Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Italian Judge Tells HP To Refund Pre-Installed XP

Posted by kdawson on Sat Oct 27, 2007 09:24 PM
from the fair's-fair dept.
Paolo DF writes "An Italian user asked for a refund after buying a Compaq computer that came with Windows XP and Works 8 pre-installed. HP tried to avoid the EULA agreement which states, approximately: '[I]f the end user is not willing to abide by this EULA... he shall immediately contact the producer to get info for giving back the product and obtaining refunds.' The court ruled in favor of the user (Google translation from the Italian), who received back €90 for XP and €50 for Works. Here is the ruling (PDF, Italian)."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Technology: Amazon UK Refunds Windows License Fee, With Little Hassle 194 comments
christian.einfeldt writes "Alan Lord, a FOSS computer consultant based in the UK, has announced that Amazon UK honored his request for a refund of the Microsoft license fee portion of the cost of a new Asus netbook PC that came with Microsoft Windows XP. Lord details the steps that he took to obtain a refund of 40.00 GBP for the cost of the EULA, complete with links to click to request a refund. Lord's refund comes 10 years after the initial flurry of activity surrounding EULA discounts, started by a blog post by Australian computer consultant Geoffrey Bennett which appeared on Slashdot on 18 January 1999. That Slashdot story led to mainstream press coverage, such as stories in CNN, the New York Times Online, and the San Francisco Chronicle, to name just a few. The issue quieted down for a few years, but has started to gain some momentum again in recent years, with judges in France, Italy, and Israel awarding refunds. But if Lord's experience is any indication, getting a refund through Amazon might be as easy as filling out a few forms, at least in the UK, without any need to go to court."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Progress. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nozzo (851371) on Saturday October 27 2007, @09:28PM (#21144751) Homepage
    This is progress, the more this happens the better the choice for the consumer. It shows the vendors that users prefer OS choices a la Dell.
    True, this is but 1 user but every little helps as we say in the UK.
    • Re:Progress. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AusIV (950840) on Saturday October 27 2007, @10:25PM (#21145085)

      True, this is but 1 user but every little helps as we say in the UK.

      It's not just one user. It's a legal precedent. Now Italian Linux users may be more likely to request refunds for Windows licenses that come with computers, and since there's a legal precedent, the vendors may be more likely to comply.

      • Re:Progress. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by houghi (78078) on Sunday October 28 2007, @03:12AM (#21146465) Homepage
        And do not forget people and companies who still have already bought XP legaly previously.

        This is good news for the consumer. The ad news is that this will not harm Microsoft in the least, even if EVERYBODY would do this. It will be the computercompanies who will need to caugh this one up.

        They will not be able to get their money back from Microsoft. So either they will start loosing money (because they do not make that much on a PC) in Italy, or stop selling PC's altogether.

        Most likely the latter will be happening with other companies, like Dell. The result will be that larger companies will not be selling computers in Italy. Tghis will result in lower quality and people who want Windows paying more. So if the consumer wants the same product, he will end up paying more then he does now.

        The solution? Have this implemented in the rest of Europe. The European market is big enough to force a change and balsy enough to force Microsoft to pay back the companies in full.

        After that South America will follow and then Asia. Africa, Austriala, Canada and Mexico will follow after that. The USofA? They will follow the moment the consumers have some rights, except the right to shut up and spend money. Sorry.
      • Re:Progress. (Score:5, Informative)

        by lbbros (900904) on Sunday October 28 2007, @03:48AM (#21146623) Homepage
        Although it is a legal precedent, it must be noted that Italian law is not based on precedents, like UK or USA. Even the rulings of our "Corte di Cassazione" (akin to the Supreme Court) are not completely binding (i.e. they show the "correct" interpretation of the law but judges can decide differently).
      • Re:Progress. (Score:4, Informative)

        by davester666 (731373) on Sunday October 28 2007, @03:31AM (#21146545) Journal
        > I thought the EULA just meant that you could return the computer

        I believe this is referring to the Windows EULA, which only discusses your non-rights w.r.t. Windows, and doesn't discuss the hardware at all. I don't have it handy, but when I read it [and when it's come up before in slashdot, for the odd person getting a refund in the US], the EULA explicitly states [at least for the US] that you have the right to return the software [specifically] for a full refund if you don't agree with the EULA.

