Submitted by “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.
Also How do they know if a replacement due to a defective MB?
Why should they care?
If you replace your motherboard with the same model, I suspect it’s not considered a new motherboard.
If your motherboard fails and you take the opportunity to upgrade it (and cpu and ram, possibly) then your OEM license won’t cover the resulting new system. Let’s face it, if you upgrade your Dell’s MB, you are VERY unlikely to put in a new Dell MB.
I don’t like it, but it’s well within their rights to do so.
“If your motherboard fails and you take the opportunity to upgrade it (and cpu and ram, possibly) then your OEM license won’t cover the resulting new system.”
Actually it does depedning on how you interpret the ‘or’ in the following sentence.
“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.”
If can easily be interpreted as
upgrade due to defect/failing motherboard or replaced due to defect/failing motherboard and hence the OEM license should cover it.
Basically, ladies and gentlemen, if you want ot upgrade your computer w/o buying a new license – take a hammer to your existing motherboard and consider it ‘defective’.
My point exactly, too. I mean how would BSA know if that board is not the original or one would just lie and said the orignal got defective and so it was replaced? Will they carry around military-grade lie detectors?
“I mean how would BSA know if that board is not the original or one would just lie and said the orignal got defective and so it was replaced?”
When you update windows it send the motherboard serial with the rest of your hardware list and serial to there server.
“Let’s face it, if you upgrade your Dell’s MB, you are VERY unlikely to put in a new Dell MB.”
well, its been a while since i was last poking around a Dell, but if you’re replacing a Dell motherboard, its VERY likely that you WILL be replacing it with a NEW Dell motherboard. Dell, last time i saw the innards of one, used proprietary mounts, that were a slide/hook setup rather than the typical screw + riser.
“I don’t like it, but it’s well within their rights to do so.”
Changing the license after you’ve agreed to it, isn’t that like changing a contract after you’ve signed it? So maybe someone could write up a contract, get you to sign it, and then legally change the contract to say you give up everything you own to that individual while keeping the contract valid. Besides legal loopholes I don’t see how something like this can be done. A change to the license agreement after I’ve agreed to it, without prompting me if I’ve agreed to those changes means that they should not be able to inforce it on me. Of course this is where you tell me there was some clause in the last license or EULA where MS made provisions for this right?
Gotta love companies who engineer everything so they can screw you over, when does MS change the license to something like “As the user you hearby agree to give Microsoft the sum of 10 000$ a year for the rest of your life, you agree that you will address Bill Gates as ‘Your Highness’ and you will obey everything he tells you to do, and you will sign over all rights to any marketable content you create as well as your first born child to Microsoft”.
I hope companies start making their games for Macintel systems too, because this copy of Windows I’m using right now will likely be my last.
I hope companies start making their games for Macintel systems too, because this copy of Windows I’m using right now will likely be my last.
XP done that for me. Cedega allows me to play the games I want, and there is Loki installers for others… anyway, that is off-topic…
Back on topic,
I paid good money for my copy of Windows, and I should be able to install it on my PC as many times as I see fit. If I upgrade my PC, I should be free to re-install Windows as many times as I want, without speaking to Microsoft and paying for the call charges.
All in all, this amounts to extortion.
I hope companies start making their games for Macintel systems too, because this copy of Windows I’m using right now will likely be my last.
Agreed as soon as Mactel garners more gaming support its bye bye to Windows for me too. I primarily rely on Windows only for gaming all of my other computing needs can be met as good or better on the Mac Platform. Microsoft needs to quit running status quo and wake up to the newer user base.
and perhaps in most other places in the EU. And when I say not enforceable, I mean the whole OEM-is-not-for-resale or even Software-is-not-for-resale thingy. Here in Finland anyone can sell their software totally leagally. Here we own the damn thing, and do with it as we please.
Here we own the damn thing, and do with it as we please.
That’s the whole point– you don’t own a damn thing. You have a license to use the software, much like you are allowed to use a rental house, even though the house itself is not yours.
That is no different in Finland as it is on the moon.
That is not to say whether or not this stuff MS is doing with licenses being non-transferrable or not is enforcable.
Yes, its a license and you don´t own a thing.
There is however a problem with shrink-wrap-licenses in general. A license for a piece of shrink-wrap software, may not be enforcable, in case it puts the user in a worse position than he had reason to believe when he bought the software (the software is in shrink-wrap and he is unable to read the license before buying).
This is in contrast to click-wrap software (ex. downloaded from the internet), where you accept the license before you buy. In this case the license is probably valid (unless it infringes on other consumer laws).
