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

I for one...

[Anonymous Coward]

welcome our anti-XP French overlords.

Re:I for one...

[mjwx]

welcome our anti-XP French overlords.

I would have welcomed them as well but they surrendered before I got the chance

Re:I for one...

[stephanemartin]

You don't frighten us, English pig-dogs! Go and boil your bottom, sons of a silly person. I blow my nose at you, so-called Arthur King, you and all your silly English k-nnnnniggets. Thpppppt! Thppt! Thppt!

I'm surprised it's so much

[Ctrl V]

I don't know that I have anything solid to base this on, but I've always guessed that the real cost per copy that larger systems makers have to pass on to Microsoft is more in the $30 range.

Re:I'm surprised it's so much

[aim2future]

systems makers have to pass on to Microsoft is more in the $30 range.

Something along that line, but slightly more I had believed as well, but here is a Swedish site selling laptops. The computer you see is prised for 3008 SEK incl VAT (499 USD) without any options like OS. Then you can add e.g. "Windows Vista Home basic 32 bit, 846 SEK (140 USD) to MS Windows Vista Ultimate, 2110 SEK (350 USD).

I hope more shops could do like this. Still I have never bothered to use the refund option, which means I have plenty of unused Windows CDs laying around. When one realize that one is being robbed on around 200 USD in extra tax for each machine, then there is something really flawed with the system.

Next machine I purchase, if I can not buy it without Windows, I will definitely ask for a refund. We also need to put pressure on retailers to provide computers without OS, or possibly some Linux distro as alternative, but no OS should always be an alternative.

Re:I'm surprised it's so much

[drsmithy]

well, you should have refound for the full face prize, not for the real oem cost.

No, you shouldn't. Really, you shouldn't have any refund at all, since you should have just a) bought a computer that didn't come with Windows or b) sucked it up like you do every other time you buy a product that isn't exactly, perfectly what you want.

Do you really really think that this is charity?

I think it's standard business practice that every company, everywhere, engages in. You think a Big Mac costs the same all over the world ?

as a matter of comparison, your thinking also lead that if you buy a defective 1000$ intel cpu, and you seek for a refound, then the retailer should give you back not the price you paid for it, but the price the retailed paid to the dealer, with his high-volume ordering discount.

Your "comparison" is incredibly broken, because the customer *doesn't* pay the full retail price of Windows, or anything close to it. The OEM doesn't pay an OEM price for Windows then sell it on to the customer at full retail.

Re:I'm surprised it's so much

[v1]

That's probably true, and I wonder what will happen if a flood of people demand a refund and they have to pay $200 per? That would make for a net $170 loss per incident.

I'm sure there's some way they'll find to pass the loss back on to Microsoft, though for right now they're probably just eating it because it's small and they're going to have as much hassle with MS as they are presenting to their customers.

Looks like it will be a slow process.

Re:I'm surprised it's so much

[Insanity Defense]

Manufacturer of computer pays w$ to Microsoft. Distributor pays manufacturer x$ (includes w plus costs and manufacturers profit). Retailer pays y$ (includes x plus costs and distributors profit). End user pays z$ (includes y plus costs and retailers profit). End user having paid z$ should get it refunded. Then the Retailer should demand his refund from the distributor who should demand his from the manufacturer who should get his from Microsoft.

Last I checked the EULA from Microsoft says that if you don't agree to the terms to return the software to the retailer for a FULL REFUND. Microsoft however has a history of not arranging it so you can do so easily. These people are just doing what Microsoft instructed them to do and then fighting for the right to do it when the retailer and Microsoft objects.

Re:I'm surprised it's so much

[Eivind]

It's actually in the zero range for many. In sum.

They pay a little for Windows. But on the other hand, they get kickbacks for installing a metric shitload of crapware, adware, shareware, tryware, shovelware.

The kickbacks generally balance the cost of actually purchased software, so that net, it costs zero. (more or less, offcourse the sum total can be sligthly negative, or sligthly positive)

Re:I'm surprised it's so much

[drsmithy]

I ask because the eula and only that prevent me to make copy of the software, and the eula states that I could have windows refounded no question asked at full retail price (if the price is not stated in the spec of the pc - but if it was stated, then I would bought the same pc without windows asking for a discount in the first place).

The Windows EULA says you are entitled to a "full refund" [obviously of what you paid], not a refund of the retail price.

What you are suggesting is the equivalent of buying a McDonald's meal, then taking the drink back for a refund of its standalone price.

Re:I'm surprised it's so much

[sjames]

Like most products, the wholesale price is less than MSRP. As a retail customer, the plaintiff wasn't charged the wholesale price, so would be entitled to the retail price. If the vendor is unwilling to supply the judge with a detailed breakdown of their margin on various components of the sale, he may have no choice but to assume MSRP.

Even knowing that will happen, the defendant may prefer that to having their breakdown become part of the court records. After all, just about all pricing in IT (and many other fields) is a variation on "find the umbrella".

Re:I'm surprised it's so much

[sjames]

Unless the retailer is willing to tell the judge how much of the cost was the Windows portion AND document that, the judge will go with MSRP. Otherwise, everyone will say "Oh, yeah...that was free, so here's your refund of nothing, yeah, that's it!".

At the same time, MS and many of the vendors do NOT want the deep discount for exclusivity agreements examined too closely in Europe just now. The cost to avoid that examination will be refunding full MSRP on request.

What you are suggesting is the equivalent of buying a McDonald's meal, then taking the drink back for a refund of its standalone price.

When the drink vendor has arranged to be the ONLY vendor in town and that no restaurant in town may sell a meal without a drink AND prints a legally binding written offer for a full refund on the cup.

Re:I'm surprised it's so much

[InverseParadox]

Proportionately to the price of the other versions of Windows as sold separately, would be my guess.

Re:I'm surprised it's so much

[drsmithy]

When the drink vendor has arranged to be the ONLY vendor in town and that no restaurant in town may sell a meal without a drink AND prints a legally binding written offer for a full refund on the cup.

Your analogy falls apart because it is trivial to buy a computer without Windows.

Re:I'm surprised it's so much

[sjames]

When the drink vendor has arranged to be the ONLY vendor in town and that no restaurant in town may sell a meal without a drink AND prints a legally binding written offer for a full refund on the cup.

Your analogy falls apart because it is trivial to buy a computer without Windows.

It's possible (and I have done so) but I wouldn't call it trivial by any means. For the many people who think getting a computer involves going to a store and looking it over in person then taking it home it is considerably harder. When I get computers w/o OS installed, I must specify what I want exactly to a whitebox vendor or order it over the web (also requiring that I know exactly what I want before I place the order). Some people just aren't up for that.

I see that the French term for OS is...

[jejones]

.."système d'exploitation". In the case of Windows, that seems appropriate.

Re:I see that the French term for OS is...

[Red Alastor]

The best part is that the abbreviation is SEX. It's not even a joke.

Re:I see that the French term for OS is...

[Yvanhoe]

SEX is better when it is free

Re:I see that the French term for OS is...

[Lyrael]

Yes, that is exactly what he said. Congratulations on your reading skills.

Re:I see that the French term for OS is...

[mike2R]

Yes, but you have to choose between free as in beer or free as in speech. Very rarely do you get both.

Re:I see that the French term for OS is...

[GuldKalle]

Free as in beer or free as in love?

Re:I see that the French term for OS is...

[stephanemartin]

I have to say that the usual French abbreviation is... OS. (As a French man, I of course despise it and consider the abbreviation as blatant insult to our Holy French Language).

Re:I see that the French term for OS is...

[Red Alastor]

Quebec, computer science in college.

It was funny to have exams with SEX written in all caps all over :)

I've mostly seen OS in real usage because lets face it, who uses French for computing?

I'm torn about this subject

[symbolset]

You bought what you bought. If you took the XP as part of the package, you should be stuck with it. You knew what the EULA was. Don't like it? Choose one of the many systems from another vendor that come with Linux or no OS.

But... It's not the OEM's job to decide for you what software to run. If you want just the computer with no OS on it you should have that option. If people use declining the EULA to work around the fact that OEMs don't offer no-OS options or the crudware is just offensive, I guess that's the best we can do.

If enough people did this, the no-OS option would become available. But... society is too litigious already and more of this doesn't help.

Can't we all just get along?

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[Winckle]

You knew what the EULA was. Don't like it?

But if i'm not mistaken the EULA does say "Click Disagree" and then take it back for a refund?

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[Sentry21]

I have no idea what the EULA is. If I found something distasteful in it, I have the option of refusing and returning the software (the software itself generally says this).

How can I agree to something I haven't read yet?

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[cpt kangarooski]

The EULA includes the option to reject it. And ProCD, the leading case for the enforceability of EULAs, supports the proposition that a EULA wouldn't be enforceable if you couldn't reject it and return the software for a refund. If people weren't supposed to be free to take advantage of the option, it wouldn't be there. So no, people shouldn't be stuck with it.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[lixee]

Tying a product with something else violates article L122-1 of the French law. The argument is that some giant corporation might convince or coerce somebody to bundle one of its products, creating a de facto monopoly. This is the same reason no telecom operator can force you to buy a subscription with your iPhone.

If you don't like the law, stay out of France. The majority of the population here like it very much as it keeps the competition alive and healthy.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[nospam007]

You bought what you bought. If you took the XP as part of the package, you should be stuck with it. You knew what the EULA was. Don't like it? Choose one of the many systems from another vendor that come with Linux or no OS.

It's against the law to bundle stuff with sales, there's a difference with "get an XS T-shirt for free with this toaster" and "Toaster PLUS XS-T-shirt for only 99.95"

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[edschurr]

If you know about software EULAs and software refund policies then you ought to find the EULA beforehand online to ensure you will agree with it.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[WoollyMittens]

In fact... if I'm not mistaken, France was the first country in which an unlocked iPhone was required to be offered as an alternative to the usual operator lock-in.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[Anonymous Coward]

Explicitly stated in the EULA:

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.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[c-reus]

what does the "if applicable" mean at the end of the sentence? Under which circumstances cannot one get the full refund?

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[mh101]

You bought what you bought. If you took the XP as part of the package, you should be stuck with it. You knew what the EULA was. Don't like it? Choose one of the many systems from another vendor that come with Linux or no OS. Not necessarily. Us Slashdotters may know what the EULA is, but let's say an average joe buys a PC and actually reads and understands the EULA. Let's also say he finds something in it he strongly disagrees with.

Was he presented the opportunity to read the EULA before he bought the PC (or did he know there was such a thing as a EULA)? He can't agree or disagree with it until after he buys the PC and fires it up for the first time.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[mh101]

If you know about software EULAs and software refund policies then you ought to find the EULA beforehand online to ensure you will agree with it. But what if you don't. You're just an average non-slashdotter buying your first PC, and you've never heard of a EULA before until the first time you start up that PC.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[bzipitidoo]

In a way, I prefer EULAs that obviously overreach, trying to impose conditions that by law can't be imposed no matter whether the user accepts. That (I hope) makes the EULA safe to ignore, and I can save time by not reading any more and go about my business.

Severability complicates that simple approach. So when I used to skim EULAs, and I spotted that, I looked for a clause that let me terminate the agreement effective immediately, with no onerous repercussions. That way if some nasty surprise get sprung on me later, I can always kill the agreement.

I don't waste time on EULAs anymore. Mostly they're just trying to make you think you need permission to do things you have the right to do anyway. Condition you to think you don't have the right to do something that isn't explicitly granted. Like, I would suppose I have the right to terminate an EULA effective immediately, whether or not it explicitly said so, or whether it instead tried to claim that 30 days written notice was required or some such.

Worst EULA I'd ever seen or was, before they dropped the clause that said any software you wrote that was related to their product had to be given to them immediately, for free. However, in the original version you were at least considered a buyer, not a lessee. Still has what I call the "jackbooted thugs" clause, #14.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[Anonymous Coward]

"If applicable" appears to be legalese for being forced to by a judge.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[elmartinos]

I don't like the "if applicable" at the end of this sentence. Who decides, and based on what reasons?

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[mr_matticus]

That (I hope) makes the EULA safe to ignore, and I can save time by not reading any more and go about my business. No, it makes that provision safe to ignore, and only if that condition truly is not something that can be contracted for.

A weird clause in a contract does not usually make the entire agreement void, because use of it in such a manner is an open and obvious attempt to avoid an agreement willingly entered into. Using ambiguity or a condition that happens to be banned statutorily where you live to avoid enforcement of the whole is not tolerated. The offending provisions drop out, but the EULA stands.

Note that no case, at least in the US, has ever categorically dissolved a EULA. Most of them have to do with cases where the company uses a EULA in a defensive posture to do something that deprives the customer of a legal right (most commonly, being forced into binding arbitration). If it limits a customer's rights and is supported by mutuality or consideration, it's fine. This is the major sticking point with DRM audio--if people buy it knowing it is protected by DRM rather than going to a vendor that sells without it, they paid a price that reflects the loss of certain kinds of personal uses that would otherwise be legal.

There is no law requiring that media vendors give you a means to exercise personal or fair uses.

Mostly they're just trying to make you think you need permission to do things you have the right to do anyway. Condition you to think you don't have the right to do something that isn't explicitly granted You don't have the right to do something that isn't explicitly granted. If it's not granted to you by the EULA and it's not granted to you by statutory law (e.g. the Copyright Act), it's a reserved right for the owner.

Slashdot as a whole really needs to wrap its head around that basic fact sooner or later. Yes, the law permits a citizen to do anything that is not against the law, but in the case of copyrighted works, the citizens targeted are the rightsholders. The customers only get the rights that are transferred to them; they don't have any inherent right to use the protected work of another.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[dargaud]

And then the place of purchase says 'not applicable, sucker'. Yes, every fucking time I've tried it in the US. Good thing there are countries with anti-tie-in laws as mentioned in TFA.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[tshawkins]

No, there is EULA, if you dont agree to it it says that it can be returned for a refund. the OS is a separately licensed product, that you can refuse to abid by the terms of, and thus reclaim its value.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[Pofy]

>No, there is EULA, if you dont agree to it it says that it can be returned for a refund.

If you don't agree to it, it would not matter what it says since there is no agreement. For you to apply what is in the agreement, you first need to agree to it.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[bpkiwi]

I suspect the "if applicable" part is there to allow them to argue that the law in your jurisdiction does not require a refund.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[Whiteox]

you may return it to your place of purchase for a full refund,..... if applicable. Just means that the EULA refers to a machine bundled with the MS os but you didn't buy it, it is part of a multiple licence agreement etc.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[Anonymous Coward]

You bought what you bought. No. You bought a computer with an OS, and the OS vendor attempts to force additional restrictions (that were not communicated to you before the purchase) on you via the EULA.

You knew what the EULA was. No, you don't. Even for Windows, there are multiple different EULAs, and even the existence of any EULA is not clearly announced on the outside of the package (much less the EULA itself), or anywhere else that a buyer could take note of before opening the computer.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[Anonymous Coward]

In Finland, a similar law was recently repealed. Politicians succumbed to strong lobbying pressure from large corporations, especially in the telecoms industry. They wanted to sell binding subscriptions by bundling in hardware.

The competition between operators was fierce previously. Now the big ones can hook people for two years by selling hardware bundled with very pricey subscriptions.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[mpe]

This is, in my opinion, where the problem lies. Many computer dealers who sell only systems with Windows pre-installed will only sell you a system if you sign a purchase contract. This purchase contract is separate from the Windows EULA; it states, among other things, that you must buy the entire package, and that you can only return the operating system if you return everything else in the system.

Such a contract only has any effect if the "law of the land" supports it. If there is applicable statute or case law which says otherwise then such a "contract" is null and void.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[LiENUS]

If you don't agree to it, it would not matter what it says since there is no agreement. For you to apply what is in the agreement, you first need to agree to it. There are two parties involved in the EULA. MS previously agreed to return the refund price should you decide not to accept the EULA. Hence you are entitled to a refund when you choose not to accept.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[AK Marc]

If it limits a customer's rights and is supported by mutuality or consideration, it's fine.

I've never seen a EULA modified by both parties. They are dictatorial with a "if you don't like this fuck yourself" clause in them (the "fuck yourself" clause is the "return it to the store and try to get them to take back an opened piece of software - good luck with that" clause). They have no consideration. I've never seen any commercial EULA give the buyer *more* rights/priviledges than if the EULA wasn't there. So, I lose things, gane nothing, and have no opportunity to discuss terms of the "contract" with any representative of the organization dictating it. I don't think EULAs fit any of the legal definitions of "contract." But if you have enough high-paid lawyers arguing the case before a business-friendly judge, then you get to make laws contrary to what the legislature did.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[scuba0]

I'll bet 99 % does not know the word EULA even after installing that PC you're referring to.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[bigpicture]

I'm all for that, a very sensible law. You mean that the government elected by the people actually represents the interests of "the people" and not Big Money Corporations.

What a novel concept, it must be called democracy or something, they think it originated in America, instead it is an ancient Greek idea.

I see somebody else made the same point about buying without a hard drive. I buy my PCs in pieces and build them from the ground up, so no pre-installed OS problem. Unfortunately this method would be a bit of a challenge for most PC consumers, so the law must offer protection for them.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[mr_matticus]

I've never seen a EULA modified by both parties. It wouldn't be a EULA if it were. What's your point?

They have no consideration. Money.

I've never seen any commercial EULA give the buyer *more* rights/priviledges than if the EULA wasn't there. If the EULA wasn't there, the software wouldn't be available, so that's simply not true. Without a EULA, you'd need an agent or broker to license software, which would add cost and complexity. If you'd prefer it that way and want to pay substantially more for your software, you're welcome to give it a shot.

I don't think EULAs fit any of the legal definitions of "contract." They do. Your legal reasoning is no better than your spelling.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[cpt kangarooski]

Yes, the law permits a citizen to do anything that is not against the law, but in the case of copyrighted works, the citizens targeted are the rightsholders. The customers only get the rights that are transferred to them; they don't have any inherent right to use the protected work of another.

Well, to be a little more precise, even copyright law does not prohibit the public from doing anything not expressly made an exclusive right of the copyright holder (as subject to various exceptions). So, for example, anyone can read a book, whether they are authorized by the copyright holder or not, because copyright doesn't include an exclusive right of reading. Only a few rights are covered by copyright, in fact. The public does have inherent rights to everything else as to the copyrighted work of another, and since the public empowers the government to grant copyrights in the first place, they really have inherent rights to the work anyway, they've just given up some of them temporarily for public purposes. There's no inherent right to force an author to create or to publish, but otherwise, the public makes the rules.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[cpt kangarooski]

If the EULA wasn't there, the software wouldn't be available

What makes you think so? There was a time when software was around but EULAs were not, and even today, plenty of software is distributed sans EULA.

I've never seen any point to EULAs. And I've never heard of a good reason for them from anyone else. Developers don't need them, at least not for common practices in the industry, and ordinary users don't need them in order to run or backup the software. Sometimes they're useful -- site licenses, for example -- but not for people getting something in a cardboard box at a bricks and mortar store. This being the case, and given how abused EULAs in particular, and adhesive licenses generally, tend to be, I'm all for mostly abolishing them as to consumer transactions.

If you know of a good reason to have a EULA, I'd honestly like to know. Better still if it's a reason that seems like a fair and reasonable business practice.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[mr_matticus]

There are several reasons.

First, a statute-based license does not itself confer upon the user the necessary rights to use the software. The Copyright Act does not permit any sort of commercial preparation, nor does it comtemplate a mixed-mode type of license including patents, trademarks, copyrights, publicity rights, and commercial uses, all of which are traditionally licensed through contracts, with the exception of works of non-interactive art (music, film, paintings, books, etc.). Interactive works are usually associated with various explicit contracts, as well (installation agreements and a wide variety of other particularized needs depending on the work in question).

Second, because a modern piece of commercial software contains a complex mix of rights and assignments, the consumer cannot be expected to sort through appropriate law on their own. This also pertains to disclaimers (though absent a EULA a simple notice might suffice for this particular concern).

Third, modern software requires specific terms as a result of the existing case law with regard to unusual properties of software (the fact that it acts as a communications channel, that many modern applications will self-heal or have diagnostic reporting functions, software update functions, and/or are used to produce and/or distribute expressive works which may themselves be subject to legal protection, and others) that do not have any solid basis and require that customers be notified of these functions and their legal rights or responsibilities.

Fourth, unlike music CDs and DVDs, software is commonly licensed for specific machines or to specific numbers of machines. These varied licenses differ from a one-size fits all media license, and results in lower pricing, since consumers only need to purchase a license level for their specific purposes. The limitations on uses are contemplated in the price. These alternate licenses must be based in contract.

Further, a EULA is an important tool for the disclosure and negotiation of third-party rights contained in most commercial software. E.g. Company Y licenses algorithm A to Company X for use in non-military applications including all transferrees and assigns; Company X puts the requirement in a EULA, such that end users are enjoined from that use per those terms. This sublicensing or third-party licensing must come from contract as well.

ordinary users don't need them in order to run or backup the software.

They are required to set parameters on what "running" software entails, and what rights the owner has elected to reserve. With some notable exceptions required by law, the freedom to contract reigns supreme. Sellers are free to set arbitrary restrictions; consumers can seek an alternative that lacks those restrictions to cause a market shift.

There was a time when software was around but EULAs were not

I don't accept that statement as fact. End users also didn't exist, so software sales were among and between competent, professional parties. Disputes arising under that setup are precisely why standardized EULAs became the norm.

I'm all for mostly abolishing them as to consumer transactions.

That would be a grotesque failure of rationality. The price of software would skyrocket (no more "home" or "professional" versions, no more discounts for bulk licensing), and consumer confusion would require their reinstatement. Limiting the ability of owners and developers to license to select groups would have a profound chilling effect on the release of software and on collaboration.

The system as is has no deleterious effect on developers who choose more generous licensing terms. But a blanket prohibition on EULAs would not accomplish much, as those developers would either exit the market or limit their sales to purchase contracts or institute dramatic price increases. It would not stop abusive practices. As is, and as someone who sees EULAs on an uncommonly frequent basi

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[cpt kangarooski]

First, a statute-based license does not itself confer upon the user the necessary rights to use the software.

First, I'm not suggesting that there would be a compulsory license, I'm saying there would be no license at all. I don't need to be licensed by the author to read a book, or by the composer or musician to listen to a CD. I don't need a license from a developer to merely use software, it's the copying and adaptation of software in the process of using it that is the tricky part. However, 17 USC 117 deals with that nicely.

including patents, trademarks, copyrights, publicity rights, and commercial uses

I can't speak as to patents, not being sufficiently familiar with that field, but I am dubious that a full-fledged EULA is necessary. Hell, an implied license would probably be enough to handle making and using embodiments of the invention in the ordinary course of using the software. A patent equivalent to 117 would seem to be a useful reform though, and not one that I had previously thought about. Thanks for helping me to the idea!

Trademarks strike me as a red herring; what trademark rights are implicated in an ordinary user using trademarked software? Ditto for publicity rights, which aren't even relevant for the vast majority of software.

Lastly, I have no idea what you mean by 'commercial uses.' Could you explain it?

Interactive works are usually associated with various explicit contracts

Tradition is not actually a reason to do anything.

This also pertains to disclaimers (though absent a EULA a simple notice might suffice for this particular concern).

Yes, most products that include warranty disclaimers, for example, generally get by without a EULA.

Third, modern software requires specific terms as a result of the existing case law with regard to unusual properties of software (the fact that it acts as a communications channel, that many modern applications will self-heal or have diagnostic reporting functions, software update functions, and/or are used to produce and/or distribute expressive works which may themselves be subject to legal protection, and others) that do not have any solid basis and require that customers be notified of these functions and their legal rights or responsibilities.

Now that's an interesting point. I'm not convinced, but I'll certainly think on that. Still, for a lot of software, particularly over the past few decades when EULAs were rampant but the sorts of features you mention were not, it doesn't lend much support to the practice of EULAs.

Fourth, unlike music CDs and DVDs, software is commonly licensed for specific machines or to specific numbers of machines. These varied licenses differ from a one-size fits all media license, and results in lower pricing, since consumers only need to purchase a license level for their specific purposes. The limitations on uses are contemplated in the price. These alternate licenses must be based in contract.

Yeah, but that's usually crap. Again, 117 is a superior solution. I recall that the maximalists claimed that DRM would improve the marketplace by allowing customers to choose from a plethora of differently-disabled copies to find the one that best suited their needs. As we've seen, it hasn't worked out.

Further, a EULA is an important tool for the disclosure and negotiation of third-party rights contained in most commercial software. E.g. Company Y licenses algorithm A to Company X for use in non-military applications including all transferrees and assigns; Company X puts the requirement in a EULA, such that end users are enjoined from that use per those terms. This sublicensing or third-party licensing must come from contract as well.

Disclosure can be handled in a mere notice, and again doesn't require actual licensure.

With some notable exceptions required by law, the freedom to contract reigns supreme. Sellers are free to set arbitrary restrictions; consumers can seek an al

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[mr_matticus]

The public does have inherent rights to everything else as to the copyrighted work of another No, it does not. The inherent rights of the owner remain controlling until ended by law.

1. 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.

2. ABC elects to create a few copies of that work and sell them, via negotiated individual contracts. ABC retains every and all legal rights to that work, except those signed away for consideration, irrespective of copyright law, because most provisions of copyright law are waivable by contract. Unless a specific contractual provision is expressly forbidden by law, it is prima facie valid.

3. ABC elects to publish the work and sell it via distributors with a copyright notice. ABC at this point must honor any right affirmatively granted to copyholders by the Copyright Act and its amendments. ABC also agrees that at future date, he and his estate will lose the ability to enforce ABC's rights as regards that work. 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.

This is your failure, whether it's a willful one to support an agenda or otherwise. The law does not affirmatively grant rights. It merely incorporates by reference or denies. Any right not denied to the copyright holder remains his as a reserved right ("All rights reserved" should ring a bell here).

The public does not have those inherent rights, because that is completely orthogonal to the meaning of 'inherent'. All rights are vested in the creator as a fundamental principle of Liberalism (as in the rational framework, not as in the Liberal party, in case there are confused readers); they are transferred to the public through the mechanisms of copyright and its expiration. The public cannot have an inherent right to something that is not theirs.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[mr_matticus]

First, I'm not suggesting that there would be a compulsory license, I'm saying there would be no license at all. I don't need to be licensed by the author to read a book, or by the composer or musician to listen to a CD.

Well, that's not strictly true. You don't need a license to listen or to read because that's a basic function of liberty. It is also an ephemeral event completed in passing--there is no persistence. If you want to acquire a copy, you do need a license. A license is the only thing that distinguishes you as an individual from the general public, which has no license and no property interest in the copy.

If you had no license, you'd have not even a drop of ownership, and there could be no way to sell anything.

However, 17 USC 117 deals with that nicely.

Logical fallacy. 117 post-dates the EULA as a mechanism by two decades. It was also passed with the explicit intent, in 1998, to "preserve the status quo" (see HR Rep. 94-1476).

Hell, an implied license would probably be enough to handle...

That is downright absurd. Consumer confusion about implied licenses make that an utterly terrible idea.

Trademarks strike me as a red herring; what trademark rights are implicated in an ordinary user using trademarked software?

I was thinking of games and the use of avatars and characters.

Lastly, I have no idea what you mean by 'commercial uses.' Could you explain it?

The use of software to prepare works of commercial value or in business situations is not contemplated in the Copyright Act, because expressive works as tools are unusual (as is interactive art) and the language is not constructed to resolve the conflicts arising out of such licensure.

Yeah, but that's usually crap.

Glib and wholly untrue. One need look no further than Windows product versions. They may be arbitrary, and all licenses may be overpriced, but that is not within the purview of the law. The licensing structure represents a distribution of capital and, in measured consideration, varying transfers of legal right.

Tradition is not actually a reason to do anything.

Five SCOTUS justices disagree, but moreover, industry practices are a massive component of contract law, as they are in rational jurisprudence. The last nail in that coffin: there is no alternative system that is as granular, effective, and versatile.

As we've seen, it hasn't worked out.

I don't agree. Customers have embraced the convenience over the freedom and generated billions of dollars in sales. The market has responded by opening up to DRM-free models as well. Customers have available to them music at unprecedented affordability, convenience, and variety. For some applications and business models, DRM is a perfectly acceptable trade-off as long as alternatives exist for those who have strong objection.

Disclosure can be handled in a mere notice, and again doesn't require actual licensure.

No, not all of it. Some waivers and disclaimers require more than notice. Further, you could rename a EULA to "Notice of Terms" and be in the same place.

Since we outnumber merchants and live in a democracy, I fail to see why we can't do something about this.

Well, we don't live in a democracy, and that's exactly why. The mob does not get to make those decisions. You have to have a good reason to take away a party's right to contract, and you've not presented one.

Then why bother?

For the reasons already stated: to introduce consumers to the limiting provisions regarding their use of the product in a single, exhaustive location. The real question is, what's your actual objection?

You've not provided any example of abuse, demonstrated that the example actually is abusive, or established any sort of pattern of that abuse.

Most EULAs contain nothing

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[cpt kangarooski]

If you want to acquire a copy, you do need a license.

So you are saying that if I want to buy a book at the bookstore, I need a license? I disagree. It's an ordinary conveyance of personal property, where the prior owner alienates his entire interest. Often, given 109, the copyright holder won't be involved at all. I've never heard of a bookstore where the books are just licensed to the people who take them off the shelves, pay at the counter, and walk out with them. Are you suggesting that the author has a reversionary interest in his books? That's novel, no pun intended.

Logical fallacy. 117 post-dates the EULA as a mechanism by two decades. It was also passed with the explicit intent, in 1998, to "preserve the status quo" (see HR Rep. 94-1476).

Well, bear in mind that the report mentioning the status quo refers to the original version of 117 from the 1976 Act, which really did do nothing of note. But it was replaced in 1980, with the relevant reproduction / adaptation / backup language. So the status quo didn't last that long. Basically, Congress had been waiting on CONTU, but didn't want to hold up the entire 1976 Act; the original 117 you referred to was a placeholder.

Were EULAs in use, particularly in consumer transactions, in 1976? In 1980? To be honest, I don't know. Does anyone reading this know? The practice certainly seems to have arisen in the microcomputer era, but it could easily have been in the early 80's. Certainly there had been a practice of freely sharing software prior.

Consumer confusion about implied licenses make that an utterly terrible idea.

Hence my preference for a patent parallel to 117 as a statutory solution. A reasonable statutory baseline strikes me as better than the chaos of having everyone license every damn thing individually. Perhaps that's alright amongst merchants, but it is no good for consumer transactions, where simplicity and uniformity are desirable.

I was thinking of games and the use of avatars and characters.

But are these uses trademark uses? If I wear my Mickey Mouse watch, I need no license from Disney to do so, because I'm not using it in any commercial way. There's no opportunity for consumer confusion or dilution by my simply wearing it and telling time with it. Why would this be so with software? It certainly doesn't seem to be an issue with, say, books. I can sell my copies of the books in the Harry Potter and the Endless Revenue Stream in a used bookstore and there's no trademark issues of note.

Just because some right is vaguely, possibly implicated in some way doesn't mean it's actually important. Real life is not an issue-spotting quiz.

The use of software to prepare works of commercial value or in business situations is not contemplated in the Copyright Act, because expressive works as tools are unusual (as is interactive art) and the language is not constructed to resolve the conflicts arising out of such licensure.

I could still go for an example. If I use MS Word as a mere tool to write a book, I can see no way that Microsoft would have rights in what I prepared.

One need look no further than Windows product versions. They may be arbitrary, and all licenses may be overpriced, but that is not within the purview of the law.

But MS can handle this just as easily by having the versions they ship actually be different, like an abridged book or a complete book. But I'd like to own the book, and be able to do any lawful thing to the book, and not be subject to an order to ignore every other page.

Customers have embraced the convenience over the freedom and generated billions of dollars in sales.

No, customers have not had a choice in the matter. No one is selling unencrypted DVDs alongside their encrypted DVDs. DVDs are more popular than VHS for a lot of reasons unrelated to the use of CSS. In fact, remove CSS, and you'd probably have seen them embraced even more.

Well, briefly, given what happened in la

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[mr_matticus]

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. That's simply not true. It's completely counterintuitive to the nature of inherent rights, which you seem to be confused about.

If I have an orange, I can offer to sell you one segment. That does not mean you have an inherent right to take that segment, or any other part of my orange.

Copyright is a system of artificial, not inherent, rights vested in the author, I don't know where you get this, but it is neither based in history nor in logic. Basic labor theory does not comport with this idea.

The inherent free speech rights that the others exercise to use ABC's work None exist. Free speech does not apply to the speech of others. The word 'proprietary' exists for a reason.

There are no property rights in published (using that term very broadly) works outside of copyright law. Also completely untrue. Without such rights, there can be no right of privacy.

I'm not sure where you're getting your theoretical framework, but it does not devolve from the same place as our legal system. Your system is counterintuitive and artificial. Copyright isn't a creation of a right. There can be no such thing. A law cannot create a right except where it is carving a hole out of a right previously denied.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[Pofy]

>There are two parties involved in the EULA.

Yes, but for there to be a contract, there need to be an agreement. That is the normal way contracts works in most countries. If both agree, the contract is binding. If there is no agreement, it is not binding to any one.

>MS previously agreed to return the refund price should you decide not to accept the EULA.

What agreement would that be? For sure it wasn't the EULA since we are talking about a situation were there is NO agreement over the EULA.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[mr_matticus]

So you are saying that if I want to buy a book at the bookstore, I need a license? No, I'm saying that the purchase of goods is a license. A license is simply a binding promise not to sue, and it underlies all transactions.

Often, given 109, the copyright holder won't be involved at all. Completely irrelevant, nor is ]109 controlling. The relationship is traced back through agency. However many middlemen are in the middle, the simplified transaction remains between the customer and the rightsholder.

Are you suggesting that the author has a reversionary interest in his books? No, and reversion is not an element of a license. The bookstore has granted license to transfer ownership of the book by entering into the sale. There can be no transfer of rights without licensure; a license is the mechanism by which conveyances operate. Do not commit a law student or fish-out-of-water practitioner's mistake of conflating a paper license with the mechanics of licensing.

bear in mind that the report mentioning the status quo refers to the original version of 117 from the 1976 Act, No. I suggest you read the report. It refers to the market, not prior versions of the Act.

If I wear my Mickey Mouse watch, I need no license from Disney to do so, because I'm not using it in any commercial way. Merchandising is entirely separate.

Real life is not an issue-spotting quiz. It is when the subject is your limited understanding of the potential scope and needs for particular products.

But MS can handle this just as easily by having the versions they ship actually be different, At tremendous cost to the consumer for separate R&D or structural redesign, because many of the feature differentiations are not modular and cannot be modular. Further, much of the difference between licenses are not in the code, but in its uses. There is no way to enforce this scheme except through contract.

Such as? Choice of law, choice of forum, arbitration agreements. Honestly, these are easy examples.

Adhesive licensure has been getting abused all over the place in fact And yet still, no example of this supposedly rampant problem.

I'm just interested in copyright in particular, since that is my field. Strange then, how tenuous your grasp seems to be on many of the salient concepts and procedures. It must be that technology law is outside your field.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[AK Marc]

Well, that's not strictly true. You don't need a license to listen or to read because that's a basic function of liberty. It is also an ephemeral event completed in passing--there is no persistence. If you want to acquire a copy, you do need a license.

Wait, so when I buy a book at a book store, I agreed to a license? The only person that needs a " license" is the person making the copies. The printing house has to have permission, and after that, all the copies are legal. The printing house for the CDs that run software are the only place that needs a license. There is no "need" for a license for the end user. EULAs were created to restrict users with no consideration.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[mr_matticus]

Wait, so when I buy a book at a book store, I agreed to a license? No, you don't agree to licenses. You are granted licenses, and when you purchase something, you receive a conveyance, a transfer of rights and a promise not to sue. It doesn't have anything to do with whether the publisher was licensed contractually.

You agree to license agreements, which are contracts. Contractual licenses are documents, but a license is simply a property transaction. For example, your entry into the store in the first place is trespassing, except that you are licensed by way of being a business invitee (sometimes even called a licensee). When you offer payment, you are granting license to the store to accept and process your card or take your cash. When the seller hands you the book, he grants a license for you to take possession of that property, and in the process conveys his set of rights to you.

EULAs were created to restrict users with no consideration. Stop. You don't even know what that word means.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[cpt kangarooski]

If I have an orange, I can offer to sell you one segment. That does not mean you have an inherent right to take that segment, or any other part of my orange.

Your analogy fails pretty badly there, because creative works are nonrivalrous. As Jefferson noted, using your fire to light the taper of another person does not lessen what you have, even though it improves the other fellow's situation. Nature is set up in such a way that works are more shareable than not.

I don't know where you get this, but it is neither based in history nor in logic. Basic labor theory does not comport with this idea.

Oh, don't tell me you subscribe to that stupid Lockean nonsense. Creative works are not property; they're not capable of being merely lent or alienated, only enjoyed or shared. Merely investing your labor in something does not make it yours. An example: If you labor to make a nice garden for your house, it may raise the value of the neighboring houses merely due to their proximity to your house. But you're still not entitled to a penny of what your neighbors get for selling. Further, that modern copyright wasn't invented anywhere until the 18th century, and took a while to catch on (often by the unfortunate means of colonialism, to boot), suggests that a lack of copyright is the historical norm.

Free speech does not apply to the speech of others.

Oh yes it does!

If I perform Shakespeare, and I don't deviate from the script so much as one iota, then the words I am speaking are certainly not my own. Yet if the state attempts to censor me, I can assert my right of free speech and it's a forgone conclusion that I will succeed. Free speech absolutely encompasses the right to repeat the speech of others. We may temporarily cede that right of free speech in order to create a copyright system for the public good, but we're not even obligated to.

Without such rights, there can be no right of privacy.

The right of privacy is orthogonal to copyright. My spoken conversations in my house might be protected from eavesdroppers by a privacy right, but as they're unfixed, they're uncopyrightable. It is possible, in some circumstances, to abuse copyright so that it acts as a substitute for privacy rights. This isn't ideal, though. Copyright is meant to serve the public good by promoting the progress of science. Privately kept works fail to do this. Traditionally, publication was required for proper copyright protection, and I expect that we'll see that come along again. I don't mind a bit of protection for a manuscript that will be published, but it is not in the public interest to enable authors to sit on their works forever.

Copyright isn't a creation of a right. There can be no such thing. A law cannot create a right except where it is carving a hole out of a right previously denied.

Huh? There's lots of artificial rights. For example, my grandmother has no right to her Social Security checks, except that the government created that right out of whole cloth. If it ever shuts down the program, she'll have no recourse. But so long as it is willing to guarantee payment to people who meet the qualifications, she can force them to pay if they should fail to do so, since she is in the entitled class.

Back in Wheaton v. Peters, the Supreme Court pointed out that there is no natural copyright in published works. Authors only get whatever protection, if any, that Congress deigns to give them. They'd better be happy with it, since they won't get anything else.

You may be failing to understand the mechanics of copyright here.

Everyone has equal rights to do anything they please with the work. The public willingly sacrifices -- temporarily, and only to a certain degree -- their right to the author. The copyright consists of a bundle of exclusive rights, therefore: rights to exclude the public from doing certain things with the work. That is a negative right (like a negative easement) rather than a positive right to actually do anythi

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[cpt kangarooski]

A license is simply a binding promise not to sue, and it underlies all transactions.

That is what a license ultimately is, but you're dramatically overinflating its meaning to the point of absurdity.

At tremendous cost to the consumer for separate R&D or structural redesign, because many of the feature differentiations are not modular and cannot be modular.

Only because they designed it with the expectation of the current regime. There's nothing magical in software development that prevents them from doing it the other way for the same cost. Since I would not object to having legal reforms kick in a while after enactment, so as to give everyone time to prepare, your point is pretty moot.

Further, much of the difference between licenses are not in the code, but in its uses. There is no way to enforce this scheme except through contract.

And I'm not opposed to contracts or even end user licensing to achieve those perfectly worthy goals. It's the use of adhesive licensing as to consumer transactions that bothers me. Negotiated contracts, and adhesive licensing amongst savvy merchants are fine. The UCC already tends to protect consumers more than merchants; I merely hope to see consumer protections brought up to date to respond to the latest threats. Were he alive, Llewellyn might well be concerned about the same thing. (And the great failure of UCITA, including the anti-UCITA statutes implies that I'm not alone)

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[AK Marc]

No, you don't agree to licenses. You are granted licenses, and when you purchase something, you receive a conveyance, a transfer of rights and a promise not to sue. It doesn't have anything to do with whether the publisher was licensed contractually.

Great, so when I buy a piece of software, I am granted a license I don't need to agree with to get 100% legal use of it.

EULAs were created to restrict users with no consideration.

Stop. You don't even know what that word means.

It means that a contract that gives one person everything and the other party nothing is not a contract. An EULA is an "agreement" after I've already bought something and have a license for it, as you state above, where they are giving me nothing I don't already have, and in return I have to give up things. That means there is no consideration. It's as if I owned a book, and the publisher knocked on my door and said "thanks for buying that, but now we'd like you to agree with this EULA, it gives you nothing more than you already have, but restricts you greatly." There is no consideration in a EULA.

Or was there some other word you think I don't know the meaning of?

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[mr_matticus]

Your analogy fails pretty badly there, because creative works are nonrivalrous. Hardly. There is just one work. Copies do not factor in here.

Nature is set up in such a way that works Works are not natural.

Oh, don't tell me you subscribe to that stupid Lockean nonsense. Creative works are not property The founding fathers did. Our government does. Property in intellectual works is a centuries-old apparatus, and no society has ever advanced beyond industrialization without it.

The right of privacy is orthogonal to copyright. You seem to be confused. You cannot have a privacy interest unless you accept property rights in intangibility. It simply cannot be done. If you don't have an exclusive right in your thoughts, actions, writings, and other expressions, there is no such thing as privacy. There's no framework to latch onto.

For example, my grandmother has no right to her Social Security checks, except that the government created that right out of whole cloth That's not a right; that's an entitlement. The "right" in Social Security is in the personal and social interest in protecting and providing for our fellow citizens.

Back in Wheaton v. Peters, the Supreme Court pointed out that there is no natural copyright in published works Absolutely, because government protection of personal interests is not natural. You either misunderstand the holding in that case or you're continuing with your untenable and disingenuous approaches.

One of the major sections in Wheaton is that the author DOES have a whole set of natural and fundamental rights in his works--that Lockean theory you decry out of your unfortunate, agenda-based inanity. Further, the case did not speak to the rights of individuals to contract for the issue of those rights in any way they chose--a right which they enjoyed and continue to enjoy to this day. The case's holding refers simply to the availment of statutory copyright, and that its protections are only as far as the four corners of the statute granting them.

It absolutely does not mean, nor can it be in good faith construed to mean that the author does not have protections in the absence of copyright. The text of the holding explicity rejects the "everyone owns it" theory you advance.

Everyone has equal rights to do anything they please with the work. Again, this is not supported by history, legal principles, a logical framework, or any functioning social theory in use on our planet.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[mr_matticus]

It's the use of adhesive licensing as to consumer transactions that bothers me. And for at least the fifth time now, I'll ask again for examples of the pattern of abuse that concerns you, as pertaining to EULAs and not just the simple reality of predatory business practices, which have nothing at all to do with EULAs specifically.

I merely hope to see consumer protections brought up to date to respond to the latest threats No, you advocate the elimination of a functional, tool that is economically, commercially, and cognitively critical in the sale of software products.

The enhancement of consumer protections is something we can all get behind, with further fine-tuning of contractual provisions. You've not presented any case for the categorical absolution of the freedom to contract here, a move which would be profoundly stupid, constitutionally infirm, and patently unfair to all parties.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[mr_matticus]

I am granted a license I don't need to agree with to get 100% legal use of it. Is English not your first language? This isn't really that difficult.

A license and a license agreement are NOT synonymous. In order to get the software license, you must agree to the license agreement.

It means that a contract that gives one person everything and the other party nothing is not a contract No, it does not mean that at all. That's exactly the point.

after I've already bought something No. Your purchase is conditioned on acceptance of the terms. The box will say right on it something to the effect of "your use of this product is governed by the terms set forth in the license agreement". If you wish to review those terms before purchase, do your due diligence as a consumer and get those terms. It's phenomenally easy to do; most are published right on their websites. Others are a simple email or post letter away. Even if you just see the EULA upon installation, you still must accept those terms. If you choose not to, you are entitled to a refund. It's right there in the terms.

have a license for it, as you state above, I said no such thing. You have a license to enter the store and you have a license to purchase the product from the retailer. You don't have a license to use the product until you agree to the license agreement. It's not terribly complicated: if you have the box sitting at home, you haven't yet completed the process--you can return that box, or sell it to some else, or give it to someone else and you will have never been licensed to the software contained in the box.

There is no consideration in a EULA. For the last goddamned time, there are at least three forms of consideration here: money, assent, and performance. And no, you still apparently don't know the meaning of consideration.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[AK Marc]

No, it does not mean that at all. That's exactly the point.

It does mean that. It isn't the definition, but it most certainly does mean that. Otherwise, tell me how you can get nothing in a contract and there still be consideration.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[mr_matticus]

It does mean that. It isn't the definition... QED.

tell me how you can get nothing in a contract and there still be consideration. There are several ways for you to offer consideration: money paid, a return promise, partial or complete performance, etc. There are also a number of valid substitutes for consideration, recognized under contract law to preserve equity and the sound administration of justice. Promises without direct personal benefit are also enforceable under certain circumstances.

Further, I reject the implication that you "get nothing"--your contractual acceptance gets you the license to use the software at an affordable market price, since licensing is contingent upon contractual agreement and most software is not made available under alternate terms. The standard form contract gives you the benefit of not requiring the expense, time, and burden of having to negotiate for the owner to grant a limited license. If that is not of value to you personally, then you should find alternate software and terms, but you're stuck, because subjective measure of value is wholly irrelevant in this situation.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[AK Marc]

Further, I reject the implication that you "get nothing"--your contractual acceptance gets you the license to use the software at an affordable market price, since licensing is contingent upon contractual agreement and most software is not made available under alternate terms.

What do you get when you buy software? What does the EULA grant you that you did not already pay for?

And as for you worying about the difference between the meaning and the definition, you are obviously smart enough to understand the difference. I was stating a true statement about what consideration means, not defining the specifics. I said nothing incorrect about consideration, yet you felt the need to correct me multiple times. A contract with one side giving up everything and getting nothing has no consideration. That isn't the definition, but is the meaning and is correct usage. Since you claim to know what it means, why should I be required to define it, when I have used it multiple times correctly? You seem to disagree with what I say such that you don't accept my use of the word, without actually paying attention to the context. That doesn't make my use incorrect.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[mr_matticus]

What do you get when you buy software? A box, a disc, maybe some printed materials, distribution costs, retail costs, and the option to contract for the licensing of the software. If you decline to exercise that option, the promise is revocable, and you exercise the return option, even though you should not have purchased it in the first place if you did not like the terms.

What does the EULA grant you that you did not already pay for? You're paying for the EULA when you buy the software. The real question is, what did you pay for if you don't accept the EULA? The answer is nothing, because if you don't acquire the license, all you have is an expensive little stack of paper, cardboard, and plastic.

I said nothing incorrect about consideration, Yes, you did. CONSIDERATION IS NOT BENEFIT. "Giving up something and getting nothing" has exactly zero to do with consideration.

A contract with one side giving up everything and getting nothing has no consideration. That isn't the definition, but is the meaning and is correct usage. No, it's not even close. Such a contract is easily supported by consideration, e.g. a promise for a charitable donation. The promise is the consideration, and the promisor gets nothing.

why should I be required to define it, when I have used it multiple times correctly You have yet to use it even once correctly.

You seem to disagree with what I say such that you don't accept my use of the word, without actually paying attention to the context. The context is that you don't understand the concept of consideration. THAT is what makes your usage incorrect.

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[cpt kangarooski]

Hardly. There is just one work. Copies do not factor in here.

No, copies and copyrights are rivalrous. Creative works are nonrivalrous. It's true that there is just one work in question, but that work can be fixed in many different copies simultaneously, and fixing it in another copy doesn't alter the preexisting copies; nor does destroying a copy alter the remaining copies.

Works are not natural.

So? Information still behaves in certain ways according to natural law. Certainly no human being decided that a creative work should be able to be reproduced, but it can be nevertheless. You can enact a prohibition against it, but you can't eliminate the ability.

The founding fathers did.

No, that's not true. Jefferson, for example, did not subscribe to the Lockean theory of property. If you haven't read his McPherson letter, you should.

Our government does.

No, the Constitution adopts a utilitarian model of copyrights and patents, hence the "promote the progress" language. They were following the Statute of Anne, which does the same thing. The Supreme Court has pointed this out in the past.

Property in intellectual works is a centuries-old apparatus, and no society has ever advanced beyond industrialization without it.

Setting aside that there may not yet be anything beyond industrialization (as we're rapidly learning in the US), correlation does not imply causation. Taiwan did pretty well though, until they were successfully bullied by the US, who they need as an ally due to their precarious situation re: China. Still, it's certainly not beyond imagination that it could be possible. Of course, since I don't advocate abolishing copyright, I do wonder why you even brought this up.

You cannot have a privacy interest unless you accept property rights in intangibility. It simply cannot be done. If you don't have an exclusive right in your thoughts, actions, writings, and other expressions, there is no such thing as privacy. There's no framework to latch onto.

First, I have no problem with the idea of intangible property. Second, personal privacy isn't founded in copyright, or even related to it. Privacy stems from the right to life -- not merely to live, but to enjoy ones own life, and to be left alone in doing it. In fact, Warren and Brandeis, in their seminal article on privacy directly refuted the notion that copyright could be a basis for privacy! I really don't know where you're getting your ideas from.

One of the major sections in Wheaton is that the author DOES have a whole set of natural and fundamental rights in his works

Not upon publication, as I said. Authors do have a right as to whether or not to create their work, and whether or not to share their work with others. And that's it, unless a government should be formed and which enacts copyright laws.

The text of the holding explicity rejects the "everyone owns it" theory you advance.

Surely you mean the text that says "Congress, then, by this act, instead of sanctioning an existing right, as contended for, created it." I.e. that there is no existing copyright in published works, and in the absence of such exclusive rights, published works are in the public domain. That's the text you were thinking of? Which supports me and rejects you?

Re:I'm torn about this subject

[mr_matticus]

Jefferson, for example, did not subscribe to the Lockean theory of property. If you haven't read his McPherson letter, you should. That is a gross oversimplification, and unsurprisingly, a less than complete understanding of that famous letter.

Setting aside that there may not yet be anything beyond industrialization (as we're rapidly learning in the US), correlation does not imply causation. Apart from the fact that the first part is vacuous (nothing past industrialization? Are you kidding? 70% of the US workforce is service-sector, not manufacturing or industry), the second part is, yet again, a feeble misdirection. Causation is causation. An information-based economy (a service labor force) relies on a robust apparatus and extensive proprietary rights. It must be moderated, but it simply must exist in an economically and fundamentally sound system. There is no workable replacement.

directly refuted the notion that copyright could be a basis for privacy! No kidding! Copyright protection is sought by its very nature on works that have entered third party consciousness. That is wholly irrelevant, though, as copyright was not the subject of that particular discussion. The issue was the appropriate recognition of property in intellectual works, of which you have consistently shown a mere demagogic grasp. There are several excellent MCLE and LL.M programs delving deeper into the rich history and providing a more complete analytical framework that would be of value to you.

That's the text you were thinking of? "The argument that a literary man is as much entitled to the product of his labour as any other member of society, cannot be controverted. And the answer is, that he realises this product by the transfer of his manuscripts, or in the sale of his works, when first published." 33 US 591, 657.

"In what respect does the right of an author differ from that of an individual who has invented a most useful and valuable machine? In the production of this, his mind has been as intensely engaged, as long; and, perhaps, as usefully to the public, as any distinguished author in the composition of his book." Id.

"That every man is entitled to the fruits of his own labour must be admitted; but he can enjoy them only, except by statutory provision, under the rules of property, which regulate society, and which define the rights of things in general." Id. at 658.

The case held that Pennsylvania common law contained no such right; not that the right did not exist or was only conferred by statute.

Which supports me and rejects you? Again, it does not, and it shows a gross flaw in your reasoning which you apparently cannot address and which must force the end of this discussion. The right in question was not the property and dominion of the work, which was explicitly recognized to exist (refuting your "everyone owns it" approach), and instead the government-backing of it. Proper holdings are important.

Wait...

[Vectronic]

Did he know it came with XP Pre-Installed?... If he did, I don't agree with this, if he didn't, then I do, provided it wasn't his own negligence.

ASUS (or wherever distributor) probably has the option of having a barebones components only option for purchasing, so do that, or at least ask if you can get one if its not advertised.

If it says "Comes With Windows XP Pre-Installed"... and he bought it, and then said "hey wait I dont want this"... too damn bad... keep the machine, or send the entire PC back... its not like it failed (jokes aside) as if it was a dud NIC or something...

"ASUS tried to apply a procedure which cost more money to the consumer that they will give back..."

Tried? it seemed to have worked.

Anyone have a more informative non-french link to exactly what he bought, and what was advertised, etc?

Re:Wait...

[astrotek]

So if you a new asus computer for $1000 and return it, they will only give you $800 back. The oem license is also only valid for the motherboard. Where does it stop?

If the computer was $800 with a $200 "setup fee" then he probably wouldn't be able to sue.

Re:Wait...

[Vectronic]

Oh, ok that makes more sense... I was under the impression that he (among others) had bought a new computer that came with XP installed, and he wanted to just return the OS but keep the computer.

Re:Wait...

[PsyQ]

Which is completely fine, because the EULA explicitly allows this. I'm sorry for the shouting, but this is Microsoft's capitalization of the sentence in the EULA:

"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."

Since the guy couldn't read the EULA before purchasing, and since tying the OS to the computer is illegal in France (and a bunch of other EU countries), he's perfectly right to return the thing and get his money back.

Re:Wait...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Did he know it came with XP Pre-Installed?

Ah, who cares? If you can't buy the laptop without XP, that's illegal in france, so you can force ASUS to buy back your copy.

Re:Wait...

[vidarh]

Did he know it came with XP Pre-Installed?... If he did, I don't agree with this, if he didn't, then I do, provided it wasn't his own negligence.

Completely irrelevant. French law, as in most of Europe, does not allow tying (bundling two or more products and refusing to sell them independently). If someone wants to buy a product by itself and the reseller refuses, then the approach of buying the product and requesting a refund for part of the bundle and suing if they refuse is perfectly reasonable - it's a way of ensuring that there's a real reason to comply with the law, lest they have to deal with a spate of lawsuits.

These laws have been on the book for decades, and they've proven time and time again to be good for consumers and good for competition.

Don't like it? Then don't do business here. Just as you have to comply with a buttload of other laws to do business anywhere, we expect people to adhere to laws to protect consumers and competition.

I get thier reasoning but...

[Totenglocke]

I skimmed the translation and didn't see a mention of if the guy bought the computer in a store or if he bought it online. If he bought it online, then I'd definitely say there should be an option to have no OS or another OS installed (since the system is built when he orders it, there's no reason not to do this). However, if he bought it in a store, then he was well aware that Windows was already on the machine before he bought it and IMHO he doesn't have room to complain then about purchasing something he didn't want when he wasn't forced to buy the system at all and was well aware of what was on it in the first place.

I know some people will talk about "Well Windows is on most computers and it's hard to buy one without Windows" and that's true, but you also can't expect manufacturers to sell pre-built systems without an OS or with an unpopular one when most of their sales go to non-nerdy Windows users who are terrified of learning something new.

So, I'd say that if he bought the system online, then I'd support the courts ruling. If he went to some store to buy it, then I'd say that he willfully purchased something and then asked for a rebate because he got exactly what he purchased.

Re:I get thier reasoning but...

[rohan972]

But you get to see the EULA after your purchase. The windows EULA has changed over time. Someone buying a new computer may have never read that version. You may like the product, but not be willing to agree to the terms of the EULA. Therefore, you buy the product, but when you find you don't accept the licencing agreement, you return it. What's the problem with that?

Re:I get thier reasoning but...

[Totenglocke]

Well first off, and I'm being serious here, there are people who actually take the time to read EULA's? As a certified nerd for my entire life, I can honestly say that I've never read a EULA or known anyone who has. You just click "I accept" and then do whatever the hell you please.

Secondly, he's not trying to return the whole computer, just the OS. If he went back to Best Buy (or wherever he got it) and said "Look, I don't like the EULA that goes along with Windows, so I'm returning this computer", then I'd fully support what you said. However, he's trying to return PART of what he purchased. It's kinda like buying a dvd and then going "Oh, I don't like all these interviews / commentaries, but I don't want to return the $20 dvd, just give me $8 and take back the interviews and commentaries" when it was clearly marked on the case that the dvd included interviews and commentaries.

However, your comment does raise the issue of companies like MS being required to provide the EULA upfront so that you can read it before you purchase the software / system. I'd say that they definitely should be required to provide that information.

Re:I get thier reasoning but...

[professionalfurryele]

It is interesting that you mention DVDs since they are actually a good analogy. I don't agree with this law when applied to competative markets, but when you have a monopoly it is a very sensible law.

Microsoft bullies OEMs into charging everyone who buys a PC into buying a copy of Windows by charging OEMs per PC sold, not per PC with Windows sold. This is obviously anti-competative. They use the threat of denying access to the monopoly product to keep the OEMs in line.

Now the market for an individual DVD is also not competative. The makers of Slasher Movie X - the Reslashening don't compete with anyone for sales of this particular movie because it is illegal to distribute their product without a license. They also have a monopoly. And they also have the potential to abuse it. This is exactly the reason we need fair mandatory licensing for content.

Re:I get thier reasoning but...

[bpkiwi]

Unfortunately you have overlooked an important point. The PC was purchased from ASUS, so the contract that is formed by that purchase was entered into and is fine. However, the EULA is between you and Microsoft, so that is a second contract offering between you and Microsoft, for which you have already paid some money (through ASUS), but have not yet accepted (by agreeing the the EULA). You can still not accept that contract, and you should get your money back.

Re:I get thier reasoning but...

[Weedlekin]

"However, he's trying to return PART of what he purchased. It's kinda like buying a dvd and then going "Oh, I don't like all these interviews / commentaries, but I don't want to return the $20 dvd, just give me $8 and take back the interviews and commentaries""

It's actually more like somebody being forced to pay for a bunch of DVDs from Universal with 90% of the DVD players out there (and pretty much every one of them that's sold in stores), but having a refund coupon in the box that the manufacturers do everything in their power to avoid honouring.

Well of course...

[Sneeka2]

... and many people are now filing for refunds (in French).

It's in France after all!

(Came from the RSS feed, where there are no links. ;o))

Re:How does this make sense?

[The Ancients]

Do Asus sell computers without Windows pre-installed in France? My French isn't good enough to find out, so if you could provide the link to this, it would be much appreciated for the rest of us /. readers not au fait with French.

Re:How does this make sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

I call bullshit, even as I'm forced to post AC.

The fact is it is very hard to find systems without the operating system at the same cost as you would find from a place that sells enough systems with windows preinstalled for the total hardware cost to be cheaper. In fact, its impossible, unless you want to prove me wrong.

The fact is, Windows is being FORCED on people.

Re:French

[arthurpaliden]

What is with all this France bashing from the US. You do realize of course that if it were not for France the United States would exist and most likely you would be part of Canada.

Hmm?

[KGIII]

If the price for ANYTHING on a computer is raised for pre-installed items then the person should have the option of not having it installed. I hate to use the car analogy but, well, you *can* buy one without air conditioning and the price isn't added to the total. If you BUY a car (knowingly) with AC and then claim you didn't use it or want it you are shit out of luck in my humble opinion. However... If you buy a car, on some sort of special (as advertised), and the special is that you get AC at a discount then, well, again - even if you don't use it, I think you should be shit out of luck. Give people the freedom of choice to put whatever they want on their PCs.

Re:Hmm?

[rohan972]

AC in a car doesn't come with unknown licencing conditions. The EULA is essentially a contract, which means you must have the option to decline, but agree to it before it is valid. Someone could know Windows as a product, eg: by using it at work or seeing a freinds computer, but not know the conditions of the EULA. So they buy a computer with windows, read the EULA and don't accept it, why should they not get a refund?

Re:Hmm?

[KGIII]

And I can say that, in this day, that'd be tantamount to willful negligence. Anyone smart enough to go get a refund is also smart enough to know about the EULA. If they can prove that they're exceptionally (read woefully) ignorant of "all things PC" then they should certainly get a refund assuming that the afore mentioned bits are also true.

Re:Hmm?

[rohan972]

Anyone smart enough to go get a refund is also smart enough to know about the EULA.

Knowing about EULA's is not the same as knowing the terms of a particular EULA. I know about finance contracts. Yet there are dozens of businesses within a few minutes drive that offer goods on finance with terms that I am not familiar with. It is a fairly standard practice with software to present the EULA after purchase with provision for a refund. This seems to be quite different to the way most contracts operate and probably not a very good idea, but it is the way things are being done in the software industry. I don't know why you think it is "willful negligence" for a purchaser to read the terms of a licence when it is presented to them by the vendor.

On the other hand, perhaps you are willfully negligent because you don't seem to know what is in the EULA
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.

In the EULA Microsoft offers a refund if you don't accept the terms. People are accepting the offer of a refund. The courts are making sure it is processed as a genuine offer. Willful negligence doesn't come into it.

Re:How does this make sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that, the power windows and AC didn't come with paperwork, provided only after the sale, that not only said "you must agree with this", but also "if you don't, give it back and you'll get a refund for it".

Re:How does this make sense?

[twistedsymphony]

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.

Re:How does this make sense?

[countach]

Does your car dealer sell you a car, you drive it away, then when you go to use the power windows it pops up an EULA with onerous terms that you don't agree to?

Re:How does this make sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in France it's forbidden by law to sell a product only if you also buy another: the customer must be able to buy it alone. You car analogy is bad because the "whole" car is considered as a single product, while the computer is a product without it's operating system. And even if you don't agree with this concept or anything, that's not the point here: since it's forbidden by law, any customer who asks a refund (without previously using the packed Windows of course) will win in court. That doesn't mean they have to sell computers without operating systems at all, they only need to give a *real* way to get a refund. Not asus' crappy "yeah we keep your computer for a month and you pay the shipping too, then we give you back 30euros".

Re:How does this make sense?

[mrbluze]

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. A good idea, but it does not protect the millions of other people who don't know how to install a hard drive but wouldn't want Windows XP / Vista if they had the choice.

Re:How does this make sense?

