Slashdot Mirror
Danish FreeBSD Dev. Sues Lenovo Over "Microsoft Tax"
Handbrewer writes "The FreeBSD developer Poul-Henning Kamp (phk) has sued Lenovo in Denmark (Google translation, original here) over their refusal to refund the Windows Vista Business license, even though he declined the EULA during installation. Lenovo argues that they sell the computer as a full product, and that they cannot refund it partially, such as the power supply or the OS even if people intend to use a different one. This seems to be contrary to previous rulings in the EU where Acer and HP has been forced to refund the 'Microsoft tax.'"
Better have a full refund and buy from someone else.
Case closed
The Vista EULA specifically states: By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software. Instead, return it to the retailer for a refund or credit. If you cannot obtain a refund there, contact Microsoft or the Microsoft affiliate serving your country for information about Microsoftâ(TM)s refund policies. He chose to not accept them.
AccountKiller
I believe Microsoft invented the idea of "licensing" software. They licensed DOS, which they bought from some other guy, to IBM and made bank. Such deals with IBM et al. allowed them to quickly dominate the relatively infant "PC" market, and the rest is history. They've been delivering abuse ever since.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
There is not a EULA when starting OS X on a new machine which says 'if you do not agree, you may get a refund of OS X'.
I know the EULA states you can get a refund if you don't agree to the terms however, that still doesn't mean Lenevo have to give you the laptop sans windows at a cheaper rate. They can simply say "you don't won't to pay for windows? Fine, send us the laptop and we'll refund what you paid for it".
I'm pretty sure IBM was licensing software long before Microsoft existed, probably before Bill Gates existed. They also got in trouble with the government for bundling hardware and software, and were subject to a consent decree until 2001. Current PC manufacturers probably can get away with bundling because they're not producing both the hardware and software.
Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
I wouldn't be surprised if lenovo paid something low as in $5 per license of windows when everything was said and done, and then recouped the cost of the license with bloatware. This guy would be miffed to get a $5 check and microsoft would be miffed to have their B2B cost revealed to be a tiny tiny fraction of what they gut consumers for.
a don't think so!
The total of 311.85 euros of the overall purchase price of the notebook of 599 euros that Acer was forced to pay back was made up of 135.20 euros for Windows XP Home, 60 euros for Microsoft Works, 40.99 euros for PowerDVD, 38.66 euros for Norton Antivirus and 37 euros for NTI CD Maker. On top of that Acer had to pay a further 650 euros in, among other things, legal costs.
http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/96581
Part of my CIS degree program required two semesters of business law, and I remember the liability lectures well. In the US, there is a chain of product liability that goes like this:
Company A make car windshields.
Company B makes cars, and buys its windshields from Company A.
Customer buys a car from Company B.
For whatever reason, a defect in the windshield causes Customer to incur a loss that can be recovered in court, so Customer wants to sue. Who does Customer sue?
A) Company A
B) Company B
C) No-one, as US law has left Customer to hang by the neck until dead.
Although most of you have instinctively chosen C, you're wrong. As are those of you who chose A. Customer did not buy from Company A, and so does not have standing to sue. Since Company B resells Company A's product, Company B assumes liability for defects. Company B has standing to sue Company A, and can do so to recover its losses for being sued over defects in the products it bought from Company A.
Obviously, this doesn't necessarily apply to this case since it's not in the US, but I suspect something similar to be true.
Pre-installed software is often the reason. e.g. if you get a "free" anti virus program, most likely the anti-virus company has payed the hardware manufacturer to put it on there. If e.g. Opera would pay money to get their browser on it, the price would be more even.
A second reason might be that no matter what, they still have to pay Microsoft and even more if they DON'T install it.
The first I know is true, the second is pure guessing.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
The option to turn down the EULA is not exposed through the UI at all. The only way to avoid agreeing to the EULA is to turn off the computer.
heh, so he never tried to contact microsoft or the microsoft affiliate? This is gonna be a short case.
I think the "microsoft affiliate" is Lenovo, which he did contact prior to suing them.
If you don't want to provide Microsoft refunds, do not sell a computer that contains a EULA saying you will provide refunds if the EULA is unacceptable.
ICBW, but the last time I checked it just said "Contact your OEM for a refund". Didn't say anything about how the OEM is obliged to offer one.