More Microsoft Crap- Buy a new motherboard, buy a new license

[cheapherk]

Details here.

 

[Fish11]

WTF?!?

They're writing the rules as they go and noone can do anything about it.


They're just begging everyone to move to *nix.

 

[Bluestealth]

I am ready to jump on the bandwagon too but I think they mean OEM as in dell/hp/gateway installed OSes... most of those people do not upgrade their motherboards anyways.

 

[Fish11]

Originally posted by: Bluestealth
I am ready to jump on the bandwagon too but I think they mean OEM as in dell/hp/gateway installed OSes... most of those people do not upgrade their motherboards anyways.

Yea, it is the OEM but still...just the thought that you can't even if you wanted to...

I wonder if this will hurt OEM sales now?

I thought before if you changed one or two things and left everything else then that was fine? I don't exactly know the way it was but it seems like he's tightening the noose more and more to see how far he can go until the customers break.

 

[mechBgon]

People infected with Compulsive Upgrade Syndrome should definitely buy retail Windows licenses instead of OEM

 

[Schadenfroh]

Does this affect OEM software purchased before this change?

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Does this affect OEM software purchased before this change?

I don't know - I thought that some people have been stating that this is true, for some time. Either way, good luck to them enforcing this on the average user who gets an OEM copy of XP Pro with the rest of their system from Newegg. I have a legal copy of Windows, but this BS just makes me want to pirate it (maybe I'll just buy a new motherboard - that's close enough). :roll:

 

[TechnoPro]

Hasn't this always been the case? I always thought that the OEM license was paired with the botherboard. As others have stated, though, good luck enforcing that...

As for Microsft sending out an memo to OEM partners reflecting this change, that troubles me. Sometimes, as part of a repair, an OEM will install a different model motherboard. To remain compliant, they will have to eat the cost of the new license if the machine is under warranty, or pass on the cost to the client if its not. A lose-lose situation for OEM and client.

 

[villageidiot111]

Just call in and tell them that your motherboard crapped out, and your replacement didn't support all your old components.

 

[Kwatt]

An upgrade of the motherboard is considered to result in a ?new personal computer? to which Microsoft® OEM operating system software cannot be transferred from another computer. If the motherboard is upgraded or replaced for reasons other than a defect, then a new computer has been created and the license of new operating system software is required.?

defect =
1. I can defect anything
2. Computer no longer performs to my needs
3. .... I can explain anything ...er...I mean everything.

EDIT : Already there and has been there for a while.

 

[iluvtruenos]

Corporate edition FTW!

 

[mechBgon]

It sounds to me like they're finally beginning to not look the other way anymore, when people try to claim that an IDE cable is what their OEM license is "married" to. Yeah, this IDE cable came with the system, so it's the same system, despite being morphed from a 1.7GHz Celeron into a dual-core A64 X2... riiiiiiiiiiight Maybe someone will mount a legal challenge to the claim that the motherboard is what the license is "married" to, since that's not explicitly stated in the existing OEM license.

(edit: I'm simply pointing out that the OEM EULA doesn't come right out and say "BTW, the motherboard is what the license is tied to, if you need a definitive item to determine whether you need to re-license.")

On the bright side, this almost sounds like Microsoft has finally figured out that not everyone buys a pre-built computer. The growth of Newegg and other such companies must be a strong clue

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: TechnoPro
Hasn't this always been the case? I always thought that the OEM license was paired with the botherboard. As others have stated, though, good luck enforcing that...

Yes OEM licenses have never been trasferable.

Quit complaining everyone, this is nothing new. OEM licenses are always tied to a specific piece of hardware, if you get new hardware you cannot bring an OEM license along. If you want a license that is transferable you need to purchase a retail license.

Corporate edition FTW!

You mean "volume license" right pirate?

Besides, a volume license still requires that the machine is OEM licensed. Volume license is upgrade only.

Please let this thread die, it's all FUD.

 

[Smilin]

bunch of whiners.

You didn't bitch when you got that OEM license at half the cost of retail did you? wassamadderbaby did you think an IDE cable counted as a computer?

Me? I have a retail copy I paid for up front and I'll move it from machine to machine all day long.

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: Smilin
bunch of whiners.

