Vista - Take out the Retail EULA transfer only once Clause and WGAN and many legitimate customers will be pleased

> -----Original Message-----
> From: SESSION_EVENT [mailto:session@event.net.net.net]
> Posted At: Monday, October 23, 2006 8:49 AM
> Posted To: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general
> Conversation: Take out the Retail EULA transfer only once
> Clause and WGAN and many legitimate customers will be pleased
> Subject: Re: Take out the Retail EULA transfer only once
> Clause and WGAN and many legitimate customers will be pleased
>
> And apparently, nine times out of ten they develop a crack workaround.

As a side note, I'll tell you a secret: Although there are pirated
copies of retail Windows with cracked activation modules, the lion's
share is corporate/volume license versions. Why bother with a crack if
there are versions out there that do not need any activation? Probably
that's the reason behind Microsoft allegedly including activation module
in corp versions of Vista.

--
Alexander Suhovey

Gene;
Eula or no Eula; if this scenario played out;which I have no intention of
it happening; I better not get ANY grief from MSFT over it;or lost
customer;period.
And;btw; whiteboxes are gaining momentum;even to the point of OEM's
offering them.

Jeff

"Gene Fitz" <GeneFitz@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:85F31EB7-0FDE-47FA-AD53-D9E04D54855C@microsoft.com...
> Jeff,
> Not to sound rude about this, but the EULA is layed out pretty bluntly,
> you
> buy the liscense for the computer, not for yourself. That is what makes
> this
> liscense different. it is also the reason they say "only one computer
> change."
> This is what makes the Vista EULA different from the older OS. See? This
> is
> what all the hub bub is about. this is what has people pissed off. I don't
> have a problem with it, but many do.
> In some of the older liscenses, the EULA left an opening that you could
> use
> the program on as many computers as you wanted, as long as you were using
> it
> on one computer at a time.
> The exception to that rule was OEM packaged software that you could only
> use
> on one computer (the computer it came with) which is why later HP,
> Gateway,
> and other computer companies started making the restore function a
> partition
> of the hard drive, or started merging the OS into the "Full Restore" disks
> that would only work on the computer it came with.
> This new EULA states that you are buying the program for the computer,
> which
> changes the ball game. It tells you that you can use it one one computer,
> but
> you can transfer it once. That means you can transfer it to another
> computer
> only one time, than the liscense is only for that computer and you may not
> transfer it again, without buying a new liscense key.
> the issue that people have is "What is a new computer? and What is a
> upgraded old computer"
> the answer is simple, minor upgrades, video, sound, Memory, port changes,
> etc. are seen as upgrades. Major changes, CPU, Mainboard, Hard Drive, they
> may constitute a new computer.
> I mean, lets be realistic. If you load Vista on a P4 HT, with 1 Gig ram, a
> 200 Gig hard drive,16 bit sound card, and a AGP Video card, then update
> to a
> Athlon 64 X2 5000+, with 4 Gigs ram, 2X 750 Gig Hard drives, HD sound and
> a
> PCI Express 7900GT, and put it in the same case as your old computer, is
> it
> still your old computer? Granted, your case and perripherals are the same,
> but it is a new computer with an old case and DVD Rom.
> Now I am sure there will be exceptions to the rule, depending on the
> situation. But I mean fair is fair. Microsoft says, if you get a new
> computer, get a new liscense. I am cool with it.
> Now another point to make, as some of us older computing folks are
> starting
> to understand, as the rest of the public already knows.
> It is easier, and in most cases, cheaper to buy an OEM computer. Now, 80%
> or
> more of the Windows XP programs are sold in OEM packages. Knowing this,
> that
> 80% of consumers will not even have to worry about the EULA stipulation.
> You
> will buy a new computer loaded with vista, that will have either the
> restore
> system or restore disks that will only be able to be used on that computer
> anyway. Microsoft knows that as well, which is why the new EULA will be,
> for
> the most, a transparent change.
>
> People are making Mount Ranier out of a mole hill here..
>
> "Jeff" wrote:
>
>> Gene;
>> Basically,
>> Hardware shouldnt be an issue-at all; if i lease an o.s.-and i switch
>> computers;I'm taking my leased o.s. with me . Not that I intend it;but
>> say I
>> have a hardware fail;buy a new pc;there's #1;if in the course of events;I
>> decide I either don't like that hardware;or switch it for any reason;
>> said
>> o.s. is coming with me;and it better work on #2 period.
>> If MSFT has a problem with that;then they'll lose my business; and
>> I'd
>> dare say;lots of people feel that way.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> "Gene Fitz" <GeneFitz@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:20C008A3-6C93-4720-BBF1-CA4CDFF7D5FE@microsoft.com...
>> > See, now there is a misconception. If your computer crashes, and
>> > you
>> > have to reload it, it should still activate without issue, and if there
>> > is
>> > a
>> > siutuation where you have to call in activation, that shouldn't be a
>> > problem
>> > either. Look, no one is telling you that you have to be perfect and you
>> > can't
>> > re-load. That is not a problem. You can re-load it on the same computer
>> > as
>> > many times as you see fit.
>> > The difference is that unlike Windows XP, if you change your
>> > computer
>> > (replace the mainboard, hard drive, processor, etc.), you can do that
>> > once
>> > (within reason, of course). Now if you call Microsoft and say "My hard
>> > drive
>> > burnt out on me, and I had to replace it." I am sure they wouldn't have
>> > a
>> > problem giving you another liscense, as long as you aren't calling them
>> > for a
>> > hard drive this week, a mainboard next month and a processor 3 months
>> > from
>> > now. Common sense will prevail. They are even saying that you can buy
>> > yourself a new computer, or build yourself a new computer once and
>> > change
>> > the
>> > liscense over to it. Not that hard to deal with.
>> > The best advice I can say is if you are already running RC1 or RC2,
>> > use
>> > that as your test platform, get all the upgrades you think you will
>> > need.
>> > My
>> > goal is to have 4.5 to 5.0 index before Vista is bought. This way, I
>> > will
>> > not
>> > have to worry about upgrades.
>> > In the coming months I will be buying 2 hard drives, maybe a new
>> > processor (I am already runnign a 64 X2 4600), a new graphics card, and
>> > a
>> > couple more gigs of ram. You have time to do that, you have a few
>> > months
>> > before it hits the shelves. This way, after you load Vista, you won't
>> > have
>> > to
>> > worry about "I need upgrades because I am running too slow." You know
>> > what
>> > your computer needs, you have the ability to "Get Ready!"
>> > Moreover, the RC versions, from what I understand will remain
>> > operational, at least for a little while after the market release, so
>> > you
>> > will have time. Then again, you don't have to be the first person in
>> > line
>> > at
>> > the store to buy Vista either. It may be a good idea to wait until you
>> > know
>> > your computer is ready for Vista before you buy it.
>> > The EULA isn't made to tie our hands, but it does encourage one to
>> > think about things first. It also forces us to do a little planning
>> > before
>> > acting. A couple routes to go. Eitehr upgrade before you install, or
>> > upgrade
>> > after you install, but plan it out and when you do that upgrading, do
>> > it
>> > all
>> > at once, whether you buy the parts at the same time, or buy the parts
>> > over
>> > time and install it all at the same time.
>> >
>> > this shouldn't be an issue. :-)
>> >
>> > "Piet Fourie" wrote:
>> >
>> >> I can understand that Piracy is a problem, but for me, it will also be
>> >> a
>> >> problem to keep on buying new licenses. I am just a normal guy in the
>> >> street, earning an average income. Computer Technology changes all the
>> >> time.
>> >> Anyway, I also try other software and in the process sometimes crashes
>> >> the
>> >> PC, and wants to do it all over..........I simply cannot afford it !
>> >> It
>> >> is
>> >> unreasonable to have such a heavy hand on OS's. After all, I believe
>> >> it
>> >> is
>> >> the smaller guys who also promoted Microsoft Software world wide. I
>> >> will
>> >> never believe that MS is so cash strapped that all these restrictions
>> >> are
>> >> necessary.
>> >>
>> >> "Robert Firth" <webmaster@winvistainfo.org> wrote in message
>> >> news:63515BFD-09A1-4A75-B51D-6013C4B99B7A@microsoft.com...
>> >> > Not only will the legitimate customers be pleased, but the software
>> >> > pirates will as well. Besides, what is so difficult about one
>> >> > license,
>> >> > one
>> >> > computer? If you change everything about your computer except the
>> >> > case,
>> >> > then that is still a new computer. That would be 2 computers, one
>> >> > license.
>> >> > It is pretty simple. If you change the graphics card, well, that is
>> >> > the
>> >> > same computer.
>> >> >
>> >> > Last I checked WGA checks on your hard drive serial number, the
>> >> > motherboard, and bios version, among a few other less important
>> >> > things,
>> >> > weighing changes accordingly.
>> >> >
>> >> > So if you want to transfer your license from one computer to
>> >> > another,
>> >> > you
>> >> > are really trying to put it on many different computers with only
>> >> > one
>> >> > license.
>> >> >
>> >> > We have all discussed the terms of the EULA. However, we don't
>> >> > really
>> >> > know
>> >> > how this is being enforced programmatically yet, nor do we know what
>> >> > Microsoft will do if you call them and tell them that you upgraded
>> >> > your
>> >> > computer and that it failed.
>> >> >
>> >> > A one time transfer doesn't necessarily mean you can only activate
>> >> > it
>> >> > twice, nor does it mean that you can only upgrade your computer
>> >> > once.
>> >> > It
>> >> > simply means you can't move the license from one computer to another
>> >> > more
>> >> > than once. Moving your license from one computer to another is
>> >> > pretty
>> >> > arbitrary, but needs to be defined by Microsoft before we all freak
>> >> > out.
>> >> > It may be that if you call Microsoft and tell them you upgraded your
>> >> > computer, not transfered the license, that they will be able to
>> >> > manually
>> >> > override it for you.
>> >> >
>> >> > The demands from Microsoft aren't all that outragous. Have you seen
>> >> > how
>> >> > many cameras there are in Walmart reporting back and recording your
>> >> > every
>> >> > move? You know that they could use advanced face recognition
>> >> > technology
>> >> > identify you and keep track of your spending habits. Does that mean
>> >> > that
>> >> > they do? No. Likewise, that data Microsoft gathers is INTENTIONALLY
>> >> > handled in such a way that they can't identify you. Of course they
>> >> > have
>> >> > your IP address. So do I. You aren't as anonymous on the internet as
>> >> > you
>> >> > might think.
>> >> >
>> >> > Robert Firth
>> >> > http://www.winvistainfo.org
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > "SESSION_EVENT" <session@event.net.net.net> wrote in message
>> >> > news:ubb7Xek9GHA.3348@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> >> >> Dear Microsoft Folks:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Take out the transfer only once clause from the Vista EULA and
>> >> >> remove
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> forced WGA N type software from the Vista SOFTWARE and you will
>> >> >> please
>> >> >> millions of hobbiests and enthusiasts.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> They might even get downright chipper. You might reap a greater
>> >> >> success
>> >> >> than if you don't - just because a lot of people will like you for
>> >> >> it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Do that and I will return to recommending Windows - promise,
>> >> >> Scout's
>> >> >> honour.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>>
>>

