Slow And Steady Leads To Windows Refund Success 774
linuxwrangler writes "By proceeding carefully, documenting everything, being persistent and keeping his cool, Steve Oualline was awarded a $199 refund for his unused copy of Microsoft Windows XP. See his Linux Journal howto for the details. Hopefully this is the first of many victories."
Linux Documentation Project? (Score:5, Funny)
Is this going to make it into the official HOWTO archive? [tldp.org]
Interesting ... (Score:5, Funny)
"Me: I installed Linux.
Judge: Judgment for the plaintiff."
It isn't everyday you get to see those two statements so close together! Very interesting (and long) article that details a process that personally, I wouldn't want to go through.
I don't think the process is the point of the article, however.
Re:Interesting ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Interesting ... (Score:5, Funny)
Feh. (Score:4, Interesting)
You conveniently forgot to include the next few sentences.
Two conclusions are possible: the judge in question already knew what Linux was. (Doubtful.) Or the judge was simply satisfied that the plantiff had installed something (i.e., not pirated the original software), and that he could name it easily (i.e., didn't pause to invent a name).
So, don't think Linux is what won here.
Re:Feh. (Score:5, Informative)
It doesn't matter what Linux is, though most Merkins what read a newspaper do know, I reckon. The judge was making a quick, subjective read on plaintiff's truthfulness. The quick and clean answer is what got him his judgement. That and the no-show. Small claims is a gimme when the other party doesn't honor their summons.
Re:Feh. (Score:5, Funny)
Yes... I believe I just said that Linux had nothing to do with the judgement. We seem to be in violent agreement here. (Smarty?)
Re:Feh. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do you automatically assume that you are some elite clubmember who knows what linux is? Let me tell you a story, about something that happened in 1998.
I got stopped by a police officer outside of my apartment in the bay area. He immediately took a hostile attitude towards me, and accused me of being on drugs due to an genetic eye-condition that causes my eyes to not be able to contract. After dragging me out of my car, and trying to search me and being taken aback by my awareness of my prevention of search rights, he called for back up.
The second cop car got there to cool things down (the first cop and I did get physical, but I was defending myself.) and saw my t-shirt and immediately pulled the other cop aside. He walked over to me and said, "So, are you a programmer or do you just run Linux for fun?" We then had a discussion about Linux, my programming job, and the other cop got suspended for his actions.
This was in 1998. Don't assume people don't know what Linux is just because they aren't in an IT field, it just makes an ass out of you.
Similar story (Score:5, Funny)
And I said, "Sort of, but I know a lot more about UNIX."
"Weird," he says, and then he leans in and says, "cause I always wonder, how do they take a leak when their weiners are chopped off?"
I was in a daze. Not everybody knows about UNIX/Linux as we do.
___________________________________
I crochet because I'm lonely; I'm lonely because I crochet.
Re:Similar story (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Feh. (Score:4, Funny)
Be gald you weren't wearing a BSD T-shirt [rmitz.org]
Re:Feh. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Feh. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Feh. (Score:5, Funny)
Then how do you explain vibrators ?
How the loop hole is closed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How the loop hole is closed (Score:5, Informative)
Since you can't get Windows for that price separate from the computer, and they can't document how much they paid for it (because of their secret contracts), you get the list price.
Re:How the loop hole is closed (Score:5, Informative)
If they set the price to $0.00, then you can buy the computer, return it the next day, and when they bitch and moan about how you didn't return the XP CD, that you'll give them back the same amount they charged you for it - $0.00.
Re:How the loop hole is closed (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:How the loop hole is closed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How the loop hole is closed (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Interesting ... (Score:5, Funny)
And look where it's got you, a consumer and an employee of a large corporation. Wow.
Re:Interesting ... (Score:5, Funny)
You mean I could have gotten a refund (Score:5, Funny)
Oh well.
Re:You mean I could have gotten a refund (Score:4, Interesting)
Granted, few people are going to go to the trouble to do this. But even if you don't plan to install Linux, and you have to use Windows on that shiny new box, you might consider getting the refund anyway (zinging the OEM for a good $435 with court/filing costs), and then installing a pirated copy of Windows.
