Slashdot Mirror
Italian Consumer Watchdog Sues Microsoft Over 'Windows Tax'
An anonymous reader writes with this quote from El Reg:
"[An] Italian consumer watchdog is suing Microsoft over the 'Windows Tax' – the near impossibility of an ordinary user getting a refund if they decide to delete Microsoft's software from a new computer or laptop. The class action case says Microsoft makes it too difficult for people who buy a computer with Microsoft software on it to remove that software and get their money back. Most users do not realise that starting the software means you have accepted the end user licence."
I recently bought a Sony VAIO laptop. I was somewhat surprised to see that Windows 7's license agreement now says "contact the manufacturer and find out their refund policy" rather than "contact the manufacturer for a refund". Not only that, underneath it was a separate agreement from Sony which said, in a nutshell, that it was all or nothing. Looks like somebody got tired of actually having to keep their promises to us nerds.
Funny may not give karma, but +5 Informative never made anyone snort coffee out their nose.
now look at the mac os tax
it has to be at the most $1500-$500 on the mac pro.
I don't expect a refund on the skin of an onion that gets peeled and promptly thrown away.
Yes, but the farmer doesn't pay a third party to add skins to their onions, thus increasing the cost of onion production. They may pay Monsanto, but without going too far off topic, that system's just as screwed up.
Way to go ADUC.
They might not get very far, but I will cheer them on.
Well, if it walks like ADUC...
Blank until
Microsoft makes deals with PC manufacturers, who then bundle Windows and sell to end customers. If you buy such a PC, and don't want Windows, you should talk to your manufacturer instead. Why is it an issue for Microsoft to deal with, or make it convenient for you to get a refund from your PC manufacturer? It just doesn't make sense.
So sue the manufacturer instead.
> Why buy a computer with Windows when you want a computer without Windows?
Why buy an onion with skin when you don't want the skin?
> I don't expect a refund on the skin of an onion that gets peeled and promptly thrown away.
The onion skin doesn't cost $129.95 when purchased separately. Nor does the grocery store deliberately add the skin and pay Microsoft for the privilege.
Contrary to popular impression, monopolies are not illegal. But they are restricted by law from doing things (mostly that would preserve or extend the monopoly) that are perfectly legal for other companies.
Tying or "bundling" is one of those illegal things that monopolies must not do. Selling their product as part of another sale. Software, including should be a sales choice ("Do you want Windows with that?") and invoice line-item.
How the boxen are configured and shipped is a separate matter. It would probably not be illegal to ship a machine with MS Windows pre-installed (and even stickered) even though the OS was refused at sales time and no price was paid for it. Quiet about virus! This would not authorize use, although a gift recipient might have an innocent user defense.
The theory is, Microsoft makes it very difficult for manufacturers to sell computers without Windows. In the past Microsoft has been proven in court to have been strong-arming OEMs into not selling computers with other OSs, or no OS, because for most OEMs their core business is computers with Windows pre-installed, and they don't want to lose their favourable volume discount from Microsoft.
I don't know if this still goes on now, but it is really difficult to buy an off-the-shelf PC with no OS. Arguably the situation is a bit different now than it was 10 years ago, Linux is very much on the radar as is Mac OSX. However, countries differ in their competition and consumer protection laws, and it may well be that, in Italy, it's possible that the current situation runs foul of those laws/regulations.
To answer some of the other posts here asking why no-one complains about OSX, well - maybe some people would like to buy a Mac without an OS. This isn't the point though - it's very difficult to force a company to sell a certain combination of their own products. The issue here is that the MS Windows / Generic PC combination is two different products from two different companies, and that could run foul of competiton and consumer protection rules.
In the US, it was from a court case that basically said people had the right to buy a computer without having to pay for a Microsoft OS they're never going to use.
Microsoft had argued that anybody buying it without an OS was going to pirate Windows anyway, so they should get paid.
Basically, it was found to be uncompetitive behavior and harmful to the consumer as it was nearly impossible to NOT end up paying Microsoft around $100 on every new computer sold.
Except, Microsoft doesn't sell branded PCs, and as part of the anti-trust settlement they made, they agreed to stop doing that.
You can't buy a Windows 7 phone without an OS on it either -- it's a completely specious argument in this case.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Here are a couple of places from whom I've bought linux boxes: http://system76.com/ , http://www.zareason.com/ Based on my extremely small sample size, I've found system76 to be a little better in terms of quality, but I've seen lots of positive comments about both of these businesses on the web.
Of course I realize that the existence of alternatives doesn't mean that Microsoft isn't massively exploiting its monopoly power over the market ("monopoly" in the legal sense, which does not require 100% market share). But if nobody bothers to buy from the alternatives, then I can sure as heck guarantee you that the situation will get worse, not better.
Some big retailers such as Fry's, Target, and Walmart have tried selling linux machines. As far as I've been able to tell, none of them have been successful, and I don't think the failure has anything to do with strong-arm tactics by MS. A while back, Fry's used to sell linux machines for $180-250 that were actually pretty decent. I bought several of them (one for my father, one for my daughter, etc.), and they lasted a long time and gave yeoman service. But they stopped selling them, and when I asked one of the salespeople at Fry's he said that they'd had so many returns that it wasn't profitable. Realistically, what was happening was that a lot of people were buying them, wiping linux off the hard disk, and installing a bootlegged copy of windows. Then when the windows install didn't work correctly, they would return the machine. This wasn't subtle at all. The machines came with a custom linux distro (ThizLinux) that nobody in the U.S. had ever heard of and that didn't even have a web page in English. The docs that came with the machines consisted of five pages of instructions on how to install windows, and no info whatsoever on how to use the linux that came preinstalled.
Walmart was selling the gPC for a while. I bought one, and although the hardware was decent, the quality of the software integration stank to high heaven.
What the smaller sellers like system76 and zareason are doing right is to stop trying to invent their own crappy linux distro and just ship their machines with ubuntu, which works. Another thing they're doing right is to market their computers to people who actually want to run linux, as opposed to people who don't know about, don't care about, or don't want linux.
Find free books.
But in a consumer-activism sense, you failed. You still let Dell take your money (albeit discounted) and pay M$ for the OS. M$ still got paid, and while it was indirect, you voted for more M$ with your dollars.
To some people this matters... Maybe not you, which is totally fine.
Absolutely none of that explains why they can't refund you the cost of the license if you wipe the drive.