Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
HP Government Operating Systems Software The Almighty Buck The Courts Windows News Your Rights Online

Italian Judge Tells HP To Refund Pre-Installed XP 225

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)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Italian Judge Tells HP To Refund Pre-Installed XP

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Approximately? (Score:2, Informative)

    by joerisamson ( 824408 ) on Saturday October 27, 2007 @10:59PM (#21144903)
    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.
  • by Aehgts ( 972561 ) on Saturday October 27, 2007 @11:15PM (#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.
  • by falconwolf ( 725481 ) <falconsoaring_20 ... m ['hoo' in gap]> on Saturday October 27, 2007 @11:15PM (#21145021)

    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
  • Don't get it (Score:3, Informative)

    by khallow ( 566160 ) on Saturday October 27, 2007 @11:23PM (#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".
  • He got costs, too (Score:5, Informative)

    by belmolis ( 702863 ) <billposer&alum,mit,edu> on Saturday October 27, 2007 @11:27PM (#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.

  • Re:MS Tax (Score:3, Informative)

    by falconwolf ( 725481 ) <falconsoaring_20 ... m ['hoo' in gap]> on Saturday October 27, 2007 @11:30PM (#21145115)

    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
  • by complete loony ( 663508 ) <Jeremy.Lakeman@g ... m minus caffeine> on Saturday October 27, 2007 @11:43PM (#21145187)
    One of the first refunds I ever heard about was in 1998, by a friend of mine in Adelaide, Australia [netcraft.com.au].
  • Re:Approximately? (Score:3, Informative)

    by JohnBailey ( 1092697 ) on Sunday October 28, 2007 @12:12AM (#21145341)
    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 electronic documentation, and Internet-based services ("Software"). An amendment or addendum to this EULA may accompany the Software. YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE SOFTWARE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL, COPY, OR USE THE SOFTWARE; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND, IF APPLICABLE."

    Rejecting the contract at this stage means you have no need to read the rest of the EULA,and states explicitly that you are entitled to a refund, who you are entitled to a refund from, and as the court cases have shown, the refund is in fact applicable. So basically, if they don't give a refund, you are entitled to take them to court and enter a case where you as the end user will win.
  • Re:Don't get it (Score:3, Informative)

    by Dr. Donuts ( 232269 ) on Sunday October 28, 2007 @01:40AM (#21145821)
    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 manufacturer for information on returning the product or products and the conditions for reimbursement in accordance with the provisions established by the producer himself."

    The judge basically ruled the Microsoft EULA was a separate contract apart from the purchase of the computer. As Microsoft is the manufacturer of that product and HP merely a reseller, HP was obligated to refund that portion of the purchase according the instructions within the EULA itself.
  • by Vainglorious Coward ( 267452 ) on Sunday October 28, 2007 @02:51AM (#21146145) Journal

    Three stories on Italy so far is nothing. We need to get posting submissions about the 16 billion pixel image of da Vinci's Last Supper [bbc.co.uk]. This one could be the big one [haltadefinizione.com]

  • Contract of adhesion (Score:4, Informative)

    by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Sunday October 28, 2007 @03:09AM (#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].
  • Re:Progress. (Score:4, Informative)

    by davester666 ( 731373 ) on Sunday October 28, 2007 @04:31AM (#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:Progress. (Score:5, Informative)

    by lbbros ( 900904 ) on Sunday October 28, 2007 @04:48AM (#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).
  • by siddesu ( 698447 ) on Sunday October 28, 2007 @04:55AM (#21146651)
    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.
  • Re:He got costs, too (Score:3, Informative)

    by pipatron ( 966506 ) <pipatron@gmail.com> on Sunday October 28, 2007 @04:59AM (#21146663) Homepage
    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).
  • by slashbart ( 316113 ) on Sunday October 28, 2007 @05:30AM (#21146765) Homepage
    I recently went to this local store [pc-oke.nl] to get a new pc. I don't use Windows, and was expecting to have to haggle about not paying for it, but ... We configured my pc, tallied up the components, and then the guy says: "that price is without Windows, which Windows do you want on it?" Awesome!! So I tell him it's fine like it is. I'm very happy with the pc, and the price is great too.

    I think people should go to those stores that sell bare pc's, instead of just complaining about the companies that won't give you a pc without Windoze.

  • 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.
  • Windows Refund Day (Score:2, Informative)

    by magpi3 ( 913546 ) on Sunday October 28, 2007 @08:30AM (#21147397)
    Brings back memories. http://marc.merlins.org/linux/refundday/ [merlins.org]
  • Re:Progress. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Bert64 ( 520050 ) <(bert) (at) (slashdot.firenzee.com)> on Sunday October 28, 2007 @08:53AM (#21147477) Homepage
    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.
  • by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Sunday October 28, 2007 @10:38AM (#21148071)

    I run Linux on my Mac. Should this be posible or must I pay the Apple tax?

    Why don't you check the EULA that came with your copy of OSX. Does it say that you can return it for a refund?

Nothing is finished until the paperwork is done.

Working...