Slashdot Mirror
Australian Linux user gets Windows Refund
freejack writes
"Here's an
incredible story of how one Linux user got his
money back for the Windows pre-installed on the laptop he
bought. He used the fact the Microsoft Software License
Agreement allows you to return the software if you do not
agree to its terms."
If anyone can find wording that implies otherwise, please let me know.
Chris Kuster (cmkuster@unity.ncsu.edu)
If ever there was a time
for the slashdot effect to be used
it is NOW.
He should've taken the better model when he had the chance.. ;)
Now that's a story!
;)
Too bad I can't return my copy of Windows, but I don't own this copy.
Seeing how the legislators are not helping out the end-users any with the EULA (I understand that the legislators are supporting the industry in denying the user the right to read the EULA prior to purchase of the software), it's nice to see that you can hold the vendor to the EULA to get your money back when you finally read the EULA and don't agree to it's terms.
I wonder how Toshiba manages to install NT instead of 98 under their Microsoft exclusive contract then...
Of does NT not run at all on laptops ?
Is the letter that Geoffrey D. Bennett GPL'ed? Can I use it when I needed?
AU$110 =? US$, anyway, happy to have discount in my next purchase.
Notice that he had no problem once he finally mentioned that he deleted the MS OS and replaced it with Linux. Up to that point Toshiba may have thought that he was trying to return the backup CD while continuing to run the MS OS. I wonder how many confused people do indeed try that. I just haven't gotten around to returning mine, but I'll make sure to mention the original OS was replaced.
Toshiba laptops run Linux wonderfully well, in my experience. I heartily encourage everyone out there who is looking for a laptop to use with Linux purchaes a Toshiba laptop and then try to get your money back for the copy of Windoze that you are not using! Send a big 'ol message.
That's why I'm buying my computer in pieces instead of a prebuilt one... TO AVOID THE DAMN PIRATED WINDOZE PREINSTALLED ON MY HD!
When will they get a clue?
If you'd like some evidence about MS monopolistic practices towards other OSes, this is it. Toshiba indicates that they have a signed deal with Microsoft that precludes them from offering other operating systems, and requires them to pay MS. I thought MS wasn't allowed to do that! Of course, it's in Australia, so maybe MS is not bound by US laws, even though it's a US company.
The last pre-built computer I bought was a Radio Shack TRS-80 Model I. Since then, everything has been 100% IBM -- meaning I Built-it Myself. So, I can't claim any refunds, but of course, I also don't have to wipe an OS I don't want.
I can see MS will now just re-word the EULA
and remove the "refund" part....
"If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, Manufacturer, Microsoft Corporation("Microsoft"), and Microsoft Licensing Inc.("MSLI") are unwilling to license the SOFTWARE PROTDUCT to you. In such event, you may not use or copy the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and you should promptly contact Manufacturere for instructions on return of the products(s) for a refund."
This hit a nerve for me. Most of my computers run Linux, so I have a stack of unused software that I was FORCED to purchase. It really makes me mad that Microsoft has been able to command such a strong monopoly position and has the nerve to claim no monopoly.
It would be fantastic if Microsoft is shown to be breaking the law, a class action lawsuit would sure move some of that wasted money back into our hands.
Ask for a refund. If they give it to you, you're fine. If not, bounce mail around for 6 months, and finally agree to return the full system. Buy yourself a new one from a different company (by that time, something 20% faster) and continue until you either (a) get a vendor who'll take Windoze back or (b) you get tired of free upgrades every 6 months. :)
Has anyone tried this with a non-Wintel system?
Perhaps get a PowerMac G3 without MacOS, a Sparc station without Solaris, an SGI without IRIX, etc.
Could this be the beginning of the end of computer hardware and OS bundling? I doubt it.
Kurt Sellner
ksellner@earthlink.net
Yes - ignore your principles to get a slightly
better laptop - people like you really help us
win the war against Microsoft.
It'd be beautiful!
"Millions Sue MicroSoft for Breach of Contract, Seek $3 Billion"
...it would make the exclusive bundle deals unprofitable for the OEMs. It could, finally, put an end to the preload monopoly!
Note quite, Toshiba Australia is an Australian
company, and Toshiba America is an American
company and Toshiba UK is a UK company, and so
on.
My understanding is that the consent agreement signed by Microsoft with the DOJ forbid them from
entering into exclusive licence deals with manufactures. If so somebody is in a large pile of manure.
I have a couple of NT Server 120-day demo CDs (work fine installing them in 2079 or so). They also include a non-crippled copy of Win95 and FrontPage on the CD :) Too bad I can't return those, since I don't use them!
I attempted to buy a computer from Tiger Electronics. I told 'em I didn't want an operating system installed, but they kept telling me that I had to buy Windows 98. Tack on another $90.
I ended up telling them to go screw themselves and now I refuse to buy anything from them. Guess I should try this tactic on my next pre-built computer.
Great idea!! Thanks!
My girlfriend and I are currently trying to
get e-machines in Fremont, CA to take back
the pre-bundled Win98. So far, we've reached
nothing but people there hemming and hawwing
and generally stalling. The EULA clause quoted
in this instance is the same here in the US,
BTW
-Densaer
Gateway 2000 says:
:(
If you do not agree to ther terms of this EULA, Gateway 2000 is unwilling to license the SOFTWARE PRODUCT to you. In such event, you may not use or copy the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, and you should promptly contact Gateway2000 for instructions on returning it.
No mention of refund, just return
so return it.
What? and wind up paying for something he didn't get? or even want? That sucks, and I don't think it's even legal.
I bought a Sony vaio 505f a couple of weeks back.
I immediately network installed linux on the
system when I bought it. I told the guy I was
buying it from I only wanted to run Linux on it
anywa. I did not even boot windows '98.
It comes with a bunch of CD's and microsoft
windows all packaged up and shrink-wrapped.
