If you want a thing well done, get a couple of old broads to do it. -- Bette Davis
I've decided to break this up in date order, so folks can immediately jump to more current information. For newcomers it remains in chronological order, so folks can read it in order without having to back up constantly.
28 January 1999
27 January 1999
22 January 1999
21 January 1999
20 January 1999
November 1997
April 1997
February 1997
In January 1997, I went looking for a new notebook computer. This is the story of my trials and tribulations regarding the freedom to use the operating system of my choice.
Administrative Note: I couldn't get permission to cite the e-mails I received from the OEM whose computer I ended up buying, so per the Fair Use clause of United States copyright law I will be excerpting rather than quoting in toto.
After researching various notebook computer offerings, I settled on a particular brand and model which had the equipment I wanted at the price I was willing to pay: Canon Innova Book 490 CDS.
06 February 1997
I went to buy the machine at a local computer reseller. When I asked
to have an unformatted hard drive instead of one preloaded with
Windows 95, however, I was informed that this was not possible.
Flabbergasted, I argued with the salesman a bit, but he was
unrelenting, as was the manager. When I said I wouldn't pay for an
operating system I wouldn't use, he said he wouldn't sell me the
machine, that the company's license with Microsoft prevented them from
removing the OS. (Interested in reading how a long-time computer geek
could not know about preloads prior to 1997?)
Well, I ranted and raved the whole way home about having to pay for something I didn't want and couldn't use. I got it home and started to boot it to see what sort of message this forced OS had for the unsuspecting user. Well, first thing it asked if I agreed with the license agreement, to which I responded (clicked) NO. That's when I the system instructed me to read the End User License Agreement (EULA) to see about returning the product for a refund. So, I clicked the option for reading the EULA.
Armed with my EULA, I went to the Canon web site to see what instructions were there for returning unused Windows 95. There was nothing. So, I hunted around the site for something related to Customer Service, but the only place where I could find an invite to contact them for anything remotely related to this purchase was on the Tech Support Page. I filled out the form, explaining that I wanted my refund as per the Win95 EULA:
> Inquiry: Portable Computer Technical Inquiry > > Description: This isn't a =tech= support problem but I couldn't find a > place to contact general customer service here on the web > pages. Just bought a Canon Innova Book 490 CDS, which came > bundled with Win95. The Win95 EULA says I can return Win95 > to the manufacturer of the computer product =for refund=. > Good. I was hating the fact that my computer was probably > costing me more to come bundled w/ an OS I wouldn't use, > anyway. (I'm a Linux user.) Please e-mail me instructions > for getting my refund for not using Win95. AdThanksVance. > Donna.07 February 1997
10 February 1997
I received a response from a Support Representative within Canon.
Among other things, this is what she said:
> What is the "Win95 EULA"? Canon Computer Systems, Inc. is not the Manufacturer > of Windows 95. If Microsoft claims to offer refunds for Windows 95, you need to > contact them.
My response to that was as follows:
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 1997 00:06:04 -0700 (MST) From: "Donna."Subject: Re: Portable Computer Technical Inquiry Thanks for your reply. As you work further through inquiries sent to your web site, you'll see where I wrote back, at the request of a customer support person I talked with on Friday, and included the pertinent part of the Win95 End User's License Agreement, aka EULA. According to the EULA itself: ============================================== IMPORTANT-READ CAREFULLY: This End-User License Agreement ("EULA") is a legal agreement between you (either an individual or a single entity) and the manufacturer ("PC Manufacturer") of the computer system ("COMPUTER") with which you acquired the Microsoft software product(s) identified above ("SOFTWARE PRODUCT" or "SOFTWARE"). ============================================== Canon is the manufacturer of the computer system with which I acquired the Microsoft software product, aka Win95. For point of record, I tried to purchase the Canon notebook of my choice =without= having Win95 already bundled on the hard drive, but could not. BTW, thank you for your cautionary note regarding Canon's inability to guarantee drivers for Linux. I am well aware that Canon technical support will not be able to support any software other than the Windows 95 which came bundled with my notebook. That is not the problem. The problem is that the licensing agreement says that if I do not agree to the terms of the license, I am entitled to a refund from the manufacturer; I do not agree to the terms of the license, I have not used the software product, I have no intention of ever using the product, and I'd like to return it for my refund according to the instructions in the EULA. Are you telling me that the End User License Agreement found on my system at bootup is NOT a binding agreement? Donna. Cybrarian, NiEstu [email protected]
I felt that my final question was highly pertinent, and something I don't see being addressed in all this talk of refunds: the only way that a manufacturer can get out of giving the refund is to admit that the license is invalid ... which would have incredible rippling effects throughout the world of commercial software, which depends upon the binding quality of their shrinkwrap licensing.
