Amazon UK Refunds Windows License Fee, With Little Hassle 194
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."
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.
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:Obvious (Score:2, Insightful)
Red... hat?
Re:Why bother? (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:Why bother? (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:US? (Score:1, Insightful)
But the point is that we shouldn't be forced to choose hardware based on what OS we want
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?
Sorry, I don't get the entire gripe in most of the comments here. So what if an OEM is selling it with Windows? If you want to find an OEM that sells setups with Linux or OpenSolaris or whatever, what's the problem? I don't think there's a hardware restriction that requires you to buy Windows if you buy this or that hardware. It's the person putting together the hardware that is "forcing" you to buy Windows, isn't it?
Example: I can buy all the hardware I want at Fry's or NewEgg or wherever and not have to buy or use or pay for Windows at all.
Yeah, maybe you can't go to Dell or Amazon or something and buy a pre-fab computer with any hardware you want with any OS you want. But so what.. isn't that an OEM choice? Maybe I'm missing something, here. I just don't see what's stopping Entrepreneur OEM Rig Setter-Upper from buying hardware, putting it together, slapping Ubuntu on it, and selling it. Maybe that's just not profitable enough to sustain?
Re:US? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:US? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:US? (Score:4, Insightful)
How about Apple? (Score:3, Insightful)
Too bad this doesn't change anything (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:variable (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why bother? (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. Just because the marketplace does not offer the exact choices you want does not mean you were "forced" to buy something. You may buy something else, or you may choose to buy nothing at all. Or, you may pay a few extra dollars for something that includes software that you do not intend on using. That does not mean you were "forced" to buy it.
From the bad analogy dept: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:US? (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 them, to get them up and running. Proseletyzing and free limited support has netted a number of other people into switching.
No one gave me a ready made machine, nor do I need one, and at this point in time, I'm not even sure that I want one for myself. (I can build a better machine than almost any OEM offers, for about 1/2 to 2/3 the money.)
The thing is, there ARE people out there who would choose Linux, if it were readily available. Precious few of those people are going to spend hours, days, or weeks trying to find a vendor and the support necessary to get them over the initial learning curve. They aren't going to drive 100 miles or more just to scope out a shop they heard of, nor do they want to send $300 to a man they've never met, and have no references for.
Those people deserve the availability of a good solid machine that will work with Linux. That really isn't asking for very much - just the availability. Dell sells solid hardware that works with Linux. All they need to do is put a freaking button on their main web page, making it easy for the odd wannabe-geek to find what he needs. It's a win-win thing - just a few pixels showing a link to their linux-compatible hardware. Geek-boy gets what he wants, and Dell makes a couple dollars in the process.
Re:US? (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, Chrysler, Hummer, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc, etc, etc selling their cars with the same 3rd party accessory that is not necessary to take delivery of the car (like say "accent stickers", a stereo, air freshener, or GPS). Yes an OS is vital to using a computer, but it's nowhere near as challenging to install/replace/re-install as a car engine.
And yes, if regular Joes are expected to be able to use Re-Load disks (just call any PC manufacturer with issues), they should be given the choice to take the computer w/o the OS or have an *easy* option to return the OS and get a refund commensurate with the cost of the OS.
Re:Obvious (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.