License violation

[Bill Antolec]

Recently a friend asked me to help her with her computer. It is an eMachine
with Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005. I determined that the
motherboard in the computer died and ordered a similar motherboard - one
where the same processor, memory, etc. would all work with it to minimize
the cost. Once everything was put back together, I started the machine up
and was not surprised to see the screen requiring that the version of
Windows be authenticated again. I followed the steps and had to call
Microsoft as the ethernet drivers for the new motherboard had not yet been
installed.

During the phone call first doing the automated update, I entered all the
sets of numbers on the screen but the process failed. Next step I requested
to speak to a live person. In doing so he asked me to click on the "Change
Key" button. The key values that came up did not match the values from the
tag on the machine, so I re-entered the Windows key into the machine. After
this we generated a new set of numbers from which he gave me the
cooresponding numbers. I entered then and regained access to the machine
and all appeared good.

However after installed all necessary drivers, I rebooted the machine. When
it came back up I was presented with a dialog window titled "License
violation". The text of the message reads: "The system has detected
tampering with your registered product type. This is a violation of your
license. Tampering with product type is not permitted."

Any ideas why this is coming up? All I did was change the motherboard.
More important than why is, How do I fix it?

Thanks in advance for any assistance with this problem!
Bill

 

[Malke]

Recently a friend asked me to help her with her computer. It is an
eMachine with Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005. I determined that
the motherboard in the computer died and ordered a similar motherboard -
one where the same processor, memory, etc. would all work with it to
minimize the cost. Once everything was put back together, I started the
machine up and was not surprised to see the screen requiring that the
version of Windows be authenticated again. I followed the steps and had
to call Microsoft as the ethernet drivers for the new motherboard had
not yet been installed.

During the phone call first doing the automated update, I entered all
the sets of numbers on the screen but the process failed. Next step I
requested to speak to a live person. In doing so he asked me to click
on the "Change Key" button. The key values that came up did not match
the values from the tag on the machine, so I re-entered the Windows key
into the machine. After this we generated a new set of numbers from
which he gave me the cooresponding numbers. I entered then and regained
access to the machine and all appeared good.

However after installed all necessary drivers, I rebooted the machine.
When it came back up I was presented with a dialog window titled
"License violation". The text of the message reads: "The system has
detected tampering with your registered product type. This is a

The OEM XP MCE Product Key that came with your friend's eMachine was
tied to the original motherboard and *only* the original motherboard. In
order to use that Product Key, you would have needed to order the
identical (not "similar") motherboard from eMachines. It is unclear to
me whether you did a Repair Install (almost always necessary after a
motherboard change). If you didn't, then try that using a generic OEM
disk and the Product Key on the COA sticker, phoning in the activation.
If this doesn't work, your friend will need to purchase a retail copy of XP.

http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/XPrepairinstall.htm - Repair Install
How-To
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/moving_xp.html - for changing motherboard


Malke

 

[pjp]

The OEM XP MCE Product Key that came with your friend's eMachine was
tied to the original motherboard and *only* the original motherboard. In
order to use that Product Key, you would have needed to order the
identical (not "similar") motherboard from eMachines. It is unclear to
me whether you did a Repair Install (almost always necessary after a
motherboard change). If you didn't, then try that using a generic OEM
disk and the Product Key on the COA sticker, phoning in the activation.
If this doesn't work, your friend will need to purchase a retail copy of XP.

http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/XPrepairinstall.htm - Repair Install
How-To
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/moving_xp.html - for changing motherboard

And MS screws over yet another customer with their licensing scheme.

 

[Doug]

| >
|
| And MS screws over yet another customer with their licensing scheme.
|

And by far the worst part is the way Microsoft forces consumers at gunpoint
into WallyWorld to buy those ultra cheap computers and then seemingly
refuses to listen to them whine about it costing a few extra bucks on the
back end to get 'em repaired when they shockingly break.

 

[xfile]

The OEM XP MCE Product Key that came with your friend's eMachine was tied

to the original motherboard and *only* the original motherboard.

I'd appreciate if you could actually point to the source in which Microsoft
has actually stated that.

Thanks in advance.

 

[xfile]

I would suggest you to make another call and verify the instance.

Make sure to tell the agent that you have only changed the motherboard.

 

[Bill Antolec]

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll do that! I know I've done this before
without a problem. However, it may have been with a different version of
Windows and a different license senario.

Thanks everyone for your help and comment!
Bill

PS: Merry Christmas everyone!

 

[Daave]

I'd appreciate if you could actually point to the source in which
Microsoft has actually stated that.

That's not the issue.

The issue is how eMachines, as the OEM, has determined how Windows is
installed on its PCs. Microsoft doesn't enter this particular equation.

