Can OEM be forced in consumer court for offering PC without OS ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cyneuron

Discoverer
Hello everybody. I am a strong supporter of Open Source and Linux, and consumer rights. I really get sad when i see ourselves being forced to buy a computer with an Operating System which we might not want, specially in all of this so called free and democratic world. This feeling has grown with time to a level of frustration. And now that i am planning to buy a new laptop, its pushing me really hard inside my brain. So i have been planning to take up this issue in consumer court....

I have read about cases of "W....S Tax Refund". I feel that they were primarily motivated by feelings against one company, rather than for protection of consumer rights and freedom of choice, though their significant efforts.

Have also heard things happening in EU. Any details on that....

Right now i have following things in mind :

1. Forcing a product by not providing any other choice directly violates "Right to Choose", one of fundamental consumer right.

2. Also the company selling hardware doesn't provide direct support for the OS they bundle with the hardware.....so how can they force a component in a product for which they don't provide any support....

3. An OEM can't force an OS which is not directly produced by it (e.g. i can't challenge Apple as they produce both hardware and software, and sell the product as one single entity. While an OEM simple bundles OS from 3rd party with its own hardware.)

4. What about the issue of End User Licensing Agreement (EULA), which a buyer is never presented with me when he/she buys a PC with pre-installed PC ? What if i don't agree with EULA ? What should be done then ? (In every software you need to accept the EULA before you use the software ). Isn't this directly illegal (and forceful here) to sell you a PC with a a product with a liscence which you haven't been introduced to ? Why should there and implied consent here ? What if redistribute the OS i get with that hardware to my friend, because i wasn't told any EULA when i bought that ? Did i commit a crime then ?

5. Not planning to highlight issue of monopoly in OS business, as i think that emphasizing this point really takes away the focus from the consumer rights issue.

6. One point really bugs me. Can the same argument be applied in case of mobile phones where companies sell other company's OS bundled with their hardware ?

looking for advice, suggestions of the great people of this community....

and if any expert in Law may comment on this......
 
For one, many OEMs in India provide the option of Linux as well as free DOS for the laptops and desktops. Compaq, Acer are the two i am aware of. Also you have the option to buy the Mac OS via Apple Laptops. The other OEMs provide the OS which they wish to offer and they pay the OS developer for it.

I am not sure about the other markets, but due to the cost involved, Linux is offered by the OEMs in out market. Hence, i don't think you would have the option to force the few companies which do not offer you the product of your choice. You can request the company, but i doubt whether you can force them

What is the case you are talking about? W...S tax refund. I have no clue what is happening in the EU. Some of the countries there have provisions to prohibit companies from locking the devices (like cell phone).

The OEMs are making an offer to you in their offerings. If you do not like it, you can make a counter offer, though you cannot punish them for not making the offer you want.

Right to Choose
Means right to be assured, wherever possible of access to variety of goods and services at competitive price. In case of monopolies, it means right to be assured of satisfactory quality and service at a fair price. It also includes right to basic goods and services. This is because unrestricted right of the minority to choose can mean a denial for the majority of its fair share. This right can be better exercised in a competitive market where a variety of goods are available at competitive prices.

Right to Choose: The right to be assured access to a variety of products at competitive prices, without any pressure to impose a sale, i.e., freedom of choice.
Click to expand...
Acc. to this, i would say the right to choose involves not being forced to make a purchase. There is no pressure on your to buy those products. You can always choose to buy the products coming with other OSs.
Also the company selling hardware doesn't provide direct support for the OS they bundle with the hardware.....so how can they force a component in a product for which they don't provide any support
Click to expand...
You get complete support by the developer of the OS, so you are not left without support. Also, even if the OEM wants, they can choose to not offer support on their hardware also. You can always choose not to buy their products.

An OEM can't force an OS which is not directly produced by it
Click to expand...
Can't force? They don't force. They offer.
When you start your computer for the first time, for you sake of convinience, you are offered an OS out of the box. You are also asked whether you would like to use the OS or not. If you do not agree with the Terms and Conditions, you can choose to disagree and not use the OS.
You can then contact the OEM for the refund. If they do not refund you money for the OS, then you stand to sue them.

