Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

No More Fair-Price Refund For Declining XP EULA

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the but-thanks-for-asking dept.

Microsoft 339

mark0 writes "Getting a fair-price refund from Amazon or Asus after declining the Windows XP EULA appears to be a thing of the past. In contrast to reports from the US and the UK from earlier in the year, Amazon simply refuses and provides information to contact Microsoft. Asus is offering US$6. Despite being confronted with publicly available information about the real OEM price of Windows XP Home Edition being $US25-US$30, Asus replies, 'The refund price for the decline of the EULA is correct in it being US$6. This price unfortunately is not negotiable. I do apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Please be assured that it is not ASUS intentions to steer you away in any which way.'"

cancel ×

339 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Old OS (1, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195484)

What, we are talking about XP here? It was released in 2001, 8 years ago. As much as I'd like to join for a good bash, 8 year old software that since then has got several new versions will lose its value over time. And you also have to remember that major manufacturers who sell millions of Windowses have got the licenses cheaper, hence the actual cost and the refund being a lot less than if you bought it yourself.

I dont except to get a same kind of refund value for my 15 year old SDTV either than I would get for my new HDTV.

Re:Old OS (5, Insightful)

caseih (160668) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195524)

Flawed analogy. And a very different issue. Your vehicle physically wears out, even just sitting there. Rubber gets brittle, hoses and belts crack, rust appears on all exposed metal parts. Normal use wears bearings, shafts, gears, cylinders, valves. Thus its value declines physically. Software is not like that at all. In fact, ASUS just sticks a sticker on and loads the software from a master. It's not like they take back your windows license and resell it as a "pre-owned" license. Rather they give you your $6 and then turn around and put a nice new version on a new computer and charge the full $45.

Re:Old OS (5, Insightful)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195572)

Even if it's just that sticker and license you hold, it still contains the value. If you decline it, you are not legally allowed to use the software.

Also to begin with you are not required to buy a computer that comes with Windows. Or you can read the EULA online [microsoft.com] before buying it. Or ask to read it in store.

Windows XP has started to lose its value because the support is discontinued, so the "software doesn't get old during time" doesn't fully hold.

Re:Old OS (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30195598)

Also to begin with you are not required to buy a computer that comes with Windows.

As far as laptops go, that is a bold statement. Some web shops sells laptops without Windows but finding an actual shop selling laptops without Windows is, in my experience, impossible.

Re:Old OS (5, Informative)

cboslin (1532787) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195986)

Here are six great options, ZaReason, Inc: Building Linux hardware so you don't have to [zareason.com]

Here are six more: System 76 laptops [system76.com]

Did you even try to look? Most people do not even try.

The biggest mistake any consumer of PCs, laptops, towers, etc can make today is to buy any hardware from a vendor who does not understand and do Linux. This goes for all the big box stores and even Dell, they only pay a passing glance to Linux and do not really do it right, as experienced by Linux being buried down in their website and not prominently marketed on their main page from the start.

If you are foolish enough to purchase from anyone but a Linux hardware computer builder, you will be frustrated with needless vendor lock-in issues meant only to keep you a Microsoft Windows users, period.

Here is the rub, Every Linux PC can run Windows. Because of Vendor Lock-In, not every Windows PC can run Linux.

Even the most devout Windows / Microsoft FAN can NOT deny that simple fact!

Moral of story: Eventually a proprietary company will STOP supporting what you purchased attempting you to pay more for new equipment. Your only choice for that older, yet very useful, hardware is to KNOW you can run Linux (any distro, there are many [slashdot.org] ). Even if you do not want to run Linux, by purchasing hardware that will, you will be in a position to donate that older hardware to non profits that will get Linux up and running and donate it to third world countries so children can learn.

There is NO downside to purchasing hardware from a Linux vendor. There are almost ALWAYS vendor lock-in hardware issues from any of the big box stores and anyone who only does Microsoft.