AFAIK I know there has been a supreme court decision in Germany stating that the license (at least the part about it being tied to a specific PC) is not enforcable. Thus resellers are able to buy oem licenses from users, and resell them again together with a PC.
The license has however not been testet in court in many european countries. Among them is Denmark where I live.
Edited 2006-02-17 14:29
A license for a piece of shrink-wrap software, may not be enforcable, in case it puts the user in a worse position than he had reason to believe when he bought the software (the software is in shrink-wrap and he is unable to read the license before buying).
That’s not an excuse.
“YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY INSTALLING, COPYING, OR OTHERWISE USING THE PRODUCT. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL OR USE THE PRODUCT; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND.”
Remember that last part. And do it whenever you buy a new PC
.
Just because some company prints it on paper it does make it true.
The laws of a lot of countries put limit to what a contract can impose on the customer. If a clause is considered vexatory the customer has to agree to it SPECIFICALLY (with ANOTHER signature).
And still (even if a clause was agreed), a judge can rule a clause null because it imposes illegal restrictions no matter what. It happens all the time.
And EULAs are pretty much all void and null in the European Union. Tested in court many times, expecially in Germany.
I would love to see you get a full refund after you have opened the package and had the oppurtunity to read the EULA…
go ahead. oh wait, catch 22, you cant read the license saying you should return it, until the package is open, where the store wont accept it as a return.
For some reason, almost no store actually will accept the product back for this reason. Circuit City, Best Buy, and so on all will charge restocking fees and many places have no return policies, even if you disagree with the license agreement. Manufacturers like Dell don’t care if you don’t agree to the license, they won’t give you a full refund. Also, another problem is that people steal the license key from the box after opening it and try to return it, making it even more difficult for people to disagree with the license agreement. If you try to return it to the place of purchase, chances are you’re not getting a full refund.
“YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND”
How will they enforce the refund?
Courts and others in the EU seem hell bent of forcing Microsoft into a corner. This is going to backfire on a grand scale at some point.
What, Microsoft will cede the EU to someone else?
> Courts and others in the EU seem hell bent of forcing Microsoft into a corner. This is going to backfire on a grand scale at some point.
What? Oh no, will they discontinue selling Windows in the EU? I think the MSFT shareholders would not like that.
Or will the corporate elites push for a US bombing campaign against Old Europe?
Or perhaps foreign companies should just abide by the rules of the countries in which they decide to do business.
It is reasonable that governments can protect customers from beeing ripped of by monopolist corporations.
Microsoft made the first several moves, not the courts, and not the EU. Their actions are a matter of public record:
http://www.usdoj.gov/art/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
Microsoft seems hell bent on telling the courts and the EU to go to hell instead of actually complying with the law and with the orders formally served upon them by the court. This is going to backfire on a grand scale at some point.
>That is no different in Finland as it is on the moon.
Actually, international law forbids nations from claiming any part of the moon as territory. Therefore no country has legal juristiction on the moon and therefore there are no laws, just like international waters. However, you could still be prosecuted upon return to Earth (just like international waters).
That means that you can violate copyright, commit murder or whatever on the moon, as long as you plan on living there forever.
I just installed the second brand new motherboard with the same OEM license yesterday. The first time I had to call and simply re-activate the license, this time for some reason the activation went straight through with out having to call!
This latest time around I replaced both MB and Chipset with out issues. And yes, I have an OEM version bought from zipzoomfly. CD Label says OEM right on it.
Usually I wouldn’t defend Windows/MS at all, but I don’t know what the issue is here. Plus, there is no link to offically support the license change coming right from MS.
That’s all I can think of, how the heck is a new motherboard a new computer? I mean, if you want to take advantage of new things like pci-express, sata, etc, you need a new motherboard, and I for one am certainly not going to go through buying a new copy of windows just to satisfy microsoft. Also, how sure are we that this is actually serious?
Also, how sure are we that this is actually serious?
If you read through the comments at the bottom, there are a few links to a .doc file at Microsoft which supposedly contains the information.
The thing I don’t understand is that this is talking about OEM licenses which are separate than retail licenses. The reason you can buy cheap computers in the store despite the cost of a retail boxed version of the OS is because they use OEM licensing; you get what you pay for, and one of those things you’re not paying for is the ability to use it on another computer/motherboard. And you did agree to this license before you opened/installed/used the software.
This particular “I have a license I can do what I want with it despite what it says” argument makes only slightly more sense to me than people who think they’re getting a deal on an Academic license to make them “legal”, even if they don’t qualify for academic licensing….
