XP OEM - Interesting conversation with MS employee

Bruce Chambers wrote:
> Woody wrote:
>
>>
>> from what Mike Brannigan , an MS employee and frequent poster , has
>> been saying of late is that it's up to the oem to determine when the
>> original machine is no longer the original machine . definately a
>> major retreat from earlier interpretations of the ms oem eula .
>>
>>
>
> No, that's no "retreat." That's what the official policy, as stated
> by Microsoft employees, has always been.

Tell it to Lameboy, and his password-protected system builder web page!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Bruce has "character" and is 100% honest!

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/sec...sxp/choose.mspx

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"T. Waters" wrote:
|
| Bruce your explanation of OEM support of Windows XP was very enlightening
| You got to the actual point of limiting the OEM to the first machine. So I
| found it odd that you summed up that brilliant and rational explanation with
| a simplistic statement as to the morals of a person who moves OEM XP to
| another computer. They are not violating the MS intent of freeing the OEM
| from supporting an OS on a computer the OEM did not build! Are you devoutly
| religious, by any chance?



---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0519-0, 05/09/2005
Tested on: 5/10/2005 8:21:27 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

In article <i2n28115ei7fck158f8aq74vgdbo57jgpf@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
says...
> On Wed, 11 May 2005 00:28:46 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
> wrote:
>
>
> >I also said that it's up to each person to interpret what MS means until
> >the actually call MS and ask for clarification - which I don't expect
> >many to admit to doing.
>
> That's where you went wrong. MS cannot LATER clarify,
> further restrict a license.
>
> There is nothing a call to MS can tell you that isn't
> already in the license as shipped.
>
> I'm not suggesting it would be fair to upgrade the entire
> system a piece and a time and think an OEM license is still
> valid for it, BUT on the other hand neither the seller nor
> buyer of the license can further redefine it later.

I'm not taking sides, it seemed it would be good, legal or not, to get
an official MS stated position that could be references as FROM A MS
Legal department.

I actually don't care one way or the other if anyone does anything,
really, I don't care, I quit caring about 5 months ago. I also don't
make any attempt to sway anyone into thinking one way or another. I have
only mentioned what I've read on the MS site, seen in posted (web) MS
documents, and how I handle it myself.

Since I don't care how you handle it, or Kurt or Alias, and since I'm
only presenting that MS has documents that clarify their position on the
OEM site, there is no argument to be entered into - you can do what you
want.

I only sent the email to my partner contact for the benefit of myself
and those that ask - I never suggested that it would be a legal binding
or that it would change any agreements already in place. Sheesh, I just
wanted an official MS clarification on it so that I could have the
information.

Again, I don't care what anyone does, what their orientation is, what
they like (beer/wine coolers), now many times they install the same XP
key, what parts they change - why can't people see that. All I said is
that MS has documents that explain their position to OEM's. I don't care
if you want or don't want to read them, or even if you do / don't agree
with them - I'm not asking you to. I just made the statement that they
exist, that was it.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

In article <p6m281101cnf8a3gcern4998c3vm52auqa@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
says...
> >In the grand scheme of software licensing, it's up to you to determine
> >what is right/wrong and what you feel you can get away with. Some of us
> >are hard-line and purchase a OEM copy considering that additional MS
> >documents call the Motherboard the defining component,
>
> That's not "hard-line", that's ignorance.
> If the license agreement that came with the product
> specifies the motherboard, then it is (a) defining
> component. It is improper and pointless to make any mention
> at all of "additional MS documents". If those documents had
> told you that you are bound to reformat your hard drive
> every 7 days, would you do that too?

So, if I were a registered OEM, having agreed to the OEM agreements, you
are saying that I should ignore the documents on the OEM site that I've
already read concerning the definitions of terms before I sign my OEM
agreement?

Dude, you missed my point, I never suggested that anyone was bound by
the clarification, only informed by it, not bound by it - come down off
the soap-box.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Leythos wrote:
> In article <#fbe6HcVFHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> And different MS employees tell a different story about at what point
>> does upgrading components constitute a new and different computer.
>>
>> Leythos you really should just give it up! The OP actually talked
>> to a MS employee and couldn't get a straight answer out of him. And
>> why is that? Because MS rather keep the FUD surrounding when
>> upgrading a computer turns it into another computer by defining it
>> in the EULA. MS KNOWS if pressed their POST EULA FUD is in no way
>> enforceable.
>
> What part of "my personal" did you miss - Hell, I even stated your and
> Alias's positions of being able to do anything you want.
>
> I've not made a statement as to one or the other being fact in this
> thread.

You still talk about the motherboard fantasy as it it is part of the
EULA.

IT IS NOT A PART OF THE EULA! It is only binding on you in your
delusions!

NOT ONE END USER EVER AGREED TO IT!

