|
| | | |
Okay even still Colin , why is MS allowing them to be activated if you
call and make a big fuzz about it ? My friend shouldn't of ever gotten
away with that . I'm talking about installing it on 2 different
computers . He had a computer for about 4 years and it die on him . He
got a new custom build and installed the same OEM version again . He
said that he freak out and made a big fuzz , At the end they just gave
him new keys to activated . That should of never happen . And I know
others have done the exact samething . So tell me where the rules lay
here ?
Activation is purely a software/hardware issue. MS does not gather personal
or ownership data when a product is activated. Microsoft stopped
associating user data with activation data many years ago due to privacy law
considerations. Remember, the user is not activated. The software is
activated on the hardware and thereby tied to the hardware only.
As you read the System Builder license you will notice that it does not
address the end user at all except as the customer for whom the software is
being installed. The SB license is not an end-user license. The SB license
states that it expires at time the new computer leaves the possession of the
system builder.
The system builder is required by the SB license to use the OEM
Preinstallation Kit (from MS) during installation and the OPK sets up the
first run at the first power on. The consumer_oem EULA takes effect when
the end user assents to the EULA during that first run of the software and
the activation requirement follows.
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: Colin Barnhorst
Who determines whether or not it is indeed a system builder making the
purchase? If there is no formal determination by anyone involved in any
particular sale of the oem pack as to who is a system builder, how is a
"microsoft oem system builder license" binding on anyone just by its
existence on a web page? And for what it is worth, tigerdirect and
compusa both have NO such notice as has been cited from newegg. As with
other ms licensing pronouncements, there are more shades of gray than
black and white.
If I procure an oem copy and build a computer for my wife for a dollar,
does that fall in the purvey of delivering the computer to a 3rd party?
I have posted urls from newegg (the same concern you have cited in this
thread) in the recent past that stated a requirement of xp oem
purchasers to buy (or furnish recent receipts of purchase for a case,
hard drive, ram and cpu) in order to make an oem pack purchase. If this
was not a requirement of the oem pack purchaser, then of whom was it a
requirement?
Since I have signed no document that confers official/binding ms oem
system builder status on me, and I still can obtain an oem pack (by
purchase or even as a gift), as an end user the only thing I need
concern myself with is the terms of the eula upon installation.
Indeed. 
--
norm
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: Colin Barnhorst
Who determines whether or not it is indeed a system builder making the
purchase? If there is no formal determination by anyone involved in any
particular sale of the oem pack as to who is a system builder, how is a
"microsoft oem system builder license" binding on anyone just by its
existence on a web page? And for what it is worth, tigerdirect and
compusa both have NO such notice about the system builder requirement as
has been cited from newegg. As with other ms licensing pronouncements,
there are more shades of gray than black and white.
If I procure an oem copy and build a computer for my wife and charge
here a dollar for the computer, does that fall in the purvey of
delivering the computer to a 3rd party?
I have posted urls from newegg (the same concern you have cited in this
thread) in the recent past that stated a requirement of xp oem pack
purchasers to buy (or furnish recent receipts of purchase) for a case,
hard drive, ram and cpu in order to make an oem pack purchase. If this
was not a requirement of the oem pack purchaser, then of whom was it a
requirement?
Since I have signed no document that confers official/binding ms oem
system builder status on me, and yet I can obtain an oem pack in good
faith from an oem pack seller, as an end user the only thing I need
concern myself with is the terms of the eula upon installation.
Indeed.
--
norm
|
| |
| | | | | But there is no definition nor explanation for what is a device. >
Yes, there is, but it is not needed in the consumer_oem EULA.
That definition is in the OEM (System Builder) License. All that the EULA
needs to say (and does) is that the software is permanently assigned:
"2. INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS. The software license is permanently
assigned to the device with which you acquired the software."
