OEM

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

Alias wrote:

Um, to buy a copy of a generic OEM, be it XP or Vista, one has to also
buy a CPU, RAM, hard drive and motherboard.

Is that the way it is in Spain?! That sucks! Not that way in the states.

It certainly isn't about concern for the paying customer.

Alias

<snip>



--
"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

 

[norm]

You know, "alias", sometimes you have a lot on the ball. But
sometimes you show your idiocy, such as claiming that one MUST
purchase "a CPU, RAM, hard drive and motherboard."

This is simply NOT SO!!!
Generic OEMs may be purchased by anyone, as long as he/she/it
purchases them with a "necessary hardware item". This may be
something as inexpensive as a power cord or cheapie mouse.

While OEM versions of Windows previous to XP required the purchase of
a motherboard, hd, or an entire Computer, with the release of XP, such
draconian requirements were softened considerably, to such an extent
that MANY local computer stores will sell such copies even without the
purchase of "a necessary hardware item", or will include that
"necessary hardware item" in the price of the product.

PLEASE, friend, STOP spreading F.U.D.

Daniel, you might want to investigate further the requirements you
believe to be in force. If you were to go to newegg, for instance, you
would find xp sp2 oem for sale with the following requirement:
Disclaimer: Qualifying proof of purchase must be recent receipts showing
the purchase of a mother board, hard drive, RAM and a CPU. The
components can be on multiple receipts; not necessarily all on one
receipt nor on the same receipt as the qualifying Windows XP/Office 2003
that you purchased.
The purchase of the oem version of vista home premium, however, has no
such requirement, or for any "necessary hardware item", for that matter.
If you were to visit tigerdirect, you would find that BOTH the xp sp2
and the vista home premium versions are offered with no "necessary
hardware requirement".
At one time in the past year, newegg sold xp sp2 without ANY hardware
requirement. It looks like the jury is out on just what is
required/permissible for oem sales, and that if such hardware
requirements are indeed required, they are unenforced by ms.
You may find other vendors with a different take altogether on this issue.

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

Not where I live.


Not where I live.


It appears that MS removed that requirement from generic OEMs in the USA
but in Spain, you have to buy a CPU, RAM, motherboard and hard drive or
you can't buy either a generic XP or Vista. Most store require that you
buy an entire computer before they will sell it to you.

Alias

Well, "alias", I guess we must live with the limitations we each have.
This is simply human.

I'm certain that that is not necessarily Microsoft's intent. They
must abide by each nation's consumer laws, like all other
corporations.

If I'm not mistaken, Spain is still ruled by a right-wing
nationalistic party (i.e., fascist), which probably works to under-cut
US corporations which do business there. I wouldn't doubt that
Microsoft licensing terms in Spain are in the Dark Ages because of
this.

Perhaps you could work toward bringng Spain fully into the 21st
Century.


--
Donald L McDaniel

How can so many otherwise very intelligent people screw up
something so simple so badly? If you stick a computer
keyboard in front of most people, they'll suddenly drop
30 points off their IQs. Much like placing a "Pork Barrel"
bill in front of a politician: He'll forget all about
"cooperation" the minute he counts the zeroes before the
decimal point.

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

Daniel, you might want to investigate further the requirements you
believe to be in force. If you were to go to newegg, for instance, you
would find xp sp2 oem for sale with the following requirement:
Disclaimer: Qualifying proof of purchase must be recent receipts showing
the purchase of a mother board, hard drive, RAM and a CPU. The
components can be on multiple receipts; not necessarily all on one
receipt nor on the same receipt as the qualifying Windows XP/Office 2003
that you purchased.
The purchase of the oem version of vista home premium, however, has no
such requirement, or for any "necessary hardware item", for that matter.
If you were to visit tigerdirect, you would find that BOTH the xp sp2
and the vista home premium versions are offered with no "necessary
hardware requirement".
At one time in the past year, newegg sold xp sp2 without ANY hardware
requirement. It looks like the jury is out on just what is
required/permissible for oem sales, and that if such hardware
requirements are indeed required, they are unenforced by ms.
You may find other vendors with a different take altogether on this issue.

First, my name is "Donald", not "Daniel" (which is actually part of my
surname).

With that out of the way, I no longer use XP. I've transitioned
pretty-much to Vista Ultimate. However, I do believe that what I know
about the licensing terms of XP is correct from Microsoft's POV.

Different retailers will offer different requirements, depending on
how well educated they are concerning Microsoft's sales requrements.

I do remember when the sales requirements for an OEM copy of a Windows
product stated that it must be sold with a full computer, a
motherboard or HD. In those days, few were building their own
machines, since they were so expensive, so Microsoft's System Builder
program was only geared toward those who manufactured or administered
multiple computers. With XP SP2, Microsoft changed the purchase
requirements to accomodate home builders. Since then, more and more
have been building their own computers, and it appears that the Vista
purchase requirements are even less specific.

However, consumers have pretty much transferred their interpretation
of the System Builder License agreement of XP to Vista as a "fait
accompli", and the general understanding is still that "a necessary
piece of hardware" (with the "necessary" part being kind of up to the
retailer's own interpretation of the System Builder License) must
accompany the sale (or be supplied as part of the sale.)

