Install 2nd copy of XP on same computer?

[Tom]

A second installation isn't necessary for that; all that's needed is
drive imaging software to restore the system to its pre-test state.
Additionally, professional software developers normally have a
subscription to MSDN, whose licensing allows up to 10 simultaneous
installations.

Well, MSDN subscriptions are very expensive, and (I am sure) most of you don't go that route. So, as you and many in your league do beta testing, the method you use is good, if not ethical from the EULA point. But, an image can fail, whereas the (primary) installation is there. So reloading due to some unforeseen event would make beta testing an unpleasant, as well as worthless event for the tester (with no benefits but to that of the program owner).

While I have debated this before, and the EULA is not clear, no matter how many times you translate (and the 8th grade comment is fairly condescending IMHO, as I could say the same thing for one not understanding the wording as another sees it), it would best to have the EULA EMPHATICALLY state what it means. I have ONE COPY of XP on ONE DISK, which is IINSTALLED and USED on ONE PC. I had two instances, when I was using the beta version of SP2 on the second (non-primary) install. But no matter what MS says the EULA means to them (and Alex Nichol backs up this claim the same as I do), it would mean beta testing is tenuous, and more importantly, I can ONLY RUN one of the installs at ONE TIME, no matter.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Not just my opinion, here's a link to a conflicting court decision:

http://lists.essential.org/pipermail/hague-jur-commercial-law/2001-November/000364.html

A European court's opinion regarding a totally different case and a
different type of EULA is hardly relevant.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



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

 

[Bruce Chambers]

The case regarding Microsoft's EULA's (and two other companies) and
Best Buy's, Comp-Usa, and Staples no return on opened software policies
was settled. The link is below. The defendants paid $465,000
in legal fees, the stores agreed to accept returns if consumers don't
agree with the EULA's, the software companies agreed to post their
EULA's on web sites, the EULA's are also to be made available at the
stores (either a computer at the store or hard copy), and the stores
are required to provide the consumer the EULA information if
the customer asks.

http://www.techfirm.com/bakeragreement.pdf

How does a case that is *dismissed* prove anything? No decision
regarding the validity of the EULA was reached.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



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

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Then you and your lawyer have along way to go.
I suggest you find a better lawyer since yours lacks ability to find basic
facts:
http://www.microsoft.com/info/nareturns.htm
Your lawyer misses these basic facts, what other basic facts as well as
critical facts are missed or misinterpreted?
Post the name so others can be warned!

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Then Best Buy is the problem, contact Microsoft.

 

[Jeff Reid]

Microsoft's return policy:

http://www.microsoft.com/info/nareturns.htm

Again I refer to this settlement:

http://www.techfirm.com/bakeragreement.pdf

Was Microsoft's policy in place before this lawsuit was settled?
If so, why was Microsoft one of the defendants in this case?
Was it just because of the inconvenience of a consumer having to
take the time to ship the product back to Microsoft since Best Buy
and the other stores mentioned wouldn't refund money?
In the settlement, the defendants paid $645,000 in legal fees,
why would Microsoft have to pay their share?

In the past, before this settlement, I had to make numberous visits
to Best Buy to return a defective software product (a racing game
that couldn't work with any wheel and pedal controller). Eventually
I found a reasonable customer service manager, but it took 5
visits.

 

[Jeff Reid]

Sorry to get so carried away with this, but it seems that the EULA's
these days are getting carried away with maximimizing restrictions
on consumers and minimizing the liabilities for there products. A trend
which I and many others don't like. It's not just Microsoft, but
in this particular case, I find it unreasonable to not allow an
end user to install a backup copy of an OS. Only one copy will be run
at a time, and on the same computer, which is completely compliant
with copywright law, but apparently not to some interpretations
of Microsofts EULA (it doesn't specifically exclude anything,
or state that "you may ONLY...".

In my case, I use a separately purchased version of Windows 2000
to do the backup of the XP partition, and there's a legitmate
reason for this. If XP and/or the registry gets corrupted,
I can just restore it from the other partition rather than take
the lengthy time of re-installing the OS, service packs, updates,
and all the software applications (to restore the registry).

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Jeff;
I have referred to that site for well over a year and have no information
how long that site was there before then.
Since this is related, this is yet another question your lawyer should have
been able to answer had he been competent.
You continue to ask legal questions here after being shown basic information
unknown by yourself as well as your lawyer friend.
A dismissed lawsuit says very little but a competent lawyer specializing in
software licensing can sort it out.
All you get here is opinions with no weight but your carries less since you
have shown you are taking advice from a lawyer that is clearly unqualified
in software licensing.
Let that guy get back to traffic court and his mediocre abilities there so
you can consult a true professional.

 

[Jeff Reid]

A dismissed lawsuit says very little but a competent lawyer specializing in software licensing can sort it out.

