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

[rbrandon]

Originally posted by: 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.

right, because NOTHING has changed betweem 3.1 and xp. :roll:

 

[doornail]

Originally posted by: rbrandon

Your analogy is crap.

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

Actually, he's pretty much dead-on.

We had someone in this thread claim that EULA's are contracts. Another stated that since people buy a "license" instead of a "copy" they have no rights to treat it as property. Both are complete tripe yet widely believed.

These types of consumer-hostile misinformation need to be addressed.

 

[MrChad]

http://www.eff.org/wp/eula.php

Good read on EULAs, with a little bit on their legal history.

 

[smack Down]

MS can think what ever they want.

If the EULA says that replacing my motherboard fine I happy to be under your EULA any ways because It doesn't grant me any right. Revock it I don't care.

 

[stash]

EULAs and OEM licenses should be the least of your concerns. You need to spend some quality time in an English classroom.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Smilin
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.

So you're saying that MS provides OEM windows for free to the end-user, that there are no costs, hidden or otherwise, for the OS, to the end-user, and thus they have no ownership rights over the (pre-installed) copy, because they have paid zero for it?

That's news to me, if MS is giving away Windows OEM, simply to maintain market dominance. Got any links to support that interesting info?

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: rbrandon

Your analogy is crap.

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

No, I just dare speak the truth. Go read up on the actual US Copyright Code. Read up on what elements constitute a valid legal contract. Read up on the "Doctrine of Implied license", and "Doctrine of First Sale", and implied purchase contracts. Make yourself aware of how these things have played out in other countries. Then come back and tell me that I'm full of crap. I'm just more informed about the true facts than most people. The "general wisdom" is what is full of crap.

(The general wisdom being "When you purchase a computer with Windows, you only pay for the right to use Windows, you don't own your copy, and Microsoft can do whatever they want with YOUR computer. Now THATS "crap". The truth (contained in copyright law), says otherwise.)

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: doornail

Originally posted by: rbrandon

Your analogy is crap.

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

Actually, he's pretty much dead-on.

We had someone in this thread claim that EULA's are contracts. Another stated that since people buy a "license" instead of a "copy" they have no rights to treat it as property. Both are complete tripe yet widely believed.

These types of consumer-hostile misinformation need to be addressed.

You are definitely not a lawyer. Follow MrChad's link and see what EFF refers to them as, even if they are "quoted".

edit - note if you are lost, they are considered contracts. Just because you do not agree with the wording, does not add any weight to your opinion. And as I noted, stuff in them may not hold up in a court of law.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: MrChad
http://www.eff.org/wp/eula.php

Good read on EULAs, with a little bit on their legal history.

EULAs started, primarily, as only disclaimers of warranty on the software. As such, legally, all that was required was that they be displayed conspicuously to the end-user. They did not constitute a contract by any means. MS tried to get a law passed, that would have codified in law that they were a contract (UCTIA), but that law failed to pass in 48 out of 50 states. So instead, MS has pressured courts to believe and interpret that they are contracts, when in fact they are not.

(Mostly based on an interpretation that depends on whether or not they are "reasonable" terms or not - but before that determination can be ascertained, the contract should be tested for validity first, and this is the area that some courts have faltered on. Note also that court decisions at the lower levels have very little scope of effect as far as precidence goes, and I've found some case material in which a higher court reversed a lower court, as far as IP law goes, based on the Doctrine of Implied License. So it is still being upheld at the higher levels.)

Note that oftentimes, disclaimers, when they contravene the actual law, are rendered null and void. So many people don't seem to understand this, and that "the law is the law". But corporations try to weasel-word themselves outside and beyond the law. "Corporate outlaws" would be a good term to describe what is going on these days.

 

[boomerang]

I did a mobo swap late last week (bad caps) that went from an Intel chipset to an SIS chipset.

I did a repair install of an OEM copy of XP Home. I did a slipstream of SP2. I did not even have to re-activate it. Replaced a bad floppy drive and a flakey CD-ROM drive at the same time.

If they're enforcing this, they weren't late last week.

Edit: For re-activate from activate for clarity.

