Oh no not that discussion again
The OEM-EULA clearly states that if you do not accept the license, you are entitled to a refund.
Do this, as I have done. In a store, point to a laptop and say you want it sans OS. They'll say it's impossible to buy it without an OS. Yet, the OEM-EULA clearly states that you are entitled to a refund if you do not accept the terms*). The salesperson will then point to the manufacturer.
Contact the manufacturer about their OS refund policy. I've done this with most manufacturers once when I was in a bad mood ;-) Most manufacturers have no such policy. They point their finger straight to Redmond. Some however do have such policy, Acer comes to mind, but they ask money to remove the OS, you have to deliver the machine to the workshop and pick it up again too.
Which, technically, is all not necessary as you can overwrite the OS if you don't accept the EULA. Remember, you do not pay for the bits that are together knows as Windows. You pay for a license to use the software.
So the point is not that they should offer PC's and laptops without an OS, which would require separate manufacturing and distribution channels, but just a clear method of refusing the EULA and get your refund. And as it's Redmonds software, and Redmonds licenses and Redmonds policies, the right company to take to court is Microsoft.
What's more, by buying the laptop (money exchanging hands and all that) you implicitly agree with the terms of the purchase. But after powering the laptop on for the first time, you are greeted with the OEM-EULA, and the question of whether you accept the Windows license terms or not ((Note it defaults to 'no')). This means you have the option to refuse the license, after the purchase of the machine. And, are per terms entitled to a refund.
*) Musing a little further on this. A popular adage of many people is 'I believe it when I see it'.
Why then, can people not understand the 'refund section' in the OEM-EULA? They don't believe it even though they can see it. Is there not a student of Psychology that can research this fallacy?