Italian Supreme Court Bans the 'Microsoft Tax' 353
An anonymous reader writes: In a post at the Free Software Foundation, lawyer Marco Ciurcina reports that the Italian Supreme Court has ruled the practice of forcing users to pay for a Windows license when they buy a new PC is illegal. Manufacturers in Italy are now legally obligated to refund that money if a buyer wants to put GNU/Linux or another free OS on the computer. Ciurcina says, "The focus of the Court's reasoning is that the sale of a PC with software preinstalled is not like the sale of a car with its components (the 4 wheels, the engine, etc.) that therefore are sold jointly. Buying a computer with preinstalled software, the user is required to conclude two different contracts: the first, when he buys the computer; the second, when he turns on the computer for the first time and he is required to accept or not the license terms of the preinstalled software. Therefore, if the user does not accept the software license, he has the right to keep the computer and install free software without having to pay the 'Microsoft tax.'"
And so therefor it follows and I quote (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Only if it has been installed on a third party PC.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And so therefor it follows and I quote (Score:5, Insightful)
In principle, maybe. But Apple gives away its software free. It's the hardware itself that's pricey.
Re: (Score:2)
In principle, maybe. But Apple gives away its software free. It's the hardware itself that's pricey.
Really? So you mean I can legally download it from Apple and install it on a VM or PC? Download link?
Re: (Score:3)
Really? So you mean I can legally download it from Apple and install it on a VM or PC? Download link?
It's free as in beer. You have it for free when you buy an Apple product, while OEMs actually buy Windows licences, that's the point. Microsoft cannot say that it's free, since they get money from the OEMs, Apple can. It's not hard to understand.
Re: (Score:3)
No. You cant. Because that would be violating the license agreement which only permits you to use it on Apple hardware.
But that has nothing to do with the fact that so long as new versions of MacOS X are available free of charge to authorized users, Apple can argue that the incremental cost of the OS being charged to users is zero, and thus the refund owed to users who "return" the OS is likewise zero.
Car example: You may buy a car with a month of free gas thrown in to close the deal - that does not mean
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It is definitely relevant. Where does the money for the development of OS X come from? Are they a charity like Debian? No.
They get the money from selling Macs. Which means the buyer of Macs is paying for OS X regardless of whether they want it or not.
Let me quote the summary here
Lawyer Marco Ciurcina reports that the Italian Supreme Court has ruled the practice of forcing users to pay for a Windows license when they buy a new PC is illegal.
If Apple gave away OS X to everyone to install on VMs and PCs for free like Debian does, they could conceivably they aren't charging Mac buyersbut are using profits from hardware sales for charity and public good.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? So you mean I can legally download it from Apple and install it on a VM or PC? Download link?
I think the term for that is "intentionally obtuse". The copyright holder allows you to use it for free on any Apple-branded computer, and doesn't allow you to use it on any other computer.
Re: (Score:2)
That means you're buying a license to use OS X and updates when you buy a Mac, regardless of whether you want it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the Surface Pro 3?
From the judgement:
The judgment at p. 21 states: "Having been assessed that there are not technological obstacles, the 'packaging' at the source of hardware and operating system Microsoft Windows (as it would for any other operating system for a fee) would actually respond, in substance, to a trade policy aimed at the forceful spread of the latter in the hardware retail (at least in that, a large majority, headed by the most established OEM brands); among other things, with cascade effects in order to the imposition on the market of additional software applications whose dissemination among final customers finds strong stimulus and influence - if not genuine compulsion - in more or less intense constraints of compatibility and interoperability (that this time we could define 'technological with commercial effect') with that operating system, that has at least tendency to be monopolistic".
Great, now if they can take the same logic to phones so that I can install Windows Phone(buying it for ~$20 if needed) on Android phones and iPhones, and get a refund on the OS on those phones, it would be great. It's like we lost a lot of freedom going from x86 to ARM.
