Microsoft Office 2003 EULA clarification

[Shenan Stanley]

Kurt,

The point had nothing to do with the thread or necessarily its content - but
with the OP believing they had started something.. They had not. They asked
an innocent question, everyone else stretched the thread. The point was the
"ado about it", not the "it". I can find this much "ado" repeatedly with a
simple search for "kurttrail" or "EULA"... Not saying you cause it, but you
are there most of the time when the "ado" happens. hehe You would
definitely come up with more 'long threads' as a result of a search with
your name than you would with say, the OPs name.

EULA, Licensing, Activation and your name - you cannot search the newsgroups
without finding a dozen two-day long threads with your name and at least one
of those buzz words. My point was to that (the fact the OP started nothing
special) and nothing else - you stretched it, so I stretched it. I answer
the questions you asked because you asked. I assumed paranoia on your part
because you assumed I meant something ominous - which I hopefully cleared up
for you.

Is there anything wrong with it? No - preach away. It's what these groups
are for in part.

I just wanted to make sure the OP knew they had done nothing special by
stirring up a controversy (or at least an over-blown thread) by mentioning
one of the "buzz words" that is bound to do it on these newsgroups.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

I am not sure what you mean by "count installs"
All of these versions use activation to help limit the number of current
installations.
That is not to say Installations are limited.
You can install an unlimited # of times as long as you do not attempt to
install on a larger number of computers than the EULA allows.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
http://www.dts-l.org

 

[kurttrail]

Kurt,

The point had nothing to do with the thread or necessarily its
content - but with the OP believing they had started something..

They
had not.

I agree, Norton did by coming up with the silly ideas that the EULA
forces the retailer to accept open-box returns.

They asked an innocent question, everyone else stretched
the thread. The point was the "ado about it", not the "it". I can
find this much "ado" repeatedly with a simple search for "kurttrail"
or "EULA"... Not saying you cause it, but you are there most of the
time when the "ado" happens. hehe You would definitely come up with
more 'long threads' as a result of a search with your name than you
would with say, the OPs name.

Ah, see that was the innuendo! That is what you left unsaid originally!
That is what I wanted you say outright, not allude to.

EULA, Licensing, Activation and your name - you cannot search the
newsgroups without finding a dozen two-day long threads with your
name and at least one of those buzz words.

It takes two to have an ado, and I'm not the kind of person to back down
when I believe the other person is in error, bullsh*tting, or FUDing
this group.

My point was to that (the
fact the OP started nothing special) and nothing else - you stretched
it, so I stretched it. I answer the questions you asked because you
asked. I assumed paranoia on your part because you assumed I meant
something ominous - which I hopefully cleared up for you.

And I was correct, your explanation above proves it, as I have already
pointed out.

Is there anything wrong with it? No - preach away. It's what these
groups are for in part.

Was I preaching? I was pointing out Norton's bullsh*t, as he kept
shoveling more and more of it.

I just wanted to make sure the OP knew they had done nothing special
by stirring up a controversy (or at least an over-blown thread) by
mentioning one of the "buzz words" that is bound to do it on these
newsgroups.

Go back and read his post, I don't think he really cared.

--
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"

 

[All Things Mopar]

On this date, Shenan Stanley extended this wisdom for the
consideration of other readers...

[snip]

I just wanted to make sure the OP knew they had done
nothing special by stirring up a controversy (or at least
an over-blown thread) by mentioning one of the "buzz words"
that is bound to do it on these newsgroups.

I can sort out the wheat from the chaff, whoever is the "chaff",
hence my tongue-in-cheek "apology"...

 

[All Things Mopar]

On this date, Jupiter Jones [MVP] extended this wisdom for
the consideration of other readers...

I am not sure what you mean by "count installs"
All of these versions use activation to help limit the
number of current installations.
That is not to say Installations are limited.
You can install an unlimited # of times as long as you do
not attempt to install on a larger number of computers than
the EULA allows.

"Count installs" means just what it sounds like. Activation
software is specifically designed to /limit/ the number of
installs possible to that (presumeably) allowed under the
EULA. And, it is specifically designed to track specific
hardware/software combinations so as to be able to "detect"
alleged cheating.

And, it always errs on the side of /not/ allowing another
install until you pay tribute to the Gods in Redmond to
please, please, please let me use the software I /paid/ for on
the hardware /I/ own, even if I have the temarity to upgrade
it. Yeah, I know, I don't "own" it, I just "license" it.

As to the various versions of Office 2003, at least a couple
people have said that the only version with install-counting
activation is the Student and Teachers version, which limits
installs to 3.

