Installing new motherboard

[Jim Byrd]

Hi Opinicus - Well, starting tomorrow it well _may_ be a user problem if
they try to reactivate an OEM license on a new motherboard. We just don't
know yet what MS will continue to allow under the new anti-piracy policies
going into effect.

--
Please respond in the same thread.
Regards, Jim Byrd, MS-MVP



In

 

[Leythos]

What *they* mean by it is irrelevant. What's relevant is what it
actually means, and since it's a legal document it's only a court
which can decide that.

Not really irrelevant - it's more a problem with the user agreeing to
something they are unclear about.

I can't imagine that a court would take into consideration
anything but the text of the EULA itself. Anything that Microsoft
said in a separate web site would be disregarded, especially
since it was written almost certainly *after* the EULA.

And you may just find two things - one is that the computer is the SUM of
all of it's parts, that changing any of those parts makes it a "different"
computer. Two is that the computer is decided by the motherboard and that
changing anything except the motherboard is not changing the "Computer".

If you go with the SUM argument, then the EULA is clear and your license
is invalidated when you change any of those parts.

If you go with the Motherboard argument, again the EULA is clear and your
license is valid until you change the motherboard.

Which way do you want it?

This is analogous to my selling you a house and my drafting a
contract of sale, which you agree to and sign. Then after the
fact, I put up a web site explaining that by "the house," I
really meant everything except the roof, and I would remove the
roof before the sale was completed. If I removed the roof, and
you sued me to get your roof, I'd be laughed out of court if I
tried to use that web site as a defense.

Not really, you need a better analogy, but it's good enough. I've seen
people sell a house, draft it in the contract, then pull all the bushes,
pool, car-port, etc.. and it was upheld in court (yea, stupid, but it was
still valid). The same is true here - where the User enters into an
agreement fully admitting they don't understand the terms (as has been
shown by Tom's own statements), and then feels they got suckered once they
took the time to get clarification AFTER they agreed.

So, since the party doing the agreeing fully admits they don't understand
the agreement, and since the information on the explanation is readily
available for the public to see, how can the party that ignorantly agreed
to terms they didn't understand, knowing they didn't understand, hold the
agreement in contempt. If you don't understand you don't sign it.

 

[Tom]

You know, in another post you declared that the above was "Vague", which
means you don't clearly understand what they mean in the terms/context
they used, so why are you claiming that it's not what they clarify some
place else? You had an opportunity to learn what you described as "Vague"
before you accepted the agreement, but YOU made a decision to accept what
ever term they wanted it to be, YOU ACCEPTED IT without understanding it.

That's my only beef with your argument - you didn't understand the terms
and didn't care to understand them, and you want to complain about it.

So, are you going to tell me that you fully understood that MS meant
Motherboard or that you fully understood that you didn't understand what
MS meant in that Vague section of the agreement? Either way, you don't
have a leg to stand on. This is you not understanding an agreement text,
complaining about the wording that you didn't understand, but still
accepting the agreement without understanding it.

Onus is on you, prove to me where the EULA is binding on the word of the OEM
MS website, prove it!

You keep going on and on about not understanding, thinking thievery is
lurking in the intentions of what I am conveying,. You argue that I am
trying to explain further restrictions, you also ignore an MVPs example of
how you are also wrong, yet you keep on using your "misunderstanding"
themes.

Again, this is the last time, and most here reading this will see you for
what you are, PROVE WHERE THE OEM SITE IS BOUND IN THE EULA AS PART OF ITS
TERMS REGARDING HOW THE OEM SITE CONSIDERS THE TERM COMPUTER MEAN THE
MOTHERBOARD.

Show me in the EULA where I should be directed for further help and
understanding that the terms are mentioned elsewhere outside the EULA! SHow
me where in the EULA where I have to also abide by the terms of the OEM MS
website!

Show me where the EULA states that the onus is on me to find out from
another source not listed, mentioned, or claused as such in the EULA, that I
go to the OEM site for clairification, and acceptance of its terms to the
meaning of Computer.

Don't slide, mention misunderstanding, or anything else, jsut show me these
rules, and if you can't explain how I am leaglly bound to terms not
mentioned as different in the EULA.

 

[Tom]

Wonderfully vague. It's a marketing technique. Called "sales promotion", I
believe.

Clue: It does not suit MS's purposes to curtail sales of OEM licenses.

I mentioned that earlier in a post I made, on how MS would lose sales if
they had to change it up. And I added that is why they haven't brought
anyone to court (which they easily could if they wanted) to support their
OEM, and EULA position.

 

[Leythos]

Don't slide, mention misunderstanding, or anything else, jsut show me these
rules, and if you can't explain how I am leaglly bound to terms not
mentioned as different in the EULA.

I knew you would not answer a set of direct questions, it would have shown
your flaw.

I never said the EULA shows anything about some other site, never said you
needed to visit another site, etc...

What I've said is that you don't understand what you agreed too, and
you've even agree with me on that - you said the terms were Vague several
times, but you also fail to seem to understand that YOU AGREED TO THE
VAGUE TERMS THAT YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND. How can you blame anyone but
yourself.

I've only said that if you didn't understand them, and since the
information to explain the terms is available to you (IF YOU WANTED TO
CLARIFY THEM), that you are at fault for not understanding.

Again, I fully expect you to MISS THE ENTIRE POINT, so where it is in
short: You agreed to terms that you didn't understand, and without
clarification you accepted them. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

 

[Tom]

I knew you would not answer a set of direct questions, it would have shown
your flaw.

I never said the EULA shows anything about some other site, never said you
needed to visit another site, etc...

What I've said is that you don't understand what you agreed too, and
you've even agree with me on that - you said the terms were Vague several
times, but you also fail to seem to understand that YOU AGREED TO THE
VAGUE TERMS THAT YOU DIDN'T UNDERSTAND. How can you blame anyone but
yourself.

I've only said that if you didn't understand them, and since the
information to explain the terms is available to you (IF YOU WANTED TO
CLARIFY THEM), that you are at fault for not understanding.

Again, I fully expect you to MISS THE ENTIRE POINT, so where it is in
short: You agreed to terms that you didn't understand, and without
clarification you accepted them. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

I am done with you really, there is no point in this anyway. I missed no
point, other than trying to get you to see the fallacies of your stance of
what a terms means in one situation, as opposed to another.

For the time, the EULA should state in terms the definition of the computer,
not what you, or I think it is, bottom effin line dude!

 

[Tom]

<snipped>

I have yet to see you challenge the MVPs here that have answered your posts!
Hmmm?

 

[Leythos]

For the time, the EULA should state in terms the definition of the computer,
not what you, or I think it is, bottom effin line dude!

That's the difference between a user that didn't understand a definition,
one that knowingly agreed to something they didn't understand, and one
that gets clarification BEFORE they agree to it.

 

[Leythos]

<snipped>

I have yet to see you challenge the MVPs here that have answered your posts!
Hmmm?

Yes, I have - I've questioned anyone that states the agreed to something
they didn't understand that then complained about it.

Since you don't understand the point or difference I can understand your
not seeing anything else.

 

[Tom]

That's the difference between a user that didn't understand a definition,
one that knowingly agreed to something they didn't understand, and one
that gets clarification BEFORE they agree to it.

No difference. You simply ignore the fact that the EULA doesn't define
exactly what the Computer is. Yet you insist that because the OEM site says
what it is, that anyone else not knowing that, doesn't really know what
their Computer is!

I showed you what it says in the EULA regarding hardware. You insist that I
am supposed to read up at the OEM site (though I am not a builder), to
understand what Computer means to MS, though that is not in the EULA. You
ignore everything pointed out to you, and you carry on, really thinking I
have no idea how, and what a Computer is. And trust me, a Computer is not
just the Motherboard, it is a amalgam of hardware that in unison, makes use
of said units as a Computer. A MOBO cannot do anything like that on its own.

Again, it comes down to what MS should define in the effin agreement, not on
a website, that is where you get lost, and where you are stupid enough to
think people are dumb for not thinking a Computer means Motherboard because
you follow the MS religion.

 

[Tom]

Yes, I have - I've questioned anyone that states the agreed to something
they didn't understand that then complained about it.

