Hi Russell, I have not received a refund yet... but let me tell you the story so far:
A long time ago in a galaxy far far away... Oh, sorry - wrong story! A long time ago I bought a laptop from Twinhead Corporation [1] via a retailer in Sydney. I told the retailer that I did not want the preloaded software. The retailer said I should contact the manufacturer for a refund. So I did. The manufacturer refused to give me a refund for the software because of a contract they had with *ahem* the world's greatest software company that all of the manufacturer's "Efio" branded machines must be preloaded with the software in question. Since *all* of the manufacturer's machines were "Efio" branded this qualification is a distinction without a difference. [1] http://www.twinhead.com.au/ So I contacted the ACCC [2]. Y'see, I like a free market. I like it when manufacturers can choose what to sell and consumers can choose what to buy. But coercive contracts do not respect this freedom. The manufacturers have little choice but to accept these contracts when ninety-something percent of the consumers want software preloaded. The consumers have no choice when the manufacturers accept these contracts. [2] http://www.accc.gov.au/ The end result is that *all* consumers lose because without competition in this market the consumers will never see the better products at lower prices that might have been. Most consumers will never appreciate this loss. After all, how can one quantify the loss of a hypothetical choice? I answer that the market price for an operating system in a free market may be estimated by considering the profit margin that *ahem* the world's greatest software company derives from its products. I have read that this profit margin is in the order of 90% and so the market price for an operating system would be about $A30 in the absence of coercive contracts. Thus the current situation constitutes a theft of hundreds of dollars from *every* consumer. So coercive contracts are unjust. As it happens, coercive contracts are also unlawful. The Trade Practices Act 1974 [3] is the relevant legislation. [3] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tpa1974149/ Section 45 prohibits contracts, arrangements or understandings which contain "exclusionary provisions" - an agreement between persons "any two or more of whom are competitive with each other" where "the provision has the purpose of preventing, restricting or limiting: (i) the supply of goods or services to, or the acquisition of goods or services from, particular persons or classes of persons; or (ii) the supply of goods or services to, or the acquisition of goods or services from, particular persons or classes of persons in particular circumstances or on particular conditions; by all or any of the parties to the contract, arrangement or understanding". Section 45 also prohibits contracts, arrangements or understandings which contain any provision that "has the purpose, or would have or be likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition". Section 46 prohibits a corporation "that has a substantial degree of power in a market" from taking advantage of that power for the purpose of: "(a) eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor of the corporation [...] in that or any other market; (b) preventing the entry of a person into that or any other market; or (c) deterring or preventing a person from engaging in competitive conduct in that or any other market." Section 46 also sets the standard of evidence required for that section: "Without in any way limiting the manner in which the purpose of a person may be established for the purposes of any other provision of this Act, a corporation may be taken to have taken advantage of its power for a purpose referred to in subsection (1) notwithstanding that, after all the evidence has been considered, the existence of that purpose is ascertainable only by inference from the conduct of the corporation or of any other person or from other relevant circumstances." The ACCC sent me a response that was nine-tenths bullshit. I wrote back in contradiction - very politely! - with equations and diagrams that the behaviour of the manufacturers cannot be explained by volume licensing, that *all* Twinhead machines were "Efio" branded, and that Twinhead had *admitted* to having a contract limiting the supply of goods. Time passed. Several weeks ago I telephoned the ACCC and spoke with the contact officer for the case. She had since moved to another section and she said she would have the director call me. The director, Michael Kiley, has not yet contacted me. While writing this email I checked Twinhead's website. They now offer laptops with Linux preloaded, including "Efio" branded laptops. This is good news and bad news... The bad news first: compare the two most similar laptops on offer - the efio 12KTL [4] and the efio 12KT [5]. I have summarized below the differences between these systems. Could someone please estimate the market price difference in the *hardware* components of these systems? It seems that people buying the efio 12KTL may still be paying the tithe to *ahem* the world's greatest software company while being led to believe that they are not. However, it is possible that preloaded trialware may cover at least part of the cost of the operating system in the efio 12KT. I estimate that several dozen trailware packages would be needed to cover the cost entirely. Could someone please verify whether or not manufacturers typically preload this much trialware on laptops? [4] http://www.twinhead.com.au/product_detail.asp?productid=153 [5] http://www.twinhead.com.au/product_detail.asp?productid=154 efio 12KTL - $A1299 256MB DDR RAM, 40GB HDD Internal DVD+CDRW Combo Drive Abec LINUX Suite inclusive of Open Office Suite: Spreadsheet, Word Processor, Presentation Programme efio 12KT - $A1599 512MB DDR RAM, 60GB HDD Internal DVDRW Dual Drive Microsoft(r) Windows(r) XP Home Edition The good news: this offer shows that Twinhead is capable of producing systems with free software. This was never in doubt by any person with greater intelligence than a retarded chimpanzee, but Twinhead has now lost any hope of denying this. Russell, could you please ask the manufacturer of your laptop for a refund of the software? You may need to ask several times before they will admit to having a contract limiting the supply of goods. When they do, please forward their admission and all relevant details to the ACCC and cc me: xanthophile (at) gmail (dot) com. The contact officer at the ACCC told me that nobody complains about this. If you cc me (so the ACCC knows it, i.e. not bcc) then hopefully they won't speak horseshit next time. If you know anyone else who has bought a laptop recently, could you please forward this email to them? Thank you, Nicholas -- SLUG - Sydney Linux User's Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/ Subscription info and FAQs: http://slug.org.au/faq/mailinglists.html