What percentage of people who intend to install Linux are going to jump through these hoops?

1%?

I'm guessing it takes at LEAST 20 hours of your life over the course of the refund being on the phone and documenting everything and such. So, let's say that you DO go for the refund. THat is $200 divided by 20 hours. So, we are making about $10 an hour for this process. Factory workers make more than that.

Oh come on - you don't do it directly to cost Microsoft money, but to encourage OEMs and Microsoft to let PCs be available for purchase without the Microsoft tax. It's a matter of principle surely - if you don't want Windows, why pay for it?

Anyone who does an analysis of monetary value (or cost) against time spent will not be reading Slashdot anyway...

One word: Laptops

One word: Laptops.

The lawsuit is an interesting approach.

If your aim is simply to reduce your contribution to Bill Gate's wealth, you best approach is to buy your hardware from the few companies that make OS free, or Linux dedicated boxes.

That someon jumped through all the hoops that Microsoft put up to keep they're strong hold?

If enoungh people jump thru these hoops, the hoops collapse like a set of dominoes.

United we stand, divided we....yada yada yada...

You get the point.

Just wanted to point out that you used the wrong "they're". "They're" is a contraction for "They are". The correct use would be "their" which implies ownership.

Now, go do the right thing.

For the love of Mike, most Slashdot readers here are geeks; they build their own machines, not buy machines bundled with Windows. All jokes/flames aside, just how many of you out there are actually using a machine that came with Windows, but you never used that copy?

True I built my own desktop, but laptops are a different matter. If you want a x86 based laptop, getting a decent one without Windows is a chore, especially if you're like me and equate "a decent one" as "it has the Thinkpad logo on it".

That said I can't really comment because I have my laptop dual boot with Win2K, so am not eligible for a refund. However my Windows usage has dropped so much now that OpenOffice is actually a viable alternative to MS, that my next laptop will most likely be a single boot machine, and I might be tempted to follow the advice here, as I'm guessing Windows will still come as standard with my next laptop.

It's more the principle of the thing.

That said, it's an incomplete story... the author hasn't yet gotten his check. It's doubtful that the company would disobey the court order in this case -- you have that kind of problem with small claims rulings against small businesses and individuals, but large corps aren't likely to disappear overnight and wouldn't want to deal with the contempt of court ruling that would inevitably follow -- but until he receives the check it's still up in the air.

Additionally, the philosophical point here is to screw MS. Well, this case doesn't do that. Maybe if a few thousand cases were lobbied against a single manufacturer, but right now it's the computer maker that's out the money, not MS. And while they've lost money, they haven't lost anywhere close to enough to revamp their licensing agreement. Worse yet, even if several thousand orders were served against a single computer manufacturer the end result is likely to be that that manufacturer goes belly up -- they'll be out a great deal of money upfront, decide to renegotiate their licenses with MS, and then lose competitive pricing due to the new pricing structure. This really is a case of squeezing the middle man.

I don't see anything that's going to change this short of massive governmental oversight into MS contracts... if nothing else a court order stating their contracts have to be public (which would probably be unconstitutional) or equally draconian interference.

No, I don't have a solution. Most complex issues don't have simple answers.

it's a matter of principle.

There are some (many?) of us that have no use for MS stuff. So we bristle at being charged for stuff we don't want and will not use.

This guy managed to get his money back after being charged for something he didn't want to buy in the first place.

That's the victory (as in, for the rest of us that want to get our money refunded because the MS OS was the thing we didn't want -- but couldn't avoid getting charged for. That's what people refer to as the MS tax).

It's not supposed to be proof of anything -- just how to get the money that you're owed back (the real victory would be to change things so that MS isn't in a position to charge computer users regardless of whether they ever plan on using their software).

I think $199 is overpriced for an OS, but I did wind up paying $149 for my copy of XP Pro. $49-100 is more inline IMO, but that's just me... the OS should not cost as much as an entire PC (sans monitor).