No you have not once. You didn't approach Bruce that way, nor Ken, even
though he just told you a few hours ago, the same thing I have been saying
about wording in the agreement, and what counts there, not at a website.
Even Jim Byrd posts what makes the OEM site contradict the OEM terms.

But as he said, this seems to be changing beginning tomorrow, and I await
the new agreement that everyone must download, read and abide by.

BY the way, you want to buy my Rolls Royce for $21,000, I'll send the link,
and all you do is agree to the terms.

 

[Leythos]

No difference. You simply ignore the fact that the EULA doesn't define
exactly what the Computer is.

Tom, let me help you here - I've never said the EULA defines that the term
Computer means. In fact, I agree with you, it's vague and not defined in a
normal/usable manner in the text of the EULA.

Yet you insist that because the OEM site says
what it is, that anyone else not knowing that, doesn't really know what
their Computer is!

No, what I've said, and I'll help you here again, is that if YOU don't
understand the definition of the term Computer, then you should not have
blindly agreed to it.

Do you see what I'm saying, get down off your high-horse a few minutes,
look at the exact content/context of what I just typed - the EULA does NOT
define computer, is not clear, leaves any educated person wondering what
it means by Computer - I fully agree with you. What I also see is that you
want to complain because YOU entered into an agreement that you didn't
understand.

 

[Ken Blake]

In

And you may just find two things - one is that the computer is
the
SUM of all of it's parts, that changing any of those parts
makes it a
"different" computer. Two is that the computer is decided by
the
motherboard and that changing anything except the motherboard
is not
changing the "Computer".

If you go with the SUM argument, then the EULA is clear and
your
license is invalidated when you change any of those parts.

If you go with the Motherboard argument, again the EULA is
clear and
your license is valid until you change the motherboard.

Which way do you want it?

It's not a matter of which way *I* want it. I'm not arguing for
any particular interpretation of the EULA, only that it's not so
clear what interpretation is correct.

By the way, over and above your two interpreatations, I can
conceive of at least three other possible ones that a court might
possibly agree with:

1. The computer is the CPU

2. The computer is the hard drive, since that's where Windows is
installed

3. Silly as it may sound, the computer is defined by the case,
since that's where Microsoft requires that the product key
sticker be affixed.

My personal view is that I wish Microsoft would rewrite the OEM
EULA to clarify exactly what "the computer" means. I think they
would do both themselves and their customers a service by doing
this.

Alternatively, and even better, I'd like to see the whole
category of OEM licenses disappear, and have all licenses the
same.

 

[Tom]

Do you see what I'm saying, get down off your high-horse a few minutes,
look at the exact content/context of what I just typed - the EULA does NOT
define computer, is not clear, leaves any educated person wondering what
it means by Computer - I fully agree with you. What I also see is that you
want to complain because YOU entered into an agreement that you didn't
understand.

Bingo!

You see now, I agreed to what is NOT defined, that is MY POINT! I know what
a Computer is, but it isn't simply, or just the motherboard, and I hope you
really know that. A calculator is a Computer, and Abacus is a Computer.

My contention is, and you may finally have gotten it, that MS needs to
define what entails the Computer in the EULA in the terms it needs to convey
for the softrware to be applied, not make it a definition outside of the
contract that has no reference of it in the agreement. Otherwise, if MS were
so sure of their terms, they would have taken a plethora of folks to court
for violations. But we know they won't, because if they reword the EULA,
then they may lose money.

I am waiting to see what changes are going to be made ala what Jim Byrd
referenced. I know they are not changing the terms, rather making technical
changes on their site, or for downloads that will change things in their
favor.

 

[Leythos]

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:05:45 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
[snip]

It's not a matter of which way *I* want it. I'm not arguing for
any particular interpretation of the EULA, only that it's not so
clear what interpretation is correct.

By the way, over and above your two interpreatations, I can
conceive of at least three other possible ones that a court might
possibly agree with:

1. The computer is the CPU

2. The computer is the hard drive, since that's where Windows is
installed

3. Silly as it may sound, the computer is defined by the case,
since that's where Microsoft requires that the product key
sticker be affixed.