[Kryptonian Jor-El]

Thats complete and utter BS.

If I wanted an ASUS Computer, I should be able to buy JUST THAT. Most manufacturers still dont have a "No OS" option for their configured systems, and I'm damn sure that there isn't a single computer sold in a retail store that has "No OS" as an optional package(at least in the US).

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.

Re:If you don't like the bundle

[lepidosteus]

"you don't have a "right" to buy a computer not bundled with Windows XP"

Actually you're wrong, in France this is a right covered by law: two products sold together must be available alone too. You may agree or not with it, but in the end it's law and computer seller have to do it, so when an user go to court he wins.

Re:How does this make sense?

[whoever57]

Does your car dealer sell you a car, you drive it away, then when you go to use the power windows it pops up an EULA with onerous terms that you don't agree to?

While power windows don't come with an EULA, what about a satnav system? These typically start with requiring you to accept an agreement. Even more interesting, since thay require acceptance every time the car is used, whait if one decided to reject it a year after buying the car?

Re:How does this make sense?

[kbdd]

ASUS in France offers to buy back the Windows license, but the user must ship the computer two ways at his own expense, and he gets only 25 Euros back for the Windows license, and ASUS can keep the computer as long as they want to do that. French law forbids tie-ins, such as forcing someone to buy a computer with an OS already installed. The court felt that the 25 Euros combined with the cost of shipping the computer both ways and the fact that the procedure had undetermined duration was effectively discouraging the user from using that capability. Therefore ASUS lost.

Re:If you don't like the bundle

[Kryptonian Jor-El]

Uh, why not? ASUS makes computers, Microsoft makes OSes. You shouldn't have to buy shitty product from another company that you dont want to get the product that you do want. End of story

Re:How does this make sense? Easily

[Finallyjoined!!!]

Your analogy is not sound, you _can_ buy a car without power windows or AC, it's extremely difficult to buy a computer without a Microsoft operating system.

The computer was sold with XP pre-installed & a "shrink-wrapped" EULA. She wanted a computer but not XP, but was unable to buy a computer without XP pre-installed. This is generally called "The Microsoft Tax", because people who buy computers in order to run other Operating Systems (yes there are others) are forced to pay this tax.

She didn't want to pay this "tax" so asked to be refunded the cost of XP.

Apple

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if this would work for a Mac too - could you get one without OSX or get a refund on it if you didnt want to use it?

Re:Apple

[dryeo]

One company, one product. It does work with iphones though, can't bundle another companies product so Apple has to offer unlocked iphones in France.

Re:Apple

[flyingfsck]

The whole Mac is made by one company - Apple. So there is no 'tied selling' going on. Also, Apple is not a convicted monopolist, who abused their market dominance to eliminate the competition. Apple is an example of what little competition is left.

That will force them to give options

[EmbeddedJanitor]

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.

Re:That will force them to give options

[Anonymous Coward]

How is bundling Linux with a computer any different than bundling Windows? If there's no extra cost involved (ie, one of the many free distros) then, presumably, that's fine. Bundling anything that implies a "tax" would still get the same treatment (if people complain that is).

Re:That will force them to give options

[Xzzy]

It doesn't force them to consider Linux at all, there's no law on the books that says "if Windows is a pain in the ass, you must offer Linux."

What it will do is encourage the companies to not force bundled software. Either they'll make a point of selling bare-bones PC's, or they'll start honoring refund requests. If their licensing with Microsoft prevents that, then maybe they'll consider another operating system (which Microsoft would never allow to happen, Microsoft will just lower the price of licensing to make sure sales continue).

Nothing says it'd have to be Linux, it could be joe schmoes Perl-based OS if that's what Asus thought was a good deal for customers.

Re:That will force them to give options

[Hymer]

No, it will not. There is another ruling that says something like: "a PC without OS can not be considered a functional PC, it is either defective (since it can't boot) or spare parts".
They have to provide something.

Re:That will force them to give options

[compro01]

Got a citation for that?

For that matter, does the french court system even follow that type of precedent?

Re:That will force them to give options

[basiles]

I am French (and I glanced the ruling). However, the 130Euros cost for the software is somehow realistic (100Euros for Windows, 30Euros for extras). It is even a bit more than that. A "laptop sold with "Windows Vista Edition Familiale Premium" on http://materiel.net/ (some home version of Vista, without any extra software) has a price tag of 1000Euros and exactly the same laptop without any OS is sold 870Euros. So the customer price tag for this Windows is 130Euros. (it is quite difficult to buy a laptop without OS, but there are some few offers). So the 100 euros estimate by the French judge is probably a bit too small but not far from the reality. And the judgment is based upon consumer laws. The price tag should be what the consumer has to pay, not what the seller paid.

Re:That will force them to give options

[basiles]

No, the point is that a French customer should be able to buy a hardware without any software. There should be no obligation to buy any software when a French consumer is buying hardware. It is not about buying a PC with Linux, it is about the right to be able to buy a PC without software!

Re:That will force them to give options

[westlake]

Either they'll make a point of selling bare-bones PC's, or they'll start honoring refund requests.

The bare-bones PC is for the enthusiast or the IT pro.

It does not sell as a mass market retail product in sufficient numbers to keep you in business.

If their licensing with Microsoft prevents that, then maybe they'll consider another operating system

Not bloody likely.

Not when Windows has 93% of the world market and the bundle of hardware and software which is the Mac has 6% of what remains.

ASUS is not in the business of shooting itself in the foot.

Re:That will force them to give options

[Hymer]

That was a French ruling too... some 5 or 8 years ago.
No, I don't have a citation I just remember it (and yes, I know, my memory may be faulty).

Re:That will force them to give options

[Renegade88]

I'm not French, but I have been living in Toulouse for 10 months. I discovered one computer assembly good company that lets you customize everything you want, including the option of having no operating system. There's no hassle, you just move the dropdown form control from whatever version of Windows Vista to "none" and the price of the PC automatically drops (I recall it dropping about 95 euros).

I got two computers this way from http://www.multimedis.fr/

Re:That will force them to give options

[odourpreventer]

The bare-bones PC is for the enthusiast or the IT pro.

Or an average user who already has all necessary installation discs. Since most PCs nowadays can boot from an installation CD/DVD automatically, the only prerequisite is knowing that you can do it.

Re:That will force them to give options

[Lonewolf666]

It does not have to be Linux (I dimly remember reading that OEMs have used FreeDOS to get around contracts that forbade them to sell PCs without OS), but a newbie-friendly Linux distribution would be the best choice if they bother to offer another OS at all.

And I'd really like to see Microsoft trying to beat Ubuntu on price (evil grin ;-)

Re:That will force them to give options

[Darfeld]

Actually, there are some PC without OS in the French market. If you search a little that is...

I know a website which let you decide what you want in your PC, OS included, and put it together for you (if you want. If not, you can save a little money)

Re:That will force them to give options

[VON-MAN]

"What it will do is encourage the companies to not force bundled software."

Ah. Customers can choose you mean to say.

"they'll make a point of selling bare-bones PC's"

Why would they do so if that's obviously bad service to a lot of customers? Installing linux is a cheap alternative for a bare-bones PC. Of course, I would choose the bare-bones to install my own. Or I'd buy the linux-installed to have a good look at an installed system. Choice, you know.

"or they'll start honoring refund requests"

Because they just love the hassle?

Re:That will force them to give options

[MSZ]

I've seen a good number of cheap laptops sold with FreeDOS as the officially bundled OS. So even breaking MS hold on the manufacturers is not going to magically make them all bundle Linux - and even then, it still may be the distro you don't like.

Re:That will force them to give options

[MadCow42]

What's to stop them positioning Windows as a "Free bonus", and giving it a value of $0? Sure, you can select not to have it, but there's no financial benefit.

If they're not charging the customer for it in the first place, then the customer cannot expect a refund.

MadCow.

Re:That will force them to give options

[vidarh]

The law.

Making free offers that are contingent on a purchase is illegal in most European countries, both because it's considered false advertising (if the offer is contingent on a purchase, then it's not "free" - you are paying, no matter how much the vendor tries to convince you the price is all for the other part of the product), and because it's tying (bundling without an offer to offer the two products separately at their respective prices). False advertising is considered serious in itself.

False advertising and illegal tying combined is not a way to make people happy - that you can't make offers like that is something people tend to learn very quickly here...

Of course they could do this if they were prepared to offer people free Windows licenses without buying a computer, but somehow I doubt that would work out very well for the.

Re:That will force them to give options

[Weedlekin]

"the point is that a French customer should be able to buy a hardware without any software"

The point is actually about buying hardware without being forced to _pay for_ software from a third party.

Re:That will force them to give options

[RalphSleigh]

There are places that will do this, but you can bet they pay more for each copy of windows as a result, so for cheap mass-market PCs with those razor thin margins its not an option.

Re:That will force them to give options

[christophe]

The French court system follows precedent rulings (jurisprudence ) but it is weaker as in the US system.

Re:That will force them to give options

[rire000]

Garbage. There IS no "better Linux option". Until Linux supporters climb down off their high horses and start putting a mainstream-usable Linux in the marketplace, Micro$oft has a lock.

Re:That will force them to give options

[christophe]

Punitive damages do not exist in France.

In the PDF (page 7): ASUS has to pay to the plaintif 100 for Windows, 30 for the other software and 150 to reimburse Mr Hordoir some expenses he had to do for going to court. Hordoir asked for 1000 of dommages et intérêts, (damages) to cover the time lost in this case, but that was refused by the court. Dommages & intérêts is intended to cover physical and moral damages, and not to be directly punitive.

(In my opinion, our dommages & intérêts are usually far too small to annoy big corporations in such cases, while US-style punitive damages gives some money to the plaintif totally unrelated to real damages. Something in-between should exist like punitive fines increasing geometrically with each new case.)

More: ASUS had to pay les dépens , ie paying the legal expenses of BOTH sides. In French system, the user usually pays... (Don't ask me the difference between les dépens and the 150 euros above related to our article 700 ...)

IAF, but IANAL.

Re:That will force them to give options

[Fred_A]

No, it will not. There is another ruling that says something like: "a PC without OS can not be considered a functional PC, it is either defective (since it can't boot) or spare parts".
They have to provide something. I don't remember that one, but assuming it's enforced, they can provide a pseudo-bare bones machine by simply sticking Free DOS on it.
It'll be mostly useless but it will boot. The user will then have an editor (edlin) and, um, presumably some kind of BASIC game to entertain himself, i.e. a complete system. Kind of.
Or of course he can install whatever other system he likes better.

Re:That will force them to give options

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

How is bundling Linux with a computer any different than bundling Windows?

Windows has overwhelming market share in the desktop OS market and hence bundling it with other products is a violation of antitrust law and undermines the capitalist free market. Linux has a tiny amount of market share and is licensed in such a way to prevent it from ever wielding monopoly influence regardless of its market share.

That said, I don't see why this would force anyone to bundle anything. Rather it is simply saying companies that participate in MS's illegal bundling will be held accountable for rectifying that.

Re:That will force them to give options

[Fjandr]

You think the seller has rights regarding the OS? They choose to bundle a software product that says "agree to our EULA or return this software to where you obtained it for a full refund." That pretty much limits the seller's rights when they include it in their product offering.

Re:That will force them to give options

[irtza]

ASUS is not in the business of shooting itself in the foot. No they most definitely are not
the EEE is a great machine and we already know that ASUS can not dare put Linux on there other machines.

of course these are desktop systems... Yes, this is a different market, but I don't think people (manufacturers) are as afraid of MS as they used to be.

Re:That will force them to give options

[FKnight]

Ya know, I have a right to purchase a car without an engine. The fact that I have to do extra work to get one is my problem, not Chevy's. It's not Chevy's fault that ten of their customers want a car without an engine and the other 30 million want cars with engines. If you can't find a computer vendor that sells computers without an operating system, and you feel that there is enough demand that they would make money doing so, then perhaps this is an opportunity for you to make some cash selling high quality machines without an operating system. Or you can get laws passed and court decisions handed down that tell companies what products they're allowed to sell. I know which option I think is better.

Re:That will force them to give options

[westlake]

the EEE is a great machine and we already know that ASUS can not dare put Linux on there other machines.

The EEE isn't a bare bones PC nor is it a Linux only PC. ASUS hasn't the confidence to go Linux only even in this market segment.

Yes, this is a different market, but I don't think manufacturers are as afraid of MS as they used to be.

It isn't fear, it's love - of money and sales.

The OLPC had 600,000 confirmed sales in 2007. 80,000 went to the Linux Geek in Buy One-Give One. promotion. In 2008 Windows and MS Office will be an XO option.

Re:That will force them to give options

[irtza]

When the EEE came out, Windows wasn't an option. Unfortunately I don't have the citation at hand and am feeling a bit lazy, but wasn't the great sales of the Linux version of the Eee the reason MS decided to make sure Windows worked? ASUS providing both options isn't a bad thing - I would say its great.

It isn't fear, it's love - of money and sales.
The thing is, there was a fear of MS. A fear of retribution for daring to sell a non MS machine. It was in there license. From the old Caldera case, one would see that it was difficult to sell a non MS product without paying MS anyways, or having the rugs pulled out from under you. There would not have been an Eee in the old days because it was not an MS approved product.

Re:That will force them to give options

[westlake]

The thing is, there was a fear of MS. A fear of retribution for daring to sell a non MS machine.

In 2008 it still possible to ignite a flamewsr over whether "Linux is ready for the desktop."

Turn the clock back to 1998, 1995, 1991.

What are the alternatives?

DR DOS isn't in the picture until the tag end of the DOS years.

IBM proved entirely capable of taking OS/2 out of contention in the mass consumer market without any help from anyone.

Re:How does this make sense?

[Zemran]

I have never heard of a car manufacturer that claims you have the right to take a car back and have the AC and windows taken out in the way that the EULA claims that you have the right to not accept Windows. Yes, she knew when she bought it that she had the right to take the copy of Windows back and they, as they always do, tried to get out of paying the refund. Read the EULA. That is if you even accept that there is any legal enforcability in an agreement made before you have the right to find out what you are getting. I prefer the option where the EULA has no legal basis and for that reason I do not like this case. It is only the right decision if you are in favour of EULAs.

Re:How does this make sense?

[The End Of Days]

Those people don't care about the choice and wouldn't know how to make it if one were present. The exceptions to that statement buy Macs.

Re:How does this make sense?

[Kryptonian Jor-El]

Stop with the crap-ass car analogy, its the dead horse. A car is 1 product, whereas ASUS's computer and Microsoft's XP are each 1 separate product. You're right, I don't have a right to choose what products a company sells, but I should have the right as to which I want to buy! If ASUS made the OS and sold it with the computer as 1 product, then yes, you're SOL. Nobody should have to pay the microsoft tax just to buy the computer they want

Re:If you don't like the bundle

[Arthur B.]

If they are willing to sell them together, it's their concern. You don't like it don't buy. I'd rather buy the product separately, but if that's not an option, I wouldn't consider FORCING them to offer that option.

Re:French

[Swampash]

Can't MS just send some programmers over there to take over the country?
It's not like they'd put up a fight...

You mean, like they did when they defeated the British Army and won the American War of Independence?

Facilitating a monopoly

[EmbeddedJanitor]

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.

You missed the point, read the ruling

[Anonymous Coward]

You missed the point. The laws says that it is illegal to refuse to sell you a computer if you are willing to pay for it. The law also says that the store cannot legally tie two products together.
This means that if you want to buy a computer without the OS they must sell it to you without it
and not charge you for windows that you don't want.

Re:How does this make sense?

[infaustus]

Why is a car considered a single product, while a computer including an operating system is not? The computer is pretty useless without an operating system. This law is stupid because if consistently applied it would lead to unbelievably absurd outcomes.

Re:How does this make sense?

[eldepeche]

Except that it's trivial to remove an OS from a computer.

Why the hell should customers "JUST SUCK IT UP"

[aarggh]

While I am sure someone will inevitably locate some obscure stores that you can buy non-OS supplied laptops, (probably for a premium), but has anyone here actually ever tried to buy a laptop without an OS, it's pretty damn hard. I well understand that this is done from a sellers point to offer a complete solution that fits 99% of the market, and in turn MS locks the sellers in with reseller contracts that benefit MS.

This is fine, but to obstruct customers from not paying extra for the software they are forced (and the important word here is FORCED) to buy when they want a laptop is plain wrong, and clearly in some countries, illegal. If I want an Asus laptop because of some particular feature or price, and want to run my own software on it, why the hell shouldn't I be able to return the supplied software for a refund, AS MOST EULA"s VERY CLEARLY STATE AND OFFER!

In sales speak this is nothing more than a line item, and shouldn't be any more complicated than "I'd like to return the software as I don't agree with the EULA and would like a refund". The only reason it is at all a problem, is because MS do not want consumers enforcing their legal rights.

Or as most people seem to think, should we all "just suck it up" even though we don't agree with it?

Re:Why the hell should customers "JUST SUCK IT UP"

[ameyer17]

Not quite what you want, but the HP Mininote and MSI Wind have versions that come preloaded with SuSE, the Asus EEE has a Xandros version, and Dell sells laptops with Ubuntu and (I believe) some models can be purchased with a FreeDOS disk in the box and no preinstalled OS.

Re:Why the hell should customers "JUST SUCK IT UP"

[Finallyjoined!!!]

Agree completely. Here in the UK I can buy unencumbered computer-tooters from Novatech.

Yay.

Disclaimer: I have no association with them other than being a satisfied customer :-)

Re:Why the hell should customers "JUST SUCK IT UP"

[idonthack]

has anyone here actually ever tried to buy a laptop without an OS, it's pretty damn hard

In my experience it's pretty easy if you stay away from the big-name shops. Anyone who's not huge won't have a deal with Microsoft, and every license costs them, so they won't buy if they don't have to. Personally, I like Gen-X-PC. (shameful plug, no link. google it) They have a wide selection of blank and unbranded midrange to high-end laptops. When I bought mine last year, they were cheaper than Dell for equivalent specs.

If you're buying anything lower than midrange, then you might as well go into the ultramobile market, and most of those come with Linux already.

But of course we shouldn't have to deal with this. Hopefully as linux and other alternatives become more popular, and more areas begin to set legal precedent, we'll have better options.

Re:Why the hell should customers "JUST SUCK IT UP"

[R_Dorothy]

Your belief is correct. We bought a Dell workstation at work with FreeDOS that is now running Linux. This was through the business channel though, I don't know if you can get that as an individual customer.

Re:Why the hell should customers "JUST SUCK IT UP"

[catman]

Yes. Just bought a second Compal laptop from a Norwegian netshop, this one for SWMBO. Select CPU speed, memory size, disk size and picture for the lid :-) and it was delivered in less than 10 days. However - I could not buy an OS-less laptop in a brick-and-mortar store/high street store (depending on your locale)

English grass

[goombah99]

What is with all this France bashing from the US. You do realize of course that if it were not for France the United States would exist and most likely you would be part of Canada. And if we were part of canada we'd all be speaking english now.

As for the ruling. When do two wrongs make a right? This seems like a very meddlesome court. Sure they are fighting the excesses of bundling when monopoly software is involved. But I'd rather see them attack the root of the problem than set lousy practices like this as precedent.

As they say when elephants fight the grass gets hurt. Asus is the grass.

Re:English grass

[schon]

When do two wrongs make a right? What's wrong with a consumer having rights, and not being forced to buy something they don't want because it's tied by a convicted monopolist to something they *do* want?

The *real* second wrong here is that the person had to go to court to get what they should have been able to buy in the first place.

Re:English grass

[Mistshadow2k4]

So... people should have to pay in order to NOT have this crap pre-installed on computers they buy, so as not to hurt poor little Asus? A simple request should damn well be enough not to have a ton crap I don't want on the computer I'm already paying for. I shouldn't have to pay extra to get it removed. (This is part of why I always build my own.) You say two wrongs don't make a right, but how the hell is it wrong for a court to rule that the consumer has the right to buy a computer without crap pre-installed on it without paying extra?

Re:English grass

[Mr Abstracto]

So in France people HAVE to buy computers only from Asus?? Why didn't this guy just buy a computer from somewhere else if he didn't want MS crapware preinstalled and Asus wouldn't/couldn't meet his demands?
Can I sue McDonalds for not selling me a tofu Big Mac?

Re:English grass

[vtcodger]

***So in France people HAVE to buy computers only from Asus??***

Don't be obtuse. You surely know that consumer PCs without preinstalled Windows are about as common as new cars sold without engines. And please don't tell me that I'm wrong just because your notions of what the free market should provide don't match the reality of what the free market does provide.

I imagine that it is no easier to find a Windowless PC in France than in the US. In fact, it is damn near impossible for a consumer in the US to buy a PC without Vista much less without a Microsoft OS.

Don't believe me? Try it. I have. It's possible. It's not easy.

About the only MS-less PC you can buy easily in the US is Wal-Mart's $199 PC (Everex TC2502) which comes with a Linux gOS that is gorgeous visually, but quite buggy compared to other Debian based Linuxes. The TC2502 uses a Via C7 CPU running at 1.5GHz. I personally think that's good because of its low power consumption, but this is a low end machine with 500mb of memory, 80GB hard drive, ho-hum graphics, slow CPU. If I recall correctly, they have to upgrade the hardware (and the price of course) in order to shoehorn Vista into it.

Re:English grass

[Sique]

Bundling is illegal in the EU if one of the suppliers to the bundle has a market dominating position. Period.

AsusTek knows this, and they still sell those bundles. So they got hurt. That's fine with me.

Re:English grass

[Mr Abstracto]

You surely know that tofu burgers at fast food resturants are about as common as new cars sold without engines. And please don't tell me that I'm wrong just because your notions of what the free market should provide don't match the reality of what the free market does provide.
So Again, why shouldn't I sue McDonalds after I get a Big Mac and find its been installed with meat instead of tofu?

Re:English grass

[canadian_right]

Here in Vancouver, BC, Canada, there are many small independent computer shops that sell no-name computers without any OS at all. BUT, all the larger chains only advertise computers pre-loaded with vista. I have found that most people who just want to use the computer as a tool just buy from a big chain thinking they will get support if anything goes wrong. Those who are comfortable installing an OS, and hardware tend to buy from the smaller shops who often have lower prices, don't force you to buy an OS, and actually have good support if you bring the computer in.

Re:English grass

[orasio]

And what if when you opened your big mac, it had an insert saying you have to give your first born to Bill, if you want to actually eat the beef, and if you don't want to do that, you can get a refund?

Re:English grass

[FKnight]

There's an easy way to buy a computer that doesn't have Windows preinstalled on it. Don't buy one that has Windows preinstalled on it.

Re:French

[Anonymous Coward]

actually the russians did all the hard work to win the war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II , so mebe you could argue that Paris would be Doestroyevskigrad or something.

Re:Sometimes..

[LoverOfJoy]

Why stop there? I want each and every pc sold anywhere available with an OSX option.

Re:How does this make sense?

[Finallyjoined!!!]

Whilst it may be trivial to remove an OS from a computer, it's certainly not trivial to get refunded for something you do not want. In this case it took a court case.

Re:How does this make sense? Easily

[Anonymous Coward]

it's extremely difficult to buy a computer without a Microsoft operating system

Not really

Re:French

[goombah99]

And if not for the US, paris would be called pufter-grad and we'd all be speaking russian

Re:How does this make sense?

[Max Littlemore]

To me this feels like she bought a car with power windows and AC then went back to the place that sold her the vehicle and forced them to take out the parts.

Nah, that's a bullshit analogy. That's like your saying that a car needs power windows or AC to be usable - it's as if you're saying that an OS is an optional extra.

To be really useful cars, whether or not they have AC, need roads. Even off-road cars don't last long without them. Roads are the things that facilitate the application of the tool (car) to the task (transport), much like computer operating systems are to computers.

For a better analogy, try this:

To me this feels like she bought a car with power windows and AC then went back to the place that sold her the vehicle, complained that it only allowed her to drive between the car dealer, a MacDonalds and the local infectious diseases clinic, charged tolls on otherwise free roads and the stereo automatically put earplugs in the ears of her passengers when she listened to the stereo. She forced them to allow her to drive her car wherever the fuck she wanted and give her a new stereo.

See the difference?

Re:If you don't like the bundle

[Koby77]

If you don't like the bundle Don't buy the bundle.
You can't force someone to accept the terms of a license simply thru purchase. If you could, then I would sell iPhones for $1 which also include my special new license that entitles me to half of your yearly salary.

Your "too bad you bought it" doesn't hold up. If it did, then does that mean that once we make the purchase we can copy and redistribute it? Or decompile and alter it? If you say "too bad you bought it", then I've got my own theory that says "too bad you sold it to me".

Well, it turns out that the situation isn't so lawless, because there's something called a software license. Once again, you can't force someone to accept a license, especially if you haven't even been given the opportunity to read the license yet. The license says that you don't have to accept it, but if you do then you can't do things such as modify the software or copy it and distribute it to others for free. But the people in bed with M$ are hoping that you won't decline the software license, because there's usually a part in it which says that you're entitled to a refund if you don't agree.

I applaud the people in these articles for standing up for their rights. It's not stupid socialist law, it's simply using the software license against M$. They're hoping you won't take them up on that part of the deal, and will blindly accept the Microsoft Tax even if you don't want it.

Re:French

[Cassius Corodes]

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 ).

Re:French

[Toonol]

Russians are smart? That really seems like the odd-man out on your list. I've honestly never heard that stereotype before.

'Tied Selling' is illegal in many states.

[flyingfsck]

Tied selling, whether applied to banks forcing you to buy insurance to get a loan, even when you are already insured, or to buying a PC with MS Windows pre-installed, is illegal in many jurisdictions. The MS EULA also says something to the effect that you can refuse to use it and get a refund. These lawsuits simply hold the sellers responsible for all their promises.

Re:'Tied Selling' is illegal in many states.

[lilfields]

I don't see how it's illegal; for example, you buy a "snack pack" and it contains Swiss, Ham, Cheddar, Turkey and Monterey Jack...so you're saying that the company is forcing you to buy the Monterey Jack? You knew it was in the packet...but now according to your legal logic you then have the right to sue for more Cheddar? Or another example, You buy a $99 printer from Dell...but you have to buy a proprietary printer cable for the printer separately for it to work...and this is illegal?

Having a standard operating system allows computer companies to actually have customer support for software...you take that away and they will have to spend millions on retraining and in the end it would make PCs more expensive...or they could just not offer support at all. That's kind of beside the point, but you get my drift, if ASUS no longer can sell XP pre-installed on a computer, it should then have the right to offer the customer who is not running Windows no support...the company has a preference to an operating system (agree with it or not) that is outside of your own preference, because it allows them to actually offer you a general line of support...and the company has every right to do that...you act as if the company has no rights. If you don't accept those company policies then you should go buy elsewhere, it is a free market...well unless a judge says it isn't...

I'd like to sue Apple for forcing me to buy OSX, when I just want to install Windows on it...you could say "but that's Apple's right, it's their software and hardware"...yeah if you are correct, and the same logic can be applied to ASUS...it's their right, it's their product. If you don't like it, then don't buy it.

Re:'Tied Selling' is illegal in many states.

[BlueTrin]

People who modded this insightful are really thicker than thick ...

The law tells you that if you sell a bundle you should also provide the same components separately (In this case Asus must provide also the laptop without the license AND AT A FAIR PRICE).

Re:'Tied Selling' is illegal in many states.

[flyingfsck]

No, your argument doesn't hold. The packet of crisps is made by a single company so there is no tied selling involved. The PC and OS are made by different companies and the OS is marketed as a separate product, therefore forcing consumers to buy two separate products when they only wanted one, thus forcing them to dump one into a land fill, is tied selling.

There are no extra costs involved with shipping a blank HDD vs an imaged HDD.

One reason the EU is coming down hard on these cases is because MS has 1.5 billion dollars (and rising) of outstanding unpaid fines. If they drag their feet much longer, then the EU may bar them from trading there until the fine is paid.

Re:'Tied Selling' is illegal in many states.

[AK Marc]

So if all Fords come with Goodyear tires, then Ford must, by law, allow you to buy a car with no tires and put your own Firestones on? How about all those GM cars that came with AC Delco components? I should be able to buy my car without a stereo, sparkplugs, and such. And the petrol in it, that's an Exxon/Mobile conspiracy (you know the oil companies just try to join every conspiracy out there). The mods aren't thick, they just realized that if bundling were illegal, that there are a huge number of examples of bundled items that are illegal that no one would want unbundled. That's what made it insightful. Either the "unbundle is the law" is wrong, or the unbundle laws are ignored.

Re:'Tied Selling' is illegal in many states.

[Tenebrousedge]

The parent's analogy about loans and insurance is much better than your 'snack pack' analogy. Your printer cable analogy is even worse. You're saying "I don't see how it's illegal," well, there's a law, and it says that this kind of forced bundling is illegal. So if I want cable internet, for example, the cable company can't force me to get cable TV too. Again, this isn't the case everywhere, but it is the case in some places. Whether or not you think it isn't.

Now, if you're saying that it shouldn't be illegal, well, I disagree. I sure as shit don't want to have to pay for cable just to get internet service, and my parents have to do that (and pay extortionate rates for the privilege), because there is no state law forbidding the provider from doing just that. The point you seem to be missing is that when you're buying a computer, or internet service, or whatever, you should only be obligated to pay for that item, and not whatever else the vendor decides to tack on because they can get away with it. Being the dominant player in a market doesn't mean that you can jack your customers around however you want. It's why we have laws against monopolies--they are for the most part recognized as being against the interest of the public. Just saying "it's a free market," as if that is a solution to the problem is totally flawed.

Honestly, I would rather see an end to free vendor support. You don't get much for your money anyway. Most people know that they don't know much about computers, and support is probably a larger factor than the hardware capability in the purchasing decision for them. It is totally impractical to provide free support for every single issue, and most vendors don't even try. I believe that the ideal solution would be to eliminate free support, and require vendors to provide as much documentation as possible about their products, use open architectures, open source, etc. The idea would be to make it possible for support to actually be a competitive market. As is there is little incentive for any vendor to provide good support for their products.

ASUS no longer can sell XP pre-installed on a computer, it should then have the right to offer the customer who is not running Windows no support Which is exactly what they do. Same with every other computer manufacturer. Nothing wrong with that, except that it leaves the customer in a bad position, especially if there is not enough information about $product for anyone else to find a solution. This appears to be the trend, however, and I believe that regulation may be necessary to best serve the consumer. You may prefer to avoid such legislation in favor of serving the corporate profit motive.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:How does this make sense?

[Cassius Corodes]

Only if its applied by stupid people, for whom common sense is a little too much to ask. My guess is you have spent too much time in the US.

Just a thought.

[MBC1977]

I look at it one of two ways:

(1) She bought the computer knowing it had Windows XP on the system and decided that she didn't like the terms after she bought it, ergo she (and the court / law is wrong) because you should not be able to modify the terms of a contract after it has been executed. (Even if you don't want to be party to the other party's outside deal.) You know the terms, deal with it.

Or (2) she bought a computer without regard to the specs (highly unlikely, but for the sake of arguement we'll go with it). She gets it home and finds it has something she didn't like. So she sued (after probably asking the company to refund it, which in my opinion they rightly and justifably denied). The law / court failed again, because there are vendors who sell computers without an OS (or an alternative OS) and she could have patronized their business. Yet she unjustifiably cried foul and forced a company give her a refund (essentially, saying that the company needs to sell its product her way, which is bullshit). Granted, however if France already has a law saying that a company HAS to sell computers without OS (which I don't think any particular country does, but again for sake of arguement I'll assume they do), then ASUS is in the wrong.

