Microsoft gets sued over Windows XP downgrade fees
By Donald Melanson 
posted February 16th 2009 2:38PM
posted February 16th 2009 2:38PM
Microsoft may be doing its best to move past Windows XP once and for all, but a Los Angeles woman is alleging that the company is all too happy to bank some extra change on the OS in the meantime, and that it's essentially trying to have it both ways. As a result, she's now suing Microsoft over its XP "downgrade" fees, and requesting that the lawsuit be granted class-action certification so others can get a piece of the action. Apparently, Emma Alvarado bought a Lenovo PC last June and had to pay an additional $59.25 to downgrade to XP, which she claims is simply a case of Microsoft taking advantage of consumer demand for XP to pad its profits. The suit further alleges that the seemingly endless extensions of the XP deadline were "likely due to the tremendous profits that Microsoft has reaped from its 'downgrade' option." For Microsoft's part, it insists that the company itself "does not have a downgrade program," and that it doesn't get any of the money from the Vista-to-XP downgrade options.[Thanks, Cargojack]
Oh, boo hoo. GET A LIFE. They can charge whatever they want.
Don't be ridiculous Windows Vista SP1 was out by then. There is nothing wrong with the OS, but simply the people that are unwilling to except change. The fact that she filed that suite is sort of a proof that people are unwilling to change and learn new things.
But the story has NOTHING to do with accepting chance, the fact is that Microsoft shouldn't charge to downgrade something, especially when it doesn't cost them a cent.
@Andrew: So you simply open your wallet and don't ask questions?
"but simply the people that are unwilling to except[sic] change"
There's nothing wrong with that. I don't understand why everyone tries to argue this point. If someone wants to keep using Windows 95, there's literally nothing wrong with that.
Yep it has been proven more than once....
BeOS failed because they couldn't stand up to MS and win as well as the fact that people didn't want to change
IMO it is one of the coolest OSs ever... easy to use perhaps more so than Windows and boots completely so fast even at 300mhz i could boot 3 times before Vista gets the desktop usable
Too bad Be Inc didn't make it... we do have Haiku R1 (BeOS's ideological successor open source like Linux) to look froward to soonish though and hopefully Haiku R2 will nock the socks of the competition
For real! Don't people have better things to do than finding who to sue?
you don't have anything better to do than post on engadget XD
Easy proof that the consumer in question is an id*ot...
The system would likely come with Vista Home Basic. To upgrade to Vista Business it would cost ~$60. Windows XP Professional is the "equivalent" to Vista Business, not to Vista Home Basic. MS was still selling XP legally, and maintained its MSRP. The customer chose of her own free will to purchase the equivalent of Vista Business to be installed on the product purchased. The choice was not forced upon her.
This will be thrown out of court for being a non issue
I think this lady has a legit cause, it's ridiculous to be charged a "downgrade" fee for anything. Seriously now, it's a DOWNgrade.
Microsoft cannot "charge whatever it wants", because it is an adjudged monopoly. Federalist judges can cite Adam Smith all they like- and it pleases me that they do so, because AS warned us about the abuses of monopolists.
You gain control of a market, you get the power, the money, and the oversight of the courts... maybe the last. Reagan, Bush and Bush packed those courts TIGHT with Federalist Society judges, and their party blocked Clinton utterly from appointing any of more, um, open-minded judges during his eight years, ie open minded to following monopoly laws. So it's up to the luck of the draw, and the luck is skewed Republican.
But the law is clear about monopoly abuse. What is not clear is whether the packed courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court, will follow the laws.
Mysterio if you buy a car with a V6 in it but want to replace it with a four cylinder, many people will see that as a downgrade BUT its not free because it is still a separate product that someone had to produce.
Let's see you go into a computer store and get them to install Windows 95 for free.
MS isn't charging the fee, the manufacturer is. It is a cost of labor + increased support costs.
"Let's see you go into a computer store and get them to install Windows 95 for free.
MS isn't charging the fee, the manufacturer is. It is a cost of labor + increased support costs."
That depends on how the OEM reseller license is worded. If Microsoft offers the OEM the ability to sell any license of Windows with the PC then sure, it's the OEM. However, if the customer is forced to buy a Vista license that they didn't want just to get the PC then they have to pay on top of that to get XP, then MS is to blame.