Even if you accepted the company's offer of $299 after the filing (which the guy in the article declined to do; he went for $299 plus court costs of $135), you would be up approximately one hundred and sixty-five dollars. You would have increased the OEM's cost on that Windows-loaded system by $300, and you would have made that system a good $165 cheaper for yourself.
And if you remain a scurvy pirate, you can do all of that without even losing the 'convenience' of Windows.
If you're cheap, think of it as a rebate.
If you hate MS, think of it as eroding their greatest benefit -- their OEM share.
If you hate a major OEM, think of it as, well, hurting them, since they're obviously the most direct victims.
If you hate complexity, however, you might just avoid the whole mess, and have a nice spot of tea.
How is this a win? (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds more like proof that they're plan works.
Re:How is this a win? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
thanks (Score:3, Funny)
Re:If you wanted to hurt Microsoft (Score:3)
Actually, you just supported the argument for more people to do this. The case you paraphrased from Fight Club, incidentally, was itself taken from Ford in real life [google.com]. Yeah, scary.
Back to the point, consider the equation the expected number of complaints, A, multiplied by the average cost of each complaint, B. A * B = X. If X is greater than the computer manufacturer's (not Microsoft's) profit from force bundling Windows, then it's in the computer manufacturer's best interests to stop the practice. Curr
My question is this ... (Score:5, Insightful)
1%?
Let me remind you... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:My question is this ... (Score:5, Funny)
installing Linux shows a great propensity towards jumping through hoops... so I would argue a high percentage.
Re:My question is this ... (Score:3)
Amazing if true. Do you have a cite for this?
Re:My question is this ... (Score:5, Insightful)
/.'ed already!!! (Score:3)
Any mirrors or text???
Re:/.'ed already!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Getting a Microsoft Windows refund from a manufacturer is seldom easy to do. In this article, I describe some techniques you can use to get your refund, including how to deal with the manufacturers (and all their excuses) and going to small claims court.
The first step to getting a refund is to ask for on. In most every case, you immediately hit a wall of stupidity and evasion when you do this. Dealing with this part properly is important, though, because you are building a record for the court case that may follow. Your job is to be as reasonable as possible and to make them look as dumb, inflexible and unreasonable as possible.
It's important to know what excuses the manufactures will come up with and how to counter them.
Excuse: You aren't entitled to a refund.
Answer: Then why did the software come with a license that said I was. Isn't the license a binding contract?
Excuse: Contact Microsoft about the refund.
Answer: The license said contact the manufacturer. That's you. Why should I contact Microsoft when they said to contact you?
Excuse: The software comes bundled with the hardware and can't be separated.
Answer: Then why did you give me a license that said they could?
Excuse: We'll give you a refund, but not for the retail price.
Answer: I paid retail for the computer and the software.
Excuse: The software is only worth $10.
Answer: Okay. Send me the check.
Although this doesn't look like it, you've won a major victory with these words--that check is written evidence of the fact that the manufacturer owes you a refund. If you go to court, you don't have to establish that the company owes you something. All you have to do is establish the amount.
But before you do that, you should follow up with the company. There are several ways of doing this.
Follow up #1: I got your check for $10. You say Windows XP costs only $10, so I'd like to buy 100 copies please. To whom do I make out the check for $1000?
You won't sell me Windows XP for $10? I'll have to pay $199 for it? Then that means the check you sent me is too low. Please send me a check for the full amount.
Follow up #2: I got your check for $10. But your $10 price is far lower that the retail price of Windows XP ($199). Because of the vast difference in the amounts, I'm going to have to ask you for a copy of your purchase contract with Microsoft so I can verify the price.
You can't verify the price. Well, I can only find one documented price and that's $199. You'll have to pay that amount or document your price.
One company tried this excuse with me. When I asked for documentation, the customer service representative said, "I don't have access to price information".
"Then how did you come up with the $10 price figure?"
"I just know it's the right amount."
"So what you are really doing is guessing. Well, my guess is the software is worth $1,000,000. Tell you what, let's split the difference. Send me a check for $500,005."
Excuse: We'll give you a refund but that applies to only Microsoft Windows, not the other bundled software.
Answer: No problem. Please provide me with a copy of all the other software on another disk so I can install it under Linux using the Wine program.
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.
At some point in this process you'll either get your refund (rare) or you'll realize the manufacturer is going to be totally unreasonable. So now is the time to pr
Well, there's your problem right there... (Score:5, Funny)
Then you said that "splitting the difference" would be $500,005, when in fact it would be $499,995.
That magic '5' at the beginning is the psychological hump that caused them to resist.
fuck up their credit... (Score:3, Informative)
that really fucks up their credit rating... and will hurt them far more than a $199 refund ever could. typical shady company will have a very difficult time as long as the unpaid judgement remains on their record.
Yep. (Score:3, Funny)
I've had an idea.. (Score:5, Funny)
Windows ME (Score:5, Funny)
At most you get another Windows ME (Score:3, Interesting)
"YOUR EXCLUSIVE REMEDY. Microsoft's and its suppliers' entire liability and your exclusive remedy shall be, at Microsoft's option from time to time, (a) return of the price paid (if any) for the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, or (b) repair or replacement of, the SOFTWARE PRODUCT that does not meet this Limited Warranty and that is returned to Microsoft with a copy of your receipt. You will receive the remedy elected by Microsoft without charge, except that you are responsib
Refunds? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Refunds? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Refunds? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Refunds? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
This is not an anti-ms article... (Score:5, Interesting)
I didn't get the feeling the writer had any intention to stick it to MS, he wanted to maek good on the agreement. I read it exactly as the judge did: It's the manufacturer's problem.
A little deeper than that, though, is the secret deals being made between manufactures' and Microsoft. This practice has been known for a long, long time, and it has been in and out of the courts for just as long. I remember first hearing the meme way back in '95. Back in the netscape vs. IE days.
But just like RIAA dragging thousands to small claims court ( no wonder Rosen wants out or the PR light ), civil cases do not a new company make.
I do wonder what Lessig thinks of this.
Re:Refunds? (Score:3, Interesting)
We have science-geeks, political geeks, lawyers, and people just generally interested in technology.
I'm guessing that a large number of
For me, I don't see much reason to build a complete system
Re:Refunds? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Refunds? (Score:3, Insightful)
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 t
Since its /.'d... (Score:3, Informative)
Posted on Wednesday, July 30, 2003 by Steve Oualline
Thanks to good records and a Small Claims judge, Steve Oualline got a $199 refund for his unused copy of Microsoft Windows XP. One Linux user's story shows how to establish a good refund case.
Getting a Microsoft Windows refund from a manufacturer is seldom easy to do. In this article, I describe some techniques you can use to get your refund, including how to deal with the manufacturers (and all their excuses) and going to small claims court.
The first step to getting a refund is to ask for on. In most every case, you immediately hit a wall of stupidity and evasion when you do this. Dealing with this part properly is important, though, because you are building a record for the court case that may follow. Your job is to be as reasonable as possible and to make them look as dumb, inflexible and unreasonable as possible.
It's important to know what excuses the manufactures will come up with and how to counter them.
Excuse: You aren't entitled to a refund.
Answer: Then why did the software come with a license that said I was. Isn't the license a binding contract?
Excuse: Contact Microsoft about the refund.
Answer: The license said contact the manufacturer. That's you. Why should I contact Microsoft when they said to contact you?
Excuse: The software comes bundled with the hardware and can't be separated.
Answer: Then why did you give me a license that said they could?
Excuse: We'll give you a refund, but not for the retail price.
Answer: I paid retail for the computer and the software.
Excuse: The software is only worth $10.
Answer: Okay. Send me the check.
Although this doesn't look like it, you've won a major victory with these words--that check is written evidence of the fact that the manufacturer owes you a refund. If you go to court, you don't have to establish that the company owes you something. All you have to do is establish the amount.
But before you do that, you should follow up with the company. There are several ways of doing this.
Follow up #1: I got your check for $10. You say Windows XP costs only $10, so I'd like to buy 100 copies please. To whom do I make out the check for $1000?
You won't sell me Windows XP for $10? I'll have to pay $199 for it? Then that means the check you sent me is too low. Please send me a check for the full amount.
Follow up #2: I got your check for $10. But your $10 price is far lower that the retail price of Windows XP ($199). Because of the vast difference in the amounts, I'm going to have to ask you for a copy of your purchase contract with Microsoft so I can verify the price.
