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

[spyordie007]

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.

Obviously you dont understand the concept of a contract (which BTW is what an EULA is). An IP holder has the right to dictate terms on a contract for using their content. If you dont like the terms of the contract than dont sign it (or accept the EULA), it really is that simple.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: 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

Stop right there.

You're making my point beautifully. OEM software is NOT a rental or lease. It is a PURCHASE - a SALE. Which confers OWNERSHIP, and certain rights that go along with that.

The fact that you can't see that truth is sad.

The truth is, "OEM" software, is simply software that is sold onto the open market, bundled in a marketing way with other things, computers and computer peripherals, primarily. But the purchase of either "OEM" or "retail" software, makes no difference in the law itself. If it was a SALE, then it transfers OWNERSHIP, which includes the RIGHT TO USE, as the owner sees fit.

Too many people mis-understand the difference between the purchase of a licensed, legally-made copy of a copyrighted software work, and a LEASE of something.

Originally posted by: spyordie007
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.

Sure, but then they would have to be up-front about it, and call it a LEASE, and NOT A SALE.

Originally posted by: spyordie007
If you dont like the deal go buy a car on your own (either a retail license or one from another vendor like Linux).

Are you actually suggesting that when one PURCHASES a computer + bundled pre-installed, licensed, software, that one does not in fact OWN that copy of the software?

Are you suggesting that MS is committing industry-wide fraud, instead?

 

[spyordie007]

That's why it's called a license; you are purchasing the license to use the software (as opposed to the software itself).

Some software is sold with full ownership; however this is not the case with the majority of end user software (including the Windows OS).

 

[TechnoPro]

Originally posted by: 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.

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?
[/quote]

I agree with you almost 100% in principal.

However, I know of several software packages that come with a hardware "dongle". The software checks for the presence of the dongle in order to authenticate that the correct number of licenses is being used within that LAN. While this can be a PITA from a troubleshooting standpoint, it does serve as a good anti-piracy detterent.

I realize this is not parallel to Microsoft's practice, but I bring it up as an example of an accepted practice of pairing hardware with software.

 

[spyordie007]

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
Obviously you dont understand the concept of a contract (which BTW is what an EULA is).

Obviously you don't understand contract law at all. Because if you did, you would realize that a EULA does not satisfy all of the legal requirements for a VALID contract, and two, it is not a part of the actual (usually implicit) PURCHASE CONTRACT, that happens between the buyer and the seller, generally a retail RE-SELLER such as a computer store. That SALE gives the purchaser rights, that they already have, even before presented with a screen upon install that prompts to press F8 to agree.

Originally posted by: spyordie007
An IP holder has the right to dictate terms on a contract for using their content. If you dont like the terms of the contract than dont sign it (or accept the EULA), it really is that simple.

And they do have the right to sell copies of their software according to a MUTUALLY AGREED upon contract. But it must be a VALID contract. An after-the-purchase-contract-fact shrink-wrap EULA is not. And terms in a contract between MS and their first-tier OEMs, are NOT binding upon individual users that manage to purchase a (lawfully made - genuine, remember that!) copy of that software that the OEM sells onto the OPEN MARKET.

Like other OEM software bundled with hardware (CD burner, video card, whatever) - often they say "not for sale without accompanying hardware", blah, blah - guess what, that little disclaimer is a reminder for the first-tier OEM, it has no legal weight for end-users.

You would do well to read up on the actual copyright law, and the "doctrine of implied license". I did some extensive reading last year on it, it's very informative.

 

[mechBgon]

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?

Ok, you said "correct you if you're wrong," so here goes You are simply in error about "owning" the software. Microsoft holds the title to it, and licenses it. From an OEM EULA for WinXP Pro:

3. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OWNERSHIP.
Manufacturer, MS and its suppliers (including Microsoft
Corporation) reserve all rights not expressly granted to
you in this EULA. The SOFTWARE is protected by copyright
and other intellectual property laws and treaties.
Manufacturer, MS and its suppliers (including Microsoft
Corporation) own the title, copyright, and other
intellectual property rights in the SOFTWARE. The
SOFTWARE is licensed, not sold.

No one's forcing you to use it if you don't want to. If you just don't like the part about it being tied to one computer, get the retail version for a bit more money and you're free of that. I'll grant that the existing EULA is ambiguous and needs some work regarding this motherboard stuff.

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.)

Yes it does, silly You usually verify your facts better than this From a retail WinXP Pro EULA:

14. SOFTWARE TRANSFER. Internal.

You may move the Software to a different Workstation
Computer. After the transfer, you must completely remove
the Software from the former Workstation Computer.

(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.)

That doesn't jive with observable reality. We have some Dells and HPs at work, and all of them come with full WinXP Pro CD-ROM discs that work fine for stand-alone reinstallation of WinXP. No monkeyshines with recovery partitions or etc, they're the real deal.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: TechnoPro
I agree with you almost 100% in principal.

However, I know of several software packages that come with a hardware "dongle". The software checks for the presence of the dongle in order to authenticate that the correct number of licenses is being used within that LAN. While this can be a PITA from a troubleshooting standpoint, it does serve as a good anti-piracy detterent.

I realize this is not parallel to Microsoft's practice, but I bring it up as an example of an accepted practice of pairing hardware with software.

No-where in any of my responses have I ever suggested violating copyright law. The use of a (technological) hardware copy-protection mechanism in an aid to deter any potential violations of copyright law is fine by me. In fact, if MS (and others), FORCED users to actually read, agree to, and SIGN a "software license contract" AT POINT OF ACTUAL SALE, that would be fine by me too.

It's the underhanded, deceptive, after-the-fact forcing upon purchasers and users of their software to onerous terms that they might not have otherwise willingly agreed to, is what bothers me.

Interestingly, it's not just me, but the actual Federal Trade Commission that was disturbed by it too, based on their responses to the UCTIA law that was proposed in many and passed in only a couple of states. (I wish I had the link handy right now, it was a fun read.)

 

[spyordie007]

Actually in the past I have done quite a bit of reading on copyright laws (prior to IT I worked in the music industry). I'm not saying that I agree with the laws (in fact I find a lot of them very annoying); but I do know that even as a consumer we have restrictions that we're supposed to follow. Frequently the only *real* recourse we have as consumers is to not buy the products.

Of course now we're straying outside of the scope of the OP's topic. Suffice to say (as has been stated) if you have purchased an OEM license and want to buy a new computer what you should be doing is buying a new license of the software (regardless of whether you like it)

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Ok, you said "correct you if you're wrong," so here goes You are simply in error about "owning" the software. Microsoft holds the title to it, and licenses it. From an OEM EULA for WinXP Pro:[/quote]
MS owns the copyright to it, they license the copyright, and SELL the copy. But copyright law itself says that ANY lawfully-made copy of a copyrighted work, carries with it an implied license when sold onto the free market by the legal copyright owner. It's why publishers of books, video games, etc., cannot prevent the re-sale of used items. It's the same reason that if MS sells their software, even "bundled OEM", to someone else, and then they sell it to a user, that the user has the RIGHT to re-sell the same software, or re-use it as they see fit.

If you take the position that software isn't actually sold, both to, and then from, retail stores, to end-users, then you must also, logically, take the position that both MS, and the retail stores that carry their software products, are guilty of MASSIVE, WIDE-SPREAD FRAUD.

So which is your position then?

Originally posted by: mechBgon
Yes it does, silly You usually verify your facts better than this From a retail WinXP Pro EULA:

I was not disputing that MS's retail EULA allows transfer of software from machine to machine. I was disputing that their EULAs were "like a book", because they also contain OTHER onerous T&Cs.. like prohibiting reverse-engineering, publishing benchmarks, etc... those terms are certainly not "like a book" either. (Can you imagine a book-seller, prohibiting quoting excerpts from their book, or prohibiting reviews of the book? Onerous indeed!)

