How many times have you paid for a laptop with windows, which was demolished immediately after purchase?

picture to attract attention

4 years ago, several people achieved the possibility of returning the OS.

However, things are still there:

• still at the expense of one commodity - a computer, another commodity is being promoted - the right to use software (software), notice not the software itself is a product, but the right to use it;
• procedures for the return of this “right to use” are laborious, inconvenient, or not performed at all;
• procedures for refusing to acquire this “right to use” do not exist ;
• software licensing agreements, in essence, are lease agreements in which the value of the “right to use” is not declared;
• Microsoft and other software vendors are hiding behind trade secrets when entering into contracts with computer suppliers.

When will we (the IT community, consumers) declare our right not to be deceived?
')
After all, in the store when buying potatoes, the seller, who is trying to import oil (which is already at home) with the “right to use” them, will be immediately sent / put in place!
And you will go home with potatoes, without unnecessary oil, stools, a device for the correction of biocurrents and "rights to use." Is not it?

So why do we, silently, unfasten money earned by hard work, paying for the “right to use” software, which we immediately destroy as unnecessary?

After all, there is a violation of consumer rights!

Consumer Rights Protection Act, article 16 p.2 :

It is prohibited to condition the purchase of certain goods (work, services) by the obligatory purchase of other goods (work, services). Losses caused to the consumer due to violation of his right to free choice of goods (works, services) are reimbursed by the seller (executor) in full.

I suggest:

1. to oblige computer suppliers, to provide commercial programs on a shareware basis - as supplied by the computer - so on. There is no need to carry out the software removal procedure, while there are still opportunities to promote the software without violating consumer rights.
2. oblige computer suppliers to issue a “right to use” for commercial programs supplied with a computer as a separate product with a value declaration that can be added or removed when purchasing a computer;
3. oblige computer sellers to declare the “right to use” in the store as a separate product with a separate price tag.

Additions / corrections are accepted, later I will issue an “initiative” at the IC . (why struck out - see UPD3)

UPD1 : During the discussion, it turned out that some do not try to grasp the essence of the proposed and require clarification.

Explanation of paragraph 1

I:

• I do not propose to forbid suppliers to pre-install software - let them put whatever software they want.
• I do not propose to oblige suppliers to remove software - let it remain pre-installed;

The essence of this clause is to secure the right to remove / leave the software to the consumer (whether the consumer is able to remove or not is not important, he can receive such a service both on the side and in the store or from the supplier as a removal function.

Explanation clauses 2 and 3

Today, buying a PC with pre-installed software, the consumer has to immediately pay for the “right to use” this software, regardless of whether this “right to use” is necessary for him or not.

The ability to refuse unnecessary “rights to use” becomes available only after the purchase act is completed and the consumer is forced to waste his time and nerves, overcome misunderstanding, ignorance of sellers, prove that he is not a sucker, to return his funds.

Here lies the deception - most people value their time and nerves and prefer to spit on the hidden, it is a hidden payment.

Refund occurs after the fact:
First, you / us were robbed, vpariv unnecessary, and then you / we must find a way to return your money back, spending even more valuable - time. Those. in fact, they rob us twice, first steal money, then steal time!

However, it was more logical to avoid paying for unnecessary, specific consumers, “rights to use” at the time of buying the PC, and not after it, with all that follows.

The procedure is the same return to those who have acquired the "right to use", but later decided, in the allowed period, for whatever reason, to abandon previously paid for the "right to use" and pre-installed programs.

As for the price declaration, it should be clear that computers and software licenses are completely different goods:

• acquiring a computer, the consumer gets it into the property and is free to do anything with it (naturally within the law);
• acquiring the “right to use” the program - the consumer enters into a licensing agreement with the manufacturer of the program under which he undertakes to use the program, according to the conditions specified in the license agreement, while usually the consumer does not receive the program ownership, but only becomes a temporary user of the program for [not] a certain period, which generally falls under the concept of "rent" in respect of which the contract should declare the cost, as well, this cost, in theory, should be declared the outcome I am from the publicity of the contract (Civil Code of the Russian Federation (Part 1), Article 426.) and should be the same (although lawyers can throw a slipper at me for this).

As for Apple and its products, I can’t determine how legitimate it is to ship various products of the same manufacturer in the same bundle, but as far as I know, Apple declares the cost of the operating system and the software included in it, does not provide the right to refuse its pre-installed software on its production computer. And I think while Apple does not hold a monopoly position, it is her right to unite her goods on her own terms. Although, again, I do not know how much this corresponds to the laws of the Russian Federation.

UPD2 :

About pairing

What components the manufacturer decided to put in a technically complex device is its choice.
But!
The hardware parts of a computer go under a single contract of sale and are transferred to me (the consumer) as property in the form of one indivisible product under the same conditions defined in the contract .

Pre-installed programs are delivered under completely different licensing agreements with different, differing terms and conditions and are not transferred to my ownership!

By vparivanie I first of all mean the sale of completely different goods, different manufacturers, under different conditions (!), For one amount, without its detail and the ability to refuse one of these goods at the time of purchase (and not after it) .

UPD3 :
In the light of recent events around the petition to cancel the 187-FZ, I now consider the ICs to be not an effective way to influence the current situation. As practice shows, recourse to the FAS is more effective.