Truthfully, if it were my company I'd analyze how much profit is actually earned from that country and if it wasn't a mid to substantial amount (> than 15%) I'd tell the country (in this case, France) go fuck themselves (politely of course). If the government feels so strongly about it, let them sell computers they way they want them sold.

Re:Just a thought.

[aarggh]

I like your enthusiasm but you're wrong!

Point 1) As offered by the VENDOR, the customer simply exercised their LEGAL right to not agree with the EULA supplied with laptop as they didn't want the OS but wanted the laptop.

Point 2) Well, thats just silly. Again, please read Point 1.

But I suppose having people exercise their rights to not be ripped off by what amounts to not much more than collusion is somehow against the constitution?

Bear in mind, quite often in principle the groups supporting people like this, are also the groups supporting things like, not being discriminated against with DNA testing, health insurance, etc, etc. But I guess you would see things like that as bad for business too?

Re:Just a thought.

[Splab]

How could she possibly know the content of the EULA before buying the computer? It isn't represented to the person until boot.
On top of that, most sane courts in the EU laughs at contracts like the EULA.

Also you totally missed the point about the rights of the consumer in France, seeing your sig you are obviously from the US which is probably why you never heard of consumer rights.

And the last thing - most of us wouldn't mind if MS packed their backs and got the fudge out of EU.

Re:Just a thought.

[MBC1977]

No, people exercising their rights is fine. No one should be ripped off. What I'm saying however, is if the vendor did not sell her the product the way she wanted it, why would she buy it just to sue? I'm more than certain that she had alternative choices. The best and LEGAL way to change a company is not to patronize them. They will either change (to earn revenue, goodwill, profit, etc.) or they will die .

Using the court system force a company to change (at least in this matter to me) smacks of cowardice.

Re:Just a thought.

[Anonymous Coward]

she (and the court / law is wrong) because you should not be able to modify the terms of a contract after it has been executed. She did not execute the contract. Microsoft does not (yet) use purchase agreements. You don't seem to read (or think) before you post. The world turns.

Re:Just a thought.

[MBC1977]

"Also you totally missed the point about the rights of the consumer in France, seeing your sig you are obviously from the US which is probably why you never heard of consumer rights. " On the contrary, I respect consumer rights. But one right is not more important than another. Being from the US has nothing to do with it.

Re:Just a thought.

[Anonymous Coward]

Granted, however if France already has a law saying that a company HAS to sell computers without OS (which I don't think any particular country does, but again for sake of arguement I'll assume they do), then ASUS is in the wrong.

In France, tying the sale of one product to another is illegal. The law is not specific to computers and operating systems, but it covers them.

Re:Just a thought.

[Splab]

But they are more important, thats how you protect the consumer. Same goes for Denmark, we don't have insane binding periods with our mobile phones because the consumer has more rights than the company selling a product.

Re:Just a thought.

[Todd Knarr]

No, people exercising their rights is fine. No one should be ripped off. What I'm saying however, is if the vendor did not sell her the product the way she wanted it, why would she buy it just to sue? I'm more than certain that she had alternative choices.

Because she didn't have any alternative choices. Unless you're a techno-geek who knows how to build your own system from parts, or you're looking for a subnotebook like the XO or the EEE, it's incredibly difficult to find anything that doesn't come with a Microsoft OS bundled. If you're looking for a name-brand consumer machine (ie. you're not buying on a corporate account), it's effectively impossible. This person, like most, had two choices: buy a computer with some variety of Windows bundled, or don't buy a computer.

The French court here seems to be saying "The specific OS isn't an integral part of the computer, witness all the ones sold with different OSes. It's easy enough for vendors to supply a machine without an OS. Under French law the consumer has the right not to be forced to buy additional products just to get the one they're nominally buying. The vendor's refund program appears to acknowledge that, but it's more convoluted and costly than it has any reason to be. Vendor, stop playing games and give her the money back like the law says you have to.".

Re:Just a thought.

[PsyQ]

I've fought that battle, and believe me, PC manufacturers are terrified by Microsoft's behind-the-scenes bullying and price manipulations should they dare to try selling machines without Windows. It took me seven years of work and four years of convincing to get ONE brand-name manufacturer to sell me laptops without operating system to sell to my customers, and that manufacturer is Fujitsu-Siemens. Every single other brand chickened out of the deal, including big names like Lenovo (then IBM).

So no, I'm reasonably sure it wasn't possible to get that machine without Windows, which is product tying and illegal (in France and other countries) anyway. Second, she couldn't read the EULA before she bought the product, but as the EULA allows her to return the Windows license for a refund if she doesn't agree with it, she's completely right.

Re:Just a thought.

[elnico]

Also you totally missed the point about the rights of the consumer in France, seeing your sig you are obviously from the US which is probably why you never heard of consumer rights. Consumer rights?

Here's the basic rundown of US consumer rights:

-You have the right to not be misled regarding what you are buying.
-You have the right to refuse to buy something.

That's it (I don't think I've missed anything big). In addition to those, we have anti-monopoly laws, the basic gist of which is:

-You cannot, through monopolistic powers, interfere with the business of competitors.

For instance, you can't say (to a consumer) "I'll sell you my widgets cheaper if you agree to not buy widgets from Bob for the next year." You also cannot say (to a distributer) "I won't allow you to distribute my goods so long as you also carry Bob's brand of goods." The reason these things are are bad is that you are pushing Bob out of the market without actually competing with him. And that's the essence of these laws: competition.

Now the reason this French law seems stupid to Americans is because Microsoft is not preventing competition with anyone! Certainly if they are using their market power to keep ASUS from bundling with competitors (or, I suppose, selling an unbundled product), that's a problem; but really what the French law is trying to do is **preempt** the harmful act, and in doing so it is overly broad.

At least that's how Americans see it.

Re:Just a thought.

[Splab]

But those aren't consumer rights, those are just basic principles of trading.

Consumer rights in Denmark include 2 years guarantee on all hardware (first 6 month is on the seller to prove the customer improperly handled the equipment, last 18 months are on the consumer - but in practice companies will provide free service for the full 24 months).

Our rights include stringent monitoring of quality. The right to cancel a buy if the seller doesn't live up to stuff like reasonable RMA time (usually a month maximum) - that means that even after using the product for 6 months, the seller has to provide good care for the product or might end up having to refund the customer.

A company advertising is not allowed to hide costs, for instance when buying a mobile phone on plan they have to provide you with the full minimum expense for the period in plain sight - that means you aren't even allowed to make a star and print it with small letters.

Of course these rights comes at an expense, generally we pay a bit more for our hardware compared to US prices, but then again - we are usually shipped the stuff with lower faults since faulty stuff will be send right back to the supplier. (Samsung for instance has a specific line of tellies for supplying the Nordic region, these comes with quite a lot added guarentees, but are generally more expensive than parallel imports)

Re:Just a thought.

[Builder]

Actually, you're wrong. The rights of an individual FAR outweigh the rights of a corporation, especially one convicted of anti-competitive practices and harming the market they trade in!

Re:Just a thought.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Here's the basic rundown of US consumer rights:

Please stop misleading people. The US has a huge range of consumer protection laws well beyond advertising. Maybe we don't have as many as Europe, but nor do we have the dearth you are indicating. We have lemon laws, health and safety laws, contract restrictions, and fair use laws, just to name a few.

That's it (I don't think I've missed anything big). In addition to those, we have anti-monopoly laws, the basic gist of which is: -You cannot, through monopolistic powers, interfere with the business of competitors.

The US has similar antitrust laws to most of the rest of the world. They make it criminal to leverage monopoly power from one market into another or fix prices (which is unrelated to interfering with competitors). Mind you our current administration's appointees seem to have been ignoring many of these laws and not bothering to prosecute them, but that does not mean they don't exist.

Now the reason this French law seems stupid to Americans is because Microsoft is not preventing competition with anyone!

Lets ignore whether they are or are not for now. They are price fixing which hurts consumers and which laws in the US, including antitrust laws regulate. Remember when the RIAA was convicted of price fixing? It wasn't hurting indy publishers, but it was hurting consumers.

but really what the French law is trying to do is **preempt** the harmful act, and in doing so it is overly broad.

No they weren't. They were trying to stop a harmful act against an individual, the same as the example I presented above.

At least that's how Americans see it.

Americans are (for the most part) absurdly ignorant about their own laws and economics. I should know. I am an American and after many years in the public school system I was just lucky to realize how weak the education it gave me was. Luckier yet, I stumbled upon classic writings on logic, reason, rhetoric, and critical thinking that gave me the tools I needed to educate myself and which seem to have been stripped out of the US's educational system.

In short, how "Americans" see something is pretty pointless since most of them have very vague ideas about what the laws and intentions of the laws are and those ideas are riddled full of urban myths and half truths. If it wasn't oversimplified on the Simpsons or Oprah, there isn't a lot of point in trying to discuss it with the average American. Frankly, I think the level of intentional misinformation being pumped out by American companies and the government itself has pretty much rendered reasoned discourse with the average person to be pointless.

Re:Just a thought.

[catman]

... most of them have very vague ideas about what the laws and intentions of the laws are ... Heh. Like Sir Erlend's remark in Kristin Lavransdatter, set in the late Middle Age: "The devil should be a knight if the horse knew his strength and the peasant knew the true law of the land!"

Learn from history

[aepervius]

You MUST be an american. I know of no german speaking like this. For a simple reason : they get history taught in college there. France was not "taken over" in both world war, only 1. The "great war" the trench/battle limit went back and forth north of France, but nobody took over France. For the second war, what did you expect them ? To die like a single man ? Are you for real ? You are aware that "die in honor" is an outdated previous century concept, and all modern commander would accept surrendering ? There was no cowardiness shown by france during WW2, don't get me started also on resistance and the work thereof under extremly awful condition (torture, execution, hostage killing etc...). And by perpetuating this mostly US joke, all you show is your pettiness of spirit. Jeez and I bet you will be one of the first to complain that french give you the finger.

Re:Learn from history

[ChameleonDave]

Indeed. Perhaps there should be a meme according to which the Jews are ridiculed for surrendering and letting themselves be herded off to camps, instead of nobly fighting to the death on their doorsteps as they ought to have? No, I didn't think so.

More to the point, all this WWI and WWII talk is just a retrospective justification. The real reason we hear Americans (and only Americans) making these bigoted comments is because Jacques Chirac used the UN veto against an attack on Iraq, thus making the subsequent invasion a war crime under the Nuremberg Principles. The fact that Chirac has now been proven quite right, with WMDs and suchlike now known to be a pack of lies, does not seem to embarrass the bigots at all.

Re:Learn from history

[VON-MAN]

"Happy to concede that they weren't taken over in WWII, nevertheless Paris was occupied and a country is much like a castle, you take the flag (capital city) and you've taken the castle."
Wow, now you got it even _more_ wrong. You sure it's only 9 generations?

"Maybe the joke about them always surrendering comes from the armistice treaty they signed in 1940."
Here my head exploded. How does "always" combine with that _one_ treaty? Besides, (many) more than one country signed armistice treaties during and after WWII.
Oh, and Americans are not a race, nor are Australians.

Re:Learn from history

[WaroDaBeast]

Maybe the joke about them always surrendering comes from the armistice treaty they signed in 1940. Sure the resistance came to the fore after this but the country still bent over as a whole. You mean Petain signed the armistice and "bent over," as you said. He didn't ask the French people if they agreed with what he did. Otherwise, I might as well state that all Americans are pro-war, and that they all wanted Afghanistan and Iraq to be bombarded.

Re:Learn from history

[Bodrius]

Nope - the meme for "the French surrender every time" is much older than the Iraq situation.

Recent animosity may have made it popular - but it was well known and in common use last century.

Not that it invalidates the rest of your argument - but the meme predates its use for retrospective justification.

Re:Learn from history

[Hal_Porter]

I'm not sure it's as simple as that. France collapsed so quickly because its society didn't knit together when it came under threat from the Nazis.

That's a serious problem. It's always comforting to believe that war is always wrong and there is no such thing as the national interest. But every now and again you're faced with something - Nazism, Communism, Fundamentalist Islam - which really is a threat to the national interest, in fact to civilisation itself. And French intellectuals have consistently responded in childish, self indulgent way to this. That makes their civilisation at threat from the barbarians. The point of the 'surrender monkeys' jibe is that the only reason they'll still free is that other people rescued them.

You can see the same thing happening now with the inner city riots. The French elite try to pretend that there is no problem, and that 'street culture' is somehow as valid as real culture. This is street culture

http://www.strictlysocial.com/journal/2008/05/01/justice-stress-video/

Actually it's a glorification/condemnation of street culture by two French yuppies. There's something very French about the idea that's a straightforward condmenation is somehow simplistic. I'm sure French Intellectuals made the same sort of double edged films about the Nazis, until the Germans occupied their country and told them from then on straight glorification would be a better idea.

Theodore Dalrymple put it

http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_the_barbarians.html
To assure the immigrants that they and their offspring are potentially or already truly French, the streets are named for French cultural heroes: for painters in Les Tarterets (rue Gustave Courbet, for example) and for composers in Les Musiciens (rue Gabriel Fauré). Indeed, the only time I smiled in one of the cités was when I walked past two concrete bunkers with metal windows, the école maternelle Charles Baudelaire and the école maternelle Arthur Rimbaud. Fine as these two poets are, theirs are not names one would associate with kindergartens, let alone with concrete bunkers.

But the heroic French names point to a deeper official ambivalence. The French state is torn between two approaches: Courbet, Fauré, nos ancêtres, les gaullois, on the one hand, and the shibboleths of multiculturalism on the other. By compulsion of the ministry of education, the historiography that the schools purvey is that of the triumph of the unifying, rational, and benevolent French state through the ages, from Colbert onward, and Muslim girls are not allowed to wear headscarves in schools. After graduation, people who dress in "ethnic" fashion will not find jobs with major employers. But at the same time, official France also pays a cowering lip service to multiculturalismâ"for example, to the "culture" of the cités. Thus, French rap music is the subject of admiring articles in Libération and Le Monde, as well as of pusillanimous expressions of approval from the last two ministers of culture.

One rap group, the Ministre amer (Bitter Ministry), won special official praise. Its best-known lyric: "Another woman takes her beating./ This time she's called Brigitte./ She's the wife of a cop./ The novices of vice piss on the police./ It's not just a firework, scratch the clitoris./ Brigitte the cop's wife likes niggers./ She's hot, hot in her pants." This vile rubbish receives accolades for its supposed authenticity: for in the multiculturalist's mental world, in which the savages are forever noble, there is no criterion by which to distinguish high art from low trash. And if intellectuals, highly trained in the Western tradition, are prepared to praise such degraded and brutal pornography, it is hardly surprising that those who are not so trained come to the conclusion that there cannot be anything of

Re:Learn from history

[oliderid]

Yes I am for real, I would expect any Australian (or American for that matter - but I hate them just as much as any other race) to fight to the last drop of blood for their country.

Ok leave Hollywood version of war for a second...here is how it works in real life: Would it include that you would happily sacrifice women, new born babies, children, eldery people? Look at your girlfriend, your mother, and your children and imagine them dead...Not a nice quick death mind you...Imagine them almost wounded by sharpnels and agonizing for hours, or burn to death for the sake of your nation honnor.

Because that's what happen when the fight actually happens in your country, street fights, bombing cities and all. Look at the Rotterdam bombing. The Dutch dared to resist and their main city was litteraly flatenned (citizens included). Or Belgians franc tireur dared to act as snipers and then Nazis shot randomly 20 citizens for each killed soldier. War isn't about being a hero or anything, war is hell. So please before taking such a pompeous position think twice (and I guess you have never experienced war...Let alone facing Nazis SS divisions).

Re:Learn from history

[vidarh]

Of course most of the French government didn't exactly act bravely with the important exception of Charles de Gaulle. Though I guess some might argue that the Vichy government was better than the alternative of direct German control over all of France.

Certainly the French continued fighting, both with the resistance and the Free French Forces under de Gaulle.

Re:Learn from history

[flnca]

For a simple reason : they get history taught in college there. Actually, it's from elementary school to "college" (there's three different school systems after elementary school). In the most difficult system, aimed at future university students, it's possible in the final years to opt out of courses and choose different ones. You can opt out of German, but you cannot opt out of history, IIRC. Yup, we all know our history (or should, at least! ;) ). :)

Re:Learn from history

[Aceticon]

Actually, if you want to be really up to date with modern Ignorant Joe American theory of history and international politics it's more like:
- The French not only became surrender monkeys but also turned into terrorists by blowing up stuff and attacking the occupying forces

Re:Learn from history

[c6gunner]

For the second war, what did you expect them ? To die like a single man ?

Actually, there's good evidence to believe that if the French had only opposed the German invasion of the Rhineland (which they could have done easily) the Second World War may never have happened. Hitler was widely unpopular amongst the politicians and generals at the time, and the generals particularly were looking for a reason to assassinate him.

Conversely - when he succeeded in taking over the Rhineland with nary a peep from the French, this gave him a hell of a lot of credibility amongst the senior military brass.

The lesson? Don't pander to tyrants. While the "surrender monkey" moniker may be unfair to the French, they certainly don't seem to have learned anything from their experience in WW2.

You are aware that "die in honor" is an outdated previous century concept, and all modern commander would accept surrendering ?

That's just mid-blowingly stupid stuff right there. I mean, I know that those Brit soldiers that got caught by Ahmadenijad didn't exactly set a good example, but no, that's not the kind of conduct we strive for. Dying with honour might be a foreign concept to you, and might induce sneers of ridicule amongst the "educated" (indoctrinated?) tenants of the Ivory Towers, but it still holds some meaning in other quarters.

Re:Learn from history

[c6gunner]

Actually, if you want to be really up to date with modern Ignorant Joe American theory of history and international politics it's more like:
- The French not only became surrender monkeys but also turned into terrorists by blowing up stuff and attacking the occupying forces

Don't be a retard. I know it's popular to make fun of the yanks by making them out to be ignorant hicks, but these sort of statements only serve to make you look stupid.

The French resistance didn't generally go out of their way to kill even German women and children, let alone their own. They didn't blow up human-bombs in crowded marketplaces, and they certainly didn't ram vehicle-borne IED's into crowds of children. There's a massive difference between legitimate resistance and terrorist acts, and it's not the fault of the USA that you can't - or won't - see the difference.

Re:Learn from history

[jmacleod9975]

Maybe there was no cowardice by the common man in France. But there was plenty of cowardice in the government leading up to the invasion of France in WW2.

For example, not helping allies (like Poland) that they committed to helping in treaty.

They could have easily stopped Hitler if they had the will before the war. The German generals even said so. They were ready to depose Hitler over his rash actions. But Hitler was right about all of the western democracies (France, England, and the US) and they did nothing when he went in and bullied the smaller countries around him.

Re:Learn from history

[u-235-sentinel]

No problem. After Abu Ghraib, the US has lost what little credibility it had left anyway.

You are aware there are American's who disagree with the Bush war right? And Abu Ghraib is one of many problems we're fighting to clean up. I'm sure we will find many more out there before this fiasco is done and over with.

Personally I think Bush screwed up. He wanted an excuse to fight a war against Iraq so badly that he's tying 9/11 into it to get what he wants. Just like his Grandfather Prescott Bush, makes you wonder what's wrong with that family IMO.

Anyway, I'm Republican and there is no way in hell I'll vote for for them this next year. I'm hoping it Obama personally but this is all off topic anyway. Nothing to do with XP refunds dudes.

And yes, I'm typing this from my Ubuntu 7.10 desktop.

Why would I use Wintendo especially after hearing Vista turned off recording for Medium and Gladiators (people record Gladiators???).

Re:Learn from history

[Mister Whirly]

Nah. Americans have hated the French since long before the Iraq thing. Remember when the US was flying to bomb Momar Khadaffi in Libya and France wouldn't let them fly over French airspace? There was a big surge of anti-France sentiment then.

Re:Learn from history

[Mister Whirly]

"or American for that matter - but I hate them just as much as any other race"

You do understand that "American" is not a race, right? Most Americans are probably the same race as you (unless you are Aboriginal).
Unless you were trying to imply you are an "equal opportunity bigot" - hating people for their race OR nationality in the same manner...

Re:Learn from history

[sjames]

The truly frightening part is that even before being elected for his first term, Bush was making vague hints that he would like to be a wartime president even though there was no reason.

Perhaps he fell for the old idea that a war can stimulate the economy. Perhaps he just wanted to show his dad he could do it.

On 9/11, a friend and I came inside from fixing his car and saw the towers burning on CNN. He and I agreed then and there that Bush would somehow turn it into a war in Iraq even if Iraq had nothing to do with it.

As near as I can tell, we are in Iraq primarily because that was Bush's fondest wish. The appropriateness of the action and the best interests of the United States were a distant second in the decision making process. It's to the point that I'm only half joking when I say it should be declared an odious debt.

Re:Learn from history

[RCL]

Fighting till the end is not about the honour. It's about resisting something that you can't tolerate, it's about being able to protect your own cultural and/or ethnic identity and way of thinking.

If you agree to lose that in order to survive, you lose a significant part of what you are. Sometimes it can't help you survive either (Jews, Slavic people).

You forget that there are enemies that cannot be reasoned with, that cannot be persuaded logically, bribed or anything and who oppose the very your existence. Surrendering to those forces is pointless, it's better to suicide.

That's why we Russians fought so fanatically at Moscow and in Stalingrad, when everything seemed to be lost and situation looked hopeless. You Europeans (except for the British, Finnish and Germans, who also fought till the end) cannot afford having your own way of life. You need someone to protect you from ones challenging that. You are an unreliable ally... sorry to say that.

Re:Learn from history

[Knos]

Minister Amer actually got sued for that particular track, "Brigitte, femme de flic." Few frenchmen would favorly compare it to Mozart, much less the all elusive "intellectuals."

Anyhow, the translation you quote is literal but the text requires interpretation.. Minister Amer (vulgarly) talks about a cop's wife secret lusting for thugs, and does not actually condone beating women or raping them.

Re:Learn from history

[catman]

Hm? ISTR that the actions of the French Resistance do qualify as terrorist acts according to current US law. I'm Norwegian, and when the P.A.T.R.I.O.T act was adopted, an elderly attorney here remarked that now he couldn't go to the US anymore. Back in 1944 he had carried the explosives to blow up a German installation in occupied Norway - which constitutes an act of terrorism for which there is no statute of limitation. I know - he spoke with his tongue firmly planted in his cheek, but this is actually true as I understand it. Has anyone actually read that act and studied the myriad laws changed by it?

Re:Learn from history

[easyTree]

"To die in honor" makes no sense.. The living decide how you died, not you. Hint: your main goal should be to choose how to live not how to die...

Re:Learn from history

[c6gunner]

I'm Norwegian, and when the P.A.T.R.I.O.T act was adopted, an elderly attorney here remarked that now he couldn't go to the US anymore. Back in 1944 he had carried the explosives to blow up a German installation in occupied Norway - which constitutes an act of terrorism for which there is no statute of limitation.

I don't suppose he quoted the relevant section of the act to you?

I'd appreciate it if you'd point them out. Thanks in advance!

 

Has anyone actually read that act and studied the myriad laws changed by it?

Oh I see. I guess you answered my question: neither of you bothered to read the damn thing; you both just figured that it was a Very Bad Thing, and assumed it would criminalize everything from cream cheese to nuclear weapons. Gotcha.

From what I've read of the act, it largely grants new abilities to federal agencies in order to improve their ability to communicate with each other. As for what other people know about it .... from my experience, every time someone start screaming about all the rights they've lost to the Patriot Act, chances are they have no friggin' clue what it actually says.

Re:Learn from history

[laddiebuck]

In all fairness, Churchill and de Gaulle were ready to announce an Anglo-French union just to keep from surrendering, because all of the BEF was still in France and most French divisions were completely intact. What happened was that the politicians and some army leaders lost their heads and surrendered. To prove that this was not a sound military decision, it stranded a lot of perfectly good French divisions and the whole of the BEF -- which only escaped by a sheer miracle in Dunkirk, minus equipment and supplies. I'm sure nobody is talking about the courage of the average French soldier. But I would not spare the politicians.

Re:Learn from history

[Hal_Porter]

Anyhow, the translation you quote is literal but the text requires interpretation.. Minister Amer (vulgarly) talks about a cop's wife secret lusting for thugs, and does not actually condone beating women or raping them. "Another woman takes her beating"? All this bullshit about texts requiring interpretation is typical of nerdy pseudo intellectual French people making up excuses for this sort of brutal bullshit because they are scared of the thugs who make it. It's appeasement, pure and simple. And it's the reason they keep burning down your suburbs, because they think you are weak.

You have excellent paramilitary police. Stop making excuses and send them in to the suburbs whenever there's trouble. In tanks and armed with live ammunition if necessary. And start locking people up for life if they beat people up or rape them. France needs some zero tolerance policing to make these scum fear the system.

Re:Learn from history

[catman]

Title IV subtitle B, and Title VIII. When I was younger, I had dark hair and a black beard. In those days there were no green/red lanes in the customs area in our local international airport, and I was ALWAYS stopped and had my baggage searched. According to the said Act, I could as far as I can see be detained indefinitely, instead of merely having my baggage searched. I do not want to visit a country where an immigration officer has that sort of power.

Re:Learn from history

[dwye]

Perhaps there should be a meme according to which the Jews are ridiculed for surrendering and letting themselves be herded off to camps, instead of nobly fighting to the death on their doorsteps as they ought to have?

There is. Israelis have it, and the punchline is "Never Again"

Re:What a sense of entitlement.

[Ravon Rodriguez]

Indeed, if anything there should be a law that requires vendors to give the option of buying a blank hard drive with the computer. Software bundles should be purely optional, including OS. Sort of like what the French ruling does, except without jumping through the hoops of having to apply for a refund.

Re:French

[Ravon Rodriguez]

It's likely that the world would be a very different place without France, without the US, and without any other major power. We all have lots to be thankful for to each other. Can't we all just get along?

Re:French

[jcr]

It goes both ways, of course. There's plenty of America-bashing in France, and the United States has saved France from the Germans twice.

-jcr

Re:How does this make sense?

[Robert1]

This is the point I was trying to get at. If my AC example isn't sufficient, we can use the example of a car's engine. She buys a Honda Civic and those jackass Honda people include a crappy Civic engine. Why should she be forced to use it when she wants to put in a Mustang engine. Should Honda offer everyone a car without an engine by law, or should there be a law requiring Honda to remove the engine on demand and reimburse the person for the cost-as-new of the removed engine?

I'm asking seriously, how is this any different than a computer. The point is if you start to apply this law to other items it illustrates how absurd it is, and how nonsensical it becomes to do business over any product that isn't a single component.

You get relegated to selling only apples, single cuts of meat, individual plates, DVD seasons that are sold by disc - the case also separate, and every piece of electronic equipment is a build-it-yourself of basic single electronic components (sold separately by law)!

Please, stop with the stupid car analogies...

[WoollyMittens]

So in your reasoning: If I bought a boeing jet-line, but it only came with passenger seats and I wanted a cargo version, you could force me to buy all the passenger seats?

Re:Please, stop with the stupid car analogies...

[aim2future]

... you could force me to buy all the passenger seats?

Yes, if Microsoft were a supplier of passenger seats and they had a deal with Boeing. Then you would have a lot of passenger seats laying around...

These seats were also bound to your jet-line so you wouldn't even be able to sell them to your ex-cargo flying friend

This is dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is the Windows EULA is presented on first boot of any new computer that comes with windows.

This agreement states that if you do not agree to the terms you may turn off the computer and request a refund for Windows.

Anyone and Everyone who buys a new computer with windows pre-installed has the right to get a refund for Windows.

The reason this went to court was because ASUS was charging the customer more for shipping than they were refunding for Windows.

Anyone who says this shouldn't have gone to court is shooting themselves in the foot.. Even us in the USA have the right to return windows if we disagree with the EULA. I don't want OEM's making it cost me money to do so!

Re:How does this make sense?

[jlarocco]

Does your car dealer sell you a car, you drive it away, then when you go to use the power windows it pops up an EULA with onerous terms that you don't agree to?

But that's not the same thing. The computer manufacturer was selling a computer that comes with Windows. If you don't want a computer that comes with windows, don't buy one. It's not like there aren't dozens of places that will sell computers with other operating systems.

To use your analogy, it's like buying a car with power windows, then suing for money back because you don't actually want power windows.

Re:French

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah being part of Canada would be AWFUL. You'd have a decent minimum wage and free health care. What a nightmare that'd be.

No it's not, and quit the stupid analogies

[Nicolas MONNET]

The law explictly, specifically, prohibits tie-ins. It's the fucking law. It applies to carpets, car insurance, hair stylists and frozen vegetables. So why shouldn't it apply to computer and operating systems?
If you or Asus don't like it, why don't you fucking go to Russia or something?

Re:No it's not, and quit the stupid analogies

[jlarocco]

I already explained it here.

It's a stupid law.

Re:No it's not, and quit the stupid analogies

[Anonymous Coward]

As you mention, this law killed the availability frozen vegetable macédoine in France. Now you have to buy 6 bags of different frozen vegetables and mix them yourself, which is kind of a pain. I also miss ice cream napolitaine.

Re:No it's not, and quit the stupid analogies

[janrinok]

No, you are wrong. It is a sensible law which has been based upon sound principles to ensure fair trading in France. You may not like it - but that doesn't make it stupid. (However, whether you like it or not is irrelevant, unless you live in France. The French like this law, or at least the majority do, and it is up to them which laws they have in their own country.) The law is intended to prevent tie-ins to any specific manufacturer which are not in the public interest. Your 'earlier explanation' can be easily countered. Those who are content to be tied to Microsoft's offering are free to buy the computer with the OS pre-installed. But those who do not agree to this have legal recourse to have the OS removed and fair costs refunded. This point has been argued for many times here on /. and I am surprised that when it is actually applied then someone thinks it is 'stupid'. What is stupid about giving users a choice, or people having the freedom to spend their money how they wish?

Your claim about the EULA is also wrong. Of course the purchaser might expect to be presented with a EULA but the EULA that you are supporting is not readable until it has been opened which in itself constitutes acceptance of it. That is not legal in France - or the rest of Europe for that matter. Secondly, the wrapping states quite clearly that, if you do not wish to accept the conditions of the EULA then you may return it unopened for a full refund. The customer was doing exactly this but was having unreasonable barriers placed before him to prevent him from benefiting from the refund. The judge viewed that as unfair and ordered ASUS to refund fair costs. Both Microsoft and ASUS are well aware of the statement on the EULA wrapping but both, in their own way, were attempting to make it uneconomical for the purchaser to exercise his rights.

Re:No it's not, and quit the stupid analogies

[jhol13]

why shouldn't it apply to computer and operating systems In Finland it does not and we both are in EU.

The ombudsman (official for consumer's rights) have given "ruling" that computer manufacturers are not required to sell bare-bones computers.

Whether you can get a refund ... well AFAIK there is no ruling about that.

Re:No it's not, and quit the stupid analogies

[jlarocco]

The operating system is a component of the computer, just like the processor, video card, sound card, network card, monitor, keyboard, mouse, ... Just because it's not hardware doesn't make it less necessary for using the end product.

