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.

Comments

Re:How does this make sense?

[jlarocco]

Look, if the guy doesn't want to pay the Microsoft Tax, then he shouldn't have to. Last time I checked, they were 2 completely seperate companies, ASUS and Microsoft. Imagine that if every manufacturer pre-installed a $1000 copy of Adobe CS3 and you couldn't opt out of it, wouldn't you be a little pissed off? Wouldn't you feel that you'd have the right to get your money back for something you didn't want in the first place? This isn't the slightest bit different. Not to mention the whole EULA problem. If you can't see the EULA before you purchase something, you can't just say "Oh, well, I won't buy this then". If he didn't agree with the EULA upon starting his computer (which it may not have even appeared, if ASUS preinstalled XP, which would create a whole new problem in itself) then he has every right to tell ASUS to kiss his ass and give him his money back.

You're a moron. The following parts of a computer are usually made by companies other than the comapany assembling the computer:

• Processors
• Video cards
• Sound cards
• Motherboards
• Keyboards
• Mice
• Connector cables
• Speakers
• Printers
• Monitors
• Network cards

If you want to get really picky, most of those are built from components from even more manufacturers. Maybe next time you should sue because your Asus PC isn't using entirely Panasonic brand resistors.

When you buy an Asus PC, you're buying the combination of hardware and software that Asus wants to sell. If you think they've made a bad system, don't buy one and go shop somewhere else. There's no shortage of companies selling prebuilt computers.

As for the EULA, everybody knows commercial software requires agreeing to EULAs. Did you honestly buy a PC from Asus, knowing it came with Windows, and *NOT* expect it to have a EULA? Were you hoping that despite every other copy of Windows requiring a EULA, you would get the one copy that didn't require one?

Re:It never ends, does it?

[jZnat]

Well, if you've actually spent a bit of time in Europe, you may have noticed that their stereotype-based jokes mostly deal with country of origin rather than race, religion, ethnicity, etc., that are joked about in the US.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[cpt kangarooski]

The inherent rights of the owner remain controlling until ended by law.

They're not inherent, they're just controlling.

ABC creates a work. ABC owns every possible legally protected right to that work and has exclusive dominion over it. No other person has any right to it.

Well, there's your problem. Inherent rights are not the same as legally protected rights, which may be inherent or artificial.

In the absence of copyright -- the scheme of legal protection which creates some artificial rights -- only the inherent rights are left. They're easy to suss out.

ABC has a right to choose whether or not to create a work in the first place. He has a right to choose whether or not to share that work with anyone else. And he has the right to destroy the copies of the work that are in his possession.

That's about it.

Should he share the work with even one other person, that person has an inherent right to share that work further, regardless of ABC's feelings on the matter.

Copyright is a system of artificial, not inherent, rights vested in the author, but which spring from the consent of everyone else, since they are the ones bound by copyright, and they are the ones who empower the government to legislate in this field, for the public good, no less.

It goes without saying, of course, that contracts are no substitutes for copyrights -- mainly due to the issue of privity -- and that it's pretty dangerous, from a public policy perspective, to even get close. The inherent free speech rights that the others exercise to use ABC's work as they like, and which they may temporarily, and to a limited extent, sacrifice in the act of establishing copyright law, as they see fit, are of vital importance; more important than contracting.

ABC still retains, for the duration of copyright, any property right not explicitly denied to it by Title 17. Consumer XYZ has only acquired the rights purchased and secured by the Copyright Act.

You've got that backwards. There are no property rights in published (using that term very broadly) works outside of copyright law. And all of the XYZs of the world have all the rights in the work other than those temporarily ceded to ABC.

they are transferred to the public through the mechanisms of copyright and its expiration.

Nonsense. In the absence of copyright, the public would have the rights to the work to begin with. It's access to the work that they don't have an inherent right to. But, the market for works being what it is, it's usually no trouble to acquire.