Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft The Almighty Buck The Courts Windows

Windows Tax Shot Down In Italy 421

Posted by timothy from the note-that-it's-not-a-tax dept.
An anonymous reader writes Italy's High Court has struck a blow to the practice of forcing non-free software on buyers of PCs and laptops. According to La Repubblica, the court ruled on Thursday that a laptop buyer was entitled to receive a refund for the price of the Microsoft Windows license on his computer. The judges sharply criticised the practice of selling PCs only together with a non-free operating system as "a commercial policy of forced distribution". The court slammed this practice as "monopolistic in tendency." It also highlighted that the practice of bundling means that end users are forced into using additional non-free applications due to compatibility and interoperability issues, whether they wanted these programs or not. "This decision is both welcome and long overdue", said Karsten Gerloff, President of the Free Software Foundation Europe. "No vendor should be allowed to cram non-free software down the throats of users."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows Tax Shot Down In Italy More

Windows Tax Shot Down In Italy

Comments Filter:

  • What about other devices? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by recoiledsnake ( 879048 ) on Friday September 12, 2014 @09:59AM (#47889695)

    Since computing is moving to tablets and phones, can we get OS refunds for iDevices and Android tablets and phones also ?

    Also, is this applicable to Macs?

    • Re:What about other devices? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JaredOfEuropa ( 526365 ) on Friday September 12, 2014 @10:11AM (#47889827) Journal
      It only applies if the OS and device are really two separate entities. For Macs you could argue that you should be able to buy the device without the OS. For phones, it seems that the OS is part of the device, especially in case of iPhones (what else are you going to run on them). Keep in mind that iOS isn't sold separately either, nor are there any charges for upgrades.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tomhath ( 637240 )
        I don't see how any of that matters. If you could buy the hardware without the software we might have an alternative OS; as it is the software is crammed down your throat.

      • It only applies if the OS and device are really two separate entities. For Macs you could argue that you should be able to buy the device without the OS. For phones, it seems that the OS is part of the device, especially in case of iPhones (what else are you going to run on them). Keep in mind that iOS isn't sold separately either, nor are there any charges for upgrades.

        That's because the iPhone (which really should be called a computer) is locked down in the firmware by the manufacturer to only run operating systems provided by them. If they would disable this blocking then alternative operating systems could run on the iPhone. It has in the past when good hackers were able to work around Apples attempt to dominate the user, but that has not been successful recently.

      • To get around this, MS can sell a hardware dongle that costs $$$ that happens to come with free Windows, and Windows only runs if that hardware dongle is present. That way they can do the same thing that Apple does.

        • Or simply require the product key to be purchased separately and ship an unactivated copy of Windows on the computer.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by John Madsen ( 3620131 )
            Sorry grandma, you need to purchase and install windows separately. No, the same model laptop with windows pre-installed is out f stock - it always is. No, I don't have time but the store geek cage will install it for $70/hr. Yes, I know it costs as much as windows to install it. Just shut up, take your pills, and fork over the money. Yes, yes, I know you are getting ass raped. OK, just order you one with Windows pre-installed. [Hangs up. Thinking to self - if that bitch calls again, I and sending her

            • Re:What about other devices? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Archtech ( 159117 ) on Friday September 12, 2014 @12:50PM (#47891619)

              Oh by the way, Grandma... you can buy this PC with Linux pre-installed for less than the other one without Windows. That's because Linux needs less powerful hardware to run properly. Oh, and you'll find it just as easy (if that's the word) to use as Windows.

              Freedom! Isn't it good?

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by sudon't ( 580652 )

        The difference in the case of Macs is that you're not being charged extra for the OS, and of course, both items are made by the same company. Perhaps they figure that cost in, but it is much different than buying a Dell computer preloaded with Microsoft Windows, and being asked to pay extra for Windows. TFA also mentions having to buy non-free, compatible software. This is also not an issue with Mac OS.

