A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » General
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

XP OEM - Interesting conversation with MS employee



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old May 11th 05, 01:50 PM
kurttrail
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Leythos wrote:
In article ,
kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys- tems.c*a*m says...
I was at recent MS OEM event and attended a session on licensing. The
speaker was very clear that Microsoft's position was that changing
the motherboard was not allowed as it defines the computer. She even
said that in the near future activations will reflect this. Changing
a motherboard will only be allowed under warranty and will always
cause a phone in event. Later on she was asked about selling OEM
software with qualifying hardware what qualified? She said anything
that was essential to running a computer. She elaborated that that
meant anything within the case, even a ram chip, and also a keyboard
and mouse. Does anyone else see the inconsistency here?


The motherboard is what they describe on the OEM site too.

As for what you can sell OEM software with, I don't see where the
purchase has anything to do with it as long as you understand the
license is tied to the motherboard as defined above.

They are making it easy to purchase, which has nothing to do with a
license for use.


It matters because logically the software is really tied to the hardware
it is sold with. That is the terms at the time of sale. After you get
home and read the EULA it pulls a bait and switch and ties the "license"
to the computer the software is first installed on instead of the
hardware it was sold with. The EULA, in effect, is rewriting the Terms
of Sale! And this is only a fairly recent development. Get you hands
on a OEM XP Gold EULA and you'll see that it reflected the terms of sale
and stated the the software was licensed with the HARDWARE, and WinXPSP1
and later ties the license to the COMPUTER.

"The SOFTWARE is licensed with the HARDWARE as a single integrated
product and may only be used with the HARDWARE." - WinXP OEM RTM EULA

"The SOFTWARE is licensed with the COMPUTER as a single integrated
product and may only be used with the COMPUTER." - WinXP OEM SP1 & later
EULA

See, the previous version actually mirrors the conditions at the time of
sale, if the hardware was a component XP is license with the component,
and if it was sold with an entire computer then it is tied to that
computer.

However, after SP1, if you buy XP with a hardware component, MS uses
their post-sale shrinkwrap license to tie XP to a computer to be named
later, instead of the hardware it was sold with, which is a denial of
the conditions at the time of sale, at a time after that sale.

On the face of it, this denial of the conditions of the sale after the
fact of the sale, would seem to be unconscionable, and not likely to be
upheld in court, and is just another example of MS writing something in
there EULA it has no real intention of enforcing by legal means, because
they are more than likely to lose.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"


  #73  
Old May 11th 05, 02:03 PM
kurttrail
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kerry Brown wrote:
"kurttrail" wrote in
message ...
Kerry Brown wrote:
"Leythos" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
the latest from mike brannigan is that it's the oem that
determines when the
original computer is no longer the original computer . so who
built the computer , who bought the oem os and who installed the
os on that computer
determines the rules as far as i read it .

Not that I want to get into this again, but if you go into the OEM
site at MS, read around the documents, it seemed very clear to me
that the OEM software is tied to the first computer it's installed
on, and that the computer, by MS's documents on the OEM site,
indicate that the Motherboard is the "computer".

When I, as a personal choice, choose OEM, I limit the scope of the
license to the motherboard.

--
--

remove 999 in order to email me

I was at recent MS OEM event and attended a session on licensing.
The speaker was very clear that Microsoft's position was that
changing the motherboard was not allowed as it defines the
computer. She even said that in the near future activations will
reflect this. Changing a motherboard will only be allowed under
warranty and will always cause a phone in event. Later on she was
asked about selling OEM software with qualifying hardware what
qualified? She said anything that was essential to running a
computer. She elaborated that that meant anything within the case,
even a ram chip, and also a keyboard and mouse. Does anyone else
see the inconsistency here? If someone from the licensing dept. is
inconsistent when trying to explain to the mostly converted how is
anyone supposed to make sense of it. My interpretation of the EULA
is OEM software stays with the computer. If it's upgraded in any
fashion over time it's within the EULA. If the computer is sold,
given away, or somehow still in use and a new one is purchased then
it's time for a new license. Kerry


You can sell the computer with the OEM software. The EULA allows
tranfers with the computer it is licensed with.


That's what I meant. The OEM license stays with the computer. A lot
ofpeople seem to think it's ok to sell the computer with the OS
installed but keep the COA and use it with the new computer.


