christian.einfeldt writes "Alan Lord, a FOSS computer consultant based in the UK, has announced that Amazon UK honored his request for a refund of the Microsoft license fee portion of the cost of a new Asus netbook PC that came with Microsoft Windows XP. Lord details the steps that he took to obtain a refund of 40.00 GBP for the cost of the EULA, complete with links to click to request a refund. Lord's refund comes 10 years after the initial flurry of activity surrounding EULA discounts, started by a blog post by Australian computer consultant Geoffrey Bennett which appeared on Slashdot on 18 January 1999. That Slashdot story led to mainstream press coverage, such as stories in CNN, the New York Times Online, and the San Francisco Chronicle, to name just a few. The issue quieted down for a few years, but has started to gain some momentum again in recent years, with judges in France, Italy, and Israel awarding refunds. But if Lord's experience is any indication, getting a refund through Amazon might be as easy as filling out a few forms, at least in the UK, without any need to go to court."
So this should work in the US, too? I'm looking to buy a new laptop sooner or later, but I sure as hell won't be using Windows. A refund would be prettty awesome.
The thing is, I imagine the license fee is quite variable. I've heard 40$ us, 80$ us, and other numbers, not to mention based on the version of windows that happens to be included (you'd not expect the same for ultimate vs home edition).
Anyone else care to correct me or provide more info (I'm sure people are more familiar with this than I am)
From what I've read, the range of refunds given has been variable if not arbitrary. This thread on the ubuntu forums [ubuntuforums.org] is an interesting place to start reading about some differenct experiences people have had.
I was also interested to learn recently that it is possible to buy machines with no OS from some vendors. The college I work for has this ability through our Dell rep. This post [ubuntuforums.org] in the above-mentioned thread is particularly interesting, as it claims that anybody can request and receive a new computer without an OS from several vendors.
Really? I remember arguing with dell for close to an hour a few years ago that I didn't want an OS. I told them I wanted a blank hard drive. They told me they couldn't do it. I asked to speak to a manager, and they affirmed the lower person's statement. Maybe this has changed since?
I think that is a very weak argument. How is it any more difficult to test? If Windows is preinstalled, then the EULA must be accepted before the computer will be able to do anything. Why wouldn't they test using a LiveCD or LiveUSB of some sort, that has nothing to do with the installed OS and can run a series of pre-defined tests? I fully support OEMs (including Apple) being required to sell computers with blank hard drives in them (and refunding the "OS fee") if that option is chosen by the purchaser.
UK£40 is about 46euro or US$66. Maybe that's the rate for XP these days.
In Finland, the rebate for Vista Home Premium seems to be about 100euro, which is UK£86-ish or US$140-ish at current rates. That was the in-store price reduction I got for each of the two PCs I bought this year (in January and June from different local small system builders).
It would have to be to compensate for the grief of using Windows.;-)
I do hope that one of those "few links" offers a "Comments" field, preferrably one that isn't limited to 128 characters, though I suppose something like "Hey Microsoft! I want my life back. And no, you can't have any more of my money!" would fit and provide the requisite emotional reward.
Who? If I want the exact hardware I see for my new netbook, but cannot buy it anywhere without the OS as part of the price, am I not completely limited in my choices? Should any hardware manufacturer be able to tell me explicitly what software I must buy with my hard earned money? Should I not be able to say "Don't want it..." and get a reduced price, even if the reduction is only $40? Shouldn't I have the choice to say "whatever you paid to have that software installed, I don't want it, so don't pay to install it, and pass me the price difference" ?
I wonder if anyone has ever tried this with Apple.. Wipe out OSX and request a refund for it because you plan to use Linux.. I bet it would be even more difficult than getting a Windows refund.
The problem is that Microsoft is a monopoly. If you had the selection of cars that you did in computers, the only way you could get a sedan would be to get it from Ford. Would you think it is a "free market" if Ford forced all the people who wanted sedans to pay for a GPS system as well as a spoiler? Hey, you can go elsewhere and get a bicycle or whatever. You're not "forced" to buy a sedan...