Use the two vendors ZaReason or System 76 above, you will be glad you did, and you will help out children in third world countries one day when you upgrade your hardware, as the hardware your purchased will run Linux.

Re:Old OS (3, Informative)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#30196198)

Did you read the parent post? He said there were online vendors, but no local shops. You posted online vendors... I do agree with the reasoning after, however.

Re:Old OS (4, Informative)

mybadluck22 (750599) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195988)

The Apple Store.

Mods can't read either.... (0, Redundant)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#30196208)

Did they read the parent post? He said you can not find a storefront without Windows system. Parent post found one! That was funny, or informative, not off-topic. I am still chuckling...

Re:Old OS (2, Interesting)

caseih (160668) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195618)

You misread me. I never said you'd still be able to use Windows after getting a refund. Rather I was pointing out that no material goods change hands. They don't resell your license per se. They just invalidate it. Then they go on to sell XP on another machine for the full prices. So it's not like they are buying back an old license and then trying to resell it at some used market value. There is no used market involved at all.

So if the full price really is $45 today, then a refund should be just that. $45. Not $6. Depreciation has nothing to do with it.

Re:Old OS (1, Redundant)

Annymouse Cowherd (1037080) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195778)

I would not be surprised at all if the amount the OEMs pay for a Windows license is $6

Re:Old OS (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30195964)

So what happens when its advertised as coming with $200 worth of software?
The MS EULA says you get a full refund and I bet the other software does too.

If they offer you $6 it would be false advertising.

Re:Old OS (1)

cheftw (996831) | more than 3 years ago | (#30196010)

Well Acer offered me 40 euro for vista a month ago, but said I'd have to pay them 50 to remove it.

Consumer rights are fairly low on the agenda here so third party help wasn't much use and so I have one tasty vista license to cover my Arch and Ubuntu installs.

Life isn't fair, software licensing doubly so.

Re:Old OS (1)

nog_lorp (896553) | more than 3 years ago | (#30196094)

Like the 5th post of the first... 6 or 7 I've read to ignore the line in the summary saying "Despite being confronted with publicly available information about the real OEM price of Windows XP Home Edition being $US25-US$30".

Re:Old OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30196308)

Ok, but what is the net after you include the shovelware?

Re:Old OS (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195658)

The big problem here is that you may not have any choice when buying a computer. It may already come preinstalled with a kiloton of junk that I don't need.

You may say - select a different model - but then I don't get the model with the functionality/hardware I want/need.

Re:Old OS (5, Insightful)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195856)

The problem isn't that the license isn't available pre-purchase, but that it isn't mentioned pre-purchase. A lot of this could be avoided if the laptops at Best Buy had little stickers on them that stated "The software on this computer is subject to an EULA that limits your rights. Ask a sales associate for a copy of the EULA prior to purchase."

Re:Old OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30195582)

I think you've confused SDTV with SUV.

Re:Old OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30195682)

It could be worse. He could have confused STD with SUV.

Re:Old OS (4, Interesting)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195616)

Actually, there is something similar that occurs in software, called "bit rot". The older a piece of software is, the more security vulnerabilities have likely been found in it, making it a bigger and bigger target so long as it is in continued use (obviously, now that Windows 9x's user base is about 3 dozen people, they're not much of a target anymore).

This is true of MacOS X, Linux and Windows. If you install a new copy of Fedora 8, you are going to have a ton more security patches to apply than a recent Fedora 12.

There's one large difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30195724)

There's one large difference here and that is that the software is still under 100% protection of copyright. The persuit of breech of copyright is still accounted at 100% full volume and your damages assessed at 100% of market value.

NOT $6 a license.

Re:There's one large difference (1)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195776)

That doesn't matter. Let's say you throw a rock through your neighbors window, and you know for a fact that he owns a glass company and can replace it cheaply, but he takes you to court and seeks the full price of the repair.

