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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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" |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Leythos wrote:
In article , says... They accepted orders that they told authorities were carried out when in fact they had not been. They lied. They were being by your definition "dishonest". So, what you're stating is that honesty and integrity are relative to the personal views of the specific individual and not in relation to society? Either they lied or not, and either they are good to their word or not, and any other interpretation is a subjective measure of their integrity. -- Is it immoral to lie to a criminal, a conman, or to someone or something that lie to you first? While two wrongs don't equal a right, sometimes one needs to think outside of the box to protect themselves from being abused by disreputable devices of others. -- 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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|
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 |