If you don't like the manufacturers' policies, buy from someone else.
And while we're at it, we'll be sure to change our cable/DSL providers because we don't agree with their policies.
If I may, I'd suggest you stop to consider the effects of monopoly power (both on the macro and micro level), and then examine how politics (both social and governmental) factor into the equation.
Complex problems can sometimes have simple solutions, but this isn't one of them.
Theres a monoply on PCs? WTF planet do you live on? I can buy the parts to build a PC from bestbuy, hundreds of websites and at least 10 different local companies (who also sell built to spec PCs, sans OS if I want). Plenty of local shops will sell netbooks too.
There isn't really any monopoly on the generic white box PC market, sorry to burst your bubble, but there are other websites besides www.dell.com, err, www.amazon.com. Oh hell, I think the point is made.
and at least 10 different local companies (who also sell built to spec PCs, sans OS if I want).
Not exactly. I'm casual friends with a guy who co-owns one of those local shops. They do sell built-to-spec PCs. They're basically forced to sign a contract with MS that states that if they sell PCs with Windows on them, than EVERY pc they sell will have Windows on it. In other words, they're not allowed to sell PCs with no OS or with only Linux pre-installed. Micrsoft says "You wanna sell PCs with no OS? No problem. But you won't be getting OEM copies of Windows from us. Good luck."
I'm just saying, if you're a local shop that plays by Microsoft's rules, it's not as easy as you think to get people PCs with any alternatives. Sure, you could blow off that particular rule, at your own peril.
Sarcasm noted. Dell doesn't have any No-OS computers readily available for sale, thank you very much. All of their pages advertise Microsoft operating systems. If I DIG, if I PERSIST, I can get past all of that, in the business area. Dell knows that there is a market for Linux, and they know that there is a market for No-OS machines. Why are those market areas buried deep?
Phhhttt. I'm afraid that you miss the target with that one. First, I have built almost every computer I've ever owned, then installed Linux myself. My computers are guaranteed to work, or the guy who built them fixes them free. Can't beat a deal like that, huh?
Support Linux? Well, I've built 3 computers to date, with Linux installed, and GIVEN them to people who couldn't afford to purchase a computer. I've assisted 4 other people to install Linux on their home computers, and given limited support to t
If the feds were doing their job originally this argument would be moot.
They chose not to so now we all get to live with the fallout and Microsoft gets to benefit from it's prior bad behavior with no real consequences.
Although this is ultimately a hardware vendor problem. They continue to sell a product that has a built in consumer return clause. This issue would become entirely moot if hardware vendors just honored their legal responsibilities in good faith.
The "let the monopolist do whatever they want" approa
simple point: laptops. When the exact specs only exist on two manufacturer's machines, for example, and both only offer it with Windows installed, and jack the price $40 because of it, where is my choice? I can't just order the parts and build it.
The problem is, historically at least, Microsoft strong-arms the OEMs into ONLY supplying machines with Windows - if they refuse, MS refuse to provide them with a license. Yes, anticompetitive and probably illegal, but that's the way it was for a long time.
OEMs won't upset 95% of their business to appease the other 5%, and most of the people who want Windows want it preinstalled, so the OEM needs the license to do so. OEMs who offer non-Windows installs are much the minority right now, but at least it's a foot in the door.
The issue is the OEMs being strongarmed into forcing it into builds whether people want it or not. Imagine whenever you bought a car, from any manufacturer, you got beaded seat covers in them. And you hate beaded seat covers. And you still had to pay for them, even if you threw them away immediately. You tried to get them to sell you the car without beaded seat covers to save $40, and they refused, because if they didn't, the beaded seat cover manufacturers would stop licensing them to sell them, then they couldn't sell cars to the other people who DID want beaded seat covers.
Sounds a bit ridiculous that way, huh? Despite the fact 95% of people dislike beaded seat covers I'm sure:)
So if I want to build a PC and sell it with Windows on it, you are saying that *I* should be forced to sell it to you without Windows, instead?