Let's face it: When few computers were being sold -- and those that
were were manufactured by a few OEMs -- the OEM purchase requirements
made sense. But now, anyone and his brother can build their own
computers from off-the-shelf parts fairly cheaply. Requiring the
purchase of an entire machine [or motherboard/CPU/HD] to obtain a copy
of the OS makes no sense in the context of the hobby builder. To
those who build their own machines, the OS is simply another part they
have to provide, and the cheaper the better.

I guess NewEgg is one of those companies which still sell OEM Windows
products with an out-dated interpretation of the OS license.


--
Donald L McDaniel

How can so many otherwise very intelligent people screw up
something so simple so badly? If you stick a computer
keyboard in front of most people, they'll suddenly drop
30 points off their IQs. Much like placing a "Pork Barrel"
bill in front of a politician: He'll forget all about
"cooperation" the minute he counts the zeroes before the
decimal point.

 

[Alias]

Well, "alias", I guess we must live with the limitations we each have.
This is simply human.

I'm certain that that is not necessarily Microsoft's intent.

They set the rules for the retailers and ALL of them have the same
policy dictated by Microsoft.

They
must abide by each nation's consumer laws, like all other
corporations.

See above.

If I'm not mistaken, Spain is still ruled by a right-wing
nationalistic party (i.e., fascist), which probably works to under-cut
US corporations which do business there. I wouldn't doubt that
Microsoft licensing terms in Spain are in the Dark Ages because of
this.

Um, Franco died over two decades ago. Where have you been? We have a
very left wing socialist government who was reelected this past Sunday.

Perhaps you could work toward bringng Spain fully into the 21st
Century.

LOL! I can see you know nothing about Spain. For example, in Spain gay
and lesbian marriages are legal. The penal code is based on crime and
rehabilitation, not crime and punishment like the States.

Alias

 

[Bobby McNulty]

LOL! I can see you know nothing about Spain. For example, in Spain gay
and lesbian marriages are legal. The penal code is based on crime and
rehabilitation, not crime and punishment like the States.

Alias

In some cities, gays and lesbians are married or together as a couple,
Massachusetts legalized this.

 

[Alias]

In some cities, gays and lesbians are married or together as a couple,
Massachusetts legalized this.

Much to the chagrin of the Catholic Church, gay and lesbian marriage is
legal nation wide. Of course, they aren't church weddings but civil
ceremonies.

Alias

 

[norm]

First, my name is "Donald", not "Daniel" (which is actually part of my
surname).

Sorry about the name mistake. It wasn't intentional.

With that out of the way, I no longer use XP. I've transitioned
pretty-much to Vista Ultimate. However, I do believe that what I know
about the licensing terms of XP is correct from Microsoft's POV.

I have a couple vista home premium machines. One I purchased complete
for my wife, and the one I use is home built with an oem copy that I
purchased from newegg. The issue as I see it is not what the ms pov is,
but what the terms for the retailers actually state. I am not privy to
such info, so the only issue I raise is that there is no consistency
from vendors that have the right to sell oem version of the product. So
who is right and who is wrong? Newegg for requiring a hardware purchase,
or tigerdirect, not doing so? Is Alias really spreading fud?

Different retailers will offer different requirements, depending on
how well educated they are concerning Microsoft's sales requrements.

I do remember when the sales requirements for an OEM copy of a Windows
product stated that it must be sold with a full computer, a
motherboard or HD. In those days, few were building their own
machines, since they were so expensive, so Microsoft's System Builder
program was only geared toward those who manufactured or administered
multiple computers. With XP SP2, Microsoft changed the purchase
requirements to accomodate home builders. Since then, more and more
have been building their own computers, and it appears that the Vista
purchase requirements are even less specific.

As I stated in my original post, the inclusion of a requirement for a
hardware purchase for xp is a fairly new (within the last year)
development. I had, prior to the time the requirement appeared,
purchased an oem version of xp having NO hardware requirement mentioned.

However, consumers have pretty much transferred their interpretation
of the System Builder License agreement of XP to Vista as a "fait
accompli", and the general understanding is still that "a necessary
piece of hardware" (with the "necessary" part being kind of up to the
retailer's own interpretation of the System Builder License) must
accompany the sale (or be supplied as part of the sale.)

A general understanding does neither ms or anyone using their products
any good. The actual legalities are what should matter.

Let's face it: When few computers were being sold -- and those that
were were manufactured by a few OEMs -- the OEM purchase requirements
made sense. But now, anyone and his brother can build their own
computers from off-the-shelf parts fairly cheaply. Requiring the
purchase of an entire machine [or motherboard/CPU/HD] to obtain a copy
of the OS makes no sense in the context of the hobby builder. To
those who build their own machines, the OS is simply another part they
have to provide, and the cheaper the better.

I agree about the cost issue. That is why I have purchased oem versions
for use on machines used by me.

I guess NewEgg is one of those companies which still sell OEM Windows
products with an out-dated interpretation of the OS license.

