NEED ADVICE

[Alias]

So what about OEM versions that are unbranded and are sold legally with a
piece of hardware? *THEY* don't mention the System Builder's EULA anywhere
in their EULA so how can a purchaser of this legitimate version be called to
account over a License agreement that they never see and can have NO
knowledge about?

They sell them here without hardware and you can't find a retail copy
anywhere. Being as MS has offices in Spain, I am sure they are aware of
this but do nothing.

Carey doesn't understand the difference between an End User and a
Systems Builder but that won't stop him from his daily copy and paste.

Alias

 

[Bob I]

Like any other "grey market" sale. They take the issue up with the seller.

 

[Gordon]

Like any other "grey market" sale. They take the issue up with the seller.

Umm buying an unbranded OEM copy of Windows with siome hardware from a
reputable retailer is NOT a "grey market"!

 

[Alias]

Umm buying an unbranded OEM copy of Windows with siome hardware from a
reputable retailer is NOT a "grey market"!

Or, in Spain, without hardware.

Alias

 

[Bob I]

Last time I checked, you weren't in charge of licensing either. So there
you have it, your opinions are merely opinions, and have as much
weight as a virtual feather.

 

[Gordon]

Last time I checked, you weren't in charge of licensing either. So there
you have it, your opinions are merely opinions, and have as much
weight as a virtual feather.

What on earth are you blethering on about?

 

[Opinicus]

Last time I checked, you weren't in charge of licensing either. So there

And neither are you apparently. Have you even the smallest clue as to what
an unbranded OEM license is? MS sells quite literally millions of them all
over the world and turns a pretty penny on them too I might add.

 

[antioch]

A copy of the System Builders Licensing Agreement
is included with the documentation you receive when
you purchase an OEM version of Windows XP.

No it isn't - my computer builder gave me the disc(OEM) c.o.a and a little
booklet that has nothing in it about an S.B.L.A.
Their web site says nothing about this builders licence - in fact MS make a
big play about giving no free support on an OEM. They say the builder is
responsible. Before purchase I asked about the XP support, and the builder
said if it goes wrong its between me and MS.
Rgds
Antioch

 

[antioch]

Carey
I do not see any link between your two paras below.
The second in my opinion should not begin with 'thus'.
If the EULA said ..........to 'A' computer......may only be used with 'THAT'
computer... then there would be more sense.
Now if you have quoted from line to line i.e. there is not something missing
between your word COMPUTER and If at the start of the next sentence, then
no wonder your argument is flawed in those two paras. You are making an
assumption that a computer is the same as hardware and as yet you have
failed to connect the two from the EULA wording.
From your second para, I read you as confirming that one may use the
software only if accompanied by hardware. Then you may use the hardware.
THUS(quoting from yourself) if you buy a new Mobo, there is the hardware and
so you can use the software.
Howsomever I always have read the accompanying bit as a rule for the
retailer, NOT the end-user.
But the trouble with stuff written by lawyers, is they always manage to
write so that they are themselves ever in employment, going to court to
argue the ambiguous wording put in by their mates.
When was MS's definition of a computer being a piece of hardware, issued?
I would not dream of breaking the conditions of this EULA - but I would
their definitions. If they had had half a decent lawyer in the first place,
then such a big hole would not have had to be plugged later as an
afterthought.
Rgds
Antioch

 

[antioch]

Carey
I do not see any link between your two paras below.
The second in my opinion should not begin with 'thus'.
If the EULA said ..........to 'A' computer......may only be used with 'THAT'
computer... then there would be more sense.
Now if you have quoted from line to line i.e. there is not something missing
between your word COMPUTER and If at the start of the next sentence, then
no wonder your argument is flawed in those two paras. You are making an
assumption that a computer is the same as hardware and as yet you have
failed to connect the two from the EULA wording.
From your second para, I read you as confirming that one may use the
software only if accompanied by hardware. Then you may use the hardware.
THUS(quoting from yourself) if you buy a new Mobo, there is the hardware and
so you can use the software.
Howsomever I always have read the accompanying bit as a rule for the
retailer, NOT the end-user.
But the trouble with stuff written by lawyers, is they always manage to
write so that they are themselves ever in employment, going to court to
argue the ambiguous wording put in by their mates.
When was MS's definition of a computer being a piece of hardware, issued?
I would not dream of breaking the conditions of this EULA - but I would
their definitions. If they had had half a decent lawyer in the first place,
then such a big hole would not have had to be plugged later as an
afterthought.
Rgds
Antioch