No, but if you sell it with an operating system that has a EULA that states you will provide a refund if I don't agree to the terms of the EULA, you should be bound by that.
Can I put a CD into the car and have it start running? No? Then it's not an applicable comparison.
On the other hand you can take a boot CD, put it in a computer and within a few minutes have a working machine.
And nobody is up in arms over HP selling their own OS, or Dell selling their own OS, or Apple selling their own OS. People are upset because 95% of the manufacturers are forcing the same 3rd party OS on their customers with no easy way to opt out of it.
US means United States according to the ISO 3166-1 International standard for 2-letter country code abbreviations. Is there some other standard I don't know about? These same codes that are used to define the TLDs of every country that has one... Why am I feeding the trolls?
To me, of all things that have been considered as a remedy against Microsoft monopoly abuse, the only one that is logical and practical would be to stop them from bundling hardware and software. I can't understand why this hasn't been done by either the EU or USA.
Software and hardware are clearly two different markets. You can install Windows in hardware from a number of vendors, and you can install a number of operating systems on a PC.
So you would buy a computer and you would get two receipts, one for the machine and another one for the OS. The OS can even be preinstalled on the machine and you would only get an activation key with your receipt. If you don't want the operating system, you just buy the hardware and don't pay for the activation key.
What really makes me mad is that the only reason this is not considered by the authorities is because Linux is not commercial, so they are not losing money from Microsoft's monopoly abuse. Only companies matter to government. The fact that the public would benefit from an operating system market where Linux would be allowed to compete on equals grounds is not relevant to the government because there is no single company making money from Linux.
Now where do you get that from? There are vendors that sell boxed and/or subscription based Linux distributions (most known are Red Hat and Novel (SuSE), but there are others too).
And there is a lot more money in support, money that actually is helpful for the local economy.
Also there are other commercial operating systems that are sold (e.g. QNX).
They just don't have the power and ruthlessness of OEM bribery and monopoly like Microsoft, but they are there.
They are there, in a veeery abstract sense, that they exist and profit from linux. Not that they will actually change John Doe's behavior, whereas paying more for the OS just might.
They exist in the enterprise market. Servers.
I think the biggest reason is still that linux is not a good experience for a normal person. You can also get netbooks off the shelf with linux installed, with custom UIs. If you want to play any media on it that isn't opensource, it's not as simple as just trying to play the video and automatically finding the codec.
[Automatic installation of software to decode popular audio and video formats] is simpler under Linux than it is Windows, and far simpler than MacOS.
Not in the United States, home of Microsoft, Apple, and Slashdot. In the United States, popular media codecs and containers are patented and not licensed for use in free software.
Ubuntu has staked the heart of this particular bit of FUD.
If you try to install the "ugly" codecs from multiverse, Ubuntu also puts up a big scary warning that the codecs require a patent license in some countries and that the patent license is not included.
Because Microsoft does not manufacture any computers. That HP you just bought that came pre-loaded with Vista, well the manufacturer is HP not Microsfot. Same for that shiny new Eee system you just bought except it's made by Asus and not HP or Microsoft so how do we split the Microsoft hardware division out and force em to sell without an OS installed?
To me, of all things that have been considered as a remedy against Microsoft monopoly abuse, the only one that is logical and practical would be to stop them from bundling hardware and software. I can't understand why this hasn't been done by either the EU or USA.
Microsoft does not bundle hardware and software. OEMs do it. Arguing against OEM pricing is foolish given that it is SOP in every industry from car parts to parts cars.
Software and hardware are clearly two different markets. You can install Windows in hardware from a number of vendors, and you can install a number of operating systems on a PC.
Yes, that is true, and an argument against your position IMO.
So you would buy a computer and you would get two receipts, one for the machine and another one for the OS. The OS can even be preinstalled on the machine and you would only get an activation key with your receipt. If you don't want the operating system, you just buy the hardware and don't pay for the activation key.
There are vendors who will sell you a computer with no OS and vendors who will sell you an OS with no computer. No remedy is required because the market has spoken: most people want to buy OS and PC together.
What really makes me mad is that the only reason this is not considered by the authorities is because Linux is not commercial, so they are not losing money from Microsoft's monopoly abuse.
No, the only reason it is not considered by the authorities is that it is r
And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy License, then shalt thou count to 40 GBP, no more, no less. 40.00 GBP shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be 40. 50 shalt thou not count, neither count thou 30, excepting that thou then proceedest on to 40. 60 is right out. Once the 40.00 GBP, being the 40th number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy License of Windows towards thy Amazon, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it." Amen.
The case in Israel was an out of court settlement. It never got to a judge. It was unique in that the plaintiff refused to settle unless it was also made public, but still, no judge.
Copy Print Exit
4:58:39 PM CustomerChristian
Initial Question/Comment: Rebates
4:58:44 PM SystemSystem
Jeremy has joined this session!
4:58:44 PM SystemSystem
Connected with Jeremy
4:58:44 PM SystemSystem
Hello my name is Jeremy. How may I help you today?
4:59:20 PM CustomerChristian
Hi there, I was reading an article about how amazon refunded the microsoft OS price for a netbook that was purchased. http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2009/07/21/getting-your-microsoft-tax-refunded-1010-for-amazon-uk/ [theopensourcerer.com]
4:59:35 PM CustomerChristian
I was wondering whether Newegg would do that on a laptop I ordered, because I don't accept the EULA.
5:00:34 PM AgentJeremy
We do not offer this return.
5:01:02 PM CustomerChristian
Didn't think so.:) Perhaps one day when EULA's are challenged in court we can get this fixed. Until then, viva la microsoft tax eh?;)
5:01:49 PM AgentJeremy
Do you have any other questions, or is there anything else I can assist you with today?
5:01:53 PM CustomerChristian
Nope, thanks.
Send
Session ID: 658231
Question40
Pick one of the following options:
OK Cancel
Timeout40
Do you wish to continue this chat session?
Continue Session End Session
Amazon is not the company that bought that Windows licensed. That would be Asus. That implies that what really happened here is that Amazon decided to eat the cost to keep a customer happy.
My guess is that the customer (the company that actually bought the computer--not the guy they gave it to) does a lot of business with them, so they were willing to eat a little on one sale to keep the end user happy, to keep their customer happy.
I doubt Amazon is willing to in effect buy a Windows license for everyone who wants to buy a netbook from them and use Linux on it, so I don't expect this to go far.
At one point, Dell offered FreeDOS as their Opensource option and an associated credit over windows on quite a few of their machines...making it relatively easy to buy an "empty" box with warranty and support, if that was your bag...now I think they've switch to Ubuntu...but still, the point is support vendors who don't offer windows and more vendors won't offer windows (and don't bitch about not getting all of the Microsoft surcharge back, they still have to test their hardware and perhaps write drivers).
There was a time when Microsoft got paid irrespective of what OS was loaded on the PC. Have a look for "per CPU licensing" on Google. Since the only way to avoid paying Microsoft was not to buy a PC at all that's quite a lot like the road fund licence or television licence in the UK which are both considered to be taxes even though they are not compulsory unless you have a car or a device capable of receiving television signals (I would have just said television but this place is where pedants go to die :
You're right it's not a tax, because the MS fee is voluntary whereas taxes are not, however the MS fee is still hard to avoid. You mentioned the Dell N-series, but that series still forces you to pay for a Windows license fee, even though there's no Windows on the machine (i.e. an N-series PC is the same price as a Vista machine).
What I can't figure out is why amazon gave a refund to a guy who has Windows installed on his Net PC. That sounds kinda shady. I could quite easily buy a netbook, CLAIM I'm not
Oh, you found a link for preloaded linux, and even another one for barebones OS!!!!!!!
That's why. Because people want to buy ANY machine, not some "special-needs" preconfigured POS. I'd buy a vaio FW any minute, if it came with something Debian-based. But it doesn't. Or can you find that missing link?
What point is it that people hope to make when they do things like this? If you want to support preloaded Linux, why not buy preloaded Linux?
The point is that the new computers that are available with Linux or no OS preloaded are a very tiny fraction indeed of the variety of new computers available with Windows. If I want, for example, a Dell Mini 10 with the new low-power US15W/GMA500 chipset, [dell.com] I am forced to buy with it a license for Windows xp. If you know how to buy this particular model new with Linux or no OS preloaded, please do post back with directions.
If you want to get a PC with no OS at all, why not buy a used machine on eBay that has no OS?
That's just silly. A used machine is not new, has no warranty, and is older and theref
Forced, forced. I keep seeing that word in this thread.
Forced? Was it a gun or a knife? Was the state forcing you to buy Windows?
No, no, and no. You had a choice. There are vendors offering pre-installed Linux. There are vendors selling bare PCs. You may buy parts and build your own PC.
Instead, you chose to buy a PC with Windows on it. And now you are complaining that you were "forced" to buy Windows. Just because the particular hardware you wanted had Windows on it does not mean you were "forced" to buy it
If you do not want Microsoft products, do not buy them.
You don't have a choice, a us consent decree [usdoj.gov] states that microsoft can not.
(B) Microsoft shall not enter into any License Agreement that by its terms prohibits or restricts the OEM's licensing, sale or distribution of any non-Microsoft Operating System Software product.
(C) Microsoft shall not enter into any Per Processor License.
Microsoft gets paid, even if you don't you use their operating system, due to the per processor licensing scheme.
To
I wonder if I can buy a Mac from Amazon and get a refund for OS X because I wanted to run Windows on it.
From what I've read/heard, you are paying for the hardware and the hardware only. As Apple is a "hardware company." OS X is a freebie according to this logic many Slashdot users like to profess.
US? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:US? (Score:4, Interesting)
The thing is, I imagine the license fee is quite variable. I've heard 40$ us, 80$ us, and other numbers, not to mention based on the version of windows that happens to be included (you'd not expect the same for ultimate vs home edition).
Anyone else care to correct me or provide more info (I'm sure people are more familiar with this than I am)
Parent
variable (Score:4, Informative)
From what I've read, the range of refunds given has been variable if not arbitrary. This thread on the ubuntu forums [ubuntuforums.org] is an interesting place to start reading about some differenct experiences people have had.
I was also interested to learn recently that it is possible to buy machines with no OS from some vendors. The college I work for has this ability through our Dell rep. This post [ubuntuforums.org] in the above-mentioned thread is particularly interesting, as it claims that anybody can request and receive a new computer without an OS from several vendors.
Parent
Re:variable (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:variable (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
In Finland, the rebate for Vista Home Premium seems to be about 100euro, which is UK£86-ish or US$140-ish at current rates. That was the in-store price reduction I got for each of the two PCs I bought this year (in January and June from different local small system builders).
Re: (Score:2)
A refund would be prettty awesome.
It would have to be to compensate for the grief of using Windows. ;-)
I do hope that one of those "few links" offers a "Comments" field, preferrably one that isn't limited to 128 characters, though I suppose something like "Hey Microsoft! I want my life back. And no, you can't have any more of my money!" would fit and provide the requisite emotional reward.
Re:US? (Score:5, Insightful)
The best trolling has a kernel of truth.
But the point is that we shouldn't be forced to choose hardware based on what OS we want, or pay $40 more than we needed to.
Parent
Re:US? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
How about Apple? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:US? (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:US? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't like the manufacturers' policies, buy from someone else.
And while we're at it, we'll be sure to change our cable/DSL providers because we don't agree with their policies.
If I may, I'd suggest you stop to consider the effects of monopoly power (both on the macro and micro level), and then examine how politics (both social and governmental) factor into the equation.
Complex problems can sometimes have simple solutions, but this isn't one of them.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Theres a monoply on PCs? WTF planet do you live on? I can buy the parts to build a PC from bestbuy, hundreds of websites and at least 10 different local companies (who also sell built to spec PCs, sans OS if I want). Plenty of local shops will sell netbooks too.