The OEM license requires the purchaser to install the software on a system
for sale to a customer and defines a system as:
"1. Definitions.
a. "Customer System" means a fully assembled computer system that includes a
CPU, a motherboard, a power supply, an internally mounted NAND or revolving
magnetic-based hard drive, and a case."
The customer system is the licensed device.
The 2006 revision of the OEM license superceded the infamous "piece of
hardware" requirement for selling OEM packs by resellers. That never
applied to purchasers of the OEM packs anyway. Just to resellers.
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: Sinner
But not Anytime Upgrade. The media will not install using the workaround.
The user receives an error message that is very specific that the workaround
is blocked and Setup exits.
I keep hearing rumblings from folks who have visited at MS that MS may take
steps to invalidate Windows installed with the workaround. It is apparently
possible to detect after the fact. I assume it would be through WGA. I
personally don't see them following through but who knows.
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: Colin Barnhorst
Thanks 
That is interesting and I wonder why?
But thanks for the information.
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: xfile
As I said, the issue is moot on the end user side because license has
already been tied permanently to the licensed device by the system builder.
It is the system builder who decides on the device to install the software
on and what that is defined in the system builder license.
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: Colin Barnhorst
If that is the *sole* consideration of the company, it will not allow the
OEM version to be purchased by individual consumer in the first place.
I tend to think that, as a big company, they would differentiate the terms
and conditions for *contracted* channel partners and those without committed
contracts and those individual consumers (hobbyists and enthusiast, for
example)
What applies to some may not necessary true for others. So for those
individual consumers who purchased the OEM version from an authorized
channel partner with a legitimate sales transaction, all they need to care
about is what are in their EULA, but not what have given to the company's
contracted channel partners.
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: xfile
It's a hoot to read the comments regarding Microsoft's EULA when
clearly those that do most of the cackling about it often have no clue
at all WHAT they are cackling about. Many, naturally since this
newsgroup is home to many Microsoft low intelligence fanboys tend to
accept whatever the EULA says without question.
So let me try to educate you.
EULA is short for End-User's License Agreement. As such it is a legal
contract who's purpose is to spell out how the software can be used
and any restrictions the creator of the software may impose upon the
end user.
So far fine. But wait... Anyone that's bothered to suffer through
reading the flowerily language used in Microsoft's EULA if they have
any thought process at all comes away shaking their head over how
deliberately ambiguous and wordy the language is.
So what does that mean? Well.. Lets go to Black's Law Dictionary to
see how they define ambiguity: ?An uncertainty of meaning or
intention, as in a contractual term or statutory provision.?
Actually there are several types of ambiguity, in contracts, much is
deliberate. The three main types are; syntactic ambiguity, which
happens mostly with how words and phrases get arranged and may take
different meaning grammatically depending on their order. Next is a
lexical ambiguity, which can arise when context is insufficient to
allow to determine the precise meaning of a word that has more than
one meaning. Lastly there is creative ambiguity where the drafter of
the contract by design deliberately makes some of the language
ambiguous setting a trap to perhaps be invoked later and after the
fact thus providing some advantage to the writer of the contract the
other party may not be aware of immediately if ever. Yes, that gets
very close to violating ethics rules.
Well surprise, the courts especially at the federal level hate any
kind of ambiguity. Surprise two, often such language is stricken or
reversed with the courts ruling against the WRITER of the contract
arguing they should have known better and used clearer language.
So just because the EULA says something doesn't mean it is valid or
even legal.
|
| |
| | | | | Post in reply to: Ringmaster
3IHA.2348@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>
You might be the one who thinks every ambiguity is intended for ill-purpose,
but I know that is not always the case, or at least, when I (and many
others) engaged to certain contracts, it meant to leave some rooms for all
parties involved as a goodwill.
I am not a legal expert, and unlike you, I don't intend to pretend as one,
but I do know that *intension* is one major criterion for courts to
considering cases.
Honestly speaking, you are not qualified for giving me any lessons.
|
| |
| |
|