Do you know that to be true with certainty? Is there a source for a
layman to view the that info? And just for the sake of discussion, what
is the rule if I purchased an oem copy of either xp or vista without a
hardware requirement and then decided that I do not need it for anything
I have. Can I, as in individual, sell it for what I paid for it, as it
hasn't been sold to me with a piece of hardware or installed on a
system? For me, there is nothing certain on this issue. It seems that
conjecture and hearsay are more available than the actual requirements
of ms, whatever they might be.

 

[Alias]

The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
wrote:

Alias wrote:


Is that the way it is in Spain?! That sucks! Not that way in the states.

Which is why when I purchased my last copy of a generic OEM XP Pro that
I had a friend send it to me from the States, same for Office 2003. Not
only could I buy it, I could buy it in wimpy dollars ;-) He's also
sending me Tombraider Anniversary and Devil May Cry 4 at dollar prices.

Alias

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly Known as Nina DiBoy'
wrote:

Which is why when I purchased my last copy of a generic OEM XP Pro that
I had a friend send it to me from the States, same for Office 2003. Not
only could I buy it, I could buy it in wimpy dollars ;-) He's also
sending me Tombraider Anniversary and Devil May Cry 4 at dollar prices.

Alias

Nice!

Reading this thread made me realize things could have changed in the
states if what the other posters are saying is true. It sounds like I'm
gonna get my next copy of XP from Tiger then.

--
"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

I'm really surprised, seeing as how Catholicism is the State religion
of Spain.

Much to the chagrin of the Catholic Church, gay and lesbian marriage is
legal nation wide. Of course, they aren't church weddings but civil
ceremonies.

Alias

Not quite, friend. Some "christian" churches in the State of Mass.
(can't spell the damn word) do provide "church" weddings. There are
quite a few right-wing "Fundamentalist/Homosexual" churches around the
country. Also quite a few "liberal christian" churches who approve
of such "weddings" all over the country, and who would gladly perform
such "weddings" if it were legal in their states.


--
Donald L McDaniel

How can so many otherwise very intelligent people screw up
something so simple so badly? If you stick a computer
keyboard in front of most people, they'll suddenly drop
30 points off their IQs. Much like placing a "Pork Barrel"
bill in front of a politician: He'll forget all about
"cooperation" the minute he counts the zeroes before the
decimal point.

 

[Alias]

I'm really surprised, seeing as how Catholicism is the State religion
of Spain.

Not any more. We have freedom of religion here since Franco died and the
new Constitution was drawn up and ratified, although the Catholic
Church, especially Opus Dei, still have a large influence. The Mormons
even go round proselytizing all over the place and many Spanish cities
have Muslim Mosques

Not quite, friend. Some "christian" churches in the State of Mass.
(can't spell the damn word) do provide "church" weddings. There are
quite a few right-wing "Fundamentalist/Homosexual" churches around the
country. Also quite a few "liberal christian" churches who approve
of such "weddings" all over the country, and who would gladly perform
such "weddings" if it were legal in their states.

Glad to hear it, although the if the likes of Huckabee get their way,
there will be a constitutional amendment defining legal marriage as only
between a man and a woman.

Alias

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

First, my name is "Donald", not "Daniel" (which is actually part of my
surname).

Sorry about the name mistake. It wasn't intentional.

With that out of the way, I no longer use XP. I've transitioned
pretty-much to Vista Ultimate. However, I do believe that what I know
about the licensing terms of XP is correct from Microsoft's POV.

I have a couple vista home premium machines. One I purchased complete
for my wife, and the one I use is home built with an oem copy that I
purchased from newegg. The issue as I see it is not what the ms pov is,
but what the terms for the retailers actually state. I am not privy to
such info, so the only issue I raise is that there is no consistency
from vendors that have the right to sell oem version of the product. So
who is right and who is wrong? Newegg for requiring a hardware purchase,
or tigerdirect, not doing so? Is Alias really spreading fud?

Different retailers will offer different requirements, depending on
how well educated they are concerning Microsoft's sales requrements.

I do remember when the sales requirements for an OEM copy of a Windows
product stated that it must be sold with a full computer, a
motherboard or HD. In those days, few were building their own
machines, since they were so expensive, so Microsoft's System Builder
program was only geared toward those who manufactured or administered
multiple computers. With XP SP2, Microsoft changed the purchase
requirements to accomodate home builders. Since then, more and more
have been building their own computers, and it appears that the Vista
purchase requirements are even less specific.

As I stated in my original post, the inclusion of a requirement for a
hardware purchase for xp is a fairly new (within the last year)
development. I had, prior to the time the requirement appeared,
purchased an oem version of xp having NO hardware requirement mentioned.

However, consumers have pretty much transferred their interpretation
of the System Builder License agreement of XP to Vista as a "fait
accompli", and the general understanding is still that "a necessary
piece of hardware" (with the "necessary" part being kind of up to the
retailer's own interpretation of the System Builder License) must
accompany the sale (or be supplied as part of the sale.)

A general understanding does neither ms or anyone using their products
any good. The actual legalities are what should matter.

