Well I know that if you purchase direct from twinhead now-a-days you can ask them for no OS and they oblige, me I went MSI, no os as well, but cheaper.
tuxta2 wrote: > This was from quite some time ago, however I dont ever recall hearing > the final outcome. > I am going insane with curiosity, anyone know the final result? > Nicholas? > > Tuxta > > Nicholas Jefferson wrote: >> 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
