Hardware companies, Microsoft, Competition and Consumer Choice

[db]

Question. Did you ask if consumers would legally have the option to
decline and accept a refund for the cost of the microsoft operating
system, at the time of purchase ?

(as this is in the eula and Most retail outlets / vendors are not
aware of this and it is difficult to follow up).

Perhaps if you email back asking for clarification on these terms and
an official statement from the accc on this issue, we can bypass some
of windows tax problems.

2009/5/20 Sean Van Buggenum <svaens at gmail.com>:
> Here is the prompt (albeit disappointing) response from the ACCC:
>
> Dear Mr Buggenum,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your email of 19 May 2009 to the Australian Competition and
> Consumer Commission (ACCC) regarding Lenovo Computers. I note that you are
> concerned that Microsoft®s Windows is pre-installed on Lenovo computers
>
>
>
> The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is an independent
> statutory authority responsible for the administration of the Trade
> Practices Act 1974 (the Act) and the Competition Codes of the States and
> Territories. The Act prohibits certain anti-competitive conduct and
> unconscionable, false, misleading or deceptive practices.
>
>
>
> While the policy of computer manufacturers to supply computers with
> Microsoft Windows® pre-installed may cause inconvenience to some consumers,
> the Act generally does not authorise the ACCC to determine the terms and
> conditions upon which businesses may supply their goods. The ACCC cannot,
> for example, compel computer manufacturers to sell computers with
> alternative operating systems (e.g. Linux) installed, or to sell computers
> without any operating system software installed.
>
>
>
> As you may be aware, Microsoft recently reached a settlement with the United
> States Department of Justice. Amongst other things, the general provisions
> of the settlement prevent Microsoft from using its market power to force
> original equipment manufacturers (“OEM’s”) to install only Microsoft
> software on their products. The settlement therefore allows for OEM’s to
> begin pre-installing competing software on computer systems. It is possible
> that due to the volume of discounting offered by Microsoft, OEM’s do not
> have substantial incentive to install non-Windows operating systems. Based
> on the information available to the ACCC, it is unclear whether the choice
> to sell computers with Microsoft® Windows pre-installed is a commercial
> decision made by OEM’s themselves, as opposed to being attributable to
> attempts by Microsoft to force OEM’s to sell products with Microsoft
> Windows® pre-installed.
>
>
>
> I have noted from the information provided that all Lenovo computers must be
> sold with Microsoft® Vista pre-installed and that consumers must pay for
> this product if they wish to purchase the computer. Based on the information
> you have provided I do not consider that there is likely to be a breach of
> the TPA.
>
>
>
> Third line forcing
>
>
>
> In this instance, the conduct complained of appears unlikely to constitute
> third line forcing in breach of section 47(6) of the Act. This is because
> the pre-installed version of Microsoft® Windows Vista is supplied by the
> same company that supplies the the computers. It is not a condition of sale
> for the computer that the customer purchases Windows Vista from another
> person or company. In ACCC v IMB Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2002] FCA 402;
> (2002), the Federal Court of Australia held that where a single package of
> products or services is supplied there will be no third line forcing, even
> though different, unrelated organisations produce the various goods and
> services making up the package.
>
>
>
> Thank you for raising your concerns with the ACCC.
>
>
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
>
>
>
>
> Jaime
>
> ACCC Infocentre
>
> Ph: 1300 302 502
>
>
> --
> ubuntu-au mailing list
> ubuntu-au at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
>
>