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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Noel Paton wrote: wrote in message oups.com... I hesitate to join in this slanging match. However. You have bought a licence, which has certain conditions attached to it. Those conditions are enforceable at law under most jurisdictions. That depends on the license. The License terms have been tested in the US and the UK courts - and stand. Direct me to an example of it tested in the U.S court system. If you buy the freehold on a house, you are almost certain to buy it with covenants attached. These may say, for arguments sake, that you cannot erect an advertising hoarding on the land. The covenant will certainly say that as a condition of sale that these restrictions will apply to all heirs, successors and other purchasers. If you then build a hoarding and one of the heirs or successors of the person or company who originally sold the house and land and imposed the covenant cares to go to law they will win, unless the covenant can be shown to be grossly unreasonable. very bad example. You cannot draw a parallel here, since this is so completely different than what we are talking about here. Not at all - Microsoft own the software - you only own a license! Breaking zoning laws is still not the same thing. There are legitimate and enforceable reasons for covenants. In the same way Microsoft will have imposed certain conditions on Dell, over and above those conditions in a retail licence, in granting them a licence to sell PC's with Windows installed. In exchange the licence would have been considerably cheaper than the cost of a retail licence, and Dell will have passed some of that saving onto yourself when you bought the Dell machine. The licence will require Dell to impose the conditions on the purchaser of the PC. At law these conditions are enforceable. This is not about Microsoft imposing restrictions on Dell. What is not enforceable is Dell imposing the restriction mentioned on the user. IT IS about Microsoft's terms and conditions - Dell merely act as a Vendor in law And again, IT IS about enforcing the restrications you mentioned on me. Whether Microsoft or Dell would actually come after you is another matter, it would depend upon them finding out and whether you were worth suing. So it might be better to keep schtoom as to what you do in the privacy of your own home. If I were you and I was in business, then I would look over my shoulder, from time to time. Well, I'm not in business, and you are paranoid. Neither of which would prevent you being prosecuted, should MS take such a step. With our screwed up judicial system they can prosecute me for breathing. To expand on the car example. If your old car is totalled, and all you have left are the tires, you can still use them again. And no restrictions by Firestone imposed on Ford will give them the ability to enforce a rule that says you cannot use those tires anymore. The original Dell was crap, and the OS is all I have left of it. And since the pc I put it on also belongs to me, I intend to get the most out of it. Experiences count for nothing in law - and the CD is legally worthless, and any install from it legally a no-no. The ONLY machine that CD was legally allowed to run on was the machine it came with. BTW. Direct me to where it says that in my license. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|