Now if you're referring to OEM *licenses* in general and what
constitutes the original PC, that's another topic, but it's not what
Malke was talking about. He was merely letting the OP know that in order
for his eMachines XP MCE disk to be used to reinstall the OS, the
motherboard needs to be identical to the one it replaced. Malke was
speaking *logistics* only.

 

[HeyBub]

Recently a friend asked me to help her with her computer. It is an
eMachine with Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005. I determined
that the motherboard in the computer died and ordered a similar
motherboard - one where the same processor, memory, etc. would all
work with it to minimize the cost. Once everything was put back
together, I started the machine up and was not surprised to see the
screen requiring that the version of Windows be authenticated again. I
followed the steps and had to call Microsoft as the ethernet
drivers for the new motherboard had not yet been installed.

During the phone call first doing the automated update, I entered all
the sets of numbers on the screen but the process failed. Next step
I requested to speak to a live person. In doing so he asked me to
click on the "Change Key" button. The key values that came up did
not match the values from the tag on the machine, so I re-entered the
Windows key into the machine. After this we generated a new set of
numbers from which he gave me the cooresponding numbers. I entered
then and regained access to the machine and all appeared good.

However after installed all necessary drivers, I rebooted the
machine. When it came back up I was presented with a dialog window
titled "License violation". The text of the message reads: "The
system has detected tampering with your registered product type. This is a
violation of your license. Tampering with product type is
not permitted."
Any ideas why this is coming up? All I did was change the
motherboard. More important than why is, How do I fix it?

Thanks in advance for any assistance with this problem!
Bill

It's a problem with the registry and seems to be left over from NT days
(evidently put in to check NT Server vs NT Workstation flipping). Google the
exact error message for several reports, one of which may have your
solution.

 

[xfile]

Thanks for the explanations.

But according to the OP, he was able to install the OS and the problem came
out after driver updates, I will assume this should not be a problem
associated with BIOS-locking or he wouldn't be able to install in the first
place?

 

[xfile]

Good luck and happy holidays!

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll do that! I know I've done this before
without a problem. However, it may have been with a different version of
Windows and a different license senario.

Thanks everyone for your help and comment!
Bill

PS: Merry Christmas everyone!

 

[Daave]

Now if you're referring to OEM *licenses* in general and what
constitutes the original PC, that's another topic, but it's not what
Malke was talking about. He was merely letting the OP know [snip]

Oops! I meant "she." (Sorry, Malke!)

 

[Daave]

The way I read it, the problem occurred immediately after rebooting once
the new motherboard was in place. The "Change Key" method worked the one
time, then when the machine was rebooted again (after the correct
drivers were loaded), the problem returned.

If this were a built-to-order barebones PC with a generic OEM license
there wouldn't be the same problem. However, the eMachines PC is
instructed to work with a particular key only if the original
motherboard (or an exact replacement) is in the PC. I'm sure there's a
creative way around this, but I'm pretty sure it goes against the
eMachines OEM license. That's why the same exact motherboard should have
been used.

 

[xfile]

Hi,

I admit that I don't know anything about eMachines's license agreement, but
ultimately, MS is the license holder (i.e. that's why all activations,
verifications, prosecutions, etc. have been conducted by the company) and
branded system providers bundled OS, in this case, as a complete solution
for their customers.

From what I've learned, which of course may not be totally correct, even the
BIOS-locking used by a few system providers may not be for the so-called
license binding, and it could be very well for the reason of preventing the
OS has been "transferred to" another system which is within the guideline of
the license holder - MS, in this case. In other words, using BIOS is to
identify the system.

In any case, I suggested the OP to call MS for verification so we don't have
to speculate what may or may not be the case.

Finally, the licensor, MS, is always in the equation regardless of how its
products have been distributed.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Bill;
Was the motherboard also an Emachines motherboard?
If yes, contact them.
If no, that is probably the source of your problem.

Some OEMs such as Emachines tie their media to the motherboard BIOS
preventing use on a different motherboard.
This is one of several licensing options chosen by Emachines on behalf
of their customers.
The solution may be:
1. Purchase a motherboard from Emachines or at least an Emachines
motherboard.
Similar is not good enough.
2. Purchase Windows XP or operating system of your choice for
installation.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

There are several licensing options and this is the one chosen by
Emachines on behalf of their customers.
If there is blame, there is also blame for Emachines for choosing this
option.
There is also blame for the customer for not choosing a system with
the licensing option fitting their needs.

 

[xfile]

Same old tone and it's ALL everyone else's fault.

What other options can you, as a genius, tell us when MS is an OEM to system
providers such as eMachines by providing an OS as part of the solution than
signing OEM contracts?

What other options can you, as a genius, tell us when a normal user
purchased a complete solution system from a finished product provider such
as eMachines other than using its integrated component, and in this case, OS
provided by its OEM - Microsoft?

