Shark Bait

Knowledge Centers

Operating Systems

Networking & Internet

Mobile & Wireless

Security

Storage

Business Intelligence

Servers & Data Center

Computerworld Reports

Industry

See your link here

IT Blogwatch

A Daily Digest of IT Blogs from Richi Jennings

Downgrade to XP is $60: Microsoft sued

3 comments

TAGS:downgrade, Emma Alvarado, Microsoft, MSFT, Vista, XP
IT TOPICS:Government & Regulation, Operating Systems, Software, Windows & Microsoft

In Monday's IT Blogwatch, Richi Jennings watches Microsoft get sued over a fee to downgrade from Vista to XP. Not to mention a special Valentine's Day gift...

Gregg Keizer reports:

A California woman has sued Microsoft Corp. over the $59.25 fee she was charged to "downgrade" Windows Vista on a new laptop to the older Windows XP, federal court documents show ... Microsoft's latest legal problem related to Windows Vista, which has faced scrutiny for nearly two years in the better-known "Vista Capable" case.

Los Angeles resident Emma Alvarado charged Microsoft with multiple violations of Washington state's unfair business practices and consumer protection laws over its policy of barring computer makers from continuing to offer XP on new PCs after Vista's early-2007 launch. Alvarado is seeking compensatory damages and wants the case declared a class-action suit.

Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols adds:

Emma Alvarado is mad as heck and she's not going to take it anymore ... Most people would have just complained about it and moved on. Not Alvarado.
...
Aware that many Windows users are ready to skip Vista entirely for Windows 7, Microsoft is insisting that business customers should 'upgrade' from XP to Vista instead of waiting for Windows 7. Yeah. Right. Tell that to Alvarado and the hundreds of thousands of other users who have been forced to pay out hard won cash for XP. I'm sure their lawyers would love to hear how moving 'up' to Vista was what they wanted.

Michael Santo asks the pertinent question:

The lawsuit also claims, without citing a source, that "to date, nearly one in three consumers purchasing a new computer has paid to downgrade the operating system from Vista to Windows XP."

Thing is, who's setting the price, and who's getting the money?

flyingfsck gives... this:

The issue is that in order to buy XP, people were forced to buy Vista as well. That practice is called Tied Selling and it is illegal in many states.

Eric Baird elaborates:

Yep, MS could get into trouble for market abuse for their current inconsistencies over who is "allowed" XP and who isn't. If they'd simply pulled the plug on XP totally, and said, "that's it, we aren't going to sell XP any more, because it's old and we don't want to be lumbered with the after-sales support forever", then that might be a legitimate manufacturer's decision.
...
The question is, how much control should a dominant component manufacturer have over how their products are used?

But David Diskin wears his happy face:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't these users opt to downgrade knowing there would be an additional charge?

Not to mention that the charge is from Dell or HP or whatever OEM, and not Microsoft, but the customer opted for it.

Falstius wonders if it's worse than Alvarado thinks:

In order to purchase the XP 'downgrade', you also had to purchase Vista Business. So the actual cost over Vista Home was closer to $150 dollars.

Meanwhile, Mr. Conrad joshes:

The suit has been canceled after Emma Alvarado was abducted by a mysterious, well-organized, group of mosquitoes. When asked for a comment on the strange occurrence, Bill Gates is said to have laughed awkwardly while pressing his fingertips together. More on this as it develops.

And finally...

A Special Valentine's Day Gift... from Cisco
[hat tip: LaSandra Brill]

Previously in IT Blogwatch:

Buffer overflow:

Other Computerworld bloggers:

Like this stuff? Subscribe to the RSS feed.

Richi Jennings is an independent analyst/adviser/consultant, specializing in blogging, email, and spam. A 23 year, cross-functional IT veteran, he is also an analyst at Ferris Research. You can follow him on Twitter, pretend to be Richi's friend on Facebook, or just use boring old email: blogwatch@richi.co.uk.

Email this

Digg this

What People Are Saying

Add new comment

What should have happened in the Microsoft antitrust case

Submitted by motie38 on September 10, 2009 - 11:48 A.M.

Let's face it. One of two things has happened. Either the US Govt. no longer has the balls to deal with anti-trust cases and monopolies, or the US Govt. has an ulterior motive for perpetuating a monoply on operating systems. Even in AT&T's heyday before they were broken up, there were a few other small phone companies, so the mere existence of Apple and OSX, and Linux alternatives doesn't mean Microsoft isn't a monopoly. And I don't think anyone could seriously claim Microsoft hasn't engaged in anti-competitive practices. It saddens me when I see the EU, China, and Russia are doing more than the US Govt. to combat Microsoft's monopolistic behavior.

What should have happened in the Microsoft antitrust case is this. Microsoft should have been divided into three companies. Home operating systems, Business operating systems, and Applications. Each new company should have been barred from entering the others' line of business for 3 or maybe 5 years, after which they would be encouraged to do so. I believe this worked well with phone service, and I'm not pleased with the way phone companies are buying each other up now. It's as if the old AT&T is reassembling itself.

Another thing that might help would be for someone to challenge Microsoft's contracts with PC OEMs that preclude them from offering other operating systems. Some good operating systems like BeOS and OS/2 have been put out of business because Microsoft had a stranglehold on the OEMs. That they're using their monopoly power to force upgrades down consumers' throats is really not in question. I'm happy to see this individual stand up for her rights.

Reply | Report this comment

Downgrading at $60, thats a bargain

Submitted by Anonymous on February 18, 2009 - 4:28 P.M.

Lets start from the beginning. When you buy a computer, you would look at its hardware specs (memory, hard drive, processor etc.) and then look at its software (operating system, software applications, etc...) and then decide whether to purchase or not. Obviously the computer that she bought would list all those specs including a sticker that says either XP or Vista. There are places that sell used and new computers with XP installed. She wanted to buy a computer with Vista and then realized that she would rather have XP. So to downgrade, its going to cost her $$. Most places that service computers charge more than $60 before they even begin to diagnose any problems. Also, downgrading is not only installing XP but to make all the hardware work properly with correct drivers. And most likely if you want restore cds.. then it will even costs more.

On a side note, most likely the computer didn't come with Office 2007 or any previous versions of office. She would need to pay more $$ out of her pocket to buy it separate...would she then try to SUE M$ because they didn't include it!!

www.2cow.net

Reply | Report this comment

The catch

Submitted by Geek-News.Net on February 16, 2009 - 8:29 P.M.

While I don't really think the lawsuit will go anywhere I do think it might led to something in the way of an Anti-trust action.

The issue here isn't that MS actually got any money from the "downgrade fee" rather that is used its position with OEMs to force customers to buy Vista. By them not allowing the option of directly installing XP Microsoft directly profited from the deal.

The problem I see with the lawsuit is that she is suing for a fee that includes two separate licenses as well as the installation of XP. I don't think she would win anything based on that. From what I read she only briefly touches on the fact that MS used their position to effectively force Vista on consumers, at least OEM customers. That should have been the area of focus.

Reply | Report this comment