Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition

[caver1]

*Forced* by Microsoft... Didn't happened.

You might find this an interesting read:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2001/10/23/13219/110

In several columns on the BeOS website, Gassée mentioned the
bootloader issue, for example:

I once preached peaceful coexistence with Windows. You may
laugh at my expense -- I deserve it.

While I rambled on about peace on the hard disk, Microsoft
made it lethal for a PC OEM to factory-install BeOS (or Linux,
or FreeBSD) next to Windows on the computer's hard disk. If
you, as a PC OEM, don't use the Windows boot manager or
configure it to load Linux or BeOS, you lose your Windows
license and you're dead. That's why you can't buy a multi-OS
machine from Compaq, Dell, HP or anyone else for that matter.
(Yes, you can buy a Linux laptop from IBM, but not one that
runs the Windows Office applications you need or that can
switch to Linux or BeOS when you want.) [3]

In a newsletter article in 1999 [4], Gassée challenged Windows
OEMs to include BeOS together with Windows on one of their
machines: "We end with a real-life offer for any PC OEM that's
willing to challenge the monopoly: Load the BeOS on the hard
disk so the user can see it when the computer is first booted,
and the license is free. Help us put a crack in the wall."

No PC manufacturer ever followed the offer. The situation was
analyzed by BeOS user Scot Hacker in a column for the renowned
computer magazine BYTE [5]:

So why aren't there any dual-boot computers for sale? The
answer lies in the nature of the relationship Microsoft
maintains with hardware vendors. More specifically, in the
"Windows License" agreed to by hardware vendors who want to
include Windows on the computers they sell. This is not the
license you pretend to read and click "I Accept" when
installing Windows. This license is not available online.
This is a confidential license, seen only by Microsoft and
computer vendors. You and I can't read the license because
Microsoft classifies it as a "trade secret." The license
specifies that any machine which includes a Microsoft
operating system must not also offer a non-Microsoft
operating system as a boot option. In other words, a
computer that offers to boot into Windows upon startup
cannot also offer to boot into BeOS or Linux. The hardware
vendor does not get to choose which OSes to install on the machines
they sell -- Microsoft does.

"Must not?" What, does Microsoft hold a gun to the vendor's
head? Not quite, but that wouldn't be a hyperbolic metaphor.
Instead, Microsoft threatens to revoke the vendor's license
to include Windows on the machine if the bootloader license
is violated. Because the world runs on Windows, no hardware
vendor can afford to ship machines that don't include
Windows alongside whatever alternative they might want to
offer.

A major OEM becomes a "major" anything because of smart choices on
how they sell their products, market them, etc. Would Dell be as
huge if they sold only Linux with their systems? Who knows - I
would think not, however. You cannot use the argument that if
they had chose to sell something other than Windows - that Windows
would not be as large because there is no way of proving that they
would not have just gone out of business or stayed in their small
little niche market. Nor can you say that another OS would have
been larger than Windows if one of the "major" OEMs had chose to
sell that OS instead. Dell gives choices to consumers - it just
doesn't present them as clearly. Call Dell, spec yourself a good
computer and buy it from them - with Linux.. You can do it you
know. You have to do it by phone for most configurations - but
you can do it.
That has a snowball effect that is obvious now. Pre MS-DOS,
anything could have happened. There were so many ways the market
could have gone. We could all be running macs right now with OS
XXII or something. But it did not go that way, nor can anyone say
that there wouldn't be people complaining in the same manner as
they are now if it had. The names would have changed, perhaps -
but no one can say that if Macintosh OS had become the dominate OS
and had gotten to rule over 50% of the marketplace - people
would/would not be complaining now or if the price points we now
associate with their OS (which I mentioned) would even be in
existence.

It could have gone with web-based applications, as Netscape had
planned to do. But Microsoft "cut off Netscape's air supply" by
bundling IE for "free" and, as came out in the DOJ antitrust trail,
forbidding OEMs to remove IE, remove links to IE, or to install
Netscape.

It could have been DRDOS, but Microsoft inserted code into Windows
to kill DRDOS and the publicly cast the problem as a bug in DRDOS.
Then to finish the job they did the same thing they did to
Netscape, bundling MSDOS into Windows so that nobody needed to buy
DRDOS.

It could have been OS/2, but among several other dirty tricks,
Microsoft threatened OEMS who wanted to license it. Compaq has
stated outright that they decided not to license OS/2 after all
because of Microsoft's intimidation.

It could have been BeOS, but Microsoft used its monopoly to
blackmail OEMS into ignoring BeOS, hiding its presence, leaving its
bootloader out, or otherwise making it invisible and difficult for
consumers to boot.

Even with that (if not fictional) - they were still not forced to do
anything *by Microsoft* but by their own pocket books and greed.

They could have said, "You need us as much as we need you. We'll drop you
like *that*."
If everything above is true - they did not - and you cannot convince me it
was because of some agreement or threat.

They didn't become big just by riding Microsoft's coat-tails, nor
vice-versa.
Would a large vendor actually just doing what they want have an impact?
Yeah.. I think so.

Why didn't they (if the above is factual)?
Lack of saq or fear of having a hard time and not raking in as much money
from the other sheep?

If everything you posted is true, the hardware vendors and OEMs had no
intestinal fortitude and deserved to be run over just like other entities
with no intestinal fortitude to stand up for what they want instead of
letting others decide for them or because it is the easy way out/in and they
can make a bunch of money.

How it got to the point it is at doesn't really matter. It's there. Until
someone does something about it more than blabber on that "their belief is
100% right, your belief is 100% wrong" - it's going to stay the way it is.
Status quo. Stagnant. The proof is in the articles being quoted. 2001?
With one comment as late as June 2002? Welcome to the end of 2006. 'Go Go
Gadget Change!'

Proving other corporations/entities are weak and can be bullied (if anything
posted above is legitimate - most of the references no longer exist or are
in Dutch - I think...) does nothing for any cause other than prove that most
are greedy sheep that will do whatever it takes to get what they want and
those who may not fall into that category are willing to sit around and chat
about it for years instead of actually doing anything (beyond chatting about
it for years.)

It seems to me the US gov't was doing something about it until old GWB
was elected and made the justice dept drop it.
And yes I am using Linux for all the above stated reasons. Yes I do
think that MS has good products. No I don't think that MS is the only
unethical company around. There is middle ground that's why fair use was
approved be the courts. It wasn't the courts that have been whittling
away at fair use.

 

[caver1]

If I am hopeless for not agreeing with you, then you are just as hopeless
for not understanding that you DO gain by not paying.. Was it not you who
claimed the "fair use" applied ONLY if there was no financial gain?

When you fail to pay for the additional products you use, you HAVE gained
financially by NOT having the money taken out of your account. If you don't
think that is a financial gain, then **why not** pay for each installation?
The ONLY reason for one NOT to pay for each installation is so that one can
KEEP THEIR MONEY, which as far as your bank account is concerned, is a gain.

If one XP costs $200 and you install it four times, you come out ahead by
$600. That is a financial gain, and nullifies your "fair use" argument.

Gregg Hill

I don't totally agree with alais either. Apple found some middle ground
that is evidently working. Single 159, Family(5) 199, as I am told.
MS single is (fill in amount) family of 5 is 5 times that. and Apple is
still making money.
The reason Apple is not as big is because they wouldn't let in clones in
on their operating system. MS realized that letting clones in was the
way to dominate the market. Once they did that they then wanted to stop
their competitors to maximize their profit. There is an ethical way and
unethical way to do this. MS over all has taken the unethical way.

 

[arachnid]

It seems to me the US gov't was doing something about it until old GWB was
elected and made the justice dept drop it.

Things may change a little with the Democrats in power:

: http://news.com.com/What+the+Democrats+win+means+for+tech/2100-1028_3-6133833.html
:
: What the Democrats' win means for tech
:
: On a wealth of topics--Net neutrality, digital copyright, merger
: approval, data retention, Internet censorship--a Capitol Hill
: controlled by Democrats should yield a shift in priorities on
: technology-related legislation.

And yes I am using Linux for all the above stated reasons. Yes I do
think that MS has good products.

MS can do good work when there's a gun to their head, but they slack off
soon as the pressure's off. Look at all the heavy work on IE until they'd
killed Netscape. Then IE development and features essentially came to a
halt for about 6 years, until FireFox started taking away IE's market
share.

I think MS could be very good if placed in a competitive situation,
not allowed to ply their usual dirty tricks, and forced to compete on
software quality alone. Many have said that Bush didn't do them any favor
by letting them off the hook in the DOJ antitrust trial.

 

[caver1]

"Fair Use," as defined by copyright law, doesn't apply in any of the
above discussion. (It isn't even relevant, in this particular discussion.)


