| 1 |
On Monday 22 March 2010 21:21:26 KH wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am 22.03.2010 20:17, schrieb Mick: |
| 3 |
> > TBH, I wouldn't pay money for it but as many OEM impose a MSWindows tax |
| 4 |
> > on all of us I had no other option if I wanted to buy this particular |
| 5 |
> > laptop. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> You can refuse the license agreement and give windows back. If you are |
| 8 |
> lucky, the vendor will give you some money back. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> kh |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Yeah right, good luck with that. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Three people in my entire country are known to have gotten that right, 2 from |
| 16 |
Toshiba. In all three cases, the hardware vendor refunded the cost as a PR |
| 17 |
exercise. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Microsoft are dead sneaky about this one, at least under ZA law. The hardware |
| 20 |
vendor accepted the license to install it (remember it's on OEM install not a |
| 21 |
box set), and you buy the hardware knowing full well that it comes with |
| 22 |
Windows. That's part of the deal and there is no deal on the table where the |
| 23 |
machine does not have Windows. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
There is nothing unfair about this. No vendor has a *duty* so sell you what |
| 26 |
you want and they cannot be forced to. Microsoft does not enforce that vendors |
| 27 |
sell Windows-only machines (and they proved as such to the relevant |
| 28 |
Commission). Vendors almost uniformly virtually every model with Windows, the |
| 29 |
exceptions are low grade machines the no sane person would buy today, and |
| 30 |
servers). This is not even anti-competitive, the vendor can sell what they |
| 31 |
like and can offer only a certain OS of they choose. Much like a Toyota dealer |
| 32 |
is perfectly free to sell only Toyotas and cannot be forced to offer Hondas as |
| 33 |
well. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives