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

[mechBgon]

/me gets out the special flame-resistant lawnchair :Q

 

[Smilin]

Being Smilin I happened to have participated in every Smilin+Virtual Larry discussion that has taken place. I'm well positioned to know how all of those discussions have gone. There are people here far more anti M$ than Larry yet I have no problems getting along with them.

As I stated during the flame I'm willing to gracefully accept my vacation or even permanent ban over this if that is what the mods have in mind. I am more than willing to have a civil discussion over this topic but I'm not willing to deal with that nutbag. Although you have extended me an offer to piss off I will not return the favor. I hold no grudge against you or anyone else on this forum (except the aforementioned). I also understand that not being Smilin you have not seen every one of the Smilin+Larry discussions so may not understand why I am truly angry. It's ok.

 

[mechBgon]

From my career as a bicycle mechanic, I learned was that it's not enough to say OMG I SEE A PROBLEM!!!11!!, unless I also have solutions to offer. Otherwise I'm just a dog in the manger. :roll: So I'd be curious to hear what the objectors in this thread think is a viable alternative to the existing licensing model. Do they want Microsoft (and Cisco, and Nero, and Roxio, and every other OEM software maker) to grandfather every OEM license into full retail at no cost, or what do they want?

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: mechBgon
From my career as a bicycle mechanic, I learned was that it's not enough to say OMG I SEE A PROBLEM!!!11!!, unless I also have solutions to offer. Otherwise I'm just a dog in the manger. :roll: So I'd be curious to hear what the objectors in this thread think is a viable alternative to the existing licensing model. Do they want Microsoft (and Cisco, and Nero, and Roxio, and every other OEM software maker) to grandfather every OEM license into full retail at no cost, or what do they want?

I agree, that would be nice to see.

Keep in mind that it needs to be reasonable and profitable for the software vendor (they are after-all a business)

 

[Smilin]

Oh, and before I'm banned lemme add some food for thought to the discussion. Not everyone may agree with me but at least a Judge does:
http://www.eff.org/IP/Emulation/Blizzard_v_bnetd/20040930BNETDOrder.pdf

In this contract claim, the plaintiffs are alleging that the contract creates a right not existing
under copyright law, a right based upon defendants? agreement to the EULA and TOU with Blizzard.
The Court agrees that the contractual restriction does create a right not existing under copyright law.
The right created is the right to restrict the use of the software through the EULAs and TOU. ?Absent
the parties' agreement, this restriction would not exist. The contractual restriction on use of the
programs constitutes an extra element that makes this cause of action qualitatively different from one
for copyright.? Id. at 433. Therefore, the Court finds that the EULA and TOU are not statutorily
preempted by the Copyright Act.

The Court finds the EULAs and TOU are enforceable under the UCC. First, the defendants
did not purchase the Blizzard software, rather they purchased a license for the software. A sale
consists in the passing of title from the seller to the buyer. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 400.2-106(1) (2000).
When defendants purchased the games, they bought a license to use the software, but did not buy the software. Defendants' argument parallels the "first sale doctrine," although defendants do not use this
term.

Under the first sale doctrine, "a sale of a lawfully made copy terminates a copyright holder's
authority to interfere with subsequent sales or distribution of that particular copy." Adobe Sys. Inc.,
84 F.Supp.2d at 1089 (citations omitted). "The first sale doctrine is only triggered by an actual sale. Accordingly, a copyright owner does not forfeit his right of distribution by entering into a licensing agreement." Id. Section 117 of the Copyright Act provides that copies of computer programs may
be "leased, sold, or otherwise transferred . . . only with the authorization of the copyright owner." 17
U.S.C. § 117(b).
To apply the first sale doctrine and the exceptions of § 117, there must
be an authorized transfer of ownership. Either a licensee can never be
the owner of a copy for purposes of § 117 or ownership of the licensed
copy depends on the terms of the license agreement. First, it must be
determined what are the express terms of the contract? When license
terms provide that ownership of the copy remains in the copyright
owner, they preclude the transfer of title to the copy of the license.
Raymond T. Nimmer, LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY: RIGHTS LICENSES LIABILITIES § 7:69 (3d
ed. 2003)

Although I welcome other's discussion: Larry if you wish to get along with me at any point in the future, please refrain from replying to this post. It is your choice of course.

