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.'"
Nah.
Much better to push a microsoft tax onto the company via lawsuits.
Then they will feel the pain and make refunds a standard policy.
Lots and lots of lawsuits even better.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
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.
Or even better to make them offer Windows as a totally separate product, not automatically part of every computer purchase.
Let's not lose sight of who is to blame, though. (I take that back: let's lose sight after all, because it's more complicated than most people suspect.) Microsoft sells a product to Lenovo. Lenovo resells it. Microsoft puts wording on a paper or the screen, saying that if you don't want their stuff, Lenovo will give you your money back. WTF? How can Microsoft speak for Lenovo? Pretty damn arrogant. Did Lenovo agree to that?
Actually, that's a very serious question: Does Lenovo become bound to the EULA? Are they re-selling Windows or re-licensing it?
The Blizzard case's judge asserted that "title transfers" don't ever happen with software. Nothing is ever sold. Ergo, if you walk into a retail store and pay cash for a Blizzard game just like you would for a loaf of bread, you're not actually buying it. That means the retailer never bought it either. Ergo, the retailer must have licensed it as well (though they never even opened the package so never even implicitly agreed to the EULA -- ah, the mystical magic of EULAs, the only kind of contract of its kind!).
The Blizzard judge would say that Lenovo signed a contract in blood with both Microsoft and the computer purchaser, and therefore Lenovo agreed to every term Microsoft put in the license: Lenovo must pay the refund that Microsoft offered. Any layman would say Lenovo is just a reseller and has no obligation to Microsoft to pay refunds on their behalf; the EULA is between Microsoft and whoever reads it -- but that layman also wants his money back and damn well knows Microsoft ain't gonna pay it.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
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.
Btw, the US do not have a justice system, it only has a punishment system.
This statement alone should be marked +5 insightful (and that's coming from US citizen).
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
Why is it that you think class action lawsuits are something found all over the world?
At least they're found in Denmark (Retsplejeloven chapter 23 a), so in this case, they may be entirely appropriate. Unlike your comment.
-- Andreas
Denmark does have a similar class action lawsuit type civil case. It's called Gruppesogsmal (sic)
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.