OEM Controversy Update.

[kurttrail]

Subject: Can A Motherboard Be Upgraded With OEM WinXP And Keep The Same
License?
From: "Kurtis Kirsch"
Sent: 12/11/2003 7:25:07 PM
Link:
http://communities.microsoft.com/ne...06ea01c3c05f%248a90aff0%[email protected]%3E

"If the motherboard is replaced, then essentially a new
computer has been created and a new operating system
license is required."

"If the motherboard is replaced, the computer system is
deemed "new" and a new license would be required."

I have gotten these two answers in this group from the
Microsoft OEM System Builder Licensing Team in the past,
however I have recently been made aware of the quote below:

"Every single piece of hardware could be changed on a PC
with SLP and no reactivation would be required - even the
motherboard could be replaced as long as the replacement
motherboard was original equipment manufactured by the OEM
and retained the proper BIOS." -
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tr...net/prodtechnol/winxppro/evaluate/xpactiv.asp

Some corporate OEM's contract out the manufacturing of
their Motherboards to other companies, so I don't see much
difference between them replacing the motherboard for
their End Users, and me replacing the motherboard for my
End User, me. So as an End User that built his own
computer, can I replace my motherboard and still keep the
same OEM license for Windows XP, or do I have to buy
another one becasue only OEM's that are corporate entities
have the right to replace motherboards and keep the same
OEM license for Windows XP for their End Users?

Thanks,
Kurtis Kirsch


Subject: Can A Motherboard Be Upgraded With OEM WinXP And Keep The Same
License?
From: "System Builder Licensing"
Sent: 1/8/2004 8:10:20 AM
Link:
http://communities.microsoft.com/ne...ties.oem.licensing&sMessageID=%3C0d1a01c3d601
%2524ea0344e0%[email protected]%253E

Hello,

Thank you for your posting. Our legal department is
currently reviewing this matter, and we hope to have our
reply posted soon.

[Now MS has definitely spent more money on me than I have on them! ROFL!]

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!"
Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Gary Tait]

Some corporate OEM's contract out the manufacturing of
their Motherboards to other companies, so I don't see much
difference between them replacing the motherboard for
their End Users, and me replacing the motherboard for my
End User, me. So as an End User that built his own
computer, can I replace my motherboard and still keep the
same OEM license for Windows XP, or do I have to buy
another one becasue only OEM's that are corporate entities
have the right to replace motherboards and keep the same
OEM license for Windows XP for their End Users?

Thanks,
Kurtis Kirsch

With OEMs (or their agents) replacing the motherboard, is under the
presumtion they are replacing a motherboard with an identical or
similar model, for the purpose of replacing a faulty motherboard,
therefore the end PC being identical or close to the PC that went in.

In theory, you can replace your motherboard for the same reason an OEM
would, and keep the OEM OS license. In practise, if you beg, you can
comletely change one Mobo for another.

 

[kurttrail]

"By the act of scrolling this post on your computer, and/or printing or
replying to this post, you agree that I am your everlasting Lord & Saviour.
Breach of this term will result in you burning in hell for ever and ever!
Amen!"

With OEMs (or their agents) replacing the motherboard, is under the
presumtion they are replacing a motherboard with an identical or
similar model, for the purpose of replacing a faulty motherboard,
therefore the end PC being identical or close to the PC that went in.

In theory, you can replace your motherboard for the same reason an OEM
would, and keep the OEM OS license. In practise, if you beg, you can
comletely change one Mobo for another.

Thanks Gary, but I'll wait to hear back from MS after their legal department
reviews it.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Donald McDaniel]

With OEMs (or their agents) replacing the motherboard, is under the
presumtion they are replacing a motherboard with an identical or
similar model, for the purpose of replacing a faulty motherboard,
therefore the end PC being identical or close to the PC that went in.

In theory, you can replace your motherboard for the same reason an OEM
would, and keep the OEM OS license. In practise, if you beg, you can
comletely change one Mobo for another.

The Activation wizard cannot tell WHO replaced the motherboard. All it does
is notice that it is different. If you have only replaced the motherboard
and cpu, you will have a good chance of being able to activate over the
Internet. In fact, if its been at least 120 days since your last
activation, you WON'T have to call to activate. On the 120th day after your
last activation, the Activation server completely expunges your activation
records.

In that case, and you activate after replacing your MB, it will be as if you
had just taken the XP CD out of the box for the first time and it had never
been activated.

 

[Donald McDaniel]

The Activation wizard cannot tell WHO replaced the motherboard. All
it does is notice that it is different. If you have only replaced
the motherboard and cpu, you will have a good chance of being able to
activate over the Internet. In fact, if its been at least 120 days
since your last activation, you WON'T have to call to activate. On
the 120th day after your last activation, the Activation server
completely expunges your activation records.