Assuming you don't contest that you did it, or he can prove that you did, you will be liable for full price regardless of the price it costs him to replace it.

Re:Old OS (5, Funny)

iron-kurton (891451) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195772)

Came here to see a car analogy, and only in the second post *walking away happy as a pig in mud*

Re:Old OS (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195982)

My Standard Definition TeleVision contains all that stuff? No wonder it's so much bigger than those new High Definition TeleVisions!

Re:Old OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30195526)

Manufacturers who still sell XP are also probably getting them dirt-cheap now. The blog post linked [zdnet.com] in summary is from 2006, before Vista and way before Windows 7...

Re:Old OS (1)

Mithyx (1532655) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195528)

If you can buy XP for 25-30$ I'd love to know where you're getting it.

Re:Old OS (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195746)

OEM's can sell it at that price - of course, they usually sell it with hardware that they make the actual profit from.

Re:Old OS (0)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195538)

I dont except to get a same kind of refund value for my 15 year old SDTV either than I would get for my new HDTV.

So, you think that if you were to buy something today (a couch, a table, a pair of pants) that was first marketed 15 years ago, that you should get a depreciated refund if you returned it?

Brand new table, buy for $1100, return it, get $200? I think not.

Re:Old OS (1)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195606)

The manufacturers are getting the licenses at different price than consumers, and it can be different price for different companies too. Besides that like someone said, the ~$30 per OEM license price is taken from a blog post from over 3 years ago - the price is most definitely different now.

Re:Old OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30196228)

the price is most definitely different now.

citation please.

I see no reason to assume these OS purchases are not still being executed under the same contract that was in place 3 years ago

Re:Old OS (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#30196000)

So, you think that if you were to buy something today (a couch, a table, a pair of pants) that was first marketed 15 years ago, that you should get a depreciated refund if you returned it?

Spam was first marketed more than fifteen years ago, and the price has gone up. I do not think that word means what you think it means. Either you want the word "sold" or you're way the hell off in left field. They're still shipping XP, so clearly it's a current product, and you should get the full value for it.

Re:Old OS (1)

click2005 (921437) | more than 3 years ago | (#30196338)

and you should get the full value for it.

The EULA says you'll get a full refund but doesn't say exactly what that means. It could be the full price the OEM paid for it.
Its funny how almost everything else in the EULA is carefully defined.

EULAs in these situations are invalid and unenforceable here in the UK so I wonder how this would affect getting a refund.
That is assuming the retailers know the law (most dont).

Re:Old OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30195540)

while I might agree in general its worth noting that netbooks are still sold with windows XP as part of them. thus part of there price, what ever fragment it might be, is the XP licence.

Re:Old OS (4, Insightful)

value_added (719364) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195644)

It was released in 2001, 8 years ago.

A fairer and more broadly accpeptable calculation of how old XP is would be to determine the date large OEMs stopped shipping PCs with XP installed.

Put another way, from a consumer's perspective, XP is as old as his new computer. From a corporate perspective (both the cubicle-worker and the IT folks), XP is as old as the date testing was finished and deployment was given the go ahead.

Fair Price for Windows? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30195934)

But Slashdot told me it's zero!

Re:Old OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30195712)

What, we are talking about XP here? It was released in 2001, 8 years ago. As much as I'd like to join for a good bash, 8 year old software that since then has got several new versions will lose its value over time.

Actually, XP has increased in value - MS refuses to sell it any more, thus raising the price of the remaining stock out in the market.

And yes, I know there still are ways to get XP through various license schemes, and some OEMs still offer it...

Re:Old OS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30195960)

-1 for spelling, +1 for intent. My mod points have run out, but the thought is true.

Markups (2, Insightful)

Jiro (131519) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195512)

Why should they be given the wholesale price anyway? The markup the consumer pays is evenly divided among all parts of the computer; if the consumer gets a refund on any particular part, he should get a refund with the post-markup price.

