Slashdot Mirror


French Judge Orders Refund For Pre-Installed XP

Racketiciel writes "A French user asked for a refund after buying an ASUS computer that came with Windows XP and other software pre-installed. ASUS tried to apply a procedure which cost more money to the consumer than they will give back... The court ruled in favor of the user, who received back 130 Euro (~200 $) for the software. Here is the ruling (PDF, French). In France, this is the fourth victory for refund seekers during the last two years, and many people are now filing for refunds (in French). Two French associations (AFUL and April) published a press release on this victory the same day an important hearing happened." The English-language press release linked above gives a pretty good idea of what happened here, for those unsuited to wading through French.

7 of 663 comments (clear)

  1. Re:How does this make sense? by twistedsymphony · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The fact is, Windows is being FORCED on people.
    Next time you buy a computer order it without a hard drive, and then order whatever hard drive you want separately... this has worked for me several times in the past.
  2. That will force them to give options by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 4, Interesting
    If you look at the extra USD100 as punitive damages it is not so bad.

    This will force the PC vendors (in France anyway) to provide better Linux options.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  3. Facilitating a monopoly by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Sure, you have a choice of PC with windows or nothing. It is a packaged deal, but they don't offer choices apart from the monopolistic one.

    Unlike USA - where the DOJ's anti-trust ruling has no real impact on MS's business - the Eurpoeans take this more seriously. They feel that there should be options other than the monopolistic one.

    Forcing vendors to give back more than the XP cost sends a clear message: give non-MS options or feel the pain.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  4. Re:French by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What surprises me is that the French got labelled as surrender-happy, when Norway, Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg all did the same thing, not to mention the Italians which switched sides in both world wars to avoid being the losing side.

    Btw France fought tooth and nail in the first world war, so its not from that (and it certainly wasn't taken over, you might want to brush up on history a bit :P ).

    --
    Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
  5. Re:French by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Jokes are just that.

    In Texas, we make all kinds of jokes about "Aggies" implying they are exceptionally stupid.

    And then there are blond and dead baby jokes.

    Your average french citizen is similar to people from other cultures.

    I'm sure the french soldiers on the Magenot [sp] line would have fought very hard to defend france but they got driven around. The folks behind the line were not ready to fight germans with tanks with virtually no warning. To have something like the impact of a blitzkrieg war today, imagine that an enemy country could teleport their entire army inside your country.

    However, just like an "aggie" joke or a "blonde" joke or a "dead baby" joke wouldn't make any sense with some other subject, the "french surrender" jokes wouldn't be funny with someone else now. I laughed at the "French military rifles for sale, dropped once" joke myself.

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  6. Re:French by damburger · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Needed to be said. As a Briton I've more fondness for France than America (an unusually position as most people here loathe them both with equal measure) and am getting tired of these French=Cowards jokes. In many ways their country is better than ours, and this should be a source of embarrassment for us because they have a similar sized economy and population. I guess that is why it is deemed necessary for the media to lay on the French-hate so thick, in case British people start to say "Hey, why can't we have fast trains that turn up on time?" and such stuff.

    --
    If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
  7. Re:French by dajak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's a leftover of initial reactions in the media of Britain and the US to the shocking defeat of France in just a few weeks in 1940.

    A similar thing happened in the first few days American stwith the Netherlands. While the Dutch army was being ripped apart by the Germans, newspapers in the rest of the world were wildly speculating about fifth columns and the neutral Dutch's unwillingness to really put up a fight (in other words treason).

    Even though everyone already knew that the Dutch would be no match for the Germans, public opinion was simply not prepared for a war in which a country could be overrun in a matter of days. Even a lackluster performance should have been able to hold off the enemy for "just a month" in people's minds (with WWI as a frame of reference) to give the French time to deploy.

    After the Germans finished off the Dutch, just a few days later the French-Belgian-British defence also started collapsing, and the newspapers shifted their attention to perceived French cowardice and incompetent leadership (treason being a lesser explanation here, since the French weren't neutral).

    Since the Germans didn't KO any more formidable powers than France after that, this analysis of events got stuck in people's minds.

    The events of 1940 of course clearly show the superiority of Germany over their neighbours, but comparing US performance in later years to the losers of 1940 is really apples and oranges: in the spring of 1940 the US standing army was no larger and hardly better prepared than the mobilized Dutch or Belgian one, and in 1940 all of Europe had just started producing newly designed aircraft and tanks that would have given them the edge over the Germans given a year. It is just distance and a large body of water that makes the difference.