----------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 107

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Release date: 2004-04-30

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of
a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including
multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an
infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work
in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall
include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is
of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the
copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the
copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of
fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above
factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

For more information:

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter9/index.html

As an example MS vs. AT&T (ongoing now and there are many references
online to this if you would research) MS states that software should not
be patentable only should be able to copywrite it. Fair use does not
apply to patents only copywrites. Then they state that the copies they
caused to be made outside of the US should not be legally covered by US
copywrite law. In which case they lost in a previous case. I believe
that was Elosa ( I'm not sure of the spelling.)
In the past the US courts have stated in reference to music that it was
fair use and not copywrite infringement for an individual to make a copy
, of a legal original, and use it, or share it with others.
If US copywrite laws shouldn't be enforceable outside the US then how
can MS complain about the billions of dollars they are losing in China?
That is my point MS only wants copywrites defended if it benefits them
and if that is the case they cannot complain if the same thing is done
to them. Cooperations are no more ethical that the individuals of the
society from which they came.

 

[arachnid]

"Fair Use," as defined by copyright law, doesn't apply in any of the above
discussion. (It isn't even relevant, in this particular discussion.)

I already posted about this somewhere in this same brawl. In the European
countries, the right to make extra copies for personal use is lumped under
"Fair use". In the USA, it's covered by the Audio Home Recording Act. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act

The European convention has become commonplace in American speech though
not in law. I think it's because 'fair use' accurately describes what
people want, and this then gets confused with 'Fair Use'.

 

[Linonut]

After takin' a swig o' grog, Shenan Stanley belched out this bit o' wisdom:

Linonut wrote:
Thanks Linonut.
I'm not sure this thread needed another example to iterate my point:

<snip>

Learn to snip, Mr. MVP.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

Learn to snip, Mr. MVP.

If I had intended to, I would have.
I stated that I was including the rest of the thread so far so you could
participate instead of iterating one of my points.

 

[Guest]

If I had intended to, I would have.
I stated that I was including the rest of the thread so far so you could
participate instead of iterating one of my points.

So you assumed everyone else would be as brain-dead as you are?
Why do you think there even /exists/ something like a "thread"?
Right, so that everyone can just simply recall what was written before

That extremely simple concept was obviously way too complicated to grasp for
you.
But then you are a "MVP". Rarely one gets to meet more worthless cretins
than those. Then they are called "MCSE"

 

[Shenan Stanley]

So you assumed everyone else would be as brain-dead as you are?
Why do you think there even /exists/ something like a "thread"?
Right, so that everyone can just simply recall what was written
before

That extremely simple concept was obviously way too complicated to
grasp for you.
But then you are a "MVP". Rarely one gets to meet more worthless
cretins than those. Then they are called "MCSE"

See - iterations of my point continue.
Instead of anything useful, you decide to attack and attempt to belittle.

Conversations/discussions seem to be something foreign to many people
without personally attacking those they seemingly (in their own minds
usually) have a disagreement with.

 

[Peter Hayes]

If you purchase something from a
company that is easily 'copied' so that you could use it in multiple
places, but said company infers (or directly states) as part of using
that single item, if you want to use it again elsewhere - you will
have to buy another, but you choose to ignore that agreement and use
it multiple times - you are denying the company the income from said
item you are getting use out of.

It's a strange irony that Microsoft with its draconian anti-piracy
schemes has built its entire foundation on software of dubious legality.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

I was looking over this set of slides:
http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/treese/digitalfairuse/Digital_files/frame.htm

Which at least starts mentioning digital media.

I was curious as the one part of this thread I have become involved in, the
term "fair use" is getting thrown around a lot and I would like to see why.

The term "fair use" is most often deliberately misused by those who
oppose protecting intellectual property as a "red herring" in any
argument concerning copyright laws and the EULA, because it sounds like
something everyone should favor.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

 

[Gregg Hill]

In Alias' second post, he stated, "Um, in the country where I live, sharing
software is called "fair use" and is not illegal at all as long as there is
no financial gain."

Several times I have pointed out, using simple mathematics, that anyone
using more than the number of licenses purchased has gained financially. He
seems incapable of grasping that concept, somehow thinking that his bank
account must increase for it to be a financial gain.

Simple math nullifies all claims of "fair use" that is "...not illegal at
all as long as there is no financial gain."

Gregg Hill

 

[Alias]

In Alias' second post, he stated, "Um, in the country where I live, sharing
software is called "fair use" and is not illegal at all as long as there is
no financial gain."

Several times I have pointed out, using simple mathematics, that anyone
using more than the number of licenses purchased has gained financially. He
seems incapable of grasping that concept, somehow thinking that his bank
account must increase for it to be a financial gain.

Simple math nullifies all claims of "fair use" that is "...not illegal at
all as long as there is no financial gain."

