activating the same Win XP twice?

[Al Smith]

Although I of course do not support notions of theft and of piracy, the amount of protest MS policy draws with regard to its EULA should not be ignored by Microsoft. Saying that customers "freely" enter into this "agreement" is legalese: the fact remains that being forced practically speaking to "buy" (for lack of an other word) an a OEM license each time one buys a computer is tantamount to abuse of dominant position. And buying a full XP retail version should reasonably enable its "owner" (sorry, hard to say user ...) to contractually install it on his desktop AND its laptop. This would be reasonable, this is stricly personal use, the point of reference I feel. And it might be worth reminding people that MS EULAs are not synonymous of LAW.

Wow, a voice of reason in this group. I agree completely. People
ignore the Microsoft EULA because they know it is bullshit. They
have no choice about accepting it, so they accept it -- and then
they do whatever they want, and forget that the EULA ever existed.
I think this is not immoral or unethical, it is common sense.
Microsoft's EULA is unfair, plain and simple, so people violate it.

 

[John Doue]

Bruce Chambers wrote:

snip

I, and many others agree on this point. As a business, it behooves
Microsoft to become and remain cognizant of its customers desires. Now
that PCs have moved from the realm of the hobbyist and into the
mainstream consumer marketplace, and now that multiple PC households are
becoming more and more common, I'd very much like to see Microsoft offer
some sort of "Family" licensing scheme by which one could install a
single WinXP license on a reasonable number (up to 5, say) of computers
in the same household. When given the opportunity, I, and other MVPs,
repeatedly suggest this course of action to Microsoft. At the end of
the day, though, we're left with the EULA as it exists, not as we'd like
it.

Bruce, your comments are gratifying.

snip

Yes, "freely" describes the purchase decision. No one holds a gun
to the consumer's head and forces him to buy a computer from an OEM. No
one forces the consumer to keep the OEM license if it was included in a
computer purchase. If the computer manufacturer (note: this is the
manufacturer's choice, not Microsoft's) declines to sell a computer
without an OEM OS, the consumer need only take his business elsewhere or
assemble his own computer. (It's hardly rocket surgery.) Further, the
very screen that prompts for agreement to the EULA provides instructions
on how to get a refund.

Ok. How many major vendors of PC and laptop accept to sell you a unit
without MS OS? Can you candidly say they have much choice in this
regard? Technically, you are right, it is the manufacturer's choice. But
hiding behind such statements is not consistent with the openness you
displayed above.

And are you saying that users are really offered the choice between
accepting the Eula at install and getting a refund? Or do you mean to
say that if they read the fine print, they will eventually find a clause
to that effect? I have installed lots of machines and cannot remember
being offered the possibility to check a field for a refund (but I did
not look for one, admittedly).

snip

Again, I'm inclined to agree, but the content of the EULA is a
business decision of Microsoft. Those who do not like the terms of the
license are free to use any of several other operating systems currently
available, many of them free.

Sorry but until other OSes reach a maturity and a lever of ease of use
nearly comparable to the one of Windows, we all know this will remain a
niche of more expert users. And for some individuals and small
businesses, the choice is non existent for lack of adequate software
running on other platforms.

No one, to my knowledge, has ever intentionally claimed that the
EULA is "synonymous" with the law. However, a federal appeals court has
determined that software EULAs in general are legally enforceable
contracts under the Uniform Commercial Code. Only a EULA whose terms
are specifically found to be in violation of other statutes is invalid.

Of course, contracts are enforceable, otherwise they would make no
sense. But some contracts can be leonine ... and too much one sided.

Any way, this kind of thread would be never ending if we did not stop
somewhere and I will gladly remember from it that you concurred with a
number of points and I appreciate that, Bruce.

Regards