One point really bugs me. Can the same argument be applied in case of mobile phones where companies sell other company's OS bundled with their hardware ?
Click to expand...
This point cannot even be applied to your case. You choose to accept their offer, if you don't like it, simply dont choose the product.
 
I think the word "force"is too brutal to be used here....

What i meant was that why shouldn't companies be made to follow the consumer laws which allow a consumer to buy a product with his/her own choice,with free will and based on what they like or may need.

You talked about Acer and Compaq. First of all, how many models come under this category ? 1 or 2 may be 3 on max.

And when you ask for a model( which come with pre-installed OS ) without any OS, all companies will directly deny you. (i have tried with every company....you may also try)

And yes this is about offering hardware without any OS, not about why they sell it with one particular OS. Why shouldn't consumer choose the operating system by himself ? I am not talking about any particular OS.

(deliberately avoiding the world "W.....S" because then this post will turn into typical "W....." vs Linux.)

Why should a company which makes and sells hardware decide which OS i choose, when they don't produce that software (thats why i gave the example of Apple......Apple sell the product as one single entity....rather than bundling their product with other company's product)

And how can one say that consumer is free to execute his will in buying a PC ? When the whole market, every single company offers PC with one particluar OS, where is the choice left ?

Had forgot to write in original post :

What about the issue of accepting End User Licensing Agreement (EULA) ? Tell me one single company which presents you EULA when you buy a PC with the OS installed ? What if i don't agree with EULA ? What should be done then ? (In every software you need to accept the EULA before you use the software ). Isn't this directly illegal (and forceful here) to sell you a PC with a a product with a liscence which you haven't been introduced to ? Why should there and implied consent here ? What is redistribute the OS i get with that hardware to my friend, because i wasn't told any EULA when i bought that ? Did i commit a crime then ?

Thanks for the reply......looking forward for more of such discussions....

(can somebody please tell me how to multi-quote the msg just like this guy has done )
 
cyneuron said:
Hello everybody. I am a strong supporter of Open Source and Linux, and consumer rights. I really get sad when i see ourselves being forced to buy a computer with an Operating System which we might not want, specially in all of this so called free and democratic world. This feeling has grown with time to a level of frustration. And now that i am planning to buy a new laptop, its pushing me really hard inside my brain. So i have been planning to take up this issue in consumer court....

I have read about cases of "W....S Tax Refund". I feel that they were primarily motivated by feelings against one company, rather than for protection of consumer rights and freedom of choice, though their significant efforts.

Have also heard things happening in EU. Any details on that....

Right now i have following things in mind :

1. Forcing a product by not providing any other choice directly violates "Right to Choose", one of fundamental consumer right.

2. Also the company selling hardware doesn't provide direct support for the OS they bundle with the hardware.....so how can they force a component in a product for which they don't provide any support....

3. An OEM can't force an OS which is not directly produced by it (e.g. i can't challenge Apple as they produce both hardware and software, and sell the product as one single entity. While an OEM simple bundles OS from 3rd party with its own hardware.)

4. What about the issue of End User Licensing Agreement (EULA), which a buyer is never presented with me when he/she buys a PC with pre-installed PC ? What if i don't agree with EULA ? What should be done then ? (In every software you need to accept the EULA before you use the software ). Isn't this directly illegal (and forceful here) to sell you a PC with a a product with a liscence which you haven't been introduced to ? Why should there and implied consent here ? What if redistribute the OS i get with that hardware to my friend, because i wasn't told any EULA when i bought that ? Did i commit a crime then ?

5. Not planning to highlight issue of monopoly in OS business, as i think that emphasizing this point really takes away the focus from the consumer rights issue.

6. One point really bugs me. Can the same argument be applied in case of mobile phones where companies sell other company's OS bundled with their hardware ?

looking for advice, suggestions of the great people of this community....

and if any expert in Law may comment on this......
Click to expand...

While I agree with hte concept of being able to get lappies from companies without OS, almost ALL your arguments are flawed.

