News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on After protest, Lenovo adds Linux compatibility to Yoga 900 and 900S laptops.

Re:After protest, Lenovo adds Linux compatibility to Yoga 90... by shmerl on Wednesday November 09, 2016 @07:03PM (#12916251)
At least it's something, but good luck getting any refund from them for the Windows tax. Unless you summon them to a small claims court, they staunchly refuse to refund you, even if you don't plan to use Windows and don't accept the Windows EULA.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:After protest, Lenovo adds Linux compatibility to Yoga 90... by zeta0134 on Wednesday November 09, 2016 @07:24PM (#12916406)
Wait, why would they? The Windows license is bundled with the cost of the computer. You bought the license, whether you plan to use it or not. They are under no obligation to sell the license separately or offer you partial refunds, that's not how sales work.

Good on them if they do, but I feel like you'd be laughed out of Small Claims court. What's your argument? You weren't forced to buy a Lenovo computer, you could have bought any machine, including one with Linux preinstalled and no "Windows Tax."

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:After protest, Lenovo adds Linux compatibility to Yoga 90... by shmerl on Wednesday November 09, 2016 @07:55PM (#12916632)
> Wait, why would they?

Because they are obligated to. Forced product bundling is illegal - it violates anti-trust law.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:After protest, Lenovo adds Linux compatibility to Yoga 90... by zeta0134 on Wednesday November 09, 2016 @08:51PM (#12916979)
Hrm! IANAL, I was entirely unaware this was even a thing, and now I'm deep down the Wikipedia rabbit hole. The more you know!

Looks like the legality of it varies by state / region / country. Maybe it's not illegal where I live; I'm in South Texas. I'll research it though, thanks! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tying_(commerce)

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:After protest, Lenovo adds Linux compatibility to Yoga 90... by shmerl on Wednesday November 09, 2016 @09:28PM (#12917191)
This case is especially bad, since you can say it's an anti-competitive practice which benefits Microsoft - it helps them to retain their OS monopoly.
[ Parent | on HN ]