There isn't really any monopoly on the generic white box PC market, sorry to burst your bubble, but there are other websites besides www.dell.com, err, www.amazon.com. Oh hell, I think the point is made.
Re:US? (Score:4, Interesting)
and at least 10 different local companies (who also sell built to spec PCs, sans OS if I want).
Not exactly. I'm casual friends with a guy who co-owns one of those local shops. They do sell built-to-spec PCs. They're basically forced to sign a contract with MS that states that if they sell PCs with Windows on them, than EVERY pc they sell will have Windows on it. In other words, they're not allowed to sell PCs with no OS or with only Linux pre-installed. Micrsoft says "You wanna sell PCs with no OS? No problem. But you won't be getting OEM copies of Windows from us. Good luck."
I'm just saying, if you're a local shop that plays by Microsoft's rules, it's not as easy as you think to get people PCs with any alternatives. Sure, you could blow off that particular rule, at your own peril.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sarcasm noted. Dell doesn't have any No-OS computers readily available for sale, thank you very much. All of their pages advertise Microsoft operating systems. If I DIG, if I PERSIST, I can get past all of that, in the business area. Dell knows that there is a market for Linux, and they know that there is a market for No-OS machines. Why are those market areas buried deep?
http://search.dell.com/results.aspx?s=gen&c=us&l=en&cs=&k=no+os&cat=all&ref=ac [dell.com]
The second part of your post i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Phhhttt. I'm afraid that you miss the target with that one. First, I have built almost every computer I've ever owned, then installed Linux myself. My computers are guaranteed to work, or the guy who built them fixes them free. Can't beat a deal like that, huh?
Support Linux? Well, I've built 3 computers to date, with Linux installed, and GIVEN them to people who couldn't afford to purchase a computer. I've assisted 4 other people to install Linux on their home computers, and given limited support to t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If the feds were doing their job originally this argument would be moot.
They chose not to so now we all get to live with the fallout and Microsoft
gets to benefit from it's prior bad behavior with no real consequences.
Although this is ultimately a hardware vendor problem. They continue to sell
a product that has a built in consumer return clause. This issue would become
entirely moot if hardware vendors just honored their legal responsibilities in
good faith.
The "let the monopolist do whatever they want" approa
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:US? (Score:4, Informative)
The problem is, historically at least, Microsoft strong-arms the OEMs into ONLY supplying machines with Windows - if they refuse, MS refuse to provide them with a license. Yes, anticompetitive and probably illegal, but that's the way it was for a long time.
OEMs won't upset 95% of their business to appease the other 5%, and most of the people who want Windows want it preinstalled, so the OEM needs the license to do so. OEMs who offer non-Windows installs are much the minority right now, but at least it's a foot in the door.
Parent
Re:US? (Score:5, Interesting)
The issue is the OEMs being strongarmed into forcing it into builds whether people want it or not. Imagine whenever you bought a car, from any manufacturer, you got beaded seat covers in them. And you hate beaded seat covers. And you still had to pay for them, even if you threw them away immediately. You tried to get them to sell you the car without beaded seat covers to save $40, and they refused, because if they didn't, the beaded seat cover manufacturers would stop licensing them to sell them, then they couldn't sell cars to the other people who DID want beaded seat covers.
Sounds a bit ridiculous that way, huh? Despite the fact 95% of people dislike beaded seat covers I'm sure :)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So if I want to build a PC and sell it with Windows on it, you are saying that *I* should be forced to sell it to you without Windows, instead?
No, but if you sell it with an operating system that has a EULA that states you will provide a refund if I don't agree to the terms of the EULA, you should be bound by that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Can I put a CD into the car and have it start running? No? Then it's not an applicable comparison.
On the other hand you can take a boot CD, put it in a computer and within a few minutes have a working machine.
