Should always get a refund for Windows according EULA
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| hkwint Oct 08, 2005 12:21 AM EDT |
Do people ever read the Windows Eula? It states: (Taken from the Microsoft Windows 2000 Professional End User License Agreement, but XP also contains rules like this) "YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE PRODUCT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE PRODUCT; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND." So this means, if you do not agree with the windows OEM EULA when starting up your brand new Dell laptop, your "place of purchase" (which is Dell if you have an OEM windows) should give you a full refund. So why does almost nobody knows this? Why doesn't someone ask Dell if this is possible? ( If you're really that interested, also check WindowsRefund.org) At the moment, I'm trying to send letters to Dell, HP, Medion (German PC-brand), Packard Bell etc., because the Dutch Windows XP Home OEM states: "If you don't agree with the Eula, immediately contact your hardware reseller and ask for their return-policy" (Translation may be a bit sloppy, but you should be able to understand it) So, now I'm asking the hardware resellers what their 'return-policy" for windows XP products is, where consumers can find this info, how high the possible refund may be, and a couple more of the like. The problem is, they don't answer at the moment. Only Medion returned an e-mail stating my questions are forwarded to "another desktop", so I will get an answer. Since I only sent e-mails (except for Sony NL, for which I couldn't find an e-mail adress), the next step will be to send "postal-mail" (real paper letters, which I remember from my youth). If that doesn't work out, I will send 'registered mail', and if that doesn't work out, there are two nice 'consumer television programs' in my country, so I will be asking them for help. I also plan asking the Dutch Competition Authority questions about this, since it isn't possible to easily learn what the refund-policy of the hardware resellers is, so this may be 'coupled-sale' (only be able to buy a laptop if you also buy Windows), which is prohibited in Dutch law ("koppelverkoop" in Dutch). If all doesn't work out, I also can write some political parties. However, all this will take a while. But stay tuned, when I get reactions, I will let you folks know. BTW, also received a reaction from MS when I asked them (by registered mail, so it was hard to ignore) about OEM-return policy, and they stated (again sloppy translation): "Microsoft can't offer restitution for buyers of a computer with Windows pre-installed, and (Windows) being removed, because it (Windows) is unused. The reason for this is, the Eula, is an agreement between the system-builder and the customer. Microsoft as a company, isn't between this (agreement)" So if someone can be sued for coupled selling, it should be Dell, HP and the like. |
| dinotrac Oct 08, 2005 12:44 AM EDT |
And why should Dell be sued? They have no monopoly. They are the market leader, to be sure, but 35% of the US market (sorry, don't have numbers on world market), they are a long way from monopoly status. Another point...Windows is not a Dell product. Packaging Windows with Dell computers is akin to packaging tires with a car. Arguably, it could be compared to packaging fuel-injection, a transmission, or any other component that might be purchased by an automaker from outside suppliers. The computer, after all, ain't much use without an OS. Here's a question for you: If you do not want to be bound by that Windows EULA, will Dell take the computer back? I could see a case for that, but, truth be told, it's not like Dell snuck Windows in on you. You bought the machine knowing that Windows was on it and claiming otherwise will only make you look foolish. |
| hkwint Oct 08, 2005 12:53 AM EDT |
"And why should Dell be sued?" Because they violate Dutch law (by coupling Windows when selling me a laptop, so forcing me to buy it both or no laptop at all), and because the Windows XP OEM EULA states they should have a return-policy, and it's an agreement between me and Dell, so if Dell doesn't have a return-policy, they are breaking the EULA. BTW I'm not sure, but it could well be that couple-sales are prohibited by European laws also. BTW2: The mentioned Dutch law Dell may violate is at http://www.nmanet.nl/Images/14_26063_tcm16-24409.pdf (English!) |
| dinotrac Oct 08, 2005 7:43 AM EDT |
Does the European law prevent auto-makers from selling cars with tires?
Shirts with buttons?
Shoes with laces?
Wireless phones with software installed?
Suits instead of separate jackets and pants? I tend to doubt it. I would bet the European law is tied to market power. |
| TxtEdMacs Oct 08, 2005 7:54 AM EDT |
dinotrac - Arguments by Analogy are a Fallacy in deductive logic, hence, the applicability is at best limited by the match between the "models". Moreover, should we substituted "specs" for "models" everyone would instantly recognize how worthless such discussions are. |
| dinotrac Oct 08, 2005 8:16 AM EDT |
TxtEdMacs - Analogies are a perfectly fine way to illustrate a point, which is part of communication. If you prefer a more cut and dry approach, try this on for size: 1. You are making an argument based on a law that you have heard of, but, obviously, don't know. 2. Many products are, in fact, bundles of components that you are compelled to buy together or not at all. 3. Therefore, the law you refer to must disfavor bundling under specific circumstances, but not generally. Do you find that more satisfying? |
| tuxchick Oct 08, 2005 8:43 AM EDT |
The EULA is very straightforward, no analogies needed: "YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE PRODUCT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE PRODUCT; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND." No ambiguities at all. Lots of folks have tried to get their refunds and have been given all kinds of stalls and runarounds. Google on "windows refund day" to find out more. The short story is, microshaft and the computer vendors lie and stall and whine and complain and don't want to honor their own EULA. |
| dinotrac Oct 08, 2005 9:38 AM EDT |
tuxchick... OK...No ambiguity? Fine. What product did you purchase? If you say Windows, you're wrong. |
| tuxchick Oct 08, 2005 11:10 AM EDT |
Dino, what do you mean? That is the Windows EULA. |
| dinotrac Oct 08, 2005 11:20 AM EDT |
That may be the Windows EULA, but Windows is not the product you bought. If that Windows came bundled with a PC, the PC and the software together are the product you bought. Query me this, Batman -- I seem to recall that the EULA for OEM-installed copies of Windows contain a restriction saying that the the OS is not transferable to other machines. In fact, some charities have stopped accepting donations of computers in order to avoid trouble with Microsoft. If the copy of Windows is not transferable, that means it's worthless without the machine upon which it was installed. Therefore, you are receiving full value for it, which, without the machine, is nothing. |
| tuxchick Oct 08, 2005 11:30 AM EDT |
dino, you're straining at a gnat. The EULA makes it very clear that Windows is a seperate component, individually refundable. "IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE PRODUCT; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND." It's no different than choosing which hardware components you want, or other software, except Microsoft wants it to be different- they want to get paid no matter what, and they succeed at this, in spite of their own unilateral EULA. |
| tadelste Oct 08, 2005 11:59 AM EDT |
How does the record speak to this issue? |
| Abe Oct 08, 2005 12:40 PM EDT |
"Analogies are a perfectly fine way to illustrate a point, which is part of communication." Dino: You have a point, but you are missing on others. According to one dictionary, Analogy by definition is a "Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.". So, analogies are good enough to a certain extent but never the same. Car dealerships have all sorts of models with pre-packaged options. I haven't seen one that doesn't change options if you request them. You can request manual instead of automatic, you can have no air condition, and you can even have them change tires. Computer OEMs do the same. You can have different CPU, DVD, CD, or no CD. They even have a la Carte options to build a PC with whatever hardware you want, but when it comes to OS, we are being forced to have Windows no matter what. Why? One point you are missing is the contracts that MS had/has forcing the OEMs to ship, only windows with every PC. If they didn't have a contract, they are given "an option they can't refuse". This is not legal because it is monopoly abuse. If you are able to request a car dealer to have a manual car, or a car without air conditioning, why can't we request a PC with a different OS? or a PC without any OS? Isn't this an abuse of monopoly. Yes, consumers are free not to purchase from a certain OEM, but the problem is, all OEMs are in the same situation, obey or die. why can we sue Dell and others? well, they are liable for collaborating and facilitating the monopoly abuse by MS. The question is, who is going to do that, and is it worth it? Personally, I prefer that consumers use their purchasing power and activist to boycott and mandate changes. |
| dinotrac Oct 08, 2005 12:51 PM EDT |
Abe - I do believe that my original comments were in response to a suggestion that people should sue Dell -- not Microsoft. Dell has not been accused of being a monopolist. |
| Tsela Oct 08, 2005 1:49 PM EDT |
dinotrac: Dell are the ones doing the sale. They are the ones forcing their client to buy Windows with their computers, without even a policy of refund on return (or at least a visible and easy one). From the point of view of the client, they are the ones breaking the law against coupled sale. It is immaterial, from the client's point of view, whether Dell is doing that because it is obliged to because of some contract with Microsoft. If Dell is obliged to do illegal things because of a contract, they shouldn't have signed it in the first place. In Europe at least you can't waive your personal responsibility away by saying that you "had a contract". And no, I don't believe Dell signed any contract they have with Microsoft at gun point. And your analogy doesn't cut it (especially, as Abe put it, since car resellers never force you to buy an option you don't want). If you want one that does, here is one, that touches me closely, so I know what I'm talking about. I am going to move to another town soon for a new job, and my partner and me are looking at houses to buy. Lately we've been looking at new houses currently being built. Those houses usually come with a fully equipped kitchen and a bathroom, and you get a choice of a few kitchen and bathroom types. But the more important part is that you can also say that you want none of those choices and rather choose one from another kitchen or bathroom reseller, and not only they cannot force you to take one of those kitchens if you say that, but the price of the house goes lower by the price of the kitchen that would have been put out (and you have the right to check that they are not lying about that price). If they don't do that correctly, they are guilty of coupled sale, and it doesn't matter whether it is because the kitchen manufacturer has a contract with them that obliges them to do that. They are the ones breaking the law. If they aren't happy about being sued about that, they can take it to the kitchen manufacturer themselves. It's true that most products are bundles of components from separate companies put together. The difference here is that Windows is *not* a *component* of a computer. It is a completely separate product. It may be necessary to have software to enjoy your computer (just like you need a kitchen and a bathroom to really enjoy your house, as well as some furniture), but it is a separate and independent product, and as such may not be forced on the customer. Some people don't mind getting it with their computer, just like some people want to buy houses fully furnished, but the people that do mind should have the choice not to get it, *without* having to go through great lengths to get their wish heard. If they cannot, then they can sue the ones that prevent them to have this choice, and in the case of computers those are the manufacturers and resellers, just like in the case of new houses those are the real estate agencies. You know, a company needn't be an abusive monopolist to do illegal things. That Dell isn't a monopolist shouldn't mean they may break the law without getting punished. PS: A few years ago, I bought shoes the laces of which I found awful. The salesman took those laces away, and proposed me other choices. At that time I took a pair of laces he proposed me, but if I hadn't liked any he would have sold me the shoes anyway, for a slightly lower price. Why not? it's not as if shoe shops make so much profit out of laces. |
| Abe Oct 08, 2005 1:51 PM EDT |
Dino: What I was trying to say is that, Dell and others are as liable as MS for collaborating and facilitating the monopoly abuse by MS. Whether that can be proved or not is a different issue. |
| hkwint Oct 08, 2005 2:09 PM EDT |
Quoting: cars with tires? Shirts with buttons? Shoes with laces? Wireless phones with software installed? Suits instead of separate jackets and pants? The analogies are wrong, because: Tires don't have an EULA saying the tire agreement is between you and the car manufacturer and you can get a refund if you don't want to comply to the tire-EULA, Buttons don't have an EULA saying the button agreement is between you and the shirt maufacturer, and you can get a refund if you don't want to comply to the Button-EULA, Seperate jackets and pants don't have an EULA saying the agreement is between you and the Suit manufacturer, The only interesting case is that of the wireless phones. The case whether Dell or MS should be sued is very interesting. MS states in their EULA and in their letter to me, they have NOTHING to do with