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.
or smart phones with [choose any operating system] on them
But this is exactly like that. The PC can run any number of operating systems. The customer is being forced to purchase software with the hardware when he already has other options for an operating system. The EU has fairly strict rules about what you can and can't do in trade and a good part of them are actually about protecting the consumer.
If your any-operating-system-phone was real, then in the EU you couldn't force a customer to buy the phone with an operating system on it and charge them the extra for it. It is these strict consumer laws in the EU that made Microsoft offer Windows 7 N in the EU as well as the whole "Browser Picker" thingy.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Excellent question.
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. When I buy a laptop I am forced to pay for a windows license, even though the very first thing I do with the laptop is install linux on it. It makes me sad to know that no matter how much I dislike Windows (and Microsoft), my hard earned money still ends up in their pockets everytime I by a laptop. Add to that what they've done to makers of android phones, it becomes very difficult to use technology without forking over money to Microsoft.
Really the only way to get on the internet or carry a smart phone without giving money to Microsoft is to use all Apple products, and frankly that is not high on my list of things to do either.
You've missed the point - the issue is not the cost to the consumer. It is that there are consumers that do not wish to subsidize Microsoft, no matter whether the money is coming from their own pocket or from some parasitic software company. Do you think after all his time in court that the French laptop buyer actually made a profit on this whole affair? The whole point is for consumers to fight back against the abuse of monopoly positions.
And you notice that Lenovo does not reveal to the court the actual cost of the licence? They might well have trouble explaining the difference between this cost ("peanuts") and the amount that is being charged for separate licences.
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.
No, however you would at least be allowed to sell the tires on the used market.
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!
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
Exactly. You don't expect to buy a car and return the steering wheel do you?
No, I expect to buy a car and not find that every model from every brand comes with a dead body painstakingly sewn to the back seat as a mandatory option.
Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
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.