Here’s how a new motherboard is a new computer:
Microsoft has a monopoly on desktop operating systems. The growth of this operating system market for them just isn’t as good as it could be. There are a few more pennies in there that Microsoft wants comprised of people upgrade computers piecemeal. Nevermind that companies will sell you OEM copies of Windows with HDDs or whatever.
There’s also the release of Vista, which I’m sure can use any help it can get in order to expedite its adoption. If releasing Halo 2 only for Vista isn’t enough, there’s always the incentive that if you buy a forthcoming AM2 processor/motherboard, that you’ll have to set fire to that OEM copy of Windows you got three years ago from Newegg and pick up a copy of Vista.
And for that reason a new motherboard is not only a new computer, but it justifies making you purchase a new copy of Windows. But don’t try to transfer that previous OEM copy with your old motherboard, because that’s bad too.
“Microsoft has a monopoly on desktop operating systems.”
Microsoft as a monopoly at having its Operating system be the default on OEM and new hardware. It does not have a monopoly on desktop operating system.
Microsoft has a larger monopoly on desktop operating systems than Standard Oil ever had on refinery. They might not ban you from this site because they find you amusing, but in the future please refrain from replying to my comments with nonsense.
“Microsoft has a larger monopoly on desktop operating systems than Standard Oil ever had on refinery.”
To be a monopoly you have to be the only one with a service or the only one allowed to provide the service. Thats basically the definition of monopoly , which apparently you dont know and dont understand. How do you explain Apple Mac OS X , OS/2 , GNU/Linux , Pc-BSD , if its a monopoly ?
“They might not ban you from this site because they find you amusing”
Thats a good question , ask them if they feel like it they will provide you an answer.
“but in the future please refrain from replying to my comments with nonsense.”
Only nonsense I see is written by “Get a Life”. Btw just to make sure you get it :
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&scoring=d&ie=utf-8&…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
According to the US Dept of Justice’s Findings of Fact document, section III:
“34. Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft’s share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft’s dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft’s customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows.”
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm#iii
Apple Mac OS X was originally developed in isolation on a completely different hardware platform. That fact protected it from Microsoft’s major attacks (preloads and exclusive deals with hardware makers), and enabled it to survive to the present day. The x86 version is a port of the protected development.
OS/2 was developed on x86 by what was then the largest software company in the world (IBM), but not even IBM could sustain its presence in the market. OS/2 is now unsupported by its maker, and has been in a steady decline markersharewise for over a decade. Keep in mind that IBM also received over US$700 million in compensation for Microsoft’s past activities towards OS/2 in the US.
Linux and BSD were mainly developed competely outside of the commercial software marketplace. As noncommercial software development, they are largely immune from the effects of market forces.
Why are you ignoring the facts?
“According to the US Dept of Justice’s”
REJECTED. The US gov switch its stands on anything depending on who’spaying them that week. Also charge where made and brought up , but where eventually dropped in the US.
“Apple Mac OS … protected development.”
REJECTED. Mac OS X is based on closed BSD , If it where impossible technically to run on other platform BSD would only run on PPC. Core Duo would not exist either …
“OS/2 was …the US. ”
REJECTED. IBM choose to deliberatly not support its OS as it wrongly believed that Operating system did not mather.
“Linux and BSD were … immune from the effects of market forces. ”
REJECTED. Red Hat , Novell , Mandriva , Linspire , etc … are all inside the commercial software marketplace.
“Why are you ignoring the facts?”
You havent given any.
Microsoft was in fact found guilty of using anti-competitive behavior to maintain its monopoly on desktop operating systems. You can read U.S. v Microsoft. At no point was the suit dropped; the DoJ under Ashcroft simply didn’t seek the same remedies the Reno DoJ had in mind.
The rest of your comment is equally stupid.
“Microsoft was .. on desktop operating systems.”
No.
“You can read U.S. v Microsoft.”
I did , you on the other end read the paper about it 😉
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm#supreme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
“On November 2, 2001, the DOJ reached an agreement with Microsoft to settle the case. “
“The rest of your comment is equally stupid.”
No …
Do you ever bother to read the things that you link to? The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, leaving the ruling in place that Microsoft was guilty of anti-competitive behavior. Jackson’s remedy was overturned while his findings were upheld, and Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly instructed the DoJ and Microsoft to come to a settlement over punishment.
“Do you ever bother to read the things that you link to?”
Yes I do , and I understand them too 😉 You dont but its fun to see you argue them 😉
“The Supreme … behavior. ”
No.