        • Or you could buy an ubuntu laptop from dell but your not going to find it in best buy and they don't have a very good selection because most people don't want a linux os or no os laptop they just want it to work.... doesn't mean it's not possible.

          http://www.dell.com/us/busines... [dell.com]

    • Pretty sure Android is free from Google
    • As far as I can tell Android appears to be FOSS. You might need a version without Googles logos for it to be legal to use without paying them though? I am not sure if they charge for licencing? I am sure someone on /. can enlighten us though.

    • Not of i*Devices (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 12, 2014 @10:20AM (#47889915)

      The difference is that Apple sells the device and the OS together while Microsoft only sells (or rather gives a licence) for the OS. The vendor is a different party. Hence you cannot buy a "HP" or "Sony" or "Samsung" or "Asus" computer without Windows on it. The windows licence cost is hidden in the seller's price. So the OS and the hardware aren't a bundle by the same company and hence you can't demand back money for your iDevice.

      However, I wonder how that is handled in the case of Android. Android is freely available for download. However hardware manufacturers haven agreements with Microsoft to actually pay royality fees for (allegeds) patents in Android. Would that mean, that you could also ask money back from Microsoft if you buy an Android?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      You cannot for a very simple reason. OS is free on those devices, and is an integral part of the purchase.

      This is not the case on PCs, which are designed to have a variety of OSs installed on them and can be shipped without any operating system if needed.

      OS on a phone is more like BIOS on PC as far as this ruling is concerned. Integral basic software required to run the hardware.

    • Since computing is moving to tablets and phones, can we get OS refunds for iDevices and Android tablets and phones also ?

      The difference with Mac and iDevices is that the hardware is made by the same company that creates the software. You will have no problem whatsoever buying a computer without MacOS X or a phone or tablet without iOS. For Android tablets or phones I'm not sure how much money goes to Google,

    • Since computing is moving to tablets and phones, can we get OS refunds for iDevices and Android tablets and phones also ?

      Also, is this applicable to Macs?

      Of course you can. Apple and Google sell their respective operating systems for... wait for it... zero dollars and zero cents per copy. You are entitled to a full refund.

  • How would this impact MacBooks, iMacs, etc? You can't really buy OS X separately, and upgrades have become free so I don't even know that there's anything to refund.

    • They might have a better defence as the OS is free. If anything where it might get interesting is that effectively you are buying the OS and it comes with a machine. Thus there might be a way to convince a judge that where Apple is going legally wrong is to insist that you use their machine.
    • http://store.apple.com/ca/prod... [apple.com]
      You can buy it, so the ruling is directly applicable. But I guess all they have to do is say that it comes free on all their hardware, and they might get away with it. Really they sell a specific product that obviously has to come with their OS to even make sense, if you want some hardware without an OS, that is a PC and it is not Apples fault that MS has prevented an OS free one from being sold.

      Now for Android, I actually think that it is freely available.

      iOS seems

      • If OSX comes "free" with their hardware, but is also sold separately - or even just has a defined value separately - they will likely fall afoul of the law. Unless, of course, the judge is an Apple user in which case it will be swept under the rug.

        iOS is definitely a different beast. You can't run any other software on an iDevice, and you can't buy it (developer licenses are not quite the same as an operational license). Same with Android and Windows Phone edition - the OS is arguably integral with the phon

        • But the developer licence can apparently be used like normal. Their are consumers who buy it apparently, so they can use the bleeding edge of Apple development.

        • If OSX comes "free" with their hardware, but is also sold separately - or even just has a defined value separately - they will likely fall afoul of the law. Unless, of course, the judge is an Apple user in which case it will be swept under the rug.

          The difference is that it is an _Apple_ computer with an _Apple_ operating system. I bet it would be completely legal for Microsoft to sell you a _Microsoft_ computer with a _Microsoft_ operating system and not sell it without it and not give you a refund. But we are talking about HP computers with Microsoft OS, and Dell computers with Microsoft OS, and Acer computers with Microsoft Os and so on.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by CastrTroy ( 595695 )
        MS has done nothing to prevent a PC from being sold without an OS. You can buy plenty of computers without an OS. The reason you don't see more available from the likes of HP, Dell, Acer, and others is because it creates a support nightmare. 99% of the population would have no idea what to do with a computer if you shipped them a computer without an operating system on it. Also, not shipping an OS means they can't ship third-party nagware (Antivirus, PowerDVD, etc) on the computer that they get paid to pu

        • Re:Apple? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Vip ( 11172 ) on Friday September 12, 2014 @12:05PM (#47891111)

          > MS has done nothing to prevent a PC from being sold without an OS.

          Are you serious? Either you have forgotten the 90's and early 2000's or are too young to remember. From wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]

          "In the 1990s, Microsoft adopted exclusionary licensing under which PC manufacturers were required to pay for an MS-DOS license even when the system shipped with an alternative operating system. Critics attest that it also used predatory tactics to price its competitors out of the market and that Microsoft erected technical barriers to make it appear that competing products did not work on its operating system."

          The MS-DOS carried on into Windows. Even if you wanted to run Linux, OS/2, or anything else, you still had to purchase the MS license, or colloquially, the M$ Tax.

          > They certainly make it cheaper for Dell to pre-install Windows on a machine than for the end user to buy their own copy. They may have even said that they will raise the price if they don't make all their machines come with Windows.

          They "may" have? Let's make it clear. They made it so *every* computer Dell sells has Windows on it. If even one went out without Windows, Dell or any other manufacturer was forced to pay a higher cost for Windows and other MS products. Even IBM, who made the competing OS/2.

          Vip

        • > The reason you don't see more available from the likes of HP, Dell, Acer, and others is because it creates a support nightmare.

          I don't doubt your word but I can't understand. If I sell you a tire I am not liable if the gearbox breaks down. If I sell you a laptop with no OS I should bundle a diagnostic cd rom and if the hardware passes the test I should have no obligation supporting whatever stuff you installed on it, it is not my problem.

          In fact I'd be happy buying a pc like that, all my support questi

        • MS has done nothing to prevent a PC from being sold without an OS.

          Actually, that's not really the case. Microsoft's Windows OEM licensing to PC vendors is (and has been for many, many years) based on the total number of units sold by the vendor -- whether Windows is being used or not. This creates a *huge* incentive for vendors to *only* support Windows, since they have to pay the licensing fee per unit, regardless of the installed OS.

          What Microsoft has done is made it much more expensive to offer OS alternatives, as additional deployment and support resources are required to support other OS platforms. Since the vendor has to pay for the Windows license even if they pre-install another OS, there's a big disincentive to offer alternative OS' They certainly make it cheaper for Dell to pre-install Windows on a machine than for the end user to buy their own copy. They may have even said that they will raise the price if they don't make all their machines come with Windows. But manufacturers do that kind of stuff all the time in other areas. It costs almost as much for a whole new bike for the price you'd pay just for the drive train on a bicycle if you were to buy it apart from the bike. Companies pay big money to get exclusive rights to products (think games and products that are only sold in specific stores) because they know they'll make make money off the customer in the end.

          There. FTFY.

  • ... software down the users throat.

    I don't care if it's free or not. If it's annoying or unnecessary, I don't want to have to spend two hours to rid my newly bought computer of crapware I don't want.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Megol ( 3135005 )

      Yes the whole world should bend to your desires and ideas...

      Are you aware that most people want Windows? Because important applications like MS Office, games and financial stuff just works on Windows.
      Are you aware that most people don't know and don't want to know anything about computers? They want their computer to simply start and work without any installation of software.
      Are you aware that changing to a model where some computers have Windows and some others not may _increase_ costs of computers? Think

  • Separate hardware from software (Score:5, Interesting)

    by oever ( 233119 ) on Friday September 12, 2014 @10:05AM (#47889767) Homepage

    A law that forbids selling hardware and software together would increase innovation. Consumers would only be able to buy hardware and software separately. That way, hardware vendors are encouraged to document the hardware and software vendors will compete on quality. Installation procedures would become very easy very quickly due to market pressure.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by jaguy ( 3594177 )
      What about the very blurry line between the definition of software and hardware? A compute devices shipping with no BIOS? Compute devices won't even power up without software. Then there's all the code that's embedded in the various silicon devices on the motherboard.
    • The reason it's sold together is because people want it like that. There is obviously a demand for bundled software (given how prevalent it is), and the reasons for that demand probably range from "I don't care what goes on my computer" to "I'd rather my computer cost $2 less to have it include what essentially amounts to adware."

