What is Digg?109 Comments
- rgrcabbage, on 09/01/2008, -1/+73I love my Lenovo laptop (also running Linux) but that's a poor way to reach customers and keep them happy. Just sell the damn things without Windows, we'll install our own OS.
- inactive, on 09/01/2008, -17/+81seeing how its on the front page the nda must have worked well
- secrity, on 09/01/2008, -3/+47Yeah, as long as he didn't take the money he isn't bound by the NDA.
- smotpoker, on 09/01/2008, -5/+43It is not a FUD term. For years almost noone could ever get a refund. The extra money factored into the price of pre-installed PCs for Windows was essentially wasted for most customers and still got paid to MS.
It took years of complaints/protests by thousands of people to get the current modest number of OEMs to provide any sort of discount/refund to people who wouldn't even use Windows on their systems (or already had their own retail copy they paid for). The term is rooted in fact and though many vendors may be a lot better about it nowadays, it is usually still a major hassle that is (intentionally) barely worth the trouble for most people.
I mean come on, it may not be technically accurate but it is a lot easier than saying "price-for-windows-that-we-are-forced-to-pay-even-when-we-wont-use-it-and-usually-have-major-trouble-getting-reimbursed-for" refund. - muyuu, on 09/01/2008, -0/+38Simple. He read the EULA and read the part about his money back if he didn't agree on the terms.
- ISEEDEADPEOPLE, on 09/01/2008, -0/+33Did you not read the article!!!
He refused it ! - kd420, on 09/01/2008, -1/+29That was a pretty smart move by the guy, it would be really tempting to just take it and go.
- Myztry, on 09/01/2008, -1/+24When I returned an Xbox bought from Kmart in Australia, I was told I would have to get a Return Authority from Microsoft.
I wasn't returning it under Microsoft license agreement. I was returning it under the Trade Practises Act which governs retail sales.
I refused to get Microsofts permission yet Kmart still had to take it back and issue a refund.
The Trade Practises Act is law (literally) while a contract is not. In order for a contract to have any legal standing, it needs to be vetted in a court against contract law, and even then the terms do not take precendence over other laws.
Without a Court Order issued by a judge an EULA is nothing but a wish list to which considerations are placed. - smotpoker, on 09/01/2008, -1/+22@beno - Perhaps it may seem like "pennies" to you but I think to most of us, $20-80 (depending on size of the vendor and age/version of window etc) is a considerable amount to be throwing away.
For instance with Dell, one of the few who have been cooperative as of late, it seems to save around $50 to get Linux rather than Windows. No idea if they are charging extra for the Linux imaging/install but I'm pretty sure it doesn't cut into their profits and that is one of the bigger vendors for whom Windows is cheapest. Smaller vendors who deal with less quantity likely don't get such a low cost.
The reason Lenovo wanted an NDA is likely that they, like other vendors, want to give the impression that it is impossible and to discourage them from trying.
The reason they paid so much that this was a business license which typically cost more and figured the amount would be cheaper than paying tech support to deal with the guy all day/every day.
Learn to RTFA and not swallow all the BS big corps spoonfeed you. - muyuu, on 09/01/2008, -1/+19Which I believe is why they agreed to pay him full retail price, to shut his face.
No way is Lenovo paying $130 for a license. I wish! that would make Linux so much a better choice for OEMs. - akirashimablue, on 09/01/2008, -1/+17there was no such offer made available to the general public through easy access channels. Bundling is fine in my opinion as it saves the consumer time, but there should be an easy option to by the computer at a reduced rate when if doesn't include an OS or offer Linux as a alternative similar to the way that hardware manufactures offered the option of either XP or Vista while that was still allowed. Besides the EULA directs the user to do such so there should be no charge for the software and no need for a NDA. ACLU or a consumer watchdog group I expect will be seeking this guy out to a Federal Court.
- joshualamgroup, on 09/01/2008, -1/+16just because you're in the US (i'm guessing), it doesn't mean there's computers with linux pre-installed in czech republic..
- bigsteve, on 09/01/2008, -1/+15Seems like no, as the hardware and software are "tied together" as per the OS X EULA. Quote,
IF THE APPLE SOFTWARE WAS ACCESSED ELECTRONICALLY, CLICK "DISAGREE/DECLINE". FOR APPLE SOFTWARE INCLUDED WITH YOUR PURCHASE OF HARDWARE, YOU MUST
RETURN THE ENTIRE HARDWARE/SOFTWARE PACKAGE IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A REFUND.