(actually, I can't even read the CD's because
I didn't buy the optional cdrom drive - I love
linux that way - everything over the net)
The licensing agreement is all sandwiched between
the CD's, which are sealed by a bunch of
stickers.
What does it say?
haul MS into court, beat them, and
laugh!
I am in the process of getting the refund for Windoze 95 and some other software which came with a Toshiba notebook. First time I called Toshiba customer service on February 6, 1998. After 9 month battle (by the way, I contacted James Love in May with the story, and I think it resulted in CPT survey of the PC preinstalled OS market http://www.essential.org/antitrust/ms/jun3survey.h tml, and followed by the "M$ tax letter"), I eventually got a call from Toshiba and was notified thet the decision was "to re-iterate that the refund will be $5 or less". Anyway, I was given the address to send the CDs. Unfortunately, I have not done so yet, but hope to send them out within cople of weeks (I am preparing the letter regarding possible outcomes of their decision on the amount of the refund).
I will make the whole story publically available as soon as it is finished.
Igor
What was Toshiba's real motivation?
Did anybody notice that they only gave him the $110 refund when he started looking at the $700 replacement?
Here is a similar story!!
Read this! http://www.zdnet.com/pcweek/stories/news/0,4153,38 3856,00.html
I think this shining M$ - Vendor example should be sent to the DOJ as further evidence of M$ business ... flood their e-mail if need be....
practices - HELL, send a couple hundred copies of this
I picked up a used P166 and the shop gave me $30 off the price for leaving without an OS. I'll call that a bargain.
Toshiba is wrong on this. It is obvious that you should receive a refund for what their costs to install Windows.
You should explain that:
a) Their agreement with Microsoft is absolutely irrelavent. The only agreement you abide by is the one between you and the EULA. I always love it when big corporations try to explain to us that they can't do something because some other agreement they have with someone else. THAT IS NOT YOUR PROBLEM, THAT IS THEIR PROBLEM.
b) This is different from sending parts of the hardware back since each hardware piece is not covered by a EULA, while each software piece is.
c) $5 is much too small for the refund. Ask them to explain why it is $5. I can see them not wanting to pay at all, but why only $5? It seems they are acknowledging that some refund should be made here.
I have sent Windows licenses back before. The legalese is very clear on the EULA. I personally use a Windows license at home (I am not a MS basher), but I do realize that every computer I buy doesn't use Windows. So I send those licenses back.
you might want to point out that if toshiba pays 5 per copy microshaft's retail prices are obviously fixed, and since the basic definition of a monopoly is a company that can fix prices, microshaft is obvisly a monopoly.
Another HUGE profit center for MS is redundant licenses. These licenses are those which were paid for and now are sitting on a hard drive in a garage or a warehouse because the PC has been replaced.
A new PC comes with a new license, whether you want or need it or not, and you do not need the license if the other PC is just going to sit around or become a router (running another OS).
Refuse the new license and legally transfer your old license, right? Wrong! Many of the OEM licenses these days (Compaq comes to mind in particular) cannot be loaded on anything other than a Compaq PC!
This is another problem: OEMs that make a Win95, Win98 or WinNT CD that will not install on anything other than their hardware. And worse than that, when you obtain the license they are not required to tell you that it won't install on anything else. My recommendation? Boycott manufacturers who ship "custom" (read "broken") Windows CDs that will not install elsewhere. Again, Compaq comes to mind.
Surely the US DOJ has enough money and initiative to go buy a dozen or so WinTel boxen, then try to get the vendor to refund the value of the unused pre-loaded Win98/NT operating system.
I imagine their experience of trying to get a refund would make very interesting reading for Judge Jackson; especially as he would have a copy of the 1995 consent decree somewhere handy. . .
Had a customer come in and demand his money back for Win98 today. He claimed basically the same thing, we had "forced" it upon him. I told him If he had asked, we'd have sold him a system without an OS. (We don't install Linux, but will sell without Windows -- Small reseller and no one is a real Linux guru.) Asked him to bring in a receipt and the software and we'd give him the money back for it. Poor guy looked depressed and shocked, he was itching for a fight. I know Gateway does this, what other large vendors ship various OSes, not just *nix variants either?
:)
Made my day
Hi Everyone,
I think you are missing an opportunity with your Windows refund idea. The main site states OS/2, LINUX etc.... but does not cover the case where you immediately wipe your hard disks and convert from say 95 to NT - which is what we do with all the computers in our Company - and what most of Wall Street does as well.
why stop at microsoft? i dont use intel multimedia function 4, can i get intel to disable it and i get some of my money back? i pay taxes, those taxes goto public schools, i dont go to public school, so i should get a tax refund.
we are from an IBM business partner specialized in OS/2. Of course we remove all Windows OS from our systems. It is dangerous software. Last year we also tried to get our money back from IBM and Microsoft for an IBM system delivered with Win95. Nobody said it was impossible but in the end management from IBM said it would seriously hurt our relation if we would pursue this matter! They actually told us to shut up or it would cost us our business with IBM. I am not a Don Quichote, but others please keep on fighting. This is outreageous.
Exactly what do oem's pay for?
I have "heard" over and over again that they MS demands that they pay for a licanse on EVERY computer that they sell, not just the ones with microsoft software.
ie. if gateway sold 50 computers with windows and 50 computer with linux, they would have to pay microsoft for 100 licenses.
Please confirm weather this is true or not.
First of all, congratulations to Geoffrey on managing to get a refund on MS Windows - nice one. As I was reading about it, and about the "refund drive" on February 15th, something occured to me - another way that the protesters who'll be requesting a refund could send the message: Each person (this does of course rely on a large number of people getting involved) could do the following:
(1) write, phone, or email (cheapest and least time-consuming) a pc retailer, inquiring about the spec and price of available pc's.
(2) go through the process of getting a quote for a specific pc, discussing available components and prices.
(3) get a quote for a given system.