That said, I suspect many people won't jump through the hoops to get a refund, even if applicable, simply because it's not worth their time. Small claims court isn't time intensive, but even if the entire process only takes 10 hours (including travel time to and from the courthouse, time on the phone with Customer No Service, writing letters, etc.) then you've only recouped $20/hour. No, I'm not paid for my offtime, but I can tell you that I do value it at more than $20/hour in order to do what *I* want. And this doesn't fall into that category. If it does for you, more power to you, but don't expect everyone to think that this is a "good deal".

> Hopefully this is the first of many victories."

This is a defeat, not a victory. A victory would entail proof that no matter what you do you cannot get a refund.

Yeah, who needs principles, anyways? Everything should be determined by its dollar value!

1)he could have just got sick of seeing people get abused. Good for him.

2) I know linux users that don't touch hardware, ever. well except for input perfs. but you know what I mean.

3)the money come from the manufacturer, not MS. Perhaps MS will reimburse them, but doubtfull.

I could argue that if you build your own computer, You have too much time on your hands.

Its a story to all of us who just want to buy a computer from a major manufacture and not have to pay for software they don't use.

If he was a proficent enough computer user to be able to run Linux, he should just as easily been able to buy a white box system or built his own from scratch.

Read the article: he bought a LAPTOP. It is awfully hard to buy an x86 laptop without a Microsoft OS on it.

OEM deals are between the manufacturer and the supplier. it has no bearing on the consumer.
if the PC manufacturer showing proof that it only has a 10 dollar value, they might win, however they would have to disclose the contract with MS. They chose to pay 199 instead of disclosing there agreement.

Manufactors are justing going to add this simple phrase to the computers they sell. "Free with every computer purchase: Windows XP". Loop hole closed, value of software is now $0.

And the absence of the "Microsoft Tax" will equate to a whopping $10 in savings. It makes absolutely no difference at all to the cost of your system. You aren't going to see OS-less laptop prices drop $199.

They can throw XP on there, I don't care. I might or might not use it. A massive assault on OEM-included OSes ultimately has no price impact, and it becomes obvious what it really is: a geek jihad.

I am all about new and varied technology. I enjoy using different types of software and hardware. Linux is an excellent platform for everything from hardware tinkering to large-scale database work. But I don't approve of trying to stomp out the other guys. Microsoft is big, and has been stomping out other guys forever, I know. But Linux was supposed to built on higher ideals and such. The truth comes out: once we got a little more powerful, we're out there stomping for all we're worth.

Sad.

Seriously, Fight Club theology aside, what is wrong with being a consumer and an employee?

Should I be leading a revolution somewhere, and if we were all off leading revolutions who would we be revolting against? My linux development contributions just don't seem to provide for my family, silly bastards demand food and housing on a regular basis.

The time is his. If the store would just return him the fair price of the Windows XP license, there would never have been a need to "waste the court's time" as it were.

What this case boiled down to was that it would cost more than $199 for the vendor to fight this in court and therefore the vendor cut its losses and didn't fight it.

Do this too often to the point where the vendor thinks their total expenses will be more than it will cost to fight it and they will. And they won't need to fight every case, just the first one and use that as precedent.

The point is to illustrate the the hardware manufacturers don't really mean it when they say you can get a refund, since they have no clear refund policy in place. In the end, we want M$ to stop forcing hardware manufacturers into bundling Windoze. If they have to issue enough refunds, it will happen. M$ is banking on the fact that most people won't go to the trouble.

From the article:

Excuse: The software is only worth $10.

Answer: Okay. Send me the check.

[snip]

In all of these cases, follow up the phone conversation with a written letter describing what was said and why you're unhappy with it. Remember you are creating a record for the judge.

[snip]

If you've received a $10 check, you can say something like, "They would only give me a $10 refund for $199 of software."