the MS Windows XP OEM EULA, because this EULA is between me and for example Dell. So, the first question I asked to Dell etc. was if they agree that EULA is between the users and them and MS has nothing to do with it. Whether or not a car without tyres, or a laptop without OS is a 'finished' or 'usefull' product is arbitrary, and its to the competition authority to decide about it. I think for the hardware vendors, there are 2 possibilities: -They agree the EULA is between the hardware vendors and the consumer, then they should comply with the EULA and offer a refund when asked, -They don't agree the EULA is between Dell, HP, Medion etc, and then it's easy to sue Microsoft for misusing their "economic powerposition", since MS doesn't offer a refund, and by doing so, this is coupled sale. -Or they give no answer at all, which means more work for me, and means I should seek help from others. I'm not sure if this whole action will lead to anything at all, but it will always be better than doing nothing. We have to find out how this strange OEM-EULA works out for us consumers anyway. |
| TxtEdMacs Oct 08, 2005 4:12 PM EDT |
dinotracQuoting:Dell has not been accused of being a monopolist. Well, how about simply failing to abide by the terms in the EULA? It's been a number of years now, but I was following some demonstrations that seemed in my mind associated with one of the early, large Linux conferences in San Francisco. There was an attempt to return numerous unopened EULA packages (after a run around) Dell (and others) refused to honor its clearly written terms. Perhaps in your mind, any business can make the rules as they go. And these select business along with a cherry picked congress codify diminishing rights to the consumers. That means only the connected, wealthy class has rights and they are free to practice unfree Free Enterprise! Well that may look like much of the U.S.A. today, however, those are not the characteristics of a truly free country. Indeed, it smacks more of authoritarian regimes that we supposedly abhor. |
| dinotrac Oct 08, 2005 7:01 PM EDT |
Abe et Al: Being legally liable for something requires: 1. Violating a statue, which means meeting all of the elements of that statute, 2. Violating the terms of a contract, or 3. Violating common law. Folks who are trying to claim that Dell somehow violates a statute (this so-called "coupling", the legal term for which is actually tying) really ought to find themselves the statute in question and determine how Dell (not Microsoft) violates. I'm not aware U.S. law that Dell is breaking, but I'm completely unfamiliar with European law. As to contract...Dell satisfies the EULA if they offer to take the computer back and give you a full refund. Your problem is that you are not satisfied with getting a refund. You want your refund AND you want to have the Dell computer. Until such time as Dell itself has a PC monopoly, Dell is not obligated to provide you with that. Sometimes, you have to grow up and deal with the choices people offer. If Dell doesn't want to offer Linux or an OS-free computer, that's their business. If you don't like that, DON'T BUY DELL!! |
| hkwint Oct 09, 2005 3:16 AM EDT |
Well, you may be right, but in my opinion, the EULA is ambigious/not clear: If the MS XP OEM tells me about the return-policy, I read, returning ONLY MS XP, while you read returning BOTH the laptop AND MS XP OEM. But if I should also return my laptop, then whats the whole use of the return-policy? I wouldn't be buying a laptop with WinXP in first place if I was going to return the whole laptop, would I? So Dean, I understand your point of view, but I doubt what the EULA actually means with 'return-policy' (or refund). It's time to find it out. If the EC forbids to couple Media Player to Windows XP, then why not forbid coupling Windows XP to a laptop? The problem is, to go to the competition authority, you should make clear that MS is abusing its monopoly position. In history, people did this, and that's why MS now states the EULA is an agreement between you and the hardware manufacurers (and "MS isn't between"), thereby evading their monopoly abuse. But if I am going to disassamble Windows XP OEM (which is forbidden by the EULA), Dell isn't going to sue me, but MS will try to do so, I think. Technically speaking, this is wrong, because I don't break my agreement with MS by disassambling (and giving to all my friends for example) Windows XP. Because the agreement isn't between me and MS, if I copy Windows XP for all my friends, MS can't sue me if I'm right, so for this problem, MS might have created the BSA. This construction sucks in my opinion. If I break the restrictions in the MS XP OEM EULA, I will be sued by MS via BSA, but if I want my rights, I can't get them at MS via the BSA, nor at Dell etc. So the first task should be discovering how 'legitimate' the relations described in the EULA between hardware reseller, consumer and MS are. Going to send out the recorded mail to the hardware-vendors today asking them to clear up this issue. It will cost me some bucks (42 euro or so) but I think its worth it. (Probably they haven't answered yet because I told them in the mail, their response could be forwarded to the Dutch Competition Aurhority, so they have to think twice before responding) |