You can't verify the price. Well, I can only find one documented price and that's $199. You'll have to pay that amount or document your price.
One company tried this excuse with me. When I asked for documentation, the customer service representative said, "I don't have access to price information".
"Then how did you come up with the $10 price figure?"
"I just know it's the right amount."
"So what you are really doing is guessing. Well, my guess is the software is worth $1,000,000. Tell you what, let's split the difference. Send me a check for $500,005."
Excuse: We'll give you a refund but that applies to only Microsoft Windows, not the other bundled software.
Answer: No problem. Please provide me with a copy of all the other software on another disk so I can install it under Linux using the Wine program.
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.
At some point in this process you'll either get your refund (rare) or you'll realize
Buy OS Free Equipment (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
I'd like to see the How-To get an installable CD (Score:5, Interesting)
That rocks that he got his $$$ back, those OEM 'Restore Disks' aren't worth the aluminum they're pressed on.
$199 refund!
Now he can buy a copy of OS X! ;) (Actually, I wonder if you could do this with Macintosh - get your $$$ back for OS X. Of course, removing OS X to install Linux is equivalent to removing your liver and cooking it for dinner...)
Great document, except (Score:5, Interesting)
"Then how did you come up with the $10 price figure?" "I just know it's the right amount." "So what you are really doing is guessing. Well, my guess is the software is worth $1,000,000. Tell you what, let's split the difference. Send me a check for $500,005."
I don't think the "tell you what, let's split the difference" is necessary. Oh well.
Perhaps someone should make a repository of stories from people who tried to do this. Find out what worked, what didn't, who caved, who didn't, and what seemed unprofessional and pissed off the judge. I would love to see this become a widespreaed thing. I would participate in it myself, except I do not own an x86 computer
4000 linux geeks going "i want a windows refund" is easy to blow off. 4000 linux geeks dragging company representatives into small claims court equates to actual policy changes...
-- Super Ugly Ultraman
Re:Great document, except (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
I'll really be impressed... (Score:5, Funny)
not for us (Score:5, Funny)
The thing that you do not want to do is be a nut case. Don't bash Microsoft...
I guess that eliminates all of us.
most certainly not the first instance. (Score:3, Informative)
Not a Victory (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a defeat, not a victory. A victory would entail proof that no matter what you do you cannot get a refund.
Actually, a victory after all (Score:3, Insightful)
He'll need the money (Score:3, Funny)
Many will say thi s is inconvenient (Score:5, Interesting)
In the end, convenience wins out over principle. Most people would say their time is worth more than the $199 recovered here, but really what they are saying is the saved effort involved is worth more to them than the principle of recouping $199 for something they will never use.
We need principled (or persistent) people in a capitalist economy for it to function effectively. It's difficult to be a consumer these days and comparison shopping is almost impossible with coupons and rebates and prices that are but really aren't; most people just give up and take what's given to them.
Documenting The License You DIDN'T Agree To (Score:5, Interesting)
Another choice might be to boot into Demolinux or Knoppix, then open the license file and print it. This combined with videotaping the process from opening the box to installation of Linux on the then formatted drive would be pretty convincing.
Per his description of small claims court the judge isn't going to want to watch the video anyway, but having it might convince the company to refund or settle out of court.
Re:Documenting The License You DIDN'T Agree To (Score:5, Informative)
Who accepted what? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Laptop OSes (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sure there are more out there... Just pop over to ResellerRatings.com [resellerratings.com] and search for notebook or laptop.
Won't scale (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Settlement Agreement for $10. (Score:5, Insightful)
From the article:
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:
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:
An interesting scenario for a Windows user... (Score:5, Interesting)
What about those of us who DO use Windows... but may not use the version bundled with the hardware? Dell is a real pain to deal with, from my experience, because they insist you use the OS they send you... or else it "could be pirated." And how do you upgrade? You MUST buy it from them. Even buying it from Microsoft, Best Buy with receipt... none of those are acceptable.
So I think I should be able to say "Sorry, I didn't use WinME. I want my $200 back, since I use a separate version I purchased independently."
Feasible?
Fees able (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure be fun to see someone try it.