      Many mom-and-pop shops can build computers without it, but it costs more and people aren't willing to shell out for it, which is why there are many fewer mom-and-pop computer st

    • A law that forbids selling hardware and software together would increase innovation. Consumers would only be able to buy hardware and software separately. That way, hardware vendors are encouraged to document the hardware and software vendors will compete on quality. Installation procedures would become very easy very quickly due to market pressure.

      Normal people don't like that though. Let's say that you try and sell product A to somebody that requires product B to function. This person has neither used nor ever had interest in A or B. Most people aren't interested in one or the other. Normal people want an A+B product where somebody else has worked out all of the compatibility problems.

    • Tektronics has done this with their test equipment for years. I found out the hard way the drivers to transfer screen prints to my PC did NOT come with the optional communications module. To get simple screen cap functionality, the software suite price is about 5X the cost of the communicatins module.

      Are they sure they want to go this route? Fortunately for grey box PC's, alternative software is readily available. For Tektronics scopes, not so much.

      It looks like more moden scope communicaitons modules n

  • Need more than a legal precedent (Score:5, Interesting)

    by EmperorOfCanada ( 1332175 ) on Friday September 12, 2014 @10:05AM (#47889769)
    More than a legal precedent this needs solid regulations with teeth. I suspect that if you walk into whatever the Italian equivalent of Best Buy waving this judgement around and demanding a refund that they will just have security escort you out. But if refusal to even offer a Windows free machine was worthy of a fine, let alone not removing it, then windows free machines would be widely available.

    Also the removal of Windows should have to be free and done in a timely manner (under an hour).

    • Re:Need more than a legal precedent (Score:4, Interesting)

      by pr0fessor ( 1940368 ) on Friday September 12, 2014 @10:50AM (#47890259)

      Here is thing when you walk into best buy or what ever they have limited shelf space they are only going to stock what they can sell... Which just happens to be windows based or a Mac. {they will also have some chromebooks and android tablets}

      Now they don't want to stock a bunch of no os desktops because people {the majority of people} just want their stuff to work right out of the box. They can't afford to use that space when they could fill it with another item that will sell better.

      As for anyone else you can go online and order a computer with linux or no os from multiple vendors... I may not be able to go pick up a linux laptop from the local store but I can order one on the dell website.

      I can go to the local store and buy levi's jeans but not every fit and color levi's I have to order some of those online too.

  • Wait, this is Italy. Give it two years and then another court will rule that the practice is legal and order a new trial. In the meantime the laptop will be held until the second trial outcome is known.

  • How much would the rebate be? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by wisnoskij ( 1206448 ) on Friday September 12, 2014 @10:20AM (#47889921) Homepage
    What does MS sell their OEM OS for anyway? Probably not that much. No one will likely bother.

    • In the end it's free or even makes money for the OEM because of the bundled software(like Google pays OEMs to have Chrome installed as the default browser). A similar machine without the OS won't have that subsidy, so it might end up costing more than one with Windows. Would be funny if the OEM would force people to pay extra for laptops if you want one without Windows.

    • It's not clear. This time it says 140€. I've also heard something like 80€ in the past. Guess it depends on the retail vendor?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      Here in Finland, Finnish copy is 100€ and Swedish or English copy is about 107-114€.

      http://www.jimms.fi/listaa/311... [jimms.fi]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      What does MS sell their OEM OS for anyway? Probably not that much. No one will likely bother.

      Roughly $10-50 or so. It's hard to pinpoint an exact figure because the bundled software often pays for that stuff. So the refund you get is often far less because they have to take out the software that subsidized the cost of the PC. It's one reason why Linux PCs often cost more.