In that case, and you activate after replacing your MB, it will be as
if you had just taken the XP CD out of the box for the first time and
it had never been activated.

Ok, so I was wrong. The Activation server CAN tell who changed the
motherboard. However, the other part was correct.

 

[kurttrail]

Ok, so I was wrong. The Activation server CAN tell who changed the
motherboard. However, the other part was correct.

Not unless MS is lying.

"Microsoft Product Activation is completely anonymous, and no personally
identifiable information is collected." -
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/mpafaq.asp#privacy

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Philip Nicholls]

With OEMs (or their agents) replacing the motherboard, is under the
presumtion they are replacing a motherboard with an identical or
similar model, for the purpose of replacing a faulty motherboard,
therefore the end PC being identical or close to the PC that went in.

In theory, you can replace your motherboard for the same reason an OEM
would, and keep the OEM OS license. In practise, if you beg, you can
comletely change one Mobo for another.

I purchased my OEM version with a hard drive. Last week I replaced
my motherboard which had a built-in LAN. I also upgraded my processor
AND had to move to DDR RAM. After the install I did a repair of the
existing install rather than a completely new install. I had the
feeling I was going to activation hell and indeed I was told I would
have to re-activate.

I prepared to go through the phone exercise. Technically it IS the
same PC and the hardware I purchased my OEM copy of windows with was
still part of that machine.

However, the internet activation went though without a hitch.

It's an interesting question, though. At what point is it no longer
the "same machine." The only things now that are still with me are
the case, power supply and hard drive. If I upgrade the hard drive
is it still the same machine? What if I replace the case and power
supply?

If a tree falls in the woods . . .

 

[kurttrail]

I purchased my OEM version with a hard drive. Last week I replaced
my motherboard which had a built-in LAN. I also upgraded my processor
AND had to move to DDR RAM. After the install I did a repair of the
existing install rather than a completely new install. I had the
feeling I was going to activation hell and indeed I was told I would
have to re-activate.

I prepared to go through the phone exercise. Technically it IS the
same PC and the hardware I purchased my OEM copy of windows with was
still part of that machine.

However, the internet activation went though without a hitch.

Your original Activation data was purged from MS's server after 120 days.
As will this Activation be removed after 120 days.

It's an interesting question, though. At what point is it no longer
the "same machine." The only things now that are still with me are
the case, power supply and hard drive. If I upgrade the hard drive
is it still the same machine? What if I replace the case and power
supply?

If a tree falls in the woods . . .

It's still the same computer, even if every component changes. It's still
*MY* computer. And MS will have to sue me & win before I believe any
differently. MS can make some arbitrary policy about my computer, doesn't
mean a hill of beans, unless they got the balls to back it up legally.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Opinicus]

It's an interesting question, though. At what point is it no longer
the "same machine." The only things now that are still with me are
the case, power supply and hard drive. If I upgrade the hard drive
is it still the same machine? What if I replace the case and power
supply?

Well I've replaced those (hard drive, power supply, and case) too. About the
only thing remaining from the "original" machine are the monitor, speakers,
and power cord. (The DVD drive is original but flaky and is going to go
soon.)

It's kind of like the situation of the Tin Woodsman in the "Wizard of Oz",
isn't it? (Or is it the "Ghost in the Machine"?)
;-)

 

[Philip Nicholls]

It's still the same computer, even if every component changes. It's still
*MY* computer. And MS will have to sue me & win before I believe any
differently. MS can make some arbitrary policy about my computer, doesn't
mean a hill of beans, unless they got the balls to back it up legally.

Damn Straight!

 

[Donald McDaniel]

Not unless MS is lying.

"Microsoft Product Activation is completely anonymous, and no
personally identifiable information is collected." -
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/basics/activation/mpafaq.asp#privacy

I guess I am wrong again.

Now I am totally confused.

All I know is that if you change your motherboard 120 or more days after
having activated your OEM copy of XP, Microsoft will have no record of a
previous activation. So in effect, Microsoft gives those who use OEM copies
a "free ride" to do anything they want every 120 days.

I can't believe that Microsoft is not aware of this huge hole in its
activation mechanism, and I cannot believe that Microsoft is not aware that
an OEM copy can easily be migrated to a second, third, fourth, and on and
on, machine, with Microsoft never knowing about it.

This fact, coupled with Microsoft's greatly-relaxed requirements for
purchasing an OEM OS product, only makes me believe that Microsoft is
consciously attempting to get (some) people to purchase OEM software.