Re: (Score:3)
The real problems will start when we go from ARM to LEG.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather fap than walk. Just saying.
Re: (Score:3)
How much do they charge you for putting Android on your phone?
Re: (Score:2)
Google is known to charge for access to the Play Store and services, but it may not be much. All the patent royalties and licensing(like h.264 encoding) on the software could be as much as $20 a phone. If I am not going to use those features, why should I pay for them when I buy the phone? Same as with Windows vs. Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
You can load any of a number of non-OEM versions of Android on your phone for free and you have access to the Play Store if you download and install the freely-distributed Google-apps zip.
I'm thinking if they're getting paid, it's for a service such as supporting OEMs in porting Android to their phones.
Re: (Score:2)
You have access to the Play Store if you download and install the freely-distributed Google-apps zip.
Congrats, you(and the site you downloaded it from) just broke the law by committing copyright infringement and piracy.
http://androidandme.com/2009/0... [androidandme.com]
Also, http://tech.slashdot.org/story... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Windows 8.1 was free. And it is widely believed that Windows 10 will also be free. So your argument falls apart. If I can get a refund for one I should be able to get a refund for another. If I want to buy a Powerbook and install Linux or Windows on it, why should I not be able to get a refund for OSX.
This is actually a real scenario, I actually plan to do this. I love Mac hardware, I hate OSX.
Re: And so therefor it follows and I quote (Score:2)
Windows 8.1 is not free. http://www.microsoftstore.com/... [microsoftstore.com].
Re: And so therefor it follows and I quote (Score:2)
The OP believes that Windows 8.1 is free when it isn't. What does this have to do with Apple?
Re: (Score:3)
I like Mac hardware a lot less when they disable hardware when they detect a non Apple OS [phoronix.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Great! Can you point me to a download link so I can install OS X on my hackintosh?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's the top result under "Free Apps" on the app store [apple.com]. It worked fine for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I have no idea what you imagine you are trying to say.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How does that follow from what you are responding to?
Re: (Score:2)
How does that follow from what you are responding to?
The fact that I have to spell this out frightens me. Maybe this isn't the place to discus it. But I will try:
You based your original computer on a Xerox PC, but you are 'something else'.
You license your hardware as specialty, but build with the same components as PCs.
You bundle your OS and hardware, but only "sell" hardware.
You give the software away for "free" but bundle the license saying it can only be installed on your hardware.
Calling Apple excluded from any such ruling of a court as above, i
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, I believe they charge for the upgrade.
Though if they argue the software is free, it could open the door for legal hackintosh's.
Re: (Score:2)
The software is free for owners of legally purchased Mac computers. It isn't free for everyone.
It is licensed for use, not given away.
Re: (Score:2)
The software is free for owners of legally purchased Mac computers. It isn't free for everyone.
You mean Apple could sue anyone using a stolen Mac with MacOS X for copyright infringement? (I suspect they legally could, and probably any software maker could).
Re: (Score:2)
No, because those were legally purchased Mac computers... That they no longer are in the hands of those who bought them may not matter...
The point is, you can't install OS X on a Dell machine, not legally anyway, because it isn't licensed for that...
Re: (Score:2)
Though if they argue the software is free, it could open the door for legal hackintosh's.
It's like most GPL licensed software: It doesn't cost money, but it comes with a license. In this case the license says: Only to be installed on Apple branded computers.
Re: (Score:3)
That only works if Microsoft sells the computer. Somehow, Microsoft wants to get paid for providing the operating system. I don't think that's unreasonable.
What's unreasonable is charging you for a computer that has Windows on it. If the same computer (or a better one) is offered with no OS at a price that's lower than the Windows machine by at least the OEM price of Windows, that's reasonable.
Re:And so therefor it follows and I quote (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree in principle, though I think the actual per-unit price paid by the manufacturer is a more reasonable refund than the open market OEM price. Otherwise if I've managed to negotiate a better deal with MS then the excess of a full oem-price refund may well exceed my profit margins. Whether MS should be allowed to negotiate such deals is a separate issue.