MS'S MOTHERBOARD NONSENSE HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY
AGREEMENT!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kony wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2005 23:42:05 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Actually, you can call MS and ask for Licensing information, not the
>> activation drones, MS proper and ask for a email/document explaining
>> licensing.
>
> No, you quite specifically cannot do this.
> It is not binding to add terms and not legal to try to
> enfore them. Of all possible avenues, MS cannot supply you
> with "Further" details about a license that weren't already
> part of that license. If someone simply can't find their
> EULA then they might be SOL.
>
>
>> In the grand scheme of software licensing, it's up to you to
>> determine what is right/wrong and what you feel you can get away
>> with. Some of us are hard-line and purchase a OEM copy considering
>> that additional MS documents call the Motherboard the defining
>> component,
>
> That's not "hard-line", that's ignorance.
> If the license agreement that came with the product
> specifies the motherboard, then it is (a) defining
> component. It is improper and pointless to make any mention
> at all of "additional MS documents". If those documents had
> told you that you are bound to reformat your hard drive
> every 7 days, would you do that too?
>
>
>> while others look
>> at the EULA and say that the power cord could be the single defining
>> component. It's all in what you are comfortable with until you ASK MS
>> legal what they mean.
>
> No reasonable person will conclude the power cord is a
> defining component, UNLESS the license was purchased with
> that cord, if the EULA allows it.
>
> It is NOT "what you are comfortable with until you ask MS
> legal".
>
> MS legal cannot add, subtract, or redefine a EULA after the
> sale.

Amen!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos wrote:
> In article <edOj7KcVFHA.3024@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> Those of us that ain't MS partners and have absolutely no conflict of
>> interest when it comes to having business dealings with MS have never
>> agree, and most have never even seen the password protected web site
>> of FUD about the mobo is the computer and bill gates is god!
>
> And I stated that he (actually anyone) could do what they want on a
> personal level. I never stated that anyone has to follow anything.
>
> You are remembering and making more out of it this time than I said -
> I DID NOT TAKE SIDES OR A STANCE ON IT THIS TIME. I EVEN SUGGESTED IT
> WAS UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL.

Your personal delusions about the motherboard are off-topic.

MS's System Builder site is NOT for END USERS. NO ONE EVER AGREED TO
ANYTHING SAID THERE. IT IS TOTALLY NONSENSE, AND IS NOT WORTH
MENTIONING, EXCEPT IN YOUR WET DREAMS ABOUT BILLY G!



--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos wrote:
> In article <p6m281101cnf8a3gcern4998c3vm52auqa@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
> says...
>>> In the grand scheme of software licensing, it's up to you to
>>> determine what is right/wrong and what you feel you can get away
>>> with. Some of us are hard-line and purchase a OEM copy considering
>>> that additional MS documents call the Motherboard the defining
>>> component,
>>
>> That's not "hard-line", that's ignorance.
>> If the license agreement that came with the product
>> specifies the motherboard, then it is (a) defining
>> component. It is improper and pointless to make any mention
>> at all of "additional MS documents". If those documents had
>> told you that you are bound to reformat your hard drive
>> every 7 days, would you do that too?
>
> So, if I were a registered OEM, having agreed to the OEM agreements,
> you are saying that I should ignore the documents on the OEM site
> that I've already read concerning the definitions of terms before I
> sign my OEM agreement?
>
> Dude, you missed my point, I never suggested that anyone was bound by
> the clarification, only informed by it, not bound by it - come down
> off the soap-box.

If you aren't bound by it, then you really isn't worth the toilet paper
I used to wipe my ass with today!

And neither my used toilet paper or you non-binding web page has any
place in this thread!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

In article <#NRPCncVFHA.628@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> Leythos wrote:
> > In article <p6m281101cnf8a3gcern4998c3vm52auqa@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
> > says...
> >>> In the grand scheme of software licensing, it's up to you to
> >>> determine what is right/wrong and what you feel you can get away
> >>> with. Some of us are hard-line and purchase a OEM copy considering
> >>> that additional MS documents call the Motherboard the defining
> >>> component,
> >>
> >> That's not "hard-line", that's ignorance.
> >> If the license agreement that came with the product
> >> specifies the motherboard, then it is (a) defining
> >> component. It is improper and pointless to make any mention
> >> at all of "additional MS documents". If those documents had
> >> told you that you are bound to reformat your hard drive
> >> every 7 days, would you do that too?
> >
> > So, if I were a registered OEM, having agreed to the OEM agreements,
> > you are saying that I should ignore the documents on the OEM site
> > that I've already read concerning the definitions of terms before I
> > sign my OEM agreement?
> >
> > Dude, you missed my point, I never suggested that anyone was bound by
> > the clarification, only informed by it, not bound by it - come down
> > off the soap-box.
>
> If you aren't bound by it, then you really isn't worth the toilet paper
> I used to wipe my ass with today!
>
> And neither my used toilet paper or you non-binding web page has any
> place in this thread!

It had as much place as a statement about a conversation with a
contractor that does PA without any real knowledge of licensing rules or
documents for the product they are activating.

I never claimed it was worth anything to anyone, it's just as good an
information source as you provide.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

T. Waters wrote:

>
>
> Bruce your explanation of OEM support of Windows XP was very enlightening
> You got to the actual point of limiting the OEM to the first machine.


Thank you.


> So I
> found it odd that you summed up that brilliant and rational explanation with
> a simplistic statement as to the morals of a person who moves OEM XP to
> another computer.


What's "simplistic" about it? In this situation, the purchaser of the
OEM license agrees to abide by the terms of the EULA, and then
subsequently reneges on his agreement and installs the OEM license
elsewhere. This indicates quite clearly that this person's given word,
or signature on a contract, for that matter, cannot be trusted. If
he'll break the agreement to abide by the EULA, he cannot be trusted not
to break any other agreements.



> Are you devoutly
> religious, by any chance?
>
>


No. Why do you feel the need to be so gratuitously insulting? Every
religion I know of is the very anti-thesis of integrity - they're all
founded on self-delusion.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH