XP OEM - Interesting conversation with MS employee

In article <u8h3811m67oj8m9h5jonkgiptgj24dhssa@4ax.com>, none@none.net
says...
> They accepted orders that
> they told authorities were carried out when in fact they had not been.
> They lied. They were being by your definition "dishonest".

So, what you're stating is that honesty and integrity are relative to
the personal views of the specific individual and not in relation to
society?

Either they lied or not, and either they are good to their word or not,
and any other interpretation is a subjective measure of their integrity.

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

Leythos wrote:
> In article <gcs281p0jvkl9jkq98ht72u5j5cgiabar1@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
> says...
>> You cannot
>> have MS (nor youself) further elaborate them in scope or
>> terms after that contract is made.
>
> Actually, I can ask MS to clarify it in order to see what / where they
> are going or wanted to go, but it only matters to me as a means to
> understand what they wanted to do, not what I'm (or anyone) is bound
> to.
>
> What's funny, is that to be an OEM you are bound to more than just the
> EULA, and the OEM site is setup for OEM's and to allow people to
> become OEM's, and the site contains specifics about what they
> consider. At the same time, you (in the US) are not an OEM just by
> getting an OEM disk from an OEM, you are an OEM if you have an OEM
> agreement with MS, otherwise you're just an end-user of OEM software.
>
> So, one could reason that if you've read the OEM documents, signed on
> to be an OEM so that you could order directly from the MS OEM program
> (and not another OEM), that you would already know what MS has
> defined for it's definitions. You do realize that purchasing OEM
> software from an OEM does not make you an OEM, it only makes you a
> purchaser of OEM software.


And more than likely the same can be said of the business that sold you
the software.

Walmart is just a seller of OEM Software, not a true OEM.

--
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"

Ron Martell wrote:
> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.org> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> You are saying one cannot upgrade a computer if you have an OEM
>> licence and that by upgrading it, you lose the licence to use the
>> software you bought for this upgraded computer. Scam, no matter how
>> you slice it.
>>
>> Example. Last year I got a MoBo with an AGP 4x slot and it can only
>> handle 266 RAM. I want an 8x slot and a motherboard that can handle
>> 400 RAM and a faster 400 processor to go with it. With your theory,
>> I would have to buy another copy of an OEM Windows XP to upgrade the
>> same computer the first OEM was installed on and I say that is a
>> scam if true, it is designed to make people buy software they
>> already have and paid for. Now, I will buy the motherboard and new
>> RAM and if I have to call MS, I will only give them the number, as
>> is outlined in their FAQs and not feel like a thief or weasal but as
>> a person who merely upgraded his computer and didn't want to be
>> forced to buy something I already have again!
>>
>> Please explain how all of this relates to piracy, be it for profit or
>> "casual". I am all ears.
>>
>
> Some additional points that might be at least partially relevant to
> this discussion:
>
> 1. Surveys have shown that the vast majority of PCs go to the scrap
> heap or dumpster with their original hardware configurations intact.
> Upgraded systems are a small minority of the total.
>
> 2. OEM licenses are much less expensive than their retail
> equivalents, and there is a reason for this. You get what you pay
> for.

Yeah, you forced to pay over $100 for 2 outsourced to India techsupport
phone calls!

--
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 <e2ZFP1dVFHA.3432@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>,
> kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys- tems.c*a*m says...
>> I was at recent MS OEM event and attended a session on licensing. The
>> speaker was very clear that Microsoft's position was that changing
>> the motherboard was not allowed as it defines the computer. She even
>> said that in the near future activations will reflect this. Changing
>> a motherboard will only be allowed under warranty and will always
>> cause a phone in event. Later on she was asked about selling OEM
>> software with qualifying hardware what qualified? She said anything
>> that was essential to running a computer. She elaborated that that
>> meant anything within the case, even a ram chip, and also a keyboard
>> and mouse. Does anyone else see the inconsistency here?
>
> The motherboard is what they describe on the OEM site too.
>
> As for what you can sell OEM software with, I don't see where the
> purchase has anything to do with it as long as you understand the
> license is tied to the motherboard as defined above.
>
> They are making it easy to purchase, which has nothing to do with a
> license for use.

It matters because logically the software is really tied to the hardware
it is sold with. That is the terms at the time of sale. After you get
home and read the EULA it pulls a bait and switch and ties the "license"
to the computer the software is first installed on instead of the
hardware it was sold with. The EULA, in effect, is rewriting the Terms
of Sale! And this is only a fairly recent development. Get you hands
on a OEM XP Gold EULA and you'll see that it reflected the terms of sale
and stated the the software was licensed with the HARDWARE, and WinXPSP1
and later ties the license to the COMPUTER.

"The SOFTWARE is licensed with the HARDWARE as a single integrated
product and may only be used with the HARDWARE." - WinXP OEM RTM EULA

"The SOFTWARE is licensed with the COMPUTER as a single integrated
product and may only be used with the COMPUTER." - WinXP OEM SP1 & later
EULA

See, the previous version actually mirrors the conditions at the time of
sale, if the hardware was a component XP is license with the component,
and if it was sold with an entire computer then it is tied to that
computer.

However, after SP1, if you buy XP with a hardware component, MS uses
their post-sale shrinkwrap license to tie XP to a computer to be named
later, instead of the hardware it was sold with, which is a denial of
the conditions at the time of sale, at a time after that sale.

On the face of it, this denial of the conditions of the sale after the
fact of the sale, would seem to be unconscionable, and not likely to be
upheld in court, and is just another example of MS writing something in
there EULA it has no real intention of enforcing by legal means, because
they are more than likely to lose.

--
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 <u8h3811m67oj8m9h5jonkgiptgj24dhssa@4ax.com>, none@none.net
> says...
>> They accepted orders that
>> they told authorities were carried out when in fact they had not
>> been. They lied. They were being by your definition "dishonest".
>
> So, what you're stating is that honesty and integrity are relative to
> the personal views of the specific individual and not in relation to
> society?
>
> Either they lied or not, and either they are good to their word or
> not, and any other interpretation is a subjective measure of their
> integrity.
>
> --

Is it immoral to lie to a criminal, a conman, or to someone or something
that lie to you first? While two wrongs don't equal a right, sometimes
one needs to think outside of the box to protect themselves from being
abused by disreputable devices of others.

--
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"

Kerry Brown wrote:
> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:esGB1HeVFHA.2256@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Kerry Brown wrote:
>>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>>> news:MPG.1ceb1444550aa5869896e1@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
>>>> In article <uOTW1qbVFHA.2664@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
>>>> Woody@ByteMe.com says...
>>>>> the latest from mike brannigan is that it's the oem that
>>>>> determines when the
>>>>> original computer is no longer the original computer . so who
>>>>> built the computer , who bought the oem os and who installed the
>>>>> os on that computer
>>>>> determines the rules as far as i read it .
>>>>
>>>> Not that I want to get into this again, but if you go into the OEM
>>>> site at MS, read around the documents, it seemed very clear to me
>>>> that the OEM software is tied to the first computer it's installed
>>>> on, and that the computer, by MS's documents on the OEM site,
>>>> indicate that the Motherboard is the "computer".
>>>>
>>>> When I, as a personal choice, choose OEM, I limit the scope of the
>>>> license to the motherboard.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>> spam999free@rrohio.com
>>>> remove 999 in order to email me
>>>
>>> I was at recent MS OEM event and attended a session on licensing.
>>> The speaker was very clear that Microsoft's position was that
>>> changing the motherboard was not allowed as it defines the
>>> computer. She even said that in the near future activations will
>>> reflect this. Changing a motherboard will only be allowed under
>>> warranty and will always cause a phone in event. Later on she was
>>> asked about selling OEM software with qualifying hardware what
>>> qualified? She said anything that was essential to running a
>>> computer. She elaborated that that meant anything within the case,
>>> even a ram chip, and also a keyboard and mouse. Does anyone else
>>> see the inconsistency here? If someone from the licensing dept. is
>>> inconsistent when trying to explain to the mostly converted how is
>>> anyone supposed to make sense of it. My interpretation of the EULA
>>> is OEM software stays with the computer. If it's upgraded in any
>>> fashion over time it's within the EULA. If the computer is sold,
>>> given away, or somehow still in use and a new one is purchased then
>>> it's time for a new license. Kerry
>>
>> You can sell the computer with the OEM software. The EULA allows
>> tranfers with the computer it is licensed with.
>>
>
> That's what I meant. The OEM license stays with the computer. A lot
> ofpeople seem to think it's ok to sell the computer with the OS
> installed but keep the COA and use it with the new computer.