The price situation is also complicated by crapware subsidies - if you remove Windows then presumably you also remove all the crapware installed on it. Now my feeling on preinstalled crapware is that they pays their money and they takes their chances, after all most halfway competent users will remove it immediately anyway. But that subsidy may well exceed the low negotiated price of Windows, in which case an OS-less machine will legitimately be more expensive.
OEMs and MicroSofts risk for the price (Score:3)
It's up to the OEM and MicroSoft to risk bundling the OS with the machine. It's up to the OEM to add crapware that they actually get paid for to install on the machine. If a consumer wants the machine without the software, they should get the retail price of the software discounted off the price of the bundle.
Who pays for the price difference between the money the consumer gets back their money is between the OEM and MicroSoft. Maybe this will teach both to price stuff reasonably since the consumer now wil
Re: (Score:2)
The ruling is such that it only works if Windows is offered without any sort of EULA. I can't see MS signing off on that.
The central idea is that the two agreements are seperate and cannot be joined, so it is perfectly reasonable for the user to reject the EULA but not the hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? They might have standing, but I've never heard of such a case. The only cases I've heard of ware when someone tried to SELL large quantities of such computers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And so therefor it follows and I quote (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm all for free software, but this reasoning sounds insane. When people buy a PC, it says "comes with windows", you know what you're getting, and to require manufacturers to return half of it seems nuts. It's like ordering a cheeseburger, and then demanding a refund for the cheese. Why didn't you just order a hamburger?
Walk into a store and buy a fully assembled name brand (Dell, HP, etc) PC, complete with warranty and guarantees, without ANY software preinstalled. You can't. Your analogy fails.
We can't stock what we can't sell. (Score:2)
Walk into a store and buy a fully assembled name brand (Dell, HP, etc) PC, complete with warranty and guarantees, without ANY software preinstalled. You can't. Your analogy fails.
Heathkit. Radio Shack. Long dead in any recognizable form.
The PC is a mass market consumer appliance or an office machine. It sells as a kit of parts only to a handful of enthusiasts and IT pros --- who don't do their shopping at the Galleria Mall.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Using the original analogy, what's essentially happened is that only cheeseburgers are sold. There are no hamburgers for sale. It's cheaper/more efficient for the fast food joints to only pre-make and keep warm cheeseburgers, than to have separate lines for cheseburgers and hamburgers.
"But that's silly! Cheeseburgers have an extra component so are more expensive to make than hamburgers. Why would a restaurant only mak
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is for those that want windows, go to Best Buy (or the like) and buy a computer with warranty and guarantee, and for those that want a blank box, go and order your parts wisely.
Re: (Score:2)
The analogy actually fails because the original poster didn't RTFA. Or even the Slashdot summary in this case.
The cheesburger only has one contract. (The implicit one in the purchase.) Microsoft requires the purchaser of a PC to agree to a second contract with them AFTER the sale was completed and the goods received from a distinct vendor. (The shop that sold you the computer.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Walk into a store and buy a fully assembled name brand (Dell, HP, etc) PC, complete with warranty and guarantees, without ANY software preinstalled. You can't. Your analogy fails.
If enough people wanted to do that, you could. But virtually nobody does. The demand is not there. The Italian legal system thinks too highly of itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Why didn't you just order a hamburger?
Because nobody offers that option. I would gladly request a refund for the Windows 7 that came with my notebook if I could. The only reason I keep its partition is because I paid for that crap, and just "in case I need it"... but it's been 3 years so far without booting it. I guess I'll just wipe it and give more space to my Linux partition whenever I get some time to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
I usually install it on a VM I run on the box.
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC, the license explicitly forbids running it under a VM... though in my opinion if you paid for the crap you should be able to run it whatever way you want.
But, as I said, Windows is just a waste of hard disk space to me, be it a partition or VDI.
Re: (Score:2)
My licence agree for Win 7 Pro OEM does not prohibit me from installing it in a VM.
It says only that if I'm installing it for my own use, I'm restricted to installing it on a single computer that has a disk or flash drive and a case, that the COA must be affixed to said case, that I'm restricted to keeping a single backup of the installed OS for recovery purposes, and that the backup may not be used to operate a different computer.
Of course, this is from 2007, and it's an OEM version. Later or non-OEM versi
Re: (Score:2)
But you do have the right to choose a different type of cheese. You can choose microsoft cheese, bsd cheese, linux cheese.
Even if linux/bsd are free, the company selling the linux/bsd PC will charge an OS bundling and testing charge. So the real question is, is the Italian Supreme court making it legal to sell hamburgers without the
Re: (Score:2)
But you do have the right to choose a different type of cheese. You can choose microsoft cheese, bsd cheese, linux cheese.
I'm lactose intolerant, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hamburgers don't have cheese, cheeseburgers do.
Re: (Score:2)
Booting off Live CD or usb stick is not considered a normal mode of operation. It's only used occasionally by admins and power users, and almost never by normal consumers.
Re: (Score:3)
Just e-mail Apple. I'm sure they'll be more than happy to send you $0.
Re: (Score:3)
If you could figure out how much it cost you, you might have a case. There are two problems: 1) buying a Mac is inherently different then buying a PC in that Mac-buyers have actively chosen to buy an operating system, and 2) it's really hard to figure out how much Mac OS the software cost you.
1) is important because the basis of the ruling is that when you buy a Dell you're buying two things: computer hardware and access to a separate software package. There are tens of millions of geeks around the world wh
Re: (Score:2)
If you think the CFO of Apple does not know exactly how much the cost of OS X contributes to a Mac's cost, you must be thinking their accounting department is a joke. At the medium business that I work, everytime we make a phone call or print something, we need to enter a project code that it's billed to against. Every square foot and chair is accounted for and properly billed to the appropriate project and client. And it's not even a public company like Apple is. Trust me, Apple's accounting and operations
Re: (Score:2)
The cost of the windows license is actually pretty complicated, unless its a machine with JUST windows. The bloatware and trials and all that garbage count, as the OEM is being paid to include those. For low end hardware, one could argue you'd owe the OEM money when you tell them you're not using Windows (not really, but they certainly don't owe you much, since you're buying subsidized hardware...).
In a similar way, the Apple hardware premium subsidize the OS. Sure, these days, Apple doesn't have a very big
Re: (Score:2)
Why buy a Mac at all if you're not going to use OS X?
Re: (Score:3)
Why buy a Mac at all if you're not going to use OS X?
At my company, which has a company wide Windows license, lots of Windows users (everybody who has enough power to do it) buy a MacBook Air or another MacBook and ask IT to install Windows on it. Now you can argue whether an Apple computer running Windows with MacOS X removed is still a Macintosh or not...
Re: (Score:2)
A MacBook without OS X may still be an Apple computer but it's no longer a Mac.
Re: (Score:3)
Can I get a refund for my Mac OS too?
The correct answer is that there a dozens of computer manufacturers selling you computers without MacOS X, and only one selling you a computer with MacOS X, so if you wanted a computer without MacOS X you could have just gone to one of the dozen manufacturers you sell you exactly what you want.
Re: And so therefor it follows and I quote (Score:2)
Sure. You realize Mac OS X is free to all Apple certified hardware, of course. ;-)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
DOES it follow when the hardware and OS are made by the same company and tied together?
Probably not now, but eventually if this ruling is enforced, it would follow that the shenanigans associated with "I gave you that software for free you insensitive clod!" isn't going to work when you're buying Intel chips and marking up your own boards by 500%
Re:And so therefor it follows and I quote (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, given that Apple doesn't charge for OS upgrades anymore, it can be argued that the cost of the OS is $0, when bundled with a Mac. You can get your refund, but I am not sure that $0 is worth the effort.
