David won against Goliath, but its likely to be a Pyrrhic victory. A consumer Florentine who in 2005 sued HP to obtain reimbursement of the Windows operating system, which was not going to use, it has been accorded by the Court of Cassation 140 euro to 6,200 euro repayment of court costs paid by HP. But the procedure that vendors have set up pc to obtain reimbursement for consumers who want to install an alternative operating system (typically a Linux distribution) is difficult and expensive. Not to mention that, if we wanted to extend the comparison to the world of mobile operators and smartphone, the consequences could be very different.
Let’s see what has happened. Supreme Court, with the judgment 19161/2014, stated that “those who buy a computer that was pre-installed by the manufacturer of a given software operation (operating system) has the right, if you do not intend to accept the conditions of the license to use the software propostegli you first start the computer, to retain only the latter returning the software covered by the license is not accepted, due to the repayment of part of the price attributable to it specifically. ” The Court therefore did not accept the thesis of HP, the party sued by a buyer Florentine who took a pc with Windows XP Home and Microsoft Work 8 . In fact, according to HP PCs when they are sold with a preinstalled operating system, should be considered as “a single integrated product.”
In the case of “repentance on the purchase of the package,” he argued, in essence, HP , it was not possible to return the software and keep the hardware. The judges of the Court have interpreted the rules contained in the license agreement, the use of Microsoft Windows (Eula) in a different way: “The integration between software and hardware – they wrote in the judgment – not based on a need for technological “but merely commercial and therefore there are no obstacles to the” fractional consideration of the two products. “
What are the consequences? Of course, to be trotted out is Microsoft whose business model is based primarily on the sale of software. The company takes note of the decision of the judges. In an official statement says that “consumers are free to buy PC with an operating system other than Microsoft or without any operating system. In any case, users can benefit from pre-installation of Windows on PCs, offering the best user experience and allows you to optimize time and resources related to the installation of an operating system that is functioning properly. Computer manufacturers are free to sell the PC with another operating system pre-installed or without an operating system. It is also important to point out that Microsoft’s agreements with manufacturers are not exclusive. Customers who purchase a PC with Windows pre-installed and then want to return the pc and / or pre-installed software should refer to the terms of withdrawal / repayment of the various producers. “
Among the many producers and sellers of PCs in Italy Acer is one of the few to have been made available on its website a rather laborious procedure, however: within thirty days of purchase must not have ever agreed to the terms of Microsoft license, call the call center and then send a request to the company. The consumer, after receiving the approval of the company, must ship at his own expense the PC to a service center with the installation CD and proof of purchase, and then withdraw it always at his expense. The maximum amount is 90 euro for Windows Ultimate edition , less than that established by the Supreme Court.
In the early stages of the case between the consumer and the Florentine HP was also called the Association for the rights of users and consumers who report the fact to the Antitrust Authority, which in turn, in 2006, confirms the right of consumers to be reimbursed expenses for operating systems are not required.
“The consequences of this complex legal affair – says Mattia Monga , a professor of computer science expert in operating systems of the State University of Milan – have profound ramifications even if the economic impact is likely to be limited.” In fact, the race to Linux in the desktop version has stalled for years and in fact the high cost of licensing Windows has just raised the prices of netbooks cheaper, making them uncompetitive with the tablet (Android or Apple).
Also according to the ‘ADUC that the effect will be more limited, but this depends on the fact that “the judgment does not have direct and immediate consequences on the behavior of producers” and it is for this reason that the association suggests “continue to sue those who do not act in good faith in an attempt to dissuade the consumer the right to obtain reimbursement.” The association has decided to publish on the website a form for the “formal notice and notice to comply for a refund of the license to use Microsoft Windows is not accepted.”
“One thing is certain – he explains Monga – and that is that the operating system strongly influences the functioning of the computer, so it is entirely reasonable that the buyer may wish to put the software they prefer. And it is unfair that you pay what you do not want. ” The point becomes interesting when you consider the area of the tablet and smartphone. Here, according to Monga comes in third actor: “In addition to operating system vendors, which are often free of charge and therefore can not give rise to a refund but simply the ability to be uninstalled, there are also the telephone operators. You have to understand if they have only a technical role of providing connection or if you are able to deliver services. And the manner in which you have the right to terminate their contracts. ” If the contracts locked (and subsidized) for 24 or 30 months for smartphones are actually valid or not.
No comments:
Post a Comment