        And I don't think MS wants to revise the EULA to force the return of the computer as well, because then it explicitly goes back to that monopoly situation, where for the large vendors, you must then buy Windows to get a computer. Now, it's just a big hassle for both the consumer and the vendor to buy a computer without Windows [in general], but it's not legally forced by Microsoft [except perhaps in some non-pubic legal agreements between the vendors and Microsoft, where they pay for each computer shipped instead of each Windows license shipped - Windows licenses refunded].
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        I thought the EULA just meant that you could return the computer

        For that to apply you would have to sign an agreement when you bought the computer. You agree to the EULA after you have bought the hardware, so it cannot affect your ownership of the hardware. In any case, it is an MS EULA that only applies to the software.

        Time to break out the classic analogy

        Time to break out the classic flawed analogy.

        Corrected that for you.

        I want a Ford with a Chevy engine, should Ford take back the engine and give me b

          • Re:Progress. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by the_womble (580291) on Sunday October 28 2007, @05:24AM (#21146933) Homepage Journal

            So by your logic because there is a Eula, as opposed to nothing, MS is on the hook for your whims? Incredible.
            Yes, if MS requires a EULA, you have the right to reject it.

            What if I wanted Windows but decided to use another OS because I did not wish to agree with a clause in the EULA? I already own the hardware and have every right to keep it, so I should be able reject the EULA and get a refund on Windows.

            According to you, MS should be able to impose whatever arbitrary conditions they want on the use of a produce AFTER getting paid for it, and consumers should have no alternatives other than not using the product (which they have paid for) or agreeing to MS's conditions. Now that really is incredible.

            As for paying for the war etc., are you suggesting that no-one should raise any minor issue until all major political issues are sorted out? Then you can NEVER raise any consumer rights issue because there will always be something more important.

            You do realise that complaining about MS does not preclude caring about other issues. I am opposed to the US invasion of Iraq AND corruption AND anti-competitive product bundling.

            Yes, I can actually have opinions on three issues at once. If your brain explodes if you have to think about more than one issue a month, that is your problem.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            Mazda is owned by Ford...
            Some Land Rovers use Jaguar engines too, but both companies are also owned by Ford..
            The diesels may use technology developed by Peugeot, but licensed to ford who produce the engines.

            And even if ford use a third party engine, you still get a choice... Most cars are available with a choice of diesel or petrol engines of various sizes.
  • MS Tax (Score:5, Insightful)

    by indy_Muad'Dib (869913) on Saturday October 27 2007, @09:38PM (#21144799) Homepage
    90 euros for XP, $130

    50 Euros for Works, $70.

    so why do we only get back around $10 for a XP turn in?
    • Re:MS Tax (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JoshJ (1009085) on Saturday October 27 2007, @09:44PM (#21144831) Journal
      Because Microsoft owns a significant chunk of the American political machine, but owns very little of the European one.
      • Re:MS Tax (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Sterling Christensen (694675) on Saturday October 27 2007, @10:49PM (#21145221)
        It's probably because US retailers think it should count that they bundled Windows with sponsored crapware bringing net cost down to $10, while the Italian Judge (quite reasonably) thought it shouldn't.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Oh boy. Please check out European news before you spew such nonsense. European co's are constantly under fire for anti-competitive practices. A lot more often than non-EU ones.
    • Re:MS Tax (Score:5, Funny)

      by Spy der Mann (805235) <spydermann,slashdot&gmail,com> on Saturday October 27 2007, @09:46PM (#21144843) Homepage Journal

      90 euros for XP, $130
      50 Euros for Works, $70.

      Telling Microsoft to take their software to the dumpster: Priceless.
    • Re:MS Tax (Score:5, Funny)

      by jollyreaper (513215) on Saturday October 27 2007, @10:06PM (#21144961)

      90 euros for XP, $130

      50 Euros for Works, $70.
      Canadian dollars, right? So in American that guy just got back $10k, right? Payday!
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        90 euros for XP, $130

        50 Euros for Works, $70.

        Canadian dollars, right? So in American that guy just got back $10k, right? Payday!

        According to the X-Rates [x-rates.com] currency calculator 140 euros is 201.46 US dollars and 193.784 Canadian dollars.