“On November 2, 2001, the DOJ reached an agreement with Microsoft to settle the case. “
“Jackson’s remedy … settlement over punishment.”
No.
No. No. No. No. Please simply state more incorrect things so I have something to respond to.
All of the court documents are available from the DoJ, if your English skills are up to it.
“Please simply state more incorrect things so I have something to respond to. ”
I havent stated one thing which is incorrect.
“All of the court documents are available from the DoJ”
No , but its fun of you to think that way 😉
“if your English skills are up to it.”
Not me who as a problem reading and understanding it , its you who’s made up its mind about details and what he reads in the paper.
Really the DoJ dropped the case? No.
Microsoft wasn’t found to be a monopoly? No.
Microsoft wasn’t found to be guilty of anti-competitive behavior? No.
Microsoft doesn’t hold a monopoly by your criteria on desktop operating systems, but does on the distribution of desktop operating systems? No.
What other nonsense have you gone through again? I can’t even keep track of it all.
“Really the DoJ dropped the case?”
Yes …
“Microsoft wasn’t found to be a monopoly?”
In the US Yes …
“Microsoft wasn’t found to be guilty of anti-competitive behavior?”
Yes the DOJ settled …
“Microsoft doesn’t hold a monopoly by your criteria on desktop operating systems,”
It snot my criteria , I dont have the illusion I can influence the term monopoly 😉
” but does on the distribution of desktop operating systems? “”
Nope , on behing made the default OS , there are other means of distribution too.
“What other nonsense have you gone through again?”
Only nonsense is whats written by you …
“I can’t even keep track of it all.”
I know , thats why your wrong on everything too 😉
Maybe you should read your own links sometime.
I read and understand thank you.
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.
“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.
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.
http://www.osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=13705&comment_id=96661
I said :
“Microsoft as a monopoly at having its Operating system be the default on OEM and new hardware. It does not have a monopoly on desktop operating system.”
Then you said *again* It is a monopoly on Desktop OS , I again I stayed with No they dont have a monopoly on Desktop OS , go read the link I offered.
“Your weak attempts at exclusion simply exclude your own claims”
I did not make any claim.
“Windows doesn’t have exclusive distribution, either.”
Dell.com
HP.com
Gateway.com
etc …
Default OS : Windows
You whant to argue reality go ahead …
“Apple Computer sells these computers, which as you might know, don’t run Windows.”
Then they dont have a monopoly on the desktop OS as there is another choice …
“Then of … FreeDOS and Linux. ”
“On November 2, 2001, the DOJ reached an agreement with Microsoft to settle the case. “
You cant change reality …
“You can’t even remain consistent with yourself, while denying reality.”
I dont deny reality , I deny *Your special* in your mind reality. Which arent the same.
Dell ships desktops with both Linux and FreeDOS.
Want to shoot again?
“Dell ships desktops with both Linux and FreeDOS.”
Yes.
Is it the default OS on all system ?
Is it advertised the same as the one or given the same visibility and hardware offering as the one from Microsoft windows ?
Hence Microsoft dont have a mopoly on desktop OS , since there are other choice , they have a monoply on behing the desktop OS BY DEFAULT.
“Want to shoot again?”
Actually my aim so far is 100% , but I fear your like your VP and whant to shoo tme instead of actually discussing the point with me 😉
Is it the default OS on all system ?
Is it advertised the same as the one or given the same visibility and hardware offering as the one from Microsoft windows ?
Nope. It’s available as an option, which fails to meet your criteria for monopoly. Is Windows the only option from every desktop computer seller? No. Case closed. Nice contradiction, Tex.
“Nope. It’s available as an option”
Good , you got one point right.
“which fails to meet your criteria for monopoly.”
No , because there made as 100% the default OS.
” Is Windows the only option from every desktop computer seller? No.”
Another good point , which means that they dont have a monopoly on desktop OS , thanks , your getting it keep going …
“Case closed. Nice contradiction,”
Its whas a case , no I am just showing an idiot he is wrong , but you whont admit to it 😉
“Tex.”
??
No , because there made as 100% the default OS.
No they aren’t.
“No they aren’t.”
Yes , they are 😉
Take any company of your choice take all the model they ship look whats the default OS on the machine ( exept for Apple ). Some have the option of another OS , most dont have a choice at all.
I already told you that Dell sells computers with FreeDOS and Linux. They don’t sell all of their computers with FreeDOS or Linux. Any number greater than 0% clearly demonstrates that they are not the default on 100%. Indeed, in Asian markets OEMs sell a fairly good number of computers whose default operating system is not Windows. They’re happy to just pirate it there. No one cares.