The simplest solution is to call the licensor, MS, to verify if this
particular scenario still comply with the license agreement.

Instead, we have...

(1) rumors - says who that license is tied to a motherboard? As said, I am
willing to correct if anyone can point to any solid evidence other than
rumors about the OS license is tied to a motherboard either from a system
builder and/or MS,

(2) inadequate advise - why would a consumer/user/buyer need to buy another
license when (1) has never ever been provided?

(3) shifting blames and responsibilities - a blind defense for the company
for which I don't even think it would appreciate and blame all others for
their own faults.

The last time I check, these newsgroups are provided by Microsoft for
solving "user/customer" problems and MVPs are awarded based on helping
others with their "technical" skills and knowledge and not by how much they
can insult/blame users/customers, unless of course, the rules have been
changed.

 

[Daave]

Hi,

I admit that I don't know anything about eMachines's license
agreement, but ultimately, MS is the license holder (i.e. that's why
all activations, verifications, prosecutions, etc. have been
conducted by the company) and branded system providers bundled OS, in
this case, as a complete solution for their customers.

I'm not a lawyer, but it's my understanding that the OEM's license
subsumes Microsoft's. Perhaps an attorney can clarify?

From what I've learned, which of course may not be totally correct,
even the BIOS-locking used by a few system providers may not be for
the so-called license binding, and it could be very well for the
reason of preventing the OS has been "transferred to" another system
which is within the guideline of the license holder - MS, in this
case. In other words, using BIOS is to identify the system.

That sounds right. However, I believe the "system builder" defines what
the system is, not the purchaser. If I were to build my own PC and
eventually replace the motherboard, processor, hard drive, memory, and
video card, I could still make the argument it's the same system. And no
BIOS-locked installation scheme would stop me.

In any case, I suggested the OP to call MS for verification so we
don't have to speculate what may or may not be the case.

Finally, the licensor, MS, is always in the equation regardless of
how its products have been distributed.

Although by definition, Microsoft "is always in the equation," I'm still
not sure they are in *this* particular equation; that is, eMachines (the
OEM system builder) determines what the system is and decides how an
operating system is installed. I'm sympathetic to your charge, however,
that the average consumer doesn't know how this all works -- even if it
is in the fine print.

 

[xfile]

I'm not a lawyer, but it's my understanding that the OEM's license

subsumes Microsoft's. Perhaps an attorney can clarify?

Me neither and for the past few years, I (we) only purchased from Dell and I
don't remember receiving any Dell's "OS license", but it could be my
carelessness or incompetence.

On the other hand, it doesn't take an attorney at law to figure out that if
that's the case, does MS still have the right to activate and authorize
copies from system builders (with or without changing motherboards)? It
would then have to be done by system builders, wouldn't it? Why? Because
system builders then would have to decide if each and every scenario would
violate their license or not, right? I don't know about you or others but
I've never done it with any system builders.

Furthermore, has it ever happened when MS granted a legal use while a system
builder objected to it? Maybe it happened but I personally haven't heard of
it. But again, if the above is true, this should have happened more than
once, right?

Although by definition, Microsoft "is always in the equation," I'm still
not sure they are in *this* particular equation; that is, eMachines (the
OEM system builder) determines what the system is and decides how an
operating system is installed.

That's the point. Determine HOW it can be installed does not mean if it
will voilate the license. I don't know about you, but it's two separate
issues for me. But I am too lazy to give additional examples, so please
figure it out for yourself.

The subject line reads: License violation. My first reply was about license
restriction myth, wasn't it?

I don't have the link around, but for Vista, MS says using a non-branded M/B
in a branded system (which is the same case as discussed here) will require
an activation (keyword: activation). Do you think this is something new for
Vista? I don't think so and I think it has never been a problem except MS
now clarifies it, but again, I could be wrong even unlikely in this case.

I have no interest in lengthy debates, and clearly, this is a decision can
only made by MS so I pointed the OP to it for verification. I explained
what I thought was necessary, and it should be the end for me.

Thanks.

 

[Ron Rosenfeld]

(1) rumors - says who that license is tied to a motherboard? As said, I am
willing to correct if anyone can point to any solid evidence other than
rumors about the OS license is tied to a motherboard either from a system
builder and/or MS,

Just take a look at the EULA posted on the Microsoft Web site. Or read the KB
article at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/824125/en-us

It seems pretty clear that the OEM type license (which is a lot cheaper than an
unrestricted retail purchase, is, in fact, tied to a particular motherboard.
"If the motherboard is replaced because of a defect, the user does not need to
acquire a new operating system license for the computer. The motherboard
replacement must be the same make and model, or the same manufacturer’s
replacement or equivalent, as defined by that manufacturer’s warranty."
--ron