Originally posted by: mechBgon
That doesn't jive with observable reality. We have some Dells and HPs at work, and all of them come with full WinXP Pro CD-ROM discs that work fine for stand-alone reinstallation of WinXP. No monkeyshines with recovery partitions or etc, they're the real deal.

Those are likely business-class machines, then, designed for image-based deployment, because it was well-known that MS stopped shipping full OS CDs with consumer PCs purchased with OEM Windows pre-installed. For example, the laptop that I just recently purchased, only included a "Recovery" CD, not a full OEM OS CD, as machines in the days of Win95 OSR2 used to.

 

[mechBgon]

because it was well-known that MS stopped shipping full OS CDs with consumer PCs purchased with OEM Windows pre-installed. For example, the laptop that I just recently purchased, only included a "Recovery" CD, not a full OEM OS CD, as machines in the days of Win95 OSR2 used to.

A co-worker brought her Dell Dementia 4600 in for a de-virusing, definitely a consumer-class machine. It had a full WinXP Home CD-ROM, although it was a dark-maroon color rather than the typical holgoraphic-top type. I nuked & reinstalled Windows with it. I won't claim to deal with tons of consumer-level Happy Meal computers, but the exception disproves the rule. And Dell is a pretty big exception!

If you want to be irate about something related to Microsoft licensing, figure out how much (or how little) Mr. Dell pays for an OEM Windows license, compared to us hapless Newegg shoppers. I'd imagine Dell & co. are paying about 10% of what you and I pay. No way is Dell handing Microsoft $85 out of the sale of every $349 econobox. It's annoying, since I occasionally try to spec up a rig for someone (including a Windows license), and then the Dell trolls come along flaunting their precious Hot Deal system

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: mechBgon
A co-worker brought her Dell Dementia 4600 in for a de-virusing, definitely a consumer-class machine. It had a full WinXP Home CD-ROM, although it was a dark-maroon color rather than the typical holgoraphic-top type. I nuked & reinstalled Windows with it. I won't claim to deal with tons of consumer-level Happy Meal computers, but the exception disproves the rule. And Dell is a pretty big exception!

Interesting data-point, thanks for sharing. My HP does not include a full OS CD, oh well.

Originally posted by: mechBgon
If you want to be irate about something related to Microsoft licensing, figure out how much (or how little) Mr. Dell pays for an OEM Windows license, compared to us hapless Newegg shoppers. I'd imagine Dell & co. are paying about 10% of what you and I pay. No way is Dell handing Microsoft $85 out of the sale of every $349 econobox. It's annoying, since I occasionally try to spec up a rig for someone (including a Windows license), and then the Dell trolls come along flaunting their precious Hot Deal system

Oh yes, MS's famous "cliff pricing", their way of sneaking around the original consent decree (IIRC). I don't think it's that low, I think it's probably closer to 20% ($35 or so), but it really does help MS and their first-tier OEMs to control the market. (And likewise, MS does what they can, regardless of what the law says, to prevent those cheap OEM Windows from spilling over and eating up their high-priced retail sales pie, because they would upset MS's pricing structure - which is EXACTLY what happened in Germany - when natural market forces are allowed to act, prices naturally tend to what their real value is.)

 

[mechBgon]

Also remember that Microsoft can SLP-lock a WinXP key to a particular motherboard with a special BIOS. The actual physical CD with the installation files wouldn't be a threat, it's the key that they wouldn't want getting used over & over.

Some info on that SLP thing:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/evaluate/xpactiv.mspx

The majority of customers acquire Windows with the purchase of a new computer, and most new computers pre-loaded with Windows XP will not require activation at all. Microsoft provides OEMs with the ability to "pre-activate" Windows XP in the factory and estimates that upwards of 80% of all new PCs will be delivered to the customer pre-activated.

"Pre-activation" of Windows XP by the OEMs will be done in one of two different ways depending on the OEM's own configuration options and choices. Some OEMs may protect Windows XP using a mechanism which locks the installation to OEM-specified BIOS information in the PC. This technology works very similar to existing technologies that many OEMs have used over the years with the CDs they ship to reinstall Windows on these computers. We expanded and integrated the existing OEM CD BIOS locking mechanism with product activation, and call this method of protection "System Locked Pre-installation," or SLP.

Successfully implemented, SLP uses information stored in an OEM PC's BIOS to protect the installation from casual piracy. No communication by the end customer to Microsoft is required and no hardware hash is created or necessary. At boot, Windows XP compares the PC's BIOS to the SLP information. If it matches, no activation is required.

Every single piece of hardware could be changed on a PC with SLP and no reactivation would be required ? even the motherboard could be replaced as long as the replacement motherboard was original equipment manufactured by the OEM and retained the proper BIOS. In the unlikely scenario that the BIOS information does not match, the PC would need to be activated within 30 days by contacting the Microsoft activation center via the Internet or telephone call ? just as in a retail scenario.

I could see an OEM like Dell, Gateway or HP deliberately leaving out the WinXP CD-ROM in order to reduce support costs, since a reimaged system from a recovery partition will have all the drivers and original software. That would alleviate the need to hold peoples' hands through the installation of motherboard drivers, video drivers, modem drives, sound drivers, Norton AntiVirus, Roxio and fifty other things after their kids fry their system by installing Kazaa

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Successfully implemented, SLP uses information stored in an OEM PC's BIOS to protect the installation from casual piracy. No communication by the end customer to Microsoft is required and no hardware hash is created or necessary. At boot, Windows XP compares the PC's BIOS to the SLP information. If it matches, no activation is required.

Every single piece of hardware could be changed on a PC with SLP and no reactivation would be required ? even the motherboard could be replaced as long as the replacement motherboard was original equipment manufactured by the OEM and retained the proper BIOS. In the unlikely scenario that the BIOS information does not match, the PC would need to be activated within 30 days by contacting the Microsoft activation center via the Internet or telephone call ? just as in a retail scenario.

I could see an OEM like Dell, Gateway or HP deliberately leaving out the WinXP CD-ROM in order to reduce support costs, since a reimaged system from a recovery partition will have all the drivers and original software. That would alleviate the need to hold peoples' hands through the installation of motherboard drivers, video drivers, modem drives, sound drivers, Norton AntiVirus, Roxio and fifty other things after their kids fry their system by installing Kazaa

That's probably the case with my new HP laptop. It has both a BIOS "Serial number", and "UUID". On a better note, that allows changing of the hardware without re-activation, that's a plus. I really don't like those hassle-hurdles that MS puts in place, that only really hurt the honest customers.

 

[RebateMonger]

Microsoft has never changed its basic OEM operating system licensing. OEM was always intended to be installed on a new computer and transfer to another computer was not allowed. However, MS realized it was losing too much revenue from a liberal "interpretation" of its licensing rules, and from outright OEM piracy, so MS is now taking the hard line on OEM licensing.

In theory, when you install OEM Microsoft software, you "accept" the licensing terms. Most people never really paid attention to what those terms really were, and Microsoft didn't enforce them strongly. Now that's all changed, and I predict a lot of people are going to be angry. Microsoft will have to weigh that anger against its lost licensing revenue from piracy and liberal OEM licensing rules.

Whether Microsoft will always "win" in OEM licensing legal battles is unknown. But, it's a fact that when you buy a PC with OEM Windows XP on it, you are paying very little for the XP license. I consider OEM XP to be throwaway.

Those who pay nearly-retail price for OEM software should consider whether they are getting a "bargain". OEM software can't be transferred to another PC and has no support from Microsoft. Additionally, a large percentage of OEM software is being sold "illegally", so it holds no "legal" Microsoft license. Personally, I NEVER buy OEM Microsoft software. There are too many limitations for the few dollars you save versus Retail-box.

 

[thegorx]

what's the source of this news ?
I did a search and it all just points to the same blog
where is this information coming from ?

To me it wouldn't make much sense right now for MS
to give system builders any reason not to install Windows on their systems
As it is I'm thinking twice about even putting an OEM version on another system

but as for this info, I'll believe it when I hear it from MS not from a blog

I see MS going subsciption based before putting many more restrictions on windows
you have to remember windows is not only an OS but it's the launching point for all their other products and services

 

[gsellis]

I am going to call conditional 'shens' on this. I replaced a failed Dell mobo with an Abit. It required me to reactivate. This was around Christmas time. I called MS, told them why I need to reactivate (bad mobo) and off we went on generating a new code and reactivating XP Home.

Condition? - late December, so if this really a change as of 1Jan... Also, the original agreement that the user accepted should be enforce. While a contract, the EULA might not hold up as valid it is not treated like a contract (changed at whim without consent, even if the language allows it.) Of course, IANAL.

 

[ForumMaster]

Originally posted by: iluvtruenos
Corporate edition FTW!

QFT! i use corp edition.i don't know if there is an actual difference, but it works great for me. although i still reinstall every time i upgrade.

 

[theMan]

doesnt matter to me, i never pay for windows anyway. i made the mistake of buying windows 3.1, and i never did it again. they are just sad because they make crappy products and have to be able to hold onto their dominance in the market somehow.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: TechnoPro

Originally posted by: 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.

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?

I agree with you almost 100% in principal.

However, I know of several software packages that come with a hardware "dongle". The software checks for the presence of the dongle in order to authenticate that the correct number of licenses is being used within that LAN. While this can be a PITA from a troubleshooting standpoint, it does serve as a good anti-piracy detterent.

This isn't quite the same thing. The dongle only prevents you from running more copies then you have license for. You can run it anywhere you want to and you don't have to buy a new license if you upgrade your hardware.

I would have o problem at all if MS went the dongle route. I'm sure that would be a huge hit to their bottom line compared to just pressing more CDs. But the policy described is crap.

I realize this is not parallel to Microsoft's practice, but I bring it up as an example of an accepted practice of pairing hardware with software.

 

[stash]

QFT! i use corp edition.i don't know if there is an actual difference, but it works great for me. although i still reinstall every time i upgrade

The difference is that you're pirating it.

 

[AStar617]

Originally posted by: iluvtruenos
Corporate edition FTW!

:thumbsup:

 

[Smilin]

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.

Mmm, by your example think of it more as buying a new house and it coming with a free car. Use the car for as long as you own the home but if you move elsewhere you'll either need a free car there or you'll have to go retail and buy your own car.

 

[Fish11]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

If you want to be irate about something related to Microsoft licensing, figure out how much (or how little) Mr. Dell pays for an OEM Windows license, compared to us hapless Newegg shoppers. I'd imagine Dell & co. are paying about 10% of what you and I pay. No way is Dell handing Microsoft $85 out of the sale of every $349 econobox. It's annoying, since I occasionally try to spec up a rig for someone (including a Windows license), and then the Dell trolls come along flaunting their precious Hot Deal system

I heard that they pay $10 per license.



(Not to you personally, just didn't want to double post)...
BTW, earlier I wasn't whining or complaining about MS for myself. I don't use Windows at all, don't care what they make users of Windows do and don't follow (as far as know, not in the pirating sense) all these rules and crap that MS makes since I only use Linux. So you could tell me anything and I wouldn't know if it was new or not. I just feel bad for those that it does affect is all.

 

[rbrandon]

Your analogy is crap.

Most of what virtual larry spews is FUD/crap. zealotry at its finest