“I already told you that Dell sells computers with FreeDOS and Linux.”
Yes and I said yes …
“They don’t sell all of their computers with FreeDOS or Linux.”
Why ? Because the default OS is already windows.
“Any number greater than 0% clearly demonstrates that they are not the default on 100%.”
No , it demonstrate that theyre are option on some models , but if you go to there website the first OS offered by default all the time is Windows.
“in Asian markets OEMs sell a fairly good number of computers whose default operating system is not Windows.”
No , the default OS is windows , they remove it and install something else 😉
“They’re happy to just pirate it there.”
Nice theory ;-), got hard proof of that ?
“No one cares.”
Actually everyone legal cares 😉
You really need to reply to my comments if you want responses. I can’t divine replies I have to see them
Why ? Because the default OS is already windows.
The default OS is not Windows on desktops that Dell sells with FreeDOS or Linux. Therefore Microsoft does not have 100% of the default distribution of Dell. They probably sell more of those computers than there are PC-BSD users total. That’s just one company.
No , it demonstrate that theyre are option on some models , but if you go to there website the first OS offered by default all the time is Windows.
The n-Series do not default to, come with, or look at Windows.
Nice theory ;-), got hard proof of that ?
Which country? Piracy is rampant in the former Soviet Bloc, China, India, Malaysia, Taiwan, etc. When I was living in Japan I could have bought Windows for less than 500 ¥.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/emergingtech/0,39020357,2096522,00…
There’s one article vaguely referring to what is not hard to find information on.
Actually everyone legal cares 😉
Parsing your text is difficult. I can only assume you mean that people with a predilection for abiding by laws care.
I have to go give a complex analysis lecture, so you’ll have to wait a while if you ram your head into anymore poles.
“You really need to reply to my comments if you want responses. I can’t divine replies I have to see them
”
I reply to all your comments …
“The default OS is not Windows on desktops that Dell sells with FreeDOS or Linux.”
Actually yes , because the same model came out 6 month to a year before with windows on it …
“Therefore Microsoft does not have 100% of the default distribution of Dell.”
100% of the Dell machine are made for windows and come out first with windows … The fact that option of OS come on it later and are made the primary OS does not make it the default OS for that model.
“They probably sell more of those computers than there are PC-BSD users total.”
ok …
“that’s just one company. ”
Thats the same for all ODM and OEM.
“The n-Series do not default to, come with, or look at Windows. ”
Remove the N on every model …
“Which country?”
All of them 😉
“Piracy is rampant in the former Soviet Bloc, China, India, Malaysia, Taiwan, etc.”
No , its not illegal to make copy there 😉
“When I was living in Japan I could have bought Windows for less than 500 ¥. ”
Ok …
“There’s one article vaguely referring to what is not hard to find information on. ”
I guess , I will have to discard the Microsoft article that state that the update server hit by the most numerous illegal copy are from the US.
“Parsing your text is difficult”
No , you just have a trouble at understanding.
“I can only assume you mean that people with a predilection for abiding by laws care. ”
No I mean those who are legal cares , the illegal have no say or voice , there thief who just havent been caught yet.
“I have … your head into anymore poles.”
It snot because you do soemthing that I do the same 😉
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.
Its a good thing, then, that my mobo became defective right before I bought all these lovely new parts. Yeah, that’s the ticket!
Damien
becuase im a klutz and i usually upgrade my motherboard after spilling something on it or hitting it with a hammer.
As everyone knows, every restriction in an EULA is a morally-binding contract that if you violate even the slightest means that your computer is a piece of crap and you live in your mother’s basement. Not buying a new license of Windows along with every new motherboard harms Microsoft’s business model and is tantamount to robbery!
I find it amusing to see Microsoft and all these other software companies desperately trying to make distinctions between clients and servers and hardware as things become more homogenous, and then trying to map those same physical distinctions into their software. Funny.
This only mathers if you whant to be legal , otherwise there is more people who just dont care and use it illegally.
Also most people who upgrade motherboard from the OEM dont even know the detail of the service they ask , they just whant the computer to be fixed and to be told the price.
Its a bit like comparing car dealership and good corner store mechanics , the dealer will always sale you original parts from him , as the corner mechanics will sugest other option from other manufacturers.
Come on, who is going to buy a 120 EUR Windows package with an 80 EUR motherboard. No-one I know!
Can anyone honestly say that they would consider this? I think not!
I don’t understand why Microsoft would want this. They have their monopoly, so why come up with this childish rule?
Instead of convincing me to use Window$, this is chasing me even further away.
Come on, who is going to buy a 120 EUR Windows package with an 80 EUR motherboard.
You don’t understand how the MS tax works. Or used to work before MS got busted. Considering their compliance record they are prob’ly still doing it.
Hardware manufacturers who sell complete machines also charge a pro-rated fee for sub-assemblies such as mobos, DVD drives, hard discs, etc. They are required to do so by MS. Or at least they were. This change in the license after the fact is no doubt to make up for the loss of license fees by manufacturers that are no longer bound by the [illegal] agreement previously forced on them by MS.
My guess is they are still doing it in the EU since they only got busted for illegal bundling over there.
The issues are even deeper than that.
When you agree to a EULA ( legally binding or not, that’s a different argument ) you are agreeing to the terms as laid out by the license. That means a couple of things, and I think it’s worth noting that MS has some interesting options here.
First and foremost, the OEM licenses specifically tie that license to that machine. This is so specific, that in some instance, large corporations would buy computers that arrived with an OS which they would immediately wipe and utilize one of their ‘per-seat’ transferable licenses, disregarding the license that was part of the purchase price. What makes the above even more entertaining is that if the buyers that specified ‘no OS installed’ were still paying for a license of Windows until the US Anti-Trust case. This was because vendors like Dell got a major discount on Windows, provided that they paid Microsoft for a license on EVERY Windows compatable computer they sold, regardless of if it was installed or not.
The license on the over the counter retail box has different transfer rights, while the corporate license and the select licenses are still different again.
This isn’t anything new, it’s been true for as long as I can remember. IBM did this for years with it’s big iron that transferred owners several times in it’s normal lifespan, but each new owner of the hardware had to buy a new license for the Operating System.
That brings us to this specific instance in which Microsoft is saying doing nothing more than continuing the trend, in which they want a copy of Windows tied to every commercially sold CPU. They are contending that the Case, and perihperals are just decorations to the computer, which is the motherboard. This really isn’t inconsistant with past practices, it’s just more specific in it’s wording. Ultimately it’s about closing loopholes that cost them revenue. That’s what happens when Lawyers and Accountants get involved in Software.
There is a TON of gray space surrounding the legalities of these practices, but they are established business practices that predate Microsoft, and as such are difficult to combat for the consumer. In all, it’s just not a pretty situation, and very few vendors are innocent of this particular sham.
For what it’s worth, I should mention that they did at least leave the ‘defect’ clause in there. That means when the time comes, you just need a spray bottle of water and a fire extinguisher, or a silk shirt and a finger to have a defect :-).
We’d like you to know that we enjoy writing incredible programs for you. But unfortunately we’ve realized that it’s very expensive to fund the cure for AID’s in Africa and so we’d like you to pay for it everytime you buy something else too.
Now, of course, this copy you’ve just bought is actually not yours. In fact, you’ve signed away your soul when you started using it too; and we here at Microsoft appreciate your gift of your soul to us, but I’m afraid we’re gonna have to ask you for another $130.
Just remember, those Apple folks pay $130 when they want to upgrade their computers with a new OS. Well, we here at Microsoft can’t ship every year; so we figured we’d ask you to pay us when you upgrade the fine hardware made for our platform.
Just in case you thought you could sneak one by us, your name is [fill in your name here], you’re 6′ 3″, and pretty ugly (You have a webcam).
Don’t even think about that Linux thing either. It’s only compatible with users who still have a soul, and well, we aren’t gonna give it back; not even for all the tea in China!
You don’t own it, you only rent it.
…Not quite. It’s like BAD beer.
It’s a can of Schlitz.
…of buying a PC with OEM Windows on it, then? Better off just building your own super-PC right from the start. Wouldn’t companies like Dell and Gateway be worried about this? Or will they pick up the cost of a new license if their motherboard blows up?
Why would Dell or Gateway care? They want you to buy entirely new computers from them, not gut the one you bought five years from them piece by piece, only to never do business with them ever again.
Most home builders (who actually buy a copy) use the OEM version, it’s $100-$150 less than retail. OEM is just a disk and license agreement shrink wrapped together. Retail has a large box and manual (that is apparenly worth $100). Dell and Gateway users don’t generally do much mobo swapping because of warranty concerns and are generally less tech inclined. This is directly aimed at hobby builders who overwhelmingly purchase the OEM version and are the most likely users to upgrade often.
This is one of the fundamental problems with Microsoft software: EULA ammendments.
