Originally posted by: Smilin
Keep in mind why this was at all necessary. When they looked around and saw a VAST number of pirated copies out there they realized something had to be done. Overseas it's insane. There are more pirated copies than legal ones!!
My take on the Microsoft OEM problem:
Starting YEARS ago, Microsoft wanted to increase its market penetration, so it started offering inexpensive OEM copies of Windows to large manufacturers (Gateway, Dell, et al). Even though this software WASN'T SUPPOSED to be transferable, Microsoft had no practical way to enforce it, since Product Activation didn't exist. Similarly, Microsoft had no way to detect pirated copies of its software.
After 2000, Microsoft began using Product Activation. This allowed detection of pirated and (improperly) transferred software, as long as Activation was required. HOWEVER, Microsoft chose to allow large OEMS to include BIOS-LOCKED software that never required Activation. As consumers bought more and more brand-name computers, eventually much of Microsoft's current software base didn't require Activation (as long as it stayed on the original computer). And even if the software was moved to a different PC, Microsoft allowed Online Activation.
Then, pirates found that they could "steal" the COA keys from Dell, Gateway, and HP computers, and started selling software using those stolen keys. Microsoft became concerned about lost profits as well as its image.
In 2005, Microsoft decided to finally ENFORCE its OEM license policies. It began denying Product Activation when it found that OEM software had been moved from its original PC. Consumers became outraged.
The public relations and legal problems now are:
1) Consumers aren't able to do what they'd always been able to do before: move their OEM software to a new PC.
2) Consumers are becoming aware of the EULA agreements (that most had never seen, and certainly hadn't read) and aren't happy with the terms.
3) In a legal battle, you could argue that:
a) Microsoft is demanding too much with its EULA
b) Microsoft hasn't made the original Purchaser fully aware of his "Agreement" with Microsoft or the OEM Manufacturer
c) Microsoft has never enforced its transferability clause before, so has lost the right to enforce it now (akin to Trademark owners not enforcing their Trademark rights and losing their rights)
4) Microsoft's attempt to dynamically CHANGE its EULA on already-sold software (especially the Office 2003 SP2 changes that came from another lawsuit) is legally iffy.