Gene Fitz wrote:
>> In some of the older liscenses, the EULA left an opening that you
>> could use the program on as many computers as you wanted, as long as
>> you were using it on one computer at a time.

Actually, that is the current license. Go to the Super Computer Store, ask
for a full retail copyof Windows and that is the license [and value] you
get. You can install it again and again so long as you use it only on one
computer at a time. Fair value too considering what you pay for a full
Retail license over an OEM license.

But with the supposedly upcoming EULA the value over the OEM license is
removed .. but the high Retail price remains. Not good. ANd there's no real
reason for it neither, especially since it is more likely that enthusiast
will be buying the license and more likely that the buyer is the person who
is more apt to be switching around parts and buying new mobos.

Sad day for and a slap in the face of the loyal enthusiast. I recommend
Microsoft relent on this plan [along with the forced WGA N plan].

Again, that is a misconception, they aren't saying that you can't upgrade
your system, but lets be honset, changing processor and mother board, isnt an
upgrade, you have a new computer, just in an old case. My example above talks
about that.
Microsoft even says, you can change the liscense once. But instead of
installing a new processor this week, a main board next week, and a hard
drive next month, get your upgraded gear, all at one time, or seperately, and
install all at the same time.
Oh, and memory, Graphics, sound, Ethernet, modems, PVRs, etc. Are not major
system changes. they are exempt, so upgrade from DDR2 to DDR3, to DDR4, to
what ever, if you feel like it. As long as your board can handle it, Vista
will only thank you :-)
But if you have to change your Motherboard, do a little planning, set a
goal. Mine is a 5.0 + on the index.
Here's the kicker. If you upgrade your system to the optimal settings you
are looking for, before you install Vista, the required upgrades after
install should be minimal. You know what is coming, new hardware releases are
hardly secrets anymore.
So buy Vista, if you want it, but hold off on the install. If you know DDR3
is coming out, and know you will be needing a different main board for it,
wait till the gear comes out, then install Vista.
Look, the typical life span of a newer OS is about 3 to 5 yars, maybe 6 if
it is very reliable. If your system is fitting for your needs, it will stay
fitting for at least that long. Past that, if you need to get a video card,
great, if you need to upgrade memory, you aren't going to have a problem.
I still think y'all are making mountains out of molehills here.

Plan, Get Ready, and don't move until you know you are ready. A little
planning is worth much more than $400 of regrets.


"ML" wrote:

> I hope you never upgrade your motherboard for whatever reason because MS
> definitely consider an motherboard upgrade as a new computer......
> So please, don't change your cpu which require a new mobo. And don't
> upgrade your RAM from DDR2 to DDR3 either...... And if you are
> non-SLi or non-CF and want to upgrade to SLi or CF? Sorry, you need a new
> mobo........
>
> The Vista EULA issue bring out what MS can dictate as upgrade or not and
> they are jamming it down our (enthusiats, and most of us beta test MS
> products.....) throat.
>
> "Robert Firth" <webmaster@winvistainfo.org> wrote in message
> news:63515BFD-09A1-4A75-B51D-6013C4B99B7A@microsoft.com...
> > Not only will the legitimate customers be pleased, but the software
> > pirates will as well. Besides, what is so difficult about one license, one
> > computer? If you change everything about your computer except the case,
> > then that is still a new computer. That would be 2 computers, one license.
> > It is pretty simple. If you change the graphics card, well, that is the
> > same computer.
> >
> > Last I checked WGA checks on your hard drive serial number, the
> > motherboard, and bios version, among a few other less important things,
> > weighing changes accordingly.
> >
> > So if you want to transfer your license from one computer to another, you
> > are really trying to put it on many different computers with only one
> > license.
> >
> > We have all discussed the terms of the EULA. However, we don't really know
> > how this is being enforced programmatically yet, nor do we know what
> > Microsoft will do if you call them and tell them that you upgraded your
> > computer and that it failed.
> >
> > A one time transfer doesn't necessarily mean you can only activate it
> > twice, nor does it mean that you can only upgrade your computer once. It
> > simply means you can't move the license from one computer to another more
> > than once. Moving your license from one computer to another is pretty
> > arbitrary, but needs to be defined by Microsoft before we all freak out.
> > It may be that if you call Microsoft and tell them you upgraded your
> > computer, not transfered the license, that they will be able to manually
> > override it for you.
> >
> > The demands from Microsoft aren't all that outragous. Have you seen how
> > many cameras there are in Walmart reporting back and recording your every
> > move? You know that they could use advanced face recognition technology
> > identify you and keep track of your spending habits. Does that mean that
> > they do? No. Likewise, that data Microsoft gathers is INTENTIONALLY
> > handled in such a way that they can't identify you. Of course they have
> > your IP address. So do I. You aren't as anonymous on the internet as you
> > might think.
> >
> > Robert Firth
> > http://www.winvistainfo.org
> >
> >
> > "SESSION_EVENT" <session@event.net.net.net> wrote in message
> > news:ubb7Xek9GHA.3348@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >> Dear Microsoft Folks:
> >>
> >> Take out the transfer only once clause from the Vista EULA and remove the
> >> forced WGA N type software from the Vista SOFTWARE and you will please
> >> millions of hobbiests and enthusiasts.
> >>
> >> They might even get downright chipper. You might reap a greater success
> >> than if you don't - just because a lot of people will like you for it.
> >>
> >> Do that and I will return to recommending Windows - promise, Scout's
> >> honour.
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
>

We make a point of trying to keep up with new technology and have
installed and tested all of the MSDN available beta releases of Vista
including #5744. Vista currently runs reliably, but I have yet to see
that it has any advantages over XP/Windows 2003 Server.
There are many obvious disadvantages:
1. It is a large and inefficient operating system that requires high
performance computer hardware.
2. The "security features" are a major blunder. Their only purpose
appears to be the creation of a maximum amount of user annoyance.
3. Microsoft has made still another change in driver software
specifications. It may be a long time, if ever, that compatible drivers
are available for many devices. This is especially true for some of the
more exotic, professional level devices; for example, high quality sound
converters.
4. Vista contains a significant amount of what qualifies as spyware. I
strongly object to any software that "calls home". Regardless of the
claims of Microsoft and other software vendors that their eavesdropping
is harmless, this process always has the potential for considerable abuse.
5. Automated updating, especially if it is forced on a consumer, is not
wise because of the well known problem that "software fixes" frequently
cause unintended problems.
6. Microsoft appears to have gone overboard in meeting the desires of
the MPAA and RIAA as opposed to supporting flexible, state of the art,
user friendly technology.
7. The End User License Agreement places burdensome and unnecessary
restrictions on the consumer.

On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 23:35:02 -0700, Gene Fitz
<GeneFitz@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Jeff,
>Not to sound rude about this, but the EULA is layed out pretty bluntly, you
>buy the liscense for the computer, not for yourself. That is what makes this
>liscense different. it is also the reason they say "only one computer
>change."

The fact is, Microsoft has absolutely NO RIGHT to "license what it does not
own (I.E. My computer).

The Windows license is NOT a license of the computer. It is a license to
USE MIcrosoft's software, as the EULA plainly states (and which EVERY
Microsoft OS EULA states).

For Microsoft to actually think it can license OUR PROPERTY (our computers)
is very arrogant. But I do not believe they are attemting to press this
claim, since it is plainly legally ridiculous.

Personally, I believe that YOU have misunderstood the terms of the License
agreement. Have you even READ it? I seriously doubt it. Or you are
simply unfamiliar with legalese, and should probably take the EULA to a
lawyer and have HIM interpret it for you.

The fact is, this has NOTHING to do with the EULA being "laid out pretty
bluntly". Microsoft has been INTENTIONALLY ambiguous in its language in
the Vista EULA, because their legal department KNOWS there are idiots like
you who will actually believe that Microsoft has the RIGHT to license our
property.

What Microsoft is ACTUALLY doing is making the normal Retail EULA an OEM
EULA, since that is EXACTLY what this new license is: AN EULA license,
with the addition of adding a clause which enables us to "transfer our
license to a second machine ONE time", rather than "NEVER", as the OEM EULA
license stated, then calling this obscenity a "Retail License".

>This is what makes the Vista EULA different from the older OS. See? This is
>what all the hub bub is about. this is what has people pissed off. I don't
>have a problem with it, but many do.

If you have no problem with it, you are a very strange man. Under the XP
OEM EULA, one has exactly the SAME rights, except the right to transfer the
license to a SECOND machine ONE time.

In the first place, the license is NEVER for the machine, and Microsoft
KNOWS it. Anyone with even a smattering of 1st year Business Law knows
this. Microsoft simply CAN'T license our property. PERIOD.

This is why the XP license plainly states that the license is for HUMAN
BEINGS to use Microsoft's software. PERIOD. In other words, WE are the
"Licensee", NOT the Machine.

>In some of the older liscenses, the EULA left an opening that you could use
>the program on as many computers as you wanted, as long as you were using it
>on one computer at a time.
>The exception to that rule was OEM packaged software that you could only use
>on one computer (the computer it came with) which is why later HP, Gateway,
>and other computer companies started making the restore function a partition
>of the hard drive, or started merging the OS into the "Full Restore" disks
>that would only work on the computer it came with.

IDIOT, can't you see that this "new license" is EXACTLY like the OEM
license? And at RETAIL Prices, rather than OEM prices (which were over a
$100 cheaper than retail prices)?

Microsoft is STICKING IT TO YOU, stud.

Wake up!!! Smell the coffee!!!


>This new EULA states that you are buying the program for the computer, which
>changes the ball game.

In other words, Microsoft is arrogantly claiming the ability to license OUR
PROPERTY!!! I really don't believe even Microsoft is that arrogant.
HOW could you be so BLIND!!!


>t tells you that you can use it one one computer, but
>you can transfer it once. That means you can transfer it to another computer
>only one time, than the liscense is only for that computer and you may not
>transfer it again, without buying a new liscense key.
>the issue that people have is "What is a new computer? and What is a
>upgraded old computer"

IDIOT!! That's not the issue AT ALL!!!

>the answer is simple, minor upgrades, video, sound, Memory, port changes,
>etc. are seen as upgrades. Major changes, CPU, Mainboard, Hard Drive, they
>may constitute a new computer.

How could a Hard drive be a "new computer"? What ignorance!!!
How can a CPU by itself be a "new computer"? Apparently, you have NO IDEA
just what DOES constitute a computer, much less a "new computer".

In my computer classes, when I was in school, I was taught that a
"computer" is composed of SEVERAL elements: 1) CPU 2) RAM (internal
storage) 3) I/O and 4) External storage (HD). NONE of these by themselves
constitute "a computer". Perhaps, you should take a few Computer Science
classes. It will certainly be a revelation to you.

>I mean, lets be realistic. If you load Vista on a P4 HT, with 1 Gig ram, a
>200 Gig hard drive,16 bit sound card, and a AGP Video card, then update to a
>Athlon 64 X2 5000+, with 4 Gigs ram, 2X 750 Gig Hard drives, HD sound and a
>PCI Express 7900GT, and put it in the same case as your old computer, is it
>still your old computer? Granted, your case and perripherals are the same,
>but it is a new computer with an old case and DVD Rom.
>Now I am sure there will be exceptions to the rule, depending on the
>situation. But I mean fair is fair. Microsoft says, if you get a new
>computer, get a new liscense. I am cool with it.

All of this is totally irrelevant to the issue.
Which is, ONLY GOVERNMENTS have the right to "license our property".

Now, in the U.K, one must get a license for each television he owns. But
the license is NOT issued by a manufacturer. It is licensed by the
GOVERNMENT.
>Now another point to make, as some of us older computing folks are starting
>to understand, as the rest of the public already knows.
>It is easier, and in most cases, cheaper to buy an OEM computer. Now, 80% or
>more of the Windows XP programs are sold in OEM packages.

Have you EVER bought an OEM license before? it is over a HUNDRED DOLLARS
CHEAPER than the Retail license. IN the case of XP professional, one may
purchase an OEM copy of XP professional for less than $140, while a Retail
copy costs $299. So that's a $150 difference in price.

Yet Microsoft has INCREASED the price of its Retail license, and
additionally, made the terms of the Retail license the SAME as the OEM
license formerly was, and additionally tried to CHANGE the meaning of the
license itself. NEVER has a manufacturer attempted to LICENSE our private
property. Yet THIS IS EXACTLY what Microsoft is trying to do, if you are
correct.

How can you stand by and let this happen?

> knowing this, that
>80% of consumers will not even have to worry about the EULA stipulation. You
>will buy a new computer loaded with vista, that will have either the restore
>system or restore disks that will only be able to be used on that computer
>anyway. Microsoft knows that as well, which is why the new EULA will be, for
>the most, a transparent change.

Sir, not all of us can afford to "Buy a new computer loaded with Vista".
Many (more than you think) build our own machines. (UNLIKE YOU, we DO know
a little about computers).