It looks to me that the plaintiff agreed to settle his claim for $10. I suspect that if the judge knew the pertinent facts, the plaintiff would get only $10. He entered into an oral contract to accept $10 as his refund, and then (presumably) memorialized that agreement in writing (i.e., by letter). I don't think the judge would be impressed by the plaintiff engaging in the "bait and switch" tactics of agreeing to accept $10.00 to settle his claim in order to establish liability (which it wouldn't), and then renegging on the deal and demanding more.

So why did the plaintiff get a judgment for $100? Because the other side didn't show up:

My case was even simpler. The company did not show up.

As recounted in the story, the Small Claims Court judge properly made the plaintiff "prove up" his case. However, when the plaintiff did so he didn't bother to mention that he agreed to accept $10.00 to settle his claim:

Judge: The defendant didn't show up, but Mr. Oualline you still have to prove your case. You say that they owe you some money. Why?

Me: I bought a computer from them, and when I booted it up it displayed a license agreement with a long list of restrictions that limited what I could do with my computer. It also said that if I didn't agree with the license agreement, I could get a refund.

Judge: I take it you didn't get your refund.

Me: They sent me an e-mail yesterday offering me one, but it was only for the software. I want my court costs too.

The judge then fumbled through my papers looking for the printout of the refund letter. He found it.

Judge: You removed the software from your system.

Me: Yes.

Judge: You installed something else.

Me: I installed Linux.

Judge: Judgment for the plaintiff.

First, why $199? If he didn't intend to run Windows, getting Wondows home xp is around $99. So did he buy a computer with xp pro or pay too much for xp home or rip off the OEM by getting more back than xp home is worth? Second, OEM's are not forced to ship a computer with Wondows by MS anymore (by law). Therefore, if a manufacturer decides to do this anyway, you shouldn't be able to return Windows. That's what you agreed to buy when you bought a computer with windows preinstalled. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. For cost and testablility reasons, it's easier for an OEM to install windows on a box and test and ship it, than to ship machines with differnt OS configs or no os. Anyway, so can I start taking stuff out of my car and returning it to the manufacturer now, if I didn't want it but it came with the base model (such as the radio, back seat, etc.)? That's basically the same idea.

That's how actual recalls actually happen, most of the time - company A realizes "Oops, shoulda carried that 4 and not rounded down the .49" and issues a recall for their Self-Fermenting Spangulator, which out in the Real World catches fire one time in 13,321, not one time in 31,103,927.4, and there are lawyers at the door.

Occasionally, a government or whistleblower organization gets into the fray, but usually it's the lawyers and actuaries who decide when and how to recall things. Wonder how that would change if liability awards got capped?

It's 99 bucks everywhere online (with purchase of hardware).

You do realize that unless it's bundled with a new computer, it's not legitimate? Read the MS OEM license agreement.

So linux zealots think they're stickin' it to the man, but they're really screwing the vendors.

That's the whole point. If the manufacturer gets screwed like that sufficiently often, they will perhaps start offering OS-free computers. Remember: it's not Microsoft, but rather the OEM who bundles Windows with everything. It seems perfectly logical that they should be the ones refunding the money. Also, remember that Windows is not free -- by most estimates, it costs major OEMs around $100 per machine (which then gets passed on to you).

I don't care about who gets screwed. I just don't want to be forced to buy something I don't want. I would say that most "linux zealots" are exactly like me -- they don't care about "stickin' it to the man".

To use an analogy: would you like it if every DVD player came with 5 bundled Disney DVDs, thus increasing its price by $100? Even if you don't really have anything against Disney, would you want to pay the extra cash for something you don't want?

How is this a "loophole"?

It seems like straitforward business to me, as in "if I don't want a product, why must I buy it?"

or

"If I am willing to return a product unused, why do I not get a refund?"

Why should a software vendor be allowed to force customers to purchase thier product if they are buying an item manufactured by a different vendor?

To call this refund a "loophpole" is certainly questionable logic. I think you are taking the joke about the "Microsoft Tax" a bit too seriously.