 

[mechBgon]

<lawnchair>

 

[gsellis]

VL, as I understand it, a contract has a definition in that it is a written agreement that both parties agree to. But by being a contract does not make it legal. You can draw up invalid contracts all day long.

 

[BriGy86]

what about OEM versions i can get from my school?

30 dollars for XP pro w/SP2

and i don't need to purchase any kind of hardware along with it?

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: BriGy86
what about OEM versions i can get from my school?

30 dollars for XP pro w/SP2

and i don't need to purchase any kind of hardware along with it?

If it's an OEM license they should be only selling it w/ hardware.

 

[BriGy86]

Originally posted by: spyordie007

Originally posted by: BriGy86
what about OEM versions i can get from my school?

30 dollars for XP pro w/SP2

and i don't need to purchase any kind of hardware along with it?

If it's an OEM license they should be only selling it w/ hardware.

i don't know if its actually OEM or not, but it was 30 bucks
(for educational use maybe?)

*EDIT*
now that i look at the back is says volume licence

 

[ProviaFan]

The way it works here (Purdue University) is that you can get Windows for $verycheap, and you can continue to use it for as long as you'd like even after graduation, but the license is for students (and probably employees of the university) only. As far as the "OEM" restrictions, I don't recall seeing any, but then again I wasn't really looking.

 

[BriGy86]

i was always under the impression that if you bought any windows OS you could only run it legally on ONE computer at a time (unless you buy a 3 user edition or something)

logically i see no problems with that, but it sounds like MS wants to get more money by making people ditch their OS only to buy another for no good reason

 

[stash]

Originally posted by: ProviaFan
The way it works here (Purdue University) is that you can get Windows for $verycheap, and you can continue to use it for as long as you'd like even after graduation, but the license is for students (and probably employees of the university) only. As far as the "OEM" restrictions, I don't recall seeing any, but then again I wasn't really looking.

Student licenses are volume licenses, not OEM.

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: stash

Originally posted by: ProviaFan
The way it works here (Purdue University) is that you can get Windows for $verycheap, and you can continue to use it for as long as you'd like even after graduation, but the license is for students (and probably employees of the university) only. As far as the "OEM" restrictions, I don't recall seeing any, but then again I wasn't really looking.

Student licenses are volume licenses, not OEM.

And they require that the machine already has an OEM license to upgrade from. Volume licenses are upgrade-only.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: spyordie007

Originally posted by: stash

Originally posted by: ProviaFan
The way it works here (Purdue University) is that you can get Windows for $verycheap, and you can continue to use it for as long as you'd like even after graduation, but the license is for students (and probably employees of the university) only. As far as the "OEM" restrictions, I don't recall seeing any, but then again I wasn't really looking.

Student licenses are volume licenses, not OEM.

And they require that the machine already has an OEM license to upgrade from. Volume licenses are upgrade-only.

So thus it seems that just about every student who builds their own computer and buys what they think is a "legal" license of Windows in universities around the world is commiting heinous infringement. Yeah, as if you can expect me to go out and purchase a retail copy of XP Pro now that I've bought my student license copy, just because it was an upgrade from the retail copy of Windows 2000 Pro way back in the day. Good luck on this one, MS. :thumbsup: :roll:

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Smilin
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.

So you're saying that MS provides OEM windows for free to the end-user, that there are no costs, hidden or otherwise, for the OS, to the end-user, and thus they have no ownership rights over the (pre-installed) copy, because they have paid zero for it?

That's news to me, if MS is giving away Windows OEM, simply to maintain market dominance. Got any links to support that interesting info?

Larry you are the single most annoying !#$@ I have ever seen on AT. Just thought you should know.

No I didn't say that at all and you ****** know it. Gawd you are annoying. You put words into my mouth and it wasn't my analogy to begin with.

MS owns Windows right? (you'll probably even argue this I bet)
MS can decide who they want to sell it to right?
It just so happens they decided to sell it to NOBODY. That's right they don't sell it.
The sell a LICENSE to USE it.
They sell this license under a contract.
Being the copyright holder they can determine the rules of that contract and make up whatever rules they choose. You are not obliged to buy this license but if you do you are held to the contract (EULA).

Before you start in with some tripe about fair use, doctrine of first use and all that BS know that this has been upheld in courts time and time again.

No I'm not going to dig you up a link either. I did the last time this retarded assed discussion came up. Go fish.


A Zealot is someone with absolute unshakable belief in something AND that refuses to stop talking about it. You are a Zealot. I've never seen a discussion with you that didn't end up being some huge assed annoying crock of ******. You've been living under a rock somewhere for the past few months why don't you go crawl back under it. I can't believe I actually said something nice to you in another thread. I completely regret it because you haven't changed a bit. If we were all contestants on survivor and it came time to do the big voting circle or whatever I would cast my vote then promptly walk over and kick you square in the nuts repeatedly until you passed out. You are more annoying than the next fifty most annoying people on AT combined. I swear someone replaced your liver with a hoover vacuum because there is no other way you could suck so much. Do us all a favor, go sit in a corner and stab yourself repeatedly until the suck drains out of you. If I get banned for flaming your instigating ass so be it. Never in history since Al Gore invented the internet has there been such an annoying person so deserving of an ass chewing. In summary I hate you. STFU. Die.

 

[BriGy86]

im a bit confused now, will this change of things with the windows OS keep you from installing it on the computer, or is it just a case of breaking the law when "installing it in the wrong manner"?

 

[stash]

Well, this thread is definitely looking up. Smilin's post is the single greatest thing I've ever read on this forum.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[BriGy86]

Originally posted by: stash
Well, this thread is definitely looking up. Smilin's post is the single greatest thing I've ever read on this forum.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

i didn't know he felt so strongly :laugh:

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: Smilin
Larry you are the single most annoying !#$@ I have ever seen on AT. Just thought you should know.

No I didn't say that at all and you ****** know it. Gawd you are annoying. You put words into my mouth and it wasn't my analogy to begin with.

MS owns Windows right? (you'll probably even argue this I bet)
MS can decide who they want to sell it to right?
It just so happens they decided to sell it to NOBODY. That's right they don't sell it.
The sell a LICENSE to USE it.
They sell this license under a contract.
Being the copyright holder they can determine the rules of that contract and make up whatever rules they choose. You are not obliged to buy this license but if you do you are held to the contract (EULA).

Before you start in with some tripe about fair use, doctrine of first use and all that BS know that this has been upheld in courts time and time again.

No I'm not going to dig you up a link either. I did the last time this retarded assed discussion came up. Go fish.


A Zealot is someone with absolute unshakable belief in something AND that refuses to stop talking about it. You are a Zealot. I've never seen a discussion with you that didn't end up being some huge assed annoying crock of ******. You've been living under a rock somewhere for the past few months why don't you go crawl back under it. I can't believe I actually said something nice to you in another thread. I completely regret it because you haven't changed a bit. If we were all contestants on survivor and it came time to do the big voting circle or whatever I would cast my vote then promptly walk over and kick you square in the nuts repeatedly until you passed out. You are more annoying than the next fifty most annoying people on AT combined. I swear someone replaced your liver with a hoover vacuum because there is no other way you could suck so much. Do us all a favor, go sit in a corner and stab yourself repeatedly until the suck drains out of you. If I get banned for flaming your instigating ass so be it. Never in history since Al Gore invented the internet has there been such an annoying person so deserving of an ass chewing. In summary I hate you. STFU. Die.

:roll:

You know what, Smilin, I appreciate 99 percent of your contributions to this forum, but this is out of line and possibly worthy of a vacation. I disagree with a number of things that VirtualLarry says, but he is always well-spoken and thoughtful, and he has not resorted to personal attacks of any sort.

His opinions are generally anti-Microsoft, but yours are also almost exclusively pro-Microsoft. That doesn't make either of your viewpoints any less valid.

And despite what you and corporate rhetoric might say regarding the legality of EULAs, they HAVE been contested in court and not all of those cases have been ruled in favor of software publishers. Microsoft lost a case in California because they were holding users to an EULA that could not be read before the point of sale. There is some ambiguity regarding what is and is not legal with EULAs, and it is discussion-worthy. If you're not interested in having a civil discussion, piss off.