(4) ask how much that system would be without Windows.
(5) (presumably) be told that they can't order a pc without Windows.
(6) Cancel the entire order and tell the salesperson that he/she (the prospective customer) intends to try to find a retailer who will ship a pc without Windows.
If a pc retailer believed that it had lost several hundred (or thousand, if things went well) orders in a few months because the prospective customers didn't want Windows, it's possible that the retailer would reconsider things.
Shouldn't this refund also apply to all Windows developers that MS banged for $1,500 or more to buy MSDN? It includes a user license of all Windows OS products. If you install the MSDN versions then the shipping license is unused. How about boxes that shipped with 9X and users bought NT instead (and they don't dual boot)? NT was not commonly pre-loaded for quite a while.
It occurs to me as a credit card holder and a consumer who has disputed charges with vendors in the past that perhaps you could get your refund for Win95 through the credit card dispute resolution process. To my mind, this is classic
case of a vendor violating a contract and this is one of the cases where a the bank that issued the card can act as arbiter. Perhaps? Maybe? Full of $#!+?
The object of having a shrink-wrap license is to bind the person who uses the package into a contract. A contract may never be completely one-sided; if I signed a contract saying I would give my neighbor $1,000 a week for life, when he never gave me anything in return, that contract would be invalid. To my mind, this means Microsoft's licensing agreement is completely invalid. If there is no way to return the software for a refund, then Microsoft has no right to demand you not resell the package.
I have read here that the refunds some people actually received were around $100, and in one case less than $5.
Consider this for the February 15 refund revolt:
You should get a refund for the amount of a "new installation" license, not the "upgrade" amount of 100 bucks. After all, this is a new system we are talking about, not an upgrade of an existing software license. And Microsoft insists on putting the phrase "Upgrade", along with a statement saying you must already have another MS operating system installed, on their boxes sold for under $100. This would not apply for a new computer, which would have to have the "new install" license.
The refund amount should be the usual and customary price one would pay for a new installation of Windows-95 or 98. I do not know the exact figure, but it is certainly more than $100, perhaps several hundred dollars.
Regardless of the terms of the EULA (End User Licence Agreement) for THE PRODUCT (Windows 95/98), THE MANUFACTURER (Toshiba) as a registered Australian company AND as the supplier of THE PRODUCT are subject to the rules and regulations of at least:
In reading the previous posts, THE MANUFACTURER (Toshiba) has been reported in such a manner that it has violated several subsections of the Trade Practices Act, Section 53.
In particular:
SECT 53 False or misleading representations
A corporation shall not, in trade or commerce, in connexion with the supply or possible supply of goods or services or in connexion with the promotion by any means of the supply or use of goods or services:
(bb) falsely represent that a particular person has agreed to acquire goods or services;
THE MANUFACTURER (Toshiba) can not force you to agree to purchase THE PRODUCT, nor can they force you to keep THE PRODUCT once it has been purchased. By preventing you from purchasing the notebook computer without THE PRODUCT they are already violating the TPA. They are doubly violating the TPA by refusing the accept THE PRODUCT for refund at a fair and reasonable price.
(c) represent that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits they do not have;
This one is highly debatable. It could be argued that because you have no intention of using THE PRODUCT or anything of similar specifications, THE PRODUCT is of no benefit to you and can not be sold to you on the basis that it does have uses or benefits to you. In other words, it's no good to you so they can't force you to keep it!
(e) make a false or misleading representation with respect to the price of goods or services;
THE MANUFACTURER (Toshiba) is likely to be making misleading representations by saying that they are providing you with THE PRODUCT free of charge. It is highly unlikely that THE MANUFACTURER (Toshiba) is obtaining THE PRODUCT from MICROSOFT free of charge themselves, nor for anything near the price of AUS$5.00. You may DEMAND that THE MANUFACTURER (Toshiba) provide you with a copy of a valid MICROSOFT invoice to THE MANUFACTURER (Toshiba) in order prove their purchase price of THE PRODUCT and to justify the amount of their refund.
(g) make a false or misleading representation concerning the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy.
This is where the EULA comes in:
In summary, just looking at it from a TPA point of view, and only by checking Section 53 (look at all those other Sections!), THE MANUFACTURER (Toshiba) does not have a leg to stand on:
I hope that this information proves TRULY USEFUL.
Check it out. Linux user getss E-Machines to
take back Win98!
Why does every newspaper article I see about this refer to the return clause of the EULA as a loophole? It makes it look like we are trying to somehow cheat Microsoft and/or OEMs when it's actually the other way around.
I too am A coward, unfortunately I like some of microsofts products, I never get a blue screen, my friends who have, I come in and fix it , some times it as simple as setting the resources manually, but Toshiba is the one responsible for jippin you, I am running afew systems, One is running NT Server, one is NT workstation, One is win 98, the other win95 osr2. I like microsoft products because it is familiar, I don't like how the manufacturers blame Microsoft for selling them a product at an extreme discount, sure business has strong arms, all do (even some charities too!) But big executives are blaming Microsoft for company (like Toshiba's) choices. I was able to go to microsoft directly to get a win98 refund ant they gave me a $70.00 refund back in July of 98, and I did boot my Machine! So when too many people get on the same bandwagon, the wagon get worn down and even breaks!
Question to those who would know.
Given the the license agrement supplied to the user with the product stipulates that Windows may be returned for a refund.
Is an ISO 9000 company required to have an established and documented return strategy for windows software?
If yes. Should not the ISO 9000 companies and their auditors be made aware of this.
It just occurred to me: when you get Windows with a computer,
you also get some tech support, so the refund should include the
cost of that too.
Also, if the manufacturer says that they will no longer provide
a warranty on their hardware, you should be compensated for
that loss as well.
If this goes to court, it could be shown that the losses one suffers
for having to pay for Windows is MUCH GREATER than the
MS OEM price!
I wonder if the manufacture breaks the contract by refusing to refund it that means we are
then able to distribute copies of the software, install onto other machines, etc... Since we
are no longer obliged to comply to the contract since the other party has broken it.
Hmmmm
What about a refund for Mac users with an unuesd version of Internet Exploder? Netscape is more than enough
After reading some of the previous replies to this story, I have to agree with the person who said he was tired of seeing everyone thrashing Microsoft. Windows is a fully functional O/S, albeit far more expensive than Linux ;). I just think that it makes US look bad to have such disrespect for other options when most of us are basically saying that "Hey, there are other options!" Sure, a lot of people think that that Windows is the only option, but I think it makes us look just as bad to say that Linux is the only real option, because everything else sucks.
Forget it, IE is a free product, and you did not pay a cent for it (nor did Apple).
----
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
If your intention is to stick it to Microsoft and set a precedent, then that might well be worth doing. A lawyer might well be willing to try if there appears to be a reasonable chance of winning, for the reason mentioned above. It could be like hitting the lottery if they won.
Posted by The ULTIMATE Crippler:
Why don't we all try to get one of these? With all the systems I have laying around without running any M$ bloatware, I must have about 3 Win95 licenses, a couple of NT Server licenses, and an NT Workstation license. That's a lot of money!
And if they resist... SUE!
Posted by Mephie:
I've worked in support so long I have: Dos6.2, Win3.1, Win95 retail, OSR1, OSR2, OSR2.2, NT4.0 Server, Win98 OEM Full and 2 copies of Redhat 5.0.
Didn't have to pay a dime for any of the MS ones (and I even have licenses for them), bought one of the RH, got the other from a friend.
--Mephie
Posted by HolyMackeralAndy:
Right On! I will definitely do this with my next new system (however, by thetime I buy it I may be able to get Linux pre-installed).
Posted by BeOSMan:
:)
That is correct, the EULA does say that the software product and the computer are a "single integrated product" However, this is highly contradictory to the line directly above it (in my EULA anyway) which states:
"The SOFTWARE PRODUCT is licensed as a single product."
It could be argued that the EULA does not agree with itself, and hence could not have been written on a microsoft operating system.
It could be argued that this invalidates the EULA in its entirety which would cause ownership of the software to revert to you and all liability on the Manufacturer's behalf to be released.
-OR-
It could be argued that since, from a logical standpoint, it is impossible to truely agree with a license agreement which contradicts itself all users of Microsoft Operating systems were forced agree with something which made no sense in order to use the software they purchased with their computer. Thus it would seem every user of all Microsoft Products would be entitled to a refund or a sensical licensing agreement.
-Jason Stiles
stiles@hotmail.com
Check out a cool OS at:
http://www.be.com
Posted by FelixM:
I have recently contacted my Attorney General in relation to the MS-EULA dispute. The letters are posted at http://www.cyberramp.net/~dfalksen/eula/. Feedback welcomed.
----
http://www.cyberramp.net/~dfalksen/eula
Posted by Electroid:
You can't get a refund on Internet Explorer, it's a free product. lol
Glad to see it. Perhaps I will use this strategy in the future....
Wow, now THAT'S a damn good idea!
I wonder how well that would go over in the states.
If you can read this message, your threshold is too low.
Way to go... now that's a way to send the signal. No more MS! No more MS! No more MS! heh.
hassle the hardware dealers
demand no os on new systems drives
support Linux-only system sellers
Boycott the MS tax - no taxation w/o representation: I vote no for MS on my hdd!
Now, all I need is money to buy a new system.
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
A new page at http://linuxmafia.com/refund/ has been established to coordinate Refund Day for the San Francisco Bay Area, provide information for the expected press coverage, etc. The goal is to have an organised, efficient, and friendly refund visit to Microsoft's business office in Foster City.
By the way, whoever set up the "thenoodle.com" site is really on the ball. He linked to the linuxmafia.com page even before I asked, or even told him it existed.
Rick Moen rick@linuxmafia.comFor the shrinkwrapped bundles, you usually have the EULA attached or visible through the shrinkwrap. Opening all of that up supposedly implies agreement with the EULA.
For pre-installed software, however, the EULA appears on-screen before you're allowed to do anything. (I believe.) Pressing "I agree" (or whatever) indicates your acceptance of the EULA. There should be a printed version included, however.
...probably.
There is the whole principle of the matter, but still...
Shrinkwrap licenses are invalid in the US. See 17 USC 117 and D. J. Bernstein's commentary on the matter.
... if hundreds of thousands of Linux users around the world started doing this and donated the refunded money to the FSF, XFREE86 or other worthy projects? ...
nopzor
Time to find that book with the license in it
My
why not specify when you purchase yr machine NOT to have windows...I know when I purchased my last win box I simply requested windows NOT to be on the system, just DOS :) hence I didn't have to fork out any dosh for M$Windows ?
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
Since the illegal M$ tax can now be avoided on laptops, I can consider buying one this year. Though the email for refund battle appears to be less convenient then buying the CPU(s) and componets to build another desktop system.
Fresh Plan: find cheap Toshiba Libreto in back of Computer Shopper or pricewatch.com. Purchase via mail order to avoid state sales tax. Grind out series of emails to get a refund for the M$ tax.
Could be an an attractive option for about $500.
Happy happy, joy joy!
That is great! It's a good thing he DID put a lot of effort into getting a refund for software he didn't want. Hopefully this will not only prompt others to do the same, but wake up companies such as Toshiba to realize that the end user doesn't always want sucky software with a new PC.
-mickey
Actually, on this side of the Atlantic, any PC manufacturer including an OS that the customer did not explicitly request could be taken to court.
Article 85 of the Treaty on the European Union clearly states :
" 1. The following shall be prohibited as incompatible with the common market:
[...]
e.make the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts."
Clearly, the customer who buys computer hardware should be able to freely select which software is installed on it, prior to the conclusion of the sale.