12 February 1997
I received a query for details of the equipment purchase: name and
address, what sort of system I'd bought, when I'd bought it, and where
I'd bought it. The date on the e-mail was 10 February 1997, but for
some reason I didn't receive it until 12 February. I replied with the
requested information the same day I received it. I also had to ask
what was the significance behind not wanting a Post Office Box for an
address, since that's what NiEstu uses.
16 February 1997
After not hearing anything from Canon after their request for
information, I queried again. Remember, I had NOT USED my new
computer for 10 days, out of fear of doing something wrong that would
jeopardize my refund. This was the e-mail I sent:
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 23:28:43 -0700 (MST) From: "Donna."Subject: Re: Re[2]: Portable Computer Technical Inquiry It's been 10 days since I first wrote to Canon to ask about procedures for this refund. Your support people have never heard of it, and it's not documented on your web page. I can appreciate that this is an unusual situation for you and, as such, you don't have an automated procedure in place for handling it. However, I hope you can likewise appreciate that, out of respect for whatever your refund procedure might turn out to be, I have yet to do ANYthing with the notebook I purchased 10 days ago. Therefore, as of this evening, (16 Feb 1997) I'm using FIPS to repartition my hard drive without touching the Win95 partition, so that I may load Linux on the remaining hard drive space and actually begin =using= my new machine. The Win95 documentation and supporting CD remains unopened and will be yours for re-use once you've determined how this refund is going to happen. The Win95 partition will cheerfully be reformatted once the refund has come through. I trust that, since the delay in using my machine was due to your lack of administrative procedures to handle what must be for you an unusual problem -- including not responding to my explicit request for information as to my using the machine until you resolved the issue -- my warranty will be extended 10 days. Donna. Cybrarian, NiEstu [email protected]
18 February 1997
This time, I got a supervisor rather than a line grunt. The
supervisor said he was unclear about whether I was wanting a refund
for the operating system or for the entire unit. In my reply, I
relied heavily on quoting him, and as I said before I did not receive
permission to quote these people in toto, so the copy of my
e-mail reply is slightly modified. What is most relevent here, I
believe, is the assumption that, without Windows, an 80xxx box could
not have been used!
