Refund of "Microsoft Tax"

[barracad]

Afterall, you didn't request that they put windows on the thing, you wanted the laptop WITHOUT windows.

 

No, he quite clearly requested a laptop with Windows installed as the machine that he chose to buy was advertised as having Windows pre-installed. If he didn't want Windows pre-installed, then he shouldn't have bought that particular laptop - simple.

[MrShed]

No, he quite clearly requested a laptop with Windows installed as the machine that he chose to buy was advertised as having Windows pre-installed. If he didn't want Windows pre-installed, then he shouldn't have bought that particular laptop - simple.

 

Agreed. This whole discussion is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

 

I'm all for points of principle - but not when its about such a stupid thing.

 

I already think that Acer have done more than they should.

 

If you cannot see that you HAVENT bought Windows, but have bought a laptop that comes with Windows bundled, then you really need to think again.

 

The very fact that you CANNOT remove Windows SHOWS that you havent bought Windows itself direct.

[andylondonuk]

No, he quite clearly requested a laptop with Windows installed as the machine that he chose to buy was advertised as having Windows pre-installed. If he didn't want Windows pre-installed, then he shouldn't have bought that particular laptop - simple.

Not simple. I specifically asked for the laptop to come without windows pre-installed, I told them I didn't want it, but they said they cannot do that. I asked if they sold any without windows, they said no. Everywhere I tried to buy a laptop I got the same answer, that I had to have windows, there was no choice. This is the key word "no choice".

 

Why should a consumer have to go to such great, almost impossible lengths to avoid Microsoft and accept less for their money? Do you think this is acceptable?

 

Why do they allow you to modify the rest of the specification, memory, processor, video card, etc., but not the OS? Why not the OS, what are they afraid of!? It's not like I'm asking them to understand or support the OS I choose, just supply it without one!

 

The very fact that you CANNOT remove Windows SHOWS that you havent bought Windows itself direct.

But I can remove windows, in fact I have.

 

Agreed. This whole discussion is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Why is it ridiculous?

 

I'm all for points of principle - but not when its about such a stupid thing.

Such a stupid thing? You mean consumer rights? The right to choose freely, without being heavily influenced by a major company like Microsoft? The right to not have Microsoft dictate that everyone user their software?

 

If you cannot see that you HAVENT bought Windows, but have bought a laptop that comes with Windows bundled, then you really need to think again.

Of course I see that. I didn't buy it separately. But I didn't want Windows bundled, none of the major stores/manufacturers give you the choice to not have it installed.

 

I already think that Acer have done more than they should.

What, offering to look at my laptop at a cost of £18.04, with no real benefit?

 

 

I wonder, if all the major stores asked the question "Did you want that with Microsoft Vista installed?", how many people who had never heard of or even realised there was an alternative, would wonder what the alternatives where. Then if they where told some of the alternative where free, what they would say?

 

Quote from BBC News: "In early 2008, Microsoft was fined 899m euros (£765m) by the European Commission for anti-competitive behaviour over bundling in the media player and browser into Windows."

 

IE is a free download, what would people say if they became aware there was a free alternative to the OS itself? Is this not the same principle, in fact possibly worse as money is involved?

 

Windows is bundled on the vast majority of computers sold, with no other choice available. Surely that can also be considered anti-competitive?

 

Sorry, rant over, I'm getting down of my soap box now

[MrShed]

But I can remove windows, in fact I have.

 

 

I clearly meant removed from the laptop spec, not removed from the laptop itself.

 

You say vast majority - absolutely correct. therefore you should have gone and bought one of the minority of laptops that didnt have Windows.

[barracad]

Not simple. I specifically asked for the laptop to come without windows pre-installed, I told them I didn't want it, but they said they cannot do that.

 

So don't buy it then! They tell you it's not available without Windows, and now you're complaining that it came with Windows... hardly a surprise!

 

Everywhere I tried to buy a laptop I got the same answer, that I had to have windows, there was no choice.

 

So go elsewhere - there are plenty of places that sell laptops with a different OS or with no OS at all. Just not that particular laptop you wanted - you were free to choose a different laptop from a different retailer.

 

Why do they allow you to modify the rest of the specification, memory, processor, video card, etc., but not the OS? Why not the OS, what are they afraid of!?

 

It's whatever options they choose. There's lots of other things you can't change too - I doubt they would sell a laptop without a screen or a battery. And you say they let you modify the processor - what do you think their response would be after you'd bought the laptop if you asked them if you could take out the processor and send it back for a refund? Do you not see how ridiculous this is? It's a consumer retailer, not a laptop scrapyard - if you have specialist requirements, go to a specialist retailer!

 

Why is it ridiculous?

 

You really need to ask that?!

 

Such a stupid thing? You mean consumer rights? The right to choose freely, without being heavily influenced by a major company like Microsoft? The right to not have Microsoft dictate that everyone user their software?

 

Good point. I was thinking of buying a BMW car. Perhaps I will insist on them sticking a Skoda engine in there. It's my right as a consumer.

[Guest GraceCourt]

I'm very surprised at the number of people who have posted here publicly without, it seems, any knowledge of the legalities involved - not a good move!

 

It's very simple. Once the computer has been purchased, irrespective of what was requested or not requested, turning it on brings up a message from Microsoft stating:

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 their return policy for a refund or credit.

This is part of the terms and conditions for using Windows, a proprietary product licensed to the manufacturer of the computer by the Microsoft Corporation. That legal agreement is nothing to do with the purchaser of the computer as a third party: instead, Microsoft offers that purchaser the option of using the Windows operating system on certain terms and conditions. It is open to that purchaser to accept those terms and conditions, or to reject them and to install another operating such as one of the Linux distributions, or even another licensed copy of Windows, usually XP, given the the fact that Vista is so horribly broken (and of course, using Linux means you never need to worry about viruses, but that's another story).

 

In line with that rejection, the purchaser is then legally entitled to a partial refund in respect of the copy of Windows that he/she was offered for use, but rejected. As the seller cannot legally make a profit from the customer on something that has been rejected and "returned", the refund should be the OEM licence fee paid to Microsoft, which for XP Home is around £55.

 

That's it, pure and simple. I strongly suggest using a digital camera or video camera to record you clicking the "No" box in the EULA (end user licensing agreement), as - armed with this - it's a simple task to recover the licence cost from the retailer (not from Microsoft) using the Small Claims Track of the County Court (in England and Wales) or the Summary Cause procedure in the Sheriff Court (Scotland).

 

This is basic consumer protection legislation - don't allow the retailer/supplier to bamboozle you with complex stories about the Microsoft licence terms and conditions, because if you reject the EULA, none of these apply to you as the purchaser, for the reasons given above. You can't have the legal contract between the supplier and you amended or qualified by a third party (Microsoft) or by anything that's disclosed to you after that contract of sale has been executed.

 

*Edit - it might help you to understand the legal position if you remember that the supplier cannot sell you that copy of Windows - it doesn't belong to the supplier either. It is, and always remains, the intellectual property of the Microsoft Corporation. You can only pay a fee for a licence to use it, you never own it either. That's why the Skoda engine/BMW car argument is completely irrelevant here.

Edited October 10, 2009 by GraceCourt
Last paragraph

[MrShed]

GraceCourt, you are completely missing the point with respect.

 

If the user had bought Windows, then I agree with everything you have said.

 

If is the fact that it has been "thrown in" with a machine that has been bought which means that the user is not entitled to a refund.

 

If you still stick to this point (which I fail to see any legal argument which justifies it above), perhaps you have case law?

[barracad]

In line with that rejection, the purchaser is then legally entitled to a partial refund in respect of the copy of Windows that he/she was offered for use, but rejected.

 

On what basis?

[Guest GraceCourt]

If is the fact that it has been "thrown in" with a machine that has been bought which means that the user is not entitled to a refund.

 

If you still stick to this point (which I fail to see any legal argument which justifies it above), perhaps you have case law?

 

The imprtant flaw in your argument relates to "thrown in", which - and I'm being light-hearted here - is not a term known to law!

 

For the sake of brevity, let us assume that the supplier is the manufacturer of the computer, although if it isn't, the legal situation doesn't change, the chain of contracts just gets longer.

