How many times have you paid for a laptop with windows that you took down immediately after your purchase?

    image
    A picture to attract attention

    4 years ago, several people achieved the possibility of returning the OS.

    However, things are still there:
    • as before, at the expense of one product - a computer, another product is being promoted - the right to use software (software), notice that the software itself is not a product, namely the right to use it;
    • the procedures for returning this “right to use” are time-consuming, inconvenient or not implemented at all;
    • failure of the procedures of the acquisition of the "right to use" - does not exist ;
    • software license agreements, in fact, are leases in which the value of the “right to use” is not declared;
    • Microsoft and other software vendors are hiding behind commercial secrets when entering into contracts with computer suppliers.


    When will we (the IT community, consumers) already declare our right not to be deceived?

    Indeed, when buying potatoes in a store, a seller trying to boil some more oil (which is already at home) with the “right to use” it, will be immediately sent / put in place!
    And you will go home with potatoes, without unnecessary oil, a stool, a device for correcting biocurrents and “rights to use”. Is not it?

    So why do we silently unfasten the money we earned by labor, paying for the “right to use” software that we immediately destroy as unnecessary?

    After all, there is a violation of consumer rights!

    Consumer Rights Protection Act, Section 16, Clause 2 :
    It is forbidden to condition the acquisition of certain goods (works, services) by the obligatory acquisition of other goods (works, services). Losses caused to the consumer as a result of violation of his right to free choice of goods (works, services) are fully compensated by the seller (contractor).


    I suggest:
    1. oblige computer suppliers to provide, delivered as part of the computer, commercial programs on the basis of shareware rights - i.e. there is no need to carry out the software removal procedure, while the opportunities to promote the software without violating consumer rights remain.
    2. oblige computer suppliers to draw up the “right to use” for commercial programs supplied with the computer as a separate item with a value declaration that can be added or removed when purchasing a computer;
    3. oblige computer sellers to declare “right to use” in the store as a separate item with a separate price tag.


    Additions / corrections are accepted, later I will draw up the “initiative” at the ROI . (why struck out - see UPD3)

    UPD1 : During the discussion, it turned out that some are not trying to understand the essence of the proposal and need clarification.

    Explanation of paragraph 1

    I:
    • I DO NOT prohibit suppliers from pre-installing software - let them install whatever software they like.
    • I DO NOT propose to oblige suppliers to remove software - let it remain preinstalled;

    The essence of this paragraph is to secure the right to remove / leave the software to the consumer (the consumer is able to remove or not - it does not matter, he can receive such a service both on the side, in the store or from the supplier as a removal function.

    Explanation of paragraphs 2 and 3

    Today, when buying a PC with preinstalled software, the consumer is forced to immediately pay for the “right to use” this software, regardless of whether he needs this “right to use” or not.

    The opportunity to refuse the unnecessary “rights to use” becomes available only after the purchase act has been completed and the consumer is forced to waste his time, nerves, overcome misunderstanding, ignorance of sellers, prove that he is not a sucker, to return their funds.

    Here lies the deception - most people value their time and nerves and prefer to spit on a hidden, namely hidden payment.

    Refund occurs after the fact:
    at first you / us were robbed by stripping the unnecessary, and then you / we should look for a way to get your money back, spending even more valuable time. Those. in fact, they rob us twice, first they steal money, then they steal time!

    However, it would be more logical to avoid paying unnecessary, to a specific consumer, “rights to use” at the time of purchase of a PC, and not after it, with all the consequences.

    The return procedure is needed for those who have acquired the “right to use”, but later decided, within the permitted period, for some reason, to abandon the previously paid “right to use” and pre-installed programs.

    As for the price declaration, it should be clear that computers and software licenses are completely different goods:
    • By acquiring a computer, the consumer gets it in the property and is free to do anything with it (naturally, within the framework of the law);
    • By acquiring the “right to use” the program, the consumer enters into a license agreement with the program producer , according to which he agrees to use the program in accordance with the conditions specified in the license agreement, and, usually, the consumer does not receive the program in ownership, but only becomes a temporary user of the program for [not] a certain period, which actually falls under the concept of "rent" in relation to which the value should be declared in the contract, as well, this value, in theory, should be declared the outcome I am from the publicity of the contract (Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Part 1), Article 426.) and should be the same (although lawyers can throw a slipper at me for this).


    As for Apple and its products - I can’t determine how legitimate it is to deliver different goods of the same manufacturer in one set, but as far as I know, Apple declares the cost of the operating system and the software included in it, does not provide the right to abandon its pre-installed software on computers of its production. And I think while Apple does not occupy a monopoly position, it is its right to combine its products on its own terms. Although, again, I do not know how this complies with the laws of the Russian Federation.

    UPD2 :
    About steaming

    What components the manufacturer decided to put in a technically sophisticated device is his choice.
    But!
    The hardware of a computer runs under one sales contract and is transferred to me (the consumer) as property in the form of one indivisible product under the same conditions specified in the contract .

    The pre-installed programs are delivered under completely different licensing agreements with different, different conditions and are not transferred to my ownership!

    By steaming, I primarily mean the sale of completely different goods, different manufacturers, on different conditions (!), For one amount, without detailing and the ability to refuse one of these goods at the time of purchase (and not after it).

    UPD3 :
    In light of the recent events surrounding the petition for the abolition of 187-FZ, I now consider the ROI not an effective way of influencing the current situation. As practice shows, applying to the FAS is more effective.

    Also popular now: