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
If i buy a car, i can't yank out the back seats and require a refund from the car dealer.
Of course not, but by the same token you won't find a sticker on the back seats saying "even though you supposedly own this car, you're not allowed to use these seats unless you agere to the following conditions...".
The right to refuse and get a refund is the only vestige of any pretense that the EULA is a contract. Without that it should be cut and dried non-enforceable. If you own the machine, including the software (and the back seats) then you can go ahead and do with it whatever you please.
Your analogies are missing something:
Your car seats are either produced by the company that made your car, or purchased and integrated by them. Windows is resold by the guys who sell you your laptop; but it requires you to agree to a EULA, between you and Microsoft, in order to use it(compare this to your BIOS, which is almost certainly made by Phoenix or Award, not Lenovo; but is integrated by Lenovo and not licenced separately). If your car seat required a separate licence in order for it to be used, you should be able to treat it as a separate part.
Same with your other examples. As long as MS insists on having a separate EULA between it and you, its product can't be considered an intrinsic part of Lenovo, or anybody else's machines. If they started licencing it the way BIOSes, firmware, and drivers are typically licenced, I'd give the notion that it was an intrinsic component more weight.
This is like buying a family sedan and saying you don't want the family they provided, as you've got your own.
It's a major part of the problem that Lenovo thinks they are selling me an operating system, and an even bigger problem that they think this is their "IP" and a value-add thing rather than just corrupt bundling.
They are to Microsoft. And MS may have a contract with Lenovo that Lenovo has to honour that clause too.
AccountKiller
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 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.
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
While i applaud companies that refund the microsoft tax, i do sort of see where lenovo is coming from. If i buy a car, i can't yank out the back seats and require a refund from the car dealer.
Unless they sell you the car, but stipulate that only persons aged between 19 and 20 can use the back seats, and only for approved uses. They inform you that use of the back seats is monitored and non-personally identifiable data may be sold, in aggregate to third parties. Ownership of the back seats may not be transferred so that when you sell the car the new owner must install his own back seats. Even though there are two seats, only one person may use the seats at one time. The seats will from time to time check with the manufacturer to make sure they are installed in the same car as you purchased, and if a discrepancy is found, they will not allow anyone to sit in them. They then inform you that if you don't like these terms, you can CHOOSE TO RETURN THE BACK SEATS FOR A REFUND.
The license agreement specifically states that if you do not agree with the EULA you can return it for a refund. Computer makers know this. Computer makers license it from Microsoft that way. Computer makers have to abide by it.
No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
Guys, I have used FreeBSD for a decade on multiple machines, some running CURRENT, and thus have had the privilege of not only listening to PHK's reasoned discussions, but also engaging in such discussions with him. I also supported his paid development project a few years ago, so you can be sure that I am *not* an unbiased contributor to this article.
That said, I am pretty sure that PHK didn't just decide over coffee or beer to sue Lenovo without giving the matter serious thought, research and consideration. Certainly, what MS charges OEMs and distributors for licenses is far less than the retail price you or I would pay, so I don't personally think that money is the issue at all. I haven't asked him personally so can't say with authority, but I would imagine that this is more about OS choice (or none) during the configure/customize process when shopping online and opting out of a MS OS up-front rather than any monetary settlement. It's the principle of the issue, not the money. At least that's how I see it and how I would like to see the outcome. Give consumers a choice to opt out of a forced MS OS, even if there is no financial benefit.
Mike O, KT2T
That's a very common sense way of looking at it. And maybe it's even true, in Denmark.
Some people (and I hate them) think that users license software, instead of buying authorized copies, like they would buy a book. They say that title to the software never leaves the publisher. Ergo, when the computer was at Lenovo and Lenovo installed Windows on it, Lenovo didn't own a copy of that software either (Microsoft still owned it). So how did Lenovo legally do that? Why didn't Microsoft sue them for piracy? Maybe it's because there's a contract between Lenovo and Microsoft. And that contract says: if the end user doesn't want Windows, he gets a refund from Lenovo.
I think it's all bullshit, but such absurdities are the inevitable consequence of taking EULAs seriously. Microsoft and this user never met or did business in any way, so if there's somehow magically a contract between them, then something weird has to happen. Given that there's already something para-normal going on, it isn't any more of a stretch or leap of logic that Lenovo is involved too, especially since they did do business with both parties.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
If you don't want Microsoft Windows then do not buy a computer that comes with Microsoft Windows pre-installed, it is as simple as that.
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.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I understand your point, but you often don't have a choice when you're buying a laptop.
For example, when I bought my laptop, I chose some specs, and then looked at various manufacturers to find the cheapest price. No manufacturer sold a model with those specs without Windows preinstalled.
Dell was cheapest by a few hundred dollars, so I called them up to see if they'd sell me the model I wanted without an OS. Of course, I got some CSR in India who couldn't understand why in the world I'd want a computer with no operating system, no matter how simply I tried to explain it (even saying just "I already have one" didn't work).
I ended up just getting XP Home and living with it.
But you would have me "go buy from someone else", despite the fact that nobody else was selling a comparable laptop without an OS for that price?
It's not about "growing up", it's about being annoyed that in order to get the hardware I wanted, I had to get software I didn't want, and I didn't really have a choice.
I'm talking about laptops, here. I build my own desktops, and I obviously don't pay for Windows for those if I don't need to.
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.
I'm no history buff, but the way I see it:
1) Microsoft basically invented the concept of software licensing in the first place, and so got a good head-start
2) Microsoft began as a software (only) company, therefore they were able to sell their OS to dozens of OEMs, and not only on their own machines (as opposed to, say, Commodore or Apple.)
3) Europe/Asia/the rest of the world, for some reason, was *waaay* behind on the whole affair. What I don't get is why Japan buy Windows-- Japan was building computers for decades, it never occurred to anybody there to make a home-grown OS? Why didn't France make one? What's the UK's version of Microsoft? In fact, why is every non-English-speaking country running an OS created by the whitest of the white Americans in Redmond, WA?
Comment of the year
If you don't want Microsoft Windows then do not buy a computer that comes with Microsoft Windows pre-installed, it is as simple as that.
I understand your point, but you often don't have a choice when you're buying a laptop.
For example, when I bought my laptop, I chose some specs, and then looked at various manufacturers to find the cheapest price. No manufacturer sold a model with those specs without Windows preinstalled.
This is basically the exact thinking behind phk's actions, from before the purchase and up to the law suit. You can't get a high-powered computer without also paying for a Windows license, and in his case, being a FreeBSD developer, that amounts to a forced purchase from the main competitor.
Further, the Windows EULA is odd in that *Microsoft* is setting up an agreement between two *other* parties. One party has the right to decline the EULA, and the other party is legally bound to accept that.
"Good news, everyone!"