The real cost is having to buy a new Mac every few years because the latest upgrade was an upgrade too far. Well, at least it easier to roll back, compared to an iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
The real cost is having to buy a new Mac every few years because the latest upgrade was an upgrade too far. Well, at least it easier to roll back, compared to an iPhone.
Why is this insightful?
According to Apple, the latest version of OS X is supported on mid-2007 hardware. I am running late 2007 Apple hardware (and 2012 hardware). I don't intend to upgrade to Yosemite, but I could. I get more life out of Apple laptops than I do out of inexpensive Windows laptops.
iOS devices are another story. Apple abandons them fairly quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
iOS devices are another story. Apple abandons them fairly quickly.
An iphone 4 ran iOS 7 (4 years later) which is better than any other phone I know. And abandonment is a little overstated, because the phone works fine with iOS 7, and will continue to do so, much like many Android phones still run fine on Gingerbread or Ice Cream Sandwich or Jelly Bean.
Re: (Score:2)
The cost of the OS is definitely not zero. Apple only allows OS X on Macs, which means you're forced to purchase a license to OS X(and future "free" updates to it) when you buy a Mac. Mac sales revenue are directly used to fund OS X development. When reporting earnings and profits, OS X costs are included in the cost of sales revenue of a Mac just like the Intel CPU is. If OS X was really $0 and the costs not passed onto Mac buyers, it would be available to install legally on PCs and VMs like Debian is.
Thi
Tax and cost from a PC-vendor point of view (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Dell once explained why their Linux PCs weren't cheaper than similar Windows models. The average cost of a single customer service call to Dell was higher than their OEM Windows licence cost, and the Linux PCs had a significant higher number of customer service calls than the Windows-PCs.
Probably a big factor yes, maybe even bigger: The Windows pre-installs have software that vendors pay to have on there. Your Windows system is subsidized, the Linux system is not.
Re: Tax and cost from a PC-vendor point of view (Score:2, Insightful)
How about no OS warranty then? No-OS pc = no OS warranty... Call up Dell and say your no-OS machine won't boot and they should tell you to reboot and hit f10 ... If ePSA passes, sorry, you need to fix it yourself or restore from backup or reimage...
Re: (Score:2)
If, for example, the camera or microphone doesn't work or stops working, how does Dell troubleshoot it to see if it's a hardware issue or a driver issue?
Re: Tax and cost from a PC-vendor point of view (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Dell once explained why their Linux PCs weren't cheaper than similar Windows models.
"Linux is just the kernel."
I wonder sometimes what would happen if a judge took a geek and his memes at face value --- and if the end result would be a successful, marketable, consumer product.
wireless carriers, take note (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can do that on Windows Phone.
But will it affect consumers? (Score:3)
How much less do Italians get to pay for a PC with no operating system loaded than for one with Microsoft Windows?
Re: (Score:2)
They likely won't pay less. OEMs are paid to bundle crapware with their Windows PCs that subsidizes the price of the system. The claimed "tax" does not actually exist when the price of the PC is actually lower than it would be without Windows.
It is refreshing to see the a country ... (Score:2)
.
If (and that's a big if) such a decision were rendered here in the US, Microsoft would have Congress quickly pass a law nullifying the decision.
20 years too late (Score:5, Insightful)
20 years too late
Re: (Score:2)
Solution for microsoft... (Score:2)
Hardware with only windows drivers. By requiring windows 8.1 computers to have a certain level of hardware spec, they can ensure incompatible components on every computer and argue that the OS is required by the computer chosen.
Year of the Linux Desktop (Score:5, Funny)
This is it! 2014 will be the year of the Linux desktop!
Re: (Score:2)
50 euro fee for a 20 euro refund (Score:4, Insightful)
Under Dutch law you are entitled a refund because you did not get to see the license before purchasing the computer but only after booting it for the fist time. Vendors have found all kinds of work-arounds. One of those work-arounds is that they add an administration-fee to your refund that is higher than the price of Windows. Another work-around is that they require the manufacture to verify that Windows has been entirely removed. Unfortunately they don't have a local office that can do that so you are supposed to ship your computer to Germany. They will check the computer, which takes a few weeks, and only then you get your refund, minus the international shipping and handling costs. Ofcourse they will not use the list-price for the refund but the volume-discount price that the big manufacturers get.
Only the most principled customers will jump through the hoops to get the refund.
What the law should then require: (Score:2)
Ban the MS tax on Android instead (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should anyone be paying M$ so much as a thin dime let alone $10-$20 in royalties on each Android device sold?
The elephant can forget. The geek never learns. (Score:2, Insightful)
The bare bones PC doesn't sell worth spit.
It is not and never has been and never will be a mass market consumer product.
The OEM system install was the key to making the PC a mass market product. It meant that you had a working --- tested --- configuration out of the box, appropriate for its price range and intended use.
In 2014 it is still possible for the geek to be tied up in knots by Linux audio.
Something that leaves the OSX and Windows user with his head shaking in disbelief.
Walmart --- with its enormou
Re:The elephant can forget. The geek never learns. (Score:5, Interesting)
There is something distinctly fraudulent about buying a Windows PC and demanding a refund when you could have bought a Linux PC from the start.
Ok I'll bite. Show me where I can buy a Linux laptop, with a i7-4710, 1TB HDD, 8GB of RAM, and a GTX 850M. I can't seem to find one which doesn't say Windows 8.1 included in price in the specs. Note how I pointed to laptops? You ever realise that most of these issues don't seem to arise with PCs as people are able to build their own from the ground up?
Giving examples of the worst system integration you could find and using that as a reason why I should be forced to pay money to a company who's product I don't want to use is disingenious. Geeks tied up in knots about Linux Audio? There hasn't been a Linux distro I've used in the past 2 years where audio hasn't worked out of the box, then prior to the Pulseaudio debacle it also just worked though not as feature rich as now.
Now what is fraudulent is selling a product with a separate End User License Agreement, and then not accepting a return when that EULA is not accepted. Really sit down and have a read of the OEM Windows EULA next time you have a week or so free. There is a line in the EULA that says if you do not accept the terms of the EULA in full then you should remove the copy and seek a refund from the distributor. The only fraudulent act is not abiding by the very terms you try to force on your customers.
By the way I lied about the laptop. I do get a choice of OS. The choice is Windows 8.1 or Windows 8.1 Pro. Amazing. I feel so empowered.
System 76 (Score:3)
Ok I'll bite. Show me where I can buy a Linux laptop, with a i7-4710, 1TB HDD, 8GB of RAM, and a GTX 850M.
No trouble:
Configure your Bonobo Extreme [system76.com] [Desktop Replacement]
Base price $1629
CPU Upgrades start at $50.
Free upgrade to NVIDIA 870M
Upgrade to 12 GB for $69.
1 TB HDDs starting at $39.
Full range of SSD primary and HDD/SSD secondary drives, optical and tertiary SSD drives.
Please (Score:3)
explain how to get into boot menu without using windows tools on UEFI devices. Either I have been too stupid, or microsoft very smart, but I haven't found any optiont o boot an EFI-capable stick without windows, at least for the hardware I were on. I could have tried to remove the HDD, but that could have voided warranty. What to do in this case?
Re: (Score:2)
It's because Windows boots too fast.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/arc... [msdn.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do it as a class action; that'll get their attention.
Re: (Score:2)
I may have missed in in the article, but is there any provision that states the OS has to be removed or disbled? If not, what's to keep someone from buying a PC and saying "Gimmie mah lira!" while still using the pre-installed OS?
Probably some laws that say that if you get money by claiming that you removed Windows from your PC, while actually not removing it and using it, you committed at least fraud and copyright infringement.