 

The contract is a contract of sale between the purchaser and the supplier. The actual product being purchased - the computer - is pre-loaded with the Windows operating system, a software package that is owned by the Microsoft Corporation, and there is a legal contract (the licence) between the Microsoft Corporation and the supplier that the computer will be offered for retail sale to the purchaser (the "end user") with that operating system loaded on it. In respect of that contract, the supplier pays Microsoft a licence fee (around £50-£60). But there is no contract between Microsoft and the end user.

 

The supplier is legally obliged (by their contract with Microsoft) to offer the computer loaded with the software, but the end user is under no obligation to use that software - the offer by the supplier to the end user is to purchase the computer, together with the option of using the Microsoft software on it. That usage is subject to the end user entering into a licence agreement with Microsoft for that use, in respect of which he/she must click the "Yes" box on the EULA to enter into a new and separate contract, between that end user and the Microsoft Corporation, which is legally binding if accepted.

 

That end user can click the "No" box to reject those terms and conditions (which are not visible to that end user until he/she starts up the computer for the first time), and then there is no contract, and the Windows software cannot be used.

 

The purchaser has a bought a computer, and rejected the option of using Windows, quite legally. Even if the purchaser has bought the computer knowing that Windows is loaded, he/she is not obliged to enter into any other contract, additional to and separate from the contract of sale, then that part of the contract between Microsoft and the supplier relating to non-acceptance of the EULA comes into play - hence, the reference by Microsoft to "refund or credit" of the OEM licence fee.

 

That's it. It's all contract law. Read the details of the EULA. And as far as consumer protection law in England & Wales is concerned, the product being purchased is "a computer with an option to use Windows installed on it", not "a computer that requires the end user to run Windows". The end user is quite legally entitled to reject the offer to run Windows unless the "offer to treat" from the supplier specifically included a "use Windows" requirement in the contract of sale, one that would have to be explicitly brought to the buyer's attention to escape falling foul of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, as amended. In any event, such a negotiation between the seller and the potential buyer about the terms and conditions of sale cannot, by the same reasoning as above, change the terms and conditions of the legal contract between Microsoft and the supplier, which makes explicit provision for the "credit or refund" for non-acceptance by the end-user of the offered licence for use of the Windows operating system.

 

I'm sorry, I just can't think of any way to make this explanation any more simple!

[Guest GraceCourt]

On what basis?

 

See my last post... because the agreement was that the end user is buying a computer that contains an offer (not a requirement) to use Windows, subject to entering into a second legal contract, a conditional offer that is governed by a separate contract between Microsoft and the supplier. That contract allows for a refund or credit to be paid to the end user should the terms and conditions of the EULA be unacceptable for whatever reason to that end user.

 

Read the EULA.

Edited October 10, 2009 by GraceCourt
Typo!

[Guest GraceCourt]

I'm sorry, I just can't think of any way to make this explanation any more simple!

 

Actually, I just have!

 

Do you think that ANYONE would have been repaid the OEM licence fee if Microsoft could stop it legally? Have you ever Googled for information about how many people have done so? Were you aware that, once an assertive consumer has knocked back all of the nonsensical confidence tricks that some suppliers throw up to try to avoid doing so, it only requires the end user to fill in a Microsoft form promising that the installed software has been deleted, for the refund to be made?

 

Why would those forms exist, if none of this is legal? Dell sometimes does it quite quickly, which is somewhat of a surprise!

[barracad]

I completely agree that the user is under no obligation to use Windows and enter into an agreement with Microsoft, you are quite right that they can reject to use the software and reject that agreement. The same applies to any other software which is included with the machine (as is often the case).

 

However they paid an inclusive price for the machine and software. They have no automatic entitlement to a pro-rata refund should they choose not to use the software.

[MrShed]

I completely agree that the user is under no obligation to use Windows and enter into an agreement with Microsoft, you are quite right that they can reject to use the software and reject that agreement. The same applies to any other software which is included with the machine (as is often the case).

 

However they paid an inclusive price for the machine and software. They have no automatic entitlement to a pro-rata refund should they choose not to use the software.

 

Exactly right.

 

Inclusive as opposed to "thrown in" perhaps.

[Guest GraceCourt]

However they paid an inclusive price for the machine and software.

 

No. They haven't bought the software. Look at my previous post. They have bought a computer and an option to licence the use of one copy of the Windows operating system, for a total price that includes the aforementioned licence fee, one that is regulated by the agreement between Microsoft and the seller.