NOTE:

1. You do have a right to choose. Its a marketing/company decision to bundle a particular OS with a particular model. Dont like it, buy from some other company/model etc etc. In this case, they are perfectly within their rights on what they want to offer to the market. Supply and demand. e.g., Lots of comsumers wanted Linux on Dell machines, so Dell enabled that option. Theres also the N-series dell lappys in India which comes without OS, even though it may not be openly advertised. Again company decision, you CANT force them to advertise something :P

You can choose this company product, or go buy some other model from some other company. OS monopoly would be if EVERY laptop in the world came with only 1 OS, or if ONLY 1 OS existed. Supply and demand here again. Dont expect a company to spend extra/make a different product line for a niche segment for which they dont see much demand. If they think enough ppl want it, and if tey think ppl wont buy it without it, they will give it.

2. The whole concept of OEM software MEANS that the company WILL provide support for the OS they bundle with a laptop. If you buy a Dell laptop with Windows Vista installed, it will be an OEM copy. As per Microsoft, its Dell's RESPONSIBILITY to provide support for it. MS 'may' in some cases include such customers in free support etc, BUT as per the OEM EULA, the OEM IS responsible for all OS support :P

3. Its the other way around. Dell offers the laptop with an OS produced by another company. Unfortunately, this ISNT a monopoly by definition. Apple, on the other hand, has faced lawsuits (NOT successful till now) for OSX begin a monopoly since Apple allows it ONLY on Apple Hardware :P The lawsuits failed, WHY? Cos the user was free to buy a different laptop from some other manufacturer with some other OS (windows). Even if the HW and SW are bundled, its NOT a monopoly so long as other alternatives exist in the market.

Lack of choice indirectly forcing you: YES. Monopoly: NO

4. EULA: When you start up a new laptop, the initial setup presents you with the EULA. You are FREE to say no and stop then and there WITHOUT using the OS. Some ppl in Europe, or US (dont remember) were even successful in claiming a refund from Dell in such cases for the OS cos they didnt want it :P

Whether a company will honor the same in India, we wont know until someone tries it :P A company taking customer support seriously might actually do it :)

5. Monopoly in OS? Where? WIndows Vs OSX Vs God knows how many flavours of Unix/Linux. Its not their fault ppl prefer windows. or that pp prefer to buy windows laptops for simplicity and ease of use. Just because 3 percent of the population is technically aware and would like a model with Linux doesnt mean the company is legally obliged to give it to us :P Yes, there have been reports of anti-competitive behavior, but there have been investigations and fines too (NOT on OS monopoly tho, more on programs bundled for free WITH the OS)

6. You really cant apply this logic anywhere. You are free to go somewhere else to buy some other model from some other company. like I said before, in no way is dell legally bound to, say provide an XPS1530 without OS. Its their call since its their product. Dont like it? GO buy an N-series/Lenovo/HP etc. You cant say you dont have choice. Its a laptop. So long as laptops are concerned, you have choice. If a company thinks they are losing enough sales due to it, they will rectify it.

TO sum up, till enough ppl ask for it, and the company thinks it makes financial sense, they wont offer it. And all you cant do is, ask for it, else show you dont want it by buying products from same/different company with what you want. Once theres a market segment created, they wil offer it if the numbers are good enough.
 
By the way, I know this is a separate post, bu just for those who may miss it as part of the above long post.

You CAN get a refund for the bundled OS from manufacturers like I wrote :P Here:

Linux.com :: How to get a Windows tax refund

Getting a Windows Refund in California Small Claims Court

A clause in the Windows end user license agreement (EULA) says that consumers who do not accept all the terms of the license can return the software for a full refund. When Paral brought this aspect of the license to the attention of Lenovo, the company agreed to pay him roughly $130 for terminating the license.

In order to complete the agreement, however, Lenovo insisted that Paral sign a nondisclosure agreement that would effectively bar him from talking about the deal. Paral refused, then took the story to AbcLinux.cz, which gave him an equivalent amount of money for telling his story to the world.
Click to expand...

Lenovo won't refund the Windows tax without an NDA

Israeli Linux fan squeezes Windows refund out of Dell ? The Register

Windows Tax - Can You Really Get A Refund? ~ The Blade by Ron Schenone, MVP

How I got a Windows Vista refund from HP | equiliberate

Italian court rules against HP on pre-installed Windows ? Channel Register

CNN - Windows license opens door for Linux refund - January 25, 1999

Bottomline: Yes, with some patience, its possible :) How much it ll apply in India, will depend on how customer friendly the company wants to be :)
 
sTALKEr said:
http://www.techenclave.com/laptops/dell-lappie-owners-chip-in-please-113957.html

following that thread I spoke to them . blah blah blah..

long story short, Not possible in India.
Click to expand...

Not that simple man. If you ask them in advance, of course they will say No. You dont expect them to agree in advance, do you :P

Once you buy it and refuse the license, thats when you can do it :D Its a part of the Winows EULA, applies wherever the EULA does. I doubt they ll say the EULA doesnt apply in India :ohyeah:
 
techie_007 said:
Not that simple man. If you ask them in advance, of course they will say No. You dont expect them to agree in advance, do you :P

Once you buy it and refuse the license, thats when you can do it :D
Click to expand...

I called them up after my colleague purchased an xps from them.
 
sTALKEr said:
I called them up after my colleague purchased an xps from them.
Click to expand...

Then it simple, you should have just refused the EULA and followed it up. If you check any of the above links, theres nothing that says its was ever policy or was ever discontinued. In fact, in EACH and EVERY one of the above cases, the customer was refused multiple times with weird reasons :P

So long as you keep following up and quote the EULA terms, NO WAY they can refuse saying its ol policy IMO. DO NOT refer them to online discussions, old references etc. Just stick to the EULA text and you are covered IMO. Just ask them if they mean the EULA is NULL and VOID in India or IF they are willing to go on record saying the EULA terms arent valid, in India :P

In fact, this WILL be fun. I think i might actually want to try it out. Lemme know if someone wants me to try it out on their behalf on a new lappy :D Dell preferred for their more responsive customer service ;)
 
EDIT..Oops..i think i read it wrongly..

@stalker..Funny thing is that you have more posts than me in this thread..Talk abt jumping the gun:lol:
I read the title wrongly or its been edited, either way..my mistake..
 
Party Monger said:
lol people try soo hard to find branded laptops and pcs with out OS, and someone actually wants to crib abt it..
Why do people cry when Oems offer windows? It is an OS..or do you want them to offer linux only? In that case you clearly dont know what you're talking abt..
Click to expand...

People do not cry when OEM offers them windows. They cry when a new PC invariably means a new license for Windows.
Having Windows preinstalled is a convinient solution for an OS for majority of the users. But there are many users out there who do not use windows as their OS. Why should they have to pay for windows?

Also, many users, including me, already have a licence for Windows. Why should we be required to pay for the license again when buying a PC?
If only Microsoft and the OEMs would make the integration easier, no one would be cribbing.
Some of the alternatives would be -
* If a user disagree's with the EULA, there should be a pre-fixed amount by the OEM which should be refunded to him.
* On the first run, a user should get an option to either be charged by a CC to obtain and activate Windows via an OEM license or Enter his own Key for Windows. This would actually be a better offering. Majority of the people today have CCs. So a simple pay and activate in the First Run setup would help the OEMs get their money and would also enable the user to use his own license of Vista without having to pay for the OEM license.
 
thanks for all the responses.....so it seems that its not feasible to take this issue to consumer court successfully.....as someone pointed out arguments are inherently flawed......

The option of declining EULA never took off and will never do in future because of the inherent complexity and pain involved....

this is really pathetic situation i guess.....in a so called free world, the democracy, one can't get a product with freedom of free will and choice......just because of the fu**ed up logic of business and law, you are locked in with no hope of anything positive in near future.....

but let me one thing here....i am trying to get in touch with a lawyer who may have expertise in consumer rights cases....if he gives me even 1 % hope in such a case, i am going for this.....as i told before also....its not about any one company (microshit or whatever), but its about my freedom of choice.....how can a company force me to buy another company's thing.....how can such absurd logic of business "that if you don't like a product from my company, don't buy from me , go buy from someone else" work from a consumer point of view when all companies follow this logic and then consumer is left with no choice....u just can't see this from one company or business's perspective....u need to see it from a consumer state, his/her right of being able to choose and buy only the things he wish or need with no force, direct or indirect whatsoever.....if u try to think like this, then u get the picture clearly......laws aren't fixed....they get changed with changing perception of people.....just because current law state something as wrong doesn't mean it will be wrong in future....u need to interpret things from all perspectives.....i also know that it doesn't make sense from a business point of view.....but consumer choice and needs are always of higher priority than a business or corporation...at least they should be in a democracy....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom