Slashdot Mirror
Windows Tax Shot Down In Italy
An anonymous reader writes Italy's High Court has struck a blow to the practice of forcing non-free software on buyers of PCs and laptops. According to La Repubblica, the court ruled on Thursday that a laptop buyer was entitled to receive a refund for the price of the Microsoft Windows license on his computer. The judges sharply criticised the practice of selling PCs only together with a non-free operating system as "a commercial policy of forced distribution". The court slammed this practice as "monopolistic in tendency." It also highlighted that the practice of bundling means that end users are forced into using additional non-free applications due to compatibility and interoperability issues, whether they wanted these programs or not. "This decision is both welcome and long overdue", said Karsten Gerloff, President of the Free Software Foundation Europe. "No vendor should be allowed to cram non-free software down the throats of users."
Since computing is moving to tablets and phones, can we get OS refunds for iDevices and Android tablets and phones also ?
Also, is this applicable to Macs?
This space for rent.
A law that forbids selling hardware and software together would increase innovation. Consumers would only be able to buy hardware and software separately. That way, hardware vendors are encouraged to document the hardware and software vendors will compete on quality. Installation procedures would become very easy very quickly due to market pressure.
DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
More than a legal precedent this needs solid regulations with teeth. I suspect that if you walk into whatever the Italian equivalent of Best Buy waving this judgement around and demanding a refund that they will just have security escort you out. But if refusal to even offer a Windows free machine was worthy of a fine, let alone not removing it, then windows free machines would be widely available.
Also the removal of Windows should have to be free and done in a timely manner (under an hour).
The difference is that Apple sells the device and the OS together while Microsoft only sells (or rather gives a licence) for the OS. The vendor is a different party. Hence you cannot buy a "HP" or "Sony" or "Samsung" or "Asus" computer without Windows on it. The windows licence cost is hidden in the seller's price. So the OS and the hardware aren't a bundle by the same company and hence you can't demand back money for your iDevice.
However, I wonder how that is handled in the case of Android. Android is freely available for download. However hardware manufacturers haven agreements with Microsoft to actually pay royality fees for (allegeds) patents in Android. Would that mean, that you could also ask money back from Microsoft if you buy an Android?
What does MS sell their OEM OS for anyway? Probably not that much. No one will likely bother.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Most consumers aren't even aware of options (Linux). They see Windows as an integral part of the PC platform.
Well, according to the original article on La Repubblica (hint: I'm Italian), the judgement came from the Cassazione, so it is as definitive as it can be in Italy (I know, I know...).
Am I the only one who thinks this is not a good thing?
Ultimately the distinction between hardware and software is an arbitrary one. Both mediums combine to provide the function required for a given product.
Let's pretend I am a hypothetical manufacturer of electronic devices. I am making some awesome hardware, and some equally awesome software to compliment it. They function beautifully together combining to make one truly cool product. Why should I be compelled to sell a variant of my product with have of it ripped out? That just harms the overall quality of the products my company is known for.
Would you ask a car manufacturer to sell an unpainted version of their vehicles because it's unfair to other paint manufacturers? Would you demand a watch ship without gears, so you can specifically choose what time keeping mechanism to use? Would you require lightbulbs to retail without gas inside, so you can choose to fill it with nitrogen or argon yourself?
Of course not! You choose to buy a car in the color you want. You buy a completed watch that you think keeps time the best. You purchase a lightbulb that already has the features your want.
Software made to compliment hardware and vice-versa can be awesome. I want to buy my hardware from a vendor that supports open source because they think it's worthwhile, not because they begrudgingly were obliged to make it.
Linux, BSD, other open source solutions are awesome, and if I am a hardware vendor I am going to build hardware that supports it because it's awesome. Not because I've been strong armed into it by a the courts.
Why could I not apply this same legal idea to everything else included with the computer? "I already have a perfectly good power supply!" "Let me swap in my old CPU chip!" "Stop including an LCD on my laptop! I'm never going to use it!" "Curse the forced purchase of LED power lights! That's a good three cents I could save!"
There are more than enough sources from which a computer can be procured that do not have Windows. If the manufacturer or store you want to buy from doesn't have any, don't buy from there!
So if this is such a great idea, why don't you do it (sell alternate OS installs on usb keys) and get rich? Oh, right, linux vendors have been trying (and mostly failing) to do this for more than a decade. And you want average Joe Sixpack to "boot from usb?" Do they press F2, F9, F10, F8 during the boot - different boxes use different keys. "Try one key, and if it doesn't work, reboot and try another" isn't going to work, when the boot prompt flashes by too fast for them to read.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
> MS has done nothing to prevent a PC from being sold without an OS.
Are you serious? Either you have forgotten the 90's and early 2000's or are too young to remember. From wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
"In the 1990s, Microsoft adopted exclusionary licensing under which PC manufacturers were required to pay for an MS-DOS license even when the system shipped with an alternative operating system. Critics attest that it also used predatory tactics to price its competitors out of the market and that Microsoft erected technical barriers to make it appear that competing products did not work on its operating system."
The MS-DOS carried on into Windows. Even if you wanted to run Linux, OS/2, or anything else, you still had to purchase the MS license, or colloquially, the M$ Tax.
> They certainly make it cheaper for Dell to pre-install Windows on a machine than for the end user to buy their own copy. They may have even said that they will raise the price if they don't make all their machines come with Windows.
They "may" have? Let's make it clear. They made it so *every* computer Dell sells has Windows on it. If even one went out without Windows, Dell or any other manufacturer was forced to pay a higher cost for Windows and other MS products. Even IBM, who made the competing OS/2.
Vip
Not $35 versus $40, we're talking $35 versus $100 or more.
Yes obviously Dell picked the option that was best for them. The whole "problem" as you ask is that Microsoft is a monopoly, and what is legal in markets with competition is not legal in markets with a overwhelmingly dominant player. It doens't matter at all if Dell decided on this willingly and without coercion.
i invite you to read http://yro.slashdot.org/submis... happy hacking pdb