The problem is that Microsoft is still supporting XP for more years because of all those people who want to downgrade. That costs money. To discourage people from doing so and to defray the costs they charge money. This seems completely and utterly reasonable.
oh idiots, downgrade is not microsoft program. you buy a vista machine but you want xp so you go and buy xp. you must pay for that xp. its like you buy a car with michelin tire but you want a goodyear one so you must buy that extra tires.
"The problem is that Microsoft is still supporting XP for more years because of all those people who want to downgrade. That costs money. To discourage people from doing so and to defray the costs they charge money. This seems completely and utterly reasonable."
How is that reasonable? They don't have to support XP. They've extended the support themselves. People/Consumers should have a choice no matter what that choice is. Forcing an upgrade by charging more for the customer's preferred system is abuse of market power. It's not up to the company to decide what the consumer wants. If there are still XP licenses available, people should not be charged more for them.
There is a unique problem that comes up because this is digital media. If Hasbro stopped selling the Monopoly board game, people could always buy it at a garage sale and continue playing it. Hasbro would be forced to continue making the game in order to make money. That's consumerism. Basic Supply and Demand. If people still want to use XP, they should be able to. Microsoft doesn't NEED to support it. They choose to. It's pretty obvious there are people out there that don't want Vista. The only method they have to obtain the system is illegal if Microsoft doesn't sell it to them. This is a very unique problem with digital media. Consumers (and their money) have lost power.
Next week: Someone sues Vauxhall for replacing the Vectra with the Insignia.
You want a custom job, you pay extra. Them's the rules.
"Someone sues Vauxhall for replacing the Vectra with the Insignia"
1.) Physical vs Digital
2.) Both Vista and XP licenses were still available
3.) If both were still on the market, and they charged you double for the Vectra ... would you be happy with that transaction? (If you could walk into the dealer and you _really_like_ the Vectra and you went to buy it, but they said it would cost more than it's newer counterpart... would you truly be happy paying more?)
"1.) Physical vs Digital"
Yes? And?
"2.) Both Vista and XP licenses were still available"
Yup, and Lenovo chose to penalise stupid people by charging more for XP. That's their call because they don't actually have to give you a choice at all.
"3.) If both were still on the market, and they charged you double for the Vectra ... would you be happy with that transaction? (If you could walk into the dealer and you _really_like_ the Vectra and you went to buy it, but they said it would cost more than it's newer counterpart... would you truly be happy paying more?)"
No, I'd buy a used one and not whine like a little bitch. It's up to Vauxhall and their dealers what they sell. I mean I really liked the Cavalier but it's history now. Move the hell on.
really, i was going to say the exact same thing as paul did, and when i read his comment i thought i wouldn't say anything. but just for the amount of douchebags that think that its wrong for a company to charge people for something the company provides... i dont think you guys understand the idea of a business. Microsoft is not a charity, live with it, they wont give you free XP. if they sell vista now, and you buy vista, then xp is not considered a downgrade, its considered an additional software purchase. if you bought Microsoft office 07, would office 03 would now be free? NO. the fact that they dont charge you the whole cost for xp is actually a generosity on their part.
@mink:
If you wanted to buy XP, why should you have to pay for Vista, then pay extra for XP? That's the debate here. It's not about her getting both. She wanted XP and from the sound of it, didn't want Vista. Since the OEM is required to sell Vista with every purchase, Microsoft is essentially forcing her to buy two operating systems, when she only wants one.
How does that make sense?
@Mark:
You just argued my point. You CANNOT buy a used XP license. It's non-transferable. So you may be able to buy a used car, but you cannot buy a used OS. This is why Digital vs Physical matters (as you apparently didn't understand...)
She bought a computer with windows vista...she didnt like it...she payed to "downgrade" it to xp...an xp license costs money...she had to pay for it.
I dont see her problem. If she didnt want vista in the first place then why buy a computer which comes with it? If i went out and bought something that wasnt what i wanted in the first place and had to pay more to get it the way i liked it can i go ahead and sue the manufacturer of the part i changed?
Shes an idiot, if she didnt want vista she shouldnt have bought a computer with it installed.
"You just argued my point. You CANNOT buy a used XP license. It's non-transferable. So you may be able to buy a used car, but you cannot buy a used OS. This is why Digital vs Physical matters (as you apparently didn't understand."
