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."
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?
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.
If I didn't pirate my software?
Oh well.
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
What percentage of people who intend to install Linux are going to jump through these hoops?
1%?
KARMA TAG! You're it.
Two comments and slashdotted.
Any mirrors or text???
If ever a story should lead to a Slashdotting, this would be the one.
...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!
What about a refund for Windows Me? I installed it but still couldnt use it. :)
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?
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.
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
Figure how much fighting this really costs them...
Lawyers, processing refunds, accountants, etc.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
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.
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 $500,005."
Excuse: We'll give you a refund but that applies to only Microsoft Windows, not the other bundled software.
Answer: No problem. Please provide me with a copy of all the other software on another disk so I can install it under Linux using the Wine program.
In all of these cases, follow up the phone conversation with a written letter describing what was said and why you're unhappy with it. Remember you are creating a record for the judge.
At some point in this process you'll either get your refund (rare) or you'll realize
The lawsuit is an interesting approach.
If your aim is simply to reduce your contribution to Bill Gate's wealth, you best approach is to buy your hardware from the few companies that make OS free, or Linux dedicated boxes.
I dont know... being paid 10$ an hour for entertainment is pretty nice ;-)
.. How hard is it to get a refund for my unused copy of Lindows?
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...)
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!
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.
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
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!!!!
...when he gets refunds on those unused AOL cds
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.
FLAC - Free Lossless Audio Codec
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....
The Mothership
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.
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
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
Ironically one of the two identical posts, both posted at the smae minute got modded +4, the other 0.
Total: $334
People in Austin, TX, have been getting Windows refunds from Dell for years. I've seen comments here on slashdot over the years too.
1. All the documents he had
2. A citation to his case as added support for your complaint
Citing his case alone won't help you -- you have to prove that your case is the same as his and then the citation of his award will make it easier for the judge to rule in your favor (because he's not breaking any new ground). Although, I'm not sure this judge was really thinking that he was breaking new ground when he awarded Steve the judgement.
And of course....IANAL, but I work for Westlaw.com :-)
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
And if three people do it...
Can you imagine if three people do it?
And if three people do it they'll think you're a part of movement...
t
So, maybe I'm too lazy to look into it myself, but assuming not too much runaround/rigamarole from M$, 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?
Untied we squat.
"The journey of 1000 miles begins with the first refund for unused Windows." - Lao Tzu
that was bothering me too, but I didn't want to be the one acting like a grammar nazi and looking like a jerk! :)
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
> 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.
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.
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.
For when SCO demands a license fee for using linux.
Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the
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)
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
...
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"...
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.
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
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
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.
We are a people who love to jump through hoops.
What this case boiled down to was that it would cost more than $199 for the vendor to fight this in court and therefore the vendor cut its losses and didn't fight it.
Do this too often to the point where the vendor thinks their total expenses will be more than it will cost to fight it and they will. And they won't need to fight every case, just the first one and use that as precedent.
Mmmm.. Donuts
And if fifty people do it...
Can you imagine fifty people a day singin' a bar of The Free Software Song and walkin' out?
Why then friends, they'll think it's a movement, and that's what it is: The Free Software Anti-Taxation movement, and all you gotta do to join is sing a bar when it comes around on the guitar.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
I don't see how wanting to buy a laptop without paying for a bundled OS is 'stomping'. You should have the choice of whether to pay for Windows, or not pay for it - and the same for any other OS. Surely that's not unreasonable?
FWIW I disagree about 'ultimately no price impact' - the cost of Windows as a proportion of total system cost has risen a great deal over the past few years and is still rising (although I do not know what kind of sweetheart deals the major OEMs are able to get with Microsoft). The PC market is not so uncompetitive that a supplier would be able to keep all of the cost savings to itself and pass none on to customers.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
The point is to illustrate the the hardware manufacturers don't really mean it when they say you can get a refund, since they have no clear refund policy in place. In the end, we want M$ 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
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.
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!
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
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.
But a slow and steady webserver is just plain annoying!
Actually, there probably isn't much left of the webserver anymore. :-(
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.
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.
From the article:
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:
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:
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)
RTFA. He got court costs (~$135) in the decision too.
AHHHHHHH! I'm burning with goodness again!
- Reakk, Sluggy Freelance
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.....
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
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?!"
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?
It's about 4 hours total, so we're talking $50/hr,. And remember, this is tax-free, AND fun.
Sure, I do this and get far superior hardware to any of the big rip-off box sellers like Dell or Gateway. This won't work in many situations though. Laptops and company roll outs are prominent examples.