And nobody is up in arms over HP selling their own OS, or Dell selling their own OS, or Apple selling their own OS. People are upset because 95% of the manufacturers are forcing the same 3rd party OS on their customers with no easy way to opt out of it.
What is going would be more akin to Ford, Chevy
Re: (Score:2)
Just didn't put the dots *shrugs*
Re: (Score:2)
More specific how? (Score:4, Interesting)
US means United States according to the ISO 3166-1 International standard for 2-letter country code abbreviations. Is there some other standard I don't know about? These same codes that are used to define the TLDs of every country that has one... Why am I feeding the trolls?
Parent
Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
To me, of all things that have been considered as a remedy against Microsoft monopoly abuse, the only one that is logical and practical would be to stop them from bundling hardware and software. I can't understand why this hasn't been done by either the EU or USA.
Software and hardware are clearly two different markets. You can install Windows in hardware from a number of vendors, and you can install a number of operating systems on a PC.
So you would buy a computer and you would get two receipts, one for the machine and another one for the OS. The OS can even be preinstalled on the machine and you would only get an activation key with your receipt. If you don't want the operating system, you just buy the hardware and don't pay for the activation key.
What really makes me mad is that the only reason this is not considered by the authorities is because Linux is not commercial, so they are not losing money from Microsoft's monopoly abuse. Only companies matter to government. The fact that the public would benefit from an operating system market where Linux would be allowed to compete on equals grounds is not relevant to the government because there is no single company making money from Linux.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Red... hat?
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Informative)
And there is a lot more money in support, money that actually is helpful for the local economy.
Also there are other commercial operating systems that are sold (e.g. QNX).
They just don't have the power and ruthlessness of OEM bribery and monopoly like Microsoft, but they are there.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
They are there, in a veeery abstract sense, that they exist and profit from linux. Not that they will actually change John Doe's behavior, whereas paying more for the OS just might.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Obvious (Score:5, Informative)
> If you want to play any media on it that isn't opensource, it's not as simple as just trying to play the video and automatically finding the codec.
This is simpler under Linux than it is Windows, and far simpler than MacOS.
Ubuntu has staked the heart of this particular bit of FUD.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
[Automatic installation of software to decode popular audio and video formats] is simpler under Linux than it is Windows, and far simpler than MacOS.
Not in the United States, home of Microsoft, Apple, and Slashdot. In the United States, popular media codecs and containers are patented and not licensed for use in free software.
Ubuntu has staked the heart of this particular bit of FUD.
If you try to install the "ugly" codecs from multiverse, Ubuntu also puts up a big scary warning that the codecs require a patent license in some countries and that the patent license is not included.
Re: (Score:2)
Red hat makes no money from Linux?
IBM makes no money from Linux?
Novell makes no money from Linux?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because Microsoft does not manufacture any computers. That HP you just bought that came pre-loaded with Vista, well the manufacturer is HP not Microsfot. Same for that shiny new Eee system you just bought except it's made by Asus and not HP or Microsoft so how do we split the Microsoft hardware division out and force em to sell without an OS installed?
Re: (Score:2)
To me, of all things that have been considered as a remedy against Microsoft monopoly abuse, the only one that is logical and practical would be to stop them from bundling hardware and software. I can't understand why this hasn't been done by either the EU or USA.
Microsoft does not bundle hardware and software. OEMs do it. Arguing against OEM pricing is foolish given that it is SOP in every industry from car parts to parts cars.
Software and hardware are clearly two different markets. You can install Windows in hardware from a number of vendors, and you can install a number of operating systems on a PC.
Yes, that is true, and an argument against your position IMO.
So you would buy a computer and you would get two receipts, one for the machine and another one for the OS. The OS can even be preinstalled on the machine and you would only get an activation key with your receipt. If you don't want the operating system, you just buy the hardware and don't pay for the activation key.
There are vendors who will sell you a computer with no OS and vendors who will sell you an OS with no computer. No remedy is required because the market has spoken: most people want to buy OS and PC together.
What really makes me mad is that the only reason this is not considered by the authorities is because Linux is not commercial, so they are not losing money from Microsoft's monopoly abuse.
