OSNews reader David S. MacLachlan wrote in to tell us about an editorial at OSOpinion: “Seems that there’s a bit more to the End User License Agreement that Microsoft has in force… if you purchase a computer that has Windows pre-installed, you’re legally required to not install any other OS on it… even if the computer has been donated to you or sold to you as used.” Update: As many readers have already stated, the claims do not seem to hold. There is a clause in the XP OEM license saying that the software is “attached” to the specific hardware, can only be used with that specific hardware, and must be transfered with that specific hardware, but that’s a normal OEM clause.
Microsoft: Switching Your OS Is Illegal
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Laughing my ass off if such a license is worth anything in the US… that is just how messed up your legal system is.
I intend to install at least two other OS’s on my new
XP machine at home! I am not going to waste 80 GB HD
just so my wife can use Word occasionally.
…for April’s Fool, don’t you think?
Or should that read Kennedy?
But seriously, its hardly enforceable in a court of law. They would be laughed out of the building. They have no ownership rights over the hardware whatsoever.
Inspite of my loathing for MS, I think they mean that, if the new user wants to continue to use Windows on the resold machine, it should still include the original disks if any which seems fair enough to me. Same should apply to all software left on HD. That’s just a complete transfer of ownership/license of SW & HW otherwise its a form of piracy. MS lawyers don’t care to acknowledge that someone might want to dump Windows so they assume everyone is after a free copy.
But then I thought most machines no longer had the Win install disks so it is irrelevant anyway!
This piece of MS FUD has been thoroughly demolished on OSOpinion. MS CAN NOT prevent you from uninstalling its software on a computer and installing some other OS. The only thing the EULA can stipulate is that you can not install the OS software on more than one box of hardware at the same time. That’s all it means, that’s all it does. This article is pure MSBS.
Try stopping us…
EULA are full of useless requirement that wouldn’t stand a chance in a court. You are also not supposed to resale your license, but where this has been challenged (Germany) the court found out that you are free to sell whatever software you bought legally. I wish more of those cases would be brought to court so that it’s made clear for everyone where does the line ends.
I haven’t read the license but it looks to me like Microsoft is saying that the system disks just need to be purchased with the computer for it to run windows legally. I could be wrong though.
Microsoft == Buck Futters.
When will people learn?
So according to the article, there’s a M$ page telling :
“make sure that the hardware donation includes the original operating system software. Keeping the operating system with the PC is not just a great benefit — it is a legal requirement.”
Probably due to my bad english, what I read here is more “if there’s a M$ OS on the computer, it must be a legal one” (no 98 with a 95 licence, no 95 if no licence at all).
I don’t see what prevents me from installing something better than an msdos with a windowed extention … as long as I legally own the alternative.
Just my 2 cts of Euro 🙂
Oh, almost forgot : I’m an NT biggot.
Flames redirected to \.device
ull 😉
I live in a house full of bugs and i decided to CHANGE the HOUSE, not to crush the bugs! Becouse we need bugs, to realize what’s ugly and how nice is to be at new place without them. No i live in brand new shiny house and it’s name is Linux.
how messed up Microsoft is …?
There is no way Microsoft can dictate which OS you use on your machine. The only thing they can do is make sure that during the sale of a PC, the OEM operating system that came with the machine stays with the machine. You can install whatever the hell you feel like putting on your machine, you just have to make sure you have the install disks for whatever MS OS originally came with the PC.
The page referenced in the article ( http://www.microsoft.com/education/?id=DonatedComputers ) doesn’t say that you can’t install another OS on donated machines… in fact, it even mentions that you are allowed to upgrade the OS that came with the machine. The point of the page IS to keep schools out of trouble when they have software audits.
How convenient that the author of the article failed to mention which clause of the EULA states you cannot install another OS on a machine that came preinstalled with a Microsoft OS after you transfer ownership of that PC to someone else (by giving it away or selling it).
FUD can go both ways.