Are they ammending the EULA during an update or patch from the windowsupdate.com website making it something you have unknowingly agreed to? With Microsoft, something you agreed to initially may get changed at a later time.
Most folks using Microsoft’s website or Automatic Updates are not going to read EULA, again, assuming they even read it in the first place.
Sure sounds like an unfair business practice.
As for me, I’m going to pass the word along to the folks I know that are currently running Windows.
Sound like pretty illegal business practice to me.
Try changing unilaterally the conditions of a contract in any other business, and see how long you will last.
Hell, in italy even banks (which tend to change terms and conditions unilaterally because are powerful) are bound to let you know officially, and you have one month to recede from the contract with no expenses, if you do not agree.
I wouldn’t be pissed about this if their OS were a resonable price. You think for a second i am going to invest another $200 into another copy of the exact same OS i bought previously for $200? Its like if i upgraded my CD player and had to buy copies of the same music over again. And they wonder why their software is pirated so damn much! Reduce the price to $100 and add some value to buying another copy and i might consider it.
Microsoft will become more and more strict on whact constitutes a new pc and hopefully alot more strict on detecting pirated copies of their os. People will just get sick of their bs and use an alternative……hopefully linux
…and use an alternative……hopefully linux
Hopefully not. Sure Linux is nice enough, but what we DON’T NEED is a new monopoly, even an open source one. We need many viable choices because that makes sure that standards will be created for open implementations and that makes sure that we will always have choices. Choice means freedom and good. Linux monopoly = no choice => no freedom and is just as bad as a Windows monopoly or Mac OS monopoly, just slightly cheaper.
if ya don’t like it so much, you DO have a choice of other perfectly well working OS’s that DO run MS software. http://www.codeweavers.com http://www.transgaming.com http://www.winehq.com
Besides, this only applies to people who didn’t format their system when they bought a new PC anyway, typically Home Edition users, but either way, if you’re using your systems for something serious enough for it to matter, you’ll have either an enterprise license or some form of non-OEM version installed anyway, pirated or legit.
When Empires are about to perish, they start to do illegal and unlogical things to even their people, much like Microsoft is doing these days. Licenses must be used by Governments not companies, like the license to drive, the license to practice medicine and yes the governmnet can change its license requirement or practices but Microsoft is selling a product thus it must not be a license and if Microsft doesn’t agree to sell it as a product then it’s acting like a government. US laws fOR SOFTWARE must be totally revised, because these laws are immature, not like our civil liberty rights which is hundereds of years old mature and agreed upon.
If they want money, just say directly instead of saying that changing a motherboard requires a new license. Huh… These folks don’t even spare there customers. We have to buy X times the lisence if we change our MainBoard for X number of times. Hahaha what a beautiful joke.
RenatoRam: “Try changing unilaterally the conditions of a contract in any other business, and see how long you will last” – word it like all EULAs do – quite some time, actually. There’s nothing illegal in placing in the contract a provision allowing a party to change the contract – even without their consent! Why don’t other businesses do that? Different things they’re selling; most businesses sell tangible goods and services, software corps sell licenses.
Celerate: “Gotta love companies who engineer everything so they can screw you over, when does MS change the license to something like…”
And Microsoft would notice that most of their enterprise clients finding switching to Linux cheaper than sticking with Microsoft (nobody is holding a gun to people forcing them to use Windows – it is just cheaper and more convinient to do so; licenses may be more expensive, but support, training, application support, etc. is cheaper most of the time). Notice whenever Microsoft changes the wording of the EULA, they prompt you to accept or decline.
rcsteiner: “Apple Mac OS X was originally developed in isolation on a completely different hardware platform.”
Rhapsody was actually initially developed on x86; PPC Macs for the most part use the same hardware as x86s with different firmware and software. Judge Jackson just arbitrarily separated Apple into a different market, though not even Apple themselve consider it a different and separate market.
“That fact protected it from Microsoft’s major attacks (preloads and exclusive deals with hardware makers), and enabled it to survive to the present day.”
And other companies can’t do this because…? Apple survived, but they very well could thrive if they altered their business plan early in the game. They wanted to sell Macs, not software and they reap their reward: >5% market shares. But Apple’s shift to Intel cuts Judge Jackson’s reasoning on this point – that Apple is in a distinct market because they are using a different processor type.
“OS/2 was developed on x86 by what was then the largest software company in the world (IBM), but not even IBM could sustain its presence in the market.”
