XP OEM - Interesting conversation with MS employee

Kerry Brown wrote:
"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!"


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

Only in that you are comparing services with copyrighted material. They
are different under the law.

I agree that is a huge mess right now, and smart folks stay away from
payfor services on the net. Like I would NEVER buy music over the net,
with every service having different rules about what you can and can't
with it. Plus the pricing is nearly the same as buying a CD, and you
get all the arcane rules on top of it all.

I almost thank God for Apple iTunes! It's seeming popularity compared
to other online services is gonna eventually force an industry player to
start selling cheap unrestricted songs to make a major dent into Apple's
share of the online music pie.

See I really think, as long as Congress keeps the hell out of it, that
the marketplace will decide. Just because you can make a technology
that can restrict use, doesn't mean that people will put up with it and
its inherent problems for long. The more experience that consumers have
with copy-protection technologies, the more they figure out they don't
like it, and will start jumping ship to competitors that don't use such
restricting technology. PA and Validation and whatever is next in the
pipeline WILL end up biting MS in the ass when it has viable
competition. And that day is getting closer, and closer.

--
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"

NoStop wrote:
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.

Like you said you haven't read the OEM EULA. And I notice you didn't
quote any part of any EULA to back up, your 1 transfer nonsense.

"Software as a Component of the Computer - Transfer. THIS
LICENSE MAY NOT BE SHARED, TRANSFERRED TO OR
USED CONCURRENTLY ON DIFFERENT COMPUTERS.
The SOFTWARE is licensed with the COMPUTER as a single
integrated product and may only be used with the COMPUTER. If
the SOFTWARE is not accompanied by HARDWARE, you may not use
the SOFTWARE. You may permanently transfer all of your rights
under this EULA only as part of a permanent sale or transfer
of the COMPUTER, provided you retain no copies, if you
transfer the SOFTWARE (including all component parts, the
media, any upgrades, this EULA and the Certificate of
Authenticity), and the recipient agrees to the terms of this
EULA. If the SOFTWARE is an upgrade, any transfer must also
include all prior versions of the SOFTWARE." - WinXPSP1 OEM EULA

--
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 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

The whole concept of an EULA is bull****. When you buy a coffee
maker, you don't need to enter into a contract to use it. When you
buy a book, you don't have to sign an agreement to read it. EULAs
were a bad, stupid practice that never should have started in the
first place. Software is protected by copyright law. That's all it
needs.

kurttrail wrote:
Kerry Brown wrote:
"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!"


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

Only in that you are comparing services with copyrighted material.
They are different under the law.

I agree that is a huge mess right now, and smart folks stay away from
payfor services on the net. Like I would NEVER buy music over the
net, with every service having different rules about what you can and
can't with it. Plus the pricing is nearly the same as buying a CD,
and you get all the arcane rules on top of it all.

I almost thank God for Apple iTunes! It's seeming popularity compared
to other online services is gonna eventually force an industry player
to start selling cheap unrestricted songs to make a major dent into
Apple's share of the online music pie.

See I really think, as long as Congress keeps the hell out of it, that
the marketplace will decide. Just because you can make a technology
that can restrict use, doesn't mean that people will put up with it
and its inherent problems for long. The more experience that
consumers have with copy-protection technologies, the more they
figure out they don't like it, and will start jumping ship to
competitors that don't use such restricting technology. PA and
Validation and whatever is next in the pipeline WILL end up biting MS
in the ass when it has viable competition. And that day is getting
closer, and closer.

Between the OEM OS crapola and the validation hoops, I sure hope you are
right that MS is digging its own grave.

Oh, I know! (I find other ways to live dangerously.)
But there are those who actually treat the pillow label as sacrosanct, even
after all the jokes.
It is the same mindset as treating the wording of the EULA as a religion.

Bob I wrote:
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!

T. Waters wrote:

Between the OEM OS crapola and the validation hoops, I sure hope you are
right that MS is digging its own grave.

The grave was dug a while ago. Now they're just slowing filling it in. :-)

--

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

Al Smith wrote:

The whole concept of an EULA is bull****. When you buy a coffee
maker, you don't need to enter into a contract to use it. When you
buy a book, you don't have to sign an agreement to read it. EULAs
were a bad, stupid practice that never should have started in the
first place. Software is protected by copyright law. That's all it
needs.

EULAs also disclaim all responsibility for all perils that might result from
using the software. A copyright does not.

In my opinion, copyright and patents are far more dangerous to the public
good than EULA will ever be. It allows the privatization of what is
essentially the public domain. That is why I like the GPL as an
alternative.

--

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

"Alias" wrote:



1. Surveys have shown that the vast majority of PCs go to the scrap
heap or dumpster with their original hardware configurations intact.
Upgraded systems are a small minority of the total.

So the theory of the tyrannical majority applies and no one can upgrade
their computers?

No. I was just trying to put the issue into perspective.



2. OEM licenses are much less expensive than their retail
equivalents, and there is a reason for this. You get what you pay
for.

I haven't been able to find a retail copy of WinXP in Spain, only upgrades
and OEMs.


It may have to be special ordered. It certainly is produced by
Microsoft but not all stores would stock it because the demand is low.



Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

"Ron Martell" wrote in message
...
"Alias" wrote:



1. Surveys have shown that the vast majority of PCs go to the scrap
heap or dumpster with their original hardware configurations intact.
Upgraded systems are a small minority of the total.

So the theory of the tyrannical majority applies and no one can upgrade
their computers?

No. I was just trying to put the issue into perspective.



2. OEM licenses are much less expensive than their retail
equivalents, and there is a reason for this. You get what you pay
for.

I haven't been able to find a retail copy of WinXP in Spain, only upgrades
and OEMs.


It may have to be special ordered. It certainly is produced by
Microsoft but not all stores would stock it because the demand is low.



Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP

At the largest department store in Spain, retail Home upgrade is on sale for
$US 395.41. The only other Windows OS offered is a Windows 2000 Professional
upgrade for Windows NT at $US 245.33. OEM Home goes for US 96.75 so it's
pretty obvious why retail isn't very popular here.
--
Alias

Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me.
Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail.

On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:19:51 GMT, NoStop
wrote:

T. Waters wrote:

Between the OEM OS crapola and the validation hoops, I sure hope you are
right that MS is digging its own grave.

The grave was dug a while ago. Now they're just slowing filling it in. :-)

Not quite, they can write any EULA they want with their next
OS. At worst they have people not willing to upgrade to the
new OS, but given their deep pockets they can wait it out
until people have enough reason to upgrade... which is a bit
what's already happened. When their market saturation is as
great as it is, they need not collect a fee for every single
box running windows to remain rich and the monopoly on the
desktop. Don't forget that 3rd world emerging markets are
yet another huge source of income, and so far they've done
quite well without that revenue.