This puzzles me greatly. It would seem to me that they would want to sell
their retail Products instead of cheaper OEMs

 

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

The ethical concept behind the screeds of licensing detail is: One PC,
one license. Anything you do that uses the same license on multiple
PCs is in breach of that concept to MS's disadvantage. Anything MS
does that forces you to by the same license multiple times for the
same PC is in breach of that concept to your disadvantage.

Now both MS and user can hide behind the law on a "to hell with the
ethics, I'm going to get as much as is legally mine". I'm not sure
who is most likely to win that game, and would rather not play it.

MS has fired a significant salvo escalating that war, in the form of
Product Activation - taking for itself the right to DoS (denial of
Service) attack your system should its software think its interests
are infringed. It remains to be seen whether this will pay off; so
far, it looks as if it has - which means we can expect a gloves-off
future where users get pounded and bullied by business.

Legislation on Digital Rights Management enshrines the right of
business (software vandors, media pimps) to DoS you, and forbids
anyone from defending the system against this new form of commercial
malware. No documentation, no detection or cleanup tools allowed.

------------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

The rights you save may be your own

 

[kurttrail]

The ethical concept behind the screeds of licensing detail is: One PC,
one license. Anything you do that uses the same license on multiple
PCs is in breach of that concept to MS's disadvantage. Anything MS
does that forces you to by the same license multiple times for the
same PC is in breach of that concept to your disadvantage.

Now both MS and user can hide behind the law on a "to hell with the
ethics, I'm going to get as much as is legally mine". I'm not sure
who is most likely to win that game, and would rather not play it.

MS has fired a significant salvo escalating that war, in the form of
Product Activation - taking for itself the right to DoS (denial of
Service) attack your system should its software think its interests
are infringed. It remains to be seen whether this will pay off; so
far, it looks as if it has - which means we can expect a gloves-off
future where users get pounded and bullied by business.

Legislation on Digital Rights Management enshrines the right of
business (software vandors, media pimps) to DoS you, and forbids
anyone from defending the system against this new form of commercial
malware. No documentation, no detection or cleanup tools allowed.



The rights you save may be your own

As individual human beings, it all boils down to, is technology gonna rule
our lives, or are we gonna rule our technology? To my way of thinking, the
choice is simple, I don't want technology to rule my life, I want use
technology as just another tool to help me pursue my happiness.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[kurttrail]

I guess I am wrong again.

Now I am totally confused.

All I know is that if you change your motherboard 120 or more days
after having activated your OEM copy of XP, Microsoft will have no
record of a previous activation. So in effect, Microsoft gives those
who use OEM copies a "free ride" to do anything they want every 120
days.

I can't believe that Microsoft is not aware of this huge hole in its
activation mechanism, and I cannot believe that Microsoft is not
aware that an OEM copy can easily be migrated to a second, third,
fourth, and on and on, machine, with Microsoft never knowing about it.

This fact, coupled with Microsoft's greatly-relaxed requirements for
purchasing an OEM OS product, only makes me believe that Microsoft is
consciously attempting to get (some) people to purchase OEM software.

This puzzles me greatly. It would seem to me that they would want to
sell their retail Products instead of cheaper OEMs

MS turned a blind eye to software piracy long ago, because it helped them
build there dominence of the desktop. One they monopolized the desktop,
then they started to get more serious about the piracy that help them buil
their monopoly.

No MS wants people to accept their DRM, so any way they can get you to
accept it, MS will try. It's not about money, MS built up their $52 billion
cash horde, all while they complaining that people were stealing their
software. It's about control. Who is gonna rule the desktop? MS, because
they make and sell the underlying software, or the indivdual, who actually
owns the PC.

Thailand was starting to sell really cheap computers to people using Linux,
MS made a deal with the Thai govenment to sell both Windows & Office for $40
together. So it's not money that is MS's main motivation, but dominance,
over both the Market, and over each and every Desktop. Over time the MS
will close the so-called "holes" in their policies, but the first step is to
get you to accept MS's policies as the law for your computer, and MS will
use any means to get you to accept their Digital Rights Management of each
and every computer.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Mike Brearley]

As individual human beings, it all boils down to, is technology gonna rule
our lives, or are we gonna rule our technology? To my way of thinking, the
choice is simple, I don't want technology to rule my life, I want use
technology as just another tool to help me pursue my happiness.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

Couldn't have said it better myself!

--
Posted 'as is'. If there are any spelling and/or grammar mistakes, they
were a direct result of my fingers and brain not being synchronized or my
lack of caffeine.

Mike Brearley (mike_brearley at hotmail dot com)

 

[Opinicus]

I want use
technology as just another tool to help me pursue my happiness.

Ah so.

And who is going to pay for the technology?

 

[Mike Brearley]

Ah so.

And who is going to pay for the technology?

ummm... The person using it!!

--
Posted 'as is'. If there are any spelling and/or grammar mistakes, they
were a direct result of my fingers and brain not being synchronized or my
lack of caffeine.

Mike Brearley

 

[kurttrail]

Ah so.

And who is going to pay for the technology?

Who pays for it now? The consumer.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei!"

 

[Philip Nicholls]

The ethical concept behind the screeds of licensing detail is: One PC,
one license. Anything you do that uses the same license on multiple
PCs is in breach of that concept to MS's disadvantage. Anything MS
does that forces you to by the same license multiple times for the
same PC is in breach of that concept to your disadvantage.

I am really more concerned about my own personal ethics than what
microsoft does or does not do. As far as I am concerned, this PC
that I am using now is the same PC, even if every component has been
upgraded to something new. If I take all the parts that I have
upgraded an reassemble them to make a new PC then, in my opinion, this
is a different PC and I would be ethically bound to purchase a new
copy of XP if I wanted to install XP on that system.

Now both MS and user can hide behind the law on a "to hell with the
ethics, I'm going to get as much as is legally mine". I'm not sure
who is most likely to win that game, and would rather not play it.

I would rather not play either.

MS has fired a significant salvo escalating that war, in the form of
Product Activation - taking for itself the right to DoS (denial of
Service) attack your system should its software think its interests
are infringed. It remains to be seen whether this will pay off; so
far, it looks as if it has - which means we can expect a gloves-off
future where users get pounded and bullied by business.

Legislation on Digital Rights Management enshrines the right of
business (software vandors, media pimps) to DoS you, and forbids
anyone from defending the system against this new form of commercial
malware. No documentation, no detection or cleanup tools allowed.

I have thought about this a great deal. There is nothing or no one
forcing me to buy or use microsoft products. I could use Linux, BSD
or switch to using a MAC. The computer I chose to use and the
software I chose to install on it are my choice. I read the EULA and
if I found it too restricting I would have chosen not to use it.

This applies to life in general. We are to a certain extent defined
by the choices we make. I try to live my life knowing I have, to
the best of my ability, done the right thing.

 

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

[/QUOTE]

Activation is anonymous and compulsory.

Registration is not anonymous and is "optional", but in the same sense
as using passwords in XP is "optional". Choosing not to use the
option means anyone else can hijack it by doing so; if it were *truly*
optional, you could place on record "the owner chooses NOT to use this
option" so that no further attempts to use the option would succeed.

If a product is activated *and* registered, the possibility exists
that these two data can be linked, ergo

"changer of the motherboard" = "person who registered"

If your hardware changes "too much" so that WPA launches a DoS attack
against the user (refuses to run except Safe Mode, limited number of
Safe Mode sessions allowed, then death) then you have to phone MS and
beg. Part of your attempts to motivate why you should be spared the
sword are likely to involve surrendering your anonymity (you'd prolly
volunteer this even if no demand was made for it).


I live in a place where crime is no laughing matter; 30% schoolgirls
get raped, murder second only to AIDS as leading cause of death in
certain age groups, that sort of thing. Computers get stolen, and
sometimes whoever gets in the way gets murdered.

With this in mind, I find MS's policy on WPA in the case of stolen
computers to be unacceptable. WPA offers the possibility of rendering
stolen PCs less valuable, much as cancelled stolen credit cards are,
but MS does not pursue this; it's purely for their benefit.

I found this out when I called to report three XP PCs stolen after a
break-in that had almost demolished a wall in the process. I wanted
those product keys blocked, and to get replacement keys so when the
victim's PCs were rebuilt, they could re-use their licenses.

The party line was:
- the license is the sticker that was affixed to the PC case
- "we are not in the business of making new stickers"
- "don't worry, insurance will pay for your new copies of XP"

My response was: "Is that official MS policy? If so, it's certainly
newsworthy. What is your name, and can I quote you on that?" At that
point it was declared no, it wasn't official MS policy and I should
not quote the person's name in connection with this, but it remained
unclear as to what the official policy was.

From that day forth, I decided to ignore MS's advice to stick licenses
on cases, and now provide these to the user for safekeeping (as in, in
a safe, bank vault, or other escrow facility). It is NOT acceptable
to me that the theif should be honored as the "licensed user", which
effectively sees MS as profiting from crime.