You have more leverage when you still have your money in your pocket.

With my last two dell laptops I negotiated a discount off the web price and *then* asked for an addition $189 or so (whatever the price was on their website at the time) as a discount for the Windows I wouldn't be using.

The first time I got a full discount. The second I got $140.

The time to get a vendors attention is when you still have the money.

It's a safe bet that the averge small claims court judge doesn't know what Linux is.

Uh, what? You just said, "Don't assume that's why I came to the conclusion I did." Then follow it up with a stereotype about people you know who work in law offices. Are you trying to say that there are more geeks as police officers than judges? Are you trying to say that they don't read the news?

CNN has ran 779 stories on Linux. It is not some elite club, and most people know that Linux is an operating system. They may not know the details, but most people know that it's an operating system at least.

You are assuming, based on stereotypes, that judges will not know what Linux is. No matter what you try to label it as, that is what you are doing.

I've never seen anyone do this before either, however, the second they did, they'd lose my business, and that of everyone who comes to me. Why do people put up with behavior like that? I like having a brick and mortar shop for accountability but not that much. There are plenty of online dealers that will sell you computer barebones kits sans evidence of a windows license. It's our country. Vote with your wallets.

Actually, all they have to do is "license" Windows XP to you for a cost of 0.00 for use solely on the computer you purchased. Most computer manufactors basically do this anyways with their crappy "restore" disks that simply reimage the disks, restoring the system to the state it was on purchase and deleting all your data too.

So you can keep the license, but it's only good on the computer you purchased. You didn't get a Windows XP license, only a license to use Windows XP on the computer you bought. So if you return the computer, you void the license. I haven't bought an OEM machine - ever, actually - so I don't know if current licenses state that, but I do remember that Microsoft was moving in that direction.

Since IANAL, I can't say if this is legally sound - the manufactor might assign the license a value of $0, but if you refuse the license, they may be forced to pay "fair market value" to recover the cost (especially if they pay Microsoft for the license). But who knows? The law is weird...

Dell Inspiron 1100 laptop: Knoppix

Now I'm not sure I'm permitted to do this or not but I ended up giving the license to someone else because... I hate supporting windows 98.

On another note, the more work I do with computers, the less interesting the prospect of assembling my own pcs is. It is time consuming and generally just about as monetarily expensive as buying a new Dell. Basically, my time has increased in value and my computing needs have changed in practice to the point where I no longer feel the need to get the perfect optimized uber graphics self assembled pc. So while all but my first pc have been self assembled, I'm not so sure that will be the case for the next system.

I didn't know it was possible to run the latest version of Windows on a sub-$1000 computer. As we all know, the hardware requirements double every 18 months :)

You think that most people know what linux is? Hell, I bet that most people don't even know what an operating system is. I know a girl who teaches physics at a technical college, she got a computer with a blank hard drive and said she needed a copy of windows 98. I gave her a copy of windows XP and she was like "whats windows xp?" and like I said, she teaches at a technical college and is fairly young and hip.

Many people may have heard the name linux and know that it has something to do with computers but beyond that I really don't think that the average person knows what linux really is.

he should have just stuck with the copy of XP and used it as a really expensive coaster

This fellow was clearly buying a laptop (and if I'm mistaken and that's not the current case, suffice it to say this problem applies tenfold to the laptop purchasers out there who are unable to find a single product without the 'Microsoft tax')

The simplistic thinking of "The total costs of fighting offset by the award are still greater than the total costs of giving in. Therefore, one should not fight." makes sense at first glance, but when examined a crucial point is missing:
Where does the money go when you give in?
The answer in this case is the money goes in part to the manufacturer, and in part to Microsoft. Two organizations who will use your own money to further perpetuate this scam against you.

I submit if someone is actively trying to scam you out of money, costing them legal fees to defend their crooked actions in court is a victory in and of itself. The pragmatic view, in this case, will only result in further torment, for everyone.

You are assuming, based on stereotypes, that judges will not know what Linux is. No matter what you try to label it as, that is what you are doing.

Nope...read the quote again. It's not an assumption, it's a "safe bet." In other words, the odds show that the judge won't know what Linux is. In another form: When reaching into a bag of 10 dimes and 25 slugs, "It's a safe bet that the token pulled out (averge small claims court judge) is a slug (doesn't know what Linux is.)

Or you could avoid the whole situation all together, and just go down to your nearest White Box PC maker and tell em you dont want windows when they screw the machine together for you ..

Either that, or just by the parts and build it yourself, seriously, if you are tech enough to run linux, you *should* be tech enough to build your own box..

Not true.
I don't think you understand the back-room deals going on.

$,$$$,$$$.00

Hum what if you are buying a laptop ?

I don't think i could possibly go down to Dell's workshop and say: "Well hello buddys, you know that windows you are installing on my rig ? Please leave it out and give me a 200$ rebate." That simply doesn't work ( I could be wrong ), and building your own laptop is out of the question. I'd be glad to know if that's any close to possible for an ordinary consumer, but i doubt it.

unless you have XP installed and running in which case you already accepted it

Installing Windows requires that someone (not necessarily the computer owner, not necessarily even an adult capable of entering into any contract) a button on a dialog box that claims to impose on you restrictions on a product after you've already bought and paid for it and for for no additional consideration to you. Maybe that's legally binding, but I'd want to see the court cases upholding it before I paid much attention.

Judges could also knwo about Linux if
they followed the DOJ vs Microsoft trial a
few years ago. I think it is possible that
they head of Linux through a major and recent popular case.

ok, ill be the smart ass then, heres the WIndows XP Pro eula in full:

Microsoft Windows XP Professional

END-USER LICENSE AGREEMENT

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 for the Microsoft software product identified above,
which includes computer software and may include associated
media, printed materials, "online" or electronic documentation,
and Internet-based services ("Product"). An amendment or
addendum to this EULA may accompany the Product. YOU AGREE TO BE
BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY
INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE
PRODUCT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL
OR USE THE PRODUCT; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR
PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND.

1. GRANT OF LICENSE. Microsoft grants you the following rights
provided that you comply with all terms and conditions of
this EULA:

* Installation and use. You may install, use, access,
display and run one copy of the Product on a single
computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device
("Workstation Computer"). The Product may not be used
by more than two (2) processors at any one time on any
single Workstation Computer. You may permit a maximum
of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each
a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to
utilize the services of the Product solely for File and
Print services, Internet Information Services, and remote
access (including connection sharing and telephony
services). The ten connection maximum includes any
indirect connections made through "multiplexing" or other
software or hardware which pools or aggregates
connections. Except as otherwise permitted by the
NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop
features described below, you may not use the Product
to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other
executable software residing on the Workstation Computer,
nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display,
or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless
the Device has a separate license for the Product.

* Mandatory Activation. The license rights granted under this
EULA are limited to the first thirty (30) days after
you first install the Product unless you supply
information required to activate your licensed copy in
the manner described during the setup sequence of the
Product. You can activate the Product through the use
of the Internet or telephone; toll charges may apply.
You may also need to reactivate the Product if you modify
your computer hardware or alter the Product. There are
technological measures in this Product that are designed
to prevent unlicensed or illegal use of the Product.
You agree that we may use those measures.

* Storage/Network Use. You may also store or install a copy
of the Product on a storage device, such as a network
server, used only to install or run the Product on your
other Workstation Computers over an internal network;
however, you must acquire and dedicate an additional
license for each separate Workstation Computer on or
from which the Product is installed, used, accessed,
displayed or run. A license for the Product may not be
shared or used concurrently on different Workstation
Computers.

* Reservation of Rights. Microsoft reserves all rights not
expressly granted to you in this EULA.

2. UPGRADES. To use a Product identified as an upgrade, you must
first be licensed for the product identified by Microsoft
as eli