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 19:14:06 -0700 (MST) From: "Donna."Subject: Re: Refund On Tue, 18 Feb 1997, [name omitted] wrote: > Hi. I am [name omitted] a Customer Care Supervisor at Canon. I have I'm glad to finally have the chance to "speak" with a supervisor. For the official record, it took 12 days from the time I first contacted Canon for my refund for us to get to this point. > received your message inquiring about a refund. I am unclear as to > whether you are seeking a refund for the operating system or the > entire unit. The operating system. This unit was intended to be a Linux box from the very beginning. [most of his text omitted, to avoid infringing on his copyright] > In order to consider a refund > from Canon you must have not used the PC. [...] > If this is your situation then I can assist you with your request. > However, if you have used the computer, this constitutes acceptance > and the normal warranty restrictions apply. Here it sounds as though you're confusing "computer" with "computer and operating system". I have not used the operating system that came bundled with my computer, which is Win95. I have never agreed to the license, and have =never= booted in Win95. Because your office had no idea how to handle this request and refused to answer my questions regarding the use of the part of the hard drive not stuffed with Win95, I was forced to use FIPS to repartition my drive so that I could finally put Linux on it and begin using it. I couldn't very well have the unit collecting dust while Canon decided how they were going to refund my money for the operating system I have no intention of using. My hardware warranty was racing toward expiration, since I'd taken delivery of the unit, but never had a chance to actually use it. Win95 is still hogging some 330Mb of my hard drive. The machine technically qualifies as "dual boot" because I left the Win95 partition untouched until I heard back from you. However, Linux's LILO manages the boot record, and defaults to booting in Linux. The Win95 license has never been agreed to, and so if the unit is not booted in Linux, that EULA shows up again. If LILO is not interrupted, Linux is booted and the user has no idea that Win95 even exists on the machine except for the loss of all that drive space. Once I've got my refund, the partition currently wasted by holding Win95 will be reformatted as an ext2 file system, and there will be no hint that Win95 ever existed on the unit, and the unit will revert to being a single-boot machine. Personally, I think refraining from using my new notebook for 10 days was more than reasonable to meet the conditions under the license for receiving my refund, seeing as how I wrote to your support center immediately and even called, voice, the very next day, and also especially since a license regarding Microsoft software shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not I use my Canon hardware. Ideally, I should never have been forced to buy Win95 with this notebook in the first place. Along my journey to receive the refund rightfully due me, I've met many Linux users who are anxious to learn of my experiences, as the general perception is that manufacturers are forcing us to buy Microsoft products we'll never use as a result of these bundling agreements. Now that I've explained this to the third Canon rep, when can I expect my refund? Donna. Cybrarian, NiEstu [email protected]
24 February 1997
Finally, a manager! He apologized for the delay, explained that he'd
never heard of such a thing before (and he'd been in this business a
long time!), and promised to keep me updated on the progress toward
effecting my refund. I thanked him profusely, told him I understood
that this must be unusual for him, but was sure he was up to the task.
Unfortunately, I was not to hear back from him until ....
01 April 1997
25 April 1997
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 21:28:43 -0700 (MST)
From: "Donna."
He wrote back, thanked me for reminding him, said that I should send
the Windows CD, supporting manual and documentation, and copy of proof
of purchase, to his attention, address included at the end of his
e-mail, and promised a refund of $99. He reminded me, of course, that
the seal on the packages had to be unbroken. Heh. That wasn't my
problem. My problem was finding the darned dust collectors, since
they'd been in my way for almost 3 months at that point!
This is where the record gets murky. I was getting sicker and sicker,
with a medical problem which had been misdiagnosed for almost 10 years
and ended up in surgery for me in mid-1997; we had some delay finding
the paperweights we needed to send back; and I'm still looking for a
paper trail identifying exactly when we sent the stuff back and when
we got the refund. I wish now I'd had the presence of mind to scan it
in when it came, like Geoffrey
Bennett did, instead of just throwing it into the stack of checks
for deposit and taking it to the bank.
I did dig up some old posts I'd written to the AM-INFO mailing list, about the refund.
A few people have asked if the OEM truly refunded what the operating system cost them, and in all honesty I never bothered to ask that question. It never occurred to me that Canon would rip me off, and in retrospect, judging from some of the OEM licensing deals I've been reading about in various media outlets, it seems as if Canon was the one not getting a fair price on their licensing.
20 January 1999
Seeing the comment, on the Windows
Refund Page that Geoffrey Bennett's refund page "started it all",
I peevishly sent an e-mail to the admin
of the Refund Page, Matt Jensen, and cc:'d places I thought might be
interested. Matt was johnny-on-the-spot, writing me immediately to
ask for a URL he could link to. Taking a cue from Mr. Bennett's
page, I collected old e-mails and stuck them up here, along with
my commentary.
In all fairness, Mr. Bennett's refund page did "start it all" in the sense that, about six months after he put it up on the web, a slashdot reader saw it and sent it in, which started a huge flurry of discussion, although I think perhaps that Matt was the one who "started it" in the sense that he set up the initial Refund Page as a repository of easy-to-find information on getting a refund.