You didn't bitch when you got that OEM license at half the cost of retail did you? wassamadderbaby did you think an IDE cable counted as a computer?

Me? I have a retail copy I paid for up front and I'll move it from machine to machine all day long.

Seriously, if you want to use their software, you should agree to their terms.

That's (one reason, anyway) why I don't use their software.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: bersl2

Originally posted by: Smilin
bunch of whiners.

You didn't bitch when you got that OEM license at half the cost of retail did you? wassamadderbaby did you think an IDE cable counted as a computer?

Me? I have a retail copy I paid for up front and I'll move it from machine to machine all day long.

Seriously, if you want to use their software, you should agree to their terms.

That's (one reason, anyway) why I don't use their software.

I don't think they are terms that are at all unreasonable for any intellectual property holder to expect. I'm sorry you think the terms are unfair but I respect the fact that you don't try and violate them. :thumbsup:

 

[spyordie007]

I agree :thumbsup:

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: bersl2

Originally posted by: Smilin
bunch of whiners.

You didn't bitch when you got that OEM license at half the cost of retail did you? wassamadderbaby did you think an IDE cable counted as a computer?

Me? I have a retail copy I paid for up front and I'll move it from machine to machine all day long.

Seriously, if you want to use their software, you should agree to their terms.

That's (one reason, anyway) why I don't use their software.

I don't think they are terms that are at all unreasonable for any intellectual property holder to expect. I'm sorry you think the terms are unfair but I respect the fact that you don't try and violate them. :thumbsup:

I think Microsoft is being reasonable. I hope they will modify future OEM EULAs to be very straightforward to quote to the newbies, though. How's this look:

The SOFTWARE becomes permanently licensed to the MOTHERBOARD in the COMPUTER upon which the SOFTWARE is first installed. The license to use the SOFTWARE expires if the MOTHERBOARD is replaced, except in cases where the original MOTHERBOARD is faulty and is replaced with a substantially-identical MOTHERBOARD.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: mechBgon
It sounds to me like they're finally beginning to not look the other way anymore, when people try to claim that an IDE cable is what their OEM license is "married" to. Yeah, this IDE cable came with the system, so it's the same system, despite being morphed from a 1.7GHz Celeron into a dual-core A64 X2... riiiiiiiiiiight Maybe someone will mount a legal challenge to the claim that the motherboard is what the license is "married" to, since that's not explicitly stated in the existing OEM license.

The whole idea of software being legally "married" to a particular piece of hardware is a complete and utter FARCE.

Imagine if car dealers tried the same tactic - "Upon delivery of your new vehicle, it is 'married' to your particular driveway. If you move your place of residence, or even repave the driveway, you must purchase a NEW vehicle. The old vehicle will automatically be removed by the automotive license repo man".

The real legal meat and potatoes is - both the hardware and the software, were created and sold onto the OPEN MARKET. After that, the purchaser has every right to split up, re-sell, or simply re-use as they see fit. MS can burn in hell for attempting to preposterously claim otherwise... the law is the law. I follow the law, not MS's (crack) pipe-dreams.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: bersl2
Seriously, if you want to use their software, you should agree to their terms.

That's (one reason, anyway) why I don't use their software.

Or rather, if you want to use their software, you should do so in accordance with the law. Not some made-up corporate fairy tale, designed to rake in greater profits through collusion, delusion, contusions, and other such things.

I just wish MS would follow the law themselves... amazingly, they've managed to contort the law around themselves, rather than stand in accordance with and within the law. It's amazing what millions of dollars can buy from politicians these days.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Smilin
I don't think they are terms that are at all unreasonable for any intellectual property holder to expect. I'm sorry you think the terms are unfair but I respect the fact that you don't try and violate them. :thumbsup:

IP holders don't have the right to dictate the law to others... contrary to what current perception of the situation seems to be. People that care about their own rights, would certainly find MS's, and most other software companies', terms to generally be quite unreasonable. They stopped being reasonable the day that MS decided that they could and should dictate their terms to others, rather than simply accept and use copyright law for what it really is. Borland, OTOH, got it right, and sold their software, under terms "like a book". IOW, you can take your software whereever you want, so long as you delete it off of the prior system such that there aren't two installed copies existant at one time.