I kinda new that's what you meant, but I just wanted to clear it up for
anyone lurking and reading this thread.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"


  #74  
Old May 11th 05, 03:18 PM
Kerry Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Leythos" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...
You cannot
have MS (nor youself) further elaborate them in scope or
terms after that contract is made.


Actually, I can ask MS to clarify it in order to see what / where they
are going or wanted to go, but it only matters to me as a means to
understand what they wanted to do, not what I'm (or anyone) is bound to.

What's funny, is that to be an OEM you are bound to more than just the
EULA, and the OEM site is setup for OEM's and to allow people to become
OEM's, and the site contains specifics about what they consider. At the
same time, you (in the US) are not an OEM just by getting an OEM disk
from an OEM, you are an OEM if you have an OEM agreement with MS,
otherwise you're just an end-user of OEM software.

So, one could reason that if you've read the OEM documents, signed on to
be an OEM so that you could order directly from the MS OEM program (and
not another OEM), that you would already know what MS has defined for
it's definitions. You do realize that purchasing OEM software from an
OEM does not make you an OEM, it only makes you a purchaser of OEM
software.


Read your OEM agreement. You are allowed to sell/purchase OEM software
to/from other OEM's. The onus is on you at all times to make sure the
software is legitimate. Other than that they recommend you get it from
certain distributors that they have approved.

Kerry


--
--

remove 999 in order to email me



  #75  
Old May 11th 05, 03:36 PM
Kerry Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Leythos" wrote in message
...
In article , kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-
tems.c*a*m says...
I was at recent MS OEM event and attended a session on licensing. The
speaker was very clear that Microsoft's position was that changing the
motherboard was not allowed as it defines the computer. She even said
that
in the near future activations will reflect this. Changing a motherboard
will only be allowed under warranty and will always cause a phone in
event.
Later on she was asked about selling OEM software with qualifying
hardware
what qualified? She said anything that was essential to running a
computer.
She elaborated that that meant anything within the case, even a ram chip,
and also a keyboard and mouse. Does anyone else see the inconsistency
here?


The motherboard is what they describe on the OEM site too.

As for what you can sell OEM software with, I don't see where the
purchase has anything to do with it as long as you understand the
license is tied to the motherboard as defined above.

They are making it easy to purchase, which has nothing to do with a
license for use.

--
--

remove 999 in order to email me


I agree that that is how MS wants it to go and reading the EULA that is
reasonably obvious. How many people buying a copy of XP with a mouse read
the EULA and make the connection? For that matter how many end users have
ever read the EULA for any software? Probably very few. I'm not saying these
people are in the right. I don't think they are. People should read
contracts. If they don't they should take responsibility for their inaction.
Sooner or later someone will challenge the whole EULA scenario which
includes clicking a button online, etc. It will probably be to do with
credit card charges rather than software but once a precedent is set it will
probably apply across the board. Until then I do what I feel is ethical, one
license for each computer. Upgrading a m/b is a normal thing to do with a
computer therefore it is the same computer. If the MS rep is right and they
are changing activations to stop m/b upgrades then the s**t will hit the
fan. If nothing else it will be fun to watch the flame wars here.

Kerry


  #76  
Old May 11th 05, 04:04 PM
kurttrail
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kerry Brown wrote:
"Leythos" wrote in message
...
In article ,
kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys- tems.c*a*m says...
I was at recent MS OEM event and attended a session on licensing.
The speaker was very clear that Microsoft's position was that
changing the motherboard was not allowed as it defines the
computer. She even said that
in the near future activations will reflect this. Changing a
motherboard will only be allowed under warranty and will always
cause a phone in event.
Later on she was asked about selling OEM software with qualifying
hardware
what qualified? She said anything that was essential to running a
computer.
She elaborated that that meant anything within the case, even a ram
chip, and also a keyboard and mouse. Does anyone else see the
inconsistency here?


The motherboard is what they describe on the OEM site too.

As for what you can sell OEM software with, I don't see where the
purchase has anything to do with it as long as you understand the
license is tied to the motherboard as defined above.

They are making it easy to purchase, which has nothing to do with a
license for use.

--
--

remove 999 in order to email me


I agree that that is how MS wants it to go and reading the EULA that
is reasonably obvious. How many people buying a copy of XP with a
mouse read the EULA and make the connection? For that matter how many
end users have ever read the EULA for any software? Probably very
few. I'm not saying these people are in the right. I don't think they
are. People should read contracts. If they don't they should take
responsibility for their inaction. Sooner or later someone will
challenge the whole EULA scenario which includes clicking a button
online, etc. It will probably be to do with credit card charges
rather than software but once a precedent is set it will probably
apply across the board. Until then I do what I feel is ethical, one
license for each computer. Upgrading a m/b is a normal thing to do
with a computer therefore it is the same computer. If the MS rep is
right and they are changing activations to stop m/b upgrades then the
s**t will hit the fan. If nothing else it will be fun to watch the
flame wars here.
Kerry


You are wrong that it would apply across the board. Copyright Law, when
it comes to the right of first sale and "fair use" make software, and
other copyright material much different.

Circuit Judge EASTERBROOK for the United States Court of Appeals For the
Seventh Circuit wrote:

"Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are
objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for
example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are
unconscionable)." -
http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html

Now that case didn't invovle sofware, but repackaging and selling
ProCD's database, it wasn't about shrinkwrap license over the right of
the individuals for private non-commercial use.

Judge Easterbrook went on to say, "Following the district court, we
treat the licenses as ordinary contracts accompanying the sale of
products, and therefore as governed by the common law of contracts and
the Uniform Commercial Code. Whether there are legal differences between
"contracts" and "licenses" (which may matter under the copyright
doctrine of first sale) is a subject for another day."

The UCC, (Uniform Commercial Code) has a proposed change called UCITA
that would make shrinkwrap licenses actual contracts under the law,
unfortunately UCITA is practically dead in the water, and it was this
portion of the law that was among the most controvertial aspects of it.

Do copyright owners have a right to control their copyright in public
and/or commercial realm. You bet ya'! But when it comes to the PRIVATE
and NON-COMMERCIAL USE by individuals in their homes, that is where NO
COPYRIGHT OWNER should NEVER have the right to tread! Any other way of
looking at it is a usurpation of the rights of PEOPLE to their PRIVACY
in their OWN HOMES!

"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." -
part of the Supreme Courts reasoning behind the Sony Betamax case -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html

Copyright owners do not possess the right to limit my "fair use!"

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"


  #77  
Old May 11th 05, 04:27 PM
NoStop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

kurttrail wrote:

You can sell the computer with the OEM software. The EULA allows
tranfers with the computer it is licensed with.

I haven't read the OEM EULA, but the XP Home EULA specifically states 1
transfer of ownership of the computer. After that, if that purchaser
resells the computer to another person, the third purchaser must purchase a
new license.



--

ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°øø¤º°`°ø,¸¸ ,ø¤º°`°ø
Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
A brief overview of Windows' most serious design flaws
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/...IhateMS_A.html

  #78  
Old May 11th 05, 04:33 PM
Kerry Brown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"kurttrail" wrote in message
...
Kerry Brown wrote:
"Leythos" wrote in message
...
In article ,
kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys- tems.c*a*m says...
I was at recent MS OEM event and attended a session on licensing.
The speaker was very clear that Microsoft's position was that
changing the motherboard was not allowed as it defines the
computer. She even said that
in the near future activations will reflect this. Changing a
motherboard will only be allowed under warranty and will always
cause a phone in event.
Later on she was asked about selling OEM software with qualifying
hardware
what qualified? She said anything that was essential to running a
computer.
She elaborated that that meant anything within the case, even a ram
chip, and also a keyboard and mouse. Does anyone else see the
inconsistency here?

The motherboard is what they describe on the OEM site too.

As for what you can sell OEM software with, I don't see where the
purchase has anything to do with it as long as you understand the
license is tied to the motherboard as defined above.

They are making it easy to purchase, which has nothing to do with a
license for use.

--
--

remove 999 in order to email me


I agree that that is how MS wants it to go and reading the EULA that
is reasonably obvious. How many people buying a copy of XP with a
mouse read the EULA and make the connection? For that matter how many
end users have ever read the EULA for any software? Probably very
few. I'm not saying these people are in the right. I don't think they
are. People should read contracts. If they don't they should take
responsibility for their inaction. Sooner or later someone will
challenge the whole EULA scenario which includes clicking a button
online, etc. It will probably be to do with credit card charges
rather than software but once a precedent is set it will probably
apply across the board. Until then I do what I feel is ethical, one
license for each computer. Upgrading a m/b is a normal thing to do
with a computer therefore it is the same computer. If the MS rep is
right and they are changing activations to stop m/b upgrades then the
s**t will hit the fan. If nothing else it will be fun to watch the
flame wars here.
Kerry


You are wrong that it would apply across the board. Copyright Law, when
it comes to the right of first sale and "fair use" make software, and
other copyright material much different.

Circuit Judge EASTERBROOK for the United States Court of Appeals For the
Seventh Circuit wrote:

"Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable
on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they
violate a rule of positive law, or if they are unconscionable)." -
http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html

Now that case didn't invovle sofware, but repackaging and selling ProCD's
database, it wasn't about shrinkwrap license over the right of the
individuals for private non-commercial use.

Judge Easterbrook went on to say, "Following the district court, we treat
the licenses as ordinary contracts accompanying the sale of products, and
therefore as governed by the common law of contracts and the Uniform
Commercial Code. Whether there are legal differences between "contracts"
and "licenses" (which may matter under the copyright doctrine of first
sale) is a subject for another day."

The UCC, (Uniform Commercial Code) has a proposed change called UCITA that
would make shrinkwrap licenses actual contracts under the law,
unfortunately UCITA is practically dead in the water, and it was this
portion of the law that was among the most controvertial aspects of it.

Do copyright owners have a right to control their copyright in public
and/or commercial realm. You bet ya'! But when it comes to the PRIVATE
and NON-COMMERCIAL USE by individuals in their homes, that is where NO
COPYRIGHT OWNER should NEVER have the right to tread! Any other way of
looking at it is a usurpation of the rights of PEOPLE to their PRIVACY in
their OWN HOMES!

"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." -
part of the Supreme Courts reasoning behind the Sony Betamax case -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html

Copyright owners do not possess the right to limit my "fair use!"

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"


I think this may be changed when someone challenges the legality of online
subscriptions and proving who clicked on the button. Some porn sites/online
chat sites will bill your credit card monthly based on an initial sign up.
They then make it very hard to opt out. The credit card companies wring
their hands of responsibility and make you prove you have tried to cancel.
It can take several months to do this. Another case is eBay and Paypal.
Paypal basically always takes the buyers side and refunds the money. If
there was a genuine contract why would they do this? Then there is spyware.
Does clicking on a hard to read and interpret online EULA give them the
right to cause problems with your computer and/or collect private data?
There are many other inconsistencies with online transactions. Sooner or
later someone will challenge this in court. When it happens it may apply to
the broader question of EULA's in general. I'm not a lawyer so I may be way
off base.

Kerry


  #79  
Old May 11th 05, 05:24 PM
Bob I
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

As long as you are the end consumer, that is NOT "illegal". So much for
living dangerously! :-)

T. Waters wrote:


I am one of those who believe that honoring the spirit of a rule is more
sensible than blindly honoring the word of a rule. I have been known to cut
the label from a pillow!


  #80  
Old May 11th 05, 05:39 PM
T. Waters
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"At the same time, you (in the US) are not an OEM just by getting an OEM
disk
from an OEM, you are an OEM if you have an OEM agreement with MS,
otherwise you're *just an end-user of OEM software*."
While there may seem to be no OEM in this arrangement, the end-user is the
OEM by default, and responsible for their own support. Since the end-user
and the OEM are the same entity in this case, all the complicated rules
governing their relationship are not only irrevant, but null and void. One
cannot sue oneself for breach of contract, after all.


Leythos wrote:
In article ,
says...
You cannot
have MS (nor youself) further elaborate them in scope or
terms after that contract is made.


Actually, I can ask MS to clarify it in order to see what / where they
are going or wanted to go, but it only matters to me as a means to
understand what they wanted to do, not what I'm (or anyone) is bound
to.

What's funny, is that to be an OEM you are bound to more than just the
EULA, and the OEM site is setup for OEM's and to allow people to
become OEM's, and the site contains specifics about what they
consider. At the same time, you (in the US) are not an OEM just by
getting an OEM disk from an OEM, you are an OEM if you have an OEM
agreement with MS, otherwise you're just an end-user of OEM software.

So, one could reason that if you've read the OEM documents, signed on
to be an OEM so that you could order directly from the MS OEM program
(and not another OEM), that you would already know what MS has
defined for it's definitions. You do realize that purchasing OEM
software from an OEM does not make you an OEM, it only makes you a
purchaser of OEM software.

--




 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Interesting Memo Brad Licatesi Dell Computers 13 March 31st 05 06:16 AM
Interesting benchmarks johns Ati Videocards 5 July 23rd 04 07:17 PM
HP an interesting article Mickey Printers 6 May 27th 04 05:13 PM
amd 64bits interesting? Kriss General 9 September 24th 03 09:00 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.