        Falcon
        • That's what the GP is saying, genius. He knows the number for euro to candian will be smaller than euro to dollar, becuase now the loonie is worth more than the USD. That's the whole point of the joke - $10K US dollars for 70 euro. :)
        • Someone failed reading comprehension...

          He implied ~$100 CDN was ~$10k American. Hence, he implied that the American dollar was around a hundredth what a canadian dollar is.
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          Thanks Captain Obvious, I don't know what we would have done without you. You truely have made the world a better place.
  • by cygtoad (619016) on Saturday October 27 2007, @09:45PM (#21144837)
    Assuming the EULA is the same in the US and elsewhere, I wonder why this has not been tried before, and if it has, does anyone know the outcome? This has far reaching implications beyond HP. Any computer manufacturer would be affected, but the EULA seems to point heavily to the refunding procedure, not of Microsoft, but of the reseller. It should be interesting to see how HP responds.
    • by Aehgts (972561) on Saturday October 27 2007, @10:15PM (#21145015) Homepage Journal
      As a quick google search's [google.com] first few results show: this has been done in the US and Australia in the past with at least Dell and Toshiba and has been followed on slashdot [slashdot.org] before.
    • Assuming the EULA is the same in the US and elsewhere, I wonder why this has not been tried before, and if it has, does anyone know the outcome?

      It may be a hassle but people in the US have been getting refunds for years. Here's an article, "Windows license opens door for Linux refund" [cnn.com] on how people in the late '90s were requesting refunds. It mentions /. and how /.ers got involved.

      Falcon
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      Assuming the EULA is the same in the US and elsewhere, I wonder why this has not been tried before, and if it has, does anyone know the outcome? This has far reaching implications beyond HP. Any computer manufacturer would be affected, but the EULA seems to point heavily to the refunding procedure, not of Microsoft, but of the reseller. It should be interesting to see how HP responds.

      It is and it has. There was a case recently in I think a French court where one of the big names was being awkward, and the court awarded the customer the full retail cost of all the software they rejected instead of just the OEM price. This was obviously a penalty for the company being difficult about obeying the EULA. And there have been a few others where people have demanded a refund as specified in the EULA, and reported their adventures in getting satisfaction.

      Its a case of "don't like it.. Don't buy

  • EULA agreement which states, approximately: '[I]f the end user is not willing to abide by this EULA... he shall immediately contact the producer to get info for giving back the product and obtaining refunds.'

    States approximately? I'd prefer to know exactly before I made any conclusions.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      Well, this is probably a translation, so most of us are helped more with the translation, even if a translation has no binding value and is therefore only approximately correct.
    • EULA agreement which states, approximately: '[I]f the end user is not willing to abide by this EULA... he shall immediately contact the producer to get info for giving back the product and obtaining refunds.'

      States approximately? I'd prefer to know exactly before I made any conclusions.

      If you're in the US you want the version of the EULA for the US, the Italian version is only good in Italy. It's been years but when I had to agree after getting a new PC, in the US, it basically said if I didn't

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      After a few seconds to get to the Google page, the EULA states exactly in the first paragraph.. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/sp2/proeula.mspx [microsoft.com]

      "IMPORTANT--READ CAREFULLY: This End-User License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and Microsoft Corporation or one of its affiliates ("Microsoft") for the Microsoft software that accompanies this EULA, which includes computer software and may include associated media, printed materials, "online" or ele
  • by moosesocks (264553) on Saturday October 27 2007, @10:06PM (#21144955) Homepage

    Well, kudos to Italy for making the front page of slashdot 3 times in one day, finally constructing a mechanical device that didn't break down immediately, and ending up with a score in the green.

    Ciao!
  • It appears work still has to be done in getting the word out that in some cases, a Windows refund is still possible. I remember reading right here on Slashdot that a refund was possible. In fact there is s a website having info in this very topic. It went off-line long ago! It was www.wondowsrefund.net.
  • Don't get it (Score:3, Informative)

    by khallow (566160) on Saturday October 27 2007, @10:23PM (#21145065)
    I think the EULA was clearly refering to the entire computer not to this software. My guess is that the reason this never happened before is because the entire computer is normally returned not just the software. My guess is that that HP ran afoul of some EU or Italian law governing bundled products. If that is indeed true, I will probably characterize such a law as "lame".
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Read the article. The judge made the decision not based off bundling laws, but contractual.

