7196294
story
Comments: 339 +- Your Rights Online: No More Fair-Price Refund For Declining XP EULA on Sunday November 22, @02:22PM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicms.gif); width:75px; height:55px;
microsoft
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmoney.gif); width:84px; height:74px;
money
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicwindows.gif); width:49px; height:65px;
windows
mark0 writes "Getting a fair-price refund from Amazon or Asus after declining the Windows XP EULA appears to be a thing of the past. In contrast to reports from the US and the UK from earlier in the year, Amazon simply refuses and provides information to contact Microsoft. Asus is offering US$6. Despite being confronted with publicly available information about the real OEM price of Windows XP Home Edition being $US25-US$30, Asus replies, 'The refund price for the decline of the EULA is correct in it being US$6. This price unfortunately is not negotiable. I do apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Please be assured that it is not ASUS intentions to steer you away in any which way.'"
Related Stories
No man in the world has more courage than the man who can stop after
eating one peanut.
-- Channing Pollock
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Piracy? (Score:3, Insightful)
The refund price for the decline of the EULA is correct in it being US$6. This price unfortunately is not negotiable...
So when I download XP off TPB or a similar site, they're going to sue me for $6 in damages? Yeah. Right.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Usually the downloaders don't get sued but the uploaders. And if you've uploaded to hundreds or even thousands of people, it's easily argued that you've contributed for that kind of losses.
Re:Piracy? (Score:4, Informative)
ever heard of punitive damage? If you only ever have to pay exactly for what you did, and no putitive damage, when you g et caught, there would be no point NOT to do it.
First, I shouldn't even dignify your post with a response given the poor spelling and general lack of knowledge of the subject matter, but I'm bored. Second, here's how it looks in the US (I'm even more of a non-expert on non-US laws);
Actual:
$6--30. (from TFA) Copyright holder is also entitled to any profits derived from the violation (in general). In the case of someone using XP privately for themselves and deriving no profit beyond that, the profits would also likely be zero.
Statutory:
Only available if the copyright is registered with the copyright office.
$200 if it can be proved it was accidental at the discretion of the court.
$750--30,000 if it cannot be proved, but there is reasonable doubt at the discretion of the court.
Up to $150,000 per work if it can be proved to be willful. Source: 17 USC 504.
Punitive:
Not generally available. [1] It may be available if statutory damages are unavailable, or if the plaintiff elects to seek actual damages (plus profits derived). This is very rarely done in practice, and generally the punitive damages will equal the actual damages plus profits derived from the violation.
In the vast majority of cases, statutory damages far exceed actual or potential punitive damages.
[1] Leutwyler v. Royal Hashemite Court of Jordan, 184 F. Supp. 2d 303, 308
[2] http://library.findlaw.com/2005/Feb/10/172826.html#_edn14 [findlaw.com]
P.S. IANAL.
Parent
Apparent invented story trolls ASUS (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Read the FAQ [slashdot.org] - the editors intentionally do not do any fact checking whatsoever on submitted stories.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apparent invented story trolls ASUS (Score:5, Insightful)
How did this badly researched, apparent hoax of a story get to the frontpage?
The geek knowingly goes out and buys the dirt cheap mass market OEM Windows PC - which represents about 90%-95% of all consumer PC sales.
He will then demand a refund to punish the OEM, Microsoft, and the big box retailer for delivering the marketable and well-advertised Windows product and - not at all incidentally to his purpose - shave another few bucks off the price of his new Linux laptop.
This cheeky little scam costs everyone in the chain a little bit of time and money. It costs the independent Linux-friendly retailer a sale.
Parent
Re:Have to get that 2 Minutes Hate in. (Score:4, Insightful)
A day without 2 Minutes Hate is like a day without sunshine!
There is no #$@&% sunshine at this time of year where I live, you insensitive clod!
:)
We make up for it with 30 consecutive 2-minutes hate in each and every hour
Parent
Microsoft dumping to gain netbook marketshare? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Asus are paying $6 for Windows XP OEM, then surely Microsoft is dumping their product on the market? Probably why they're including it in their netbooks in favour of Linux.
Dumping product? Convicted monopolist? I think that there's a good chance here that some netbook OS vendors have a case here to make an official complaint about anti-competitive predatory tactics by Microsoft.
Or the story is a load of rubbish.
Re:Microsoft dumping to gain netbook marketshare? (Score:4, Informative)
I thought it was understood that when the netbook debuted Microsoft knocked the price down to almost nothing to eliminate Linux in the space. This article is nothing more than official confirmation that Microsoft did knock the price down to $6 a copy for ASUS to keep linux off the netbooks.
Parent
If that's the fair price, then (Score:3, Funny)
Small claims (Score:5, Interesting)
Take them to small claims court instead. They'll quickly learn that it's cheaper to provide a full refund than to pay someone to show up in small claims court.
Shovelware makes $6 about right... (Score:5, Insightful)
A WinXP system is never just WinXP, it's also a boat load of crapware that the crapware authors have paid the manufacturer to bundle in. So ASUS is actually right in their math:
Option 1: Keep XP. No change in price.
Option 2: Refund XP: +$50. Also refund crapware: -$44. Net refund to user: $6.
Windows 7 EULA is far worse... (Score:3, Informative)
...it is now up to the manufacturer to decide whether they will give you a refund or tell you to return the PC, just look at MS EULA page [microsoft.com].
$6 is a good deal (Score:4, Interesting)
At a conference on the west coast, an industry insider told me that MS basically gave ASUS XP for free (as part of a deal to FUD Linux). That means that ASUS may be loosing money on this "refund".
Oh, and it also means that ASUS will sell out easily, which makes me interested in ignoring their products.
Think US$6 is right? Another way to calculate: (Score:3, Interesting)
So tired of this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Old OS (Score:5, Insightful)
Flawed analogy. And a very different issue. Your vehicle physically wears out, even just sitting there. Rubber gets brittle, hoses and belts crack, rust appears on all exposed metal parts. Normal use wears bearings, shafts, gears, cylinders, valves. Thus its value declines physically. Software is not like that at all. In fact, ASUS just sticks a sticker on and loads the software from a master. It's not like they take back your windows license and resell it as a "pre-owned" license. Rather they give you your $6 and then turn around and put a nice new version on a new computer and charge the full $45.
Parent
Re:Old OS (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if it's just that sticker and license you hold, it still contains the value. If you decline it, you are not legally allowed to use the software.
Also to begin with you are not required to buy a computer that comes with Windows. Or you can read the EULA online [microsoft.com] before buying it. Or ask to read it in store.
Windows XP has started to lose its value because the support is discontinued, so the "software doesn't get old during time" doesn't fully hold.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You misread me. I never said you'd still be able to use Windows after getting a refund. Rather I was pointing out that no material goods change hands. They don't resell your license per se. They just invalidate it. Then they go on to sell XP on another machine for the full prices. So it's not like they are buying back an old license and then trying to resell it at some used market value. There is no used market involved at all.
So if the full price really is $45 today, then a refund should be just tha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what happens when its advertised as coming with $200 worth of software?
The MS EULA says you get a full refund and I bet the other software does too.
If they offer you $6 it would be false advertising.
Re:Old OS (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't that the license isn't available pre-purchase, but that it isn't mentioned pre-purchase. A lot of this could be avoided if the laptops at Best Buy had little stickers on them that stated "The software on this computer is subject to an EULA that limits your rights. Ask a sales associate for a copy of the EULA prior to purchase."
Parent
Re:Old OS (Score:5, Insightful)
"The software on this computer is subject to an EULA that limits your rights. Ask a sales associate for a copy of the EULA prior to purchase."
I'd go a step further - I should not be able to complete the purchase without explicitly agreeing to the contract. If they sell me something without me first agreeing to additional terms, then I should just be constrained by the statutory license.
Parent
Re:Old OS (Score:5, Insightful)
Putting the EULA on a website is irrelevant - it's still only presented to people after purchase.
By your logic, MS owe me a million dollars, because the EULA on my website says that's what MS agree to do if they sell me any software. It's no good telling me they weren't aware of the EULA, they should've read my website, or asked to read it when I bought it in the store...
Parent
Re:Old OS (Score:5, Informative)
Here are six great options, ZaReason, Inc: Building Linux hardware so you don't have to [zareason.com]
Here are six more: System 76 laptops [system76.com]
Did you even try to look? Most people do not even try.
The biggest mistake any consumer of PCs, laptops, towers, etc can make today is to buy any hardware from a vendor who does not understand and do Linux. This goes for all the big box stores and even Dell, they only pay a passing glance to Linux and do not really do it right, as experienced by Linux being buried down in their website and not prominently marketed on their main page from the start.
If you are foolish enough to purchase from anyone but a Linux hardware computer builder, you will be frustrated with needless vendor lock-in issues meant only to keep you a Microsoft Windows users, period.
Here is the rub, Every Linux PC can run Windows. Because of Vendor Lock-In, not every Windows PC can run Linux.
Even the most devout Windows / Microsoft FAN can NOT deny that simple fact!
Moral of story: Eventually a proprietary company will STOP supporting what you purchased attempting you to pay more for new equipment. Your only choice for that older, yet very useful, hardware is to KNOW you can run Linux (any distro, there are many [slashdot.org]). Even if you do not want to run Linux, by purchasing hardware that will, you will be in a position to donate that older hardware to non profits that will get Linux up and running and donate it to third world countries so children can learn.
There is NO downside to purchasing hardware from a Linux vendor. There are almost ALWAYS vendor lock-in hardware issues from any of the big box stores and anyone who only does Microsoft.
Use the two vendors ZaReason or System 76 above, you will be glad you did, and you will help out children in third world countries one day when you upgrade your hardware, as the hardware your purchased will run Linux.
Parent
Re:Old OS (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Old OS (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"What works for me had better work for all of you!"
Re:Old OS (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, there is something similar that occurs in software, called "bit rot". The older a piece of software is, the more security vulnerabilities have likely been found in it, making it a bigger and bigger target so long as it is in continued use (obviously, now that Windows 9x's user base is about 3 dozen people, they're not much of a target anymore).
This is true of MacOS X, Linux and Windows. If you install a new copy of Fedora 8, you are going to have a ton more security patches to apply than a recent Fedora 12.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That is entirely not what bit rot means. The canonical definition is here [catb.org]. You may be referring to software rot [catb.org], but it doesn't really mean that either, since both refer to software that hasn't been used for a while and obviously does not apply to Windows.
Re:Old OS (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Flawed analogy. And a very different issue. Your vehicle physically wears out, even just sitting there. Rubber gets brittle, hoses and belts crack, rust appears on all exposed metal parts. Normal use wears bearings, shafts, gears, cylinders, valves. Thus its value declines physically. Software is not like that at all. In fact, ASUS just sticks a sticker on and loads the software from a master. It's not like they take back your windows license and resell it as a "pre-owned" license. Rather they give you your $6 and then turn around and put a nice new version on a new computer and charge the full $45.
I'm sorry, but software does lose value over time. The value of Photoshop 2.0 is not equal to the value of photoshop CS3. Photoshop 2.0 isn't even worth it's original MSRP because more advanced packages have been developed. Going back to car analogies, if I maintain a 2000 Ford taurus to be at the exact condition it was when I bought it new it still won't be worth the price I paid for it back in 2000. Newer technology makes older technology less valuable.
Re:Old OS (Score:5, Insightful)
It was released in 2001, 8 years ago.
A fairer and more broadly accpeptable calculation of how old XP is would be to determine the date large OEMs stopped shipping PCs with XP installed.
Put another way, from a consumer's perspective, XP is as old as his new computer. From a corporate perspective (both the cubicle-worker and the IT folks), XP is as old as the date testing was finished and deployment was given the go ahead.
Parent
Fair Price for Windows? (Score:3, Funny)
But Slashdot told me it's zero!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, you think that if you were to buy something today (a couch, a table, a pair of pants) that was first marketed 15 years ago, that you should get a depreciated refund if you returned it?
Spam was first marketed more than fifteen years ago, and the price has gone up. I do not think that word means what you think it means. Either you want the word "sold" or you're way the hell off in left field. They're still shipping XP, so clearly it's a current product, and you should get the full value for it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or to put it another way: suppose the consumer returned the entire computer. Should he be only given the wholesale price of the entire computer back? Or should he get what he paid for it?
Obviously he should get what he paid for it. Returning a component of the computer should work similarly. Just because the retail-price-as-a-component of Windows is hidden within the price of the whole thing doesn't make it equal to the wholesale price. If the components of the computer cost $500 wholesale and he paid
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, quite a few places have "restocking fees", which basically means yes.. they do give you about wholesale price back.
Re:Markups (Score:4, Insightful)
The logic that you can pick the price of an item out of a package is wrong. Do you think you should be able to buy a bundled package.. a complete computer from a vendor that was sold to you for $X price.. and return the Monitor or Keyboard, in exchange for a percentage of the price equivalent to the FMV of a monitor? (Even though the 'monitor' wasn't an option, and its price is built into the bundle)
The manufacturer doesn't have to allow return of only one piece of a bundled package for its fair value. In fact... the fair market value of each item in the package when all the items are added together, may meet or exceed the price you were charged for the package.
You can no more rent a hotel room, and after you check into your room... demand to return the kitchen (i.e. have them close or lock it up), for a 30% refund (since your hotel rental has 3 rooms in it, kitchen, bathroom, bed). The cost of that item is already incurred by the retailer, and the relationship to the price of the package may be complex. Parts of it may even be free or promotional.
In this case, however, the Windows EULA states that you are entitled to a refund if you refuse to accept. It doesn't provide for a restocking fee.
It would be a violation of the OEM EULA for a manufacturer to charge such a fee.. such a violation might imply that you are no longer bound by the agreement, if your response to not getting a refund is to use Windows, then it would seem that you are taking your self-help remedy in response for the retailer failing to follow the EULA, the EULA no longer properly applies to you, even if you click accept, due to the breach of the agreement by the other party.
Also, attempting to charge a restocking fee for refusing an unanticipated agreement, would probably result in litigation against the retailer, for deceptive/dishonest business practices.
However, the Windows EULA term also doesn't provide for separating Windows from the product. My impression of the term was always... if you don't accept, you can return the entire package that Windows was bundled with, for a refund.
The EULA doesn't guarantee you can return Windows alone, or that you can get a certain price for it.
Parent
Re:Markups (Score:5, Insightful)
Obviously he should get what he paid for it. Returning a component of the computer should work similarly.
Sorry, but your analogy does not hold water.
Say I purchase a laptop that's got an external optical drive bundled, it's part of the package and not a separate configure-to-order option. If this optical drive sells for $150 separately, then there's no way I can purchase this laptop and say "I don't need this drive, I want a refund on it" and get $150 back. It simply doesn't work like that.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If they claimed in open court they could be in some serious trouble when it turns out that in fact they did pay for the license.
Major double standards (Score:5, Insightful)
I love it that 'the obey the law no matter what' types go on and on about not pirating software and not infringing on copyright but when it's a big large corporation not giving you a refund, its different. When they short change you - very mysteriously its 'not stealing'. How very magical! I call it the 'Powerful corporations can never steal law'. How about we apply the same draconian penalties that we apply to copyright infringes to companies who don't issue refunds when the end users reject the UELA. How about we send them to jail as well?
Maybe as well if they claim that the cost of Windows XP is only $6 they need to show some evidence that they actually only paid $6 for it!
BTW the restocking fee is bulls###. They don't need to physically get back anything from you. They just invalidate the license. Besides here is quote from the EULA. Its says nothing about a restocking fee.
"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."
Parent
Re:Major double standards (Score:5, Insightful)
I absolutely agree with your point. People should be mad as hell about this bullshit double standard, but instead we have a bunch of folks apologizing for it.
Apparently, the money spent on corporate propaganda is money well spent.
Parent
Re:Markups (Score:5, Interesting)
If I buy a new car, when I first put the key in the ignition, does a notice pop up saying: "you must agree to the terms of use of the engine before you can start it"?
Parent
Re:Markups (Score:4, Insightful)
Imagine that, after buying the car, you turned the key to start the car and instead a lawyer popped out of the glove box holding out a contract insisting that you were not allowed to start the engine unless you signed it. That's not fair. You have to be permitted to decline that contract, and if the engine manufacturer refuses to let you use that engine as a result, they should buy it back from you.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Tying refers to bundling unrelated goods. You cannot use a modern computer without an operating system except perhaps as a space warmer. Most OEMs realize this and find bundling Windows exclusively gives them the best returns, so they stick to Windows. Let's not get into how Microsoft sweetens exclusivity with discounts, PR money and whatnot; fact is you need an operating system and most vendors stick to Windows as their only choice.
An engine is just as integral as an OS. Without it, both car and computer a
Re:Markups (Score:4, Insightful)
...and since I do not accept the EULA in the first place, it does not matter what it says about anything -- including anything it says about not accepting EULA.
Parent
Re:Wow (Score:4, Funny)
At least they didn't say "Wait, it says 'Press F12 for more information'" like the call center drone I talked to yesterday (not related to ASUS or this issue.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Surely Microsoft's license doesn't apply to all the components, but it specifically says you can get a refund from where you purchased the software. Companies don't want to honor the Windows EULA? Don't sell computers with Windows.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Vista Sticker (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe you could return the sticker & get a refund on the sticker?