That was because how IBM treated other OEMs. Microsoft offered IBM’s competitors a sweeter deal to OS/2, Microsoft won. Most of the compensation Microsoft made to IBM was because they ditch their contractual matrimony with IBM – think of it as a divorce. If IBM weren’t shortsighted on how they deal with clones, they would be minting billions.
“Linux and BSD were mainly developed competely outside of the commercial software marketplace. As noncommercial software development, they are largely immune from the effects of market forces.”
Red Hat is a profitable commercial entity, as with Novell, Mandriva, etc. Minus off the contribution of commercially-sponsored code in most open source projects vital to most Linux distributions, including Linux kernel itself, you wouldn’t be left with much.
How is it that Red Hat survives and thrives till this day even though it is going after Windows’ core and most profitable sector: the enterprise? Competition’s competition – though matter how successful or effective they are.
Get a Life: Apt nick, ought to follow it yourself sometimes. There is a vast difference between “monopoly” and “monopolistic power”. The prior means single seller (by comparison, monopsony means single buyer). The latter means it is seen to have market powers akin to a monopoly – and it is defined by competition law.
And if you actually took time to read the actual Acts you would see their definitions of what constitutes monopolistic powers is extremely vague – a judge with no commercial experience, particularly in this particular market, is required to make almost purely personal judgements rather than applying interpretted law (Microsoft is the first software-related antitrust case, most precedents don’t apply).
Microsoft controls no market – the law only think it does. Point to case: Internet Explorer. Its market share has dropped significantly to the high 80’s – yet according to the decision, Microsoft illegally expend their monopolistic powers to a new market. Afterall, doesn’t Dell ship certain computers with FreeDOS and Linux instead?
I’m hope you are matured enough to consider that 1) the American legal system, especially when it comes to commercial law, isn’t a shining example, and that the entire EU system itself isn’t all that much better, 2) what the law says isn’t what’s right and most importantly, 3) how the law can be interpreted can vary *greatly*.
Moulinneuf: You can buy desktop computers without Windows preinstalled. Take Apple for one, a very prominent example.
“You can buy desktop computers without Windows preinstalled. Take Apple for one, a very prominent example.”
Yes , I know , I spoke of Default OS ;-).
“There’s nothing illegal in placing in the contract a provision allowing a party to change the contract – even without their consent”
There’s nothing illegal _in the USA_
In countries where the law was not completely written by corporation lobbysts it ain’t so. As I said, changes in italy have to be communicated officially to the other party, which has the option of terminating the contract on the spot.
“There’s nothing illegal in placing in the contract a provision allowing a party to change the contract – even without their consent”
In US Civil Court, a contract must benefit both parties. If it does not, it is not considered a valid contract. The same goes for any changes to an existing (already signed/agreed to) contract. Otherwise, it doesn’t hold up in Civil Court.
However, in this case, it may simple be considered a clarification. This is also a bit tricky. In a Civil case, anything that isn’t clear is supposed to go against the party that drafted the contract (MS). For some reason that doesn’t hold up as well as it should.
>There is a vast difference between “monopoly” and “monopolistic power”. The prior means single seller (by comparison, monopsony means single buyer). The latter means it is seen to have market powers akin to a monopoly – and it is defined by competition law.
I don’t really agree with you here. “Monopoly” is a theoretical idea. In reality, true monopolies cannot really exist, any more than a perfect circle can exist. “Monopolistic power” is the closest you can get to it in real life, and that’s what free societies, in theory, hope to avoid. When people refer to “monopolies,” they are ALWAYS referring to companies with “monopolistic power.”
I think this particular type of change only have to do with restoration CDs from OEM licensees like DELL or Gateway.
The things is, the restoration CDs that come with a pre-packaged PC doesn’t require activation – it is locked down according to the system configuration (mainly the motherboard). It won’t install without a close enough set of hardware.
So, what that means is that, if I have one of those PCs and I replace it with a new one (without the old one being defective), I could essentially put the previous working motherboard elsewhere and have the restoration CD work its magic with that board ALSO without getting a new license (no activation required).
I think it’s for that reason Microsoft is revising the license to say that the OEM license is only transferrable if the original motherboard is DEFECTIVE.
So I think from this perspective it is reasonable. (And probably why some people at earlier post mentions that their OEM Windows CD (not restoration) works without problems.
How is this different? Hasn’t this always been the case? the last time I remember, you could not transfer an OEM copy from one machine to another as it was welded, after the first activation, to that particular computer.
When inquiring to Microsoft about this (occured around a year and a half ago), that was the official position back then – thats unless it was only the position of Microsoft New Zealand at that point.