Slashdot Mirror
Lenovo Ordered To Refund 'Microsoft Tax'
angry tapir writes with an excerpt from an article over at TechWorld: "A French laptop buyer has won a refund from Lenovo after a four-year legal battle over the cost of a Windows license he didn't want. The judgment could open the way for PC buyers elsewhere in Europe to obtain refunds for bundled software they don't want, according to French campaign group No More Racketware."
Not really. It's an OEM version of Windows, so MS says, "Deal with Lenovo". If the user declines the license agreement, it says he can return Windows for a full refund.
Blame MS for pushing off onto the OEMs.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
No one is Forcing Lenovo to sell configurations they don't want to.
The court is just holding them to the conract they entered into with MS with regards to refund requests from customers who don't agree to the Windows license / EULA.
If OEMs really wanted to avoid the issue, they could have their order page / retail outlets present people with the license at checkout, and then ship the systems with that part of the OOBE skipped / pre-answered.
I've always wondered that. I have no proof but I believe all of that crapware (aside from Windows) is there because the publishers are paying for it to be there. Not bundling it may actually increase the cost to the consumer. I wouldn't be surprised if the OEMs were not under NDAs regarding pricing that they would come back and say "If you don't agree with the EULA, return the computer for a refund or pay extra to not use the software"
Nope. OEM EULA was amended since XP. It now says that the OEM version is only refundable as part of the hardware it came with.
It's a bit different with Macs, though. You got effectively one vendor as your sole source for Macs. It'd be different if Dell, Lenovo and all the others were free to ship computers with OS X installed, but that's not the case. So if you intentionally choose that one vendor that whose product is in large part the OS that it ships with and you brought a suit like this, the judge would probably laugh at you and ask why you didn't just purchase from someone else and get a computer with Windows installed on it or something. With Windows, nearly every company is bundling Windows, so even if you chose a different vendor, you're likely going to wind up stuck with Windows anyway. Though I don't know why you chose to respond to me in particular, as I'm not even really arguing in favour of this ruling.
Do you know if they still doing this?
A) The use of the word was should be a hint that it may or may not be the case.
Do you have any citations?
B) Yes, I have citation from the Dept. of Justice no less, http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f0000/0045.htm Relevant paragraph quoted:
Of course, that was before judgement...you could always read the court's findings of fact, if that helps with the credibility of this. http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
That's some bullshit right there.
C) May be the case, but it still happened. And as I recall, the practice continued to happen after the trial was concluded, for a short time. The trial concluded in late '99, which means the practice did continue into the '00s... Of course, this is old news, see something from 2007 no less... http://techrights.org/2007/10/29/exclusionary-deals-linux/ I'll leave the rest to you as an exercise.
Personally I never buy desktop's pre-made speicifically because I don't want to be forced to pay for a windows license I don't want, and am not going to use. Sadly, however, I don't get that luxury when it comes to a laptop.
I know of one laptop manufacturer that does not require Windows: http://www.avadirect.com/
Their problem is supply chain: They frequently do not have certain components in stock (matte displays in particular). If you are looking for something they have in stock, then I highly recommend them. You can customize (on a laptop remember, so there are chasis limits) all the way down to the thermal grease on the processor.
I do build my own desktops and servers.
Well, how about we ask the retailers?
I am looking right now at HP's "configure your laptop" screen in their online store.
The OS selection options they are offering me are:
So, if you are right - if the cost of a Windows license is just $15 or so, there is no Microsoft tax, and computers are subsidized by Windows-only crapware - why is HP willing to refund me $100 on the spot if I choose not to have Windows?
I await your explanation with interest.
National (and European) laws trump EULAs.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
We already had that in Europe, for example you can get a refund from ACER:
- http://www.acer.it/ac/it/IT/content/rimborso
It's around 40 euro for Win ~professional, you do have to send it back to ACER by your own but at least it's an automatic procedure: they just give you the money back with no questions.
After some wrangling they passed me on to the HP importer here in The Netherlands who after more wrangling offered me €35.- , so little that I decided to make the computer dual boot.
So yes, $50.- sounds about right.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
If you buy a refurbished machine, you may get by without supporting Microsoft, at least in the instant - refurbished machines might have had an MS license previously, but no more.
A few years ago I bought a refurbished Lenovo Z61m from Budget Computers in Beaverton OR. Since I was installing Linux on it, they gave me $50 off IIRC - they would have had to install and pay for a Windows license if I wanted Windows. Of course, they told me they could not support it beyond obvious hardware issues but that was OK with me. And they were helpful both by email and telephone at various times - good folks, no other connection than buying a machine.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
I see some of you are speculating about what should be the value of the refund for a Windows licence:
- http://static.acer.com/up/Resource/Acer/Docs/IT/20110110/Windows_refund_process_flow_rev_Nov_11th_2009.pdf
That is according to ACER Refunds in Italy, dunno if that's the same in the rest of Europe.
As it is a PDF (1 page) I'll give you some pointers:
- Seven Home: 25e
- Seven Starter: 20e
- Seven Home Basic: 35e
- Seven Home Premium: 40e
- Seven Prof 70e
- Seven Ultimate 90e
You can add viperidaenz to the Bonch/Sharklaser/OverlyCriticalGuy/Dtech/hairyfeet etc Waggener Edstrom sockpuppet collection.
I have purchased several PCs with an included microsoft license. I read the agreement and in all cases the Vendor stated that they would refund the operating system cost if it was requested and not installed. Having called these companies, I can tell u that they will pretend to have no idea wat u r talking about and insist that u return the entire purchase for a refund. I choose not to refund and tried for months to communicate with them in order to receive the refund they promised in the agreement they sent to me. The first thing their support staff told me was to call Microsoft for a refund. But the windows license agreement clearly states in the beginning it is between u (consumer) and the vendor (HP, Lenovo, etc). I copied the entire agreement and quoted the pertinent parts to their support staff. But they continued to pretend not to understand what they had written. Finally, a support staff member from Hewlett Packard stated directly to me: "You will never get a refund from us".
The only recourse is to sue the vendor in order to get a refund. But realistically, who is going to do this. I commend this consumer for sticking to his guns and taking the vendor to task. It is about time some people stand up to fight for the agreement that the vendor puts in writing themselves. It is ridiculous that a vendor provides u with an agreement that they wont even honor and pretend to not understand. What do u think the vendor would do if u began to violate the license agreement urself? Like if I began selling free copies of the operating system. Do u think the vendor would continue to pretend that they dont understand the letter of this license?
It seems clear to me that Vendors supply the option for a refund in the agreement, because to not do so would subject them to anti-competitive practice lawsuits... which can be a huge fine. But the reality is that they have absolutely no intent of honoring this agreement and provide only two options: pay for something u dont want or refund everything and go away.
IMO, this situation is ripe for a class action lawsuit. I live in Canada. I would be more then happy to support such a case and offer all my assistance of past correspondence to assist in the case. I cannot believe I am the only one who finds the Microsoft bundled products less then useless and requested a refund as outlined in the agreement. Alone, it is difficult to do anything, but together I believe that real change could occur.
>u
>u
>u
>u
>u
>u
>u
>u
>u
>u
Stop doing that.