Tom's going hate me for agreeing with you, but I didn't want to drag it
down to that many different levels In the old days I use to design
motherboards for Z80 and 8085 based computers, so my view is a little
different than some. Today I see the computer as being defined by the
motherboard myself (even before reading MS's OEM information) as it's the
one determining factor in what can be installed IN/With a computer - no
matter the OS or external hardware.

My personal view is that I wish Microsoft would rewrite the OEM
EULA to clarify exactly what "the computer" means. I think they
would do both themselves and their customers a service by doing
this.

Alternatively, and even better, I'd like to see the whole
category of OEM licenses disappear, and have all licenses the
same.

I agree with your position - it would be nice to see MS make a blanket
agreement that Windows can be installed on as many personal computers as
own OWNS in a single residence per license. So a single purchase would be
good for any number of computers owned by a person and residing in a
single residence. Of course people would complain about that too, but it
would allow home users to have one license for all their computers in
their homes - now, I suppose it could also mean that if the Parent owned 4
computers and a daughter bough her own, that she would have to purchase
her own license for her personal computer..... It would never settle the
complaints of everyone, anything short of it being free for anyone to use
anywhere without any restrictions will always generate someone complaining
about licensing.

 

[Leythos]

Bingo!

You see now, I agreed to what is NOT defined, that is MY POINT! I know what
a Computer is, but it isn't simply, or just the motherboard, and I hope you
really know that. A calculator is a Computer, and Abacus is a Computer.

So what the heck did we go through all of this for - if you agree that you
didn't have a clear understanding of the definition of the term "Computer"
as used in the agreement, then what are you arguing about?

My contention is, and you may finally have gotten it, that MS needs to
define what entails the Computer in the EULA in the terms it needs to convey
for the softrware to be applied, not make it a definition outside of the
contract that has no reference of it in the agreement. Otherwise, if MS were
so sure of their terms, they would have taken a plethora of folks to court
for violations. But we know they won't, because if they reword the EULA,
then they may lose money.

While I agree that it needs to be made clearer, it does not excuse YOU (or
anyone else) from agreeing to something they didn't understand the
definition of. If you don't understand the definition then you don't sign
the agreement - it's really simple to understand.

None of the agreement has anything to do with what they should have done,
how they could have made it more clear, only that you didn't understand
the definition of Computer as used in the agreement and that you blindly
agreed to it.

I am waiting to see what changes are going to be made ala what Jim Byrd
referenced. I know they are not changing the terms, rather making technical
changes on their site, or for downloads that will change things in their
favor.

An informed user may choose to read the changes or ignore them, but, if
there is any doubt in definitions and the user agrees to those changes
without understanding them, then the user is the one at fault, not MS.
That's my only position in this thread.

 

[Ken Blake]

In

[snip]
It's not a matter of which way *I* want it. I'm not arguing
for
any particular interpretation of the EULA, only that it's not
so
clear what interpretation is correct.

By the way, over and above your two interpreatations, I can
conceive of at least three other possible ones that a court
might
possibly agree with:

1. The computer is the CPU

2. The computer is the hard drive, since that's where Windows
is
installed

3. Silly as it may sound, the computer is defined by the case,
since that's where Microsoft requires that the product key
sticker be affixed.

Tom's going hate me for agreeing with you, but I didn't want to
drag
it down to that many different levels

LOL!


In the old days I use to
design motherboards for Z80 and 8085 based computers, so my
view is a
little different than some. Today I see the computer as being
defined
by the motherboard myself (even before reading MS's OEM
information)
as it's the one determining factor in what can be installed
IN/With a
computer - no matter the OS or external hardware.

If you forced me to make a choice (which I'd really rather not
do, since I think Microsoft should do it, not me), I'd probably
agree with you.

I agree with your position - it would be nice to see MS make a
blanket
agreement that Windows can be installed on as many personal
computers
as own OWNS in a single residence per license. So a single
purchase
would be good for any number of computers owned by a person and
residing in a single residence. Of course people would complain
about
that too, but it would allow home users to have one license for
all
their computers in their homes - now, I suppose it could also
mean
that if the Parent owned 4 computers and a daughter bough her
own,
that she would have to purchase her own license for her
personal
computer..... It would never settle the complaints of
everyone,
anything short of it being free for anyone to use anywhere
without
any restrictions will always generate someone complaining about
licensing.

Yup!