The way i read it is “you must hand over the original OS media along with the pc”, which IMHO is fair enough. Most of the media from preinstalled pc’s wont install on anything else anyway
It doesnt say anything about which OS you actually run on your box!.
pathetic ain’t it? thank god i live in a third world country where things like this mean nothing. bullshit how they believe they can force me not to install freebsd, linux, beos, win98se, winxp, and dos all in one pc. not that i’m that crazy.
This article is complete BS! If you buy a second hand computer, you don’t have any EULA contract with M$ (the original owner has) so just flush the EULA through the toilet with the rest of the Windows OS.
As far as I can make out, MS is not telling the truth, but the real problem is that people will look to them for advice believe what they say “because it’s Microsoft”.
Out of curiosity – if MS has records of who they sell to (or at least have the ability to check whether a donated OS is properly licenced or not), and they still force someone to cough up for another one, isn’t this fraud or misrepresentation?
The article is useless. It’s basically a quote from a FUD-page at Microsoft with a catchy headline, it doesn’t contain any details.
A quote from an EULA would be great.
Seriously, just because you buy the box, open it up, takes out the laptop (as I would never buy a desktop from the big companies, and I wouldn’t get a server because I have no need for one personally), and voila, everything that is in legal mumbo jumbo on a paper in the box is in power? Or is it when I press “YES” to get on with something that I don’t care to read?
Can’t I even install a fresh XP?
Windows pre-installed is a scam by Microsoft and computer manufacturers, this is what the state should crack down on, not trying to mess up windows the operating system (as opposed to Microsoft’s legal team, which should be sent to a 3rd world country for a year to work for free).
If you read it quickly, you sure will think that it’s one more attempt from Microsoft to rule the world. However, if you take the time to check the readers comments, you’ll see the whole article is complete BS!
On the other hand, MS is on the way to equip 32000 South African schools with computers and is looking to do the same with other countries including Cote d’Ivoire, Senegal and Nigeria. It sure is a good thing that these kids get to learn computers, and within a few years Microsoft will have a whole continent full of customers who only know Windows. You could call that digital colonization I guess…
They can’t be serious!!!!
when you buy a PC, you don’t actually sign the EULA. So you just buy one, install Unix, install Windows, and you’re fine with respect to the license. Or is it also forbidden to reinstall Windows in a machine with an OS already on it?
*LOL*
This topic showed up on Slashdot, a link to the page at Microsoft is supplied in the topic-header.
The url for that article is
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/04/18/1623240&mode=thread
“curunir”:s post is right on target:
“I have a computer with a pre-installed version of Windows. It’s a package deal. This Is Significant And Important (TM). I donate the PC to a school. The Windows license must accompany it.
If that were what Microsoft was saying, they might have a point…but when they say:
It is a legal requirement that pre-installed operating systems remain with a machine for the life of the machine. (first sentence of the first answer in the Q & A section)
They *are* being intentionally vague. It would be one thing for them to say, “A pre-installed operating system cannot be used on a different computer if the original computer is donated.” The way that they’ve stated it makes it seem that installing a non-MS OS on a donated computer is illegal.
Microsoft is more than capable of constructing sentences that are anything but vague (ever read one of their EULAs?). The fact that they’re not doing it here shows that they are intentionally trying to mislead people.”
The article linked from OSNews quotes that Q&A page, it’s a totally useless and ridicolous article.
Sorry, 3:rd post, but that editorial got me really upset… That Harry Rider made a big mistake writing that article, showing the entire world what a clueless person he is.
Accepting Microsoft’s FUD without any criticism at all, that’s… really bad, what a loser…
It looks to me that it’s a legal requirement to have the
original license info, disks *if you want to continue to
use the preinstalled OS*
If you want to use another OS, you don’t the disks.
Microsoft have certainly done things that are illegal
given their court determined monopoly status, like
tieing, but there is also a lot of disinformation spread
about them, like this.
…they just buy the right to abide by the EULA. There are all sorts of weird things in MS EULAs. The FrontPage EULA states that you cannot use it to make any anti-MS web pages. EULAs for MS developer tools dictate that they cannot be used to create or modify anything with a license similar to the GPL (they couldn’t be scared, could they???).
If you don’t agree with the EULA, then you’re legally entitled to get a refund. This apparently also applies to the OS that comes with a system. Dell has said that if somebody wants to do that, then they must return the whole system. Other companies may be more generous.