The email from Toshiba is the best evidence that MS imposes to buy their software in a monopolistic, anti-competitive way. Is there a way to send this story to the DOJ lawyers ?
Is there any way to tell "which" license an OEM uses in advance?
The license language could change vendor to vendor, and it would be nice to know which ones were this flexable.
I know you can order Linux systems from companies like VA, iDot (by special email ammending of order) and others, but if the license says you open the UPS container you agree to the license, you're $#|+ out of luck...
The OEM gets stiffed by MS on this one too: every Win95 license I have seen specifically says "licensed for THIS computer", meaning the license is not reusable when returned. That, and if you buy a new OS-less computer later on, you can't legally install it on the new machine -- even if you delete the old installation or physically move the old hard drive into the new system.
You might be able to do this with Apple -- they DO sell hardware with Linux installed.
Your real question is do you get a discount ordering "without OS"? I don't know the answer to that, but you can pursue it if you want. Apple did that "Customer Focus" thing on the Linux/Apache webserver running on their G3.
Yes, before some rude AC points it out this is not "without an OS". But it may be "without being charged for an OS". Check with the Education store, or someone at a school's admin department may have a real human Sales rep at Apple you can call..
Just was intalling yet another Gateway today. I read /. just before, and payed REAL close attention. It was worded identical to the guy with the Toshiba in the story. So, in theory.... 8)
I'd be interested in knowing if anyone else planning on buying a new system anytime in the next couple of days can let us know about their progress through the same process. I might be more tempted to buy a machine from a manufacturer that allows this than one that doesn't- can everyone here let us know how it goes?
IAAL,BIANLY
I bought a computer from a local dealer.. www.microbiz.net here in vancouver canada. And i bought it without an OS with no hassle. he asked do you wan't windows98? i said no. And he knows its going to be a linux box. So he didn't charge me.. and also a couple other dealers around here have no problem selling without the OS.. is this a canada thing?
Unless I'm mistaken, this means I can go purchase
an E-machine for $399 and get a ~$100 refund for
not using Windows on it?
Aw, yeah!
:)
For years this has been the only part of the Microsoft monopoly that has
bothered me. If consumers can truly choose between operating systems when
purchasing a computer and they freely choose Windows "en masse" then I have no
problem ceding the desktop operating system market to Microsoft.
But consumers have no such choice and the current arrangement should have been
declared illegal long ago because Microsoft isn't simply supplying the OS as
part of their own Microsoft brand computer. Another company makes the box and
forcing a consumer to purchase a third party product is like forcing me to buy
and use Sharp food products with my Sharp microwave. That's criminal.
This little incident offers us a piece of information that would be nearly impossible to obtain by other means:
Toshiba is paying $110 Australian for each copy of Windoze.
An interesting gambit would be to pursue refunds from other major PC manufacturers, thereby getting a map of who's paying what. Could be very revealing...
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
I have an NEC laptop that came with Win95 preinstalled. I never got a refund for Winblows (is 1.5 years too late?) but I'm wondering if the NEC laptops that VA-Research (or other linux vendors sell) originally ship to THEM with WinBlows on em??
I especially like the "please state the manner in which you deleted the software" part... I'm sure the lawyers were giddy with anticipation of denying his request based on the fact that he MUST have booted it up in order to delete it, and hence, had already used the software...
"Dear sir.. I used Red Hat Linux to delete all partitions..."
WooP! I love it!
If they restrict it to a full hardware refund,
people can use it to upgrade their machines cheap!
1. prevent software refunds
2. prevent hardware upgrades on-the-cheap
3. prevent the OEM's from getting PO'd and
demanding a new deal on the licenses.
MS can't do all three.
Good morning folks,
If one of you were to buy a SUN or Apple computer in the near future, please ask them to remove the OS and stress that you wish to use an alternative free OS. Namely Linux, Freebsd, or whatever you feel.
This is the way to go..
--
As most people know by now, when you purchace a PC with Win9x pre-installed, you get that nifty shrink-wrapped Windows manual with the EULA. Provided you don't open this package, your refund may await.
;-)
However, having worked for Radio Shack, I've seen several systems come and go, and the systems as of late are packaged with the power cord in a sealed baggie with an Acceptance Agreement on that bag.
Hummm.... To use the computer (in any way, even to install Linux from your first boot), you have to open the bag to use the power cord. Oops, you've just accepted M$ licence agreement. No refund.
Have a nice day.
Of course, just grab another power cord from somewhere else
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
-Possum Lodge Motto
Actually I believe that the MS contract requires Toshiba to pay MicroSoft a fee for each laptop shipped. But this doesn't mean that the contract is exclusive, it just means that if you want a computer with say FreeBSD 3.0 then the manufacturer (Toshiba) must still pay the MicroSoft fee even though none of their software is on the machine.
Definitly NOT an exclusive, contract but perhaps indeed an anticompetetive one. This is a long standing MicroSoft tactic, and I believe was even used in the old DOS days.
Copyrighting a post on slashdot? Doesn't that seem to go against the ideas behind open source & copyleft?
The power of technology is manifest in how it is applied within the social matrix.
About $70 US at the moment, I think.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
This seems to rule out the option of acquiring a refund on the windows license without getting a refund on the entire computer. However, this clause does look rather fishy, and it would be interesting to see how such a clause would stand up in court. I am personally surprised that Toshiba did not cite this in their letters.
Anyway, it's an interesting case. I always wondered what would happen if the "refund" part of the EULA was put to the test. Hopefully, this will incite more people to start demanding refunds on their windows licenses. If nothing else, it will make the OEMs notice us
-- Elflord
If Toshiba is like Compaq, they will also include diagnostics tools on the hard disk. (On Compaq Armada's hitting F10 boots to a 15M DOS partition that contains various utilities to configure CMOS settings and the like). Even though this may not using a Windows OS, it does use DOS and hence is probably licencable software.
Are you prepared to lose the diagnostics as well?
I agree,that approach should work
It turns out that there are some local laws here in Saskatchewan, Canada, that ensure you can get your refund, even if M$ or the manufactuer refuse:
The Consumer Products Warranties Act (provincial) states among other things that the retailer is responsiblle for carrying out *all* guarantees and warantees, including implied performance guarantees, stated by the manufactuer.
So, if you buy a PC bundled with Windows that has an MS EULA stating that Windows can be returned for a refund, you can return it to the retailer and force them to give you the refund immediately. They may fight you, but it's the law here.
I suggest everyone check their local laws, as I suspect many other provinces and states may have similar laws +/ statutes.
-- sudo.ca
So, I sent an e-mail to Toshiba Canada expressing my distaste for their business practices, and I got a phonecall back from someone there. Over the course of the conversation, he let it slip that everywhere in Canada, Toshiba now puts the EULA on the powerswitch, so that you cannot turn on the computer without agreeing to the EULA.
*sigh*
-- sudo.ca
First, all of the brand name PCs that I've seen advertised include not only some flavor of Win32, but also include Office and a whole host of other applications that we supposedly want on our PCs. If we're going to get a refund for the software that we don't use, we might as well get a refund for all of the software and not just the OS.
Second, I worked as a support Bob [1] for one of MS's outsourcers. I took calls on DOS and Win95. One of the things that was stressed in our training was that if the customer was not satisfied with the product even after using it then it could be returned for a refund. I even used that on a couple of calls, but (sadly) don't remember the address (nor can I find where it was written down) for dissatisfied customers.
[1] Search on DejaNews[2] for the alt.tech-support.recovery FAQ to get an explanation of what a Bob is.
[2] You should know where to go by now...
Given that Febuary 15th is a US Federal Holiday (being President's Day), I wonder if there will be anyone *at* work to handle the refunds?
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
In the UK comsumer law is pretty much on the buyers' side. I doubt booting a pre-installed operating system would invalidate the EULA. I think you're probably entitled to a refund anyway, whatever the MS lawyers say.
You might even be able to get a refund based on the 'not fit for the purpose for which it was designed' clause (A lot retailers are wary enough of the law to give refunds simply on the 'I couldn't get it to work' argument, because it's fairly easy in court to go from 'doesn't work' to 'not fit')
I believe that the intent of that phrase is that the copy of Windows you just received may only be used on the PC it came with, not on some other machine. If you bought one machine with NT and one with 98, it violates the EULA (isn't that a football player in Nashville?) to swap the two OS's.
Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
I picked up a couple of AlphaStation 200 4/233s from webauction.com... $400.00 a piece. 32 megs ram, but no operating system, and no hard disk. One is running NT Server, and one RedHat 5.2.
(anyone want to help me get X running on the 8 meg TGA cards that came with the systems?)
That would only work if those operating systems
were licensed with the same condition in
Microsofts EULA which allows refund of the
operating system if you don't agree to the
license. I'm fairly sure the others don't.
yeah right - that hardly seems worth it. A desktop, now those I build, but laptops are a whole different story.
\forall code \in C, \frac{\Delta readability(code)}{\Delta t} < 0
Wouldn't it be beautiful if Bill Gates had to refund everyone who'd ever purchased a Windows OS, ran out of money, and had to crash on Linus' couch?
VA Research's VArBook comes with Win95, but not installed. When even a Linux specific dealer has to bundle an MS OS with their notebooks, that's a monopoly.
YOUR OS SUCK
Interesting Point.
I can't wait to see what happens when some high profile lawyers get their hands in this and start slugging. The two statements contradict eachother. Wonder what a judge would rule.
Anyway, better get it quick if you're going to try. If it become epidemic, you can bet it'll be rewritten promptly.
Also, I think a more interesting battle to watch would be the PC makers vs. MS. How are their agreements written? Will they be able to get MS to cough up the cash since it's their EULA.
Just a thought
M
MG
If possible go to local PC vendors who build
their own equipment. Most of these people
are not tied into any agreement with MS, and
it also helps support local business as opposed
to the other mega corps, i.e. dell, compaq.
it's a pity i used my M$ software, back when i purchased the computer i didn't even really know what linux was fully. oh well. i'll get to do this with my next upgrade
V
is how entertwined alot of these hardware vendors are and microsoft. did anybody else notice how deadly that liscense is? microsoft has a CONTRACT with toshiba that prohibits them from seperating their software from their hardware. later on it said they can't sell a system without a valid operating system...but i bet that implies MS operating systems because why would microsoft make them sign an agreement like that. it is little wonder that the hardware industries are anxious to get microsoft off of their backs if they are being forced to sign prohibitive liscense like this. i wonder how long they are effective? this is definatly one of the things "they" would rather not have known and i'm glad this story brought it up.
V
Between this, the vendor support, the publicity, and the frantic development efforts out there, I'm starting to believe that Linux really CAN overtake Microsoft.
My new prediction is that by Jan 1st, 2000, Linux will be the operating system of choice for all new systems.
Linux - Operating system for a new millennium.
I really don't see how that actually can be legal. To buy product A, you must also purchase product B. To me that's like saying to buy a 2 liter bottle of coca-cola you must also buy a glass. I dunno, I hate the way the legal system works in the US anyway. I wish all the lawyers / judges would go to hell, especially judge judy.
-matt
I really don't think of anyway that part of the EULA could be upheld in court by that interpretation of it. It implies that no computer can be sold without windoze. And by buying a computer pre-installed with windows you cannot remove it. I really hate software, no other industry has this kinda crap associated with it. When I buy a vcr there is no license agreement saying I can only use it w/ brand X tvs or that I can only buy tapes from Y company or that I can't open it up and play w/ it (well most of the time that kills the waranty, but have you ever actually tried to return a product that died while under waranty? See http://www.op.net/~mstocum/ for my personal problems with JVC.)
-matt
Go to your local YYY store and buy all the copies of any microsoft product that you can afford. Go home, open the shrink wrap on the box, BUT NOT THE CD. Go back to the store and tell them that you don't agree to the EULA and that you want your money back. Since the EULA doesn't say anything about the condition of the product you might want to try damaging the software in such a way that it could not simply be re-shrink-wrapped and resold. I think this would certainly make a point. I'm also fairly certain that microsoft would not be able to change the EULA to indicate that you cannot get a refund because that would almost certainly invalidate it.
-matt
Now that is a funky story...slightly dodgy that they took so long to agree though...*shrug*
And the moral of the story is this don't buy from Toshiba, if you want to run Linux they are obviously sleping with the beast. Buy Gateway, Dell, or Compaq....
Only 'flamers' flame!
There seems to be a problem.. the EULA does not say how much they have to refund you. It could be $0.50, or maybe nothing at all. They can argue that if you had made it clear that you did not want Windows, they would have sold you the system without Windows for the same price anyway. And furthermore, OEMs do not pay the full retail price for Windows.
It took a long time, but they finally gave the guy his refund. Give them credit for that. Especially since:
1. They're a big corporation with many procedures, and this guy was asking for something unheard of (literally, they hadn't heard of it before).
2. As another poster suggested, they may have not have understood until the end that he was using a different OS and not pulling a fast one.
3. They DO have a contract (required by current market forces) with a certain OS vendor known for very, very hardball tactics, in and out of court.
If enough slashdotters were to buy laptops from Toshiba, they might just start to openly market to us. (Assuming MS doesn't try to fix their wagon.)
The quote from the license speaks of the singular "SOFTWARE PRODUCT", so I take the phrase "contact Manufacturer for instructions on return of the product(s)" to mean that it's your choice; you can either return the MS SOFTWARE PRODUCT to the (computer) Manufacturer for a refund, or you can return all the products (plural) you bought from the Manufacturer, which means the computer and software. That, your honor, is why the "s" is in brackets; it's my option.
In my EULA, that section is titled [2](g) Single COMPUTER. That gives the context to interpret this as forbidding copies to other computers. The "single INTEGRATED product" reading is arguably meaningless or inaccurate. I can certainly put in a boot disk and use a different OS, so Windows is not integrated so tightly with the hardware as to make the hardware useless without Windows. Perhaps the emphasis should be "SINGLE integrated product", since this clause is talking about copying to other machines, not divorcing the software from the hardware.
Well, it seems enough people think this is a pretty cool idea, so I've whipped up a new site, the Windows Refund Center, as a place where we can organize and help each other on this. http://www.thenoodle.com/refund/ . Comments or acts of volunteering should go to admin@thenoodle.com. Let's do it.
This should be shouted from the highest mountaintop (newsgroup/listserv) on the planet!
I bet this would make for some interesting rebuttal in the court hearings.
This should also be public knowledge...if more people knew this was possible Bill might not have such an upper hand...
If vendors gets lots of returned software that
they have to pay for anyway - guess what happens?
They'll reject such deals with Microsoft.
A single small vendor can probably not do it, but
they'll cooperate on this if all of them get
returns.
Paying a refund to, say 1% of the users won't
make the windows deal unprofitable because of
refund cost alone, but the extra work may make
them reconsider.
And imagine a company with lots of machines doing this. I don't know of any large-scale linux
installations, but there sure are banks with large
os2 installations around.
Then there are those who upgrade to newer machines, and install their old licenced windows
onto the new machines. (Legal if you bought windows without machine once, and remove windows
from the old machines before selling them used.)
You can specify DOS instead, but I wouldn't want to buy DOS either. Not that it matters to me,
I don't buy whole machines anyway.
I know you can't order one without windows, but how about ordering one without a harddisk?
If they wonder why, just say you have broken the screen or something, but you have everything you need on the existing hardisk.
Then order an "extra" harddisk a little later. Some notebooks have room for an extra drive. Or say you want a spare one.
I have sold all of my win95 licenses on ebay. I don't use windows so there is no reason to keep a copy of the product or to own a license.
Sometimes I think about the older licenses I have. I have two compaq aeros one still has a license for dos/win3.1, which I understand MS still sells. I don't have the disks because compaq didn't distribute the software on disk with the computer.
However, is it possible for me donate the license to a school? Perhaps some one could create a website where people with old licenses to MS software could place ads with availability, no SS# on the website itself of course. And schools and other non-profits could have the licenses transfered to them.
How many offices have machines that don't work but still have the licenses for the software. Most companies probably have a fortune in unused software. Donating it could be a tax write off.
It is unlikely that MS would complain about charitable donations of this type. The PR would be terrible. And even if they did complain I doubt anything could be done about it.
mousejocky@mindless.com.XXXX
As I understand only the conduct of hardware manufacturers can be questioned in the particular case, because MS provides a way not to use their software (according to their License agreement). It is the manufacturer who tried not to follow suit because they would see no money from MS, according to their agreement. So IMO MS can be condemned because of the agreements like that but even that would not mean that the end user could see money from it. :( I even can see MS using this story as sg supporting them: they give the opportunity for everyone to return the software, and how many of us did it???
I just purchased a notebook from Custom Computers (http://www.custom-computers.com) made by JETTA International (http://www.jetta.com).
The notebook can be ordered without an Operating System so you can avoid the M$ TAX from the start.
The laptop runs Linux without and problems!
Joe
Just spent 40 minutes on the phone with Gateway trying to convince them to give me a refund. They consistently refused, saying that their agreement with MS "does not allow them to sell a computer without an MS operating system," and that they attach no real dollar value to the OS, so there is no point in returning it.
The generic customer service rep was rude, and at first refused to let me talk to her manager. The manager was quite nice, but just as useless.