      Anyhow, you can still bundle in Windows on the hard drive and all that, and separate out the software as a line item. If you choose to pay

      • So practically speaking, unless you hate MS with a passion, it is in your own interested to get the basically free version of Windows, do a wipe and reinstall, and go on with your life, as pretty much every tech savvy person has been doing for decades.
  • I only wanted windows, can I get a refund for the hardware ?

  • I agree with the ruling that people who do not want to run Windows on a PC should be able to get a refund since the vast majority of PC makers do not sell bare systems, essentially creating a monopolistic market. If I remember right, it's like $20 back.

    That being said, no one is being forced to buy a Windows PC or a PC from a particular vendor. As such, the rest of the comments about customers being forced to buy other non-free apps is just bull. It's like saying that because all cars come with tires tha

  • Am I the only one who thinks this is not a good thing?

    Ultimately the distinction between hardware and software is an arbitrary one. Both mediums combine to provide the function required for a given product.

    Let's pretend I am a hypothetical manufacturer of electronic devices. I am making some awesome hardware, and some equally awesome software to compliment it. They function beautifully together combining to make one truly cool product. Why should I be compelled to sell a variant of my product with hav
  • I am inclined to think it has a problem with including non-gratis stuff and not necessarily non-libre stuff, which would spring something like "windows trial version" in such cases.
    • Then you don't have to do much. Just ship an unactivated Windows version. 30 days to activate. Then the customer can purchase an OEM product key separately.

  • > The judges sharply criticised the practice of selling PCs only together with a non-free operating system as "a commercial policy of forced distribution".

    All together now... YA THINK??

  • It's like this news is from some weird alternate universe where we don't throw all logic and reason under the profit bus.

  • PC sales took off like a rocket with the introduction of the OEM system install at the wholesale price.

    The balanced and tested configuration of hardware and software that worked out of the box. --- and was sold as a mass retail product under a single - unified - warranty.

    Not the kit of parts that appealed only to the hobbyist or the IT pro.

    If it worked, it worked. If it didn't, it went back to the store. The buyer wasn't obliged to diagnose hardware and software conflicts or borked system installs --- or p

  • I hate the keyboards that come with laptops. I have a perfectly good USB keyboard that I always use. Why do manufactures insist on bundligna crappy chicklet keyboard on the hardware? I want a refund for the keyboard, since I never use it.

    My laptop is also plugged into an external monitor (the 11" display is useless), so why am I forced to pay for a display?

    Why should the "I don't like part of what I'm buying so I want my money back" argument be limited to software?

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Oddly enough, the current generation of laptop keyboards is actually mostly usable. So, while I have my laptop plugged into a second, larger screen, which I plugged a usb keyboard and mouse into, for the first time in decades I'm NOT complaining when I use the laptop stand-alone. As for your 11" display being useless, you could have bought a laptop with a larger screen - up to 18.3". And you can still use it as a secondary display since you plugged it into a second screen.

      But if you really don't want th

  • This really makes no sense (Score:4, Insightful)

    by sirwired ( 27582 ) on Friday September 12, 2014 @11:27AM (#47890673)

    Why could I not apply this same legal idea to everything else included with the computer? "I already have a perfectly good power supply!" "Let me swap in my old CPU chip!" "Stop including an LCD on my laptop! I'm never going to use it!" "Curse the forced purchase of LED power lights! That's a good three cents I could save!"

    There are more than enough sources from which a computer can be procured that do not have Windows. If the manufacturer or store you want to buy from doesn't have any, don't buy from there!

  • To get that $59 refund, people will spend 3.5 hours each and wait 6 months.

    Oh... And most people won't bother. The court could have just paid the $300 which will actually get refunded from this instead of wasting what was probably tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands screwing with this.
    • For that $59 refund you can get a five year old computer at RE-PC and put whatever operating system you want on it. The growth curve on clock speed and such has pretty much flattened out, and PCs that came with Vista or XPSP3 installed are quite serviceable.

Slashdot Top Deals

Keep up the good work! But please don't ask me to help.

Close