[ale] OT: M$ vs. Linux netbooks

Atlanta Geek atlantageek at gmail.com
Wed Mar 4 14:44:27 EST 2009


With the windows version cheaper could you not argue that microsoft is
'Dumping' to gain market share. Maybe someone should document these
occurences and save them off for the next monopoly trial.  Those occur
every 7 years or so right.

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:53 PM, Jim Kinney <jim.kinney at gmail.com> wrote:
> In my mind that is grounds for making copies of the offending software
> and distributing them to obtain a reasonable return on the investment.
>
> screw 'em. scan the label and post it on the web as a signature line.
>
> </rant>
>
> Second thought: question the legality of the license on the netbook
> itself. If the same hardware costs more with the no-cost license then
> maybe the OS license is a forgery. Make that suggestion the state
> attorney generals office.
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Robert Reese~ <ale at sixit.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Recommendation: Buy the lower priced box, decline the EULA and
>>> demand a refund of the Microsoft tax and install the distro of your
>>> choice.
>>
>> Microsoft has gotten around that: I believe they now require the hardware
>> manufacturer to enclose the unit in a sealed inner package with a sticker EULA
>> that says if you break the seal you agree to the EULA, and that EULA states that
>> you CANNOT get a  refund on the Windows operating system, and if you don't like
>> it, return the unit from the place of purchase for a refund under the place of
>> purchase refund agreement.  Oh, by the way, if you buy it from a place that has
>> a POS refund policy (or lack thereof) too bad.  Caveat Emptor.
>>
>> I found that on a new Toshiba laptop a month or so ago, and immediately
>> recognized it as a run-around from the requirement that Microsoft offer refunds
>> for their unused operating system.  I'm wondering, however, how it would stand
>> up in court that Toshiba wasn't liable for refunding the money if you didn't
>> agree to the EULA seal if you didn't break the seal.  My understanding is they
>> could state they aren't responsible for refunds if you disagree with the EULA
>> but they can't bind you to that part of the EULA because you didn't agree by
>> breaking the seal.
>>
>> Still, it would be a *very* interesting court case!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Robert~
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ale mailing list
>> Ale at ale.org
>> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> James P. Kinney III
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>



-- 
http://www.atlantageek.com



More information about the Ale mailing list