Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on January 09, 2007 04:33 AM
Your argument is that he is invoking the clause to return windows because he doesn't want windows, and not because he 'doesn't agree' with the license.
That's an interesting idea, but its absurd.
You are implying that one MUST enter into an agreement unless you can identify some specific clause you honestly disagree with.
While the buttons Microsoft gives us are "I agree" and "I do not agree", the reality is you are choosing to "Enter into a legally binding Licensing Agreement for this copy of windows" or "Do not enter into a legally binding Licensing Agreement for this copy of windows".
Its a lot wordier, but its much more accurate. You can choose to enter into the agreement or not. You don't need to provide a "reason" at all, never mind provide a reason grounded in the content of the contract.
Furthermore, you imply that it is unethical if not outright illegal to purchase this bundle knowing in advance that the licensing contract of the individual items allows it to be returned, and with the intent of doing it.
I counter that with two responses:
First if a company sells you a widget and bundles a 2nd gadget with it, and advertises that if you don't like one of the products you can return it separately. Then there would be nothing unethical with buying that bundle, with the intention of returning one of the products.
That is essentially what dell is doing, one of the products in the bundle comes with a contract that clearly states you can return it. The only difference is that instead of advertising it like my example, they are denying it.
And second, I'll point out that its far more unethical for Dell to bundle an item that includes paperwork indicating that you CAN return it, and then refusing to honor it.
This is much stronger than buying a car and demanding they return just the engine because in the car example the engine doesn't come with its own CONTRACT that says it can be returned.
Lastly, your GPL maneuvering analogy is ridiculous. The end user is resorting to legal trickery, DELL is. Its DELL who is trying to circumnavigate the terms of the microsoft license. The windows license clearly says that if you do not wish to enter into an licensing agreement with microosft you may return it. DELL is the one trying to dodge that by claiming by bundling it you can't return it.