    Bart: Uh, I don't know how much more school I can miss.
    Homer: Oh, you'll miss plenty! I have a feeling this
    business is going to consume our whole lives.

  191. Merkin? by 4eak · · Score: 1

    merkin : A pubic wig for women.

    --
    --Damn! We're in a tight spot!
    1. Re:Merkin? by proj_2501 · · Score: 1

      Merkin is a derogatory term for those living in the United States. It's used as a substitute for 'American' because 'American' is technically applicable to those of Canadian, Mexican, Honduran, Dominican, etc. etc. nationality. I have usually seen it used pejoratively by the English, so I tend to have a negative reaction.

      You can also use 'USAn' for the same purpose, which actually sounds sufficiently silly.

  192. Re:Merkin?(way OT) by lumpenprole · · Score: 1

    It's also a pubic hair wig. Just so you know.

    --
    Disclaimer: MINAA (Mummy! I'm Not An Animal!)
  193. what a complete waste of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what a complete waste of time. if i paid 799.00 for my computer and Windows came as part of the bargain, but i didn't use it, so what?

    i don't use a lot of the free(translation=cost covered by purchase price) software that comes with computers i buy. when i buy a pc, i consider whether the machine has the capabilities i require for a price i am willing to pay.

    if i need a specilaized machine, i'll build one. which is also another way to get a box without having windows on it. another good way to get a windows free box is to order it from a linux systems vendor.

    either of these two options will get you a box with no OS, or Linux preinstalled, without going to small claims court and wasting your time and clogging up the courts making your point.

    make your point by not patronizing the companies that won't sell you a blank machine or one with Linux installed. stop giving them your money(DOH!). that will get your point across a lot quicker.

  194. Re:$199?? That's NOTHING! by shaitand · · Score: 1

    yes but to date EULA terms which go beyond normal copyright protections have never been proven in a precident setting case in court. Quite the opposite really. Just because they lay out terms on your screen doesn't mean those terms are legal ;)

  195. Re:HOWTO: Screw people and have them fight for you by shaitand · · Score: 1

    The only place the EULA enters into this is that the manufacturer has already agreed to those terms and microsoft has passed the buck. I HAVEN'T agree to the EULA and any amounts it specifies are not binding for me. If microsoft puts $75.00 in the EULA that is the least the manufactuer can pay because they've advertised the fact. Since I didn't agree to the EULA it's merely a public statement of their policy not a legally binding document (I won't go into the validity of those "legally binding" documents since that is a seperate issue that must be battled in courts some day).

    It also doesn't matter what the manufactuer paid. What matters is what I paid for the OS when I purchased the pc. If I return a modem for a refund I'm damn well not going to settle for a refund at cost, I want a refund for the retail price I paid for it.

    Do the manufacturers get screwed? Yes they've screwed themselves by entering into the agreement with Microsoft. Aside from that they screw themselves by not offering all the pc's they sell without OS's or with linux on them (as opposed to having seperate models).

  196. Re:Why is this a YRO entry? And one of three? by shaitand · · Score: 1

    ummm this is all about your rights, do you really think it's about a measily $200?