If you read it, it clearly states the “original hardware”. If you change a screw in the box, it isn’t the “original hardware” anymore and then you aren’t bound by that clausule due to the “impossibility” to accertain it’s validity…
So you are free to do whatever you want with the hardware (even if the os license is forfeit).
Cheers,
Kindaian
P.S.- Anyway, that doesn’t hold water in court…
I believe this clause is illegal, in Europe, or at least in France, where we are allowed to perform many operations if we seek to interoperability. Installing Linux or BeOS or * can be seen as a mean to interoperability…
First they laugh at you, …
maybe one day some of your politicians will wake up and pass a law that forbids such eulas.
now surely this is unconstitutional in the usa???
so where are all the people arguing this point?
aaaah you make me laugh.
IANAL, but nowhere on the article did the author offer any substantial proof to his claims. The supposed proof seems nothing more than some M$ page trying to do away with piracy.
I’m sure that by “comes with original software”, they mean the license and media for the software. (It didn’t specifcally mention OS there anywhere.)
How dare M$ say such things?! They have no right to control what I install on computer! Becouse it’s my computer!!!
Death to Micro$oft!
Regards David.
As I understand the MS page he is linking to, installing another OS is not illegal. It just says if you receive a donated PC, you have the right to get the pre-installed Windows with it (as the donator can’t do anything with it). You are free to switch to another OS then.
If you actually read the Microsoft web page it doesn’t say that the OS has to be installed only that you need the transfer all of the liscencecertificates with the PC. Nowhere does it say that the new owner is required to have Windows installed it only says that legally that paticular liscence is coupled with that paticular machine. So if you donate a PC empty your junk drawer of manuals or media.
However my question is what part of the PC is coupled to the liscence. Is it the case? What if I transplant the inards? Is it the harddrive? What if I replace it? How much do I have to replace to define it as a new system? CPU? MotherBoard? Anyone? Bueler?
would some one PLEASE write and E-mail to MS’s Legal department and tell them that he has violated their EULA by removing their product from his/her dell.
we need a good legal presidence set hear, and I am sure thatthe EFFand others would be happy to support you.
How can that be illegal? It can’t.
It’s like saying it’s illegal to switch your CPU, or to customise your car, or to rewallpaper your house.
When you buy it, you own it, and you can change it for your own use as long as it only affects you, with only one repurcussion; you can no longer claim support for your modified product.
This would get torn up in a court room.
I hate MS as much as anyone, but this person is clue-impaired. The wording of the license he bases his claim on refers to the fact that the OS installation software must be kept with the machine, not ON the machine. This is reference to not using the OS cd on another computer. This hardly matters anymore anyway since most OEM’s either don’t give you the actual install CD or give some cutdown recovery CD.
And no, I do not believe a license as he suggest would be enforcible.
The license doesn’t prohibit one from installing another OS on the PC. It simply means if you buy a PC with WinXP pre-installed and you give away the computer, you must also give away your license to the OS.
As I recall the EULA is backed up by all international copyright laws, and I doubt there are may places that those copyrights dont apply
If you feel it is in the best interest of your school to accept the donated PCs, make sure you know the licensing guidelines. For instance, if the hardware donation is an original equipment manufacture machine, the pre-installed operating system license is only valid when used on the original machine for which it was first installed, so it’s beneficial to leave it intact.
Their intent is to prevent people from donating machines with the OS still installed, without giving the school/organization the original license to the OS. In fact the license on OEM software DOES tie it to a machine. It doesn’t mean you can’t remove it. It just means it is only licensed for use with the original equipment.
Not that OEM licensing isn’t a bit daft anyway. I can buy an OEM copy of software with a new HD … if that drive dies and I replace it, I don’t think anyone would argue that I should be able to continue using it with a new drive.
There’s always the complaint that Microsoft spreads FUD about Linux/etc. but everyone is SO EAGER to believe that a contract written by an attorney (who probably doesn’t quite understand the tech details) is a part of some larger scheme to dominate the world.