See? Return "the entire hardware/software package" since technically, the only way to legally run OS X is if they sold you both at the same time. Here's the link, sorry for the PDF.
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/macosx105.p ... - DigitalPioneer, on 09/01/2008, -1/+14Tell them no OS when he bought the PC? Well, in the real world, you don't have that option. We've been telling them we want that practically since the dawn of time, and have they responded? Yeah, to say 'no.'
- zymosis, on 09/01/2008, -0/+13So much for you guys reading the article...
- Fratz, on 09/01/2008, -0/+11@norman619 My parents are using Linux, and they're non-technical. My wife is using Linux, and she's non-technical. They haven't had problems with it after the initial switch from Windows, and they all get the same things done in Linux that they used to get done in Windows.
- norman619, on 09/01/2008, -2/+12smotpoker:
No they are not an IBM "offshoot." IBM sold their desktop and laptop business to a Chinese company called Lenovo which is why the machines are branded Lenovo and not IBM. - maninalift, on 09/01/2008, -2/+12It may be a stupid term to use, it may even be propagandist, but it's not FUD. It is not an attempt to propagate fear and uncertainty for tactical gain.
- Fratz, on 09/01/2008, -0/+9FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. How does referring to an extra fee that Linux users have to pay to get hardware, which they may or may not successfully get back, as a "Windows Tax" or a "Microsoft Tax" spread fear? How does it spread uncertainty? How does it spread doubt?
- bigsteve, on 09/01/2008, -0/+9No you don't. You can just boot an x86_32 or _64 Linux CD and blow away everything. I'd recommend leaving OS X on there in dual boot even if you will only ever use Linux, as machine firmware upgrades will only ever be able to be launched from OS X.
All bootcamp is is a wizard to help you resize your partitions, and, in previous betas, burn the Windows driver CD for you (now it's just on the Leopard / recovery CD.) Also, the first bootcamp beta came packaged with a firmware upgrade that added BIOS emulation to EFI in order to boot these (Windows, Linux) install disks that needed to have a BIOS present to feed them information. Macs come packaged nowadays with this firmware update already installed. - mithrasinvictus, on 09/01/2008, -1/+10@tauntz
But by accepting the cheese you will also have somehow signed an agreement, also the fact that you received the cheese will be used by the dairy industry to "prove" how popular their cheese is and, since everybody "chooses" cheese products, how there is no need for alternative toppings. - tomarocco, on 09/01/2008, -0/+8Say, could you loan me $130?
- kefkaantakrist, on 09/01/2008, -1/+9No because the USB ports do not come with a EULA promising you the right to return them if you don't agree to the terms of use.
- inactive, on 09/01/2008, -1/+9NDAs don't really mean *****.
People try to get me to sign them all the time and I refuse.
The truth is, if you have a good idea, 90% of the value is in the execution of that idea, not the idea itself. - linuxpenguin, on 09/01/2008, -0/+8FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. There is no uncertainty or doubt that this "tax" exists. When you buy a new computer, often times you pay to have Windows on there whether you plan to use it or not.
Most people don't care because they just stick with that version of Windows anyway - but some do care because they may intend to remove Windows - or switch to a different version (not necessarily XP even - maybe they have a copy of Vista Pro already paid for that they would like to use instead of whatever the PC comes with).
"FUD" is used to refer to ideas and propaganda that is put forth which says something negative about a competing product or company which is not necessarily true, even if it is generally thought to be the case. This is not FUD - if you want physical proof, it's right in the article - or you can dig out some old Dell or Gateway ads and see how Windows is tied into their price. You can also use Google to find people complaining about how companies tie Windows into their price, and how they wish all companies would allow you to buy a PC without Windows and without paying this extra cost - without any extra conditions attached (as Lenovo did with this poor fellow by only offering the dough if he signed an NDA so he wouldn't talk about the ordeal). - FairDinkumMate, on 09/01/2008, -1/+8FTA - "Mr. Páral decided not to accept the offer under such conditions, forgo the offered compensation, and keep the license to use Windows Vista."