If your going to complain about the OS, why not complain that they won't sell a specific PC without and AMD processor or a Tyan motherboard? And if you're going to go there, why not complain about the resistors and individual components on the boards? They're all made by different companies, and the way you're interpretting the law would require letting the consumer pick and choose. If that's where you're heading with this, I guess I see your side of the argument, I just don't understand it.

Your claim about the EULA is also wrong. Of course the purchaser might expect to be presented with a EULA but the EULA that you are supporting is not readable until it has been opened which in itself constitutes acceptance of it. That is not legal in France - or the rest of Europe for that matter. Secondly, the wrapping states quite clearly that, if you do not wish to accept the conditions of the EULA then you may return it unopened for a full refund. The customer was doing exactly this but was having unreasonable barriers placed before him to prevent him from benefiting from the refund. The judge viewed that as unfair and ordered ASUS to refund fair costs. Both Microsoft and ASUS are well aware of the statement on the EULA wrapping but both, in their own way, were attempting to make it uneconomical for the purchaser to exercise his rights.

Okay, fair enough. Not presenting the EULA until after purchase is a bit sneaky, even if it is common practice. But in this case, since the customer didn't buy the OS itself, wouldn't "return for a refund" be referring to the whole PC? If they didn't buy the OS, how can they get a refund for it? Can I rip out the processor and return it specifically? No, if it were bad, I'd have to replace or get a refund for the whole PC.

Re:No it's not, and quit the stupid analogies

[janrinok]

I can only agree with your interpretation of why it might appear to be stupid to Americans :-)

And I accept that your second paragraph was humorous but my simple counter would be that the French losses during WW2 were, as a percentage of their population, far greater than those of the US. So who made the greater contribution to the final outcome? Its a rhetorical question - I certainly do not wish to get into a flame war regarding WW2!

Re:No it's not, and quit the stupid analogies

[Richard_at_work]

Does that mean Asus should sell computers without a hard disk, or a graphics card, or a case (just the bits in the box)? Where does the definition of 'tie in' end when you have a situation like you do with computers - lots of separate parts made by separate companies that go together to make a whole? Why is the OS license special in this case?

Re:No it's not, and quit the stupid analogies

[vidarh]

The operating system is a component of the computer, just like the processor, video card, sound card, network card, monitor, keyboard, mouse, ... Just because it's not hardware doesn't make it less necessary for using the end product.

But it's NOT necessary for using the end product. LiveCD's are proof of that. And you can generally find models with or without the various add-in components.

To add to it, there is a market for operating systems independent of computers, which further solidified the arguments that they are independent products.

That does not forbid selling them together, but it also under the laws of MOST European countries make it legally questionable to require a customer to buy them together.

It's there for a reason: We actually care about the consumers rights, and companies better accept if they want access to our markets. Experience shows that not only is this good for consumers, but it's also good for the market as it encourages unhindered competition.

Re:No it's not, and quit the stupid analogies

[vux984]

The operating system is a component of the computer, just like the processor, video card, sound card, network card, monitor, keyboard, mouse, ...

Defining the difference between 'illegal' tying and bundling is a complicated affair. You can't simply wave it away by saying, "I can't order a car without sparkplugs, how is this any different."

Suffice it to say that there is not simple litmus test for tying vs bundling, and often 'its legal bundling' until someone takes it to court and the court decides 'it illegal tying'.

But if you look at the checklist of characteristics... if *any* of these apply to the bundle:

'its regarded as not being in the publics interest'
'the products are not naturally related'
'products are tied by contract'

It may be illegal tying.

Clearly here the products are naturally related so that's not the issue. However, both the public interest and the contract might apply...

Windows comes with an EULA, your processor doesn't. When you buy a computer with windows 'bundled', you enter into a contract with Microsoft. This is coercive because you receive a non-transferable license that is bound to that physical computer, upon which the non-removable OEM license sticker is affixed. You can elect not to use Windows... but you are still contractually prevented from unbundling them and using the license on a different machine, or giving it away or selling it off the Windows license. (Yes, people do it all the time, but that's beside the point.) None of the other components have this contractual obligation -- you can unbundle and re-sell your processor anytime you like to whomever you want.

2ndly, the 'public interest part crops up'. If Staples starts bundling bic pens with its staplers brand paper - nobody's going to blink -- The office supply market is competitive -- You can easily buy other brands of paper without bic pens. Bic isn't a convicted monopolist. Bic isn't charging Staples a premium for its pens if they don't bundle them with every ream of paper, and Bic isn't putting Staples at a significant disadvantage relative to other office supply vendors if they don't bundle them.

Microsoft is ALL of those. The OS market is not exactly competitive. MS is a convicted monopololist. You cannot easily buy brand name computers without Windows. Microsoft contracts have forced OEMs into bundling the system or face higher pricing, and that will put them at a serious disadvantage relative to other OEMs.

Thus it may not be in the public interest to allow this.

Okay, fair enough. Not presenting the EULA until after purchase is a bit sneaky, even if it is common practice. But in this case, since the customer didn't buy the OS itself, wouldn't "return for a refund" be referring to the whole PC?

No. In this case, probably to avoid charges of illegal tying, the deal was *specifically* that you could, at your option, return Microsoft Windows for a refund. However the refund was oddly low, and you had to ship the computer to them and back at your expense with no idea how long it might take, to excercise this 'option'.

The court agreed that this 'refund offer' was deliberately unfair, and designed to prevent the purchaser from exercising it. You can say, caveat emptor, with respect to the customer not looking at what the refund offer was exactly before buying the PC... but by simply having such an unfair refund offer, its effect at mitigating the charge of illegal tying was nullified.

Sort of like saying "If you buy the car you are obligated to buy Chevron gas. Oh, no we're not tying, we do have an option for not buying Chevron gas too that you can exercise after buying the car, at no charge to exercise." And then after buying it, you discover that to get out of buying only Chevron gas you have to send sending the car back to the factory in Mexico, by train, at your expense, both ways. And their technicians will set the switch that will allow it take non-Chevron gas... this process takes around 1 hour but the factory could take up to a year to turn around your order... they're pretty busy ya know."

A court would reasonably conclude that they were still tieing, even though they provided a so-called escape option.

Re:No it's not, and quit the stupid analogies

[MadCow42]

>>That does not forbid selling them together, but it also under the laws of MOST European countries make it legally questionable to require a customer to buy them together.

It's there for a reason: We actually care about the consumers rights, and companies better accept if they want access to our markets. Experience shows that not only is this good for consumers, but it's also good for the market as it encourages unhindered competition.


Does this mean that Apple sells bare-bones Macs in France? Is their EULA stating that Mac OS/X must only run on Apple hardware invalid?

MadCow.

Re:No it's not, and quit the stupid analogies

[slash.duncan]

The operating system is a component of the computer, just like the processor, video card, sound card, network card, monitor, keyboard, mouse, ... Just because it's not hardware doesn't make it less necessary for using the end product. But... in many cases one can actually choose the CPU, video card, sound card, etc, and except for laptops, monitors are actually sold separately much of the time. Keyboard and mouse, not so much, but the ones that come with a machine are basically lowest cost disposable quality anyway, and work decently for backups if you decide to get (or already have) something different.

Even the OS is often customizable, but unfortunately generally only between MS variants. That it can be switched out is self-evident both from the fact that it can be customized and by the wide availability of LiveCDs/DVD/Thumbdrive distributions that don't even touch the hard drive installation. It's even further self-evident from the EULA, which says send it back to your machine dealer for a refund if you don't agree to it.

Which is what people try to do. It's nice to see some places actually enforcing the EULA MS expects to be enforced for it, for the consumer as well, and the dealer having to eat the cost, as they should having chosen to distribute it knowing the EULA and its conditions obligating them to refund upon turn-in.

The US has similar anti-bundling laws. If the powers that be had any concern for the consumer, they'd enforce them as well. Europe seems rather ahead of us in that regard, among several others (software patents... tho behind in still others, like UK's vid monitoring and Germany's anti-security-testing-software laws).

Re:No it's not, and quit the stupid analogies

[drsmithy]

The law explictly, specifically, prohibits tie-ins. It's the fucking law.

Who decides what is a "tie-in" and what is simply a component of a whole product ? Is an engine "tied-in" to a car ? How about leather seats ?

Re:No it's not, and quit the stupid analogies

[Insanity Defense]

How many of the parts that ASUS makes are not available separately? I have here with me three computers that were assembled using ASUS motherboards that were bought individually not as part of bundles. One of them has an ASUS video card that was bought separately as well.

What is the difference? Likely several. One is that it is made difficult to buy PCs without Windows by the contracts Microsoft forces through by means of its dominant position. Another is its in the EULA from Microsoft has a commitment that you can return the software for a refund, I haven't seen a similar commitment to allow the return of hardware components. That commitment does not say that you must return the hardware that it was bundled with. Why is it wrong that people ask for the EULA to be honoured as written? If the end user is to be bound by the EULA should not Microsoft and its sales agents be too?

Re:No it's not, and quit the stupid analogies

[tpholland]

...it is up to them which laws they have in their own country...

That's all very well in theory, but it could never work in practice.

If every tom-dick-and-harry country decided to start creating their own laws willy nilly, surely this would represent an unacceptable barrier to my right, as a Slashdot reader, to make all-encompassing and ill-informed legal pronouncements during my lunch hour.

Why, if what you suggest ever came to pass, then that would suggest that there must be literally hundreds of laws on the statute books around the world! Whereas my sketchy understanding of a couple of US-specific regulations has never let me down yet!

Re:No it's not, and quit the stupid analogies

[mpe]

The law explictly, specifically, prohibits tie-ins. It's the fucking law. It applies to carpets, car insurance, hair stylists and frozen vegetables. So why shouldn't it apply to computer and operating systems? If you or Asus don't like it, why don't you fucking go to Russia or something?

Maybe Russia has similar laws :)

Re:No it's not, and quit the stupid analogies

[mpe]

The operating system is a component of the computer, just like the processor, video card, sound card, network card, monitor, keyboard, mouse, ... Just because it's not hardware doesn't make it less necessary for using the end product.

In many cases types of monitor, video card, HDD, optical drive, keyboard, mouse, CPU, memory, etc are options.
How is with or without an OS different from with or without a DVD drive or one stick of RAM vs two sticks of RAM?

Re:No it's not, and quit the stupid analogies

[yuna49]

Why is the OS license special in this case?

I'm really puzzled why this question is being asked repeatedly.

The answer is that the EULA is a contract between the purchaser and Microsoft while the remainder of the computer is governed by a contract between the purchaser and the manufacturer. The OS is a licensed copyrighted work; the hardware is not. There are many obvious legal differences between the hardware and the operating system, but for some reason many otherwise intelligent people in this thread keep missing this point.

Re:No it's not, and quit the stupid analogies

[fbjon]

A computer is nearly always composed of parts that are manufactured and sold separately, at the very least hardware and OS. If the OS is tied-in with the computer, and there's no easy way to get the computer without the OS, then it's bad for the market, and illegal in France. That's all there's to it.

Re:No it's not, and quit the stupid analogies

[Richard_at_work]

Its because the contract you mention has zero bearing on the tying laws that this case was prosecuted under - the fact that there is an EULA you can reject is entirely secondary to the matter at hand, its the fact that the purchase of one product was tied to another. Under the same laws, this case could have involved the customer returning the PC and retaining the Windows license.

Re:No it's not, and quit the stupid analogies

[yuna49]

Well, that's a much clearer presentation of your argument; sorry if I offended you.

I think you raise an important issue. One answer might be that Microsoft provides alternative methods for obtaining Windows than buying it bundled with a computer. So you're not forced to buy this computer in order to obtain Windows. While it's true that you can buy computers from a different manufacturer without Windows, you apparently can't buy this specific computer from ASUS that way. You're forced to buy the bundled good.

(I'm leaving aside all the issues about Microsoft's monopoly position in the OS marketplace and trying to deal with the bundling argument itself.)

Personally I'm not sure I thing it would be a bad policy to let you keep the license and return the computer. Suppose the hardware were defective and you decide you don't want this specific brand or model again. You bought both the computer and the Windows license originally. Why shouldn't you be able to return the computer and keep the license? Microsoft even offers you the opportunity to reassign the license to another machine by obtaining a new license key.

If this actually were the policy, I'd bet we'd see a lot closer alignment between OEM and retail prices for Windows.

Re:No it's not, and quit the stupid analogies

[GuldKalle]

Well, the problem is: is the OS a part of the computer? Car analogy: You can't buy a new car without a steering wheel. Should the car salesman be forced to give you money back for your steering wheel if you choose to install another?

Re:No it's not, and quit the stupid analogies

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Who decides what is a "tie-in" and what is simply a component of a whole product ? Is an engine "tied-in" to a car ? How about leather seats ?

This is the wrong question. Those are all tie-ins, just not necessarily illegal ones. In this case, Asus decided it was an illegal tie in and consequently they advertised that they would refund the cost of it. In general the courts decide based upon numerous factors such as the effect upon the market and availability of non-tied alternatives. In this case the courts ruled not that it was illegally tied, but that the refund offer was intentionally misleading and an attempt to trick consumers into thinking they had an option, only to discover that option was realistically, nothing but a scam.

Re:No it's not, and quit the stupid analogies

[mr_death]

The law explictly, specifically, prohibits tie-ins. It's the fucking law. It applies to carpets, car insurance, hair stylists and frozen vegetables.

In other news, the French sued VW, Ford, Jaguar, and Citroen for illegally tying the sale of an engine with a car. Film at 11.

The definition of tie-in has some difficulties.

Re:No it's not, and quit the stupid analogies

[jlarocco]

In many cases types of monitor, video card, HDD, optical drive, keyboard, mouse, CPU, memory, etc are options.

That's not always the case. And even when it is, it's usually the same brand. If you buy a Dell, you get a Western Digital hard drive. Whether it's 80, 160, 250 GB, it's still Western Digital. So Western Digital hard drives are illegally bundled with Dell PCs?

No matter how many sticks of RAM you get in the computer, they'll always be the same brand. Since it's easier to change out RAM than it is to change out operating systems, how does RAM not count as being illegally bundled? Where is the lawsuit for that?

Re:No it's not, and quit the stupid analogies

[Pofy]

>Who decides what is a "tie-in" and what is simply a component of a whole product ?

The court based on the laws?

Re:No it's not, and quit the stupid analogies

[drsmithy]

The court based on the laws?

Kinda sucks that you can't know if you've broken the law until after you've been found guilty, no ?

Re:No it's not, and quit the stupid analogies

[drsmithy]

This is the wrong question. Those are all tie-ins, just not necessarily illegal ones.

Then, who decides it is an illegal tie-in, and how is this determined beforehand ?

Kinda sucks when you can't know if you've broken the law until after you're found guilty, no ?

Re:No it's not, and quit the stupid analogies

[Pofy]

On the other hand, that applies to many laws and cases. There is always greyzones and situations that aren't covered completely by the law itself or circumstances that might affect the outcome. Ultimately the courts will set the lines and define the boundaries of what applies when and so on.

Re:No it's not, and quit the stupid analogies

[drsmithy]

On the other hand, that applies to many laws and cases.

For example ?

There is always greyzones and situations that aren't covered completely by the law itself or circumstances that might affect the outcome. Ultimately the courts will set the lines and define the boundaries of what applies when and so on.

The idea you can be found guilty of breaking a law without actually being able to know beforehand if you were going to break that law, should be terrifying to any and all sane people.

Stop with the stupidity

[Nicolas MONNET]

1. It's the law. If you don't like French law, stay out of the fucking country, it's not like Asus was forced to come here anyway.

2. It's the fucking law.

3. The EULA says that if you don't agree, you are entitled to ... A FUCKING REFUCKINGFUND. The judge said that a refund should be a full, no question asked, no bothersome bullshit ship your computer at your own cost pseudo refund.

4. IT'S THE FUCKING LAW.

Re:Stop with the stupidity

[rm999]

The GP only said he disagrees with this. In all fairness, Europe has a lot of laws that are overbearing and I disagree with. On a site like Slashdot, you will find a lot of libertarian-minded people who find laws like this unfair. It is up to the computer seller to decide what to package with their systems, not non-technical politicians. The GP makes an excellent point that if the purchaser knew what he was getting, the ruling isn't "fair."

It may be the law, and yes, the guy theoretically can leave France, but no one is obligated to agree with what happened.

Re:Stop with the stupidity

[vidarh]

I find it pretty hilarious if "libertarian-minded" people disapprove of this, though, because these kinds of laws are a cornerstone of a well functioning market. They help ensure open and fair competition by making it much harder for a large company to extend it's market reach by artificially restricting consumers options.

For someone that is the extremely naive libertarian in the sense of "the least number of laws possible" I can see opposing this, but anyone that want a market that is as free as possible really should think twice before coming out against laws like this - history is full of tying arrangements that have created real market barriers. Microsoft's practice of blanket licenses for OEM's being a perfect example. But Microsoft only got slapped down over it because of their extreme dominance - a smaller but still large player could still do a lot of damage with similar tactics.

Re:Stop with the stupidity

[Pig Hogger]

I find it pretty hilarious if "libertarian-minded" people disapprove of this, though, because these kinds of laws are a cornerstone of a well functioning market.

It should be obvious to you by now that all "libertarians" want is the opportunity to crush lesser-deserving people than them; they certainly don't care about free markets and the such, all they want is no overbearing states that prevents them from sucking the blood of less-deserving people.

Re:Stop with the stupidity

[Yvan256]

That may be, but is it the law?

Re:Stop with the stupidity

[rm999]

Microsoft didn't lose any ruling... Asus is forced into purchasing Windows for all computers, and they certainly don't pay 200 dollars per copy, so the money came out of Asus' pockets.

Making it difficult to switch, this is the key

[what about]

The issue here is not if any other system is available, beside Windows. Ths issue here is: is it "correct" to make it difficult for a customer to change ?

To me this is tied with antitrust regulation. A trust is a trust even if it does not have 100% of the market ! actually, Microsoft is probably eager to have some few percentages of "different" systems around so it can say "see, the customer HAVE choice !!!"

I also had bough an HP with Vista and had to zap it, did I get a refund ? no, why ? too long, too difficult. Was I able to use Windows XP ? no, no drivers on HP website, why ? (due to agreements with Microsoft)

To all the people "defending" Microsoft on this, cmon, this is really astroturfing. Do you want fair competition ? then have PC sold without OS and let people choose and pay for what thay want

The EULA claims so

[Nicolas MONNET]

The EULA says she has to abides by its term or get a refund if she declines. Well, guess what, the judge felt that the vendor had to respect the terms of what it put forth.
Big fucking surprise.
This thread is so full of fail, it's painful.

Re:The EULA claims so

[Anonymous Coward]

This thread is so full of fail, it's painful. That is possibly the truest thing I've read so far...

Re:French

[bursch-X]

No, we can't because you forgot Poland, you insensitive clod!

Re:How does this make sense? Easily

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure the gp meant that it is extremely difficult to buy a computer with a non-Microsoft operating system, that gives you freedom as to what hardware you can use.

Re:French

[bursch-X]

If the memory of the people in the US went a little more back into history they'd also notice that France actually totally kicked the Western World's ass lead by a tiny Corsican. It's not like the can't fight, you know.

And Germany (then Prussia) saved the world from France once. At the battle of Waterloo.

Not only did Blücher's troops play a huge part in it, Wellington's troops also had a big share of German troops.

So I guess if you dig around long enough then most of the major nations have once saved other nation's asses and at other times kicked other nation's asses. So what.

Re:How does this make sense? Easily

[mh101]

Yeah, but I doubt that was the parent post's point, rather a computer without any operating system.

But since you brought up Apple, what if someone for whatever reason wanted to by an Apple computer, but didn't want OSX? Apple doesn't give you the option to buy a Mac pro w/o an OS. Of course that's a moot point, since most people would buy a Mac because of the OS rather than them simply getting a PC and taking whatever OS they're given.

Re:French

[bursch-X]

I find it even more astonishing to see the lengths most English native speakers go to as not to be forced to speak any other language at all.

I've been living in Japan for 12 years now, and it's really amazing how perseveringly most English native speakers manage not to learn the local language beyond the level of a 4-year-old. It's amazing.

Re:French

[Geirzinho]

Actually Norway never surrendered. They moved their administration to London.

Re:How does this make sense?

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Suppose every computer came with an intel chip, even the AMD systems - you can get an AMD, but itel gets paid either way. Would you object to that being illegal?

Two Wrongs, One Right

[bobbuck]

"When do two wrongs make a right?"

When one wrong = 1.5 lefts?

Re:How does this make sense?

[DamienNightbane]

Who cares if they sell non-XP systems? If you don't want a computer that comes with an OS you don't want, don't buy it. If the manufacturer doesn't offer systems without that OS, find another manufacturer. If you can't find a manufacturer that sells systems without an OS you don't want, build your own system and quit bitching that companies aren't catering to your OS' fraction of a percentage of marketshare.

Re:How does this make sense?

[jlarocco]

I don't see how that's relevant. What the PC manufacturer does with the money after I buy their product is none of my business. If they pay Intel every time they sell a machine with an AMD is no more relevant to me than which color they paint their company headquarters. I don't really care.

Does it make business sense? No, because theoretically they could lower prices without paying Intel. But if I still chose to buy their product, I don't give a shit what they use the money for after I give it to them.

Re:How does this make sense?

[DeadChobi]

Yeah, except that the difference is that to replace or remove an OS all you have to do is pop a disc in and set it up to format the disk drive. That's about 10 minutes of labor for a really crappy tech. Your car "analogy" is dodgy in the sense that it takes hours or even days of labor to remove those parts. The implied argument that your making is either that it's difficult to remove the OS from the computer, which is patently false, or that a particular OS should be considered a "standard feature" in a computer, which is arguable in the sense that software is not a "standard feature." This is because it doesn't come with the hard drive.

Re:French

[Cassius Corodes]

You are correct, my apologies.

Re:Learn more from history

[hung_himself]

History is never simple. It is just as wrong to just remember the resistance and not the rest

See "Le Chagrin et la pitie" for a more nuanced view of the different reactions to the Germans in occupied France.

Those drunken partying Danes, at least hid and smuggled out their Jewish population.

Re:How does this make sense?

[Renegade88]

I don't know if ASUS does, but you can buy new computers without an operating system here. I moved to Southern France about 10 months ago and bought two computers from Multimedis during that time. They allow you to alter any standard package including opting not to have any version of windows. I recall that the price of the computer fell about 95 Euros when I did that.

Microsoft should rejoyce

[blind biker]

After all, they're only interested in their customer's benefit. Surely MS is glad that french customers have now more choice than ever.

France-Bashing and Overlord Memes

[billstewart]

There are two different memes you're mixing up here. The "I, for one, welcome our [Fill-in-the-blank] overlords" was from a Simpsons episode, and gets used relentlessly on Slashdot.

The "French surrender a lot" meme is different - whatever its origin, and the Onion article that helped propagate it in the ~2000 timeframe, the US right wing started pushing it heavily during the run-up to the US invasion of Iraq, because the French weren't jumping onto Bush's bandwagon, and it was a convenient way to get the rubes to attack anyone who wasn't cooperating, further drawing them in to the neo-con's frame of reference.

But it was especially important for Bush, because the obvious name to call the Iraqis who fought back against the US-led invasion would have been The "Iraqi Resistance", in parallel to the French Resistance of WWII, who everybody remembers at least vaguely as having been brave fighters against an overwhelming attacker, which was really really not the meme that Rove et al wanted to have around.

Re:France-Bashing and Overlord Memes

[mjwx]

The French "surrender" joke has been going on since my dad was a kid, my dad is now 50. I cant say when it started or why but its been popular long before 2000.

Re:France-Bashing and Overlord Memes

[Nicolay77]

The "whatever its origin" part is actually very important:

Basically, the French did not wanted to see their city destroyed by German tanks in the WW2. So the French goverment left the city and declared Paris an "Open City".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_France#New_German_offensive_and_the_fall_of_Paris

Re:France-Bashing and Overlord Memes

[digitig]

Even though the French are our traditional enemy here in England, when I was a kid (I'm in my 50s too) the meme was the Italians surrendering. Presumably because they did try to surrender in WWII (admittedly in the direction we liked), which it seems counted more than the simple tactical withdrawal France made over Paris. It seems an interesting reflection on the notion of honour.

Re:France-Bashing and Overlord Memes

[CmdrGravy]

Also in England, as I recall the folk knowledge says that Italians change sides whilst the French just surrender. It also tells us that Americans are more of a threat to their allies than to the enemy and the Germans, whilst coldy efficient war machines, can't think outside the narrow corridor of their 'orders'.

Re:France-Bashing and Overlord Memes

[jonahan]

Actually I think it also comes from good old Google type in "french military victories" and then click I'm feeling lucky.

Re:France-Bashing and Overlord Memes

[BlueTrin]

It has been popular because people in the US believe everything that is said on TV, especially propaganda ...

Re:France-Bashing and Overlord Memes

[nodrog]

Actually the italians had a very stong resistance against the Nazi occupation in WWII. Because this resistance sprang from very left wing sources (mainly the communist/ socialist parties and the trade unions) its significance was downplayed by the western allies after the war. Better "Dead than Red" and all that.

Re:France-Bashing and Overlord Memes

[Anonymous Coward]

And people in Europe believe every stereotype they hear about the US, especially propaganda...

Re:France-Bashing and Overlord Memes

[xrobertcmx]

The bashing of the French was something that always really surprised me. Having taken American History and served in the military I just don't see it. If we look at what they did to protect Paris in WWI, and before that where does this Surrender business come from. Additionally one of the iconic symbols of America was a gift from them.

Re:France-Bashing and Overlord Memes

[catman]

See Wikipedia article Battles_of_Narvik. The French forces acquitted themselves well there.

Re:France-Bashing and Overlord Memes

[Al Al Cool J]

The idea that the Italian army had a propensity for retreat and surrender probably began in the WWII North Africa campaign. Italy had a huge numerical advantage when they invaded Egypt in 1940, but the much smaller British force beat them back across the desert, with over half the Italian army surrendering. Many gave up without a fight as soon as British forces approached. The British suddenly had so many Italian POWs, that it became a serious logistics problem.

The Italian army had notoriously poor morale and discipline in WWII. The lower ranks were given terrible rations and shoddy equipment, while the officers had it quite good.

Things were different in other branches of the Italian military however. The Italian navy had a decent reputation, while the air force was known for its bravery and fighting spirit.

Re:France-Bashing and Overlord Memes

[BlueTrin]

And because I was living in the US when Iraq war started and during the elections in which Bush managed to get the vote because people wanted someone to protect them ...

Remember the CNN banners "War against terrorism" ?

Re:France-Bashing and Overlord Memes

[Mister Whirly]

Convenient that you forgot the other half of the US, who didn't want Bush elected and weren't fooled into thinking he would protect us. Just like all of Europe doesn't share one single voice, neither does the United States.

Re:France-Bashing and Overlord Memes

[BlueTrin]

Convenient that I replied to a reply who considered France as a single voice ...

Re:France-Bashing and Overlord Memes

[BlueTrin]

Convenient that almost everybody was pro-war after the 9/11. The reason for which most people now in the US are complaining about the war is because the articles in the papers are depicting the losses of the US army. Nobody cares in the US if 100 000 or 1 millions Iraqis died.

You do not remember when this French thing started in the US ? I will tell you because I remember as I was here. You were looking for allies and when you were turned down, you started the French surrendering thing, Freedom fries and such crap that is still lasting. This is what you get for being the ally of the US. The irony is that I am French-Vietnamese ...

Re:France-Bashing and Overlord Memes

[dwye]

> This is what you get for being the ally of the US.

France hasn't been an ally of the US since DeGaulle. Before that, they weren't allies from the start of the Versailles Conference until Vichy territory was completely liberated. Before that, they weren't allies from mid-1917 going back all the way to the XYZ Affair, in the John Adams administration. We fought an undeclared war aginst France 1803-1805, and if the Mexicans hadn't killed kicked them out (or killed them in place) first, would have likely had another after our Civil War. We can leave aside their little misbehavior during the Suez Crisis, too.

Occasionally, we have been co-beligerents, but allies is quite an exageration.

> The irony is that I am French-Vietnamese ...

Only if you were a Vietnamese student from Hanoi, now studying in Paris.

Re:France-Bashing and Overlord Memes

[Schmorgluck]

There was one further reason for the Italians to surrender (and to have poor morale): their tanks (Ansaldo-Fiat L3) were just crap, and the field troops knew it, while the commandment refused to aknowledge it.

Re:How does this make sense?

[bpkiwi]

Because in order to use the software installed, you had to agree to a separate license agreement with a third party who was not involved in the legal and financial transaction of buying the computer. Furthermore, that license agreement was not conveyed to you before you purchased the computer. If your car was a Honda civic, and it was advertised as coming with AC, but when you got it, it had a sticker over the AC button that said "By pressing this button you agree to be bound into the following legal agreement with Acme AC conditioners Ltd, France. You agree that any and all disputes will be governed by the laws of France. If you do not agree with this agreement, return this AC unit for a refund." etc etc. What would your response be? I suspect you would feel that you should be able to take it back and say "I'll take the refund". Furthermore, I suspect that if they said "We will have to charge you the cost to tow the car to and from the garage, they will keep it as long as they want, and you'll get 1/10 the price of buying the AC unit alone back" you would be a little upset.

Re:French

[twostix]

I think you'll find that it's part of the American culture to assume that they got where they are on their own, under their own steam by the sweat of their own brow, and that the rest of the world is a bunch of useless incompetent fools who blunder along blindly. Kind of the same attitude that teenagers have about their parents and grandparents. Not having the slightest clue what it was like for them and that they haven't actually gone through *anything* without someone holding their hand yet.

The truth of history is completely at odds with this, Americas success came from being geographically isolated from it all and more than a bit of international help when needed. This and the same double crossing ruthlessness that they accuse the rest of the world of has led to the USA of now, not some magical concoction of pixie dust available only to Americans. Just population and a smooth run for over 100 years. My country's the same, but we just call ourselves lucky.

It's nicer to believe myths than the truth, especially a truth that painfully goes against everything you 'know'.

Even the truth of what the French endured last century is quite painful to understand to a reasonable person. How many tens of millions dead and wounded, how viciously they fought in WW1, under conditions that make Iraq and Vietnam look like a stay at the Hilton in comparison. Where chemical weapons were used by both sides like regular munitions, fields were metres thick with the dead tens of thousands of men, who died to gain inches of land. Then 20 years later they have to do it all over again.

Then fifty years later three thousand out of two hundred million yanks die in the first attack on her home soil...well ever, and the biggest tantrum in the last fifty years is thrown and we're told over and over and over again how we should all feel so sorry and damn it, it's just the worst thing ever to happen to anyone! We listen for nearly a decade about how awful it all was, patting them on the head, saying "there there it's ok". All the while quietly waiting for them to grow a pair and grow the fuck up. How they have the audacity to put shit on the frogs who each and everyone lived through, experienced *personally* not just on the TV or paper, and fought valiantly in the most awful warfare in the history of this world...twice, when they carry on like such a bunch of drama queens about such a tiny incident in the history of the world is quite frankly embarrassing.

It's ok to have a bit of a dig and friendly rivalry, but the yanks seem to have started believing their bullshit. The comparison of an immature bratty teenager really is apt.

It's not about IF but HOW

[Fluffeh]

This whole argument has nothing to do with IF the supplier offers systems without the product. The whole argument here is that as a user you can choose not to agree with the EULA and therefore are not buying the software.

What the court has said was that it was not fair to charge you $200 for the software but only refund you $25 if you didn't choose to accept it.

And doesn't matter where you are from or how you buy your software/systems/pc - charging you $200 for something and refunding you $25 for it in an unused state is simply not fair.

Re:How does this make sense?

[aim2future]

She knew what came with it when she bought it

If she had a choice to buy with or without, I agree with you, but in this case it is nothing that is a "part", it is software. I would merely say that it's like buying a car with or without navigator. If you have a built in navigator in your head, or you have a much better than that which is supplied with the car, it is wrong to force the customer to add to the price. Car manufacturers would certainly not try to force you to buy a certain configuration. The car industry is a good example of "mass customization", that is, you buy a basic configuration which you then customize by adding different options. It is very strange that computers are sold with a forced to buy option, which not even adds to the functionality of the machine.

Re:How does this make sense?

[Maxo-Texas]

Your point interests me in a way you do not intend.

The only reason we view engines and air conditioning as irreplaceable parts of the car is the historical way we got here.

It would be fairly easy to force car makers to use standard connections and mounts and form factors for air conditioners and alternators instead of allowing the auto companies to customize them so they can be bundled.

I can't see that there is a need for more than a few kinds of alternators or A/C units.

Even for engines, the mountings could be standard even if the guts are custom.

AND if they were standardized, then the costs should drop dramatically. All the standardized parts would be commodotized.

Will this be applicable in the US, UK or AU?

[distantbody]

MSI announced two versions of the "Wind" UMPC notebook, Windows versions and Linux versions.

They are pulling this scam too by making the linux version with 50% less RAM, 50% less battery and taking away bluetooth!

Needless to say, many are miffed that they would have an unwanted software charge attached to the price just to get the more capable hardware!

Independent of this article I was bloody well going to ask for a refund on the unused XP as the precedent is already several years old IIRC. This news just makes my surety to demand it off them go from 50% to 95%.

Re:Will this be applicable in the US, UK or AU?

[arkhan_jg]

Expansys in the UK is doing pre-orders for the MSI wind; from what I can see the linux version is identical to the windows xp home one in hardware spec (same ram, HD, 3 cell battery, BT included) but £30 cheaper.

Re:Will this be applicable in the US, UK or AU?

[Dogtanian]

This news just makes my surety to demand it off them go from 50% to 95%. I might be willing to take this seriously if you'd said it had gone from 50% to 100%; i.e. you actually showed how serious you were by committing to do something about it.

Leaving the 5% in just smacks of wriggle room so that you can complain about it here and imply you're almost definitely going to do something about it. Perhaps you've even kidded yourself, but deep inside you know you won't bother. Or let me put it this way- when you phrase it like that, it makes me think that the odds are really the other way round; 95% against you doing anything about it.

Sure, you'd be no worse than the rest of us in sucking it up, but it's the ten-a-penny easy-to-say-you'll-do-something-in-a-forum nonsense that gets me, just like the people who complain about WoW and how they're going to cancel their subscription then never do.

Perhaps you'll get even angrier and post the certainty up to 99.9% (strangely it works out with 0.1% probability that you do nothing!) But seriously, either commit to doing it or spare us this nonsense.

Re:Will this be applicable in the US, UK or AU?

[distantbody]

This news just makes my surety to demand it off them go from 50% to 95%.

You've misinterpreted my comment. The intended meaning was:

This news just makes my surety that they are legally obligated to refund the money go from 50% to 95%.

On rereading my original comment however I think that I made it clear that my request for a refund would be definite:

Independent of this article I was bloody well going to ask for a refund on the unused XP as the precedent is already several years old IIRC

Re:Will this be applicable in the US, UK or AU?

[Dogtanian]

My bad, sorry :-(

(Can I mod myself down now?!)

Re:How does this make sense? Easily

[Paradigm_Complex]

Honestly, would Apple care? Whenever a discussion on /. comes up on why Apple does not allow OSX on non-Apple hardware there are usually at least a few posts pointing out that Apple is a hardware company which just uses software as a means to further hardware sales. It's not as though Apple does not want people getting a taste of a non-Apple OS (as Microsoft would abhor); Apple has pointed out in its mac vs PC commercials that their hardware will also run Windows. I cannot see them going out of their way to see machines without their OS, but I fail to find sufficient reason for them to fight it if The Man said they had to.

Re:How does this make sense? Easily

[Fluffeh]

To me this feels like she bought a car with power windows and AC then went back to the place that sold her the vehicle and forced them to take out the parts. No, it's like buying a car but being told what brand of window tinting you have to buy from a window tinter - as the factory doesn't offer it's own window tinting - and not being able to say that you don't want the tinting from "DodgeyCo Window Tinting".

Re:How does this make sense?

[dokebi]

If you drive a BMW with iDrive, Yes.

Re:French

[uglydog]

i don't know if i agree with ur thots. i think programmers might be bigger pussies than the french. especially microsoft programmers. i say this as a programmer - who does not work for microsoft.

Re:French

[Maxo-Texas]

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.

Re:French

[uglydog]

oh, and i apologize for the france bashing. it is unequivocally wrong. just being silly. i love the french. well, mostly the women.

Re:How does this make sense?

[Anonymous Coward]

Missing the point here a little.

The Computer will not function without these things.

It will function without paying for an OS.

Re:How does this make sense?

[dupont54]

The French law forbids to tie-in a product (like a computer) with a service (like a software license). You must sell each of them individually.
To make a better car analogy, it would be like selling a car with a mandatory insurance policy or a 10-year repair contract.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:French

[FST777]

the United States has saved...

No, don't start that. We've heard that meme for long enough already. We've seen it recently, and it's not pretty.

Re:French

[Rogue Pat]

Actually, The Netherlands only surrendered because the Germans flattened Rotterdam (an unprotected city) by bombarding it unannounced. After that they threatened to do the same to other cities in the country.

The other countries that you mention as having surrendered didn't get the same treatment.

Times are truly changing

[dunkelfalke]

I can still remember that some years ago the slashdot crowd cheered at the people who have tried to get a refund for OEM Windows preinstalled on their computers.

Either the people here are different now or it is french bashing time. Maybe both.

Re:Times are truly changing

[advocate_one]

Either the people here are different now or it is french bashing time. Maybe both.

place has been flooded with microsoft shills for ages now... I'm convinced Microsoft employs PR hacks to patrol websites to counter anti-microsoft positions and post pro-microsoft posts. There's so many posting in here that they've managed to gain high karma by modding their puppets up at every opportunity...

Re:French

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny because I tried to think in just one stereotype for Americans and couldn't get one,

americans are loud mouths, who have no idea about anything outside their own country.

Re:French

[jim.hansson]

I think you'll find that it's part of the American culture to assume that they got where they are on their own, under their own steam by the sweat of their own brow, and that the rest of the world is a bunch of useless incompetent fools who blunder along blindly. Kind of the same attitude that teenagers have about their parents and grandparents. Not having the slightest clue what it was like for them and that they haven't actually gone through *anything* without someone holding their hand yet. so when some american(i dont remember who, berfore iraq war) said "old europe" it was a expression of that "attitude". the problem is that this teenager has all those weapons and is in need of real good old fashion beating.
And like all teenagers they think they can fix all the worlds problems, almost cute

Re:French

[Rogue Pat]

PS: not polite to reply to my own post: another thing is that The Netherlands was neutral in the first world war, and also claimed neutrality here. Even though France and Belgium had already declared war to Germany in 1939.

So when Belgium and France surrendered, they surrendered to a country they themselves were at war with. But when Germany invaded the Netherlands they attacked a country that had invested little in the military since the turn of the century and that explicitly chosen to stay neutral in the conflict.

Re:French

[JeroenFM]

Actually it was the Dutch military that surrendered - the government relocated to London

Re:French

[timrichardson]

France didn't get taken over in the first world war. The French army moved reserves to the front line when it appeared Paris may fall (even using taxis) and stopped the aggressor German imperial army, and then the next four years was spent without the front moving much.
I'm an Australian and I haven't heard that joke before. Perhaps more indicative is the fact that in two world wars French freedom stood for something that Australians were willing to die for. The French had no useful allies in the second world war in their time of need: the Americans didn't care and the British hardly had an army, let alone an army on the Continent. The disaster that befell France happened due to inaction of the democracies from 1935 onwards; the French army in 1940 can't take much of the blame, the situation was completely hopeless by then.

"You knew what the EULA was"

[Nicolas MONNET]

You knew what the EULA was
No you don't. The EULA is INSIDE the package, genius.

Re:How does this make sense? Easily

[DrSkwid]

What if I didn't like the operating system in my car ?

Re:French

[timrichardson]

And the Soviets did a lot to make sure the second world war started too: Germany attacked Western Europe safe that the Russians were not going to attack them thanks to most cynical and disgusting treaty ever signed in human history, the Nazi/Soviet non-aggression pact of 1938 (or "partition of Poland pact"). The invasion of Russia by the Germans after they had dispensed with Western Europe, well, let's just say that the Russians discovered a different world view quickly.

Re:How does this make sense?

[timrichardson]

it is quite hard to get notebooks without Windows in many countries.

Re:French

[SpaghettiPattern]

not to mention the Italians which switched sides in both world wars to avoid being the losing side. Yea yeah yeah, blame us Italians again and again for being on the winning side. All is fair in war and love. And at playing football.

Besides, how the hell are we supposed to produce Ferraris, Lamborghinis and Maseratis? By playing a righteous and possibly loosing game? The world isn't waiting for "Italian character" or needing it for that matter. It just wants the insane and magnificent works of art. And yes, I count the cars produced by aforementioned companies as works of art.

"But how 'bout the shitty cars we produce?", you may ask. Well these generate the capital to be able to create artworks. Having said that, currently Fiat isn't doing badly. Also, Alfa seems to have closed the horrifying period that started in the 80ies and went well on into the late 90ies. Now if they start making lighter, rear wheel driven cars and a bit more stuff lke the 8C they will truly excel. Again.

Art is the ultimate expression of civilisation. When everything alse is achieved, that's what you will consider next.

In short, our apologies for being crap at fighting righteous wars. However, we do compensate.

Authoritarians

[Nicolas MONNET]

(US Marine, College Student, and Proud Parent!)

US Marine > I suspect you must be an authoritarians, hence your tendency to side with authority (in this case, Microsoft), no matter how wrong, against the little guy, no matter how right.

That's the same mindset that make some people blame the victim in case of rape (look at what she was wearing!), prisoner abuse (if he was in prison he probably deserved it!), war crimes, and so on.

It's not your fault, just follow the link in my sig and educate yourself.

Re:How does this make sense?

[Zironic]

In Europe we tend to prefer to not rely on the whims of the corporations and instead just force them to do what we want.

Re:French

[Hal_Porter]

2) English are pompous

I believe you mean imperious, you colonial peon.

Three cheers for the french judge

[Fallen Andy]

Sigh. It was either waste some of my mod points or comment. Given the amount of noise about "surrendering french" etc. on this thread I feel moved to comment instead. Here goes: Most of the slashdot crowd (being from that insular part of the world known as the United States of America) seem to have difficulty understanding any other part of the world.

A heck of a lot of us live in countries where the native language isn't English. I'm English from the UK, but living 20 years over here in Greece (Europe).

Most of the laptop vendors ship *only* the local native language version of (mostly) Windows Vista. If you're really lucky then you might see the English version. I spend a lot of time "cleaning" bloody Greek Vista *off* new Acers, HP notebooks and replacing it with English XP. You see - here in Athens (Greece if you forgot) we have lots and lots of people from all over the world (who don't want a Greek system but got stuck with it when they bought their nice new shiny whatever).

I have the pleasure of babysitting a friends internet cafe (on sundays it's more like Manilla than Athens because that's the day the girls from the Phillipines get their day off - eat yer heart out basement dwellers (grins)).

Some of this nonsense wouldn't be needed if Vista shipped MUI out of the tin . (Curiously though the MUI version of XP seems to be the norm amongst my friends from the arab world).

If a machine ships with what is essentially a "useless" system, then you should be able to refuse the EULA and get a refund. What i'd really like to see is some EU wide ruling as to the *size* of that refund so that consumers would be aware of their rights . Fitness for use etc. is an issue.

Andy.

Re:Three cheers for the french judge

[value_added]

I have the pleasure of babysitting a friends internet cafe (on sundays it's more like Manilla than Athens because that's the day the girls from the Phillipines get their day off - eat yer heart out basement dwellers (grins)).

Pilipinas in Greece? Is there a cultural or socio-economic shift I'm unaware of?

Re:How does this make sense?

[DamienNightbane]

In America we have the freedom to choose what we buy and from whom, and none of the above is always an option. So far voting with the dollar rather than the gavel has worked fairly well.

Re:French

[ghyd]

I can't believe one second that you're German. As a French living in Arras, town that was on the frontline of both wars, I can tell you that you're disgusting me..

One of the few things I know of my grand-grand-father is that he had drank his pee while defending his country from (probably) your grand grand father? This war was terrible. Millions died, not least by the incompetency of the generals, and on both sides soldiers did their duty to the end in the most horrific conditions. No one could live the battlefront with any sanity left. Don't talk me about being taken over, because we didn't fail despite contrary odds, and thanks to the US and English and Canadian and Australian help.

When came the second world war, with the generals having made more or less the same errors as before ww1, I can understand that people only wanted to avoid a second tranch war. Actually, given that my small town of birth (Saint Laurent Blangy) was flattened (higher wall left after the war in the whole town: 1 meter) during ww1, my grand mother told me many times how women and children alike thrown themselves on the roads as soon as they knew ww2 was coming. This was an exodus to the south.

http://images.google.com/images?q=arras%20ruines%20guerre&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enFR258FR258&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi

ps: let's hope you don't keep other funny ideas in your "German psyche / German blood".

pps: yeah for Europe.

Re:French

[Hal_Porter]

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. I think it's because the French, particular the Parisians, are snooty but have a massive inferiority complex and so it's fun to tease them.

Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians and so one don't react in the same way.

Re:French

[pmontra]

I quote from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_world_war

The war was propagated by two major alliances. The Entente Powers initially consisted of France, the United Kingdom, Russia, and their associated empires and dependencies. Numerous other states joined these allies, most notably Italy in April 1915, and the United States in April 1917. The Central Powers, so named because of their central location on the European continent, initially consisted of Germany and Austria-Hungary and their associated empires. The Ottoman Empire joined the Central Powers in October 1914, followed a year later by Bulgaria.

So, how did Italy switch sides in the First World War?

Concerning WW2, Italy surrendered to the Allies in 1943, when they occupied the southern half of its territory. Mussolini was put under arrest and then freed by the German army. He's been moved to the north, an area occupied by the German army, where he lead a puppet government. He was opposed by several armed factions and a civil war enraged there for the next two years, while the Germans and the Allies where battling in the middle of the country.

Re:If you don't like the bundle

[professionalfurryele]

If you are a real market liberal then you would also oppose copyright as government interference in the market. If you are going to hand someone a monopoly on something then you have every right to regulate transactions involving that monopoly however society deems best.

Now either you are one of those evil socialists yourself (it just so happens that you support corporate rather than social welfare) or a real market liberal. Which is it?

highlights from the judgement

[jjohn_h]

Here are the highlights from the judgement.
Keep in mind that currently, 1 Euro is around
1.50 Dollars.

1 The buyer requested the vendor to run the init
routine and refuse the EULA. He left the shop with
a blank hard disk.

2 The EULA did offer refund to the non agreeing customer.

3 It was quite clear that ASUS' offer of 25 Euros plus at least a week turn-around plus courier to be paid by the customer would defeat most customers.

4 The plaintiff got 100 Euros for Windows, 30 Euros for crapware, 150 Euros for handling/shipping. He did not get the punitive 1000 Euros he wanted.

5 All costs for the case are on ASUS.

Last but not least: this is not the first French
judgement I read which is set up as a single sentence. You would not believe the wooden crap language they use.

Re:highlights from the judgement

[basiles]

Last but not least: this is not the first French judgement I read which is set up as a single sentence. You would not believe the wooden crap language they use. This is a custom (or perhaps some rule) on many (perhaps all?) French court rulings. Grammatically, they are always "one" sentence.... (usually like: Considering that ... and that ... and that ... the court ...) even if it is more than a dozen pages. And the punctuation is also specific. But don't forget that since trials have a long history (in many cultures), their language is quite specific. I probably have the same difficulties reading English rulings than you have reading french ones. In addition, I am not a lawyer, and have almost no ideas (except very crude ones) on the principles of laws & trials (which are different in USA and in France).

Re:highlights from the judgement

[Schmorgluck]

Some little rectifications The 1000 euros requested by the plaintiff wasn't punitive damage, which doesn't exist in French law. Damage has to be "real" (physical, moral or financial) to be evaluated by the courts. In this case, it was for the overall inconvenience of the affair and alleged personal and familial problems caused by it, which the court ruled as unproved.
The 150 euros are for the plaintiff's expenses related to the case. He presented his case without a lawyer (which is possible in this kind of courts), but if he'd hired a lawyer, this part would have been basically for the lawyer's payment (and certainly higher).

Matter of fact

[DoktorTomoe]

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsautomotive/wa5.mspx ... the day I stopped buying cars from BMW.

Re:French

[Hal_Porter]

They also managed to spirit all the Norwegian Jews to Sweden.

Re:How does this make sense?

[jlarocco]

The Computer will not function without these things.

It will function without paying for an OS.

A PC can be "fully functional" without a mouse, keyboard, monitor, graphics card, sound card, or hard drive. Should it also be illegal to package those with the computer?

Would Asus's target customer consider their PC fully functional without those pieces? Probably not. Would they consider it fully functional without the OS?

Re:French

[mgblst]

Yes, you are correct. But Japanese is very hard. And when, on top of that, you have to do a full-time job, you just don't have the time or the energy to devote yourself without sacrificing most of your time. And if you aren't planning on staying there forever, you have even less of a reason. Not all people enjoy studying languages.

Re:French

[vidarh]

That's blatantly wrong. A lot of Norwegian jews were shipped to concentration camps.

IIRC that is just what MS did

[Moraelin]

The argument is that some giant corporation might convince or coerce somebody to bundle one of its products, creating a de facto monopoly.

And just to show that it's not just a theoretical concern: IIRC that's exactly what MS did at some point in the past. It negotiated a license with the OEMs where they paid the MS tax per computer sold, whether or not it actually had Windows on it.

The way it goes is sorta like this: let's say I make Product X that's shipped on 90% of your computers anyway. Then I come and offer you a, say, 20% discount if you pay it for all computers shipped, instead of actually counting licenses. Now there are basically two ways to think about it,

A) "well, hmm, that's not too bad. I'll keep offering the choice and at those numbers I still get a neat discount as a whole."

B) "wth, if I stop offering a choice, or severely discourage people from getting anything other than Product X, I'll get to make the most money out of that deal."

Chances are that even _if_ you started with version A, sooner or later B will dawn upon you. Historically it didn't take long for virtually all OEMs to be in camp B.

There are many variants of that scam. Another is to just flat out offer a bigger discount, the higher a percentage of your computers are shipped with product X. Or threaten to pull your discount altogether, if you try to push alternatives to my product X. Etc.

That's again not hypothetical, that's the threat MS used against IBM's OS/2: If you keep trying to push OS/2, you'll pay more for Windows, and lose the competitive edge on the computers you ship with Windows. IBM pretty much surrendered. Oh, they continued a half-arsed OS/2 effort to save face, but didn't even try to sell computers with OS/2 preinstalled any more.

Now you do need to have a certain market share to pull a stunt like that. But it's been done before, and not only by MS, so the concern is very real and pragmatic.

Re:French

[ozmanjusri]

However, we do compensate.

I think Ferraris are commonly considered overcompensation...

Just a nitpick

[aepervius]

The so-called "French=coward" joke are a bit older than the war in Irak.

Re:French

[vidarh]

Sweden was neutral, and never under occupation or attack in WW2.

They might have been "gutless" but they didn't surrender. And while certain elements were certainly nazi-friendly (notably the king), a lot of Swedes were actively helping the Norwegian resistance in bringing people who needed to escape over the border. A lot of Norwegian resistance fighters who got close to being captured can thank them for getting a safe haven when the nazis started closing in on them in Norway.

Re:How does this make sense?

[Hal_Porter]

The worst thing is that Asus probably ended up 'refunding' more than paid for a Windows OEM license. I've heard rumours of $50 for the price the OEM pays, maybe less with the kickbacks from the vendors of all the shovelware they install.

Re:French

[Kickasso]

you're confising them with the Danes methinks.

Re:French

[Saffaya]

Not it is not.

Spoken japanese is a piece of cake.
No new sound to learn, no intonation to give (unlike english or chinese have), simple grammar.
There is no excuse if you don't get more proficient in it while living there.

Written japanese is hard.
Each kanji has 2-3 different pronounciations, depending if found alone or in combination with other Kanjis.
Now, this is what takes efforts and time to learn.

Re:How does this make sense?

[Racketiciel]

Under the ASUS name, not to my knowledge. It seems that ASUS provides "OEM computers" without OEM softwares for French resailers. You can browse a list of good and bad resellers from the optionnality point of view in: http://bons-vendeurs-ordinateurs.info/

Re:How does this make sense?

[Happy Finish]

Even more interesting, since thay require acceptance every time the car is used, whait if one decided to reject it a year after buying the car? The agreement you have to accept on a GPS, per use, only amounts to "Yes, I agree to still look at the road from time to time whilst using this gadget."

Re:French

[LaskoVortex]

What is with all this France bashing from the US?

Americans (I am one) had no problem with the French I think until it came time to drop bombs on Lybia. The French denied fly-over rights. Now we are in a war with Iraq and the French haven't sent troops. I think both decisions by France were wise and justifiable. Now Americans blame the French for a big costly war when instead they should blame themselves for their own gullibility. Americans have a "with us or for terrorism" ideology, which is a silly ideology. You'll see some idiots quote stats about the the percentage of the French population that is Muslim and other pseuodo-intellectual arguments. Personally, I think Americans should get a grip on reality, grow some brains, get the hell out of Iraq, stop pissing every one off, and stop blaming every one else for their problems. I'm an American and I've done it.

That said, I personally have a problem with France because of mimes. Mimes suck and France should never had invented them.

Re:French

[damburger]

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.

Re:French

[Skrynesaver]

Fix
It
Again
Tomorrow

Re:French

[superswede]

not to mention the Italians which switched sides in both world wars to avoid being the losing side. Yea yeah yeah, blame us Italians again and again for being on the winning side. All is fair in war and love. And at playing football. Art is the ultimate expression of civilisation. When everything alse is achieved, that's what you will consider next. "Don't mention the war". Yeah, you're good at art, especially theatrical art; Italy-Australia: 1-0. Anyone who wanna see this master piece again, it's here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1kx8aOaSbA http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5385297161043780567

...and viva Ibrahimovic!

Re:French

[Skrynesaver]

Stalin had no army at the time, even when the Germans invaded the red army was horrifically under provisioned however they fought with exceptional courage and, with the aid of "General Winter", defeated the German army.

The non-aggression pact may have been cynical but it was a necessary breathing space for the Russians to enter the arms race of the day

Refund for Prius please - I'm installing OSX

[superswede]

I'm sure this lad wish he was living in France. He could probably get a refund for the preinstalled OS in his Prius: http://www.kusnetz.net/prius/

Re:French

[jaxtherat]

It's really just a long-running joke, without any real origin that I know of. Other stereotypes:
1) Africans are world leaders at email scams
2) English don't speak English, but some weird cockney dialect
3) Germans and Irish drink a lot
4) Russians drink even more
5) South Americans smuggle _awesome_ drugs
6) Australians say "G'day mate" and eat witchetty grubs
7) Japanese have odd sexual hangups
8) Indians have a monopoly on call centers
9) Chinese all like government control of the interwebs (since the government shot the 15% who didn't)

and on and on. Every country has stupid stereotypes, I'm sure some countries see American's as all cowboys or some other equally ridiculous thing... There fix it for ya :)

Re:French

[zoogies]

Then fifty years later three thousand out of two hundred million yanks die in the first attack on her home soil...well ever, and the biggest tantrum in the last fifty years is thrown... I think your post was very well written, and I agree with the larger points of it. But just so we are clear about truth in history, that particular statement is wrong.

Even discounting the Revolutionary War, you have the War of 1812 and Pearl Harbor.

Not that it takes much away from your point as a whole, mind.

Re:French

[baker_tony]

That's fully cos it's true (mostly). Good work.

Re:French

[Godwin O'Hitler]

"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."

But not similar resources. We no longer have an empire; France far outweighs us in terms of most things physical (I'm talking about the land, not the way its inhabitants are endowed ;)
And with the size of their territory they have far more need of fast trains.

None of that is intended as criticism; just reasons we shouldn't be embarrassed.

Having said that, France is a great country but it is not without its downside. I speak with the advantage of having lived there 20 years and recently returned to the UK.
Some things are better here, some things are better there. Shame we can't have all the good bits in one place. *shrug*

Re:French

[baker_tony]

That's funny cos it's true (mostly). Good work.

Re:French

[digitig]

I'm sure some countries see American's as all cowboys or some other equally ridiculous thing... "Burger-eating invasion monkeys" is a memorable phrase that has been heard on British TV.

Re:How does this make sense?

[oracle128]

In order to use that car you bought, you have to agree to a separate legal agreement (road rules) with a third party (the government) who was not involved in the legal and financial transaction of buying the car. Furthermore, that legal agreement was not conveyed to you before you purchased the car.

If your car was a Honda civic, and it was advertised as coming with AC, but when you got it, it had a sticker over the AC button that said "By pressing this button you agree to be bound into the following legal agreement with Acme AC conditioners Ltd, France. You agree that any and all disputes will be governed by the laws of France. If you do not agree with this agreement, return this AC unit for a refund." etc etc. What would your response be? I would be pretty frustrated. But not as frustated as I'd be if they didn't explicity state what the terms and conditions were, and I only find them out after I've been pulled over and fined by the cops for not following those conditions that I wasn't informed about.

Re:French

[timrichardson]

Had "no army" because he purged almost the entire officer corp.

Re:How does this make sense? Easily

[bpkiwi]

Simple, you usually don't see the details of the licence agreement until after you have purchased the product. Until you agree to the Windows EULA you have not completed the transaction, and thus if you do not accept the terms of the license you are owed your money back - at least the part of the purchase price that was paid for the software. The bit that says you can return the software for a refund highlights that the software is supplied separate from the PC really. If it was 'all in one' then you would indeed return the whole thing and get all your money back - PC manufacturers would probably never allow that.

PC manufacturers could, in theory, avoid this by making you agree to the Windows EULA before they take your money, but they don't want to do that. I imagine Apple do exactly that, since it's all from the same vendor (but I'm only guessing, I've never purchased a mac)

Re:How does this make sense?

[vidarh]

ASUS can sell/offer any product they like,

Ah, but that's wrong. They can't sell or offer any product they like. They are limited by a long list of regulations for health and safety, environmental protection, regulations affecting electric consumer products, regulations about radio emissions and many, many more.

They can choose not to comply, in which case they are not allowed to sell their products to the public.

This is no different - it's just another legal requirement they have to comply with.

I can see now customers going to swap parts in cars, stereo equipments, etc. Hey, the VW bug has those blue-glow dials in the dashboard. I think they are crap and i don't like them - should the dealer be obliged to refund the retail cost of the blue-glowing dashboard? didn't think so

Are they a separate product? Can they be taken out, and can you buy replacement? Are they bought separately so there's an established price for them? Is the car fully functional without it?

If you can answer yes to all of that, then why shouldn't the dealer be obliged to offer the car without them? If you can't answer yes to all of that, then your analogy is irrelevant.

Re:French

[blind biker]

I am guessing that France got that label because it's the largest and both economically and militarily the most significant by a very large margin - both now and back then. I'd like to remind that France has a rather significant arsenal of nuclear weapons (for example). And between the two wars it was one of the very few world powers, one that Germany should have had some problems overcoming.

Re:French

[nickos]

Umm. Sweden was not occupied during the second world war. Please have a clue what you're talking about before insulting people like that.

I think you partly answered your own question

[CanadianRealist]

At least as for why SOME Americans would find this stupid....

"it is up to THEM which laws they have in THEIR OWN country"
(emphasis mine)

And keep in mind we're talking about France here. I bet that the law wasn't even written in English!
Those arrogant bastards!

Re:French

[Kjella]

Actually Norway never surrendered. They moved their administration to London. Yes and no. The royal family, the government, what little remained of the fleet and air force fled to England and never surrendered. All forces still in Norway surrendered in the capitulation agreement of June 10th, 1940. While there was obviously some resistance actions both from within Norway and from England, there was never any serious effort to liberate Norway by force since it was heavily occupied and remained so until the end of the war in 1945. Morally it made a big difference, but from a military point of view it was pretty much a full surrender.

Re:How does this make sense? Easily

[A.K.A_Magnet]

Actually in France Apple gives you a refund of OSX if you ask within 7days after having bought the computer. Some people like to waste their money and buy a Mac to run GNU/Linux.

Re:French

[Hal_Porter]

Yeah true. It's cool that the Danish king said he would wear a yellow star if the Nazis made the Jews wear one too.

Re:French

[Kjella]

Umm. Sweden was not occupied during the second world war. Please have a clue what you're talking about before insulting people like that. No, please don't. It's far easier to weed out the trolls when they're clueless and clearly factually wrong than when they make some plausible flamebait...

Re:French

[Weedlekin]

"Mimes suck and France should never had invented them."

France didn't invent mime: that "honour" goes to the ancient Greeks. And much of what we currently call "French Mime" was actually the fault of Italians, who introduced it to France in 1576.

Note that the accordion isn't a French invention either (Austria and Germany were responsible for that one), so neither of the notable crimes against humanity that they're frequently accused of are actually French.

Re:French

[vidarh]

In fact, many countries in Europe were so concerned about the communist and anarchist influences in Spain that while they did not actively support Franco, many of them tried their best to prevent their own populations from supporting the democratically elected government.

In Norway, for example, it was illegal for Norwegians to go to Spain to fight. The communist and socialist movements sent in excess of 200 volunteers to the international brigades. Interestingly, the largest number of volunteers fighting against Franco came from Germany and Italy - mostly exiles that in many cases had left their homes because of oppression in their home countries.

Re:How does this make sense? Easily

[Tim C]

This is generally called "The Microsoft Tax", because people who buy computers in order to run other Operating Systems (yes there are others) are forced to pay this tax.

Never mind that - some people will have bought a (retail) copy of Windows separately and will be retiring the old PC (perhaps it's broken beyond cost-effective repair). They are within their rights to install their copy of Windows on whatever they buy, as long as the old install is no longer used. I for one would not be happy paying for the OS twice.

Re:How does this make sense?

[drsmithy]

If I wanted an ASUS Computer, I should be able to buy JUST THAT.

What if ASUS doesn't want to sell it to you without an OS ?

Re:How does this make sense?

[Zironic]

That's really hard to argue when it comes to near monopolies like ISP's, Microsoft etc, usually none of the above isn't a real option.

Re:How does this make sense?

[v1]

but won't they still have charged you for windows? (and quite possibly, for the hard drive also?)

Re:How does this make sense?

[v1]

the problem here is, imagine everywhere you try to buy a car, they all have power windows. (or at least most of them do) That's where you lose your choice. The bundling/tie-in is not the problem, the difficulty they make you go through to avoid it (though it is required to be avoidable by law) is unacceptably high.

Re:How does this make sense?

[Weedlekin]

"In order to use that car you bought, you have to agree to a separate legal agreement (road rules) with a third party (the government) who was not involved in the legal and financial transaction of buying the car."