Their main focus was to prevent people donating duplicate copies of OS software – anybody who isn’t on a blind “I must hate MS” train would see that. Poor wording doesn’t have to equate to evil intent. If you’ve had a job in the real world long enough, you realize that a lot of business decisions are made by ‘down the line’ and not everything passes by the eyes of the top decision makers. It’s just a little far fetched to believe conspiracy on everything.
Nowhere does Microsoft you can’t switch your OS. They can to a certain amount restrict what you do with their software, but not what you do with your hardware.
I read the article, and the MS web page it links to. The page reads:
“If you feel it is in the best interest of your school to accept the donated PCs, make sure you know the licensing guidelines. For instance, if the hardware donation is an original equipment manufacture machine, the pre-installed operating system license is only valid when used on the original machine for which it was first installed, so it’s beneficial to leave it intact.”
All they say is “You can use the OS that came with the computer only on that computer”; they didn’t say “You can use the computer only with the OS that came with it”. Big difference. (Even the first statement can be disputed, but that’s another story).
This guy didn’t even show which part in the EULA that denies us the right to install another OS. Perhaps his argument would be better if he did because I’m not going to do it. The most powerful quote in the editorial or links supporting his theory is “Keeping the operating system with the PC is not just a great benefit — it is a legal requirement.”
My understanding with that sentence is keep the OS CD with the computer. Doesn’t mean it has to be installed AND it doesn’t even hint that you can’t install Linux along side it.
As people on this board have said in the past, the problem isn’t the fact that Windows comes bundled with Internet Explorer, it’s ridiculous crap like this. As for our legal system, I don’t know if this requirement would hold water. Issues don’t get addressed by the court most of the time unless someone challenges it or Microsoft tries to enforce it. Then we’ll know if that part of the license is worth anything.
This or a similar news item came up on Linux Today a couple of days ago, and attracted 60+ comments as I recall. Suffice it to say that it is doubtful that such an EULA term would be enforceable.
Why then, does Microsoft sell full install boxes of their Windows OSes? Upgrading an existing installation is fair game, but if some one wants to do a clean install by removing Win98 first and then put 2000 or XP in, that’s illegal?
I think Microsoft just wants the law to say “It’s illegal to use any other operating system other than Windows”.
Let em try to enforce that load of BS. I bet there will be install-fests just to say .|. to bill and friends.
Microsoft is insane! And, if the legal system would even think of supporting such an outlandish license policy, I’d insure to make sure that I stopped using and get rid of ALL Microsoft products (OS or otherwise) on my system immediately, if not sooner!
Just because you buy the computer doesn’t mean you agree to the EULA. You didn’t sign anything and a purchase of a computer system does not imply agreement with the EULA.
Screw MS!
lets see them enforce that one…btw, doesn’t walmart now sell Window-less pcs now?
It doesn’t really say that. It says you can’t move the OEM vesion of
Windows that came installed on your computer across to another
computer. It was licensed for use on that box only.
But it is worded (perhaps deliberately) to imply that it is illegal to
remove Windows and install Linux or Amithlon or BeOS. Obviously that
isn’t true.
Most likely nobody at MS can imagine any reason why you would ever
want to remove Windows.
Although I am an old and happy Unix user and I don;t like MS too much, I have to say that nothing prevents you from installing another OS on the machine.
The requirment is that the PC comes with the original OS, but if you want to keep that OS into the CD on your bookshelf and install, for example, FreeBSD, nothing prevents you to do it.
I agree it is not so fair to force you to keep the OS in your bookshelf, but this is the US law on copyright, or not?
I also agree that this should be changed. I hope Europe, where I live, won’t let US go straigh this way on patents and similar…
Dear Microsoft,
I regret to inform you that the harddrive that came preinstalled with your product has experienced a terminal failure. Cause of death seemed to be extreme fragmentation following numerous crashes in a short period of time.
I have purchased a new hard drive, but unfortunately it was blank. It now holds Linux and BeOS 5 partitions. I didn’t want to risk reinstalling your product where other OSes already resided.
Hope you understand.
Erik Larson
Just like the non-smoking California law.
Just sit down and watch your peasants obey.