So you make the assumption that because he wasn't happy with being forced to sign an NDA & therefore refused, his intention all along was to kepp the Windows license? Based on what?
Your reading comprehension is severely lacking! - smotpoker, on 09/01/2008, -1/+7@tauntz
Don't be stupid. People pay the bulk of the money for the hardware (the meat). XP and Vista (the additional bacon and cheese) cost extra money on top of the price of the hardware.
Perhaps a more appropriate analogy is paying an extra $2k on car for automatic transmission or cruise control. Maybe $2k isn't much to some people but many of us do not give a ***** or dislike those options. We do not want them and do not want to pay extra money for them, especially if we have tight budgets or have reason to suspect the extra money will eventually support another company than you bought from that uses child laborers or dumps waste into a wildlife preservation or something. - czarr, on 09/02/2008, -0/+6@ GeneralFailure0: Yes, he ordered the cheeseburger since it was the only menu item. When he started (eating) his burger the EULA said that consumers who do not accept all the terms of the license can return the burger for a full refund. So he went for a refund.
- banik2008, on 09/01/2008, -5/+10Whereas you are the sole owner of your stupidity.
- vincentweber, on 09/01/2008, -0/+5No, because unlike the Windows EULA there is no "If you disagree you simply get your money back"-section.
- MacHarborGuy, on 09/01/2008, -0/+5awesome, thanks for the info.
- fierylungs, on 09/01/2008, -1/+64 months ago I ordered a lenovo thinkpad R61 and made it a point to order it with Suse 10 so I could be part of the "bought a laptop with preinstalled linux" statistic.
I then installed my copy of XP and ubuntu tho (cause wifi and HDAPS didn't work in Suse...) - jessehadden, on 09/01/2008, -2/+6There are actually multiple choices now for easy-to-use "desktop" Linuxes that would be ideal for just what you described. In fact, your argument is the reason why the time is ripe for computer manufacturers to sell a Linux/no OS option... because the vast majority of what people want to do does not require Windows, and can still be done easily (more easily, with one-click installation of new software available on Linux, not to mention being free of the constant maintenance that Windows requires just to be usable). In fact, unless you have a specific software package that is unavailable on anything but Windows, and won't run well in virtualization, there really is no reason to run Redmond's behemoth anymore... unless it's shoved down your throat, that is. I think *that* is the real reason Microsoft likes these arrangements. Who would go out of their way to buy Windows?
- inactive, on 09/01/2008, -3/+7Will Apple give me the money I paid for the OSX license, if I choose to install Linux on a Mac?
- inactive, on 09/02/2008, -0/+4Even if he signed the agreement its rendered null and void since MS agreement never makes mention of it. MS Agreement of a refund trumps any ***** by lenovo.
- DarkShroud, on 09/01/2008, -9/+13I don't blame them, they are out the money on that copy now. The key is no good because it's in the wild. He could choose to install Windows later and still use it. Now why didn't he tell them no OS when he bought the PC?
- wolferz, on 09/01/2008, -4/+8"Bundling is fine in my opinion as it saves the consumer time."
It also saves the customer money... as the computer is subsidized through these bundling deals including the one with Microsoft. That HP you bought for $350 bux? It actually cost HP $375 or so to build it. They turn a profit because through bundling deals they get other companies to pay 50 bux worth of it before it even hits the shelf. It's one reason all the complaints about bundled crapware that can be easily uninstalled is so irritating.
It doesn't actually cost Lenovo 120 to put Windows on their computers. Depending on what volume licensing deal they made with MS it could be as little as 5 dollars and certainly no more than 20. The "Windows Tax" is a myth to begin with.
Not saying there isn't something a bit sneaking going on though. Microsoft penalizes major companies that do not bundle and with their near monopoly they always win such "negotiations." MS benefits from having every OEM big or small preinstalling windows on their computers. That is why they offer volume licensing deals. Now that they find themselves competing with an even less expensive option they are using strong arm tactics and the existing install base of windows as leverage. This is why only the really huge OEMs who have leverage of their own make it possible to purchase their computers without Windows.
In the end Lenovo is more of a victim in this story than any one who paid the so called "Windows Tax." - Myztry, on 09/01/2008, -0/+4Firstly with EULA's, you don't even know if they're valid. Just because it is written doesn't make it so. They are empowered and limited only as far as the law stipulates.