Let's face it: When few computers were being sold -- and those that
were were manufactured by a few OEMs -- the OEM purchase requirements
made sense. But now, anyone and his brother can build their own
computers from off-the-shelf parts fairly cheaply. Requiring the
purchase of an entire machine [or motherboard/CPU/HD] to obtain a copy
of the OS makes no sense in the context of the hobby builder. To
those who build their own machines, the OS is simply another part they
have to provide, and the cheaper the better.

I agree about the cost issue. That is why I have purchased oem versions
for use on machines used by me.

I guess NewEgg is one of those companies which still sell OEM Windows
products with an out-dated interpretation of the OS license.

Do you know that to be true with certainty? Is there a source for a
layman to view the that info? And just for the sake of discussion, what
is the rule if I purchased an oem copy of either xp or vista without a
hardware requirement and then decided that I do not need it for anything
I have. Can I, as in individual, sell it for what I paid for it, as it
hasn't been sold to me with a piece of hardware or installed on a
system? For me, there is nothing certain on this issue. It seems that
conjecture and hearsay are more available than the actual requirements
of ms, whatever they might be.

If you want to start, read your Microsoft OEM EULA. Just click on the
Start button, and in the Search bar enter "winver". On the resulting
popup, there will be a link to the EULA. Click on it, and read it
carefully. It will give you much information.

Then, go here to read the System Builder Kit EULA

(NOTE, Adobe Reader required for following link
http://oem.microsoft.com/Public/sblicense/2007_SB_Licenses/FY07_SB_License_English.pdf

The Microsoft EULA pretty much spells out the requirements to sell or
transfer an OEM license.

The terms of transfer:
1) The ORIGINAL installation media must be transferred.
2) The ORIGINAL machine the media was installed on must be transferred
along with the ORIGINAL installation media.

**** If there is NO ORIGINAL INSTALLATION MEDIA, the license may NOT
be transferred, since a valid license consists of the ORIGINAL
installation media PLUS the ORIGINAL COA sticker containing the
25-character alphanumeric CD key. People have ignored this clause
since the very beginning. But it's still there.

3) The COA and all other materials provided with the package must be
transferred.
4) Any COPIES of the original installation media must be transferred
or permanently destroyed.
5) All installations which use the CD-Key provided on the COA must be
removed entirely from ANY machine the seller owns.
6) NO COPIES of the installation media may be retained by the seller.
7) When this license is transferred, all license rights and
responsibilities transfer to the new owner, INCLUDING the right to
transfer the license ACCORDING to the above terms.


--
Donald L McDaniel

How can so many otherwise very intelligent people screw up
something so simple so badly? If you stick a computer
keyboard in front of most people, they'll suddenly drop
30 points off their IQs. Much like placing a "Pork Barrel"
bill in front of a politician: He'll forget all about
"cooperation" the minute he counts the zeroes before the
decimal point.

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

Nice!

Reading this thread made me realize things could have changed in the
states if what the other posters are saying is true. It sounds like I'm
gonna get my next copy of XP from Tiger then.

Tigerdirect.com is certainly a legitimate and very reasonable
retailer. I use them all the time for various hardware/softare
purchases.

You know, friend, when everyone was making post-'70s dollars, the
paying customer had every right to be concerned.

But with the new century, and folks making more than enough money to
pay retail for software, being concerned is kind of "cheap", don't you
think?

--
"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

--
Donald L McDaniel

How can so many otherwise very intelligent people screw up
something so simple so badly? If you stick a computer
keyboard in front of most people, they'll suddenly drop
30 points off their IQs. Much like placing a "Pork Barrel"
bill in front of a politician: He'll forget all about
"cooperation" the minute he counts the zeroes before the
decimal point.

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

Not any more. We have freedom of religion here since Franco died and the
new Constitution was drawn up and ratified, although the Catholic
Church, especially Opus Dei, still have a large influence. The Mormons
even go round proselytizing all over the place and many Spanish cities
have Muslim Mosques


Glad to hear it, although the if the likes of Huckabee get their way,
there will be a constitutional amendment defining legal marriage as only
between a man and a woman.

While I am not a Fundamentalist Christian as Mr. Huckabee is, I agree
that "legal marriage" needs to be carefully defined to exclude such
unnatural relationships.

HOWEVER, I also do not believe that sexual relationships (beyond such
harmful relationships as incest) should be licensed by the state
anyway. (i.e., The state has no right to define marriage, since it has
already been defined by the Creator as "one man, one woman.") All a
state can do is either affirm or deny the Creator's definition.

Originally, marriage was more of a LEGAL contract for the purpose of
keeping wealth in the clan or family. Because of this, most marriages
were arranged by the couple's families beforehand. As men and women
grew into spiritual, intellectual, and emotional maturity, its role
changed slightly, while still keeping its role of joining two or more
families in the same clan together for financial purposes.

However, instead of being primarily a means of keeping the money in
the family, it became a means of intellectual, spiritual, and
emotional fulfillment for the individual. Especially in the West.

In the East, the clan's well-being is still all-important. So
marriage customs there accent the clan group, rather than the
individual or couple. In the West, the individual's well-being is
all-important. But we in the West HAVE held on to the financial
aspects of marriage to an extent. Even here in the West, there are
areas where marriages are still arranged more often than not.