There's a difference between dismissed and settled. The software companies
paid the legal fees of the plaintiffs in the amount of $465,000, something
that isn't done when cases are nomrally dismissed. The point here is that
the case was settled out of court. The defendants agreed to change their
policies as part of the settlement. This is a far cry from a typical
dismissed case.

Generally a company is doing something wrong if it has to pay fees
and agrees to change it's policies as part of a settlement. Microsoft
has a history of pushing the envelope regarding it's marketing
practices and having to settle lawsuits by paying fines and having
to change it's ways.

taking advice from a lawyer

I'm not taking any advice from that lawyer.

I only talked to that lawyer once. His only point was that EULA's won't
stand up in the cases that a reasonable consumer wouldn't be aware of the
existance of the EULA, or in the cases that the EULA is missing, as in
the case of a store like Fry's that resells returned software, often
with missing documentation. That lawyer isn't an expert in software
licensing, but has been part of a legal team for a few hardware
companies.

The rest of the information I received was the result of doing web
searches, and my personal experiences with Best Buy, Intuit, and
Electronic Arts.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Your comment "Generally a company is doing something wrong", is that your
professional legal opinion or just you thoughts based on similar
information?
Your personal experiences such as you referenced in last post are
irrelevant.
Since all you needed to do was locate a "reasonable customer service
manager".
That is strictly an internal store matter having no relevance except to
possibly muddy the truth here.

Contact a professional a suggested previously.
What you or I believe is not relevant.
Since you want the law, why do you continue to post in the wrong forum?
You will not and can not get the law OR give the law here.

 

[Jeff Reid]

Your comment "Generally a company is doing something wrong", is that your professional legal opinion or just you thoughts based on

similar information?

Just my thoughts, but apparently shared by many others if you do a web
search for related events.

In this case not only were legal fees paid by the defendants, the defendants
were also required to make changes in their behavior as part of the
settlement. In my opinions this would imply the the prior behaviors were wrong.

In the case of anti-trust actions, and marketing actions against Microsoft
where Microsoft has lost in court, then I'd say it was a legal opinion.
In the cases where Microsoft has settled by paying fines and/or agreeing
to changes in it's behavior as part of the settlement, it's my opinion
that there was wrong doing.

Referring to the 8th grade reading ability comment, it's my opinion that
most with a 8th grade or higher education would share the same opinion
that paying fines and agreesing to change behavior as part of a settlement
implies that the previous behavior was wrong.

It's similar to going to getting a traffic ticket in California. You have
the option of paying a fine, and going to traffic school. By complying
with the terms of this settlement, the charges (from the traffic
ticket) are dismissed. There are a few cases where the individual was
actually innocent, and chose to settle than to take the time and risk
of a trial to plead not guilty, but the majority of those who choose
to settle were violating a traffic law.

I apply the same reasoning to companies that pay fines and settle
legal actions (both criminal and civil). A few may be innocent,
but most of them were doing something wrong.

 

[Jeff Reid]

Getting back on topic, agreements and contracts include
both inclusionary (permissions, what you can do) and exclusnary
(restrictions, what you can't do) clauses, and limitations
(like limits on how long the product will be supported).

"You may install, use, access, display and run one copy
of the Product" is an inclusionary statement, it doesn't
contain any exclusionary content about what you may not
do. If it had been worded "You may ONLY install..." then
it would be both inclusionary and exclusionary.

"The Product may not be used by more than two (2) processors
at any one time on any single Workstation Computer." is
exclusionary. It's stating what you're not allowed to do.

Based on logic, the situations regarding multiple copies
of the OS aren't covered by this EULA, so these situations
default to existing copywright law, which would allow
multiple copies to be installed, but would only allow
one instance of the software to be run at a time.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Contact a lawyer specializing in software licensing law.
You clearly are not qualified and I am not qualified.
Anything you say is just an opinion...you do know what an opinion is worth?

 

[Jeff Reid]

you do know what an opinion is worth?

In the case of an election, a rioting mob, or a
court judge, quite a bit.

 

[Guest]

Ok, so if one were to install the same copy of XP on the second HDD, then
activate it and get the updates, THEN boot to the first HDD (original
installation) and get updates, would Auto Update somehow de-activate that
first HDD installation?

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Since there is no deactivation mechanism, No.

 

[Guest]

Since there is no deactivation mechanism, No.

Well, that's good to know. A friend had told me that if one were to install
the same copy of XP on a second computer and activate it, (after 90 days or
so), that the first would become de-activated the first time it got
updates....but it sounds like he'd be wrong.

Not that I intend on using it on a second system....but it seems
unreasonable to buy two licenses for a simple dual-boot system.

You'd think MS 'would' incorporate some kind of de-activation scheme.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

It is not necessary to have deactivation.
The activaction plan is based on the honesty of the installer.