That's only true if you want to drive it on public roads. There's no need for a driving license, insurance, or for a vehicle to be road-legal (e.g. some types of racing cars and bikes, many agricultural and construction vehicles, main battle tanks) if it's only going to be used off-road.

Re:How does this make sense?

[BrentH]

I don't know what you mean with "it has worked fairly well", but how is forcing companies to offer two options AND being able to vote with your dollar/euro worse than only being able to dollarvote?

Re:French

[sammyo]

Just a note from a Yank who was rather embarrassed about some of the post-9/11 over-reactions: I'm actually pleased to see that this post has failed to garner the reactionary comments and faux-death threats that I would have expected even a couple years ago.

i miss the tagging frenzy...

[Anonymous Coward]

where's my dear suddenoutbreakofcommonsense ??

Re:French

[jcr]

It's a fact. Go cope.

-jcr

Re:How does this make sense?

[oracle128]

Much like you only have to agree to the Windows EULA if you choose to turn the PC on, and even then, only if you choose to continue using Windows.

Re:French

[Prefader]

and that the rest of the world is a bunch of useless incompetent fools who blunder along blindly.

You should try spending some time on our highways . . . we also think this about each other. :)

It's quite simple

[Nicolas MONNET]

Car makers make and sell their own motors. There is no market for putting another car maker's motor in another's car.
OTOH while car makers have their own insurance sales company and credit company, there is a competing market for those services, and they can't force you to buy those when you buy one of their car. They may have a discount when you do, but in any case car+service can't be less expensive than car alone, that would be anticompetitive and would be a tie-in.

Re:It's quite simple

[drsmithy]

Car makers make and sell their own motors. There is no market for putting another car maker's motor in another's car.

Some car enthusiasts would disagree (to say nothing of outsourced and/or licensed manufacturing - which is, for all intents and purposes, what Microsoft is doing for OEMs).

Again, simple: EULA

[Nicolas MONNET]

Windows has an EULA that gives you the option of either accepting or refusing, with a refund mentioned.
Hard drives don't ask for your soul or first born, last time I checked.

No EULA on (most) Linux

[Nicolas MONNET]

The GPL is not an EULA. You only need agree to it if you ever redistribute GPL software; personal use & copying is granted explictly, unconditionally, and free of charge.
Windows wants you to agree to an EULA. Said EULA says that if you refuse you can get a refund.
We want the damn refund.
That is all.

Vive la France

[jacekm]

I'm actually a Windows fan, and I don't like Linux at all, but I think this French law should be an example for every other country. Bundling software leads to anticompetitive behaviour and forces us all to pay more for software. In addition we end up with all the crapware bundled by manufacturers. I would love to be able to buy bare but brand name computer without anything preinstalled and have my own choice of what OS and what applications I want to install. It would also open up opportunity for the businesses that sell computers to offer preinstalled, customized software opackages or services of preinstalling software a la carte when customers buys new computer at their store. Competition is always good for the consumer. JacekM

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

IIRC Apple does honor refund requests

[Nicolas MONNET]

I read somewhere that in France, Apple honored MacOSX refund requests, as long as they are filed within a few days of the purchase.
What we (April, Aful and other French associations) are trying to do here is have vendors honor their own damn EULAs. If it says you get a refund when you don't agree, you get a real refund, not a bogus offer.
I don't see why it's so hard to understand for so many people around here.

Re:How does this make sense?

[Zironic]

It's more like:
To legally call it a computer it has to fulfill criteria X, Y and Z. In addition you have to allow refunds for A, B and C and you are legally responsible to provide K, L and M and you have to accept unopened returns for Q amount of time and opened returns for W amount of time if it's your fault.

Re:How does this make sense?

[twistedsymphony]

Without a hard drive it's quite easy to convince them not to charge you for any of the software... and if they do still call you, it's quite easy to call them up after the fact and get a refund for the software, since it wasn't included, at least I've never had problems doing that.

Re:How does this make sense?

[Message]

Not sure about France, but when I bought my car, the tires which were included in the original purchase were covered by a separate company, the tire manufacturer, and so had a separate warranty and terms of use... I don't see how this is any different... it would be essentially asking the dealer to keep the tires and drop the price... not something they are likely to do

cell phone contracts are not that same as a Licens

[Joe The Dragon]

cell phone contracts are not that same as a license and If you see a $1 iphone you are likely looking at 2 year plan with it.

Re:French

[evanspw]

Realistically, it was once, and it wasn't from the Germans, it was from the Communists who would certainly have taken over France when the Russians had defeated the Germans and had the western Allies not invaded Western Europe. Russia was always going to beat Germany no matter what the Americans or British did, so really the latter saved Western Europe from Soviet domination. Pity they were too late for Eastern Europe.

Re:French

[mgblst]

A minor point. You can argue all you want the technicalities, but surely you can't believe that it was ok for Swedens to just sit idly buy, profiting from selling goods to the Nazis, while they were murdering their own citizens and attacking other countries.

The fact is that they surrendered before they even started fighting. Being neutral is worse, in this situation.

Re:If you don't like the bundle

[Arthur B.]

You ought to be free to sell to willing buyers. The French government has no right telling ASUS what it can or cannot sell.

Re:How does this make sense?

[mpe]

What if ASUS doesn't want to sell it to you without an OS ?

Then they can't sell it in France. About the only way in which they may be able to legally sell a computer with an OS in France is if they wrote one from scratch. On the other hand Renault can't force you to buy your fuel from Elf.

Re:How does this make sense?

[axx]

There is a fundamental difference here that nobody seems to notice:
hardware is a good, software is a service.
If software were sold as a good, one would be buying the code itself, not a licence to use the software which is what one buys right now.

The car analogy is only correct if you corsider the hardware as the car and the OSas the insurance. Sure, you need an insurance to be able to drive the car, but you can choose whatever insurance you want.

What french law prohibits is tying the sale of a service with the sale of a good, which is the case when you force someone to subscribe to insurance A rather than insurance B, and which is the case when you force the user to use OS A rather than OSB.

The DGCCRF (Direction générale de la Concurrence, de la Consommation et de la Répression des fraudes, the body that regulates consumer related issues) has previously stated that the current situation of tieds OSsales is illegal and was only tolerated as it served the interest of the consumer who, for most of them, needed a computer sold in a state of immediate useability.As the general public has become more educated, this practice must be questionned and should no longer be tolerated as it has always been illegal.

On the other hand, the minister the DGCCRF depends of said recently that even though the practice IS illegal, nothing will be done (at a large level). Which shows that there is a very strong lobby at work behind this issue.

Re:French

[damburger]

I'm aware of at least some of the downsides of France, but I still think on balance I would like to work there (especially seeing as I want a career in the space industry; the pinacle of our rocket technology is the Skylark, the pinacle of theirs is Ariane 5 - its a no brainer really). But you are of course right on the money. We could have the best of each country in both if we had a healthier relationship other than spitting 'Frog!' and 'Rosbeef!' across the channel at each other puncutated by the occasional minor trade war. IMHO the most important advantage France has is its mature nuclear industry. Their comparative energy independence is looking more attractive by the day, and if the UK is going to catch up we probably need their help.

Re:How does this make sense?

[mpe]

Why is a car considered a single product, while a computer including an operating system is not? The computer is pretty useless without an operating system.

A car isn't of much use without fuel. But someone selling you a car can't tell you where to buy fuel. If you intend driving on public roads having at least third party insurance tends to be a requirement, but again a car seller can't insist that you buy their insurance before they will sell you the car.

Re:How does this make sense?

[SamSim]

As an aside, why do we still have to do all of this in terms of car analogies? We are all Slashdot nerds, I think we can understand computers on their own terms by now.

Re:French

[Geirzinho]

Morally it made a big difference, but from a military point of view it was pretty much a full surrender. Formally it made a difference, as this made soldiers wearing Norwegian uniforms lawful combatants. If they were caught during missions in occupied territories, they should be awarded POW rather than saboteur status, according to the Geneva convention. Of course, that didn't always happen in reality, some of them were summarily executed.

Re:How does this make sense?

[hughk]

I believe the OEM agreement was to prevent people from taking a licensed OS from one system to another. Actually if you buy a non-OEM edition of the OS, it is very difficult for a vendor to stop you moving it to a new system and wiping the copy on the old system before sale. Many people used to forget that last part!

After a lot of going back and forth the wording on the OEM agreement had to be adjusted to "not ship without OS". Some vendors ship with FreeDOS to get around that (and also diagnostics to be run).

Re:French

[jcr]

in the first world war they came in late and did very little.

Except for making the Kaiser throw in the towel. It's not like he had any reinforcements available.

-jcr

Re:How does this make sense?

[mpe]

In order to use that car you bought, you have to agree to a separate legal agreement (road rules) with a third party (the government) who was not involved in the legal and financial transaction of buying the car. Furthermore, that legal agreement was not conveyed to you before you purchased the car.

That's if you want to drive the car on public roads. If you wanted to use the car somewhere else, e.g. a racing circuit, there might be very different rules related to driving it.

This is a silly ruling

[c6gunner]

I think the judge is a fool, especially considering the size of the "compensation" (realistically, an OEM install of windows only costs the consumer something like $50). But before you mod me flamebait, hear me out!

I've already heard the argument that "PC's without Windows installed aren't common" so the consumer has no choice but to buy one with windows. Let's pretend that "build your own" isn't an option. My question is, why is Windows special in this regard? Have you ever tried to buy a computer without a CD drive? How about one without a power supply? If Dell refuses to sell me a computer without those two items, should I have the right to sue them for a partial refund? Where do you draw the line?

Re:This is a silly ruling

[value_added]

Let's pretend that "build your own" isn't an option.

Ok.

Have you ever tried to buy a computer without a CD drive? How about one without a power supply? If Dell refuses to sell me a computer without those two items, should I have the right to sue them for a partial refund? Where do you draw the line?

Simple. Hardware isn't software.

Confusing the two, citing personal habits or preferences, bemoaning the state of the retail market or the business practises of large retailers, making generalised comments about the perceptions of the average user, or otherwise succumbing to the undue pressures of monopoly influence, won't now or in the future make "one thing" from "two separate" things.

As a side note, if you want a computer without a CD drive (I have several here at home), I'd suggest getting out more. Dell may be a large retailer/assembler, but the computer market is a lot bigger than you think, as are your choices.

Re:This is a silly ruling

[flyingfsck]

Hmm, before calling a judge a fool, maybe you should read the law. Then you should carry on and read Plato's The Republic, Machiavelli's The Prince and Rosseau's The Social Contract. By then, you'll have some rough idea of what is going on here.

Re:This is a silly ruling

[c6gunner]

Hmm, before calling a judge a fool, maybe you should read the law. Then you should carry on and read Plato's The Republic, Machiavelli's The Prince and Rosseau's The Social Contract. By then, you'll have some rough idea of what is going on here.

Thank you, sir, for your helpful and timely response. You have made the entire matter much clearer. I only wish that other commenters on slashdot were as helpful as you are. I shall aspire to follow your example, and one day become an edumacated intermelectual such as yourself.

Re:This is a silly ruling

[c6gunner]

Simple. Hardware isn't software ... Confusing the two ... won't now or in the future make "one thing" from "two separate" things.

Are you saying that a CD drive and a CPU are the same thing???

While desktop printers might also fall into the "hardware" category, I'd be pretty pissed off if every manufacturer I contacted refused to sell me a computer without an accompanying printer. Therefore your categories are meaningless. If I have the right to refuse a bundled piece of software, I should also have the right to refuse a bundled piece of hardware - ANY hardware! Or I should have neither right, and should have only the option to purchase what the manufacturer offers. Either way, let's have a little friggin' consistency here, eh?

 

As a side note, if you want a computer without a CD drive (I have several here at home), I'd suggest getting out more. Dell may be a large retailer/assembler, but the computer market is a lot bigger than you think, as are your choices.

I'm quite aware of that - I also know several local retailers who will gladly sell me a computer without windows on it, and make a $40 discount on the price. Which is yet one more reason why I think this judgement is retarded.

Re:How does this make sense?

[mpe]

Car manufacturers would certainly not try to force you to buy a certain configuration. The car industry is a good example of "mass customization", that is, you buy a basic configuration which you then customize by adding different options. It is very strange that computers are sold with a forced to buy option, which not even adds to the functionality of the machine.

Especially considering that computers (even laptops) tend to be much more modular than cars. Also a larger HDD or more RAM may take up no more physical space. Whereas it would be tricky to increase the cargo or fuel capacity of a car.
It's not impossible to find suppliers where you alter any component of a computer, except the OS.

Re:How does this make sense?

[fbjon]

Worked well for whom? You, or Microsoft?

Re:French

[Pinckney]

And even when countries did switch sides, that said little about the bravery of their soldiers. Look at Finland, which was forced to sign an unfavorable armistice and later to fight with the Soviet Union, despite the amazing fight they put up.

I am an American

[tjstork]

they get history taught in college there.

Americans are taught History in college as well. In addition, the open American economy, free of censorship, (unlike Germany) gives us an excellent view of all sides of the war.

France was not "taken over" in both world war, only 1. The "great war" the trench/battle limit went back and forth north of France, but nobody took over France.

A good portion of France was actually taken over during World War I. Likely, if it had not been for the timely assistance of their British allies, Paris would not have survived the initial German advances of 1914, just as Paris did not escape the disaster of the previous Franco-Prussian war.

For the second war, what did you expect them ? To die like a single man ? Are you for real ? Are you for real ? You are aware that "die in honor" is an outdated previous century concept, and all modern commander would accept surrendering ?

The British were prepared to do exactly that, and if you had had some history yourself, you might have noticed the Russians did -exactly- that.

There was no cowardiness shown by france during WW2,

So why did they hang Petain then? See, that's the thing, is that DeGaulle did NOT want to surrender despite the initial German successes. At the time of the surrender, the French actually had suffered one huge disaster with an army in Belgium and was well on the way to losing Paris, but, a number of other French units were certainly available and a line of battle could have been drawn around perhaps Southern France.

I invite you to read, though, Lord Alan Brooke's accounts of the war. He describes in vivid detail the state of the French army prior to World War II and during its opening stages (the so-called "Phoney War"). He describes French morale as low, the soldiers didn't even shave, didn't keep their weapons properly cleaned, didn't have any sort of cohesive unit discipline and when they showed up on the battlefield, except for those units under DeGaulle and one or two French commanders, they quickly broke ranks and booked.

. Jeez and I bet you will be one of the first to complain that french give you the finger.

The French have been giving the USA the finger for 200 years ever since we stiffed them after they bailed us out in our Revolutionary War, and they will probably be giving us the finger for another 200 years. But as long as they keep the Chardonnay and pastries coming we will always love the French. If the French were actually nice, well, it would be the end of the world, I'm sure.

Uh, the Jews didn't surrender

[tjstork]

Indeed. Perhaps there should be a meme according to which the Jews are ridiculed for surrendering and letting themselves be herded off to camps, instead of nobly fighting to the death on their doorsteps as they ought to have? No, I didn't think so.

Actually, the Jews didn't surrender as much as they were lied to. In the one case where the Jews were aware of their fate, they actually did fight and die almost to a man before being herded off to concentration camps. Do read about the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, before you make that claim! Indeed, I think the Warsaw ghetto withstood the Nazi assault all by itself for longer than Paris.

The real reason we hear Americans (and only Americans) making these bigoted comments is because Jacques Chirac used the UN veto against an attack on Iraq, thus making the subsequent invasion a war crime under the Nuremberg Principles.

The UN didn't veto anything and the Nuremberg principals were about waging a war for the purposes of a genocide.

The fact that Chirac has now been proven quite right, with WMDs and suchlike now known to be a pack of lies, does not seem to embarrass the bigots at all.

Saddam Hussein admitted that he would have reconstituted his arms programs as soon as the sanctions were lifting. So, even though he may not have had no WMD, he had them before, and would have gotten them again.

Re:Uh, the Jews didn't surrender

[ChameleonDave]

Actually, the Jews didn't surrender as much as they were lied to. In the one case where the Jews were aware of their fate, they actually did fight and die almost to a man before being herded off to concentration camps. Do read about the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, before you make that claim! Indeed, I think the Warsaw ghetto withstood the Nazi assault all by itself for longer than Paris. You completely miss the point. I'm ridiculing the idea of someone claiming the Jews didn't struggle enough.

The UN didn't veto anything and the Nuremberg principals were about waging a war for the purposes of a genocide. The veto to which I refer is the one enjoyed by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Chirac used his veto to make it impossible for the invasion to get UN approval. Military action is only permissible under international law if (a) it is approved by the UN; or (b) it is in self-defence to a current or imminent threat (with no time to seek a UN resolution). The invasion was therefore illegal. Illegal invasion is known as "aggression", and is held to the ultimate warcrime, as it contains within it responsibility for all subsequent crimes during the war. The Nuremberg Principles are about prohibiting aggression. WWII was waged for lebensraum and German domination.

Saddam Hussein admitted that he would have reconstituted his arms programs as soon as the sanctions were lifting. So, even though he may not have had no WMD, he had them before, and would have gotten them again. Even Bush himself has stopped trying to claim this. He now admits there were no WMDs, and has shifted to blaming "bad intelligence".

Americans were pro-war

[tjstork]

Otherwise, I might as well state that all Americans are pro-war, and that they all wanted Afghanistan and Iraq to be bombarded.

Americans were pro-war in the immediate days after 9/11. Some polls taken just after the attacked suggested that the American people would have supported the use of nuclear weapons against the entire middle east by a margin of nearly 2-1. Viewed in that context, Bush's invasions of Aghanistan and Iraq were restrained compared to what the country was willing to support. Indeed, Democrats took a beating in the 2002 elections largely because of their perceived pacifist stance, and it was this beating that lead them to give Bush a legal blank check on Iraq.

Of course, now that the war is approaching a trillion dollars and 4500 lives in cost, Americans are not against it. But, had Bush immediately brought home the troops from Iraq and left them to flounder in self ruin, he would have been hailed as a conquering hero. Indeed, the popular undercurrent of anti-war support among the Democrats is that the Iraqi people are not worth helping because they are arabs, therefor, we should withdraw and let them kill each other, as it still works out pretty good for us.

Re:Americans were pro-war

[Mister Whirly]

This post is so misguided and full of utter bullshit it isn't even funny. I'd like to see any figures to back up the nuclear claim, that is pure fabrication. The war in Iraq has the LEAST amount of popular support now than it ever has, so your claim that "Americans are not against it" now are just ludicrous. And the Democrats aren't out to screw the Iraqis because they are "arabs". They are out to save American soldiers and to not have to be occupying Iraq for the next century (well, unless you back McCain's "100 year war" plan) pissing off all the other Middle Eastern nations. That and not encouraging any young Muslims to become extreme radicals bent on doing harm to America.
You sir, are either a republican mouthpiece out to badmouth the Democratic party, or a complete ignoramus who has no idea what is really going on in the US. (I would guess the latter.)

Re:Americans were pro-war

[tjstork]

This post is so misguided and full of utter bullshit it isn't even funny. I'd like to see any figures to back up the nuclear claim, that is pure fabrication.

No, actually, I think you've been reading too much "moveon".

The war in Iraq has the LEAST amount of popular support now than it ever has, so your claim that "Americans are not against it" now are just ludicrous

That was a typo. I meant to write "now" rather than "not".

And the Democrats aren't out to screw the Iraqis because they are "arabs".

Well, actually, yes they are. I mean, the whole argument against a nation building project in Iraq was that arabs are too screwd up to have a democracy. And now, the criticism of the occupation is essentially that, its not worth Americans to save arabs from themselves. Why else the "Iraqi government performance targets"? Militarily, Al Qaeda is defeated, and now the militias are being defeated, its really only the process of national reconciliation that's left to do.

(well, unless you back McCain's "100 year war" plan) pissing off all the other Middle Eastern nations

Ah, now a few distortions of your own! Fancy that. McCain's comments described a situation in Iraq similar to that in Europe. Now honestly, I think the USA should withdraw all troops from everywhere and let Europe and Asia fend for themselves militarily, but, there's plenty of liberals who would argue that we need to stay committed to the defense of So. Korea and Europe in the interests of non-proliferation. Where do you stand?

That and not encouraging any young Muslims to become extreme radicals bent on doing harm to America.

Ah, appeasement. You know, if, after a decade of trying to make the Arabs happy, via saving muslims in Kosovo, working to a Palestian state, saving earthquake victims in Iran, gives us arabs happy enough to give us the USS Cole, the first WTC bombing, then 9/11, then, I'm not sure I really even care about whether or not they are happy any more. With that said, I would point out that right now, with oil prices at $120/bbl, the arabs ought to be pretty happy, and if you go and put Obama in, and he jacks up the dollar to drive down the price of oil, not only will he screw his own environmentalist followers, but he'll also condemn millions of arabs to poverty where right now they are becoming middle class. You tell me what will pisses them off more? If I was an Arab, I'd think Bush should be a Saint.

You sir, are either a republican mouthpiece out to badmouth the Democratic party, or a complete ignoramus who has no idea what is really going on in the US. (I would guess the latter.)

There's no need to badmouth the Democratic Party! They are the party for uniting every American except for that small smattering of people that work for oil companies, coal mines, and car companies, make over $100,000 a year, own guns or go to church.

Re:French

[BlueTrin]

You would still be British if it wasn't for the French :p

Re:If you don't like the bundle

[Hockney Twang]

What's funny to me is that, in the U.S., this is also considered a right by law. In fact, the most basic assumption of our law is that you have all rights unless they're explicitly forbidden to you. So I do have the right to buy a computer not bundled with Windows XP. And I have the right to buy a computer drizzled in chocolate syrup (should anyone decide to sell one). And I have the right to buy any number of plants (except those expressly forbidden by law). If I buy something, and determine that what I purchased wasn't what I really paid for, I have the right to demand a refund. And the company has a right to refuse. Then I have the right to take them to court. If our court system works for me, then I get the same result found here.

A lot of U.S. citizens don't seem to understand the basic concept of how our law is supposed to work.

Re:How does this make sense?

[aim2future]

It's not impossible to find suppliers where you alter any component of a computer, except the OS.

Here is one Swedish site where you can modify most things, also decide with OS (Vista) or without OS "Inget operativsystem". I wish there were more sites like this. In this case one can see that Vista Ultimate adds 2110 SEK (350 USD) to the price.

One challenge this summer will be to try to buy a Motion Computing LE1700 without OS. Any hints? I've just written to MS support and a Motion Computing retailer to see what they suggest.

Re:French

[bob.appleyard]

100 years war?

Re:French

[tjstork]

You do realize of course that if it were not for France the United States would exist and most likely you would be part of Canada.

Hey, the French chopped off the head of the guy that saved the USA. What more do you need?

Re:French

[BlueTrin]

If you learnt history, you would also see that nobody in the US moved until they got attacked. That is why the US have no real allies and most of the countries consider the US untrustworthy. Just look at the Iraq mess, nice coalition ...

Re:How does this make sense?

[Weedlekin]

"Much like you only have to agree to the Windows EULA if you choose to turn the PC on"

You don't need a third party agreement to start and drive the motor vehicle itself. The EULA governs _where_ you can drive it, not _whether_ you can do so.

"and even then, only if you choose to continue using Windows."

But you have to pay for Windows even if you won't be using it. This isn't the case with motor vehicles because driving licenses, insurance, road use taxes etc. are sold by third parties separately from the vehicles themselves, so you don't pay for them if you aren't intending to drive on public roads.

Re:French

[Mikkeles]

So the French really screwed them royally!

It never ends, does it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans may be laughing at the French, but what many of them fail to realize is that the rest of the world is laughing at them; many of us are just too polite to say anything.

I have triple citizenship (Canada, US, Holland), but identify primarily as Canadian, having spent the vast majority of my life in Canada. In light of this, I get the brilliant combination of feeling irritated at the endless Canadian jokes on slashdot (due to completely unjustified South Park references with no basis in reality) and the shame of seeing how my fellow Americans act towards other cultures.

Yeah, you might think your unjustified jabs at other countries are funny, and perhaps they were the first few times, but now they're getting very, very old.

Re:It never ends, does it?

[easyTree]

(Score:0, Flamebait)

Guilty as charged.

Woa, I just read about 200 posts on history of WW1 and 2 and how bush sucks then flipped to page 2 - this post is about microsoft!

Re:It never ends, does it?

[crbowman]

Having lived in Europe let me assure you that Europeans also make unjustified jabs at Americans, sumg in the realization that they must surely be superior. These jabs get old no less quickly in Europe.

Re:French

[dajak]

As we are splitting hairs here: Actually only the Dutch military in the continental Netherlands surrendered. Not only was the government relocated to London, the navy and military units in the colonies (notably the Netherlands East Indies) did not surrender to the Germans.

The Dutch stopped playing a notable military role in the spring of 1942 when their navy was nearly annihilated in the Battle of the Java Sea by the Japanese and the Netherlands East Indies was occupied.

After that, the Dutch contribution to the Allied war effort only consisted of Surinamian bauxite for the US aircraft industry and the oil refineries in the Netherlands Antilles. Besides that they made a small token contribution in the form of the Princess Irene Brigade in the liberation of Western Europe.

Re:French

[soliptic]

Not really. Once I could grant you, but the second time around all serious historians would agree it was the Eastern front which overall defeated the Germans.

re: MS defeated the British?

[King_TJ]

Sure.... depending on who you play in a game of Age of Empires....

Re:French

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

What surprises me is that the French got labelled as surrender-happy, when Norway, Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg all did the same thing...

Most Americans don't even know where those countries are, especially the Americans who find these jokes funny. France is the one with the Eiffel tower. You see it in movies, hence they can relate and hence it can be funny.

...not to mention the Italians which switched sides in both world wars to avoid being the losing side.

Italy is where pizza comes from, right? Seriously, there were jokes about Italy being a country of cowards for many, many years, but in recent years France is more prominent in the world stage and more critical of and opposed to the US, so it makes for a better target (and is more useful for politicians to criticize).

French would be speaking russian...

[Nomaxxx]

Realistically, it was once, and it wasn't from the Germans, it was from the Communists who would certainly have taken over France when the Russians had defeated the Germans and had the western Allies not invaded Western Europe. Russia was always going to beat Germany no matter what the Americans or British did, so really the latter saved Western Europe from Soviet domination. Pity they were too late for Eastern Europe. That's so true! Interesting how most people aren't aware of the facts... I often read the comment "Frenchies would be speaking german without the USA.". In fact, French would be speaking russian. Anyway, it shows the education level of people posting such comments. Why do some american people really feel the need to post stupid (bashing) comments when they see the word "french" on a webpage (same applies to Youtube). It shows a bad image of other (clever) americans because of generalization. Result today is that we're commenting on an old war in a Windows tie-in ruling. Which is a great achievement. Please people, think twice before posting! Country bashing is stupid and pointless, we are all human being (well, most of us ;-). Each country is different with a different culture, we can make fun of it. But it's not funny anymore when it's uneducated and bad intentioned.

Re:French

[damburger]

Wrong. Studies have shown social mobility is lower in the US than in most western European countries. Creating massive barriers to the poor leading healthy and well educated lives kind of makes it hard for them to succeed in life....

Re:French

[canajin56]

Napoleon, according to many accounts, was something like 5'7", which was above average at the time. He was depicted as 4' even, or smaller, by the British propagandists, who wrote he was tiny and angry with the world for being so tiny... Some confusion may arrise from some French reports that he was about 5'2", but the French inch was longer than the Imperial inch at the time, and 5'2" in french inches worked out to 5'7" Imperial. The only dispute is that his autopsy indicated he was 5'2", and was conducted in British territory. Brits argue that therefore, he was 5'2" and ALL of the previous reports and accounts were false. Other historians note that while he was in British territory, the report was completed by his French physician, who probably measured him in French inches. Since that agrees with the dozens of other acounts putting him at or about 5'7", it seems the more reasonable explanation.

Re:French

[canajin56]

It's not free, it's just non-discriminatory, and SOME but not all provinces provide it free of charge. In BC it isn't free, it costs $54 / month. You can get a discout, possibly all the way to $0, if you make under something like $20,000 a year.

No extra effort to leave something out

[flyingfsck]

Manufacturers install Windows by cloning hard disks. It requires no extra effort to install a blank HDD. Also, they don't need an OS to test the system. That can be done using a USB memory stick, a CD, or netboot.

Re:French

[dajak]

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.

Re:French

[MBGMorden]

americans are loud mouths, who have no idea about anything outside their own country. Not all of us. As with all large groups, Americans are not some huge homogeneous mixture of views and ideas.

That said (going with Europe since Europe seems to be the chosen "enemy" in this little discussion), our country is darned near as big as the entire continent of Europe. Our individual states are the size of many countries there. International travel isn't going to be as common - we can travel all over and see all sorts of different cultures, ideals, and geographic features within our own country. As far as variations and ideas, and regional politics, your average American has a lot more to keep track of to follow only "their own country" compared to most citizens of European nations.

Trust me, for all the animosity you might think we harbor towards you guys, most Americans don't really care one way or another, and we pick on ourselves much more. Heck just watch and wait until a story about a Southern US state pops up. You'll see countless (just as stereotyped and unwarranted) jokes about incest or the IQ of people in that state.

Re:French

[canadian_right]

Fix It Again Tony was what we used locally.

Re:French

[ozgood]

You just call yourselves lucky? yeah lucky that we came in and saved your asses. geez...

Re:French

[orasio]

Australian players don't even know what football is about.
Here's to the champion. (IANAI, but I'm South American, and know how to difference good football from soulless football)

Re:French

[superswede]

Australian players don't even know what football is about. Here's to the champion. (IANAI, but I'm South American, and know how to difference good football from soulless football) Hey, just make sure you don't mix up your feelings about the Socceroos with the Aussie cricket players (congratulations on the last years rugby result though). After following their qualification for WorldCup 2006, I must say the Aussies plays great football now a days and should have at least made it to the semis, if it wasn't for...

Re:How does this make sense?

[bwchato]

over here i build my own computers and don't worry about all the legal crap

Re:French

[Poltras]

I can't listen to that much Wagner. I start getting the urge to conquer Poland.

A quote from Jack Kennedy

[tjstork]

"we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.â

I guess in Iraq, its too high, huh?

Re:French

[catman]

Check out also Battles_of_Narvik on Wikipedia. Combined British, French, Polish, and Norwegian forces won the first victory of WWII against the Wehrmacht there. We still honor every year those who fought with us and for us.

Re:How does this make sense?

[Teun]

You miss the point entirely.

Nothing stops you selling off the bits you mentioned but you can't (according to MS) sell the OEM Microsoft licence.

That's one hell of a difference!

Re:How does this make sense?

[DamienNightbane]

Nobody is forcing you to use any Microsoft products, and there are always other ISPs out there. You might not like the options given to you, but nobody ever said that life was fair.

Re:French

[el americano]

Is this the end of the France bashing/WWI&II recap?! The MS bashing doesn't start until page 3? Unbelievable!

Re:How does this make sense?

[DamienNightbane]

Why do companies need to offer two options? This is business, not charity. If you don't like the options that a company is offering, look elsewhere.

Re:How does this make sense?

[DamienNightbane]

It's worked just fine for me. I built my own computer, and then bought a copy of Windows and installed it after toying with Mandrake for a while. I didn't have to get Windows, I chose to get Windows because the functionality of Windows suits my needs. If I wanted to use Linux or OS/2 I could have easily done that because I didn't rely on a business to offer something to me when I could get the job done just as well by showing some initiative and doing it myself. tl;dr Build your own box if you don't like MS.