 

On rejection of the offer to the end user of a licence for the use of Windows, the OEM licence fee is repayable under the terms and conditions of the contract under which the supplier was licensed to load the software with the offered software.

 

We can keep arguing this point, but I go back to the point made above - Why do suppliers make the refund, once the Microsoft form is completed confirming deletion, if they aren't obliged to by their contract with Microsoft? Don't tell me it's out of the kindness of their hearts!

 

 

They have no automatic entitlement to a pro-rata refund should they choose not to use the software.

 

It's not a pro-rata refund of anything, it's a refund of the OEM licence fee originally paid to Microsoft by the supplier (they get credited for this once Microsoft receives the completed refund form). Read the above.

 

And very few things in this life are "automatic" - I never claimed that it was automatic, or even quick (except sometimes with Dell). But that doesn't change the fact that, legally, the end user is entitled to it.

Edited October 10, 2009 by GraceCourt
Typo - again!

[barracad]

No. They haven't bought the software.

 

So the software is completely free of charge then? No - it is included in the price they paid.

 

Why do suppliers make the refund, once the Microsoft form is completed confirming deletion, if they aren't obliged to by their contract with Microsoft?

 

Not all companies just to what they are obliged to do - there is a thing such as good customer service. Some retailers may choose to offer a pro-rata refund if the software is not used, but I still maintain that they do not have to do so. Of course, if you can prove otherwise I am happy to be corrected.

 

But that doesn't change the fact that, legally, the end user is entitled to it.

 

Again - on what basis? If you could point to the relevant case law, I'd be really interested. Otherwise I'm afraid I believe that this is pure nonsense.

[Guest GraceCourt]

So the software is completely free of charge then? No - it is included in the price they paid.

 

I'm not sure how many more times we have to go around this loop. Yes, the payment of licence fee (NOT payment "for" the software) is included in the price. Of course it is, otherwise there would be no refund.

 

Not all companies just to what they are obliged to do - there is a thing such as good customer service.

 

So, after the "good customer service" whereby they come up with lots of excuses as to why they're not going to pay, they suddenly find it in the goodness of their hearts to pay up weeks later when confronted with details of the Microsoft refund procedures? Yeeeeeees.... excellent empirical evidence...

 

I still maintain that they do not have to do so. Of course, if you can prove otherwise I am happy to be corrected.

 

Can I have £1 for every time I get to say "Read the EULA"?

 

Again - on what basis?

 

Errmmm... the same basis that I've been stating throughout... the contractual basis of Microsoft's licensing regime, and the basis that no OEM licence fee is payable when the terms and conditions of the agreement governing the licence are refused by the end user.

 

If you could point to the relevant case law, I'd be really interested. Otherwise I'm afraid I believe that this is pure nonsense.

 

I don't understand what you mean by "case law" - if suppliers are making these payments without judgement having to be entered, or proceedings even commenced, what case law would there be?

 

But assuming that you are interested...

French court says non to pre-loaded Windows on Acer laptop ? Channel Register

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

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

Bloke gets $200 refund for unwanted vista - The Inquirer

Windows of opportunity - Arts & Entertainment - The Independent

Dell takes stealth approach to Linux [printer-friendly] ? The Register

Dell Windows Tax Refund | Ducklight Travels

 

Sigh.

[barracad]

Can I have £1 for every time I get to say "Read the EULA"?

... the same basis that I've been stating throughout... the contractual basis of Microsoft's licensing regime, and the basis that no OEM licence fee is payable when the terms and conditions of the agreement governing the licence are refused by the end user.

 

You mean the terms of the EULA which are unilaterally set by Microsoft and over which the retailer has no control over?

 

Again, this doesn't give any entitlement to a partial refund. If anything, the retailer would be quite within their rights to insist that if a refund is required, the whole package - i.e. the laptop itself along with the software - is returned for a full refund. There is nothing forcing the retailer to offer a partial refund as you keep suggesting there is.

 

I don't understand what you mean by "case law" - if suppliers are making these payments without judgement having to be entered, or proceedings even commenced, what case law would there be?