Alias

--
Donald L McDaniel

How can so many otherwise very intelligent people screw up
something so simple so badly? If you stick a computer
keyboard in front of most people, they'll suddenly drop
30 points off their IQs. Much like placing a "Pork Barrel"
bill in front of a politician: He'll forget all about
"cooperation" the minute he counts the zeroes before the
decimal point.

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

Tigerdirect.com is certainly a legitimate and very reasonable
retailer. I use them all the time for various hardware/softare
purchases.

Yes, I'm aware as I shop there regularly too because we have one here
locally. Thanks for the recommendation though.

You know, friend, when everyone was making post-'70s dollars, the
paying customer had every right to be concerned.

But with the new century, and folks making more than enough money to
pay retail for software, being concerned is kind of "cheap", don't you
think?

--
"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

 

[norm]

Donald L McDaniel wrote:
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:52:09 +0100, Alias

Donald L McDaniel wrote:
Many thanks to all. I have come to the conclusion that, as an amateur, I
will not purchase any OEM products; especially from eBay.

Also, I was once told that over 60% of all statistics are inaccurate. Figure
that one out!
You've probably made a very wise decision. I certainly commend you.
However, many cannot afford the retail price for Vista ($199-$399),
but can afford the OEM price ($119-$159). Which is why many,
especially those who build their own rigs, opt to pay for an OEM
License rather than a Retail license.
Um, to buy a copy of a generic OEM, be it XP or Vista, one has to also
buy a CPU, RAM, hard drive and motherboard.

It's all about cash-flow, folks.
It certainly isn't about concern for the paying customer.

Alias
You know, "alias", sometimes you have a lot on the ball. But
sometimes you show your idiocy, such as claiming that one MUST
purchase "a CPU, RAM, hard drive and motherboard."

This is simply NOT SO!!!
Generic OEMs may be purchased by anyone, as long as he/she/it
purchases them with a "necessary hardware item". This may be
something as inexpensive as a power cord or cheapie mouse.

While OEM versions of Windows previous to XP required the purchase of
a motherboard, hd, or an entire Computer, with the release of XP, such
draconian requirements were softened considerably, to such an extent
that MANY local computer stores will sell such copies even without the
purchase of "a necessary hardware item", or will include that
"necessary hardware item" in the price of the product.

PLEASE, friend, STOP spreading F.U.D.


Daniel, you might want to investigate further the requirements you
believe to be in force. If you were to go to newegg, for instance, you
would find xp sp2 oem for sale with the following requirement:
Disclaimer: Qualifying proof of purchase must be recent receipts showing
the purchase of a mother board, hard drive, RAM and a CPU. The
components can be on multiple receipts; not necessarily all on one
receipt nor on the same receipt as the qualifying Windows XP/Office 2003
that you purchased.
The purchase of the oem version of vista home premium, however, has no
such requirement, or for any "necessary hardware item", for that matter.
If you were to visit tigerdirect, you would find that BOTH the xp sp2
and the vista home premium versions are offered with no "necessary
hardware requirement".
At one time in the past year, newegg sold xp sp2 without ANY hardware
requirement. It looks like the jury is out on just what is
required/permissible for oem sales, and that if such hardware
requirements are indeed required, they are unenforced by ms.
You may find other vendors with a different take altogether on this issue.
First, my name is "Donald", not "Daniel" (which is actually part of my
surname).

Sorry about the name mistake. It wasn't intentional.

With that out of the way, I no longer use XP. I've transitioned
pretty-much to Vista Ultimate. However, I do believe that what I know
about the licensing terms of XP is correct from Microsoft's POV.

I have a couple vista home premium machines. One I purchased complete
for my wife, and the one I use is home built with an oem copy that I
purchased from newegg. The issue as I see it is not what the ms pov is,
but what the terms for the retailers actually state. I am not privy to
such info, so the only issue I raise is that there is no consistency
from vendors that have the right to sell oem version of the product. So
who is right and who is wrong? Newegg for requiring a hardware purchase,
or tigerdirect, not doing so? Is Alias really spreading fud?

Different retailers will offer different requirements, depending on
how well educated they are concerning Microsoft's sales requrements.

I do remember when the sales requirements for an OEM copy of a Windows
product stated that it must be sold with a full computer, a
motherboard or HD. In those days, few were building their own
machines, since they were so expensive, so Microsoft's System Builder
program was only geared toward those who manufactured or administered
multiple computers. With XP SP2, Microsoft changed the purchase
requirements to accomodate home builders. Since then, more and more
have been building their own computers, and it appears that the Vista
purchase requirements are even less specific.

As I stated in my original post, the inclusion of a requirement for a
hardware purchase for xp is a fairly new (within the last year)
development. I had, prior to the time the requirement appeared,
purchased an oem version of xp having NO hardware requirement mentioned.

However, consumers have pretty much transferred their interpretation
of the System Builder License agreement of XP to Vista as a "fait
accompli", and the general understanding is still that "a necessary
piece of hardware" (with the "necessary" part being kind of up to the
retailer's own interpretation of the System Builder License) must
accompany the sale (or be supplied as part of the sale.)