Can YOU buy it for $30?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

I don't know that I have anything solid to base this on, but I've always guessed that the real cost per copy that larger systems makers have to pass on to Microsoft is more in the $30 range.

That may be the cost to the manufacturer. But what's the cost to the consumer? How do you KNOW that's all the cost that the Microsoft software added to your computer?

As another poster (talking about HIS attempts to get a refund from a US manufacturer - at the stage where they said "OK, but it's only $30" or whatever) said (approximately): "Windows only costs $30? Good! I want a hundred licenses for starters. Tell me where to send the $3,000." Needless to say the manufacturer didn't go along with that.

In the absence of both information about the actual prices paid (a trade secret) and any other valuable considerations given to Microsoft by the manufacturer, a court has no reasonable basis to use to determine the price other than the retail price at which the item trades. And because the decision is AGAINST the manufacturer, it's not appropriate to let the losing defendant pick an arbitrarily lower figure with no publicly available evidence to support it.

This may actually help Asus

[glacote02]

That's the most important point. PC OEM are not necessarily happy that said Convicted Monopolist has that much market power. That it can dictate they sell only its products. Making the overall product more expensive. It matters especially as Asus is really a "Linux Good Citizen", with Linux embedded into motherboard and mass-market Linux latops (eee). Now Asus can say: we tried everything we could to do as you dictated us to do, but you see, it's just the law. This is huge.

Re:French

[bursch-X]

No I make the same observation about Australians, Canadians and Brits here in Japan. Most of my French or German friends have impressive Japanese proficiency. Most of them even read, some can even write Japanese.

I'm German so I can also talk about foreigners in Germany. Considering that German is far more complicated than English I still find it amazing that most of the foreigners can speak as much German as they do there. But this is also due to the fact, that Germans just expect people to speak the local language if they decide to live in this country for more than a few years.

From the many English native speakers in Japan I know there are only a handful who can actually read, write and speak Japanese at a level that would be acceptable for an adult. The rest seem to have learned the little Japanese they know at Roppongi or some Playground elsewhere.

Re:French

[Swampash]

Please. Hessians only made up about one quarter of British Army forces in North America during the Revolution.

Re:How does this make sense?

[oracle128]

Please see reply here

Re:How does this make sense?

[oracle128]

But you have to pay for Windows even if you won't be using it. No, you don't. You just have to shop at a different store for a PC without a bundled OS. No one's forcing you to that specific product from that specific store. That's the whole point of the PC being open architecture.

This isn't the case with motor vehicles because driving licenses, insurance, road use taxes etc. are sold by third parties separately from the vehicles themselves, so you don't pay for them if you aren't intending to drive on public roads. Except for the times when they're bundled with the product for a cheaper price, which is generally considered a positive selling point, and is fairly common here (except for the licence of course). There's also no way to "unregister" your vehicle should you choose not to want to use it on public roads. If you don't want the bundle, you ask, if they don't provide, you shop elsewhere. I'm also wondering how you plan to get the car home without a licence, insurance, registration...and even if you do, why you would be buying a car in the first place. Expensive paperweight?

And, part of your tax goes to road maintenance. You don't get that back either even if you don't own a car.

Re:French

[jcr]

That would be the eastern front which was kept alive by US war material supplies.

-jcr

Re:French

[bandersnatch]

I've been living in Japan for 12 years now, and it's really amazing how perseveringly most English native speakers manage not to learn the local language beyond the level of a 4-year-old. It's amazing. I too have lived in Japan for a similar length of time and have found the same lack of willingness to learn the language from time to time. However, I am not really amazed as whenever I head back to the States, I have noticed that most can't speak any language beyond the level of a 4-year-old so...

Re: Welcome French People

[Douglas Goodall]

I for one am just happy to see consumers in other countries picking up the crusade against the Evil monopolistic software company that manages to get their uninspired software pre-loaded on the majority of hardware systems despite a growing number of factors.

I welcome our anti-XP French overlords (with lasers on their soviet foreheads), especially those that aren't surrendering to Microsoft. Instead of MS looking at the world as just so many more countries that they can ship their garbage off to, they should be made to see that the ability to localize their product and sell it in other countries is not a right.

I am not sure which will come first, the day of Microsoft's karma, or the second coming of Christ. Either will probably do the job. "Gee Bill, What have you done for humanity to make up for that lousy software we cannot get working even here in Heaven?"

Re:How does this make sense?

[Zironic]

The idea in Europe being that the state will force the companies to be fair regardless if they want it or not.

Re:How does this make sense?

[Weedlekin]

"No, you don't. You just have to shop at a different store for a PC without a bundled OS."

This is an option in some countries, but not all of them.

"No one's forcing you to that specific product from that specific store."

They are in many parts of the world, because nobody apart from Apple (and Macs aren't always easy to find) sells computers without Windows on them in stores where customers can try before buying.

"Except for the times when they're bundled with the product for a cheaper price, which is generally considered a positive selling point, and is fairly common here (except for the licence of course)."

The cases where they're bundled with (for example) insurance offer the option of not having it for those who prefer to make their own arrangements.

"There's also no way to "unregister" your vehicle should you choose not to want to use it on public roads."

Most countries allow you to unregister by stating that the vehicle will no longer be driven or parked on public highways, and insurance companies refund the unused portion of a premium (at least where I live) if you change companies or otherwise tell them that you don't want their cover anymore.

"I'm also wondering how you plan to get the car home without a licence, insurance, registration"

The same way people have always transported vehicles that aren't licensed for (or are profoundly unsuitable for) public roads, i.e. by towing them on a wheeled platform.

"and even if you do, why you would be buying a car in the first place. Expensive paperweight? "

For teaching advanced driving on skid pans and simulated streets on private land; or racing on specialist circuits; or in the case of cars with an off-road capability, driving around what may be extensive areas of non-road or roads that don't count as public highways (depending of course on where one lives). That's three uses off the top of my head, but there are plenty of others.

"And, part of your tax goes to road maintenance. You don't get that back either even if you don't own a car."

There's nothing to get back if the vehicle doesn't use public roads, because that particular tax wasn't paid in the first place. Note also that one can legally use subsidised agricultural and heating fuels in countries where such subsidies exist, thus avoiding the need to pay yet another tax.

Re:How does this make sense?

[BrentH]

It's only business (in the sense that you mean it) if you allow it to be. There's no actual reason why we the people should allow megacorps to get away with stuff we actually do not really want. Looking elsewhere is exactly to problem with these megacorps, because that's getting harder and harder.

Re:How does this make sense?

[Darby]

To me this feels like she bought a car with power windows and AC then went back to the place that sold her the vehicle and forced them to take out the parts.

Bad analogy. To make it fit, after you drive the car off of the lot, the airbag has to pop out with a sign attached saying "If you don't want the power windows and AC then return them to the place of purchase for a full refund".

Add in the idea that your unwanted parts are actually still owned by the company that manufactured them and both they and your dealer refuse flat out to make good on their written word which was sprung on you after the fact.

Do you see how that makes it a completely different thing?

Re:How does this make sense?

[DamienNightbane]

Then it would seem that the fifty years that we spent saving Europe from communism was for naught.

Metaphores 'R Us

[SimCash]

So, if I buy my new Beemer, and decide I don't want those fancy Pirellis that the manu. thought I needed, and I put on some "Hotspeeder 501s" cause I know I can make that Beemer dance on two wheels if I just have the right tread, am I supposed to get full bucks back on those "other tires"? No, I suppose I should be able to go to the dealer and ask for the car without tires, which costs the dealer more than selling me the car with tires that I have to dump. Unlike tires, though, used OSs are a dime a dozen and so I suppose the rebate is a reasonable way to reduce the pain. But on the other hand, most customers just want to get in, turn the key and be killed 50 klics down the road when the tires fail.

Note: no offense meant to Beemers, Beemer owners, their affiliates or their lawyers. Send flames to /dev/nul/marshmallows-on-a-weiner-stick.

Re:French

[dwye]

> So, how did Italy switch sides in the First World War?

Wikipedia was not complete. Italy WAS a member of the alliance that we call the Central Powers, but refused to honor their treaty obligations when the Russians started their mobilization against Austria-Hungary and Germany. They sat out the first few months, then joined in with the other side to get "their" slice of Austrian territories. As I recall, what little that they gained was mostly lost to Yugoslavia at the end of WWII.

Re:French

[bursch-X]

I've always heard that English is one of the hardest languages to learn. I can't point to any facts to back that up, so I am willing to accept that it is probably just another one of those myths that get passed around. Sorry, but I'll have to take your comment about the German language in similar fashion. Well if you consider that English is a Germanic language, but has lost most of the really fucked up intricacies of Germanic languages like German, you can rest assured it is easier than German.

What makes English somewhat complicated is the huge influence the Normans had (and the Latin/French vocabulary and spellings they brought in). So only when it comes to pronunciation and reading, English is harder than German, because there is no consistency whatsoever between the written letters and how you read them. The same vowel sequence might be pronounced totally differently in a different word (e.g. doubt, tough, brought - "ou" is pronounced differently for each word).

Now if you look at the rest, it's basically that English has lost most of the complicated grammar parts that most Germanic languages still have to carry around. Conjugation of verbs in English almost gone, in German conjugating verbs has them change vowels in the middle of the words. Same with plurals, there are so many ways of building plurals for nouns it's not funny anymore in German.

Then you have three genders for nouns (there's single rule to distinguish the genders of nouns, you just have to know them, actually) which then influences the article (der, die, das) which again will change dependent on the case of the noun (you don't have any of that in English anymore). Adjectives also follow the gender and the case of the noun and change accordingly...

Look at the number of irregular verbs. You might have about 4-5 pages of irregular verbs in an English dictionary, in a German one you'll have about 12-14 pages of them.

I could go on for hours, but you get the gist. English is a medium difficult language I'd say. It's definitely harder than spoken Japanese, at least at a basic level (when you get into politeness levels Japanese can get quite tricky).

Re:French

[dwye]

What surprises me is that the French got labelled as surrender-happy, when Norway, Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg all did the same thing...

Most Americans don't even know where those countries are,

Of course, they do. Norway is, with Sweden, where (the {great}*grandparents of) everyone from the Dakotas, Wisconsin, or Minnesota came from. The Netherlands is where all the old New York families came from, and were our first ally in the Revolution and in WWII (a Dutch ship started shooting the Zeroes at Pearl Harbor before the US Navy had their guns cleared for action). Belgium is where the waffles come from, and Luxembourg is the extra credit answer that they missed in HS Geography.

The difference is that Norway hasn't made noises about their military prowess since the end of the Viking Age, The Netherlands since the time of William of William and Mary fame, and Belgium and Luxembourg have never made any claims about their "glorie" (or however the French spell it).

Italy is where pizza comes from, right?

Actually, most pizza shops make it American-style, now, even in Italy. So, New Jersey is where pizza come from. :-)

Second City Television (a Saturday Night Live-like series from the comedy troupes where NBC got the original SNL players) had a fake war movie that followed the Italians as they planned and executed their masterstroke in WWII, surrendering in such vast numbers that the US invasion was completely halted, diverted into trying to deal with the millions of new POWs. No one but Bennie The Moose ever seriously claimed that Italians were great warriors, though.

Re:French

[dwye]

> to a Noam Chomsky kind of mind (Yes I know he's Jewish)

So? There are more Jews within 50 miles of NYC than in all of Israel, and about as many in the rest of the country. Almost like the Irish and Boston. Your "Yes I know he's Jewish" is about like "Yes, I know he's left-handed" in terms of relevance (at least here). Almost completely orthogonal.

> The French are nice,

No, the stereotype is rude (although I am told that is the Parisians giving the rest a bad name).

> They women are just neat, good food, good movies.

Nice exchange student, in my senior year of high school, but never met many others. The food is designed to give you a heart attack from the sauces (almost as bad as German, that way). Crappy movies, but all the naked chicks makes it worth watching some until you get a girl friend, who then will naturally object.

Re:How does this make sense?

[dwye]

> There is a fundamental difference here that nobody seems to notice:
> hardware is a good, software is a service.

Software is a service only if customized to the purchaser. Given that MS stamps out more identical copies of XP than Asus makes boxes, Windows XP is goods, too. You are buying the compiled machine code version, not an English language version that someone claims can, in the right environment, produce the image after hours of recompilation.

To use the stupid car analogy, she bought a Chysler, but didn't want the Mitsubishi engine, but an after-market replacement. While you can exercise a Delete Option on the car radio, even if standard, I do not think that you can for the engine. In any case, expecting that shipping the car back to the Chysler factory and then back wouldn't cost more than the Mitsubishi Tax (especially as Chysler pays super wholesale, not retail, let alone auto-parts store prices) is a bit naive, too. She might have had a case if she insisted before taking delivery that the engine be ordered as deleted, but she seems to have taken the car then took it back to have the negine removed, and that she receive as much back as if she had bought the engine piece by piece at the local Advance Auto.

Re:French

[dwye]

> they'd also notice that France actually totally
> kicked the Western World's ass lead by a tiny Corsican.

Don't tell the British.

Or the Haitians, for that matter.

Anyway, Napoleone Buonoparte was Italian. :-) And not THAT short, either. Peasant short, not Mini-me short.

Re:How does this make sense?

[oracle128]

This is an option in some countries, but not all of them. So you're telling me, there are no computer stores in France that sell PCs or PC components that don't come bundled with Windows?

They are in many parts of the world, because nobody apart from Apple (and Macs aren't always easy to find) sells computers without Windows on them in stores where customers can try before buying. But not in France. Maybe there's only one computer store in Elbonia, and maybe they only sell PCs bundled with Windows. What's that got to do with France? Customers are free to try the computer with Windows, then build their own PC without Windows. They are also free to not buy a PC at all. But then you'll probably complain that they don't sell graphics cards without the firmware bundled, or DVDs without the bundled packaging. What if I want to store the disc in a CD wallet? You mean I'm forced to pay for the packaging too? The horror!

The cases where they're bundled with (for example) insurance offer the option of not having it for those who prefer to make their own arrangements. Which is kind of like how they have the option not to buy a Windows-bundled PC?

Most countries allow you to unregister by stating that the vehicle will no longer be driven or parked on public highways, and insurance companies refund the unused portion of a premium (at least where I live) if you change companies or otherwise tell them that you don't want their cover anymore. And this is possible in France? (source, please)

The same way people have always transported vehicles that aren't licensed for (or are profoundly unsuitable for) public roads, i.e. by towing them on a wheeled platform. Which requires some form of payment unless you own the tow truck (which needs to be registered) and fuel is free. And you're back to square one.

For teaching advanced driving on skid pans and simulated streets on private land; or racing on specialist circuits; or in the case of cars with an off-road capability, driving around what may be extensive areas of non-road or roads that don't count as public highways (depending of course on where one lives) All of which require registration in France.

There's nothing to get back if the vehicle doesn't use public roads, because that particular tax wasn't paid in the first place. Note also that one can legally use subsidised agricultural and heating fuels in countries where such subsidies exist, thus avoiding the need to pay yet another tax. Uhh, what? If you pay taxes, you pay for road maintenance, end of story. Regardless of whether you use the roads at all. Irrespective of what refunds you may or may not get from using alternative fuels, which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Re:How does this make sense?

[Weedlekin]

"So you're telling me, there are no computer stores in France that sell PCs or PC components that don't come bundled with Windows?"

I will go further, and tell you that it's impossible to buy a laptop with the features that an arbitrary customer may want _anywhere_ that doesn't come with Windows unless they're a corporate volume buyer (NB: not being made by Apple could well be a feature that's important to some customers).

"Which is kind of like how they have the option not to buy a Windows-bundled PC?"

It's absolutely nothing like it, because you can buy the car _from that dealer_ with or without the bundled insurance if you wish. So it's actually like going to a store that sells computers, and being able to buy (for example) a Sony Viaio with or without Windows.

"And this is possible in France?"

Private vehicles under 3.5 tons don't pay road tax in France anymore, so there's nothing to refund:

http://www.justlanded.com/english/France/Tools/Articles/Travel-Leisure/Information-and-useful-tips

"Which requires some form of payment unless you own the tow truck (which needs to be registered) and fuel is free. And you're back to square one."

Most sellers of small vehicles such as cars and motorcycles will deliver them without charging anything if the buyer's within a reasonable distance of the seller, so you're not back to square 1 at all.

"All of which require registration in France."

Vehicles that don't go on public roads do not require any form of registration in France (i.e. no number plate is needed); vehicles that don't go on public roads can be driven without a license in France; it's not illegal to drive vehicles that aren't on public roads while drunk in France; and the mandatory French periodic road worthiness inspections aren't required for vehicles that don't use public roads.

"Uhh, what? If you pay taxes, you pay for road maintenance, end of story."

Balderdash. If you actually knew anything about French law instead of blathering, you would also know that (a) there's no road tax at all for the majority of domestic vehicles; and (b) vehicles that don't use roads are not required to pay for maintaining them. Owners of such vehicles have never been required to pay any road taxes on them, either when were bought, or subsequently.

"Irrespective of what refunds you may or may not get from using alternative fuels, which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand."

I didn't say they got refunds from using alternative fuels, but that they don't have to pay the taxes that are levied on fuels for vehicles that use public roads, which cannot legally run on anything that hasn't had those taxes paid on it. And it has everything to do with the topic at hand, i.e. vehicle taxes in France (of which the fuel tax is one), and your utter misunderstanding of what they are and how they're applied.

Re:How does this make sense?

[oracle128]

I will go further, and tell you that it's impossible to buy a laptop with the features that an arbitrary customer may want _anywhere_ that doesn't come with Windows unless they're a corporate volume buyer (NB: not being made by Apple could well be a feature that's important to some customers). The customer in the story bought a desktop, not a laptop.

It's absolutely nothing like it, because you can buy the car _from that dealer_ with or without the bundled insurance if you wish. So it's actually like going to a store that sells computers, and being able to buy (for example) a Sony Viaio with or without Windows. So you have to go to another store. Or, god forbid, you should turn to an online store and save time and money in the process. Has somebody told the UN about these poor oppressed French?

Most sellers of small vehicles such as cars and motorcycles will deliver them without charging anything if the buyer's within a reasonable distance of the seller, so you're not back to square 1 at all. Great, so now not only are you discriminated against for not wanting to personally drive the vehicle, but now you're discriminated against for living in a different suburb.

Vehicles that don't go on public roads do not require any form of registration in France (i.e. no number plate is needed); vehicles that don't go on public roads can be driven without a license in France; it's not illegal to drive vehicles that aren't on public roads while drunk in France; and the mandatory French periodic road worthiness inspections aren't required for vehicles that don't use public roads. Yes, but you need licence and registration if a) You are a driving instructor of any kind b) You are a sporting driver of any kind c) You intend to drive on ANY public carriage way (not just "public highways" - believe it or not, France != USA)

Balderdash. If you actually knew anything about French law instead of blathering, you would also know that (a) there's no road tax at all for the majority of domestic vehicles; and (b) vehicles that don't use roads are not required to pay for maintaining them. You're perhaps talking about Vignette, which is commonly referred to as "road tax". For 50 years it required ALL car owners (not just drivers) to pay. Now it just applies to businesses. Otherwise there is no such "road tax", only personal income tax (IRPP) which is used, among other things, for road maintenance. As are the council rates, taxe fonciere.

I didn't say they got refunds from using alternative fuels, but that they don't have to pay the taxes that are levied on fuels for vehicles that use public roads, which cannot legally run on anything that hasn't had those taxes paid on it. And it has everything to do with the topic at hand, i.e. vehicle taxes in France (of which the fuel tax is one), and your utter misunderstanding of what they are and how they're applied. Yes, if it weren't for those darned income taxes and council rates, you might have a point. I also find it amusing that you consider having to go to another computer store to be a violation of one's rights, but being forced to use alternative fuels in order to avoid fuel tax is ok?

Re:How does this make sense?

[Weedlekin]

"The customer in the story bought a desktop, not a laptop."

I fail to see that this makes any objective difference. Why should people be forced to accept something from a small, possibly fly-by-night outfit or have to build their own machines? What the hell happened to the old retail adage about the customer always being right?

"So you have to go to another store. Or, god forbid, you should turn to an online store and save time and money in the process."

French law doesn't agree, and as is the case with the traffic laws you continuously misquote, they decide what laws apply in their country, not you or Microsoft.

"Has somebody told the UN about these poor oppressed French?"

The French seem to be managing to protect their consumers from the depradations of monopolists without any help from the UN. The same cannot however be said for the US.

"Great, so now not only are you discriminated against for not wanting to personally drive the vehicle, but now you're discriminated against for living in a different suburb."

If this is the best answer you can come up with, then I fail to see why you bother to keep on with this increasingly sad attempt to justify condemning France for not worshipping at the altar of the holy corporate overlord.

"you need licence and registration if a) You are a driving instructor of any kind"

The registration is for the instructor, not the vehicle or its owner (who does not need to be the same person who drives that vehicle).

"You are a sporting driver of any kind"

See above.

"You intend to drive on ANY public carriage way (not just "public highways" - believe it or not, France != USA)"

That's why I referred to public roads rather than highways in my posts -- carriageways are deemed to be public roads in France.

NB: I am not in the US, am not an American, and have never lived in or visited the US.

"You're perhaps talking about Vignette, which is commonly referred to as "road tax". For 50 years it required ALL car owners (not just drivers) to pay. Now it just applies to businesses."

It also applies to some campers, and any vehicle over 3.5 metric tons. Unless of course you don't drive them on public roads.

"Otherwise there is no such "road tax", only personal income tax (IRPP) which is used, among other things, for road maintenance. As are the council rates, taxe fonciere."

None of which are levied on vehicles, and none of which can be remotely described as a road tax. The fact that you even bother to raise them is therefore an indication of your increasingly desperate attempts to pretend that there is any parallel whatsoever between cars in France and the French being forced to pay Microsoft when buying a computer Microsoft didn't make, and which is capable of being used without requiring anything from Microsoft.

Re:French

[Schmorgluck]

As a French who learnt German in school (and forgot most of it - I'm currently struggling to recover my former knowledge of it), I'd say it's a complex language, but it's very consistant. There may be many irregular verbs, but most of them can be grouped in a small number of categories that follow the same conjugasons - to the point it's questionable that they really can be called irregular at all. I've never had a really hard time with German grammar (more with assimilating the vocabulary), for it holds very few traps.

Re:How does this make sense?

[oracle128]

Well, it seems you'd rather make up points to nitpick, than actually follow an analogy the way it's intended. Obviously, with ridiculous notions such as "None of which are levied on vehicles, and none of which can be remotely described as a road tax", which has nothing to do with the fact that the tax is used for road maintenance anyway. Hey, that's cool, I can totally dig the whole strawman thing. Here's a bunch of other analogies that you may want to nitpick at and ignore the forrest for the trees with:
-Want a Big Mac with extra pickles? That'll be 50c extra. Want a Big Mac without any pickles? Sorry, no refund.
-Go to a car dealer. Ask to buy a new car. Say that you have your own, perfectly good tyres at home, and demand a refund on the new car's tyres. Do it without getting laughed out of the store.
-Try buying an NVIDIA graphics card without the firmware. Let alone getting a refund on the cost of the firmware.
-Do the above for routers/switches, sound cards, network cards, portable media players, mobile phones, gaming console, microwave/washing machine/dryer, TV/STB/DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray/Stereo, digital camera/camcorder...
-Ever hear the conundrum about hot dogs coming in packs of 10, but buns in packs of 8? Clearly, you should be able to take those 2 extra dogs back to the supermarket for a refund.
-Want a DVD/CD/Game/ANY DAMN CONSUMER PRODUCT without the packaging? Good luck getting this unbundled.
-I like Adobe Photoshop. But I really only use it for drawing basic shapes. I should get a refund because I don't want to use the other functionality, yes?
-My light bulbs are rated at 40W. But in my house they're attached to dimmers, and I keep them running at half strength. How/where do I apply for my 50% discount?
-In my country, our internet is charged primarily based on usage, in 99% of cases. So let's say I download a 4.7GB Knoppix ISO. But, I don't intend on using at least 80% of the apps/functionality it comes with. Where's my 'internet usage refund'?
-I pay Premiums for my insurance, even when I haven't made any claims. Surely I should get my Premium refunded? Don't even get me started on the concept of Excess! They're making me pay my insurance twice!
-I'm not sick, injured, pregnant or elderly; don't have children; don't drive/ride or own a vehicle; don't own property; am no longer being educated; don't use public transport; have never been the victim of a crime or suffered a fire; have never needed military defence; and have never even heard of half the countries my government sends aid to. Surely it is my right to claim refunds on at least 95% of the tax I pay, based on these conditions?

...aaaand Go!

Re:French

[bursch-X]

It is one of the more consisten ones (but you'd be wondering whether Japanese isn't an artificial language, once you see how regular the grammar is there).

I just find you can use very simple sentences in English without sounding like a 3-year-old or an idiot.

Try to do that in German--won't work. Unless you are capable of building complex sentences with relative clauses, sub-sentences--that's where some things get hairy, like zusammengesetzte Verben (whatever that is in English)--appositions, attributes, indirect speech and more, unless you have a quite thorough command of the language, your German will always sound very alien to the native ear.

Re:How does this make sense?

[Weedlekin]

"Well, it seems you'd rather make up points to nitpick, than actually follow an analogy the way it's intended. "

This is true, if by "nitpicking", you mean "not letting you get away with moving goal posts around in a vain attempt to pretend that just about every point you've been making was factually incorrect".

"Hey, that's cool, I can totally dig the whole strawman thing."

I know, because you've built several in your attempts to steer things away from having to admit that you were utterly wrong about French vehicle laws.

"Here's a bunch of other analogies that you may want to nitpick at and ignore the forrest for the trees with:"

Or, to put it another way, another bunch of straw men intended to steer things away from the fact that you were profoundly wrong about nearly everything you said:

""Want a Big Mac with extra pickles? That'll be 50c extra. Want a Big Mac without any pickles? Sorry, no refund".

Pickles are (a) part of a Big Mac's basic hardware, and (b) don't have a EULA that must be agreed to before eating them. They are therefore equivalent to buying a computer that comes with more RAM than you need, and the dealer refusing to buy the excess RAM off you.

"sk to buy a new car. Say that you have your own, perfectly good tyres at home, and demand a refund on the new car's tyres. Do it without getting laughed out of the store."

Another rubbish analogy, because you can legally sell the excess set of tyres, but you're not allowed to sell or otherwise transfer ownership of an _OEM copy_ of Windows that's excess to requirements.

"Try buying an NVIDIA graphics card without the firmware. Let alone getting a refund on the cost of the firmware."

More tripe, because (1) firmware is the equivalent of a PC's BIOS, not Windows; (2) it's written by the hardware manufacturer, again unlike Windows; (3) you're allowed to sell it along with the card it's on (can't legally do that with OEM versions of Windows); and (4) it's not sold separately in addition to being shipped with nVidia cards (Windows is).

"Do the above for routers/switches, sound cards, network cards, portable media players, mobile phones, gaming console, microwave/washing machine/dryer, TV/STB/DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-Ray/Stereo, digital camera/camcorder..."

See above.

"Ever hear the conundrum about hot dogs coming in packs of 10, but buns in packs of 8? Clearly, you should be able to take those 2 extra dogs back to the supermarket for a refund."

That's a US problem, and we already know that people in the US bend over and take it from their corporate overlords. in Europe, those countries that sell hot dog sausages have them in a variety of sizes and packs, and the same goes for bread rolls.

"Want a DVD/CD/Game/ANY DAMN CONSUMER PRODUCT without the packaging? Good luck getting this unbundled."

Only those who are addled would attempt to claim that there's any parallel between a physical item that protects its contents (or in the case of liquids, powders, and gases, contains them) and something that's non-physical, has a separate EULA, and instead of protecting or containing an item, makes it more vulnerable and fragile than the alternatives.

"I like Adobe Photoshop. But I really only use it for drawing basic shapes. I should get a refund because I don't want to use the other functionality, yes?"

Are you forced to buy Photoshop with virtually every name-brand PC? No. Do the French give people refunds for only using some of the functionality in Windows or Office? No. And that's why this is not only a straw man, but a pathetically obvious one.

"My light bulbs are rated at 40W. But in my house they're attached to dimmers, and I keep them running at half strength. How/where do I apply for my 50% discount?"

You've already had your discount in the form of 50% less electricity being used to drive said bulbs. Of course, I don't expect things like this to be apparent to someone who isn't capable of knowing the difference between an analogy and

Re:French

[soliptic]

LOL, now you're just getting desperate.

The invasion was not illegal.

[tjstork]

or (b) it is in self-defence to a current or imminent threat (with no time to seek a UN resolution). The invasion was therefore illegal. .

The invasion was not illegal because Saddam Hussein had abrogated the terms of his cease fire with the United Nations forces. Because he did not live up to his cease fire agreements, then, there was no obligation for the USA to not to continue the war. So, the invasion of 2003 was perfectly legal under international law because the resolution that authorized the original military action against Iraq in 1991 still remained in force owing to Saddam's cease fire violation.

Even Bush himself has stopped trying to claim this. He now admits there were no WMDs, and has shifted to blaming "bad intelligence".

You didn't speak to my point. My point was not that there were no WMD in Iraq in 2003, there were, not. It was that, with the sanctions lifted, it is very likely that Saddam would have resumed his weapons program. He even said so. If we do not get Saddam, then the sanctions get lifted, Saddam gets the bomb, and then nukes Iran and Saudi Arabia and makes himself master of the middle east. For Saddam, the whole sanctions and inspection regime process was an always a plan to get the UN off of his back so he could go back to his original plan.

Re:The invasion was not illegal.

[ChameleonDave]

The invasion was not illegal because Saddam Hussein had abrogated the terms of his cease fire with the United Nations forces. No. The war was over. By your logic, if Iraq developed a long-range weapon in the year 3000, the US could move in and massacre thousands of people on the basis that a 20th-century war was now resuming.

My point was not that there were no WMD in Iraq in 2003, there were not. Good, because that's all that matters.

Saddam gets the bomb, and then nukes Iran and Saudi Arabia and makes himself master of the middle east... There is no reason we should pay attention to your paranoid ravings.

Re:The invasion was not illegal.

[tjstork]

Good, because that's all that matters

No, that's not all that matters. Your answer was to let Saddam Hussein completely off the hook for invading Kuwait.

Honestly, the right thing for the USA to do would have been to let Saddam Hussein invade Kuwait, not intervened in 1991, and let the arabs fight it out in a war amongst themselves. The United Nations would have died, then, unable to find the strength to even live up to its own charter, rather than continue on like the charade that it is. I will never support any American intervention against any dictator attacking any country on this planet, ever again. If the world is so outraged that we got rid of Saddam, then, let the world have a dozen more of them, that's what I say.

There is no reason we should pay attention to your paranoid ravings

You never answered the question. Knowing that Saddam was already kicked out of Iraq once after a botched assassination, that he battled back from pretty dire circumstances to ultimately lead Iraq, that he did actually set out once to make WMD and the only reason he did not was because he was afraid of the USA, what says he's going to not make them once the USA lifts the gloves off?

Seriously, answer this. If you are Saddam, in 2001, and George Bush, instead of invading Iraq, decides to lift the sanctions and resume normal diplomatic relations, in exchange for some oil concessions, then, why wouldn't you take that soon to be $150/bbl oil money and go build yourself a nuke?