XP downgrade fees ruled legal
A court has rejected a claim that Microsoft acted unfairly by forcing would-be XP users to buy Vista first and then downgrade. It also ruled Microsoft was justified in only allowing downgraders to use more expensive editions of either system.
Emma Alvarado of Los Angeles filed the claim early last year. Originally her claim simply centered on the $59.25 fee she paid to downgrade from Vista to XP on a new Lenovo laptop (though the case was against Microsoft rather than Lenovo).
Later she revised her claim to lay more a specific allegation against Microsoft, namely that the downgrade process only applied to Business or Ultimate editions of Vista and the Professional edition of XP; she argued this was an unfair extra cost for people who simply wanted standard editions of XP.
According to ComputerWorld, Judge Marsha Pechman was conclusive in her rejection of the case. She noted that Microsoft’s behavior would only be legally unfair it “retained a benefit without giving value” — that is, if it charged a fee without giving something in return.
Pechman ruled this simply didn’t apply in this case as Alvarado paid for a machine with Vista and that’s exactly what she got. She then paid a downgrade fee to be able to access XP instead, and again got what was promised. Alvarado’s legal argument was further undermined by Microsoft noting it didn’t receive any of the $59.95 downgrade fee she paid to Lenovo.
As far as insisting people buy Vista Business or Ultimate to downgrade to XP Professional, that may well be a way of making more cash, but it doesn’t seem to be illegal. Microsoft isn’t under any obligation to sell XP to anyone, and if it only wants more expensive editions available, that’s its right.
Alvarado’s lawyers also implied that repeated extensions of the downgrade “deadline” were an intentional move to get more money from people exercising the downgrade option. Even if that is the case, the court clearly didn’t consider that illegal behavior either.
Related Posts:
February 26th, 2010
I’m not defending Microsoft here, but the simple logic to the $59 fee is that she actually bought two licences, not one.
She still retains a licence to use Vista, AND she now has a licence to XP as well. Hence she would have a copy of both installation disks, one of which she would be potentially able to install on another machine.
I say this because I have done exactly that.
February 27th, 2010
Stupid, frivolous lawsuit. Right outcome.