I dunno... think about the general case... (Score:3, Interesting)
Or get it up front (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
HOWTO: Screw people and have them fight for you (Score:4, Interesting)
HOWTO: Screw manufacturers and have them fight your battles in court
MS could help the manufacturers out by putting a clause in their agreemtn to state the refund cannot exceed the "OEM purchase price" or not to exceed $75.00. The entire license is written so that manufacturers get screwed on this deal. Will they learn from this, probably not. The CEO probably never knew this case ever happened and it may only get told at Christmas parties while everyone sits around and laughs at how this nut crazed Linux guy sued them.
What you would do if you were the manufacturer in this case? Could the manufacturer in this case proved the price they paid on MS Windows XP? I think they could have so I wouldn't go out trying to get $199.00 on each copy you own. I say this because I don't ever remember seeing anything when I ran a PC company that said I couldn't show my invoice from Tech Data, Ingram Micro or other distributors to a customer. Maybe they just didn't want to, who knows.
I do know this though, because of the MS license, manufacturers get screwed.
It will only get worse before it gets better.
Hard enough just to get the licence you BOUGHT! (Score:5, Interesting)
So I received a box with an activation card.
I went to activate my MSDN subscription. The activation key was invalid ("in use by another user").
I expected the situation to be fixed on the first call to Microsoft -- BUT NO!
On the first call to Microsoft, they told me to pound sand: Deal with the reseller. Calling the reseller was the same: It's Microsoft's problem.
At that point, I was *already* going to file a claim with my credit card... Fortunately, I got a call back asking me to send all the documentation: The invoice, the activation card, the box. I quickly put these items in the mail, and then realized afterwards: "I have just mailed all my evidence to Microsoft!" So much for my claim with the bank...
There were some emails exchanged. The reseller asked Microsoft to fulfill the order, and copied me on the mail.
A month had passed, to the day from the day I placed the order. I called to find out the status of the order: They had received my mail, but there was some issue with the invoice. I had printed the invoice on my laserjet. Somehow, that wasn't good enough for them. WTF?
I told the rep that I had sent them everything I had, that they were obligated to fulfill my subscription, and that I wasn't going to send them anything else because I didn't HAVE anything else, and besides, the retailer had already sent them what they were asking for on my behalf.
Next day, I got a rude message on my voice mail. I wonder how many companies can afford to have rude customer service reps? Microsoft, and maybe a collection agency. I felt like I needed a lawyer by now. Anyway I insisted on another service rep, and after explaining the whole situation to the new rep, the problem got solved.
So I got what I paid for, but I had to beg, threaten, and wait long enough that I was never sure it would be delivered or that I was going to solve the problem without filing a lawsuit.
How to buy a computer, real cheap! (Score:5, Interesting)
His EULA must be different to mine (Score:4, Interesting)
The only problem I can see is that the XP EULA has clearly contemplated this. Remember, he isn't getting the refund from Microsoft but from the hardware manufacturer that bundles XP.
The EULA reads:
If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA, you may not use or
copy the SOFTWARE, and you should promptly contact Manufacturer
for instructions on return of the unused product(s) in accordance
with Manufacturer's return policies.
It says nothing about a refund. Even if it did, the manufacturer could say their policy is not to give a refund, or only to give $10 or whatever.
Toshiba seals the laptop along with the EULA (Score:3, Informative)
$199?? That's NOTHING! (Score:4, Interesting)
The amazing thing was that Microsoft never contested the judgment. They paid him!
A Simpler Way (Score:4, Interesting)
- Buy/setup computer; read license.
- Decline license; have auto-installation program wipe your drive. Install Linux.
- Take all Windows software media, documentation, and other materials and box them up. Take pictures of the package, and include a packing list of what you're returning. Include a letter explaining that you do not agree to the license, and that you're returning the product for a refund, per the license instructions.
- Send the package via certified mail to the vendor (Dell, etc.); make sure someone has to sign for it.
- Once you know it's been received (and you have a signature), call up your credit card company (you DID pay by credit--not a check card--right?), and request a $199 hold on the payment to the vendor, explaining that you're following the license regarding returning the product.
- The credit card rep will ask you a bunch of questions; I can't remember exactly what they are, but they are very specific yes/no questions; be careful how you answer them (they reps are reading a standard scripted list of questions that is used to determine whether or not you qualify for a refund under credit card consumer protection laws).