A general understanding does neither ms or anyone using their products
any good. The actual legalities are what should matter.

Let's face it: When few computers were being sold -- and those that
were were manufactured by a few OEMs -- the OEM purchase requirements
made sense. But now, anyone and his brother can build their own
computers from off-the-shelf parts fairly cheaply. Requiring the
purchase of an entire machine [or motherboard/CPU/HD] to obtain a copy
of the OS makes no sense in the context of the hobby builder. To
those who build their own machines, the OS is simply another part they
have to provide, and the cheaper the better.

I agree about the cost issue. That is why I have purchased oem versions
for use on machines used by me.

I guess NewEgg is one of those companies which still sell OEM Windows
products with an out-dated interpretation of the OS license.

Do you know that to be true with certainty? Is there a source for a
layman to view the that info? And just for the sake of discussion, what
is the rule if I purchased an oem copy of either xp or vista without a
hardware requirement and then decided that I do not need it for anything
I have. Can I, as in individual, sell it for what I paid for it, as it
hasn't been sold to me with a piece of hardware or installed on a
system? For me, there is nothing certain on this issue. It seems that
conjecture and hearsay are more available than the actual requirements
of ms, whatever they might be.

If you want to start, read your Microsoft OEM EULA. Just click on the
Start button, and in the Search bar enter "winver". On the resulting
popup, there will be a link to the EULA. Click on it, and read it
carefully. It will give you much information.

Then, go here to read the System Builder Kit EULA
(NOTE, Adobe Reader required for following link
http://oem.microsoft.com/Public/sblicense/2007_SB_Licenses/FY07_SB_License_English.pdf

The system builder kit eula does not address my question or your
"outdated interpretation of the os license" statement, that I can see.
Among other things, it states: "You accept this license when you open
this package. By accepting this license, you agree that you are a system
builder. If you do not open this package, you may deliver it to another
system builder. “System builder” means an original equipment
manufacturer, an assembler, refurbisher, or pre-installer of software on
computer systems. ”Distribution” and “distribute” means the point in
time when a fully assembled computer system leaves the control of system
builder." In the section that I quoted or in any other section of the sb
kit eula, it says nothing about selling the generic oem package with a
mb, a hd, ram and cpu as required by one seller and not another. Again,
the issue is one clouded with non-information.

The Microsoft EULA pretty much spells out the requirements to sell or
transfer an OEM license.

The terms of transfer:
1) The ORIGINAL installation media must be transferred.
2) The ORIGINAL machine the media was installed on must be transferred
along with the ORIGINAL installation media.

**** If there is NO ORIGINAL INSTALLATION MEDIA, the license may NOT
be transferred, since a valid license consists of the ORIGINAL
installation media PLUS the ORIGINAL COA sticker containing the
25-character alphanumeric CD key. People have ignored this clause
since the very beginning. But it's still there.

3) The COA and all other materials provided with the package must be
transferred.
4) Any COPIES of the original installation media must be transferred
or permanently destroyed.
5) All installations which use the CD-Key provided on the COA must be
removed entirely from ANY machine the seller owns.
6) NO COPIES of the installation media may be retained by the seller.
7) When this license is transferred, all license rights and
responsibilities transfer to the new owner, INCLUDING the right to
transfer the license ACCORDING to the above terms.

The xp eula I have for my system does not state what you have quoted. It
is the only eula I have access to, it is from an installation on one of
my own machines, and it does not address the question about selling the
unopened shrink wrapped oem version that I might have in my possession,
nor can it ever address the question as the eula can only be in effect
if the software package is opened. It only addresses a sale with
hardware, which I take to mean a computer with the os installed: "1.2
SOFTWARE as a Component of the Computer - Transfer. This license may not
be shared, transferred to or used concurrently on different computers.
The SOFTWARE is licensed with the COMPUTER as a single integrated
product and may only be used with the COMPUTER."

 

[Bobby McNulty]

While I am not a Fundamentalist Christian as Mr. Huckabee is, I agree
that "legal marriage" needs to be carefully defined to exclude such
unnatural relationships.

HOWEVER, I also do not believe that sexual relationships (beyond such
harmful relationships as incest) should be licensed by the state
anyway. (i.e., The state has no right to define marriage, since it has
already been defined by the Creator as "one man, one woman.") All a
state can do is either affirm or deny the Creator's definition.

Originally, marriage was more of a LEGAL contract for the purpose of
keeping wealth in the clan or family. Because of this, most marriages
were arranged by the couple's families beforehand. As men and women
grew into spiritual, intellectual, and emotional maturity, its role
changed slightly, while still keeping its role of joining two or more
families in the same clan together for financial purposes.

However, instead of being primarily a means of keeping the money in
the family, it became a means of intellectual, spiritual, and
emotional fulfillment for the individual. Especially in the West.

In the East, the clan's well-being is still all-important. So
marriage customs there accent the clan group, rather than the
individual or couple. In the West, the individual's well-being is
all-important. But we in the West HAVE held on to the financial
aspects of marriage to an extent. Even here in the West, there are
areas where marriages are still arranged more often than not.



