"Microsoft recently made a change to the licence agreement saying that a new motherboard is equal to a new computer, hence you need to purchase a new Windows licence. Here is what Microsoft has to say: "An upgrade of the motherboard is considered to result in a 'new personal computer' to which Microsoft OEM operating system software cannot be transferred from another computer. If the motherboard is upgraded or replaced for reasons other than a defect, then a new computer has been created and the license of new operating system software is required." Please note that this does not go for retail copies of Windows, but only for OEM versions.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
"arguably include corporations such as Microsoft"
No actually , thats my point. There not a monopoly on Desktop OS but they act like one , because of there marketshare brute force. People think they have a monopoly on desktop OS , when they have a mopoly on being desktop default OS.
To be clear there not the only desktop OS around or in use. There the only one by default shipping by most manufacturer.
Member since:2006-01-01
Your weak attempts at exclusion simply exclude your own claims. Windows doesn't have exclusive distribution, either. Apple Computer sells these computers, which as you might know, don't run Windows. Then of course after Microsoft was found to be a monopoly and convicted of engaging in anti-competitive behavior to restrict OEMs (which ended up costing it lots of money in lawsuits that followed) OEMs would computers loaded with FreeDOS and Linux. You can't even remain consistent with yourself, while denying reality.
Member since:
2005-07-06
From the article you linked to :
"Monopolistic competition
Main article: Monopolistic competition
Industries which are dominated by a single firm may allow the firm to act as a near-monopoly or "de facto monopoly", a practice known in economics as monopolistic competition. Common historical examples arguably include corporations such as Microsoft and Standard Oil (Standard's market share of refining was 64% in competition with over 100 other refiners at the time of the trial that resulted in the government-forced breakup). Practices which these entities may be accused of include dumping products below cost to harm competitors, creating tying arrangements between their products, and other practices regulated under antitrust law."
Somehow I don't think that was your point.