In most countries, a click can't be used to bind the parties. There are requirements to form contracts such as pre-disclosure of terms, signatures, identification of parties, etc which are not met.
There is also the right to negotiate contracts, and my guess is Microsoft would not be too pleased with what I can acheive with a hex editor, especially if they were to be bound to that :) The software accepted the agreement as authorised agent. Correct?
EULA agreements are primarily bluff. Considering each case has to be handled individually can you imagine the turmoil if Microsoft actually had to seek enforcement through the courts for millions of users? Do you think they are playing nice? No, they are more impotant than they would have you believe.
The only real value of EULA's for companies besides bluff, is justification. They can use the 'psuedo' contract to justify acts such as removing the right of fair use after the goods have changed ownership, as is it no longer theirs to negotiate with. - vincentweber, on 09/01/2008, -1/+5Why he bought the laptop? Because he liked the specs and knew that although he only had the 'option' of Windows, he could return it and get his cash back because he knew the EULA.
What makes him a dick then? Nothing? You're the only dick for calling names. - mithrasinvictus, on 09/01/2008, -0/+3norman:
Install cd's can be customized or simply dump a preconfigured image onto the hard-drive in 15-20 minutes. - yertthedigger, on 09/01/2008, -27/+30Granted; not refunding the cost of Windows as per the EULA is wrong.
However, it should be admitted that calling it the "Windows tax" is a FUD term. Everyone uses FUD, so admit you are using it, and get over it. - norman619, on 09/01/2008, -0/+3no dude, free ice cream
- inactive, on 09/01/2008, -1/+4I don't know of any specific law, but two big cases regarding EULAs went to court this year. Autocad and right of first sale, and Blizzard and modifying with and tinkering WOW code.
Bascially, the judge called both companies EULA's horse *****. You have the right to sell software after you buy it no matter what the EULA claims, for the autocad claim. In the Blizard case the guy lost, on the TOS for the monthly service aspect, but the court threw out the claims about the EULA.
EULAs don't mean anything. They are a wish list that the issuing company would like you to respect, with pretty please and sugar on top and no more force than that. - dacheetah, on 09/02/2008, -0/+3Many are Dual branded (IBM and Lenovo logos on the same laptop)
Also, it should be "something to that effect". (Affect is a verb) - ethana2, on 09/01/2008, -4/+7USB can't be swapped out for something vastly superior in 20 minutes.
Your analogy is worthless - robertlankford, on 09/01/2008, -1/+4So what's the better way to support your favorite distribution? Take Ubuntu, for instance. There are sellers dedicated to Ubuntu-only computers (system76.com). You can even go to a special section on Dell's web sight for the same thing. So, should you try and limit yourself to "Ubuntu installed by default" systems, or is it better to just buy whatever you want and then jump through these hoops to try and get some money back?
My question is serious too (is that forbidden on Digg? :) . What's the best approach, and why? - scabbers, on 09/01/2008, -3/+6The Chinese GOVERNMENT owns Lenovo.
Here is my [citation] you stupid *****.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/19/technology/ ...
"Lenovo's largest shareholder is the Chinese government" - vincentweber, on 09/01/2008, -0/+2Lenevo, and ofcourse everyone else, and in the end that means you as a customer, pays $60 for a Windows license.
- sirhomer, on 09/01/2008, -0/+2Dell has been offering Ubuntu preinstalled for over a year:
http://www.dell.com/ubuntu
Not to mentions Asus, Acer, and many other vendors who have Linux machines now.
Two years ago it was much harder. But today you can just save yourself the hassle and buy from these vendors. - smotpoker, on 09/01/2008, -4/+6I don't know about this case specifically but many, if not most, do not give you an option for "No OS" or you still have to pay the Windows Tax anyway.
If you order a plain hamburger and they throw on extra cheese and charge you $.50 for it, should you be forced to take the cheeseburger and pay the $.50 despite your lactose intolerance and you have to go to the extra trouble to scrape the cheese off?
You didn't order cheese, you didn't want cheese, and in some cases you specifically asked not to have it and/or didn't even get it so why should you have to pay extra money for something you don't want so that they won't have an extra slice left over at the end of the day? What if you were poor and intended to spend that 50 cents for a drink from the coke machine instead? -
Show 51 - 100 of 110 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is