- The credit card company will put the $199 on hold while they investigate. They may require you to send a letter explaining your request; you may have to use some of the 'responses' listed in this article as justifications for why your claim makes sense, particularly regarding the actual value of the software.
- Sit back and watch the mega-corps fight it out. You have your "refund," and all you had to do was follow the license terms. No fuss, no muss, no court, no court costs.
Granted, IANAL, and I haven't tried this (but I for damn sure will next time I buy a computer)... but I had some experience with a credit processing agency and we dealt with these kinds of chargebacks all the time; I see no reason why this wouldn't work.Re:Is it worth it? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who does an analysis of monetary value (or cost) against time spent will not be reading Slashdot anyway...
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean it's no good to me, so why not make some money off of it?
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Just like boycotting the RIAA; not buying records only gives fuel to the RIAA's arguments ("See? People aren't buying because they're pirating it").
If you buy, then return the DRM records, the distributers have to bear the costs (that's the 'unfair' part), they'll get pissed off and demand changes.
I don't think MS (or the RIAA) want their main means of distribution to get pissed off at them.
So I see this as the only way to go.
Of course, to each his own.
Re:Is it worth it? (Score:5, Informative)
1. All the documents he had
2. A citation to his case as added support for your complaint
Citing his case alone won't help you -- you have to prove that your case is the same as his and then the citation of his award will make it easier for the judge to rule in your favor (because he's not breaking any new ground). Although, I'm not sure this judge was really thinking that he was breaking new ground when he awarded Steve the judgement.
And of course....IANAL, but I work for Westlaw.com :-)
Re:Define "many" (Score:3, Insightful)
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 C
Re:Define "many" (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm tired of paying the tax to Mirosoft for something I've never used, can't sell on, or otherwise find a purpose for.
In all five cases, the Linux I installed worked straight out of the "box".
Re:Define "many" (Score:5, Informative)
The whole point is that a lot of systems cannot be bought without the operating system. That's the deal Microsoft has roped hardware vendors into. So this is an attempt to undo that.
Re:Define "many" (Score:3, Interesting)
and while i'm glad you've emerged from your cave - find any good paintings? - you might check some back issues of trade rags. ms has had a history of trying to block computer manufacturers from selling machines without windows.
Re:Define "many" (Score:5, Funny)
Here [apple.com].
(ducks, runs...)
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Define "many" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Define "many" (Score:3, Interesting)
Not only that, on WinXP my wireless card was real flakey, in linux it has never gotten disconnected.
Re:Define "many" (Score:5, Interesting)
I've had the same types of experience with W2k and (very recently) XP. Had a D-Link WLAN setup, and the machine would just randomly stop recognizing the WLAN card.
OTH, the Suse on that same box had no problem. The WLAN was installed after both systems were installed; both XP and Suse recognized and set up the card instantly. But XP operation was quite dodgy.
So, I think it's more of a "YMMV" situation for both operating systems.
IMHO, both Linux and MS-Windows suck to about the same degree. The difference is this: in Linux, I see progress; in MS-Windows, I see a fast retreat in flexibility, configurability, and user control. With the stuff coming up in Longhorn (including (especially?) DRM), I don't see the future getting any better for MS products.
Plus, I have fun with my OS, and Linux is *fun.* MS-Windows hasn't been fun for years.
Re:Mostly Redundant... (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Mostly Redundant... (Score:5, Insightful)
Read the article: he bought a LAPTOP. It is awfully hard to buy an x86 laptop without a Microsoft OS on it.
Re:Mostly Redundant... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mostly Redundant... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mostly Redundant... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is about taking on the Dells/HPs/Gateways of the world. (I being a small OEM computer shop) do what my customers ask, if a customer wants a system with windows, he gets windows, if he wants linux he gets it, if he wants none he gets it, if he wants freebsd he gets it... Most small OEM computer shops do not have contracts with MS, we just get the software wholesale at OEM prices (its not $10, more like $100) but its alot cheaper than retail.
Re:No offense to all you hopefuls out there... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Screwing the manufacturers (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re:so who was it and why stop at $199? (Score:3, Informative)
According to the author's chronology of events, he had already begun the filing in Small Claims Court (costing $135) for getting his money back, and he mentioned this as part of the reason for not accepting the settlement