OEM version of XP

[Ken Blake]

In

Changes such as that would be on the website somewhere.
Otherwise it is nonbinding.
If you and the Microsoft rep miscommunicated...the information is
void.
If you and the rep fuller understood each other the information may or
may not be void but since it is verbal, it is invalid to anyone but
the person Microsoft gave the information, you in this case.

I agree with all of the above, but wanted to add an additional
point. Alias didn't speak with Microsoft, he spoke with a single
individual at Microsoft. Depending on who that individual is, he
may or may not have authority to speak for the entire company. He
may also think he's right, but isn't.

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

It appears "Wade" wishes to have the flexibility of a retail version
of Windows XP, but only pay the OEM price. The OEM license
is mainly tied to the first motherboard and CPU installed. If those
are upgraded in the future, an OEM version will not be eligible
for Microsoft support regarding Product Activation. At that point,
he'll end up purchasing a new license. So in the long run, a
"Retail License" is the best purchase choice if major hardware upgrading
in the future is a concern.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User

Be Smart! Protect your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/

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


| In | Wade <[email protected]> typed:
|
| > Thank you Ken. So far that is the best answer I have ever
| > received. I continue to despise some folks that say
| > someone is in clear violation of the EULA for OEM versions
| > without looking at other factors. Until Microsoft clearly
| > defines the original machine it will be up to the comfort
| > level of each individual.
|
|
| You're welcome, but bear in mind that it's just *my* opinion. I
| have no special information here that others don't have.
|
| Also bear in mind that, despite my opinion below, there are
| situations where there *are* clear violations of the OEM EULA.
| For example, if you take an OEM copy off your computer and give
| the CD to a friend, who then installs it on his computer, that's
| a clear violation. There's no question there of whether it's a
| different computer or just an upgrade to the original one.
|
| --
| Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
| Please reply to the newsgroup
|
|
| >>-----Original Message-----
| >>In | >>Wade <[email protected]> typed:
| >>
| >>> I know the EULA says the OS must stay with the original
| >>> machine, but at what point does the original machine
| >>> become a new machine?
| >>
| >>
| >>Microsoft has never officially clarified this, and my guess is
| >>that it's on purpose. By leaving it ambiguous, many people will
| >>probably interpret it in the way most favorable to Microsoft.
| >>
| >>You could ask the same question about a car. You've paid to
| >>register your car and gotten a license plate for it. How many
| and
| >>which components do you have to replace before one could say
| it's
| >>no longer the same car and should be registered from scratch?
| >>
| >>The answer, in practice, is probably the same in both cases.
| You
| >>can replace whatever you want, and, if you consider it the same
| >>entity, it is.
| >>
| >>By the way, absurd though it sounds, since Microsoft's
| >>requirement is for the OEM to affix the OEM product code
| sticker
| >>to the case, I think one might successfully argue in court (if
| it
| >>ever came to that, which is highly unlikely) that it's the
| *case*
| >>that's the computer, and as long as you don't replace the case,
| >>you could replace anything else and it would still be the same
| >>computer.
| >>
| >>--
| >>Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
| >>Please reply to the newsgroup
|
|

 

[XS11E]

By the way, absurd though it sounds, since Microsoft's
requirement is for the OEM to affix the OEM product code sticker
to the case, I think one might successfully argue in court (if it
ever came to that, which is highly unlikely) that it's the *case*
that's the computer, and as long as you don't replace the case,
you could replace anything else and it would still be the same
computer.

Contained in your answer is the correct information on the EULA, it
means what a court says it means, not what you say, not what I say, not
what Microsoft says.

Until a court has rendered a decision regarding the meaning of the EULA
it means very little.

BTW, another interesting question for the court, since this newsgroup
(along with others) is evidence that NOBODY really knows what the EULA
says, I wonder if a court would consider your agreement to a
meaningless EULA to be other than meaningless?

Sooner or later, EULAs (not just MSFT, every software company has one,
it seems!) are bound to be thrashed out in court, until then.... ???

 

[XS11E]

The OEM license is mainly tied to the first motherboard and CPU
installed.

I've not been able to find where in the EULA it says that, can you
point it out please?

As a matter of fact, I can't even find the EULA for my copy of XP,
everything that pops up is a 180 day EULA for SP2. Did it replace
the XP EULA?

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

Yes to a point.
If you do not remove the prerelease SP 2, you need to stop using
Windows at the earlier of the two:
1. 180 days after installation of the prerelease.
2. Upon the public release of the final version of SP 2.
Which means you have about a month to use your copy of windows unless
you make some changes.

 

[Alias]

In


I agree with all of the above, but wanted to add an additional
point. Alias didn't speak with Microsoft, he spoke with a single
individual at Microsoft. Depending on who that individual is, he
may or may not have authority to speak for the entire company. He
may also think he's right, but isn't.