I kinda new that's what you meant, but I just wanted to clear it up for
anyone lurking and reading 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"

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ceb9a50c9de0d469896ee@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <gcs281p0jvkl9jkq98ht72u5j5cgiabar1@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
> says...
>> You cannot
>> have MS (nor youself) further elaborate them in scope or
>> terms after that contract is made.
>
> Actually, I can ask MS to clarify it in order to see what / where they
> are going or wanted to go, but it only matters to me as a means to
> understand what they wanted to do, not what I'm (or anyone) is bound to.
>
> What's funny, is that to be an OEM you are bound to more than just the
> EULA, and the OEM site is setup for OEM's and to allow people to become
> OEM's, and the site contains specifics about what they consider. At the
> same time, you (in the US) are not an OEM just by getting an OEM disk
> from an OEM, you are an OEM if you have an OEM agreement with MS,
> otherwise you're just an end-user of OEM software.
>
> So, one could reason that if you've read the OEM documents, signed on to
> be an OEM so that you could order directly from the MS OEM program (and
> not another OEM), that you would already know what MS has defined for
> it's definitions. You do realize that purchasing OEM software from an
> OEM does not make you an OEM, it only makes you a purchaser of OEM
> software.
>

Read your OEM agreement. You are allowed to sell/purchase OEM software
to/from other OEM's. The onus is on you at all times to make sure the
software is legitimate. Other than that they recommend you get it from
certain distributors that they have approved.

Kerry


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

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ceb9b973dd40bb09896ef@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <e2ZFP1dVFHA.3432@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-
> tems.c*a*m says...
>> I was at recent MS OEM event and attended a session on licensing. The
>> speaker was very clear that Microsoft's position was that changing the
>> motherboard was not allowed as it defines the computer. She even said
>> that
>> in the near future activations will reflect this. Changing a motherboard
>> will only be allowed under warranty and will always cause a phone in
>> event.
>> Later on she was asked about selling OEM software with qualifying
>> hardware
>> what qualified? She said anything that was essential to running a
>> computer.
>> She elaborated that that meant anything within the case, even a ram chip,
>> and also a keyboard and mouse. Does anyone else see the inconsistency
>> here?
>
> The motherboard is what they describe on the OEM site too.
>
> As for what you can sell OEM software with, I don't see where the
> purchase has anything to do with it as long as you understand the
> license is tied to the motherboard as defined above.
>
> They are making it easy to purchase, which has nothing to do with a
> license for use.
>
> --
> --
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me

I agree that that is how MS wants it to go and reading the EULA that is
reasonably obvious. How many people buying a copy of XP with a mouse read
the EULA and make the connection? For that matter how many end users have
ever read the EULA for any software? Probably very few. I'm not saying these
people are in the right. I don't think they are. People should read
contracts. If they don't they should take responsibility for their inaction.
Sooner or later someone will challenge the whole EULA scenario which
includes clicking a button online, etc. It will probably be to do with
credit card charges rather than software but once a precedent is set it will
probably apply across the board. Until then I do what I feel is ethical, one
license for each computer. Upgrading a m/b is a normal thing to do with a
computer therefore it is the same computer. If the MS rep is right and they
are changing activations to stop m/b upgrades then the s**t will hit the
fan. If nothing else it will be fun to watch the flame wars here.

