Slashdot Mirror
Italian Judge Tells HP To Refund Pre-Installed XP
Paolo DF writes "An Italian user asked for a refund after buying a Compaq computer that came with Windows XP and Works 8 pre-installed. HP tried to avoid the EULA agreement which states, approximately: '[I]f the end user is not willing to abide by this EULA... he shall immediately contact the producer to get info for giving back the product and obtaining refunds.' The court ruled in favor of the user (Google translation from the Italian), who received back €90 for XP and €50 for Works. Here is the ruling (PDF, Italian)."
As a quick google search's first few results show: this has been done in the US and Australia in the past with at least Dell and Toshiba and has been followed on slashdot before.
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" - Albert Einstein
Assuming the EULA is the same in the US and elsewhere, I wonder why this has not been tried before, and if it has, does anyone know the outcome?
It may be a hassle but people in the US have been getting refunds for years. Here's an article, "Windows license opens door for Linux refund" on how people in the late '90s were requesting refunds. It mentions /. and how /.ers got involved.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Not only was the buyer reimbursed 140 euros for the unwanted software, he was awarded 2,300 euros in legal costs. Refusing to abide by the EULA could get expensive for vendors.
After a few seconds to get to the Google page, the EULA states exactly in the first paragraph.. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/proeula.mspx
"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 or one of its affiliates ("Microsoft") for the Microsoft software that accompanies this EULA, which includes computer software and may include associated media, printed materials, "online" or electronic documentation, and Internet-based services ("Software"). An amendment or addendum to this EULA may accompany the Software. YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE SOFTWARE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL, COPY, OR USE THE SOFTWARE; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND, IF APPLICABLE."
Rejecting the contract at this stage means you have no need to read the rest of the EULA,and states explicitly that you are entitled to a refund, who you are entitled to a refund from, and as the court cases have shown, the refund is in fact applicable. So basically, if they don't give a refund, you are entitled to take them to court and enter a case where you as the end user will win.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.
It is looking more and more that the court systems of the world are looking to EULA click-through "agreements" as contracts of adhesion.
> I thought the EULA just meant that you could return the computer
I believe this is referring to the Windows EULA, which only discusses your non-rights w.r.t. Windows, and doesn't discuss the hardware at all. I don't have it handy, but when I read it [and when it's come up before in slashdot, for the odd person getting a refund in the US], the EULA explicitly states [at least for the US] that you have the right to return the software [specifically] for a full refund if you don't agree with the EULA.
And I don't think MS wants to revise the EULA to force the return of the computer as well, because then it explicitly goes back to that monopoly situation, where for the large vendors, you must then buy Windows to get a computer. Now, it's just a big hassle for both the consumer and the vendor to buy a computer without Windows [in general], but it's not legally forced by Microsoft [except perhaps in some non-pubic legal agreements between the vendors and Microsoft, where they pay for each computer shipped instead of each Windows license shipped - Windows licenses refunded].
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Although it is a legal precedent, it must be noted that Italian law is not based on precedents, like UK or USA. Even the rulings of our "Corte di Cassazione" (akin to the Supreme Court) are not completely binding (i.e. they show the "correct" interpretation of the law but judges can decide differently).
A CC-licensed illustrated horror novel
the Google translation is not very readable; when I proposed this submission, I did summarize as follows:
HP defended , claiming the terms of their contract with Microsoft; the judge ruled that the end user request may not be dismissed based on a contract between HP and Microsoft, since this latter is unknown to the end user. The end user, a member of ADUC (a consumer organization) was given 90euro for Windows and 50euro for Works; this is just a small symbolical amount, but it is a huge signal to HP and all other major vendor; in defending, HP claimed that the license and contract to Microsoft is unilaterally written by Microsoft; the judge ruled that nonetheless, HP is to be held accountable by the EULA; the ruling seem to suggest that it may be time for vendors to address this situation.
Why don't you check the EULA that came with your copy of OSX. Does it say that you can return it for a refund?