 

I only ask because you keep insisting that they are legally entitled to a refund. I'm curious as to what law you are basing this on - a couple of snippets showing that a couple of people have been given refunds by the manufacturer or retailer.

 

Again, I'm not saying that it's not possible to get a partial refund, merely that this is at the retailer's discretion rather than being entitled to it.

 

If you can show me something that backs up what you're saying please do - otherwise I don't think there's much point in arguing over it so we will have to agree to disagree.

[Guest GraceCourt]

You mean the terms of the EULA which are unilaterally set by Microsoft and over which the retailer has no control over?

 

No - the terms of the contract by which Microsoft alllows the manufacturer to put the conditional offer of the use of Windows on the laptop. I did say that it gets complicated when the "retailer" (supplier) isn't the manufacturer, but when it isn't, each contract between each of the parties in the chain includes the requirement that Microsoft's terms and conditions are adhered to.

 

Again, this doesn't give any entitlement to a partial refund. If anything, the retailer would be quite within their rights to insist that if a refund is required, the whole package - i.e. the laptop itself along with the software - is returned for a full refund. There is nothing forcing the retailer to offer a partial refund as you keep suggesting there is.

 

Why do you keep talking about a "partial refund" when I've made it very clear in my posts that it's not a "partial refund"? It's a full refund of the OEM licence fee.

 

But the good news is that you have just demonstrated your inadequate understanding of consumer legislation by insisting that "the retailer would be quite within their rights to insist that if a refund is required, the whole package - i.e. the laptop itself along with the software - is returned for a full refund".

 

I refer you to the Sale of Goods Act 1979, as amended:

 

35A Right of partial rejection

 

(1) If the buyer—

(a) has the right to reject the goods by reason of a breach on the part of the seller that affects some or all of them, but

(b) accepts some of the goods, including, where there are any goods unaffected by the breach, all such goods,

 

he does not by accepting them lose his right to reject the rest.

 

36 Buyer not bound to return rejected goods

 

Unless otherwise agreed, where goods are delivered to the buyer, and he refuses to accept them, having the right to do so, he is not bound to return them to the seller, but it is sufficient if he intimates to the seller that he refuses to accept them.

 

So... the buyer partially rejects the goods subject of his contract of sale, by accepting the laptop, and rejecting the installed software by refusing to accept the EULA for the software installed on the drive. By virtue of S.36, he doesn't even need to return the re-installation media if supplied, but it avoids argument if he does.

Edited October 10, 2009 by GraceCourt
More typos... :-(

[human.error]

I have to say Thanks to 'GraceCourt' for your patience in explaining all of that. It saved me a lot of typing, that's for sure

 

For the benefit of the other two, Microsoft hold that you purchase a LICENSE to USE the operating system. You do NOT purchase the Operating System (their distinction, don't believe me call MS UK well technically Amsterdam and they'll take the time to explain it to you!) Also, the EULA is the part in which you agree or disagree with the License, if you disagree you press 'Disagree' and it tells you that it will cease the installation, are you sure... Yes = blank screen'. You can see it here:

during install, when it shows 'the license agreement' say NO. Obviously the youtube thing shows XP but Vista isn't that different.

 

It's my understanding however that as the OP has removed the windows partition, then they will not be able to boot windows and therefore reacquire the EULA. Unless they've got a virtualbox with eula displayed, but as Acer didn't include the install discs, he'll have to find one elsewhere.

 

All of that said, to the OP the exhibitL - Fullscreen at the end of page 1, and the top page 2 it shows that Acer Belgium has a procedure in place to deal with this whole thing. As a consequence I'm advised that as it's legally binding in a court in Europe, then it has standing in other courts within Europe, of which we are a part apparently. If you wanted to clarify that then you could email the EU variations of trading standards: EUROPA - Consumer Affairs - Consumer Organisations

 

Failing that, I'm sure GraceCourt' will have some ideas on how to achieve your aim.

 

HTH

[Guest GraceCourt]

You are welcome, human.error, and I'd missed the bit about wiping the hard drive, so my advice...

I strongly suggest using a digital camera or video camera to record you clicking the "No" box in the EULA (end user licensing agreement), as - armed with this - it's a simple task to recover the licence cost from the retailer (not from Microsoft) using the Small Claims Track of the County Court (in England and Wales) or the Summary Cause procedure in the Sheriff Court (Scotland).

... won't help. But the good news is that County Court claims conducted using the Small Claims Track are technically undertaken as arbitrations by a District Judge, often in the judge's chambers in private rather than in Court, and the whole thing is fairly relaxed and informal. So, if it goes that far (and you can issue the claim online at http://moneyclaim.gov.uk) just take along the laptop loaded with Linux and let the DJ watch it boot up into something that isn't Windows!

 

Andylondonuk, I bet fairly long odds that it won't get that far if you do issue a claim - look back at what I said about all of the nonsensical confidence tricks that some suppliers will throw up to try to avoid making a refund, like telling you to send the laptop back for them to examine, for a fee! Yeah, right... but actually, legally, they've already made the concession that they will make the refund, now all that you are arguing about is the attendant preconditions for making it, i.e. how can you prove you are not lying?

 

The answer is, turn this situation around: give them a written undertaking that you have removed Windows, and then state that, if you have to commence proceedings to obtain your refund of £33.95, you will prove to the District Judge that you're not lying, and will produce the laptop as an exhibit (i.e. as evidence) at the arbitration hearing. See what they say in response!

 

Keep us updated, if you do.

[MrShed]

GraceCourt - I have to say that I remain completely unconvinced.

 

However, I suspect that we will simply have to agree to disagree

[andydd]

Jeez...this thread has got complicated its no wonder it doesnt pop up much.

 

Personally speaking when i wanted a new laptop, I didnt want one with an OS pre-installed as i wished to install my own vista ultimate or seven ultimate later and hardly anyone have vista ultimate as an option, I had a look around and bought a netbook for £199 that i liked which came with xp, it didnt dawn on me to try and get a refund for removing it, I actaully still have it here saved as an acronis true image file so it could be re-installed should i wish to sell the laptop. Now according to previous posts this copy of xp has no real resale value as it cant be re-sold, although Im assuming that it could be installed on another pc, although maybe that would fall foul of the MS EULA too. I'd hazard a guess though and say that the ptice of the laptopmif sold without xp on it would be the same price anyway, may £10 - £20 cheaper max.

 

Andy

[human.error]

Jeez...this thread has got complicated its no wonder it doesnt pop up much.

 

Personally speaking when i wanted a new laptop, I didnt want one with an OS pre-installed as i wished to install my own vista ultimate or seven ultimate later and hardly anyone have vista ultimate as an option, I had a look around and bought a netbook for £199 that i liked which came with xp, it didnt dawn on me to try and get a refund for removing it, I actaully still have it here saved as an acronis true image file so it could be re-installed should i wish to sell the laptop.

 

You could have saved yourself a disk, the 'value' of the OS isn't in the copy you have on your harddrive. It's in the little sticker that's on the bottom of the unit, or on the Manual that accompanied the laptop with a small Bar Code on it.

 

As long as you have a Windows disk, you can install the OS, then when asked to enter the license key\ Product Code, as seen here: http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/downarchive2/member2/26-Windows-XP-Genuine-License-Keys.jpg you see the characters and digits under 'Product Key'? That's the license number you would input when prompted, it would then invoke whatever version of windows the license key was for.

 

Yes you read that correctly, this was because the early Vista disks have all operating systems on them, the 'choice' was made when you put the appropriate code in. If it was a XP key, you got XP if it was Vista you got vista etc. So obviously, don't lose the manual or the sticker, or let anyone copy the code off the sticker for that matter as it IS the license to windows.

 

Now according to previous posts this copy of xp has no real resale value as it cant be re-sold,

 

That's what Microsoft say, its even what they put in their eula. But they adhere to US Law, in the UK we have a slightly different law, as long as the License hasn't been used, it does have some value you can even sell it to realise that value, though Microsoft argue you can't. So let them, just don't tell them the code\license number you're selling and they can't cancel it

 

without xp on it would be the same price anyway, may £10 - £20 cheaper max.