Re:Markups (3, Interesting)

Jiro (131519) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195604)

Or to put it another way: suppose the consumer returned the entire computer. Should he be only given the wholesale price of the entire computer back? Or should he get what he paid for it?

Obviously he should get what he paid for it. Returning a component of the computer should work similarly. Just because the retail-price-as-a-component of Windows is hidden within the price of the whole thing doesn't make it equal to the wholesale price. If the components of the computer cost $500 wholesale and he paid $1000, he should also get twice the wholesale price of Windows if he returns it.

Re:Markups (2, Informative)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195632)

Actually, quite a few places have "restocking fees", which basically means yes.. they do give you about wholesale price back.

Re:Markups (0, Redundant)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195664)

The thing is that the actual Windows license is most likely sold as a much cheaper price and the other components are making the profit for that. It is the same issue how consoles are sold (at least first) - the actual hardware profit is negative, but the console manufacturer gets their income in game sales.

When things are sold in millions counts, and when theres incentives and cheaper prices available for manufacturers, it's not as black and white.

Re:Markups (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30195976)

Which begs the even better question, why should he be allowed to return only a small component at all? You bought the license, if you dont want to use it thats fine. Plenty of people buy cars with built in OnStar or Satelite radio that dont use it, will $MOTORCOMPANY refund you the price of the onstar/sat license?

Re:Markups (5, Insightful)

PhunkySchtuff (208108) | more than 3 years ago | (#30196194)

Obviously he should get what he paid for it. Returning a component of the computer should work similarly.

Sorry, but your analogy does not hold water.

Say I purchase a laptop that's got an external optical drive bundled, it's part of the package and not a separate configure-to-order option. If this optical drive sells for $150 separately, then there's no way I can purchase this laptop and say "I don't need this drive, I want a refund on it" and get $150 back. It simply doesn't work like that.

Re:Markups (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195612)

Why shouldn't they? If the manufacturer doesn't offer the opportunity to get a full refund on the OS, when you reject the EULA, then you're not subject to the terms of the license. Which is bad for MS and presumably the manufacturer. The full refund is what you get for not accepting the licensing agreement on the OS which puts you in more or less the same position you would be had you not been forced to by Windows.

Failing to give a full and complete refund for the license is almost assuredly a violation of antitrust law.

Re:Markups (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30195780)

The Windows 7 (and perhaps also Vista) OEM EULA has some different language than the one for XP. It says

By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the
software. Instead, contact the manufacturer or installer to determine its return policy. You
must comply with that policy, which might limit your rights or require you to return the
entire system on which the software is installed.

I don't know if that's legitimate, but if it's enforceable, it means you no longer have the automatic right to return the software.

Re:Markups (1)

Annymouse Cowherd (1037080) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195852)

You can't buy a car and then take out the engine and demand a refund on the engine, so why should you be able to buy a computer and not use the software and demand a refund on that?

Re:Markups (0, Flamebait)

Thinboy00 (1190815) | more than 3 years ago | (#30196044)

You can't buy a car and then take out the engine and demand a refund on the engine, so why should you be able to buy a computer and not use the software and demand a refund on that?

I can think of three responses:

Tying [wikipedia.org] is an unlawful monopolistic behavior.

The engine is an integral part of the car. The OS is just a set of instructions that the computer executes.

Do you know that you can't refund the engine?

Re:Markups (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#30196218)

Did your engine come with an EULA you had to accept? Mine didn't.

Re:Markups (4, Interesting)

the_womble (580291) | more than 3 years ago | (#30196234)

If I buy a new car, when I first put the key in the ignition, does a notice pop up saying: "you must agree to the terms of use of the engine before you can start it"?

Re:Markups (3, Insightful)

baudbarf (451398) | more than 3 years ago | (#30196238)

Imagine that, after buying the car, you turned the key to start the car and instead a lawyer popped out of the glove box holding out a contract insisting that you were not allowed to start the engine unless you signed it. That's not fair. You have to be permitted to decline that contract, and if the engine manufacturer refuses to let you use that engine as a result, they should buy it back from you.

