Have you bought a PC to run Linux and received a copy of a proprietary desktop operating system you do not intend on using? Did the manufacturer collect a fee for the operating system you don’t use? Walt Pennington, member of the San Diego Linux Users Group, concerned citizen, and esteemed tort attorney outlines the legal challenge of OEM agreements. Seeking a refund of his own unwanted copy of Microsoft Windows, Pennington relates his day in court and calls on other consumers to demand a refund on January 23, 2003.
Software Contracts: Antitrust Tying and Computer Hardware
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
When I buy a Dell, can I ask a refund for the motherboard I don’t want? It is because I never intended to use it. Plus, when I buy a HP laptop, can I ask for a refund for the LCD screen cause I never intended to use it.
Oh well…
There are plenty of OEMs selling PCs without Windows. Take Pogo Linux for example.
To my understanding of this quote “you should promptly contact Manufacturer for instructions on return of the product(s) for a refund.”, the Manufacturer, in this case, Compaq, should be giving instructions on how the customer can get a refund for their product.
The passage never said that there might be a refund, but there will be a refund. Although by “instructions”, Compaq may as well ask you to run down a busy street in Frankfurt naked as a condition of getting a refund…
I hardly call any OS ‘proprietary’. You certainly can’t take any windows app and run it under Linux and vice versa.
Windows XP Home *Retail* cost $200. The OEM price to HP/Compaq is unknown but my guesses is around $30-40. So you expect HP to refund you for a $160 lost? Funny.
Oh well. That’s what you get when you reply to a story before reading everything 🙂 Triple posts…
Why do people assume that the people who are returning the OS want the full price? In any article i have seen about returning the OS, they simply want a refund, an amount never gets discussed, jusy like in the article. Instead they get refused and they don’t get any further with the enquiry.
Now if i wanted a refund i would take whatever they offer me, if its only £50 and it cost them £50 through special licensing with microsoft then fine. I don’t expect £200 and i havn’ seen anybody else expect that much either.
Then again why bother trying to get a refund? There are enough pc makers out their that DON’T offer windows.
To quote from http://www.windowsrefund.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=…
“3. The fair market value of the Microsoft Windows XP operating system software as indicated by an online printout from CompUSA is $199.99 plus tax of 7.75%. This evidence was uncontradicted by both HP/Compaq and Microsoft;”
Personally, I have to disagree with Pennington here. Because I have just read HP’s EULA (which I presume is very similar to Compaq’s). Seeing the EULA, the passage says that the refund would be given. But it didn’t say with the exchange of the software or the entire bundle.
Looks like a contract loop-hole to me. But then again, the entire section of the EULA is about the software, so it can be presumed that the refund applies on software only.
But just say he gets a refund for how much HP paid Microsoft for the software. How much did he earn anyway? Probably the difference would be lost with the amount of money he spent to get a court hearing ($38). So just say he is given $40, he only earned $2. Bah!
it’s about the principle: it should be easily possible to get a refund for an unused OEM-licensed Windows copy, without going to court for it.
If $38 is the cost for that consumer right, that isn’t much by any standard. If he should win this case, consumer organizations could universally enforce such refunds where desired.
It’s like the Belgian soccer player who fought his multi-year contract, because he wanted to leave on a two month’s notice, and felt enslaved by the football club that owned the contract.
He got ruined by fighting the lawsuit, but he won it – freeing soccer players all over Europe.
If computer buyers have a right not to buy Windows, it should be possible not to buy Windows. The $40 can be described as a small step for man, but a large step for mankind.
It only cost ~ $38.00 for him to sue, but it cost HP and Microsoft far more to defend. If everyone who does not want Windows does the same, soon enough HP will offer PCs without Windows — it would be cheeper than defending their bogus contracts in court.
The buyer isn’t really forced to take any computer. They can choose. The company that made the computer is the one who was forced to take the windows. The actual cost to the computer company might be only $15. So I would suggest that every one just sell the product if they don’t want it. It is the big computer makers that don’t care.
Come on! STOP complaining! I simply *REFUSE* to buy a computer that comes preloaded with Windows. Plus it saves me some hard-earned money. And besides, build yer own box. Who the hell buys Dell or Compaq anyway?
I needed to do some programming quickly and my old PC died. I couldn’t wait for a system to be mailed to me, so I had to go down to the store and buy on off the shelf.
I’m programming so I need Windows NT. The only computers in the store have Windows 98 installed. So I had to buy the PC & a copy of Windows 2K. I qualifed for the upgrade to 2K so I didn’t need the copy of Windows 98.
Everyone refused to give me a refund for the cost of Windows 98 installed on the system. Also, the system came bundled with extra software; none of which I could use becuase it was designed for Windows 98 and the only way to install it was to use the “restore” disk from the OEM which re-formats the drive and installs an imaged version of Windows 98 & the software.
Windows pre-installed is fine; they just need to have an easy way to subtract out the cost of the bundled software for the people who don’t want it.
>>>If $38 is the cost for that consumer right, that isn’t much by any standard. If he should win this case, consumer organizations could universally enforce such refunds where desired.
>>>>It’s like the Belgian soccer player who fought his multi-year contract, because he wanted to leave on a two month’s notice, and felt enslaved by the football club that owned the contract.
>>>>He got ruined by fighting the lawsuit, but he won it – freeing soccer players all over Europe
Except that history has shown us most of these lawyers will settle with a big fat cheque for themselves and nothing for the victims. Take the 100+ Microsoft civil lawsuits, the lawyers agreed to get themselves a big fat cheque and the “victims” get a Microsoft donation to schools — a deal that was rejected by the judge.
The poster FFS has a point with choice: buy a computer that doesn’t have Windows or build it yourself. While that’s very feasible, what about laptops? If you find a laptop that has everything you need buy you can’t get it without Windows, then it’s “no soup for you”?
I hardly call any OS ‘proprietary’. You certainly can’t take any windows app and run it under Linux and vice versa.
Windows is referred to as proprietary because all of its data formats are closed (meaning you can’t write your own program that is 100% compatible with say Word) and it’s sources are closed making it very difficult to interoperate with.
On the other hand, OSS programs such as Linux provide the world with the source code. Therefore, it is open. You can use this information to write programs that are fully interoperable with Linux. Also, programs such as OpenOffice have open file formats making it entirely possible to write your own word processor, for example, that is 100% compatible with OpenOffice documents. Therefore, these are not proprietary.
Windows is owned and controlled by one company (proprietary).
Linux is owned and controlled by anybody who wants to get involved (not proprietary).
>>>>Windows is referred to as proprietary because all of its data formats are closed (meaning you can’t write your own program that is 100% compatible with say Word) and it’s sources are closed making it very difficult to interoperate with.
So does it mean that if Microsoft ports Word 2002 to Linux but doesn’t open the Word.doc format — would it make Linux also proprietary too.
Being proprietary doesn’t mean it’s not open. Being open doesn’t mean it’s not not proprietary. All of RedHat’s enterprise stuff is under a proprietary license, but you can get the source code.
“And besides, build yer own box. Who the hell buys Dell or Compaq anyway?”
Like to see ya build yer own laptop from parts.
I recently purchased a Compaq Presario 900Z laptop. I, of course, could not choose to refuse Windows XP being bundled nor Microsoft Office for that matter. Combined, I’m sure they added a good $100 bucks to the price.
So does it mean that if Microsoft ports Word 2002 to Linux but doesn’t open the Word.doc format — would it make Linux also proprietary too.
Yes.
Sorry Sam, I misread your post. The answer is no. Word would still be proprietary and Linux would still be open.
As for the rest of you pedantic post, an open standard is one that can be accessed and used by everyone. If Red Hat’s non-OSS licensed programs fall into that category, then yes, they are not proprietary. Otherwise they are.
>>>As for the rest of you pedantic post, an open standard is one that can be accessed and used by everyone.
Don’t add “open standard” to this already confusing discussion. Mpeg 1/2/4 are open standards subject to proprietary licensing fees.
Windows is referred to as proprietary because all of its data formats are closed (meaning you can’t write your own program that is 100% compatible with say Word) and it’s sources are closed making it very difficult to interoperate with.
You don’t make any sense at all here. You are talking about Windows, but then give Word as an example. Windows is an operating system, Word is an application, which is ported to other platforms.
Windows is owned and controlled by one company (proprietary). Linux is owned and controlled by anybody who wants to get involved (not proprietary).
What’s your point related with the topic? So Windows is proprietary just like so many other applications, operating systems, standards in the world. What does that have anything to do with our topic?
the “product” referred to in the EULA pointed to the whole bundle the “OS” and the hardware.
Just like the spare tire in the car, it is part of the whole package, and you can operate the car without it, but you are very unlikely to get a refund from the car dealer or car company for the spare tire on the ground that you don’t want to use the spare tire.
You don’t make any sense at all here. You are talking about Windows, but then give Word as an example.
I used Word as an example because it was an easy one to use. if you can’t extrapolate meaning from the example, then I don’t know how to dumb it down any more than that.
So Windows is proprietary just like so many other applications, operating systems, standards in the world. What does that have anything to do with our topic?
If you don’t like my post, go whine to the person I was replying to. Man I wish people could read.
Sorry to be a jerk. I’ll go to bed and wake up in a better mood tomorrow.
I would much rather have an open standard with a licensing fee that a closed proprietary format like all the ones MS is using (don’t care about MPEG though since I use Vorbis encodings).
Now, can we drop this discussion and talk about the article at hand (no need really, it will be gone from the main page as of the posting of the next article).
tc: If $38 is the cost for that consumer right, that isn’t much by any standard. If he should win this case, consumer organizations could universally enforce such refunds where desired.
Actually, no. Consumer organizations that only enforce this ruling in California for HP/Compaq customers.
BBJimmy: It only cost ~ $38.00 for him to sue, but it cost HP and Microsoft far more to defend.
As if Microsoft and HP is so poor that they can’t afford lawyers no more. Trust me, they would stop bundling Windows if consumers don’t want it anymore. Just like they would to mouses if most of their their customers don’t want it anymore.
It would be much easier just offering a real refund that to strip Windows out of the picture.
Elver Loho: Who the hell buys Dell or Compaq anyway?
Well, as Dell as the largest computer maker, followed closely by HP (which compaq is part of now), I would say a lot of people.
ArisT: While that’s very feasible, what about laptops?
Get a IBM laptop then.
Ironoclast: Linux is owned and controlled by anybody who wants to get involved (not proprietary).
True, but while Linux (the kernel) is non-propreitary because it is not exclusively controled by any company, distributions are kinda propreitary;
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=proprietary&r=67
1. Of, relating to, or suggestive of a proprietor or to proprietors as a group: had proprietary rights; behaved with a proprietary air in his friend’s house.
2. Exclusively owned; private: a proprietary hospital.
3. Owned by a private individual or corporation under a trademark or patent: a proprietary drug.
But I really have to wonder, why people now consider propreitary a bad word? If I start a business, I’m a propreitor. I’m bad? 🙂
Russell Jackson: Like to see ya build yer own laptop from parts.
Read the article, the guy bought a desktop :-).
Ironoclast: Sorry to be a jerk. I’ll go to bed and wake up in a better mood tomorrow.
Normally if I sleep angrily, I would wake up is a worse mood. But of course, I never get angry on the Internet for more than 5 minutes or so. Not worth it at all.
I would much rather have an open standard with a licensing fee that a closed proprietary format like all the ones MS is using (don’t care about MPEG though since I use Vorbis encodings).
Since we are on MPEG, I’ll like to point out that WMV and WMA is pretty open as long you pay the royalties.. Besides, I use MPEG (including MP3, BTW) mostly for video rather than audio, does Vorbis do video?
Besides, there are any threads that go wayward to the topic 🙂