Here's the reply from the Commission. There should be an official reply to the complaint as well. The reply below is just 'informal' on the basis of a consumer complaint. I also made a complaint concerning the failure of the Belgian state to protect consumers from an illegal sales practice operated by Microsoft consisting of forcing almost all consumers to pay for a Microsoft Windows license regardless of whether they 1) wanted to do so 2) intended to use the license or not.
If you would like a jpg copy (100kb) of this letter please email me. dafydd
----
Dear Mr. Ferguson,
Thank you for your email dated I7 June 2006 to the Consumer Officer. This email relates to the possibility of purchasing PCs without a preinstalled Windows operating system.
The Commission is aware of the difficulties encountered by consumers to purchase PCs without an operating system on them or alternatively with another operating system than Windows.
As regards the possibility of purchasing a PC without an operating system, I understand that Microsoft's licensing agreements with PC manufacturers encourage (through the grant of rebates) the pre-installation of operating systems on PCs. However, this does not have to be a Microsoft operating system. The Commission is not aware of any obligation either contractual or financial, obliging the PC OEMs to sell their PCs with Windows operating systems in particular.
Furthermore, it appears that the choice of a PC vendor to offer PC with or without an OS is not so much influenced by the rebate offered by Microsoft than by the existence of effective consumer demand for PCs with operating systems. We suspect that the structure of the market and demand from consumers is the driving force behind the decision by PC vendors to offer Windows preinstalled on the majority of their computers. If this is information is confirmed, the conduct of PC manufacturers would be justified by pure commercial reasons and may not fall under the provisions of EC competition law.
That said we have not yet finalized our review of the market and are grateful that you took time to inform us of the problems you have encountered. Against this background, I would like to take this opportunity to inform you that the Commision intends to examine these questions in greater detail in the future.
Yours sincerely,
Angel TRADACETE COCERA
EUROPEAN COMMISSION DG Competition Director Directorate C: Information, Communication and Media B-1049 Brussels
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 05:45:01PM +0200, ab Iago Dafydd wrote:
Here's the reply from the Commission. There should be an official reply to the complaint as well. The reply below is just 'informal' on the basis of a
The content of this reply seems to be in-line with the Swiss ComCo position a few years ago:
http://gnuwin.epfl.ch/articles/en/refund/node24.html
namely the consumer demand powers the fact that Microsoft has a virtual monopoly.
namely the consumer demand powers the fact that Microsoft has a virtual monopoly.
I understand that manufacturers want to preinstall windows on every laptop instead of doing that on demand in 95% of them.
I have no problem in getting a system with windows eXPired on it, as long as I can get a refund if I refuse to accept the license. Whenever vendors (or ms) find time spent with refunds is not balanced in time saved by preinstalling, they'll stop preinstalling on every computer. But if I can't get a refund (wasting my time over it), the virtual monopoly is no more virtual: the market has no chance to change, as those with different expectations have no means to voice them.
Therefore, I think they can escape the request to not preinstall, but they can't escape the request to allow refund. Refusing to refund the OS license should be banned by antitrust rules, IMHO -- and, at least in Italy, they refuse refunding whenever someone tries that path.
BTW: Bundling hardware and software is very different than bundling the air conditioner with every new car. Marketing two versions of a car only to please those few obsolete guys like me is costly, and remocing the conditioner on demand is _very_ costly. Software on the other hand is pure information, it's not a "product" as they shout around (calling themselves the "software industty"). Moreover, the computer vendor is not (currently) the same as the software vendor, and windows is not specific to their hardware, so they can't claim the two are unseverable like the air conditioner in a car is.
[sorry if this remark is obvious, unfortunately I see the comparison with physical products like cars to be too easily brought in]
/alessandro
On Sun, 2006-07-02 at 22:28 +0200, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
namely the consumer demand powers the fact that Microsoft has a virtual monopoly.
I understand that manufacturers want to preinstall windows on every laptop instead of doing that on demand in 95% of them.
Just packaging with an easy way for the vendor to remove the Microsoft sticker and Certificate of Authenticity if the client doesn't want to pay Microsoft Windows is enough, and of course the vendor present the software price tag (as already required by law in most countries but not enforced).
Then Microsoft might or might not want to sue people that use Windows without a valid certificate, but Microsoft does know their IP address and can get to the real people easily in most (if not all) countries.
No one asks for on-demand configuration in a mass market like laptops.
(Dell already produces it ... for brazilian customers, not for european ones.)
Laurent http://guerby.org/blog/
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 10:29:31PM +0200, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
Just packaging with an easy way for the vendor to remove the Microsoft
How are vendors testing their hardware before shipping to customers ? I am afraid most of them don't do like SGI was doing in Cortaillod, that is using specific test programs they then released as GPL (memtest86 comes to mind).
They probably load a recent Microsoft Windows OS, the recommended driver, and run a few test programs.
This means that removing Microsoft Windows might cost them money!
On Tue, 2006-07-04 at 19:26 +0200, Marc SCHAEFER wrote:
On Mon, Jul 03, 2006 at 10:29:31PM +0200, Laurent GUERBY wrote:
Just packaging with an easy way for the vendor to remove the Microsoft
How are vendors testing their hardware before shipping to customers ? I am afraid most of them don't do like SGI was doing in Cortaillod, that is using specific test programs they then released as GPL (memtest86 comes to mind).
If I remember correctly, Dell in order to avoid paying MS used a version of FreeDOS to test machines. Now they have a complete CD set that run an automated series of tests (on server platforms) where it is not clear what's the underlying OS (but it does not seem to be MS based).
They probably load a recent Microsoft Windows OS, the recommended driver, and run a few test programs.
Does it really matter?
This means that removing Microsoft Windows might cost them money!
I do not think they use the final OS that get installed anyway so if they use something from MS I think they have a separate agreement for that.
Simo.
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 06:07:25PM +0200, Marc SCHAEFER wrote:
http://gnuwin.epfl.ch/articles/en/refund/node24.html
namely the consumer demand powers the fact that Microsoft has a virtual monopoly.
oh, and BTW I didn't say I agreed with this position; but we have to expect that the `it's because the market wants it' argument be repeated over and over ... until people really start to *demand* free software.
On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 14:37 +0200, Marc SCHAEFER wrote:
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 06:07:25PM +0200, Marc SCHAEFER wrote:
http://gnuwin.epfl.ch/articles/en/refund/node24.html
namely the consumer demand powers the fact that Microsoft has a virtual monopoly.
oh, and BTW I didn't say I agreed with this position; but we have to expect that the `it's because the market wants it' argument be repeated over and over ... until people really start to *demand* free software.
But People really demands free software.. you can't expect that everybody suddenly do it at once!
Just as an example, a well known italian computer shops that let you choose your computer components than assemble, test and ship it has just started offering Ubuntu (the configurator checks explicitly for component compatibility against Ubuntu if you choose to do so).
This means that there is enough demand for the home PC, I can't believe there is not some demand for laptops too. It's only that it can't show up in numbers because you are not allowed to choose anything else but Windows, you can't even ask for the laptop without an OS.
Simo.
ab Iago Dafydd dafyddabiago@gmail.com
Here's the reply from the Commission. There should be an official reply to the complaint as well. The reply below is just 'informal' on the basis of a consumer complaint. I also made a complaint concerning the failure of the Belgian state to protect consumers from an illegal sales practice operated by Microsoft consisting of forcing almost all consumers to pay for a Microsoft Windows license regardless of whether they 1) wanted to do so 2) intended to use the license or not.
What can others do about this?