No my point was that if I'd accept that a manufacturer has a right to sell what they want and charge people who are stupid enough to want to buy an older product more money. If I want an older model then I get one from stock (and may have to pay an order and shipping fee to do it) or accept that I have to buy one second hand - just as I could buy a second hand Lenovo laptop with XP installed.
Apparently that kind of escaped you. :)
The downgrade should not be FREE, however, it should be -$30 in the shopping cart (and you don't get a vista license). :)
@Paul:
Yeah but Paul, since when have you ever seen a car where the 4 cylinder model cost more than the V6???
wow this new car is great but can you install an 8-track instead because I don't have any CD's....
What? you want to charge me for old technology?!?!?! you mean I'm paying for the CD player that comes with this car??? and the 8-track??? this is nonsense!!!
if you don't want vista build a custom PC and by XP seperate... better yet try vista!!!... most people that I sell computers to hate vista but yet have never used it...
This car analogy is not working, you guys aren't getting it. Getting a 4 cylinder model isn't exactly a downgrade either if you're talking about same model year w/ same options.
It's more like this, paying 35k for an 09 model while being charged 40k for an 08 model, now does that make sense???
"Next week: Someone sues Vauxhall for replacing the Vectra with the Insignia."
Wrong analogy: the Insigna is actually a better car. Problem here is that dumb people are happy with Vista just because it's newer and don't realise/care it's actually worse than XP.
@mynk
"if you bought Microsoft office 07, would office 03 would now be free? NO."
Oh yes you can, you fool. From http://download.microsoft.com/download/d/2/3/d23b9533-169d-4996-b198-7b9d3fe15611/downgrade_chart.doc
"Which 2007 Microsoft Office system suites are eligible to downgrade to Office 2003 suites?
Customers who have licensed Microsoft Office Professional Plus 2007 are eligible to downgrade to Office Professional Enterprise 2003 and all previous versions as described above. Customers who have licensed Microsoft Office Standard 2007 are eligible to downgrade to Office Standard Edition 2003 and all previous versions of Office Standard Edition."
It's better to shut up when you don't know what you're talking about.
If people really thought the "downgrade fee" was so unreasonable, they wouldn't buy it. It's not like Vista is a worthless operating system, it's quite nice. If you prefer XP, though, you can pay for it.
@andir3.0
Hey, why don't you just shut up?
Does the truth hurt?
It's fine to say people should have to pay for XP, no one is arguing that. Use all the metaphors you like, it doesn't change the fact that isn't the issue.
The issue is, MS is saying you have to pay for a Vista license (or some Vista premium) in order to install XP, a completely unrelated and PRIOR product. Now, if they had competitors this would not be a problem, as even one competitor would undercut them and drive their XP sales to zero (which they might claim they wouldn't mind). However, because they are a monopoly (can anyone else sell you XP?), they can get away with charging exorbitant prices unless courts intervene.
@ big J
"It's more like this, paying 35k for an 09 model while being charged 40k for an 08 model, now does that make sense???"
Rather, it's more like paying 35k for an 09 model while being charged 40k for an 88 model.
Vintage models that aren't produced anymore do cost more. However, just as vintage cars are still "supported", so is XP. Nobody is forced to buy a new car every year as new models are produced; but with every year comes the discontinuation of the old. I can still drive my '88 Corolla -- it's still "supported" by repair shops and the like, but in no way is Toyota forced to reproduce it. XP is still supported by Microsoft (for now, at least), but in no way should they be forced to keep producing it.
People aren't forced to change. Even if Microsoft eventually stops producing XP, it will still be widely available. That's the big difference between cars and Windows XP, as many people have been stating. But many people, I would suspect, aren't thinking about the car as if it were a computer. Just as you eventually have to replace or upgrade old parts in a car, so do you have to at least upgrade the internals of your computer if you want it to run newer software. I remember when I tried to upgrade my computer that had Windows 98 to XP (Note that I hadn't upgraded to Windows 2000 between then). I had originally bought this computer with Windows 95 installed. Well, by XP I had had enough. But I'm getting too far into this. The point is, you can't expect a computer from 2001 or before, to be able to run a new operating system, six or seven or eight years later, very well.
