SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Free Software Foundation Europe(FSFE) (no connections to the Free Software Foundation(FSF), despite the name) has logged a win in Italy in court for the freedom to choose the operating system on new computers. Luca Bonissi won after two years of court battles. He won the first round in a kind of small claims court, but Lenovo responded by lawyering up and attacking. The court eventually rejected all of Lenovos argument, confirming that the right to reimbursment for pre-installed software is due. Further, an additional 20k EUR in damages were awarded to Bonissi.
In a historic judgment in Italy, in a case initiated by FSFE supporter Luca Bonissi, Lenovo was ordered to pay 20,000 euros in damages for abusive behaviour in denying to refund the price of a pre-installed Windows licence. In a motivating gesture for the Free Software cause, Luca donated 15,000 euros to the FSFE.
[...] It should go without saying that everyone should be able to freely choose the operating system to run on their personal computers. Free Software is about granting the liberty for people to freely run software they desire and, consequently, decline the software not respecting their freedom. But Microsoft and the vast majority of hardware manufacturers dishonour this principle by dictating which operating system their customers must use, forcing them to run Windows even when they simply do not want to.
See also the FSFE Windows Refund Guide and the Racketware Guide about how to avoid the Windows Tax.
Previously:
(2014) Windows Tax now Illegal in Italy
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday March 03 2021, @04:56PM (2 children)
Yes, MS gives volume pricing to hardware producers that's far cheaper than a retail license - I think pretty much everyone knows that, and it's not really relevant - pretty much every case of refunds I've heard of in the last 20+ years has been a refund of the volume price, not retail.
As for the crapware - that's a separate issue. Those fees may well have paid for some or all of the Windows license, maybe even more, and some of that money probably went to lowering the sticker price to be more competitive. But I'd bet good money that the contracts with the crapware companies say nothing about giving them refunds if the consumer removes the crapware, or even the OS, (and if you had anyone computer-savvy in your circle, removing crapware was something that happened within the first week or so of ownership). So why on Earth would you expect consumers to reimburse manufacturers, when manufacturers don't reimburse the crapware makers?
Now, if you were able to order a bare machine rather than with Windows the deal would be different - you'd never get the crapware or OS, so yeah, you'd expect to pay the full amount without the crapware "discount"... but you'd still be paying for the Windows license you didn't get, because the manufacturers contract with MS charged per computer sold, regardless of whether it had Windows installed. Generally speaking the only way to not pay the MS tax was to buy from a manufacturer that didn't sell Windows computers at all. Which mostly meant building it yourself, or possibly bare-bones "kits" (sometimes though rarely pre-assembled) from companies that sold components and didn't produce their own Windows PCs at all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 03 2021, @05:22PM (1 child)
The crapware sellers paid for the computer to boot with them installed. They realised that most people will uninstall or not use them, but I think it would be common sence that whenn the customer returned this copy of Windows he also returned the crapware along with it, and since he returned an item worth negative x dollars he should have to pay that, and it should be passed along to the crapware sellers.
I obviously have not read any crapware contracts, but this seems like a common sence application of the law. When you return something you also return everything in it. I would be interrested in seeing any laws relaited to negative value goods. I know consumers do not interact with them very often (beens come to mind), but their are many negative value goods in the industrial sphere and I suspect it is well established that in the case where returns are permited, the returner haso to reimburse the money they were paid to take the negative value goods.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday March 03 2021, @07:39PM
> it would be common sence
We're talking law - common sense has nothing to do with it.
>The crapware sellers paid for the computer to boot with them installed.
I very much doubt that - that would require a contract that bound a third party that is not a signatory to the contract (you), which is illegal and unenforceable.
The crapware makers paid for their software to be pre-installed on the computer when delivered, in the hopes that it'd end up in the hands of a sucker that used it. That's it. And the PC maker delivered. You were never part of that arrangement, and unless you explicitly attempt to separately return the crapware, you retain the license to run that software, and the crapware makers would be delighted if you did. You don't need Windows to do that - lots of other OSes feature a compatibility layer.
Because lets be clear - you are NOT returning a copy of Windows. Copies of Windows can be downloaded free direct from Microsoft. You can't actually do much with it without a license though, and *that* is what you are returning: a *license* that allows you to use Windows. Returning the license does nothing to the computer - all the crapware is still fully installed and licensed in your now un-licensed copy of Windows.