Re:Markups (1)

JStegmaier (1051176) | more than 3 years ago | (#30196268)

When you buy a car, you don't have to agree to a separate license to use your engine, a license which restricts your freedom and that was not made available to you before you purchased your car.

Re:Markups (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#30196278)

You can't buy a car and then take out the engine and demand a refund on the engine, so why should you be able to buy a computer and not use the software and demand a refund on that?

I have never tried it on an engine. I have done it with wheels, stereos, and body parts. (Like ugly wings)

Major double standards (4, Insightful)

Raisey-raison (850922) | more than 3 years ago | (#30196360)

I love it that 'the obey the law no matter what' types go on and on about not pirating software and not infringing on copyright but when it's a big large corporation not giving you a refund, its different. When they short change you - very mysteriously its 'not stealing'. How very magical! I call it the 'Powerful corporations can never steal law'. How about we apply the same draconian penalties that we apply to copyright infringes to companies who don't issue refunds when the end users reject the UELA. How about we send them to jail as well?

Maybe as well if they claim that the cost of Windows XP is only $6 they need to show some evidence that they actually only paid $6 for it!

BTW the restocking fee is bulls###. They don't need to physically get back anything from you. They just invalidate the license. Besides here is quote from the EULA. Its says nothing about a restocking fee.
"YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE SOFTWARE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL, COPY, OR USE THE SOFTWARE; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND, IF APPLICABLE."

Might not be their intention (2, Interesting)

Reed Solomon (897367) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195560)

"Please be assured that it is not ASUS intentions to steer you away in any which way.'"

but they've definitely steered me away from Asus. I probably wouldn't have even bothered with trying to get a refund, but their dishonorable actions disgust me.

Re:Might not be their intention (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30195740)

Have fun running your inferior hardware then. Your post is extremely arrogant and has no valid points. Were you just hoping to get modded up?

Re:Might not be their intention (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30195948)

Have you ever used an Asus? Most of them are pretty terrible.

Re:Might not be their intention (1)

houstonbofh (602064) | more than 3 years ago | (#30196294)

Have fun running your inferior hardware then. Your post is extremely arrogant and has no valid points. Were you just hoping to get modded up?

Are you referring to your own post, or the parent?

Re:Might not be their intention (1)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 3 years ago | (#30196306)

Have fun running your inferior hardware then.

Inferior in what way? While I have no reason to call the quality of Asus products into question (aside from the anecdotal single-case evidence of a motherboard that died on me after a couple of months use), I very much doubt their build quality is greater than that of most other manufacturers. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

Acer were perfectly happy to sell me a decent netbook without Windows, for less than the equivalent Asus product at the time even if you took a full Windows refund into account, and it is still working day-in-day-out several month later. Asus are not the only game in town, nor is anyone else.

Your post is extremely arrogant and has no valid points. Were you just hoping to get modded up?

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, this is pot. Actually, the original poster did have a point to make. It was a point based on his opinion and how this change of circumstances changes his likelihood of purchasing a product from the company the current discussion is about. His point may not be relevant to you, but that doesn't mean it isn't a valid point in his case. Your post on the other hand...

Wow (1)

nametaken (610866) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195564)

What kind of babble talk answer is that? I hope this is a misquote from a phone conversation.

Re:Wow (1)

Pyrion (525584) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195760)

Seems like a damage control answer to me. They know it's disappointing, but it's the only answer they have and they don't want it to influence you away from them.

Re:Wow (3, Funny)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 3 years ago | (#30196026)

At least they didn't say "Wait, it says 'Press F12 for more information'" like the call center drone I talked to yesterday (not related to ASUS or this issue.)

Piracy? (3, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195578)

The refund price for the decline of the EULA is correct in it being US$6. This price unfortunately is not negotiable...

So when I download XP off TPB or a similar site, they're going to sue me for $6 in damages? Yeah. Right.

Re:Piracy? (1, Insightful)

Shados (741919) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195624)

ever heard of punitive damage? If you only ever have to pay exactly for what you did, and no putitive damage, when you g et caught, there would be no point NOT to do it.

Re:Piracy? (4, Informative)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195812)

ever heard of punitive damage? If you only ever have to pay exactly for what you did, and no putitive damage, when you g et caught, there would be no point NOT to do it.

First, I shouldn't even dignify your post with a response given the poor spelling and general lack of knowledge of the subject matter, but I'm bored. Second, here's how it looks in the US (I'm even more of a non-expert on non-US laws);

Actual:
$6--30. (from TFA) Copyright holder is also entitled to any profits derived from the violation (in general). In the case of someone using XP privately for themselves and deriving no profit beyond that, the profits would also likely be zero.
Statutory:
Only available if the copyright is registered with the copyright office.
$200 if it can be proved it was accidental at the discretion of the court.
$750--30,000 if it cannot be proved, but there is reasonable doubt at the discretion of the court.
Up to $150,000 per work if it can be proved to be willful. Source: 17 USC 504.
Punitive:
Not generally available. [1] It may be available if statutory damages are unavailable, or if the plaintiff elects to seek actual damages (plus profits derived). This is very rarely done in practice, and generally the punitive damages will equal the actual damages plus profits derived from the violation.

In the vast majority of cases, statutory damages far exceed actual or potential punitive damages.

[1] Leutwyler v. Royal Hashemite Court of Jordan, 184 F. Supp. 2d 303, 308
[2] http://library.findlaw.com/2005/Feb/10/172826.html#_edn14 [findlaw.com]

P.S. IANAL.

Re:Piracy? (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195666)

Has there ever been a case of someone being (successfully) sued for just downloading software? I understand there's a difference between obtaining it from TBP or wherever through Bittorrent (so uploading too) and just downloading it from some warez site, assuming they still exist.

Re:Piracy? (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#30196022)

Probably, in the days of warez ftps and that sort of thing. But these days it'd be a lot like going after those going 5 mph over the limit when everybody else is doing 20 mph over the limit, Outside the US, where awarded damages seem to be 1000x higher than anywhere else, people aren't really seeing it as much of a risk either way. At worst you'll likely get a letter from your ISP telling you to please stop that.

Re:Piracy? (2, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195672)

Usually the downloaders don't get sued but the uploaders. And if you've uploaded to hundreds or even thousands of people, it's easily argued that you've contributed for that kind of losses.

Re:Piracy? (1)

Albanach (527650) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195732)

So when I download XP off TPB or a similar site, they're going to sue me for $6 in damages

I'm not sure anyone (yet) has been sued for downloading. Typically people are sued for the uploading bit (that typically goes hand in hand with downloading in most clients), where you are making it available to others.

It's a lot easier for them to convince the judge and jury to award astronomical awards if they show you were sharing the file, not just downloading it for personal usage.

Apparent invented story trolls ASUS (5, Insightful)

MSTCrow5429 (642744) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195588)

This story has no link whatsoever to anything about ASUS. Of the two links on pricing, one is from June 15 2009, months before Windows 7 was released, while the other is an ancient article from fall 2006. How did this badly researched, apparent hoax of a story get to the frontpage?

Re:Apparent invented story trolls ASUS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30195718)

Slow Sunday, I'd suspect.

Have to get that 2 Minutes Hate in. (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195904)

A day without 2 Minutes Hate is like a day without sunshine!

Re:Have to get that 2 Minutes Hate in. (3, Insightful)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 3 years ago | (#30196320)

A day without 2 Minutes Hate is like a day without sunshine!

There is no #$@&% sunshine at this time of year where I live, you insensitive clod!