21 January 1999
I see that the Windows
Refund page got moved to the Linux Mall, and apparently the links
to the postings I gave Matt Jensen (from thenoodle.com), where it
originated, didn't make the transfer. Oh well. What's important is
that the word is finally getting out, and slashdot.org probably
doesn't like any reference to the fact that Rob never posted my articles
on getting a refund back in 1997 and 1998. *giggle*
22 January 1999
I feel bad here cuz it looks like I'm giving Mr. Wood a hard time.
Personally, I think he got me confused with the scores of people who
did write in to ask if a refund were possible, and that he
probably never saw my original article on the matter. Truth is, I've
written a handful of articles that I've sent to slashdot.org which
have never been posted; most of the discussion comments I've ever
entered have either never made it or have been deleted soon after.
While it's certainly Rob's perogative to post what he wants on his own
site, I'm likewise free to talk about it on my site.
Oh, and Linux Mall has written me to say that my link is back on the
Refund Page. Just to keep my own Refund section complete, I figured
I'd include it here as well: some posts I
dug up from the AM-INFO
mailing list.
I'm still hunting down more references, but it's taken a lower
priority cuz I do, after all, have a life beyond rehashing what is,
for me, two-year-old news.
Later, same day
This morning, I was also approached in e-mail by Elizabeth
O. Coolbaugh of Linux Weekly News, although that happened
because somebody told her I'd been "getting refunds from Microsoft for
years". I explained the correct story, giving my amateur journalist's perspective on how I think
the story should go.
Clifton Wood, who serves as "Mr. Ask Slashdot", has written to me to
apologize for my article being lost in the slosh over at slashdot.org.
While I appreciated his note, I did think it rather strange that an
essay on How I Got My Refund would have ended up in the "Ask Slashdot"
pile ... not to mention the fact that I don't remember "Ask Slashdot"
being as old as that (it might be; dates really aren't my forte and I
had to dig up a lot of e-mail to put this page together accurately).
What I didn't think to ask Mr. Wood is, if he did indeed see my
article, why he answered negatively, as he said he did ("Refunds for
Windows in this industry is unheard of.").
I forgot to write earlier that yesterday, Jack Brown of the
Philadelphia Inquirer in Pennsylvania interviewed me by
e-mail. He wrote back today to say that my answers came in too late
to be included in his story, but that if there's a followup story he's
likely to use them. In any event, he gave me permission to include
his questions, so anybody who wants
can read what I said to him, and even understand the answers with
the questions attached!
27 January 1999
Well,
CNN mentioned that my story exists, but they didn't mention
me by name. In fact, it looks like they never came to this site at
all, although they do link to my old postings which were up at the old
Refund Page. Compare:
When they talk about me they say:
"The first reported "known Windows refund" dates back to a February,
1997 Usenet posting."
When they talk about the rest of the refund story:
They
gave David Chun name credit for his June 1998 report on manufacturers
unwilling to sell a system without Windows preloaded on it. They gave
Dave Farber name credit for his Interesting People mailing list. They
gave Brett Glass name credit for sending along a post to the
Interesting People list about Matt Jensen, who also got name credit
for putting up the original Windows Refund Page. They mention Rob
Malda by name when they talk about Slashdot, and Don Marti, some dude
they got to talk about the refund (although they don't say why they
interviewed him; he does not seem to be playing a crucial role in the
refund campaign. He's a Linux developer, as am I, and he doesn't
appear to have received a refund, as I have), and Peter Goodman
from VA Research. Geoffrey Bennett, the dude who got his refund from
Toshiba at least a year after I got mine from Canon (and have been
talking about it on the net since then), gets name credit as well.
Me, I'm just some February 1997 Usenet posting. For the record, my name is Donna. -- just six easy characters, five of them unique. I traded in the surname for a period years ago, long before most of the people who will read this even heard of the Internet.
In the Related Sites segment, they direct readers to Bennett's refund saga, but not mine. Rather, they include those old postings I dug up first thing, back when Matt still had the Refund Page.
Considering that they still have thenoodle.com as the site for the Refund Page, I guess I shouldn't feel too badly ... obviously, their reporter isn't very good at keeping current before filing stories ... but still.