Right.
I have just read the EULA for Win95 the came with one of my old Linux boxes. It says nothing about not being able to install any other OS. It just makes the point, that this copy of windows can only be installed on the PC it came on. So this should not be a problem with older Win95 boxes. I am going to hunt down the EULAs that came with my old Win98 and NT boxes and see what they say. Anyone else have some of the older EULA?
The article does not cite a specific clause in the contract. It cites merely a web page reference that one is required to provide the OS the computer came with (installed or not) with the computer.
I have just scanned the EULA for Widnows 98 (not my copy) and I see no clause prohibiting my installing any other OS on the machine.
This seems to be Microsoft bashing without merit. Microsoft deserves bashing for things they do, not for things they don’t do. If an actual clause in the contract were cited, THAT would have merit.
First, I had read the MS passage referred to, and I believe it (although intentionally written vaguely enough to be misinterpreted)describes the EULA provision requiring the MS OS to stay with the machine it was bought with. The OEM license does not permit a person to purchase a computer with Windows, then keep windows for his next machine while donating/selling the original machine to another.
The way the paragraph is written, it does make it look like one cannot change OSs.
For what it’s worth, any provision within the EULA that would purport to make it illegal to change OS would not hold up in a US court.
That statement makes me want to sleep with Bill’s wife.
In my opinion, this is something that not even Microsoft could enforce. There are millions of computers that have been partitioned and have multiple operating systems on them. The different operating systems are not all different versions of Windows, by any means.
Presented with several million users that have multiple operating systems, and have had for years, any court would probably “throw out” the case.
If Microsoft has not been pursuing the issue since the day Partition Magic 1.0 or the first emulator hit the market, I doubt if they could successfully prosecute the issue now.
My opinion,
Mike
now we will find out if microcrap can hold water with that claim if someone in court brings it up.
Guess i’m a criminal and i’ve involved many of my friends in my dirty crime too. Seriously, I can do whatever I want with any article I purchase, except harm another. “Give me Liberty or give me death”. I think Americans understand the spirit behind that quote as most Americans ignore laws that violate it rather than being a good german. Sorry about that as I really admire the germans but….
I live in the US and I consider this license worthless. I would not hesitate to break it at any time. Of course I have no plans on buying a machine such as this, but if someone wants my help installing an alternative OS I will be there for them. Preferably they’ll go for FreeBSD! 🙂
guess that makes me a criminal and i’ve involved many of my friends too. As long as I harm no other, I’ll do whatever I want with articles in my possesion. “Give me Liberty or give me Death”.
> “…Keeping the operating system with the PC is not
> just a great benefit — it is a legal requirement.”
I guess this means that before wiping the HD and installing your alternative OS’s, you can burn the originally resident OS to CD and then keep the CD’s near the computer — you know, to put coffee on and stuff.
I’m one of those Microsoft hating MacOSX users you guys hate so much (to make it easier I also have an SGI, a Sun and an RS/6000 at home). When I read the linked article yesterday I couldnt resist thinking what a load of CRAP it was. The clause cited in the article is there to PROTECT schools, not hamper them. It is intended to let schools know that they are entitled to recieve the original OS with a dontaed computer. If Microsoft prevented people from installing other OS’s on their computers, they wouldnt be selling upgrades and Full versions of their OS because it would be “illegal” for people to install them. Think about it.
Of course, no matter what the intention, the schools should sell the PC’s for scrap and buy macs which have no silly license tying the OS to the computer it came with.
This guy is an idiot!
Anyone with half a brain can see that is not the intent of that clause in the EULA. If I didn’t know this guy was serious, I would have expected this story to run on The Onion or something!
It is obvious that this clause in the EULA is intended to say that it is illegal to sell an OEM copy of Windows unless you also sell the system that it came with. There is nothing that says that you cannot remove Windows from your hard disk. The intent of this clause is nothing more than preventing people from buying systems with Windows preinstalled, uninstalling Windows and installing another OS, and then saying “Well, I don’t need this copy of Windows since I am not going to use it. I might as well sell it.”
It is obvious to anyone who can think that this clause is intended to prevent illegal sales of OEM copies of Windows. No where does it say you cannot remove Windows from your system.
Even if Microsoft did try to interpret it this way (which I am sure no one at Microsoft is dumb enough to do), the language is vague enough that it would probably get laughed out of court and a judge would refuse to even hear it. Not only that, but a clause like that would most likely not be legally enforcable anyway.
Thanks for the laugh… Like I said, this is one of the most absurd claims I have ever seen about the MS EULA.
I’m sorry, but this sounds like FUD to me.
I read nothing in there that says you cannot change the OS in a computer, nothing that says that you cannot uninstall windows, nothing that says you cannot install a different OS. Nada.
What I do read is that the Windows OS that comes preinstalled on a computer has a limited license that ties it to that particular computer, and cannot be transferred to another computer.
If someone buys a computer and pays the Microsoft tax, they get a copy of the Windows OS software and a license to use it on that computer. It that persone decides to give that computer away and build a new one, the copy of Windows that came with the old computer cannot be transferred to the new one. Hence, if a school is given a donated computer, it should also be given the Windows OS software that originally came with it.
… make sure that the hardware donation includes the original operating system software.
This does not imply that the original OS software has to be installed, or that another OS cannot be installed. Only that the original operating system software stay with the computer.
Mind you, I’m certianly not a Microsoft fan, but please leave the blatent FUD to Microsoft. There better at it, anyway.
It’s your computer, you should have the right to put whatever the hell you want on it.
Oh yes…
The other intent is to prevent people from selling their used systems with no operating system and thus screwing the buyer when they have to reinstall Windows and find out they don’t have the software to do it. It basically means that if buy an OEM copy of Windows with your hardware and later sell that hardware, you have to transfer the copy of Windows along with it. So the EULA clause has three purposes:
#1: Prevent users from selling copies of OEM WIndows without hardware.
#2: Prevent users from selling copies that came with OEM Windows and not giving the buyer the copy of Windows that came with the system. This prevents unknowledgable buyers from getting screwed.
No where does the EULA suggest that you cannot remove the copy of Windows from your system. That is insane. It only suggests that you cannot sell the copy of Windows that came with your system, even if you do not intend to use it.
Quite a few people on this post and the OS opinion board have accused the author of not reading or properly posting the entire story.
I wonder if maybe the point was just to get us to think about the terms of the MS licenses in general and the power MS has in the market. That would certainly be a worthwhile effort.
Some of you will grab any pathetic excuse to insult this country.
US law already states that contracts that are not in the public interest are invalid. You are trying to blame Microsoft’s EULAs on our laws and legal system? SURPRISE! Microsoft is not a branch of the US Government!
Ignorant jerks.
It DOES NOT say that if you buy a PC with windows installed you cant change the OS. It DOES say that if you give the PC away or sell it you must legally hand over all of the preinstalled microsoft OS CD’s and manuals to the new owner. i.e. if you wipe your preinstalled windows and install linux, then give the pc away without any manuals or cd’s that came with it from Microsoft then you are in violation. is this right or wrong? well I leave that up to the consumer .. but this article as it is written is very misleading
http://www.theregus.com/content/4/24855.html
updated story on the register.
The software product of the first party shall remain together with the hardware product of the second party for the life of the hardware product. If the hardware product of the second party should suffer an untimely demise then the software product of the first party must also be destroyed. (just kidding simba)
Hey, I agree with Simba, for once! Just kidding.
I can’t believe that OSopinion would run this trip. The only thing the agreement seems to state is that the software that is on the donated computers must be accompanied by the dsiks, manual, etc., that the system was shipped with originally. Seems reasonable to me, since the transfer of the license cannot be complete without those items.
And yes, it isn’t enforcable, since upgrading to version 2 of an OS invalides the original EULA, and replaces it with a new agreement. Nothing wrong with that either.
No where is there a statement saying that they are willing to enforce the hardware software connection, or even that they plan to enforce it against all users. Or even that you can’t dual boot.
What we don’t need is a bunch of reactionary, anti-MS zealots posting stuff like this on the web.
It undermines the credibility of alternative OSes.