--
Donald L McDaniel

How can so many otherwise very intelligent people screw up
something so simple so badly? If you stick a computer
keyboard in front of most people, they'll suddenly drop
30 points off their IQs. Much like placing a "Pork Barrel"
bill in front of a politician: He'll forget all about
"cooperation" the minute he counts the zeroes before the
decimal point.

I married my elementary school sweetheart when I was 10. We
separated, but never divorced so she could have a career.
She's been raising my children with her.
I am a grandfather now, but I have never seen any of the children
or grandchildren. Next month they are coming here.
Bobby

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

"Shoulda, coulda, woulda..." These words are all irrelevant, since
they are all hypothetical statements, not statements of fact.

Let's face it: When few computers were being sold -- and those that
were were manufactured by a few OEMs -- the OEM purchase requirements
made sense. But now, anyone and his brother can build their own
computers from off-the-shelf parts fairly cheaply. Requiring the
purchase of an entire machine [or motherboard/CPU/HD] to obtain a copy
of the OS makes no sense in the context of the hobby builder. To
those who build their own machines, the OS is simply another part they
have to provide, and the cheaper the better.
I agree about the cost issue. That is why I have purchased oem versions
for use on machines used by me.
I guess NewEgg is one of those companies which still sell OEM Windows
products with an out-dated interpretation of the OS license.
Do you know that to be true with certainty? Is there a source for a
layman to view the that info? And just for the sake of discussion, what
is the rule if I purchased an oem copy of either xp or vista without a
hardware requirement and then decided that I do not need it for anything
I have. Can I, as in individual, sell it for what I paid for it, as it
hasn't been sold to me with a piece of hardware or installed on a
system? For me, there is nothing certain on this issue. It seems that
conjecture and hearsay are more available than the actual requirements
of ms, whatever they might be.

If you want to start, read your Microsoft OEM EULA. Just click on the
Start button, and in the Search bar enter "winver". On the resulting
popup, there will be a link to the EULA. Click on it, and read it
carefully. It will give you much information.

Then, go here to read the System Builder Kit EULA
(NOTE, Adobe Reader required for following link
http://oem.microsoft.com/Public/sblicense/2007_SB_Licenses/FY07_SB_License_English.pdf

The system builder kit eula does not address my question or your
"outdated interpretation of the os license" statement, that I can see.
Among other things, it states: "You accept this license when you open
this package. By accepting this license, you agree that you are a system
builder. If you do not open this package, you may deliver it to another
system builder. “System builder” means an original equipment
manufacturer, an assembler, refurbisher, or pre-installer of software on
computer systems. ”Distribution” and “distribute” means the point in
time when a fully assembled computer system leaves the control of system
builder." In the section that I quoted or in any other section of the sb
kit eula, it says nothing about selling the generic oem package with a
mb, a hd, ram and cpu as required by one seller and not another. Again,
the issue is one clouded with non-information.

The Microsoft EULA pretty much spells out the requirements to sell or
transfer an OEM license.

Don't believe me? Read clause 15 of the Windows Vista OEM EULA:

It reads:
"15. TRANSFER TO A THIRD PARTY. You may transfer the software
directly to a third party only with the licensed device. You may not
keep any copies of the software or any earlier version. Before any
permitted transfer, the other party must agree that this agreement
applies to the transfer and use of the software. The transfer must
include the Certificate of Authenticity label."

See above. This is exactly what clause 15 states.

The xp eula I have for my system does not state what you have quoted. It
is the only eula I have access to, it is from an installation on one of
my own machines, and it does not address the question about selling the
unopened shrink wrapped oem version that I might have in my possession,
nor can it ever address the question as the eula can only be in effect
if the software package is opened.

Obviously, if the package is unopened, the EULA is not in force,
making its clauses null and void in that case. Therefore, if one has
such an unopened shrink-wrapped OEM copy, he has the right to transfer
it any way he chooses (i.e., with or without the original hardware)
according to the "Fair Use" principle.

Come on, friend, where's your common sense?

It only addresses a sale with
hardware, which I take to mean a computer with the os installed: "1.2
SOFTWARE as a Component of the Computer - Transfer. This license may not
be shared, transferred to or used concurrently on different computers.

NOTE the use of the word "concurrently". IT does NOT mean "it can
NEVER be used on a second machine. PERIOD."

Obviously, it means that if it IS transferred, it must be REMOVED from
the first machine, but may be installed on a second machine as long as
it is not installed on the first.

"Concurrently", in this case, means "at the same time".

Basically, it means that to transfer an OEM license, the machine it is
originally installed on must be transferred along with the license,
the principle of which is stated by you below:

The SOFTWARE is licensed with the COMPUTER as a single integrated
product and may only be used with the COMPUTER."

This basically means that the license may only be used with the
original machine it was installed on.

However, the "Fair Use" principle permits the resale of anything one
owns, whether the XP EULA states it or not. Common Sense also tells
us this.

Any lawyer worth his salt would be able to show clearly that what you
quote above is logically extensible to sale or resale of such
licenses. That such transfers are not specifically defined in the
EULA does NOT mean licensees do not have the right to transfer their
license, since such rights are laid out elsewhere other than
Microsoft.

