Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.misc > #5441 > unrolled thread

A victory for free software over the "Microsoft tax"

Back to article view | Back to comp.misc

Contents

  A victory for free software over the "Microsoft tax" Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-10-25 19:21 +0100
    Re: A victory for free software over the "Microsoft tax" polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> - 2014-10-25 19:37 +0100
      Re: A victory for free software over the "Microsoft tax" Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2014-10-25 21:53 +0300
        Re: A victory for free software over the "Microsoft tax" greymausg <maus@mail.com> - 2014-10-26 11:44 +0000
      Re: A victory for free software over the "Microsoft tax" Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-10-25 22:07 +0200
    Re: A victory for free software over the "Microsoft tax" Paul Sture <nospam@sture.ch> - 2014-10-25 22:09 +0200
    Re: A victory for free software over the "Microsoft tax" Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2014-10-27 13:08 +0000
      Re: A victory for free software over the "Microsoft tax" Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2014-10-27 13:39 +0000
      Re: A victory for free software over the "Microsoft tax" Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> - 2014-10-27 14:02 +0000

#5441 — A victory for free software over the "Microsoft tax"

"The Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) issued a judgment that
bans the "Microsoft tax," a commercial practice that discourages users
from converting their PCs to GNU/Linux or other free operating systems
by forcing them to pay for a Windows license with their PCs. PC
producers in Italy now cannot refuse to refund the price of the license
to purchasers that will not run Windows."

https://fsf.org/blogs/community/a-victory-for-free-software-over-the-microsoft-tax

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#5442

On 25/10/2014 19:21, Hils wrote:
> "The Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) issued a judgment that
> bans the "Microsoft tax," a commercial practice that discourages users
> from converting their PCs to GNU/Linux or other free operating systems
> by forcing them to pay for a Windows license with their PCs. PC
> producers in Italy now cannot refuse to refund the price of the license
> to purchasers that will not run Windows."
>
> https://fsf.org/blogs/community/a-victory-for-free-software-over-the-microsoft-tax
>
If someone buys a PC with the intention of running a different version 
Windows to that supplied with the machine, would they still be liable to 
pay twice?

For example, if I decide to buy a PC to test Windows 10, with a firm 
commitment (at least in my own mind) to go out and buy a copy on the 
first day it is available commercially, why would I not be able to get a 
refund of the license for W7 or W8?

-- 
Rod

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5443

polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk>:

> If someone buys a PC with the intention of running a different version
> Windows to that supplied with the machine, would they still be liable
> to pay twice?

I understand the point of view of the integrators: integrating with a
single OS version is far cheaper than integrating with a variety.

If the officials were serious about banning the Microsoft tax, they
should make it illegal to ship a computer with an operating system. The
computer manufacturer should simply ship the hardware and the technical
specs.


Marko

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5448

On 2014-10-25, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
> polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk>:
>
>> If someone buys a PC with the intention of running a different version
>> Windows to that supplied with the machine, would they still be liable
>> to pay twice?
>
> I understand the point of view of the integrators: integrating with a
> single OS version is far cheaper than integrating with a variety.
>
> If the officials were serious about banning the Microsoft tax, they
> should make it illegal to ship a computer with an operating system. The
> computer manufacturer should simply ship the hardware and the technical
> specs.
>
>

This thing has been running for what, 30 years?.. The Microsoft
tax has been banned for many years, but never has that law been 
enforced. I think efforts like the above are really to force
Microsoft to pay more bribes.


-- 
maus

Will rant for food.  Alcohol is a food.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5444

On 2014-10-25, polygonum <rmoudndgers@vrod.co.uk> wrote:
> On 25/10/2014 19:21, Hils wrote:
>> "The Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) issued a judgment that
>> bans the "Microsoft tax," a commercial practice that discourages users
>> from converting their PCs to GNU/Linux or other free operating systems
>> by forcing them to pay for a Windows license with their PCs. PC
>> producers in Italy now cannot refuse to refund the price of the license
>> to purchasers that will not run Windows."
>>
>> https://fsf.org/blogs/community/a-victory-for-free-software-over-the-microsoft-tax
>>
> If someone buys a PC with the intention of running a different version 
> Windows to that supplied with the machine, would they still be liable to 
> pay twice?
>
> For example, if I decide to buy a PC to test Windows 10, with a firm 
> commitment (at least in my own mind) to go out and buy a copy on the 
> first day it is available commercially, why would I not be able to get a 
> refund of the license for W7 or W8?

How it worked with Windows 8 was that there were cheap upgrade packs
available for a limited period.

I got a boxed upgrade copy of Windows 8 Pro for about USD 70 and could
have got it for less than that via online download.  I had an unused
Windows 7 Home Premium license to perform the upgrade on; it was worth
hanging onto all that while even though I'd never used it :-)

-- 
Anyone who thinks editors are not needed for writting has never written.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5445

On 2014-10-25, Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:
> "The Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) issued a judgment that
> bans the "Microsoft tax," a commercial practice that discourages users
> from converting their PCs to GNU/Linux or other free operating systems
> by forcing them to pay for a Windows license with their PCs. PC
> producers in Italy now cannot refuse to refund the price of the license
> to purchasers that will not run Windows."
>
> https://fsf.org/blogs/community/a-victory-for-free-software-over-the-microsoft-tax

I do wonder what that price will be.  What the producer pays for it or
an amount reflecting the retail price paid?

-- 
Anyone who thinks editors are not needed for writting has never written.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5453

On 2014-10-25, Hils <hils@saynotospam.net> wrote:
> "The Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) issued a judgment
> that bans the "Microsoft tax," a commercial practice that discourages
> users from converting their PCs to GNU/Linux or other free operating
> systems by forcing them to pay for a Windows license with their PCs.
> PC producers in Italy now cannot refuse to refund the price of the
> license to purchasers that will not run Windows."
>
> https://fsf.org/blogs/community/a-victory-for-free-software-over-the-microsoft-tax

So (in Italy, at least) pre-installed operating systems on computers
(including smartphones, tablets, and what else?) will have to have an
'accept or reject' dialogue which the first user is obliged to complete
before getting access to the pre-installed software (and firmware?).  If
the 'reject' option is chosen, the device must be able to immediately
uninstall or disable the software concerned and at the same time provide
the user with some sort of evidence that will enable them to apply for a
refund of whatever the purchase price or licence fee might be for that
software.  

Where can this decision be made?  In the shop?  What about goods
purchased by mail or online and delivered to some agreed address?  What
about 'demonstrator' items whose pre-installed software has been
'activated' for demonstration purposes?

Who is responsible for paying that refund?  What form can the evidence
take?  Does the amount of the refund have to reflect the retail price of
equivalent 'boxed sets' or at least the 'user licence' part of such
price, or can the retailer wholesaler and machine builder agree some
arbitrary sum with or without reference to the licence fee or purchase
price actually charged by the software provider to whoever did the
pre-installation?  Is that amount a 'commercial secret'?

This case, which has already been running for about 15 years, may have
many years yet to run!

Meanwhile, in the real world, the only 'consumer' computers on the
market without pre-installed operating systems tend to be
minority-interest items and no cheaper than comparable mass-market items
whose price includes pre-installed software - and some design features
of the 'big brand' products are not available at all without buying that
particular brand along with its pre-installed software.

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5454

In article <slrnm4sgup.13p.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net>,
Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> wrote:

> So (in Italy, at least) pre-installed operating systems on computers
> (including smartphones, tablets, and what else?) will have to have an
> 'accept or reject' dialogue which the first user is obliged to complete
> before getting access to the pre-installed software (and firmware?).  If
> the 'reject' option is chosen, the device must be able to immediately
> uninstall or disable the software concerned and at the same time provide
> the user with some sort of evidence that will enable them to apply for a
> refund of whatever the purchase price or licence fee might be for that
> software.

What else?

TVs, DSLR cameras, washing machines, ...

Anything with a processor, basically.

-- 
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5455

On 2014-10-27 13:08, Whiskers wrote:
> Meanwhile, in the real world, the only 'consumer' computers on the
> market without pre-installed operating systems tend to be
> minority-interest items and no cheaper than comparable mass-market items
> whose price includes pre-installed software - and some design features
> of the 'big brand' products are not available at all without buying that
> particular brand along with its pre-installed software.

In the real world, my GNU/Linux laptop works better than any Windows PC
I've ever owned, from 3 to XP. (And I've spent a fair amount of time
using other people's Windows 7 machines.) Why should I have to buy a
licence for an inferior product which I'll never use the next time I buy
a laptop?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.misc

csiph-web