No, the only reason it is not considered by the authorities is that it is r
The holy license refund of Amazon? (Score:4, Funny)
And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou take out the Holy License, then shalt thou count to 40 GBP, no more, no less. 40.00 GBP shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be 40. 50 shalt thou not count, neither count thou 30, excepting that thou then proceedest on to 40. 60 is right out. Once the 40.00 GBP, being the 40th number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy License of Windows towards thy Amazon, who being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it." Amen.
Wasn't a judge in Israel (Score:3, Informative)
The case in Israel was an out of court settlement. It never got to a judge. It was unique in that the plaintiff refused to settle unless it was also made public, but still, no judge.
Shachar
Chat with Newegg Customer Support (Score:4, Interesting)
This won't go far (Score:3, Interesting)
Amazon is not the company that bought that Windows licensed. That would be Asus. That implies that what really happened here is that Amazon decided to eat the cost to keep a customer happy.
My guess is that the customer (the company that actually bought the computer--not the guy they gave it to) does a lot of business with them, so they were willing to eat a little on one sale to keep the end user happy, to keep their customer happy.
I doubt Amazon is willing to in effect buy a Windows license for everyone who wants to buy a netbook from them and use Linux on it, so I don't expect this to go far.
Re: (Score:2)
fuck you pay me! - microsoft
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe someone would like to buy a specific device without being bound to a license brought in by a separate party.
To you, that may be an unreasonable demand.
Is it your call?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There was a time when Microsoft got paid irrespective of what OS was loaded on the PC. Have a look for "per CPU licensing" on Google. Since the only way to avoid paying Microsoft was not to buy a PC at all that's quite a lot like the road fund licence or television licence in the UK which are both considered to be taxes even though they are not compulsory unless you have a car or a device capable of receiving television signals (I would have just said television but this place is where pedants go to die :
Re: (Score:2)
You're right it's not a tax, because the MS fee is voluntary whereas taxes are not, however the MS fee is still hard to avoid. You mentioned the Dell N-series, but that series still forces you to pay for a Windows license fee, even though there's no Windows on the machine (i.e. an N-series PC is the same price as a Vista machine).
What I can't figure out is why amazon gave a refund to a guy who has Windows installed on his Net PC. That sounds kinda shady. I could quite easily buy a netbook, CLAIM I'm not
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why. Because people want to buy ANY machine, not some "special-needs" preconfigured POS. I'd buy a vaio FW any minute, if it came with something Debian-based. But it doesn't. Or can you find that missing link?
Re: (Score:2)
What point is it that people hope to make when they do things like this? If you want to support preloaded Linux, why not buy preloaded Linux?
The point is that the new computers that are available with Linux or no OS preloaded are a very tiny fraction indeed of the variety of new computers available with Windows. If I want, for example, a Dell Mini 10 with the new low-power US15W/GMA500 chipset, [dell.com] I am forced to buy with it a license for Windows xp. If you know how to buy this particular model new with Linux or no OS preloaded, please do post back with directions.
If you want to get a PC with no OS at all, why not buy a used machine on eBay that has no OS?
That's just silly. A used machine is not new, has no warranty, and is older and theref
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
forced
Forced, forced. I keep seeing that word in this thread.
Forced? Was it a gun or a knife? Was the state forcing you to buy Windows?
No, no, and no. You had a choice. There are vendors offering pre-installed Linux. There are vendors selling bare PCs. You may buy parts and build your own PC.
Instead, you chose to buy a PC with Windows on it. And now you are complaining that you were "forced" to buy Windows. Just because the particular hardware you wanted had Windows on it does not mean you were "forced" to buy it
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You don't have a choice, a us consent decree [usdoj.gov] states that microsoft can not.
Microsoft gets paid, even if you don't you use their operating system, due to the per processor licensing scheme.
To
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From what I've read/heard, you are paying for the hardware and the hardware only. As Apple is a "hardware company." OS X is a freebie according to this logic many Slashdot users like to profess.