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?
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
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.
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...)
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 $500,005."
I don't think the "tell you what, let's split the difference" is necessary. Oh well.
Perhaps someone should make a repository of stories from people who tried to do this. Find out what worked, what didn't, who caved, who didn't, and what seemed unprofessional and pissed off the judge. I would love to see this become a widespreaed thing. I would participate in it myself, except I do not own an x86 computer
4000 linux geeks going "i want a windows refund" is easy to blow off. 4000 linux geeks dragging company representatives into small claims court equates to actual policy changes...
-- Super Ugly Ultraman
An OEM copy of Windows XP Pro is not worth 199. It's 99 bucks everywhere online (with purchase of hardware). No doubt in bulk it's vastly cheaper.
So linux zealots think they're stickin' it to the man, but they're really screwing the vendors. Who will no doubt make sure the price of everything that ships with windows is instantly jacked up 200 bucks to cover their losses when they're flooded with refund demands.
Yay, more expensive hardware for everybody!
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
...when he gets refunds on those unused AOL cds
The thing that you do not want to do is be a nut case. Don't bash Microsoft...
I guess that eliminates all of us.
FLAC - Free Lossless Audio Codec
In the long run, this article really just points out a few things... 1) This guy has waaaaaaayyyyyyyyy too much time on his hands! 2) The guy was looking for a crusade to fight in the first place. If he was a proficent enough computer user to be able to run Linux, he should just as easily been able to buy a white box system or built his own from scratch. 3) The checks and balances Microsoft has in place to make the process difficult, indeed do work. Somehow I doubt MS cares too much about paying out 200$ 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.
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
No, then you'll have to pay less for new computers. Also, if you RTFA (yes, the site's slashdotted, but someone posted the full text in another comment), you'll notice that the article specifically notes "Getting a Microsoft Windows refund from a manufacturer is seldom easy to do." The work involved in getting that $199 refund is not cost-effective in any sense of the word.
"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! :)
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Actually, you just supported the argument for more people to do this. The case you paraphrased from Fight Club, incidentally, was itself taken from Ford in real life. Yeah, scary.
Back to the point, consider the equation the expected number of complaints, A, multiplied by the average cost of each complaint, B. A * B = X. If X is greater than the computer manufacturer's (not Microsoft's) profit from force bundling Windows, then it's in the computer manufacturer's best interests to stop the practice. Currently A is near zero. But since B is probably high (in administrative and legal costs), any increase in A exerts B times the pressure on the computer manufacturer to stop force bundling Windows.
Of course, the above equation applies assuming a constant OEM price of Windows, which depends on the terms of Microsoft's antitrust settlement and how closely Microsoft adheres to them.
You tell me how "whilst" differs from "while," and I'll stop calling you a pretentious jackass.
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"...
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
We are a people who love to jump through hoops.
What this case boiled down to was that it would cost more than $199 for the vendor to fight this in court and therefore the vendor cut its losses and didn't fight it.
Do this too often to the point where the vendor thinks their total expenses will be more than it will cost to fight it and they will. And they won't need to fight every case, just the first one and use that as precedent.
Mmmm.. Donuts
The point is to illustrate the the hardware manufacturers don't really mean it when they say you can get a refund, since they have no clear refund policy in place. In the end, we want M$ 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
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
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
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.....
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?!"
That's how actual recalls actually happen, most of the time - company A realizes "Oops, shoulda carried that 4 and not rounded down the .49" and issues a recall for their Self-Fermenting Spangulator, which out in the Real World catches fire one time in 13,321, not one time in 31,103,927.4, and there are lawyers at the door.
Occasionally, a government or whistleblower organization gets into the fray, but usually it's the lawyers and actuaries who decide when and how to recall things. Wonder how that would change if liability awards got capped?
I love vegetarians - some of my favorite foods are vegetarians.
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)?
Sure be fun to see someone try it.
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.
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.
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.
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
Buy one of those $500.00 computers that comes with Windows XP preinstalled. Drag them to small claims court over the $199.00 price of Windows. The computer has just cost you $301.00. Hmmm... Good deal!
I've represented myself in Small Claims and his advice is generally good.
The only problem I can see is that the XP EULA has clearly contemplated this. Remember, he isn't getting the refund from Microsoft but from the hardware manufacturer that bundles XP.
The EULA reads:
If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, you may not use or
copy the SOFTWARE, and you should promptly contact Manufacturer
for instructions on return of the unused product(s) in accordance
with Manufacturer's return policies.
It says nothing about a refund. Even if it did, the manufacturer could say their policy is not to give a refund, or only to give $10 or whatever.
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
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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Is anyone else worried that the actions taken here rely on the EULA being a valid contract between Microsoft and the user? Could this lead to Microsoft having a stronger case when someone tries prove the EULA is an illegal contract?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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..
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.
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.
- 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.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.
... 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.
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
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!