To think that Microsoft could actually STOP us from selling (or even
give away) our own hardware (along with the license to use the OS) is
irrational and silly.

Microsoft updated the language of its OEM EULA with Vista to
specifically include such transfer conditions.


--
Donald L McDaniel

How can so many otherwise very intelligent people screw up
something so simple so badly? If you stick a computer
keyboard in front of most people, they'll suddenly drop
30 points off their IQs. Much like placing a "Pork Barrel"
bill in front of a politician: He'll forget all about
"cooperation" the minute he counts the zeroes before the
decimal point.

 

[norm]

"Shoulda, coulda, woulda..." These words are all irrelevant, since
they are all hypothetical statements, not statements of fact.

And that is the issue. Where are the statements of fact? There have been
none brought forward in this discussion as to why tigerdirect sells
without any hardware conditions, and why newegg does. I don't see the
system builders info answering it nor do I see an answer in the eula.

Let's face it: When few computers were being sold -- and those that
were were manufactured by a few OEMs -- the OEM purchase requirements
made sense. But now, anyone and his brother can build their own
computers from off-the-shelf parts fairly cheaply. Requiring the
purchase of an entire machine [or motherboard/CPU/HD] to obtain a copy
of the OS makes no sense in the context of the hobby builder. To
those who build their own machines, the OS is simply another part they
have to provide, and the cheaper the better.
I agree about the cost issue. That is why I have purchased oem versions
for use on machines used by me.
I guess NewEgg is one of those companies which still sell OEM Windows
products with an out-dated interpretation of the OS license.
Do you know that to be true with certainty? Is there a source for a
layman to view the that info? And just for the sake of discussion, what
is the rule if I purchased an oem copy of either xp or vista without a
hardware requirement and then decided that I do not need it for anything
I have. Can I, as in individual, sell it for what I paid for it, as it
hasn't been sold to me with a piece of hardware or installed on a
system? For me, there is nothing certain on this issue. It seems that
conjecture and hearsay are more available than the actual requirements
of ms, whatever they might be.
If you want to start, read your Microsoft OEM EULA. Just click on the
Start button, and in the Search bar enter "winver". On the resulting
popup, there will be a link to the EULA. Click on it, and read it
carefully. It will give you much information.

Then, go here to read the System Builder Kit EULA
(NOTE, Adobe Reader required for following link
http://oem.microsoft.com/Public/sblicense/2007_SB_Licenses/FY07_SB_License_English.pdf

The system builder kit eula does not address my question or your
"outdated interpretation of the os license" statement, that I can see.
Among other things, it states: "You accept this license when you open
this package. By accepting this license, you agree that you are a system
builder. If you do not open this package, you may deliver it to another
system builder. “System builder” means an original equipment
manufacturer, an assembler, refurbisher, or pre-installer of software on
computer systems. ”Distribution” and “distribute” means the point in
time when a fully assembled computer system leaves the control of system
builder." In the section that I quoted or in any other section of the sb
kit eula, it says nothing about selling the generic oem package with a
mb, a hd, ram and cpu as required by one seller and not another. Again,
the issue is one clouded with non-information.

The Microsoft EULA pretty much spells out the requirements to sell or
transfer an OEM license.

Don't believe me? Read clause 15 of the Windows Vista OEM EULA:

It reads:
"15. TRANSFER TO A THIRD PARTY. You may transfer the software
directly to a third party only with the licensed device. You may not
keep any copies of the software or any earlier version. Before any
permitted transfer, the other party must agree that this agreement
applies to the transfer and use of the software. The transfer must
include the Certificate of Authenticity label."

See above. This is exactly what clause 15 states.

The xp eula I have for my system does not state what you have quoted. It
is the only eula I have access to, it is from an installation on one of
my own machines, and it does not address the question about selling the
unopened shrink wrapped oem version that I might have in my possession,
nor can it ever address the question as the eula can only be in effect
if the software package is opened.

Obviously, if the package is unopened, the EULA is not in force,
making its clauses null and void in that case. Therefore, if one has
such an unopened shrink-wrapped OEM copy, he has the right to transfer
it any way he chooses (i.e., with or without the original hardware)
according to the "Fair Use" principle.

Come on, friend, where's your common sense?

Common sense does not enter into many equations regarding actual
legalities.

NOTE the use of the word "concurrently". IT does NOT mean "it can
NEVER be used on a second machine. PERIOD."

You might run into some opposition from those that believe that legally,
per the eula, an installed oem version can never be used on another
machine and that the license stays with the machine or dies if the
machine does.

Obviously, it means that if it IS transferred, it must be REMOVED from
the first machine, but may be installed on a second machine as long as
it is not installed on the first.

"Concurrently", in this case, means "at the same time".

Basically, it means that to transfer an OEM license, the machine it is
originally installed on must be transferred along with the license,
the principle of which is stated by you below:


This basically means that the license may only be used with the
original machine it was installed on.

However, the "Fair Use" principle permits the resale of anything one
owns, whether the XP EULA states it or not. Common Sense also tells
us this.

I believe that there might be some that will argue about this too.