 

[pissclams]

I read this discussion here and feel the need to code a new OS, I should have something put together by morning, pm me for details.

 

[dev0lution]

Originally posted by: spyordie007

Originally posted by: BriGy86

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.

Even this ones a bit fuzzy with the revisions to OEM licensing

New XP OEM Rules
"With the new 1-pack, the unopened package can be distributed to another system builder by itself, without any hardware requirement."

Who is a system builder?

"OEM system builder software packs are intended for PC and server manufacturers or assemblers ONLY. They are not intended for distribution to end users. Unless the end user is actually assembling his/her own PC, in which case, that end user is considered a system builder as well."

I understand and agree with the activation requirement to prevent piracy, but I think it's a bit of a grey area as to what really constitutes a "new system". I swap drives, memory, jump platforms/chips a few times in a year and I don't really consider it to be a new system. Same hard drive for the OS, same case, optical drives, sound card etc.

I'm all for an OEM version that has no support, but not one that makes someone fork over another $120 for a new license just because they upgraded or replaced a fried mobo.

On the other hand, it's really about how they'll enforce it....

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Smilin
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.

Seriously...just stay on-topic and there won't be a problem. No need to resort to all that. Despite your knowledge I think you swear way too much on these forums. He dislikes Microsoft, you like Microsoft, so be it. I guess you should just stop there then. Just try not to be like this guy : http://www.break.com/index/patiencechild.html (meant as a joke) I don't think anybody here has anything against you.

 

[RebateMonger]

Originally posted by: spyordie007
If it's an OEM license they should be only selling it w/ hardware.

Actualy, Microsoft just made the rules for OEM XP and Office 2003 more liberal. if the OEM software is SEALED, you can sell it without hardware to a System Builder (including an individual who will build his own PC).

Once the seal is BROKEN, the software can "only be distributed with a fully assembled computer system and must be preinstalled. The individual software license(s) inside the pack can no longer be distributed with a non-peripheral computer hardware component". Microsoft sent me a large package a while back (I'm a registered OEM System Builder) explaining the new rules.

The distribution rules for OEM Office 2003 are now similar.

Remember that new rules and EULAs do NOT change an old EULA that you already agreed to when you installed the software. But if you upgrade the software, you may be "required" to agree to a new EULA to obtain the upgrade. I'm not saying I agree with this concept, but this seems to be Microsoft's viewpoint.

The summary statements from Microsoft's new "OEM System Builder Packaging and Licensing" Brochure:
1) If you open the pack, you must preinstall.
2) If you don't open the pack, you can redistribute to other system builders without any hardware.
3) OEM system builder software packs are intended for PC and server manufacturers or assemblers only. They are not intended for distribution to end users unless the end users are acting as system builders by assembling their own PCs.

Microsoft Web Page Explaining the New Rules (only available to Registered OEM System Builder Partners)

 

[Kibbo86]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

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".

How's this for an extention of your analogy:

Imagine a deal between a property developper and GM. GM gives new buyers of this property a deal on the new Saturn Ion Quad Coupe for $4900, (reg MSRP $13,940) so long as they only use it as long as they live in that neighbourhood.

Then you bitch and complain that when you move from that home, you can't use that car elsewhere without paying more.

There are two real problems with this business arrangement:

1. Usually, in the computer world, the "property developer" doesn't clearly tell you upfront that this is a condition of the sale. It will be somewhere in the EULA, but there's so much crap in that that no reasonable person regularly reads them in detail. ( I cite the concept of rational ignorance in defence of this habit.)

2. There is no option offered by Microsoft to upgrade an OEM license to a full retail license.

This kind of "bait and switch" bull caca is what makes people resentful of Microsoft. I realize that MS is not legally responsible for the first problem, but if their marketing department could ever actually communicate with their legal department, this kind of crap would not happen.

Basically, what customers want is a certain level of service. And they don't want to be told 1 year after the purchase that there are limitations to the service they originally bought. And they especially don't want to be told that the only way to by-pass the limitations of the product that they have already purchased is to essentially re-purchase that self-same product.

