Ridiculous EULA
 

My netbook arrived and I started to read Windows' EULA because I was interested in getting a refund. Then I get to this:
So I can only use the computer if I accept Windows' license? This is plain silly.

What they are trying to do is force you to give them money even if you use Linux. In other words, you must give them money even though you are not their customer. And there does not seem to be a court anywhere that sees a problem with that.

I read an article about someone who actually got a refund, can't remember which manufacturer but think it was Dell. Took hime three months, dozens of phone calls, numerous emails but he was persisten. Think he got $80USD. Here are some links about refunds:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_refund
http://www.linux.com/archive/feed/59381

This one is about Dell, pretty funny especially the part about the customer didn't pay for windows, Dell did.

http://ask.metafilter.com/73031/Wind...-Windows-Vista

Here's another link, Dell again, with a happier ending:

http://nxadm.wordpress.com/2010/02/0...ws-refund-win/

If you really want to persue this, there is a lot of information available. I think that if you accepted the license, you're out of luck.

the refund is NO LONGER from Microsoft .But from the OEM
you get it from them and not MS .

Well, there are certainly courts which will refuse to uphold what they consider to be inequitable license conditions. And there is certainly a case for considering restrictive license conditions, which you don't know in advance of the purchase decision, to be inequitable.

However, even if I was a lawyer, which I'm not, I wouldn't venture any comment whatsoever on the situation that applies in the OP's legal jurisdiction without knowing what legal jurisdiction applies.

Or smart business tactics depending on your point of view.
Microsoft gets their OS installed by PC manufacturers and pays them to do so. The manufacturers comply otherwise manufacturers will be denied access to Microsoft technical information. The manufacturers get to offer a more attractive product to the market at little or no cost. Microsoft maintains and extends market share.
Without the Microsoft subsidy, your new PC could actually cost more with no OS installed.

IIRC, that was an issue with the Dell/Ubuntu offerings... The same machines were $60 - $80 cheaper with Windows.

Microsoft paying hardware manucaturers to install windows? I dont believe that.

What is far more likely to be happening is that microsoft will charge 'X' amount per-licence if all of the manufacturers systems are sold with windows, and will change more if the manufacturer sells systems with no OS or a non-microsoft OS.

There is also the possiblity that 3rd party 'bloatware' that manufacturers install on systems is offsetting some of the cost of windows. Some people even say its offsetting all the costs,but I dont believe that either....

Without any data from the manufacturers, its all just guesses though.

You could say that the extra cost that Dell charges is due to dell having to buy (then 'discard') a windows licence fo9r every system. Or you could say that its related to economies of scale. Or it could be due to slightly different hardware for the linux systems (and/or the cost of getting non-linux-friendly hardware going). Or its because of dell checked how much extra 'linux' assemblers/resellers like System 76, Zareason, etc. charge. IMO its most likely to be a bit of all the above.

The second link in my post above gives some interesting information about this situation and how that person obtained a refund.

Manufacturers all pay microsoft for the windows operating systems. As I recall from another situation where a person received a refund it was $79USD. That was few years ago and I don't recall which version of windows. I would expect what they pay is probably about half what an individual would pay if you bought it at a local computer store. I imagine it would also depend on the manufacturer and how many licenses or whatever they buy.

Moved: This thread is more suitable in Non-*NIX Forums- General and has been moved accordingly to help your thread/question get the exposure it deserves.

I stand corrected. That is a better description.
Perhaps this helps. From http://techrights.org/2007/10/29/exc...y-deals-linux/

When Microsoft lost the court case they switched the program to where if an OEM offers windows exclusively they get each license at a reduced cost. That works legally the same way as a store reward card or coupon since they are not requiring an OEM to be exclusive to be able to buy the OEM copy but rather rewarding them with a discount for being exclusive.
I have three laptops running linux that I don't use windows yet MS sold a license for each. its even worse for big companies that get a license on each new machine but then count their total of new and old machines and then but a site license for that total so those new machines in effect have two licenses. Thats in part why MS's sales numbers are so high.

Return whole system

Send an email to the manufacturer, stating why you returned it, and naming the manufacturer and model of computer you'll buy instead

Buy the other computer

Does anyone sell computers without Windows? I know that despite their success in the Ubuntu endeavor, Dell stopped... :eek:

They were available in India, last time I looked. Probably because the hardware market is very price-sensitive and software piracy rates were 65% in 2009.