I guess that I'll now have to write a "I'm shocked and appalled" letter to the VP of Customer Care.
Direct from Microsoft themselves...
All this negative stuff about PC suppliers misses an important point: there are some responsible stores who actually provide what their customers want, and don't forcefeed them Windoze.
I bought a PC just before Christmas and asked for no OS, and the salesman understood and accepted that I wanted to use Linux, to the extent that he recommended that I select a different video card since mmy first choice might give problems (PnP). I did as he suggested (the card was actually a few $ less that my first choice) and it works perfectly.
In fact the machine was $80 cheaper than if I had bought it with Win installed, so he made his sale and I got what I wanted without paying the MS tax - isn't that what the salesperson/customer thing is all about?
I suggest we support the stores that allow this choice - forget the big corporations who work hand-in-glove with MS.
For the record I bought the machine at PC's For Everyone in Cambridge MA. I can't fault them for anything in this purchase, so I will use them agian. Their URL is http://www.pcsforeveryone.com
B=
I want to let you know that I am going to try to get the windows refund for a notebook that I will buy next week.
It will probably be an Acer Extensa 500T but I have not yet decided. Any comments about how this
particular model runs under Linux are appreciated.
I am currently living in Germany and my german is not very good, so some help by german-speaking people in translating e-mails/faxs/letters will be
welcome. Also if you know some law in Germany that makes this easyer/harder please let me know.
If I succeed the money will be donated to the Free Software Foundation.
Ruben
As Toshiba is stating that the refund is to be set to $5 or less, well folks, call Toshiba for a special price Windows OS. The refund should be equal to what the consumer will have to pay for a new license. Meaning if you accept the refund of $5, you should also be able to buy the product back for the same price later.
I can't stress this enough. "What a load of bollocks!" Lets all get excited about nothing in particular.
This is not the first time 'refund' has reared it's head on Slashdot. Is anyone expecting me to believe that you cannot buy a machine and specify at time of purchase that you don't want any MS product on it. Give me a break! What a shower of annoying whiners! Get over yourselves.
Sorry folks, that last post got mangled. This is my second ever post to /.!
You guessed?
The line:
the sale. ). Si ou non?
missed a chunk, which I now precis:
-end of quote
-MS would claim there is linkage between computer hardware and software (which there is) though proving that this means i86a computers *absolutely* require MS software is another question. The answer is not one MS would like to go to court to prove!
-The original poster was from France?
Does that make more sense?
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
I'm having fun talking to them about it though.
They've tried to convince me it doesn't apply
to "operating software". Heh.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
I dont normally get involved in silly crap like this, but this time its irrisistable.
:)
*Why dont u buy computer systems that DONT come preloaded with Windows if you dont want it? there are plenty of resellers on the 'net happy to sell Window-less units.
*Why dont u get over yer hatred of Windows simply because it's Microsoft. If u don't wanna use MS products well don't use em, n leave the rest of us who understand that the best product is the one that does the job the best, whether it be unix or windows or wotever.
*Ever noticed how similar yer very public anti-windows whinging is to Microsoft's alleged bully-boy tactics?
Makes me wonder jsut how many of u anti-windows dickheads actually successfully use a computer to make a living....
...can't wait for all the friendly replies im gonna get from this post *smooch* love u all
On Friday, I called Dell. I spoke to Sean in customer service.
I asked if I could return Windows for a refund. He said YES!!.
I asked how much the refund would be. He said $199!!
Me thinks he's gonna lose his job. But it's been said!
I've transcibed the conversation at http://ibis.home.texas.net/dell.html.
Just saw this on Compaq/Digital's web site which is supporting Linux on AlphaServer.h tml
http://www.digital.com/alphaserver/linux/index.
The Compaq AlphaServer DS20 and 800 systems are available without a bundled software license, allowing you to use an open source operating system, such as Linux. This saves you the cost of purchasing an operating system you don't plan to use.
Why is it that this is not the case on Intel products? It seems like even though Microsoft claims that they do not force vendors to ship Windows on a new system and that the vendors "choose" to do it because it is the only fesable option, that suddenly to the vendor "...the cost of purchasing an operating system you don't plan to use." doesn't matter anymore. It appears that this is only the case if the vendor controls BOTH the hardware and the software. Seems almost like Microsoft IS involved and that it isn't just a vendor "choice".
Just saw this on Compaq/Digital's web site which is supporting Linux on AlphaServer.h tml
http://www.digital.com/alphaserver/linux/index.
The Compaq AlphaServer DS20 and 800 systems are available without a bundled software license, allowing you to use an open source operating system, such as Linux. This saves you the cost of purchasing an operating system you don't plan to use.
Why is it that this is not the case on Intel products? It seems like even though Microsoft claims that they do not force vendors to ship Windows on a new system and that the vendors "choose" to do it because it is the only fesable option, that suddenly to the vendor "...the cost of purchasing an operating system you don't plan to use." doesn't matter anymore. It appears that this is only the case if the vendor controls BOTH the hardware and the software. Seems almost like Microsoft IS involved and that it isn't just a vendor "choice".
The EULA has nothing to do with it. You have the right, under US law, anyway, to return all or any part of a product for a refund if it doesn't perform as specified.
And of course, no MS product ever has.
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
I don't think they'd be able to get away with that. Selling you a product before you are allowed to read the license and then not letting you use or return the product if you disagree with the license? They can get away with a lot, but not that.
If we could only return MacOS to apple since we don`t use it anyway
I wonder how many people would have to do this before Toshiba would get a clue and start offering a product WITHOUT Windoze preinstalled? (Granted, this would probably require setting up a separate company to distribute the same hardware under a different name to get around the fascist M$ contract. But still, it should be doable, and even profitable if there is enough demand...)
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
hheheheh
i put toshiba logo on my page
(http://ku.rindu.net)
then i link it to that australian page
:)
-- Hasbullah bin Pit (sebol)