Then why don't you call them yourselves? I posted the numbers and they are
the numbers of the activation department, not the janitorial supply dept. If
the activation dept. doesn't know -- and they should because they decide if
you are to be activated or not -- who does?

Alias

 

[XS11E]

Yes to a point.
If you do not remove the prerelease SP 2, you need to stop using
Windows at the earlier of the two:
1. 180 days after installation of the prerelease.
2. Upon the public release of the final version of SP 2.
Which means you have about a month to use your copy of windows unless
you make some changes.

Actually I have as long as MSFT extends the release date of SP2, based
on past experience they'll extend the 180 day thingy or issue RC3 or
something if they have to slide the release more than they already
have.

And, on my machine at least, SP2 RC1 *will* uninstall if I need to, SP2
RC1 required a format and install XP from scratch to get rid of all the
problems as there was some kind of a bug in the uninstaller in addition
to the bugs in the release!

I should not run BETA software but it's so much fun.... <insane giggle>

 

[hermes]

Changes such as that would be on the website somewhere.
Otherwise it is nonbinding.
If you and the Microsoft rep miscommunicated...the information is
void.
If you and the rep fuller understood each other the information may or
may not be void but since it is verbal, it is invalid to anyone but
the person Microsoft gave the information, you in this case.

Where did you hear it, Jupiter?

--
hermes
DRM sux! Treacherous Computing kills our virtual civil liberties!
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/index.html
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
http://anti-dmca.org/
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php

Windows XP crashed.
I am the Blue Screen of Death.
No one hears your screams

 

[Ron Martell]

Contained in your answer is the correct information on the EULA, it
means what a court says it means, not what you say, not what I say, not
what Microsoft says.

Until a court has rendered a decision regarding the meaning of the EULA
it means very little.

BTW, another interesting question for the court, since this newsgroup
(along with others) is evidence that NOBODY really knows what the EULA
says, I wonder if a court would consider your agreement to a
meaningless EULA to be other than meaningless?

Sooner or later, EULAs (not just MSFT, every software company has one,
it seems!) are bound to be thrashed out in court, until then.... ???

Not quite. The EULA means whatever Microsoft says it means, unless
and until a court rules otherwise. It is their software, and they
have every right to set whatever terms and conditions they want with
regard to the licensing and usage of their software; subject only to
the possibility that a court may subsequently determine certain
provisions to be invalid or to make specific determinations as the
meaning and application of of certain provisions.

But unless and until a court makes such a ruling the EULA stands as
written.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

I never said I heard anything.

 

[XS11E]

Not quite. The EULA means whatever Microsoft says it means,
unless and until a court rules otherwise. It is their software,
and they have every right to set whatever terms and conditions
they want with regard to the licensing and usage of their
software; subject only to the possibility that a court may
subsequently determine certain provisions to be invalid or to make
specific determinations as the meaning and application of of
certain provisions.

But unless and until a court makes such a ruling the EULA stands
as written.

No, not at all. The EULA stands as written and hundreds or thousands
just ignore it. They have every right to set terms and conditions but
they have no means of legal enforcement w/o going to court.

Just like any other rule, law, etc. it's meaningless w/o enforcement.
You speed, you get a ticket and pay a fine, you violate the EULA and
Microsoft does..... nothing. Personally, I think there's much of the
EULA that wouldn't stand up in court and I suspect that's why there
have been few enforcement attempts.

 

[CS]

Not quite. The EULA means whatever Microsoft says it means, unless
and until a court rules otherwise. It is their software, and they
have every right to set whatever terms and conditions they want with
regard to the licensing and usage of their software; subject only to
the possibility that a court may subsequently determine certain
provisions to be invalid or to make specific determinations as the
meaning and application of of certain provisions.

But unless and until a court makes such a ruling the EULA stands as
written.

Also unenforceable until that same court makes its ruling!

 

[Woody]

few enforcement attempts ?

NONE that i know of , maybe the self appointed MS cops will enlighten us ;-)

 

[hermes]

I never said I heard anything.

My mistake then. Sorry.

--
--
hermes
DRM sux! Treacherous Computing kills our virtual civil liberties!
http://protectfreedom.tripod.com/index.html
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html
http://anti-dmca.org/
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php

Windows XP crashed.
I am the Blue Screen of Death.
No one hears your screams

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

Apparently, you have a reading and comprehension problem.
May I suggest taking every single legal agreement or contract you
are about to agree to to a competent attorney so it can be
explained to you in simple terms.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User

Be Smart! Protect your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/

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


| On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 23:44:34 GMT, Ron Martell <[email protected]>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >>Contained in your answer is the correct information on the EULA, it
| >>means what a court says it means, not what you say, not what I say, not
| >>what Microsoft says.
| >>
| >>Until a court has rendered a decision regarding the meaning of the EULA
| >>it means very little.
| >>
| >>BTW, another interesting question for the court, since this newsgroup
| >>(along with others) is evidence that NOBODY really knows what the EULA
| >>says, I wonder if a court would consider your agreement to a
| >>meaningless EULA to be other than meaningless?
| >>
| >>Sooner or later, EULAs (not just MSFT, every software company has one,
| >>it seems!) are bound to be thrashed out in court, until then.... ???
| >>
| >>
| >
| >Not quite. The EULA means whatever Microsoft says it means, unless
| >and until a court rules otherwise. It is their software, and they
| >have every right to set whatever terms and conditions they want with
| >regard to the licensing and usage of their software; subject only to
| >the possibility that a court may subsequently determine certain
| >provisions to be invalid or to make specific determinations as the
| >meaning and application of of certain provisions.
| >
| >But unless and until a court makes such a ruling the EULA stands as
| >written.
|
| Also unenforceable until that same court makes its ruling!

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

There are some very important reasons that an OEM license costs so
much less than a retail license. OEM licenses are very limited:

1) OEM versions must be sold with a piece of hardware (normally
a motherboard or hard drive, if not an entire PC, although Microsoft
has greatly relaxed the hardware criteria for WinXP) and are
_permanently_ bound to the first PC on which they are installed. An
OEM license, once installed, is not legally transferable to another
computer under any circumstances. This is the main reason some people
avoid OEM versions; if the PC dies or is otherwise disposed of (even
stolen), you cannot re-use your OEM license on a new PC. The only
legitimate way to transfer the ownership of an OEM license is to
transfer ownership of the entire PC.

2) Microsoft provides no free support for OEM versions. If you
have any problems that require outside assistance, your only recourse
is to contact the manufacturer/builder of the PC or the vendor of the
OEM license. This would include such issues as lost a Product Key or
replacing damaged installation media. (Microsoft does make allowances
for those instances when you can prove that the OEM has gone out of
business.) This doesn't mean that you can't download patches and
service packs from Microsoft -- just no free telephone or email
support for problems with the OS.

3) An OEM CD cannot be used to perform an upgrade of an earlier
OS, as it was designed to be installed _only_ upon an empty hard
drive. It can still be used to perform a repair installation (a.k.a.
an in-place upgrade) of an existing WinXP installation.

4) If the OEM CD was designed by a specific manufacturer, such as
eMachines, Sony, Dell, Gateway, etc., it will most likely only install
on the same brand of PC, as an additional anti-piracy feature.
Further, such CDs are severely customized to contain only the minimum
of device drivers, and a lot of extra nonsense, that the manufacturer
feels necessary for the specific model of PC for which the CD was
designed. (To be honest, such CDs should _not_ be available on the
open market; but, if you're shopping someplace like eBay, swap meets,
or computer fairs, there's often no telling what you're buying until
it's too late.) The "generic" OEM CDs, such as are manufactured by
Microsoft and sold to small systems builders, don't have this
particular problem, though, and are pretty much the same as their
retail counterparts, apart from the licensing, support, and upgrading
restrictions.

According to the EULA, an OEM license may not be transferred from
one distinct PC to another PC. However, this most emphatically does
not prohibit one from repairing or upgrading the PC on which an OEM
license is installed.

Now, some people believe that the motherboard is the key component
that defines the "original computer," but the OEM EULA does not make
any such distinction. Others have said that one could successfully
argue that it's the PC's case that is the deciding component, as that
is where one is instructed to affix the OEM CoA label w/Product Key.
Again, the EULA does not specifically define any single component as
the computer.

Microsoft has, to date, been very careful _not_ publicly to define
when an incrementally upgraded computer ceases to be the original
computer. The closest I've ever seen a Microsoft employee come to
this definition is to tell the person making the inquiry to consult
the PC's manufacturer. As the OEM license's support is solely the
responsibility of said manufacturer, they should determine what sort
of hardware changes to allow before the warranty and support
agreements are voided. To paraphrase: An incrementally upgraded
computer ceases to be the original computer, as pertains to the OEM
EULA, only when the *OEM* says it's a different computer.

If you've built the PC yourself, and used a generic OEM WinXP CD,
I'd have to conclude that *you* are the OEM, and *you* get to decide
when you're going to stop supporting the system and its OS.


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]

Greetings --

Please provide a link to support this assertion.

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]

Greetings --

The "Activation Department" has nothing to do with it. Let us
know when you've consulted Microsoft's Corporate Legal department.
Until then, we have only hearsay from an irrelevant source.

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]

Greetings --

Carey, where in the OEM EULA, specifically, does it state that the
license is bound to the motherboard, CPU, or any other specific
component? My EULAs say no such thing.

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

 

[Rich]

I found this thread very interesting as I only buy the OEM version of
MS OS. I never read the EULA. I just checked the agree box with
yea-yea-yea attitude and did as I pleased. Now I think I'll read it.
<chuckle at myself>