It’s bad for open source.
It’s bad journalism.
People should start taking responibility for policing their rhetoric-the only way to gain market share is by illustrating what is TRUE about Microsoft’s policies, programs, and operating systems. Polluting the well with lies and fear makes the zealots no better than Microsoft.
A comment on licenses in general:
Just because someone puts some thing in EULA doesn’t mean they can legally enforce it. Look at the EULA Borland uses for Kylix and C++ Builder.
http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/369/
Its not legally enforcable.
“12. AUDIT. During the term of this License and for one
(1) year thereafter, upon reasonable notice and during
normal business hours, Borland or its outside auditors will
have the right to enter your premises and access your
records and computer systems to verify that you have paid
to Borland the correct amounts owed under this License
and determine whether the Products are being used in
accordance with the terms of this License. You will
provide reasonable assistance to Borland in connection
with this provision. You agree to pay the cost of the audit
if any underpayments during the period covered by the
audit amount to more than five percent (5%) of the fees
actually owed for that period.”
“14.4 No Jury Trials; No Joinder. Each party hereby
irrevocably waives its right to a jury trial in any legal
action, suit or proceeding between the parties arising out
of or relating to this License. A copy this License may be
filed with the court as written consent by both parties to a
bench trial. You agree that any dispute you may have
against Borland cannot be joined with any dispute of any
other person or entity in a lawsuit, arbitration or any other proceeding, or resolved on a classwide basis.”
Both of these clauses violate your rights as a US citizen and are not legally binding (at least here in the US). The entire license (which is considered a contract) is invalid as was pointed out by Mark Ahern’s posted response to the above Freshmeat article. Just something to keep in mind when your dealing with a crappy EULAs :-p.
This made me laugh so hard that I couldn’t help falling off my chair and when I landed on the floor on the side I broke a rib. Now I will sue Microsoft for the hospital bill
Not installing another OS on MY computer which I purchased…. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha oh please stop it…. between this and Ballmer high on cocaine shouting “I got four words for you. I love this company”, I consider Microsoft one of the greatest comedic groups of all time…
Hmm.. I was able to read the opinion this morning, but it looks like it has been pulled off the site. Maybe OSOpinion got a bunch of comments about idiotic and incorrect the story was? Anyway, it’s gone.
Actually, both of these clauses are legally enforcable.
1: AUDIT: Of course, they cannot forcefully enter your place of business. But they can terminate your license if you refurse to let them in. This is standard language in almost any legal agreement between two parties that the other party has the right to audit the other to see if they are complying with the agreement or not.
2: NO JURY TRIALS: Contrary to popular belief, you are not always entitled to a “trial by a jury of your peers”. Not even in criminal cases. For example, there are three classes of criminal violations: Infractions, misdimeanors, and felonies. You are not entiteled to a jury trial for an offense considered an infraction. For example, have you ever gotten a speeding ticket? Read the fine print sometime on the ticket sometime. Because breaking the speed limit is considered an infractinon of the law, you are not entiteled to a jury trial if you decide to challenge the ticket. You are only entitled to a trial before a judge.
So no, clauses that say you cannot have a jury trial do not violate your rights either. You aren’t always entitled to a jury trial.
http://www.microsoft.com/education/?id=DonatedComputers
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25085.html
I know its bull, you know its bull. Forget the stupid idea that Microsoft can do anything about anyone changing the OS on an OEM machine.
But
Put a hardcore MS salesman in front of a principal with 1000 snot nose kids to look out for(meaning a lot of things on her mind) and the wording on that page tarts to sound pretty serious.
http://www.microsoft.com/education/?id=DonatedComputers
Sounds to me like wording that would fit in pretty nicely when a threat of a BSA audit is about to take place.
Besides-
Companies do not have the resources to keep cds and manuals with machines that are probably 3 or 4 years old. What does that matter? By the time a company is ready to donate a PC that PC has been sitting in a corner somewhere for months. The PCs are then taken care of by people volunteering their time on weekends. First they have to erase the hard drives( wiped clean!!) Then Microsoft wants these volunteers to spend hours jacking around looking for the proper documentation, receipts, manuals, cds and software that went with the PC. And THEN install the operating system back on the machine. Excuse me while I puke.
Maybe I should start up a company that helps companies keep their cds and manuals organized.
Sorry if that makes me an open source hippy freak but
schools should not have to decline any donations from anyone other than inoperative PCs from the mob.
there is one point here that most have overlooked that i find rather ironic and amusing.
i see people talking about freebsd and unix alternatives for their os.. but seriously.. for the average joe without a bachelor’s in computer science or the newbie next door.. why don’t you guys just FACE IT!
you don’t have a real choice anyway.. you will either use a microsoft os or go screw yourself.. maybe buy a typewriter… hehe…
the only thing that makes me giggle a little bit more is hearing the truly initiated continue to defend good ole windows.. truly amazing.. and people say that mac users are blind loyalists… unbelievable.
To what piece of equipment is your OEM license attached?
I mean, back in the early nineties I bought a 286 and over
the years I gradually replaced all the original equipment.
Last year I finally sold the last of the original components
of that 286 (A reliable floppy) when I sold one a pentium
class computer I no longer used.
I doubt they mean for you to provide a copy of the software
with every original piece of equipment you sell.
I do know that system vendors are instructed to attach the
license to the outside of the case. Does this mean that
as long as you keep the case you have title to the license.
At least it would make more sense than attaching it to one
of the other major pieces of equipment, (i.e. motherboard,
or hard drive). If they died you would lose your license.
Any thoughts? – AJ
“To what piece of equipment is your OEM license attached?”
The EULA doesn’t really specify, and this has kind of been a sneaky way for shady vendors to sell cheap OEM copies of Windows. For example they will do something like “Well, I can sell this retail copy for $350, but if you buy this obsolete 2Gb hard disk for $15, I can sell the OEM copy of Windows for $150.”
Probably if it ever goes to court, the courts will have to decide what reasonably constitutes a new system that qualifies for an OEM copy of Windows because the EULA doesn’t specifically address the issue.
He He, fine if they wanted if Microsoft wants it that way.
I’ll pay for the OS, MIcrosoft can pay for the hardware
April fools.
Attach this to your next check *L*
http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/purchase.agreement.html
MS can kiss my ass, I am gonna install whatever I want. Law or no Law.
Okay, here’s a thought:
I buy a PC with MS-Windows OEM. I remove Windows, install Linux on the hard drive and put away the OEM CD.
I buy an old PC from my company that does not have an OS on it, now I install the OEM version on it as it was not used on any other PC. That’s legal use of software.
If I now give the old PC to a school together with the OEM CD there is no way this school can determine that the software and hardware were not sold together in the past. BUT: in the Netherlands it is legal use of the software.
I think that a EULA where software is tied to an instance of “computer” is insane.
Please Meester Gates, pull your OS off the market – punish ALL us “bad boys”.
PALEEEEEEEZE,
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaa.
Nature abhores a vacuum, MS should have stopped at Win2k and tried to fix that release – it almost worked!
In fact it was STABLE.
“You can’t do this, you can’t do that.”
We made your Company, watch us, we’ll be in touch.
I’m so tired of this man and his ego.
Point your browsers here boys and girls:
http://www.FreeBSD.org/
Is there anything in that EULA that says I can’t take my computer out on my lawn and take a big stinking dump on it and then wipe my ass with the instruction manual?……..can we get the lawyers on this one?
“I buy an old PC from my company that does not have an OS on it, now I install the OEM version on it as it was not used on any other PC. That’s legal use of software.”
This probably would be illegal since the OEM copy of Windows is attached to a specific system. Besides… Your company probably broke the law if they sold you a PC with no OS anyway.
“If I now give the old PC to a school together with the OEM CD there is no way this school can determine that the software and hardware were not sold together in the past.”
Actually, they probably could tell. Microsoft knows which vendors blocks OEM license numbers were sold to and they also know when those blocks were sold. If the vendor of the system didn’t match the vendor that the OEM copy was sold to, or if the OEM copy was sold in 2000 and the system was made in 1999, then it could be proven that the OEM copy sold with the system was not legal.