| dinotrac Oct 09, 2005 5:01 AM EDT |
hkwint - There are two significant differences on the bundling of Windows Media Player with Windows and the bundling of Windows with a Dell Computer. 1. Microsoft is a monopolist. Dell is not. 2. Windows Media player is a Microsoft product that Microsoft is trying to use its monopoly power to tie to Windows. |
| hkwint Oct 09, 2005 5:58 AM EDT |
Well, our law states prohibited tied selling also may include products of two different vendors sold together, and it only helps if one of the two vendors is a monopolist. It only should be proven MS is misusing its economic power position to hinder competitors. The EULA between the consumer and the hardware reseller is only 'appearance' and distraction from the monopoly abuse of MS. There are exceptions where tied selling is allowed, which may include laptop+OS, but it's to the local authorities to judge if this case is one of the exceptions where tied selling is allowed or not, and not to us LXer members. However, it IS to me to find out how those authorities think about it, and the fact MS is already condemned for misusing their economic power can only help. Since many persons tried the same as I'm doing now, I am indeed aware the chances of succes are very small, but as I stated before, it's better than sitting around and doing nothing; I just want to buy ANY (and not those 3 "best hidden on the internet" laptops) laptop I like without paying for Windows OEM which I'm not going to use! I also thought about starting my own (linux-)laptop brand, but I don't have the money and knowledge for it I'm afraid. |
| dinotrac Oct 09, 2005 6:05 AM EDT |
hkwint -- Yes, exactly. Legal matters are to be determined in accord with the statutes and their intent. |
| hkwint Oct 09, 2005 6:23 AM EDT |
BTW: Some people actually succeeded in getting a refund from Dell. (Nice story by the way) See: http://www.nomis52.net/?section=comps&page=dell http://windowsrefund.org/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewto... There are more succes stories at http://windowsrefund.org/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewfo... People actually did get their money back (ranging from $70 to E100), and Dell even allowed them to keep their XP OEM copy, since they didn't need it anymore. (And no Dean, they didn't return their laptop!) |
| PaulFerris Oct 09, 2005 6:31 AM EDT |
Just a suggestion here -- try planetfeedback.com: http://www.planetfeedback.com/ Unfortunately, the site appears to be temporarily down :( They did me a good service a while back with ATT's cell phone, um, Service. After multiple rounds with customer service at ATT (This was last Feb/Mar), they were attempting to bill me for two (possibly 3) months of service that were tagged on *after* I had dropped their service. Multiple sessions talking to service representatives who assured me that the problem was never going to go my way, that I owed them etc. They were at the time, extremely rude to deal with. I suspect ATT had outsourced to some seriously incompetent billing people, but don't know the real story. I went online to attempt to track down the email of consumer rights organizations and their CEO or something similar, found the above site, sent an email, and within 2 hours had an ATT customer service rep on the phone (she called me, no less) assuring me that the matter was resolved exactly to my liking. Another tack to try, in other words, is to simply make a lot of noise in the direction of their customer service people, consumer rights organizations, the CEO and so on -- who knows what can come of it. Just emailing Dell directly might not be the only way to talk to them, I'm saying. |
| dinotrac Oct 09, 2005 7:19 AM EDT |
Hkwint - Outstanding. Good for those folks who got a little money back. However, giving the refund and being obligated to give it are two different things. |
| hkwint Oct 09, 2005 9:58 AM EDT |
Yes, you're right. That's exactly what I'm asking in my letters to the hardware-manufacturers. Maybe it would help if you read the letter I actually sent to them: http://hkwint.50webs.com/refund_MS_en.html Again sloppy translation, because I used language which is too distinguished/difficult for me, especially when translating. |
| dinotrac Oct 09, 2005 10:11 AM EDT |
