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)."

Comments

MS Tax

[indy_Muad'Dib]

90 euros for XP, $130

50 Euros for Works, $70.

so why do we only get back around $10 for a XP turn in?

Re:MS Tax

[JoshJ]

Because Microsoft owns a significant chunk of the American political machine, but owns very little of the European one.

Re:MS Tax

[Sterling Christensen]

It's probably because US retailers think it should count that they bundled Windows with sponsored crapware bringing net cost down to $10, while the Italian Judge (quite reasonably) thought it shouldn't.

Re:MS Tax

[BrentH]

Oh boy. Please check out European news before you spew such nonsense. European co's are constantly under fire for anti-competitive practices. A lot more often than non-EU ones.

Any other attempts at this?

[cygtoad]

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? This has far reaching implications beyond HP. Any computer manufacturer would be affected, but the EULA seems to point heavily to the refunding procedure, not of Microsoft, but of the reseller. It should be interesting to see how HP responds.

Re:Any other attempts at this?

[JohnBailey]

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? This has far reaching implications beyond HP. Any computer manufacturer would be affected, but the EULA seems to point heavily to the refunding procedure, not of Microsoft, but of the reseller. It should be interesting to see how HP responds. It is and it has. There was a case recently in I think a French court where one of the big names was being awkward, and the court awarded the customer the full retail cost of all the software they rejected instead of just the OEM price. This was obviously a penalty for the company being difficult about obeying the EULA. And there have been a few others where people have demanded a refund as specified in the EULA, and reported their adventures in getting satisfaction.

Its a case of "don't like it.. Don't buy it", so he didn't. This could be something that will get more popular as time goes by. If someone wants to install their own copy of Windows to get rid of all the crapplets, then they should be given a refund of the unused license, If they choose to use another OS, then that is also a perfectly legitimate reason to reject the EULA and have the price of Windows and any other software refunded. The conditions of the EULA are enforced when it goes against the user, so there is no real justification to not enforce the other bits.

Re:Progress.

[AusIV]

True, this is but 1 user but every little helps as we say in the UK.

It's not just one user. It's a legal precedent. Now Italian Linux users may be more likely to request refunds for Windows licenses that come with computers, and since there's a legal precedent, the vendors may be more likely to comply.

Soon have to sign an agreement to get the product

[SuurMyy]

I wouldn't be surprised if this issue ending up being so that nobody would sell you a computer before you have signed an agreement stating that you agree w/having Windows etc. in there. Then, if someone took this to court, it would probably end up so that you could get some other OS pre-installed, but w/extra cost, and they could justify this by saying that it causes them extra costs to serve a small group of users having e.g. Linux in there. So, you'd still end up paying the M$ tax in one form or the other. Of course they could sell the computers w/o any OS, but I don't think this is the way it's gonna be, because M$ will use a lot of money and will put a lot of pressure on the hw companies to make it otherwise.

Re:He got costs, too

[Gertlex]

Oh no, a bit of legal costs!

What I love about this case is that the reimbursement was completely in line with damages. None of that hundreds of thousands of dollars (euros) crap.

Re:Don't get it

[khallow]

The only trouble with this is how can a third party software vendor dictate any agreement between a hardware manufacturer and a buyer.

Actually this is pretty easy in practice. Microsoft makes a deal with the hardware vendor to bundle their software on the machine. Part of the agreement involves conditions on the agreement bewteen manufacturer and buyer. Even most open source involves minor constraints: a manufacturer cannot provide most open source software without including copies of the agreement and sometimes other constraints (like a guarantee that the software will not be used for military purposes to name an extreme licensing condition that occasionally shows up).

the obvious reason

[soldoutactivist]

I can't believe no one commented on the fact he might already have a copy of XP and used the EULA policy to get a refund for the retail amount of the OS he paid for at a subsidized cost. Essentially, he got more back than he actually paid in for the OS and software. Brilliant.

What...?

[Anonymous Coward]

He asked for a refund... And they had to go to *court* to get it?

Why wasn't it automatic?!

Re:Progress.

[the_womble]

I thought the EULA just meant that you could return the computer

For that to apply you would have to sign an agreement when you bought the computer. You agree to the EULA after you have bought the hardware, so it cannot affect your ownership of the hardware. In any case, it is an MS EULA that only applies to the software.

Time to break out the classic analogy

Time to break out the classic flawed analogy.

Corrected that for you.

I want a Ford with a Chevy engine, should Ford take back the engine and give me back a portion of my money?

The first time you start the Ford does it flash up a notice saying: "before using this engine, you must agree to these terms, otherwise return the engine for a refund"? If it does then yes, otherwise no.

How about I buy a mac, should Apple refund me the cost of the OS since I want windows?

If they have a similar EULA, then yes.

Re:Progress.

[the_womble]

So by your logic because there is a Eula, as opposed to nothing, MS is on the hook for your whims? Incredible.

Yes, if MS requires a EULA, you have the right to reject it.

What if I wanted Windows but decided to use another OS because I did not wish to agree with a clause in the EULA? I already own the hardware and have every right to keep it, so I should be able reject the EULA and get a refund on Windows.

According to you, MS should be able to impose whatever arbitrary conditions they want on the use of a produce AFTER getting paid for it, and consumers should have no alternatives other than not using the product (which they have paid for) or agreeing to MS's conditions. Now that really is incredible.

As for paying for the war etc., are you suggesting that no-one should raise any minor issue until all major political issues are sorted out? Then you can NEVER raise any consumer rights issue because there will always be something more important.

You do realise that complaining about MS does not preclude caring about other issues. I am opposed to the US invasion of Iraq AND corruption AND anti-competitive product bundling.

Yes, I can actually have opinions on three issues at once. If your brain explodes if you have to think about more than one issue a month, that is your problem.