Up until then, I'd been sticking the license on the underside of the
case, so that a passing person with a pen and paper could not as
easily ballpoint the key, call MS with a story to activate, and go
"yes, I'd love to register!" and thereby "stealing" that key from the
anonymous user in terms of future WPA-triggered squabbles.

Well, MS has always bent the knee for large OEMs in ways that are
beneficial to both MS and OEM, with only the user getting shafted:
- crippleware licensing
- no OS CD, only a HD image that evaporates
- proprietary CD that can't be used on other hardware
- incomplete CDs that leave out Backup, RC, etc.
- "instant restore" CDs that preclude custom or repair installs
- proprietary drivers integrated into CD, no stand-alone form
- BIOS-locking WPA model to "encourage brand loyalty"
- these user-hostile products may be demanded by OEMs...
- ...but they are *discounted* by MS to encourage uptake
OEM gains brand lock-in, and MS gains extra sales where the stunted
(but legal) licenses force a "one PC, two licenses" bonanza.

MS turned a blind eye to software piracy long ago, because it helped them
build there dominence of the desktop. One they monopolized the desktop,
then they started to get more serious about the piracy that help them buil
their monopoly.

Think about this in terms of MS responsability to shareholders.

Shareholders fall into three types:
- company members, for whom stock is a large part of their wealth
- large investors who take an interest in procedings
- small investors who don't have a clue about what's going on

When a company fails to deliver shareholder value, the large investors
usually figure this out, whip up public outrage from the small
investor base, and cause management heads to roll. Where management
are major shareholders (what would happen to BG's fortune if MSFT
traded at 0.01 per share?), they are already well-motivated to ensure
shareholder value is not frittered away.

MSFT has been a great share, because its revenues were pretty much
exploding from year to year. How can that trend be maintained when
everyone has already bought MSware?
- create new products to sell (difficult; the essentials are "done")
- expand into new markets (requires hi-level political influence)
- convert the non-paying userbase into paid licensees (WPA etc.)
- extort more money for the same old stuff (rental, volume changes)
- retire products faster, to stimulate faster replacement sales

If growth cannot be maintained, then it becomes necessary to build
share value in another way - by aiming for blue-chip reliability. Of
the four strategies, revenue protection via forced licensing of
essential use is arguably the best way to do this.

To MS's credit, they are currently not pursuing the last strategy; a
committment to 7-year product support will have the reverse effect.
But that does fit with the "blue-chip" approach, which IMO sooner or
later MS is going to have to embrace.

No(w) MS wants people to accept their DRM, so any way they can get you to
accept it, MS will try. It's not about money, MS built up their $52 billion
cash horde, all while they complaining that people were stealing their
software. It's about control. Who is gonna rule the desktop? MS, because
they make and sell the underlying software, or the indivdual, who actually
owns the PC.

MS could position itself as the sole provider of the magic keys that
allow media pimps to preserve their (diminishing) value.

For every obviously wealthy Michael Jackson, there is a faceless media
pimp who has creamed off even more, and who has the good sense to stay
off radar. Imagine if all of these *true* financial masters of the
entertainment industry had to license their DRM technologies from
MS... that sort of monopoly makes desktop ownership child's play.

What other value do media pimps have? The Internet distributes more
effectively, is cheaper, and provides far less barrier to entry than
media companies do. If I'm a musician, I can get my music to global
ears easily via the 'net, without having to beg a company to help. If
I am a consumer in search of a rare item, the 'net can deliver this to
me faster, and with less excuses, than the industry.

The only thing the pimps are better at - and it's a biggie - is
providing income to the content creatror, even when it does so as a
marine-cables-attached trickledown.

Thailand was starting to sell really cheap computers to people using Linux,
MS made a deal with the Thai govenment to sell both Windows & Office for $40
together. So it's not money that is MS's main motivation, but dominance

To grow into new markets such as China, MS needs big government more
than it needs industry alliances. Expect to see MS doing big
government's dirty work... DRM falls into this category, as it
basically leverages industries USA is big in (entertainment, software)
over industries other countries are big in (food, manufactured goods).

As private companies, Intel and MS can do things that would not
survive public scrutiny if done by government. Consider:
- the Clinton administration floats the idea of Clipper
- public pressure shoots it down
- meanwhile, MS is on the DoJ's rack; damaging info made public etc.
- Intel is next in line for the same treatment
- Intel announces the Clipper-like Pentium III serial number
- Intel refuses to back down in the face of public pressure
- Intel's case dropped by DoJ with no evidence being led
- Intel's P4 lacks the SN feature; not so "essential" after all, eh?

Join the dots...

------------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

The rights you save may be your own