It's pretty obvious who you've sold your soul to, Smilin.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

I think Microsoft is being reasonable. I hope they will modify future OEM EULAs to be very straightforward to quote to the newbies, though. How's this look:

The SOFTWARE becomes permanently licensed to the MOTHERBOARD in the COMPUTER upon which the SOFTWARE is first installed. The license to use the SOFTWARE expires if the MOTHERBOARD is replaced, except in cases where the original MOTHERBOARD is faulty and is replaced with a substantially-identical MOTHERBOARD.[/quote]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last time that I checked, a motherboard is not a legal entity, nor does or can it own, or license, other things. The USER, the OWNER, of a particular legally-made copy of software, perhaps, but not the motherboard. IOW, YOU, the user/owner of the software, have legal rights to that particular copy of the software that you paid for and now own. You don't own the copyright, so you can't print and resell other additional copies, but you do have the right to use and re-sell the (lawfully made - a term used often in the actual copyright code) copy that you own. And yes, you do OWN it. If you paid for it, and it was a sale transaction, then you own that copy, and have not merely taken posession of it. (For if that were not true, and it was in fact a lease, then the store that re-sold you that copy of the work has committed widespread fraud, promulgated primarily by the original copyright holder. Can you imagine the damages from the utterly industry-wide fraud, if that were true?? That would be wonderful, wouldn't it. It might actually put MS under.)

But can we stop this kow-towing to MS, and the parroting of information that doesn't actually agree with the law, and starting spreading the truth about copyright law? Isn't that what AT used to be about, the TRUTH, rather than just parroting the party line of a monopolistic and money-hungry corporation, with history of actively flouting the law?

 

[mechBgon]

Borland, OTOH, got it right, and sold their software, under terms "like a book". IOW, you can take your software whereever you want, so long as you delete it off of the prior system such that there aren't two installed copies existant at one time.

That's what a retail-boxed Windows license entitles you to do.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Borland, OTOH, got it right, and sold their software, under terms "like a book". IOW, you can take your software whereever you want, so long as you delete it off of the prior system such that there aren't two installed copies existant at one time.

That's what a retail-boxed Windows license entitles you to do.

No, it doesn't. It's hardly "like a book" these days. (Although it could be said that the length of the MS EULA might resemble the length of a small paperback.)

All software is transferrable. It's the corrupt court system here in the US that likes money more than truth and justice that allows crap like MS's EULA to pollute our legal system with lies. Here's one for you and MS - "first sale doctrine"... look into it.

(This is why MS stopped shipping full OS CDs with OEM PCs - because legally, people could have easily split them out and re-sold them. MS wanted to head that battle off at the pass. MS lost this battle in Germany, btw, because their courts aren't nearly as corrupt as ours.)

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: mechBgon
It sounds to me like they're finally beginning to not look the other way anymore, when people try to claim that an IDE cable is what their OEM license is "married" to. Yeah, this IDE cable came with the system, so it's the same system, despite being morphed from a 1.7GHz Celeron into a dual-core A64 X2... riiiiiiiiiiight Maybe someone will mount a legal challenge to the claim that the motherboard is what the license is "married" to, since that's not explicitly stated in the existing OEM license.

The whole idea of software being legally "married" to a particular piece of hardware is a complete and utter FARCE.

Imagine if car dealers tried the same tactic - "Upon delivery of your new vehicle, it is 'married' to your particular driveway. If you move your place of residence, or even repave the driveway, you must purchase a NEW vehicle. The old vehicle will automatically be removed by the automotive license repo man".

The real legal meat and potatoes is - both the hardware and the software, were created and sold onto the OPEN MARKET. After that, the purchaser has every right to split up, re-sell, or simply re-use as they see fit. MS can burn in hell for attempting to preposterously claim otherwise... the law is the law. I follow the law, not MS's (crack) pipe-dreams.

Your analogy is crap.

OEM software licensing is anologus to renting an appartment and the owner deciding to market auto leases that went along with the appartment (you dont own the Windows license on your machine, all you "buy" is the rights to use it). If they were to give consumers a smoking deal on the car but it meant that the consumer wouldnt be able to keep the car upon moving it would be perfectly reasonable and within their right. If you dont like the deal go buy a car on your own (either a retail license or one from another vendor like Linux).

OEM OS licensing ia a great way for the average joe consumer to get an OS for cheap.