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."
If a company wishes to not sell specific configurations of their products no one should force them. If that means they lose sales as a result of it, thats their problem. If it turns out another company (such as Microsoft) is forcing itself on the market in an anti-competitive way then it is that company that should be taken to court.
How would that judge feel about exclusive contracts for mobile phone hardware.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Does this say anything for buyers outside Europe? I bought a Lenovo laptop and tried to get them to refund the Windows license I was not planning to use and they said they can't do that.
Like it or not, the software bundled with your computer drives its cost down. Those companies (Norton, AOL, Roxio etc.) pay to have their software preloaded on your machine. If it becomes standard practice to offer a blank machine, hardware prices will just increase. Some manufacturers even offer a crapware free machine for a nominal fee.
Does anyone honestly think that retailers would charge you $50 less (or whatever the cost of the Windows License is, probably closer to $15) if Windows wasn't installed? Just look at Dell when they offered Linux boxes. The cost of the machine was often times more than the equivalent Windows machine.
Lesson learned here is offer an option for an unsubsidized blank hard drive that costs more than the Windows version. Problem solved, no "Microsoft Tax"
Dell sold computers with FreeDOS because they had an agreement with Microsoft that they would not sell computers without an operating system, which might have meant that Dell could not have sold any personal computers without including Windows with them. Shipping computers with FreeDOS was just a loophole for people who wanted to buy cheaper computers and put Linux on them or unlicensed copies of Windows.
Lenovo does not have a free choice. They can either refuse Microsoft's thuggish demands (do not sell linux or we will cut off all supplies of Windows to you), or they can give in to Microsoft's thuggish demands. They have no power.
- You have no idea if what you're saying it true or not. You're just making up a story to make a point.
- I really doubt that MS would cease selling Windows to Levono because Levono choose to sell some computers with blank hard drives.
I don't respond to AC's.
They can either refuse Microsoft's thuggish demands (do not sell linux or we will cut off all supplies of Windows to you)
Do you actually have any evidence that this is occurring? Because I'm sure the DOJ would love to hear about it since that is clearly anticompetitive. Also why can't Lenovo get a special deal like Dell got that allowed them to sell Linux desktops?
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.
The way you worded that last sentence is itself an indication that there is still a major problem. Freudian slip much?
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.
Gimme your address and I'll send you the nothing you pay for a FreeDOS license.
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
It is more than annoying, it is plain stupid and bad practice.
I made the restoration disks. Now, I can't test them as it would destroy the original and if my backup is wrong I am up the proverbial * creek.
Later on, I need restoration and then I realize that my backup is not working!
It then comes to trying to get a restoration or original from the manufacturer... Good luck.
I really doubt that MS would cease selling Windows to Levono because Levono choose to sell some computers with blank hard drives.
Actually, if I remember this correctly, Microsoft's (old) contracts with PC Makers required them to give Microsoft money for every PC sold regardless of whether Microsoft software was installed or not.
So you didn't save any money if you, for some reason, asked for computers without Microsoft's DOS.
What Microsoft does not allow is *DUAL BOOT* machines. This effectively removes a huge amount of the potential Linux market.
Yes, exactly. The mfgr paid by the unit, on the assumption that Windows was installed on all of them. Oh, and if Windows *wasn't* installed on all of them, it was very hard to get your phone calls returned, and somehow your competitors found out about new things much sooner than you, and for various odd reasons they always got the releases before you.
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.
MS would still sell Windows but at a higher price. This would put Lenovo at a competitive disadvantage compared to others who get Windows with a discount.
They should just sell some with _nothing_ installed, then the end user can do what they want if they know how.
Having Linux pre-installed somehow impedes that?
People who want to run Linux will know how to install it or will be able to read the instructions.
It's hardly as though anyone who wants to install their own operating system is going to be bamboozled just because there is an operating system already on there and if that operating system is Linux then the cost issue is gone too.
Does not show what OS the CAs were running on, only the public website frontend server of those companies. If it's even that, and not some sort of caching or loadbalancing device. It's not uncommon for CAs to run their actual certificate generation platform on MicroSoft windows.
I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
And what about Lenovo? What about HP who currently sell systems with FreeDOS that are cheaper that those with Windows? That directly contradicts your assertion.