Regarding the "extra charge" for XP, I think RoboDan explains it very well above: "The system would likely come with Vista Home Basic. To upgrade to Vista Business it would cost ~$60. Windows XP Professional is the "equivalent" to Vista Business, not to Vista Home Basic. MS was still selling XP legally, and maintained its MSRP. The customer chose of her own free will to purchase the equivalent of Vista Business to be installed on the product purchased. The choice was not forced upon her."
This is verified by going onto Lenovo's site and customizing a computer. The downgrade to XP Professional is the same price as Vista Business. Lenovo even says that you're buying "Genuine Windows Vista Business with Windows XP Professional Downgrade." Even if you don't want Vista, you still have to buy the operating system.
"Since the OEM is required to sell Vista with every purchase, Microsoft is essentially forcing her to buy two operating systems, when she only wants one." - Andir3.0
This is flat out wrong.
She chose to buy a computer from a company that bundles Vista with that system. She knew when she purchased that this was so. She could just as easily have bought a computer from a different company that does not bundle Vista.
Just because there is demand for an operating system that is approaching 8 years old does not mean Microsoft has an obligation to continue selling it. There are many alternatives to Windows.
"Now, if they had competitors this would not be a problem, as even one competitor would undercut them and drive their XP sales to zero (which they might claim they wouldn't mind). However, because they are a monopoly (can anyone else sell you XP?), they can get away with charging exorbitant prices unless courts intervene." - Josh
Who else can sell you XP besides Microsoft? Well let's see...
http://www.newegg.com/Store/SubCategory.aspx?SubCategory=368
Newegg can!
Of course that doesn't have anything to do with being a monopoly, but you're wrong just the same. As for there being no competitors, you're wrong about that too.
@Josh - "The issue is, MS is saying you have to pay for a Vista license (or some Vista premium) in order to install XP, a completely unrelated and PRIOR product."
Actually, Microsoft ISN'T saying that. Lenovo is. And it wasn't really a downgrade, despite how much this consumer (and those supporting /profiting off her) would like everyone to believe. She went from Vista Basic to XP Professional. That's an upgrade. XP Professional has many services that XP Home does not - not the least of which is the domain services, which costs money. Period. She does not have two Vista license keys, and she did NOT pay the full retail price of XP Pro (Somewhere between $200 and $400). She paid the difference that Lenovo charged between their OEM fee for Vista Basic - which MS had discounted to encourage sales, and XP Pro, which they had no need to discount.
She did not have to install, or purchase, a Vista license. There was no Vista license on the bottom of her laptop (or if there was, it wasn't required by MS to be there). And despite what you may think, it is MUCH cheaper to buy a new, failing product than an established, respected one.
What it comes down to is that she, like many MS customers, has a poor understanding of the difference between XP Home, XP Pro, and the myriad of Vista versions. She didn't NEED XP Pro, it just sounded better (or was all Lenovo offered) and so she got that. And there is no law that requires new products to be more expensive than older ones. That's how you establish a new product - discounts to help it get into customers hands so they'll actually use it, because it's better for you (and them) in the long run.
Last I checked, it's free to downgrade to XP from any Business equipped PC.
¬_¬
so many microsoft fanboys replying on the first post, in attempt to make their posts appear on the first page.
*yawn*
Man, americans are sue happy. Stub your toe - sue the forest.
Microsoft wants to move past XP because of vunerabilities. The more vunerabilities out there, the more MS has to work at getting rid of them.
And, indeed, the less "ammunition" that overzealous fuckwits have against Microsoft.
i think we should implement punishment for frivolous lawsuits. sue microsoft for something they didn't do? go to jail for a year.
why is our health care so expensive? malpractice insurance. people, the money has to come from somewhere, and i guarantee you the CEO's not taking a pay cut. people who sue large corporations end up punishing all the other legitimate customers out there. quit looking for that perfect opportunity to sue and get rich off the rest of america's rising prices for goods and services.
The lady and her ambulance chasing attorney should be laughed out of court.
And given a bill for Microsoft's legal expenses and related court costs.
What a brain dead idiot. Like others have said, MS can charge whatever it wants. XP is a different product as well!
It's the wording that's getting MS into trouble, doesn't it sound ridiculous to pay for a DOWNgrade?
So...it's not MS. When you buy a license, you can use it for any older version you want (granted the key will not work, but the way bulk licensing like Dell and others have works, is that you can use any older version with a license for whatever version you buy). This is the OEM's who choose to do this and make the money doing so.