We make up for it with 30 consecutive 2-minutes hate in each and every hour :)

Re:Apparent invented story trolls ASUS (2, Informative)

Tim C (15259) | more than 3 years ago | (#30196020)

Read the FAQ [slashdot.org] - the editors intentionally do not do any fact checking whatsoever on submitted stories.

Re:Apparent invented story trolls ASUS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30196210)

but shouldn't the moderators make sure that the submitter has done _some_ sort of fact checking in the first place? Basically, this story is missing a link to its article.

Re:Apparent invented story trolls ASUS (1)

wampus (1932) | more than 3 years ago | (#30196040)

To push the open source agenda, duh.

Re:Apparent invented story trolls ASUS (5, Insightful)

westlake (615356) | more than 3 years ago | (#30196352)

How did this badly researched, apparent hoax of a story get to the frontpage?

The geek knowingly goes out and buys the dirt cheap mass market OEM Windows PC - which represents about 90%-95% of all consumer PC sales.

He will then demand a refund to punish the OEM, Microsoft, and the big box retailer for delivering the marketable and well-advertised Windows product and - not at all incidentally to his purpose - shave another few bucks off the price of his new Linux laptop.

This cheeky little scam costs everyone in the chain a little bit of time and money. It costs the independent Linux-friendly retailer a sale.

ma8e (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30195702)

Res0und as fitting

Sooo... (1)

Junta (36770) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195734)

If I wanted to buy a copy of XP, I should be able to get it for $6?

I implore the laptop manufacturing sector to make more than token offerings of linux on your products. Every time I look for a laptop with linux preloaded, they are all very specific models with unappealing specs compared to the full selection available with Windows. If I were cynical, I would presume your linux offerings are intentionally screwed up so as to give Microsoft marketing material about how unpopular linux computers are. Oh, what the hell, I am that cynical.

I would have the same problem in the desktop sector, except I assemble my stuff piece-wise.

Typed from a linux laptop with a Windows Vista sticker still on it.

Re:Sooo... (1)

ShiningSomething (1097589) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195786)

If I wanted to buy a copy of XP, I should be able to get it for $6?

Do you think the PC manufacturer pays the same price you would for a hard drive, a motherboard, or any other component? Them reimbursing you for the market value does not seem fair to me, they should pay you no more than what it cost them. I agree there should be more Linux laptops, but I'm not holding my breath.

Microsoft dumping to gain netbook marketshare? (5, Insightful)

hattig (47930) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195736)

If Asus are paying $6 for Windows XP OEM, then surely Microsoft is dumping their product on the market? Probably why they're including it in their netbooks in favour of Linux.

Dumping product? Convicted monopolist? I think that there's a good chance here that some netbook OS vendors have a case here to make an official complaint about anti-competitive predatory tactics by Microsoft.

Or the story is a load of rubbish.

Re:Microsoft dumping to gain netbook marketshare? (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195814)

If Asus are paying $6 for Windows XP OEM

Asus isn't payng anything for XP, Microsoft stopped selling. XP is 8 years old $6 is just about right for 8 year old software. And talk about making a stink for the exclusive purpose of making a stink... This is just a "non issue".

Proper value of operating system software (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30195790)

Does this mean that, given Microsoft XP is worth ten times the value of Microsoft Vista,
the vendors will only refund $0.60 if you decline the OS?

If that's the fair price, then (2, Funny)

joeflies (529536) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195800)

I'd like to see which stores offer a $6 OEM option for buying XP licenses when you buy a bare motherboard.

Re:If that's the fair price, then (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195862)

Buy a million motherboards and you might get a decent deal.

Priceless (0, Offtopic)

poormanjoe (889634) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195802)

2 Gallons of gas: $6
1 Pack of Cigarettes: $6
Prescription refill at Wal-mart: $6
Blockbuster late fee's: $6
Sticking it to at least one of the men: Priceless

Small claims (5, Interesting)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195846)

Take them to small claims court instead. They'll quickly learn that it's cheaper to provide a full refund than to pay someone to show up in small claims court.

