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."
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
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.
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?
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...)
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?
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
You conveniently forgot to include the next few sentences.
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)
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.
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.
Work for Change & GET PAID!
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.
(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.
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.
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?!"
When there's a MS License involved, there's never a simple answer.
That's gotta fit into your schema somewhere
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!"
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.
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!
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.
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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?
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.
- Buy/setup computer; read license.
- Decline license; have auto-installation program wipe your drive. Install Linux.
- 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.
- Send the package via certified mail to the vendor (Dell, etc.); make sure someone has to sign for it.
- 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.
- 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).
- 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.
- 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.