I fully suport the idea that Microsoft has a legal and moral right to determine the final destiny of its product.

The fact that it can get away with treating its customers so shabbily without significant marketshare loss is the truest sign of a de facto monopoly, and thus that the state should intervene in order to promulgate the public good.

In this particular case, the public good would be best served by a policy that ensures a universal OS, suported by most hardware and software, that allows the user to transfer it over many incarnations of a "computer," without costing the end-user a prohibitive fee.

How that policy would best be served is beyond my drunken ability to articulate.

 

[DasFox]

OEM or not that is CRAP!

GOD, forgive me God for using your name, but AHH I really wish one of you genius coders out there would FREE us from the M$ world of BS and make a better OS for us!

At this point in time I wish at least all developers of software would start supporting Linux.

ALOHA

 

[Throwmeabone]

I am getting a new motherboard tomorrow. Will I be able to use the same Windows XP I have now?

 

[Zebo]

Windows 2000 edition FTW!:thumbsup:

Never saw a reason to move to kiddified/automated XP - doubt I will for "Vista"

 

[gsellis]

Like I said, not my experience, but for a definitive answer, why don't we ask the AT reporting staff if it is worthy of their time to investigate?

 

[BriGy86]

Originally posted by: DasFox
OEM or not that is CRAP!

GOD, forgive me God for using your name, but AHH I really wish one of you genius coders out there would FREE us from the M$ world of BS and make a better OS for us!

At this point in time I wish at least all developers of software would start supporting Linux.

ALOHA

this is the biggest problem i see (lack of driver support by the companies) but its not really the fault of the linux community

i'd be much more comfortable making it my main OS if i knew all my hardware would work right off the bat

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Throwmeabone
I am getting a new motherboard tomorrow. Will I be able to use the same Windows XP I have now?

Nothing physically prevents you from using the same version of Windows on the same computer, with only one component swapped (just per chance it happens to be the motherboard). If you want to be ultra extremely 150% super legal, you can send Microsoft another $120 or so, but I guess that's up to you.

 

[squirrel dog]

If the glove dont fit,you must aquit.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: xtknight
Seriously...just stay on-topic and there won't be a problem. No need to resort to all that. Despite your knowledge I think you swear way too much on these forums. He dislikes Microsoft, you like Microsoft, so be it. I guess you should just stop there then. Just try not to be like this guy : http://www.break.com/index/patiencechild.html (meant as a joke) I don't think anybody here has anything against you.

hehe, funny video. It was really more eye rolling and shaking a hung head when I read his post. Yeah, I curse too much as a regular part of speech. Ex-Sailor . Really though it has nothing to do with MS or even this topic. I come here to help people and occasionally get caught in an argument. I think he comes here to argue first. Although well spoken if you look closely every one of his posts is confrontational and he has a particular knack for abrasively bringing unrelated fud into the discussion. The above outburst is a direct result of him doing that crap over and over and over and over. I like to think I get along with everyone here but my patience for him is absolutely zero. I intentionally avoid going into threads where he is but he doesn't return the favor. Based on the half dozen PMs I've gotten on this I'm not the only one that feels this way.

If I offended anyone other than the intended, please accept my apology. The comment about language is duly noted.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: gsellis
Like I said, not my experience, but for a definitive answer, why don't we ask the AT reporting staff if it is worthy of their time to investigate?

Followup - I sent an email to Anand suggesting that this might be worthy of a news story.

 

[stash]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Windows 2000 edition FTW!:thumbsup:

Never saw a reason to move to kiddified/automated XP - doubt I will for "Vista"

This has nothing to do with the version of Windows. 2000 OEM licenses are not transferable either.

 

[doornail]

Originally posted by: mechBgon
So I'd be curious to hear what the objectors in this thread think is a viable alternative to the existing licensing model. Do they want Microsoft (and Cisco, and Nero, and Roxio, and every other OEM software maker) to grandfather every OEM license into full retail at no cost, or what do they want?

You build a bit of a strawman by suggesting the alternative must be something outrageous.

I have no problem with companies charging for software, setting prices, or selling updated versions. My only issue with the scenario is the hatchet done to consumer's rights when companies try to present EULA's as binding contracts. Think about it, would you let your mechanic charge $500 for work that "may or may not repair your car" but due if they say. The term 'contract' infers that both sides agreed to the terms, both sides benefited, and any changes to the terms have to be agreed to (again by both sides).

EULA's can claim anything, which is what makes them so absurb. There was a piece of spyware who's EULA included a promise by the user to never use a packet sniffer to try and see what the spyware was doing.

Q) Can I re-sell my copy of a music CD?
A) Yep

Q) Can I re-sell my copy of video game cartridge?
A) Yep

Q) Can I re-sell my copy of Windows?
A) Under the doctrine of first sale yes, according to a "wish list" that momentarily pauses my install process, no.

What's the answer in this scenario? Simple, if Microsoft doesn't want people reselling/re-using discounted/OEM copies then they should do away with them. But instead they are trying to gutshot 200+ years of commerce law. This thread is a result of them trying to do a confusing, contrary thing -- sell a product with artificially reduced customer rights.

I respect contracts, copyrights, patents, and trademarks, and often even terms of service, but EULA's are complete bullshit designed to trick away the few remaining consumer rights that congress hasn't gotten around to selling. They only have as much power as we sit idle for.

Regards,
Doornail

 

[scottws]

Originally posted by: RebateMonger
Remember that new rules and EULAs do NOT change an old EULA that you already agreed to when you installed the software. But if you upgrade the software, you may be "required" to agree to a new EULA to obtain the upgrade. I'm not saying I agree with this concept, but this seems to be Microsoft's viewpoint.

Now, I don't know if Microsoft's EULA states this or not (I never checked), but some EULA's state that by agreeing to the EULA, you are agreeing to all future revisions which are subject to change without notice.

See that EFF link on EULA's for more info: http://www.eff.org/wp/eula.php

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: doornail
Q) Can I re-sell my copy of Windows?
A) Under the doctrine of first sale yes, according to a "wish list" that momentarily pauses my install process, no.

Sure you can. Why not? If it's retail just uninstall it and sell the thing. If it's OEM, just sell the computer it's bound to.

Keep in mind the "doctrine of first sale" only applies to actually selling something. Windows is not being sold here, just a license to use it.


I think Kibbo probably said this best:
"[customers] don't want to be told 1 year after the purchase that there are limitations to the service they originally bought."

Folks get a great deal when purchasing OEM but they never seem to scratch their heads and say, "Why is this deal so good? What is the catch?". No such thing as a free lunch right? It's not that OEM is a bad deal it's just that peoples expectations about it detatch from reality because nobody wants to read legal mumbo jumbo. I blame the lawyers for this and most of the world's problems.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: doornail
Q) Can I re-sell my copy of Windows?
A) Under the doctrine of first sale yes, according to a "wish list" that momentarily pauses my install process, no.

Sure you can. Why not? If it's retail just uninstall it and sell the thing. If it's OEM, just sell the computer it's bound to.

Keep in mind the "doctrine of first sale" only applies to actually selling something. Windows is not being sold here, just a license to use it.

This sounds like a purely semantic argument to me. Ok, I'm not re-selling windows because, as you say, I don't own windows. But I've bought a license to use windows - why shouldn't I be able to re-sell that license. Do I own the license or don't I? If I do, why can't I sell it or transfer it? Or not even transfer it - just reinstall it on my own computer (after suitably wiping the install from any other of my own computers of course)

Oh, that's right - because MS says so in their shrink-wrappped, click-thru, and in my view unconscionable EULA.

FWIW, I don't use Windows. This garbage is just one of the reasons.

I think Kibbo probably said this best:
"[customers] don't want to be told 1 year after the purchase that there are limitations to the service they originally bought."

Folks get a great deal when purchasing OEM but they never seem to scratch their heads and say, "Why is this deal so good? What is the catch?". No such thing as a free lunch right? It's not that OEM is a bad deal it's just that peoples expectations about it detatch from reality because nobody wants to read legal mumbo jumbo. I blame the lawyers for this and most of the world's problems.

 

[PingSpike]

Why doesn't microsoft just stop selling OEM versions of windows?