Why reject just one component? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195872)

Can I also send back the graphics card for a full refund if I decide I want to use a card that's not offered? And return the hard disk because I'm only interested in using external drives?

The software is part of the entire package. If I'm not happy with it I'll send the whole thing back. What other products allow you to reject single components?

Re:Why reject just one component? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30195928)

Does your graphics card come with an EULA that you must agree to before using it? How about your hard disk?

The software DOES come with an EULA that you are not required ot agree too. If you DISAGREE the eula says the contact the manufacturer for a refund, no?

Re:Why reject just one component? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#30196224)

So I get a refund on the PC. That's what's being offered. Not a refund on a bit of it.

Re:Why reject just one component? (1)

oojimaflib (1077261) | more than 3 years ago | (#30196018)

What other products come with a legal document stating that, if you so choose, you can return a single component for a refund?

Re:Why reject just one component? (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#30196200)

None of them including the OS. It allows me to return the product. The product in this case is a PC with windows installed. The OEM licence is actually different from the retail licence in this respect (the retail licence specifically states "software", OEM says "product").

Re:Why reject just one component? (2, Interesting)

JStegmaier (1051176) | more than 3 years ago | (#30196322)

Ones where you have to agree to an end user license agree that states " IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL, COPY, OR USE THE SOFTWARE; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND, IF APPLICABLE." Windows XP EULA [microsoft.com]
Surely Microsoft's license doesn't apply to all the components, but it specifically says you can get a refund from where you purchased the software. Companies don't want to honor the Windows EULA? Don't sell computers with Windows.

Translation, please (1)

Threni (635302) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195882)

> Please be assured that it is not ASUS intentions to steer you away in any which way

Sounds like someone cheap or non English wrote that last sentence.

Re:Translation, please (1)

Pyrion (525584) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195966)

Yeah, cuz it's missing an apostrophe and needs a few words cut out. It's actually not that bad of a statement, contextually. It gets the point across.

Re:Translation, please (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#30196046)

Sounds like someone cheap or non English wrote that last sentence.

Asus is both; they make cheap product (check the prices as compared to the more expensive vensors like Abit) and they're based out of Taiwan.

this is evil!!!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30195914)

jesus fuck! microsfot charges for teh software?!?!!?!@!?!?:!!?!!!? how fucked up iz that?

i have a right to a free os. i demand that manufacturers sell me the hardware they would for windows and even back up their warrenty although i'm going to put one of 15000 distros on it that has been jerry rigged in god knows what way!!!!! i demand this!~!!!

Shovelware makes $6 about right... (4, Insightful)

ciggieposeur (715798) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195954)

A WinXP system is never just WinXP, it's also a boat load of crapware that the crapware authors have paid the manufacturer to bundle in. So ASUS is actually right in their math:

Option 1: Keep XP. No change in price.

Option 2: Refund XP: +$50. Also refund crapware: -$44. Net refund to user: $6.

Re:Shovelware makes $6 about right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#30196060)

Option 3: Keep XP, uninstall crapware: pay $44 to asus?

Sounds reasonable to me (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | more than 3 years ago | (#30195962)

Everybody assumed that MS was selling XP at a seriously low price to netbook OEMs to recapture the market from Linux.

That's about how much it's worth I guess.

Windows 7 EULA is far worse... (3, Informative)

Hymer (856453) | more than 3 years ago | (#30196206)

...it is now up to the manufacturer to decide whether they will give you a refund or tell you to return the PC, just look at MS EULA page [microsoft.com] .

Guess this means XP is Abandonware? (1)

Kartoffel (30238) | more than 3 years ago | (#30196280)

Well unless Microsoft steps up an provides the refund, this could mean that XP is finally abandonware. Free XP for all? Yeah... I can't imagine MS would go for that.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?