hkwint -- Sounds like a step in the right direction. As I think about it, an os-only return policy might be easier for someone like Dell to do than offering OS-free computers or, especially Linux computers, at least while demand is fairly low. For one thing, Dell doesn't have to support them, because that isn't the product they sell. If you take a separate action of returning the OS, that's your business. Also -- no need to train staff, stock anything, make decisions at packing time or anything. Of course, if very many people do that... |
| tuxchick Oct 09, 2005 11:14 AM EDT |
It takes some real ingenious thinking to convert a plain and simple EULA into something completely opposite. By Microsoft's own words, you may return your unused Windows for a refund. Plain and simple. Of course, as one of the most anti-customer companies of all time, they do not wish to honor their own "agreement" (as if customers ever got a chance to sit down and negotiate the wording) that they wrote themselves. |
| sbergman27 Oct 09, 2005 12:19 PM EDT |
I have to agree with the viewpoint that if the PC and OS are sold as a unit, they're a unit. If I buy a car (I know... the "car" analogy again!) and want Michelins instead of Bandags, I can ask the dealership if I can have them preinstalled. The dealership has the option of saying "yes" or "no" and can quote a price for doing so. And if I buy a car that comes with Michelins and I want Bandags, the dealership still has the option of saying "yes" or "no" and of quoting a price differential for doing so. Either way, if they say "no" or if I don't like the price, I have the option of not buying from them. I would not expect that I should be able to return the tires for a partial refund. If I buy an Ipaq, and prefer to run Linux on it, I have the option of asking the retailer for a quote on installing my distro of choice on it. They can say "yes" or "no" and quote a price. I would not expect that I should be able to return the OS by itself for a partial refund. (And how would you do that anyway?) And if they say "no", or I don't like the price, I might decide not to buy from them. Likewise, if I buy a Sharp Zaurus (which comes with their version of Linux) and would prefer to run OpenZaurus, I have the option of asking the retailer for a quote on installing OpenZaurus on it. Again, they have the option of saying "yes" or "no" and quoting a price. And if they say "no", or I don't like the price, I might decide not to buy from them. If I buy a PC, how is the situation fundamentally different? I do agree that there is a problem. A BIG problem. But nitpicking about a third party's EULA is barking up the wrong tree. Don't buy from vendors that don't give you what you want. Don't buy from vendors that charge you more for what you consider to be less. Don't argue with the peons at Dell's support or sales numbers. Write letters to the execs! Tell them what you want! It won't do any good in the short term. Get ready for that. But, as Kirk claimed that Spock had said in "Star Trek III: The Search For Spock": "There are always possibilities."* * In actuality, Spock never said that on screen. He said "There are always alternatives" in "The Galileo Seven". Then again, later in the episode he admitted that "He might have been mistaken". That particular part of this footnote likely has a relevance to the rest of my post. ;-) |
| dinotrac Oct 09, 2005 2:31 PM EDT |
Steve - Yes, Yes, and yes. I still find it confusing that people think they have some desperate need for or right to a Dell computer -- which seems to me the only rational basis for forcing Dell to offer their products configured in a particular way. |
| tuxchick Oct 09, 2005 3:27 PM EDT |
sbergman, your analogy falls apart against the wording of Microsoft's own EULA. That's what I'm questioning- It's quite clear, there is no way to twist it into something else. It's not nitpicking, because Microsoft itself says you can return Windows for a refund. You are right that customers need to do more than passively accept what they are spoon-fed, which is a large part of why Microshaft gets away with so much abuse. |
| sbergman27 Oct 09, 2005 5:27 PM EDT |
My analogy does not fall apart against the *wording* of the EULA. It is inconsistent with the *existence* of the EULA. Somewhere, someone made a deal with someone. Dell made a deal to resell a Windows license as part of a Dell product. They had certain rights and responsibilities with respect to MS. Dell customers make a deal with Dell when they purchase that product. Likewise, they have certain rights and responsibilities with respect to Dell. But then there is a boilerplate EULA from MS that looks like it applies to some agreement between Dell's customers and MS. When I buy a microwave, not only do I not expect to be able to return the embedded OS for a partial refund... I don't expect to have a deal directly with the the holders of the OS itself. (Beyond generic issues like copyright law, etc.) It's hard to split logical hairs when the situation itself is so screwed up. |
| tuxchick Oct 09, 2005 5:36 PM EDT |
You're making it too complicated. A PC operating system is a fairly easily interchangeable part, just like application software, or RAM, or a hard drive. And the EULA says what it says- no ifs, ands, or buts. You can't let microshaft or dell off the hook- it's their EULA, so they should abide by it. They sure don't cut us any slack when it comes to abiding by their own licensing agreements - which given their unilateral nature makes no sense how they can be legally binding in any case - why should we cut them any? It shouldn't be the customer's problem for figuring out how the EULA is honored- that's the vendor's job. Only in the computing world do vendors routinely get away with such customer-hostile behavior. |
| sbergman27 Oct 09, 2005 5:46 PM EDT |
Dean, The company I work for sells Dells as servers. I have no real problem with that since there is really no problem getting RHEL preinstalled on their servers. But for point of sale stations, I've been using cheap ($199) throw-away Microtel boxes from Wal-Mart, with Linux preinstalled. I often give clients the option of just ordering it themselves. Last week, a client and I decided that we needed an additional box. We went into his office and click! click! click! he had a new Linux box on order quicker than I could have done it. I mentioned to him, in passing, that if he ever had availability problems from that source, Amazon also carries them. To which he responded that he would probably start doing that since he doesn't really like Wal-Mart. It's not hard to get a box with Linux preinstalled... *if* you know what you are doing. |
| dinotrac Oct 09, 2005 6:23 PM EDT |
Steve -- Music to my ears...especially since it is mass-market available from major well-known suppliers at a very good price music. Enough people do that, and, one way or the other, nobody will have to worry about stripping OS's from Dells. |
| hkwint Oct 10, 2005 12:51 AM EDT |
Quoting:especially since it is mass-market available from major well-known suppliers at a very good price music. Uhm, well, in the USA maybe, but not in my country. What I was really wondering; if you can get a refund for tied software from Dell (not if it is your right, just if it is possible), would it be possible to buy 100 pieces of them, get a refund for the software, say $70 per laptop, and resell them? Quoting:But then there is a boilerplate EULA from MS that looks like it applies to some agreement between Dell's customers and MS. No, you're wrong, obviously you didn't read the EULA! The EULA states it's an agreement between Dell's customers and Dell, NOT Dell's customers and MS! And about the microwave: I think tuxchick is right, if the OS of a microwave was as easily interchangeable as MS is, I also would call it tied sales. Also, the microwave OS doesn't come with its own EULA offering a refund for it paid by the hardware-manufacturer. By the way, no microwave OS-maker is convinced for misusing their economic power both in the US and EU as far as I know. Quoting:I still find it confusing that people think they have some desperate need for or right to a Dell computer So do I. In fact, I don't want a Dell. But many others do. Amongst them some SMB's which are too small to buy a large party customized Dell's. For them, it can be a very big saving, if Dell's websites states how to get a refund for unused (imported) software. Because they have a choice between imported software (speaking for the EU now) and more 'local' or free (as in beer or speech, I don't care) software, this could only help the local economy and innovation. |
| Abe Oct 10, 2005 6:59 AM EDT |
The bottom line is the fact that most people and IT professionals are either sheep or they don't know any better. They take what is offered by the OEMs and don't want to bother with any of this stuff. Many of them don't care because they are getting the budgets they ask for to purchase equipment. I work for an oil company. Two years ago, it used to make a difference because resources were not as available as today. But today, with the higher margins, money is no object. I personally look at at as a matter of principles no matter what the margins are. I still believe in consumer purchasing power and activists. It is the most effective way of maintaining a good quality of service. The trick is to educate and enlighten consumers and whatever the government can do is a big plus; But i am not that optimistic about the government. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!