I don't know. I don't much care, so long as one of the non-
academic versions will give me at least two, which is how I
read the EULAs for the retail versions of Office, except for
the academic version, which again says 3 (and, in that case,
it says 3 on the box but the others say nothing on the box,
hence the reason, again, for my OP)

 

[David R. Norton MVP]

"All North American retail Microsoft software comes with a 30-day,
Microsoft money back guarantee. Retail products can most easily be
returned through the retailer where the product was purchased, *subject*
*to* *that* *retailer's* *return* *policy*, or directly to Microsoft,
subject to the policy below." -
http://www.microsoft.com/info/nareturns.htm

Why are you being deceitful? MS cannot mandate a stores return policy
through its EULA.

Now you're the one being deceitful as I never said or suggested that.

I don't know where you live, but here in America, a retail store has the
right to make its own return policies, and no retail product
manufacturer can force a retailer to take a return against its own
expressed return policies.

Of course that's true, nor did I every say they could be forced to do so, I
pointed out that retail stores here WILL accept returns of opened software if
you show them a copy of the EULA and ask them to accept the return.

And most of the major retailers in the US will NOT accept opened-box
software returns.

Wrong, I've done it.

But please, keep bullsh*tting, and calling me obtuse! Just shows
everyone how full of sh*t you really are, Norton!

Have you ever posted anything useful or helpful to this group? All I've seen
from you is your uninformed rants about EULAs and your critisism of posts you
apparently don't understand.

 

[David R. Norton MVP]

OK, do you agree with Norton's opinion that MS's Office EULA forces a
retailer to accept an open-box return?

OK, now you're deliberately lying as I've never said that nor anything that
could be considered to mean that.

You've pretty much proved who and what "kurttrail" is for those who didn't
know previously.

 

[All Things Mopar]

On this date, David R. Norton MVP extended this wisdom
for
the consideration of other readers...

policies.

Of course that's true, nor did I every say they could be
forced to do so, I pointed out that retail stores here WILL
accept returns of opened software if you show them a copy
of the EULA and ask them to accept the return.


Wrong, I've done it.

David, in reading the many real and surreal posts in
this thread, it occurs to me that the operative phrase
in EULA is "end user". It seems to me that it is the
/end user/ that "agrees" or does not "agree", and not
the store, web site, or whereever the software is
purchased from.

Not wanting to start a Holy War of my own, and not
picking on M$ alone, it still makes the most sense to
inquire /in advance/ when purchasing /any/ software from
the manufacturer or any "store" about what their return
policy is /before/ buying/opening the
box/installing/reading the relevant EULA.

That I'm aware of, there are no law(s) in the U.S.
requiring retailers of /any/ product soft or hard to
/ever/ accept returns for cash/charge credit. The entire
idea behind "satisfaction or your money back" stems from
a desire of people selling things to /want/ their
customers to be satisfied at all times, have happy
purchasing experiences, and - most importantly - come
back to buy more and recommend the selling entity to
others.

Call it "good will" if you like.

I also have found that approaching a store in "good
faith" and without a chip on my shoulder, and politely
/asking/ what their return policy is is /far/ more
effective than buying something "sight unseen", then
attempting to demand return rights from a perhaps-
reluctant store manager.

A recent example for me was buying a rather expensive
LCD monitor from CompUSA. I first asked the sales
representative if I could return it for /charge credit/
if I just didn't like it for any reason. Then, I asked
the cashier, then I verified with some person calling
themselves a "manager". They all said I could not only
return it for credit within 14 days and there'd be no
restocking fee. After all, how could I really evaluate a
monitor without trying it on /my/ stuff? So, I bought
it, and I'm completely satisfied. Morever, I'll go back
again, even though there's plenty of people that hate
CompUSA.

A second example, also "hard"-ware, is when I recently
bought a digital camera. Camera stores are notorious for
/not/ allowing charge credits because they've been
burned so many times by twits taking a "once in a
lifetime vacation" or photographing their daughter's
wedding, then wanting to return the camera. When I
approached my fav camera store /manager/, he quickly was
able to "qualify" me as a serious buyer and not a
scammer. In this case, I did return it for credit a week
later after taking 500+ pictures and "proving" to myself
that it didn't fit my needs. Again, the manager
cheerfully gave me a charge credit because he wants me
to come back again and again and again, which I have for
20+ years.

Now to open-box software. I imagine you've been as
successful in getting refunds as you've been by taking
the quiet approach and not "demanding satisfaction".
Politeness never seems to go out-of-style, I've found.
Still, iffn they balk, you've got a binary decision to
make: either buy it and keep it, or just walk away.

Now, can we all go back to work enjoying our PCs? Yes.
Thank you for listening!

 

[kurttrail]

Now you're the one being deceitful as I never said or suggested that.

Kurt: Where in the EULA does it mandate that the store that sold the
copy of
software is responsible to accept open box returns?

Norton: Oh, I forgot your reading disability. That would be the part
of the EULA
that says "YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY
INSTALLING,
COPYING OR USING THE SOFTWARE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL,
COPY OR
USE THE SOFTWARE; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL
REFUND...."

Your answer to my question definately suggests exactly that, Norton!

Of course that's true, nor did I every say they could be forced to do
so, I pointed out that retail stores here WILL accept returns of
opened software if you show them a copy of the EULA and ask them to
accept the return.

WILL?! They don't have to. Even MS says, "subject to that retailer's
return policy" on its North American returns page.

The operative word in the EULA is "MAY," not "WILL."

"YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE"

Wrong, I've done it.

With "most of the major retailers in the US?"

You are full of Sh*t yet again!

Have you ever posted anything useful or helpful to this group?

LOL! Have you? I've yet to see a post of yours that isn't full of it.

All
I've seen from you is your uninformed rants about EULAs and your
critisism of posts you apparently don't understand.

LOL! I understand quite well, unfortunately for you.

--
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]

OK, now you're deliberately lying as I've never said that nor
anything that could be considered to mean that.

You've pretty much proved who and what "kurttrail" is for those who
didn't know previously.

Kurt: Where in the EULA does it mandate that the store that sold the
copy of
software is responsible to accept open box returns?

Norton: Oh, I forgot your reading disability. That would be the part
of the EULA
that says "YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA BY
INSTALLING,
COPYING OR USING THE SOFTWARE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO NOT INSTALL,
COPY OR
USE THE SOFTWARE; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL
REFUND...."

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/msg/fbb469730d4496ee

Thank you for demonstrating what a "Norton" really is, a bullsh*t
artist, for all those who did not previously know. ;-)

--
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"

 

[David R. Norton MVP]

Kurt: Where in the EULA does it mandate that the store that sold the
copy of software is responsible to accept open box returns?

Norton: Oh, I forgot your reading disability. That would be the part
of the EULA that says "YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS EULA
BY INSTALLING, COPYING OR USING THE SOFTWARE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE, DO
NOT INSTALL, COPY OR USE THE SOFTWARE; YOU MAY RETURN IT TO YOUR PLACE
OF PURCHASE FOR A FULL REFUND...."

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/ms
g/fbb469730d4496ee

Thank you for demonstrating what a "Norton" really is, a bullsh*t
artist, for all those who did not previously know. ;-)

Thanks for demonstrating that you're a liar.

Did you even read what you posted? Nowhere did I say the store is
responsible to accept open box returns. You're the one who came up with that
idiocy as you can see by the above.

Kurt, you're a liar and completely dishonest. I thought maybe you were just
stupid or playing dense so you could continue this silly nonsense of yours
but apparently deliberately lying is how you try and score points or whatever
your foolish game might be.

Again, you've not AFAIK posted anything in this or other groups that helpful
to people, your posts are your uninformed opinions of EULAs or else you're
picking on some other poster who's trying to be helpful by distorting or, as
you've done here, outright lying about what has been said.

Your behavior in this newsgroup is despicable. You should leave but since
you seem to enjoy you're behavior you can continue from within my kill file.

Thanks again for showing everyone what a dishonest, deceitful person you
are...

 

[kurttrail]

Thanks for demonstrating that you're a liar.

Did you even read what you posted? Nowhere did I say the store is
responsible to accept open box returns. You're the one who came up
with that idiocy as you can see by the above.

I ask you a question, and you answered it.

If you didn't understand the question you were answering, that doesn't
make me a liar, but you'd have to let us know that you didn't understand
the question you were answering.

Did you understand it? If not, is that my problem, or yours?

Kurt, you're a liar and completely dishonest. I thought maybe you
were just stupid or playing dense so you could continue this silly
nonsense of yours but apparently deliberately lying is how you try
and score points or whatever your foolish game might be.

Norton, I even gave the link to your post that answered my question. If
anything, I went out of my way to give full disclosure!

Again, you've not AFAIK posted anything in this or other groups that
helpful to people, your posts are your uninformed opinions of EULAs
or else you're picking on some other poster who's trying to be
helpful by distorting or, as you've done here, outright lying about
what has been said.

I asked a question, and YOU answered it. Not my problem if you didn't
understand the question asked. It would be you problem of not
comprehending English.

Your behavior in this newsgroup is despicable.

If putting your answer in the context of the question it was answering
is despicable, then I plead guilty.

Personally, I think this whole hissy-fit of yours just shows what a
little baby you are.

You should leave but
since you seem to enjoy you're behavior you can continue from within
my kill file.

Yes, that is probably best, so you can hide from reality. Some people
just cannot stand to be corrected when they are wrong.

Thanks again for showing everyone what a dishonest, deceitful person
you are...

I showed your answer to my question, and gave a link to the post in the
Google archives.

If you think that is dishonest and deceitful, then you are the one that
is demonstrating dishonesty and deceit, Norton.

--
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"