      As far as the EULA clearly referring to the entire computer, I'd disagree. The EULA in question is Microsoft's EULA, not the manufacturers. If you go and buy XP off the shelf, you get the same EULA. You wouldn't go and return your computer just because you tried to install XP on it, now would you?

      "If you do not accept the conditions of this contract, you may not use or copy the software and should promptly contact the
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        The only trouble with this is how can a third party software vendor dictate any agreement between a hardware manufacturer and a buyer.

        Actually this is pretty easy in practice. Microsoft makes a deal with the hardware vendor to bundle their software on the machine. Part of the agreement involves conditions on the agreement bewteen manufacturer and buyer. Even most open source involves minor constraints: a manufacturer cannot provide most open source software without including copies of the agreement and sometimes other constraints (like a guarantee that the software will not be used for military purposes to name an extreme licensing cond

  • He got costs, too (Score:5, Informative)

    by belmolis (702863) <billposer@@@alum...mit...edu> on Saturday October 27 2007, @10:27PM (#21145095) Homepage

    Not only was the buyer reimbursed 140 euros for the unwanted software, he was awarded 2,300 euros in legal costs. Refusing to abide by the EULA could get expensive for vendors.

    • by Gertlex (722812) on Saturday October 27 2007, @11:14PM (#21145349)
      Oh no, a bit of legal costs!

      What I love about this case is that the reimbursement was completely in line with damages. None of that hundreds of thousands of dollars (euros) crap.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        That's usually how it works in Europe. Suing some company isn't like playing the lottery. If a company cause you damages, they will usually be forced to pay for the damages, legal costs, and possibly some small bonus on top of that, to compensate for the "discomfort" (can't find a good word here, I'm sure you get my point).
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            No, it wouldn't. The whole case is a tort. The legal term would be damages, punitive damages in particular, and they're not awarded here because it's a contract issue.

            You wouldn't get a windfall from this case in the US, either. I assume the reference in this thread is to the filesharing fine, but that is a case involving statutory damages--the law itself specifies a minimum and a maximum award simply for breaking the condition precedent. Thus copyright holders are entitled to large sums of money simply
  • I wouldn't be surprised if this issue ending up being so that nobody would sell you a computer before you have signed an agreement stating that you agree w/having Windows etc. in there. Then, if someone took this to court, it would probably end up so that you could get some other OS pre-installed, but w/extra cost, and they could justify this by saying that it causes them extra costs to serve a small group of users having e.g. Linux in there. So, you'd still end up paying the M$ tax in one form or the othe
  • but so far all I got is an offer to get a refund for the whole unit, not just the OS. i suppose the reasoning goes that the PC is not a product by itself without the OS or something. since i buy notebooks, and there is practically no choice of cool notebooks without Windows, in the end i had to swallow it.

    has anyone got any other experience in Japan?
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Not without the OS, I suppose. Besides, I am not sure why I would want one -- they are vastly inferior to many of the Windows models available in Japan.
  • Contract of adhesion (Score:4, Informative)

    by QuietLagoon (813062) on Sunday October 28 2007, @02:09AM (#21146243)
    It is looking more and more that the court systems of the world are looking to EULA click-through "agreements" as contracts of adhesion [law.com].
  • the Google translation is not very readable; when I proposed this submission [slashdot.org], I did summarize as follows:
    HP defended , claiming the terms of their contract with Microsoft; the judge ruled that the end user request may not be dismissed based on a contract between HP and Microsoft, since this latter is unknown to the end user. The end user, a member of ADUC (a consumer organization) was given 90euro for Windows and 50euro for Works; this is just a small symbolical amount, but it is a huge signal to HP and all other major vendor; in defending, HP claimed that the license and contract to Microsoft is unilaterally written by Microsoft; the judge ruled that nonetheless, HP is to be held accountable by the EULA; the ruling seem to suggest that it may be time for vendors to address this situation.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      This guy bought a computer with XP installed and he's griping about it? Perhaps he would have preferred a computer with no OS?

      We buy machines with no OS all the time (actually Dell ships FreeDOS but it's not installed). Perhaps the user in question was wanting to install a free OS on it?
      • I'm sure the poor guy was just trying to replace his old Amiga.

        Why on earth would anyone want to do such a thing?!