Lenovo Requires NDA For Windows License Refund

tykev writes "A customer wanted to return the license for preinstalled Windows Vista Business that came with his Lenovo laptop. After some lengthy negotiations with representatives of Lenovo's technical support and management, he was offered financial compensation for returning the license in the amount of CZK 1950 (USD 130, EUR 78), pending his acceptance of a non-disclosure agreement that would cover the entire negotiations with the company and its results. He declined and published his experiences on a Czech Linux website. The website editors decided to reward the customer for publishing the article by paying him an author's royalty in the same amount as was the offered compensation for returning the license."

Comments

Requiring NDA is changing the rules of the game.

[coats]

The EULA doesn't specify that an NDA is required for a refund, so Lenovo is trying to change the rules of the game in a way contrary to (US-style, anyway) contract law. Lenovo's action is unconscionable (and should be actionable, for that matter).

There go Lenovo's chances on my next laptop purchase.

Stupid Lenovo...

[bennomatic]

...Everyone knows you make them sign the agreement *before* making an offer!

Big deal

[Bogtha]

The website editors decided to reward the customer for publishing the article by paying him an author's royalty in the same amount as was the offered compensation for returning the license.

Meanwhile, Microsoft still got paid for a product that was completely unwanted and unused. This is a great example of the Microsoft Tax in action. Even when their new operating system is a disaster and people refuse to use it, they still get paid, purely on the basis of their market position. This is the kind of reason why Microsoft should be subject to antitrust laws. Normal market forces just don't apply to them.

Re:Big deal

[TeXMaster]

And this is the reason why we have to keep forcing OEMs to refund: if they have to keep paying twice (Microsoft *and* the customer) they'll be pushed into understanding that giving the choice to the customer to only pay for hardware is the best solution in the long run.

Re:The real question:

[Jason Earl]

The reason for an NDA is actually fairly obvious. Lenovo's probably eating the cost of the license in this case, and the last thing that it wants is for Czechoslovakians to realize that they can get 78 Euro off of the price of a laptop simply by asking.

Re:Right Now, In the U.S. Vista Cost You $349

[Mr. Underbridge]

4. Configure the Vista product with the ultimate version. That is roughly feature equivalent to Ubuntu.

The point isn't to determine how much Windows Ultimate costs ($349 is probably about right), nor is it to perform a feature comparison of Windows vs. Ubuntu. The point is to determine how much the lowest 'Windows tax' is. From what we've seen, standard Windows should get you back about $130. That seems a bit high, as the OEM costs for Windows that I've heard are quite a bit lower. I wonder why they'd offer that high.

Re:Right so now we know the minimum

[truthsearch]

Really? I think most people would want their $130 USD back if they knew they qualified for it. It's not a lot of money, but it's not a trifle, either.

Re:Requiring NDA is changing the rules of the game

[SQLGuru]

going straight to MS

Which, incidentally, he should still be able to do, since he has not given up his license at this time. $260 is a lot better than $130. :D

Layne

Wrong.

[Anachragnome]

No. They offered him what he asked for, with conditions. He did not ask for those conditions.

Sounds like they were rather distasteful to him. As they should be. The loss of ones freedom of speech should NEVER be a condition to anything.

NDAs are counterproductive. Learn how to discern people that you can trust and you shouldn't have to rely on them.

I for one, will NEVER sign one, regardless of context. I view them as unconstitutional. Simple as that.