Last time I looked, there were still no makers of OS free laptops. Two or three trolls pointed to one or two companies that sold what were really luggables or computers with many choices of Windoze. There, most people are better off buying used equipment. This sucks and it's exactly what Stevie faced.
Company roll outs are hard to devise as well. The small business puts themselves at great risk trying to build more than a few boxes at once. Even if you have bought and used a motherboard in the past, you can't be sure you will get the same thing next time and quirks on roll out are embarasing. Things to look out for are bios changes like the addition of a "bios virus checker" that sees lilo (and perhaps others) as a boot sector virus. If you can't disable this, you are screwed and have to push the roll out back while you fix things. This potential stall added to the time it will take you to put the things together needs to be talked about upfront before you get your boss or client in a jam. It puts you at a disadvantage to big dumb companies that only sell windoze boxes.
It would be better if big dumb companies acted honestly to begin with, and that's what cases like this will force. Steveie has presented a way to make selling windows only very expensive. It should be persued the same way big companies have been happy to persue DMCA and other abominations. Breach of contract is simple to prove but it takes time and effort big dumb companies don't expect people to put forth. Ha.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
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.
1. OS FREE or Linux pre-installed hardware:
;), the retailer will be forced to provide Windowless boxes or the market will remedy the situation by squashing the retailer.
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
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!
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)?
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."
...
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.
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
That's more than what US developers make these days.
Sure be fun to see someone try it.
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
.. notice how large parts of the article are not describing the way things actually went, but are speculation about possible alternatives.
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...
Write boring code, not shiny code!
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.
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.
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.
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...
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!"
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.
The only effects a no longer forced Windows bundling would be:
Yeah, but /. is the Group W Bench, really.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
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.
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...
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
If you go to customize feature of Dell Laptop on their website you will come to the following option:
n 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.
Dell PCs use genuine Microsoft® Windows®4
www.microsoft.com/piracy/howtotell
Wi
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
...
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.
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
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.
*sniffle*
I have a TWIN!?
*hugs*
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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!
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?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Go pick up a package of buns and a package of 'dogs' and count them yourself...
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.
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
It will never come. He will have to go back to court to get his judgement enforced.
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..
Better to be an idiot accused than an AC. Tssssssss.
postmodernsideshow.com
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'?
The truth doesn't care what I think.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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".
The man who wrote O'Reilly's "Practical C Programming". Good on him, and his writing style isn't bad either.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?)
$10 is $10. I'm glad you can throw money away but many (most?) people think that's pretty stupid.
"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?"
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.
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?
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.
...
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
- 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.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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Linux at home
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.
...
"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 $199 refund is by definition nutty. On the second point, this is Slashdot.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I can give you a test case. Interested? I live in Thailand, and low end computers (what we're talking about, right?) with Windows typically start at around 22,000 Baht, while those without an OS or with Linux start in the 11-13,000 Bath range. Prices have fallen for OS-less computersin the three years that I have been here. Secondly, the least expensive new computer on the market is 10,900 Baht, and has sold about 100,000 machines so far, with 1,000,000 machines expected by by the end of the year. These machines all come with Linux pre-installed.
MS's response? Lower their price for XP Home and Office Standard to 1490 Baht for the set, from an original price of 13,500 Baht MS computers are, therefore, now available for 12,390, a drop of about 40%. Significant?
My point? OS-less computers cost less, and MS reduces its price accordingly, saving the consumer significant money, invalidating your position.
Put identity in the browser.
sorry, OT but
:)
this was actually the first time i was really laughing out loud while reading a slashdot comment!
eunuchs rule(s)
I didn't read all the comments, but I'm surprised nobody posted some of these links:
:-)
Another case in Slashdot, some years ago. An Australian got his money back.
Windows Refund Day
Windows Refund category in the Open Directory Project.
I bought an used laptop (3rd hand!), and it didn't have M$ Windows, but SUSE. I formatted it anyway, and installed Debian
Windows users:
Internet Explorer is obsolete. Please upgrade to Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.
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.
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
... 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.
I don't have time to waste building my own boxes.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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).
/. and elevated to "hero" status by taking that route.
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
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
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.)
...so I guess that means someone is actually paying for /.?
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.
...
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
merkin : A pubic wig for women.
--Damn! We're in a tight spot!
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.
...
It's also a pubic hair wig. Just so you know.
Disclaimer: MINAA (Mummy! I'm Not An Animal!)
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....
...
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
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 ;)
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).
ummm this is all about your rights, do you really think it's about a measily $200?
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.
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.
except this is a response to those tatics, beating them at their own game. This isn't attack, it's defense.
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?
Actually no, alot of factory workers don't.
Then you know a small claims court case sets no precedent.
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.
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.