 

Fact is it has a value which can be realised at sale. Microsoft and their vendors want it all ways, they don't want to give you the OS but they want you to use it. They don't want to lose out on the sale, but if it's not installed on their hardware then the original vendor will spend money arguing with Microsoft that they should be allowed their money, well let them. It saves them arguing with you doesn't it

 

If you find an outlet, feel free to sell it. Providing it's not got a 'name' on the license, then you could get upto £40 for it. Be aware however, that unless you have official media then some websites that allow sales will not let you sell it, as MS says the license must accompany official media. Microsoft argues that unless you purchase directly from them, then you will not get any official support. But lets face it, who calls microsoft unless you've not got any friends or a tech support department? If you do you're only allowed so many calls anyway, I think it's something stupid like 5 and then they want you to take out another contract for more 'tech support', have they never heard of the internet?

 

Incidentally, when Vista first came out, 2nd hand copies of XP rocketed in price, you couldn't get a license for under £200 unless it was an official product, a couple of weeks later the price stabilised at around £70 however with the release of Windows 7 some versions of that come with a copy of XP built in, I know the ones I purchased all will, plus the ones for the media center. So you should see alot of people selling their old licenses pretty soon. Then you'll see for yourself how much value these items have and how seriously people take microsofts thoughts

 

HTH

[andylondonuk]

I would just like to say thanks to everyone for their comments, expecially GraceCourt and human.error.

 

I was extremely tired over the weekend, so apologies if any of my comments seemed a little erratic or odd! I certainly don't confess to having any legal understanding whatsoever, hence the reason I came here

 

GraceCourt, regarding your advice about video footage. Sorry, I think I may have forgotten to mention that I did take footage of me getting to the EULA and then installing Linux. Although, the format of the accept/decline is different to previous versions I believe. It's now just a tick box that you have to tick to accept. If you don't tick the box, the "next" button will not work. So I simply filmed it get to this point, show me trying to click next and it doing nothing, then switch the machine off (only option left) and installing Linux. I filmed the entire process.

 

So if i understand correctly, I'm not actually obtaining a refund for the software physically on the drive, but for the license itself (essentially the sticker on the bottom), which Acer has paid or will pay on my behalf to Microsoft? As I have not accepted the terms of the license, no contract exists between myself and Microsoft (via Acer), therefore Acer paid Microsoft on my behalf under a non-existent Contract?

 

Like andydd says, this has got complicated, so sorry if I'm not understanding correctly

 

I'm going to reply to Acer and suggest forwarding the video footage (and the license sticker) as an alternative and see what they say. Any other suggestions what to include in the email? Should I also point out that it's the license being refunded and not the software?

 

Thanks,

Andy.

[human.error]

I would just like to say thanks to everyone for their comments, expecially GraceCourt and human.error.

 

From my corner, you're more than welcome.

 

GraceCourt, regarding your advice about video footage. Sorry, I think I may have forgotten to mention that I did take footage of me getting to the EULA and then installing Linux... I filmed the entire process

 

Seems I now owe GraceCourt an appology, as you did indeed record you meeting and refusing the EULA.

 

So if i understand correctly, I'm not actually obtaining a refund for the software physically on the drive, but for the license itself (essentially the sticker on the bottom), which Acer has paid or will pay on my behalf to Microsoft? As I have not accepted the terms of the license, no contract exists between myself and Microsoft (via Acer), therefore Acer paid Microsoft on my behalf under a non-existent Contract?

 

Yes, that's pretty much it. Acer in their infinite wisdom haven't included a physical copy of the OS in the box. So you can't send that back, so you can only give what you have which is the proof and the license\product key sticker. If you're going to remove it, 1st seek permission from Acer and if they say to do so, then film yourself removing it. I suggest this as Microsoft put in various anti-piracy measures which means the sticker is designed to breakdown\apart as soon as you try to remove it, so be sure to get a good couple of images of the sticker intact to prove what you're removing.

 

You could also use this example:

 

Or heat it up using a Heat Gun or Hair Dryer, then try removing it with a razor blade.

 

I'm going to reply to Acer and suggest forwarding the video footage (and the license sticker) as an alternative and see what they say. Any other suggestions what to include in the email? Should I also point out that it's the license being refunded and not the software?

 

Tell them Acer Belgium has a procedure in place and you can send them a copy of this: exhibitL - Fullscreen to prove it. So it follows that they must have the same procedure, if they're the same organisation. Yes inform them what's' important is the license sticker and not the physical contact with the laptop, then tell them about all your recordings.

 

HTH