Kerry

Kerry Brown wrote:
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1ceb9b973dd40bb09896ef@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
>> In article <e2ZFP1dVFHA.3432@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>,
>> kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys- tems.c*a*m says...
>>> I was at recent MS OEM event and attended a session on licensing.
>>> The speaker was very clear that Microsoft's position was that
>>> changing the motherboard was not allowed as it defines the
>>> computer. She even said that
>>> in the near future activations will reflect this. Changing a
>>> motherboard will only be allowed under warranty and will always
>>> cause a phone in event.
>>> Later on she was asked about selling OEM software with qualifying
>>> hardware
>>> what qualified? She said anything that was essential to running a
>>> computer.
>>> She elaborated that that meant anything within the case, even a ram
>>> chip, and also a keyboard and mouse. Does anyone else see the
>>> inconsistency here?
>>
>> The motherboard is what they describe on the OEM site too.
>>
>> As for what you can sell OEM software with, I don't see where the
>> purchase has anything to do with it as long as you understand the
>> license is tied to the motherboard as defined above.
>>
>> They are making it easy to purchase, which has nothing to do with a
>> license for use.
>>
>> --
>> --
>> spam999free@rrohio.com
>> remove 999 in order to email me
>
> I agree that that is how MS wants it to go and reading the EULA that
> is reasonably obvious. How many people buying a copy of XP with a
> mouse read the EULA and make the connection? For that matter how many
> end users have ever read the EULA for any software? Probably very
> few. I'm not saying these people are in the right. I don't think they
> are. People should read contracts. If they don't they should take
> responsibility for their inaction. Sooner or later someone will
> challenge the whole EULA scenario which includes clicking a button
> online, etc. It will probably be to do with credit card charges
> rather than software but once a precedent is set it will probably
> apply across the board. Until then I do what I feel is ethical, one
> license for each computer. Upgrading a m/b is a normal thing to do
> with a computer therefore it is the same computer. If the MS rep is
> right and they are changing activations to stop m/b upgrades then the
> s**t will hit the fan. If nothing else it will be fun to watch the
> flame wars here.
> Kerry

You are wrong that it would apply across the board. Copyright Law, when
it comes to the right of first sale and "fair use" make software, and
other copyright material much different.

Circuit Judge EASTERBROOK for the United States Court of Appeals For the
Seventh Circuit wrote:

"Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are
objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for
example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are
unconscionable)." -
http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html

Now that case didn't invovle sofware, but repackaging and selling
ProCD's database, it wasn't about shrinkwrap license over the right of
the individuals for private non-commercial use.

Judge Easterbrook went on to say, "Following the district court, we
treat the licenses as ordinary contracts accompanying the sale of
products, and therefore as governed by the common law of contracts and
the Uniform Commercial Code. Whether there are legal differences between
"contracts" and "licenses" (which may matter under the copyright
doctrine of first sale) is a subject for another day."

The UCC, (Uniform Commercial Code) has a proposed change called UCITA
that would make shrinkwrap licenses actual contracts under the law,
unfortunately UCITA is practically dead in the water, and it was this
portion of the law that was among the most controvertial aspects of it.

Do copyright owners have a right to control their copyright in public
and/or commercial realm. You bet ya'! But when it comes to the PRIVATE
and NON-COMMERCIAL USE by individuals in their homes, that is where NO
COPYRIGHT OWNER should NEVER have the right to tread! Any other way of
looking at it is a usurpation of the rights of PEOPLE to their PRIVACY
in their OWN HOMES!

"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." -
part of the Supreme Courts reasoning behind the Sony Betamax case -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html

Copyright owners do not possess the right to limit my "fair use!"

--
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"

kurttrail wrote:

> You can sell the computer with the OEM software. The EULA allows
> tranfers with the computer it is licensed with.
>
I haven't read the OEM EULA, but the XP Home EULA specifically states 1
transfer of ownership of the computer. After that, if that purchaser
resells the computer to another person, the third purchaser must purchase a
new license.



--

ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°øø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø
Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
A brief overview of Windows' most serious design flaws
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw.../IhateMS_A.html