Gregg Hill

And financial gain is defined as selling something for a profit, not
your spin.

Alias

 

[Gregg Hill]

Alias,

From a practical and realistic standpoint, if some rich guy gives you a $20
million dollar house, but you did not sell anything, nor did your bank
account increase, you have gained financially. To argue that it is not a
financial is ludicrous. I'll bet even your country would tax you on that
gain.

Show me that definition in your country's law. Then again, you have still
ignored my examples of something being wrong even if there is no governing
law.

Gregg Hill

 

[arachnid]

Alias,

From a practical and realistic standpoint, if some rich guy gives you a
$20 million dollar house, but you did not sell anything, nor did your bank
account increase, you have gained financially. To argue that it is not a
financial is ludicrous. I'll bet even your country would tax you on that
gain.

Go argue it with a Spanish judge.

Show me that definition in your country's law. Then again, you have
still ignored my examples of something being wrong even if there is no
governing law.

Those examples were already shot down in flames.

 

[Gregg Hill]

Actually, as far as I can tell, there was no response to one of them. When I
do that, I get ridiculed. When you do the exact same thing, realize that it
was probably for the same reason...you couldn't keep up with the thread
because it has gotten so long.

As to your opinion about going down in flames, several others have posted
views quite to the contrary from you and have agreed with me. Just because
YOU don't agree, doesn't mean my views were shot down.

It is obvious that no amount of reason, not even cold, hard, solid,
mathematics, which are NOT subject to opinions, will get you to change your
prejudiced mind, so please don't bother to respond, unless you can crack
your head open just enough to let out some of your hatred for Bill to allow
room for reason.

You and Alias both have strong opinions, as do I, but when your opinions are
viewed in the absence of law, they break down. Mine remain standing. You
have NEVER succeeded in disproving that.

As far as arguing it before a Spanish judge, that is irrelevant. I was
asking Alias to show me where in the law it defines the term "financial
gain." If he can find the terminology that supports his theory of "fair
use," then he will have shown that, under Spanish law, he has the right to
use one license for multiple computers. However, he still will not have
proven that it is the right thing to do, just because his country allows it,
no more so than you can claim that a Taliban rapist was doing the right
thing because his country's law allowed the mistreatment, torture, rape, and
murder of women.

Just because one is allowed to do it, does not make it right.

Gregg Hill

 

[Alias]

Alias,

From a practical and realistic standpoint, if some rich guy gives you a $20
million dollar house, but you did not sell anything, nor did your bank
account increase, you have gained financially. To argue that it is not a
financial is ludicrous. I'll bet even your country would tax you on that
gain.

Absurd analogy.

Show me that definition in your country's law. Then again, you have still
ignored my examples of something being wrong even if there is no governing
law.

Gregg Hill

Do you read Spanish?

Alias

 

[Gregg Hill]

Absurd analogy.

Not absurd at all. I am just trying to get you to comprehend that "financial
gain" need not mean that you watched your bank account increase. In the
other examples, which were directly related to XP purchases, the bottom line
was that if you used more licenses than you had purchased, you had more
money in the bank than if you had followed the EULA. No matter how you slice
it, that is a financial gain for you.

BTW, how DOES Spanish law treat that gift? Would they tax you on the house?
I am truly curious. Here in the USA, we'd get hammered.

Do you read Spanish?

No, I don't read Spanish, but that is no reason for you duck the issue. Did
you find the description of "financial gain" in your law yet? If you would
be so kind as to cite the exact law, paragraph, subparagraph, etc, I will
ask my old high school Spanish teacher to translate the relevant portion. I
cannot trust you to translate it accurately.

Gregg Hill

 

[Alias]

Not absurd at all. I am just trying to get you to comprehend that "financial
gain" need not mean that you watched your bank account increase. In the
other examples, which were directly related to XP purchases, the bottom line
was that if you used more licenses than you had purchased, you had more
money in the bank than if you had followed the EULA. No matter how you slice
it, that is a financial gain for you.

BTW, how DOES Spanish law treat that gift? Would they tax you on the house?
I am truly curious. Here in the USA, we'd get hammered.

Absurd analogy.

 

[Gregg Hill]

Alias, in the case of the house, could you just answer the question instead
of reiterating "absurd analogy" each time? I am asking about that scenario
out of curiosity as to how Spanish law varies from US law. For the sake of
the question, assume it has nothing to do with the thread. It just comes
from a curious person across the ocean.


I'll go take a look at the law link. BTW, that was quick!

Gregg