So Microsoft just leaves the poor out in the cold? I feel sorry for you,
sir. You have no compassion, no concern for your fellow human being. I'm
sure Microsoft loves people like you. You'll just shell it out, and shell
it out, never asking a question, never considering what you are doing to
legal precedent in the United States.

>People are making Mount Ranier out of a mole hill here..

MOLE HILL? The usurpation of our basic HUMAN RIGHTS a "MOLE HILL"? How
sad, sir. How sad for you and those like you.

And HOW DARE YOU?

Donald
-------------------------------------------

> The fact is, Microsoft has absolutely NO RIGHT to "license what it does not
> own (I.E. My computer).

Microsoft may not have the right to liscense your property, but it does have
the right to determine how MICROSOFT software is liscensed. You simply have
the choice whether to accept it or not.

> The Windows license is NOT a license of the computer. It is a license to
> USE MIcrosoft's software, as the EULA plainly states (and which EVERY
> Microsoft OS EULA states).

Exactly, and if Microsoft stipulates that it will only allow you to use
THEIR liscense on one computer. They can. it is THEIR software, you are only
leasing the software.

> For Microsoft to actually think it can license OUR PROPERTY (our computers)
> is very arrogant. But I do not believe they are attemting to press this
> claim, since it is plainly legally ridiculous.
>
> Personally, I believe that YOU have misunderstood the terms of the License
> agreement. Have you even READ it? I seriously doubt it. Or you are
> simply unfamiliar with legalese, and should probably take the EULA to a
> lawyer and have HIM interpret it for you.

I fully understand the way it is layed out, I have read it a few times.
Legally, Microsoft can liscense their software that way, in the end, you have
the choice of whether to use it or not.

> The fact is, this has NOTHING to do with the EULA being "laid out pretty
> bluntly". Microsoft has been INTENTIONALLY ambiguous in its language in
> the Vista EULA, because their legal department KNOWS there are idiots like
> you who will actually believe that Microsoft has the RIGHT to license our
> property.

Again, Microsoft is not liscensing YOUR computer, it is only liscensing the
Operating system.


> What Microsoft is ACTUALLY doing is making the normal Retail EULA an OEM
> EULA, since that is EXACTLY what this new license is: AN EULA license,
> with the addition of adding a clause which enables us to "transfer our
> license to a second machine ONE time", rather than "NEVER", as the OEM EULA
> license stated, then calling this obscenity a "Retail License".

Call it what you want. But if you want to install the program, you have to
agree to it. Whether you like it or not.

> If you have no problem with it, you are a very strange man. Under the XP
> OEM EULA, one has exactly the SAME rights, except the right to transfer the
> license to a SECOND machine ONE time.
>
> In the first place, the license is NEVER for the machine, and Microsoft
> KNOWS it. Anyone with even a smattering of 1st year Business Law knows
> this. Microsoft simply CAN'T license our property. PERIOD.

Actually, now it is. Microsoft says, if you lease the liscense, you can only
use it on one computer, and can only transfer it once. You may not like it,
but that's the breaks kid.

> This is why the XP license plainly states that the license is for HUMAN
> BEINGS to use Microsoft's software. PERIOD. In other words, WE are the
> "Licensee", NOT the Machine.
>
> >In some of the older liscenses, the EULA left an opening that you could use
> >the program on as many computers as you wanted, as long as you were using it
> >on one computer at a time.
> >The exception to that rule was OEM packaged software that you could only use
> >on one computer (the computer it came with) which is why later HP, Gateway,
> >and other computer companies started making the restore function a partition
> >of the hard drive, or started merging the OS into the "Full Restore" disks
> >that would only work on the computer it came with.
>
> IDIOT, can't you see that this "new license" is EXACTLY like the OEM
> license? And at RETAIL Prices, rather than OEM prices (which were over a
> $100 cheaper than retail prices)?
>
> Microsoft is STICKING IT TO YOU, stud.
>
> Wake up!!! Smell the coffee!!!

Again, old news.

>
>
> >This new EULA states that you are buying the program for the computer, which
> >changes the ball game.
>
> In other words, Microsoft is arrogantly claiming the ability to license OUR
> PROPERTY!!! I really don't believe even Microsoft is that arrogant.
> HOW could you be so BLIND!!!

Come on now, I just gave you the whole schpeel. I layed it out for you, no
confustion in what I said. I understand completely what I typed. I know the
stipulations, and since I don't expect to load the same software on several
different computers, it is not an issue for me.

> >t tells you that you can use it one one computer, but
> >you can transfer it once. That means you can transfer it to another computer
> >only one time, than the liscense is only for that computer and you may not
> >transfer it again, without buying a new liscense key.
> >the issue that people have is "What is a new computer? and What is a
> >upgraded old computer"
>
> IDIOT!! That's not the issue AT ALL!!!
>
> >the answer is simple, minor upgrades, video, sound, Memory, port changes,
> >etc. are seen as upgrades. Major changes, CPU, Mainboard, Hard Drive, they
> >may constitute a new computer.
>
> How could a Hard drive be a "new computer"? What ignorance!!!
> How can a CPU by itself be a "new computer"? Apparently, you have NO IDEA
> just what DOES constitute a computer, much less a "new computer".
>
> In my computer classes, when I was in school, I was taught that a
> "computer" is composed of SEVERAL elements: 1) CPU 2) RAM (internal
> storage) 3) I/O and 4) External storage (HD). NONE of these by themselves
> constitute "a computer". Perhaps, you should take a few Computer Science
> classes. It will certainly be a revelation to you.

I am well aware of how a computer works. I have not only worked on computers
since my cute little Tandy basic, but I have had PCs since the days of the
386sx. I have upgraded, built, and re-built many computers. What exactly a
computer consists of is no secret to me. And correct, changing a hard drive
may not constitute a new computer, however, if you have ever had to change
hard drives in XP, you may have noticet the requirement to re-activate. Even
XP sees it as enough of a hardware change to require it. NOW that being said,
Microsoft may be laxed on that idea.
But make no mistake, if you upgrade you main board and processor, that is no
longer the computer you originally loaded windows on to. Don't fool yourself.
You are running a different computer. for all intents and purposes, you may
as well loaded it onto another complete computer. Again, you just have a new
computer in an old case.
If you loaded XP on a P2, and upgrade to a Pentium D board and processor,
guess what? It is not the computer you loaded XP onto. I understand that it
may look the same, but it is not.
>
> >I mean, lets be realistic. If you load Vista on a P4 HT, with 1 Gig ram, a
> >200 Gig hard drive,16 bit sound card, and a AGP Video card, then update to a
> >Athlon 64 X2 5000+, with 4 Gigs ram, 2X 750 Gig Hard drives, HD sound and a
> >PCI Express 7900GT, and put it in the same case as your old computer, is it
> >still your old computer? Granted, your case and perripherals are the same,
> >but it is a new computer with an old case and DVD Rom.
> >Now I am sure there will be exceptions to the rule, depending on the
> >situation. But I mean fair is fair. Microsoft says, if you get a new
> >computer, get a new liscense. I am cool with it.
>
> All of this is totally irrelevant to the issue.
> Which is, ONLY GOVERNMENTS have the right to "license our property".
>
> Now, in the U.K, one must get a license for each television he owns. But
> the license is NOT issued by a manufacturer. It is licensed by the
> GOVERNMENT.
> >Now another point to make, as some of us older computing folks are starting
> >to understand, as the rest of the public already knows.
> >It is easier, and in most cases, cheaper to buy an OEM computer. Now, 80% or
> >more of the Windows XP programs are sold in OEM packages.
>
> Have you EVER bought an OEM license before? it is over a HUNDRED DOLLARS
> CHEAPER than the Retail license. IN the case of XP professional, one may
> purchase an OEM copy of XP professional for less than $140, while a Retail
> copy costs $299. So that's a $150 difference in price.
>
> Yet Microsoft has INCREASED the price of its Retail license, and
> additionally, made the terms of the Retail license the SAME as the OEM
> license formerly was, and additionally tried to CHANGE the meaning of the
> license itself. NEVER has a manufacturer attempted to LICENSE our private
> property. Yet THIS IS EXACTLY what Microsoft is trying to do, if you are
> correct.
>
> How can you stand by and let this happen?
>
> > knowing this, that
> >80% of consumers will not even have to worry about the EULA stipulation. You
> >will buy a new computer loaded with vista, that will have either the restore
> >system or restore disks that will only be able to be used on that computer
> >anyway. Microsoft knows that as well, which is why the new EULA will be, for
> >the most, a transparent change.
>
> Sir, not all of us can afford to "Buy a new computer loaded with Vista".
> Many (more than you think) build our own machines. (UNLIKE YOU, we DO know
> a little about computers).
>
> So Microsoft just leaves the poor out in the cold? I feel sorry for you,
> sir. You have no compassion, no concern for your fellow human being. I'm
> sure Microsoft loves people like you. You'll just shell it out, and shell
> it out, never asking a question, never considering what you are doing to
> legal precedent in the United States.

Look, I have an OEM computer right now. I payed the price for it. It isn't a
screamer, but it runs vista well.
Now look, building a computer yourself is admirable. I have done it, and I
will be upgrading this one before all is said and done. the difference is
that I have a plan, and I know how to get to the point where I am ready to
load the new OS. Using the RC Version of Vista, I am setting my goal at a
minimum 4.5 or 5.0 experience index.
Before I buy Vista, I will be at that index. See, the beauty of doing that,
is that this way, I know I am well within the Vista standards, and well above
the grade. Any upgrades I need after that will be small things like memory,
or possibly video.
This way, even as poor as I am, I will be able to put vista on my computer,
and not have to worry about not having enough processor, or main board to
handle what I need to.

>
> >People are making Mount Ranier out of a mole hill here..
>
> MOLE HILL? The usurpation of our basic HUMAN RIGHTS a "MOLE HILL"? How
> sad, sir. How sad for you and those like you.
>
> And HOW DARE YOU?
>
> Donald
> -------------------------------------------
Donald, bottom line, YOU HAVE THE CHOICE! Load it, don't load it! No one is
putting a gun to your head, no one is twisting you arm. If you want to play
the Microsoft game, you have to play it by the Microsoft rules. The Bright
side is that if you are running XP, they will still be supporting XP, from
what I understand SP3 will be coming out in 2008, maybe even 2007. You are
not completely out of options.
The Microsoft lawyers have written the contract, whether you choose to
accept it or not is all you bro. But they seem to have put the foot down.
Accept it or not. Complain if you want, but complain to them. I know the
rules, and I like the OS. I am willing to play by them. and if I decide that
I no longer like the rules, I still have XP on a partition ready to restore.
Kind of a win/win for me.
But I will spend the money, I will load it on this computer and this
computer only like the EULa stipulates. I don't forsee myself getting another
computer any time soon, but if I do, I will probably just get an OEM package
that already has Vista on it.

On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:59:01 -0700, Gene Fitz wrote:

> Exactly, and if Microsoft stipulates that it will only allow you to use
> THEIR liscense on one computer. They can. it is THEIR software, you are
> only leasing the software.

Actually it's a very gray area in the courts. Some have ruled one way,
some another. For an example of one ruling opposing the idea that you're
just buying a license:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

In 1997 in Novell v. Network Trade Center 25 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (C.D. Utah
1997)[1] purchaser is an "owner" by way of sale and is entitled to the
use and enjoyment of the software with the same rights as exist in the
purchase of any other good. Said software transactions do not merely
constitute the sale of a license to use the software. The shrinkwrap
license included with the software is therefore invalid as against such
a purchaser insofar as it purports to maintain title to the software in
the copyright owner. Under the first sale doctrine, NTC was able to
redistribute the software to end-users without copyright infringement.
Transfer of a copyrighted work that is subject to the first sale
doctrine extinguishes all distribution rights of the copyright holder
upon transfer of title.

As discussed in the article, the later DMCA has further confused the
issue. It allows copyright owners to impose arbitrary conditions of use,
but there are some conflicting rulings over whether the DMCA can legally
override the First Sale Doctrine or certain other consumer protections:

The first-sale doctrine as it relates to computer software is an area of
legal confusion. Software publishers claim the first-sale doctrine does
not apply because software is licensed, not sold, under the terms of an
End User License Agreement (EULA). The courts have issued contrary
decisions regarding the first-sale rights of consumers. Bauer & Cie. v.
O'Donnell and Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus are two US Supreme Court cases
that deal with copyright holders trying to enforce terms beyond the
scope of copyright and patent, but calling it a license. Many state
courts have also ruled that a sale of software is indeed a sale of goods
under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) at the point where funds are
exchanged for the physical copy of the software. The licensed and not
sold argument is held mostly in the 8th and 7th Circuits while other
circuits tend to support the opposite, thus leading to conflicting court
opinions such as seen in the 3rd Circuit Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc.
v. Wyse Technology and fifth circuit Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software as
opposed to the 8th Circuit Blizzard v. BNETD (Davidson & Associates v.
Internet Gateway Inc (2004)), which have not been resolved by the
Supreme Court.

Thx,
A good piece of info to know;thanks for the research.
Jeff
"arachnid" <none@goawayspammers.com> wrote in message
newsan.2006.10.24.04.34.11.270595@goawayspammers.com...
> On Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:59:01 -0700, Gene Fitz wrote:
>
>> Exactly, and if Microsoft stipulates that it will only allow you to use
>> THEIR liscense on one computer. They can. it is THEIR software, you are
>> only leasing the software.
>
> Actually it's a very gray area in the courts. Some have ruled one way,
> some another. For an example of one ruling opposing the idea that you're
> just buying a license:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
>
> In 1997 in Novell v. Network Trade Center 25 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (C.D. Utah
> 1997)[1] purchaser is an "owner" by way of sale and is entitled to the
> use and enjoyment of the software with the same rights as exist in the
> purchase of any other good. Said software transactions do not merely
> constitute the sale of a license to use the software. The shrinkwrap
> license included with the software is therefore invalid as against such
> a purchaser insofar as it purports to maintain title to the software in
> the copyright owner. Under the first sale doctrine, NTC was able to
> redistribute the software to end-users without copyright infringement.
> Transfer of a copyrighted work that is subject to the first sale
> doctrine extinguishes all distribution rights of the copyright holder
> upon transfer of title.
>
> As discussed in the article, the later DMCA has further confused the
> issue. It allows copyright owners to impose arbitrary conditions of use,
> but there are some conflicting rulings over whether the DMCA can legally
> override the First Sale Doctrine or certain other consumer protections:
>
> The first-sale doctrine as it relates to computer software is an area of
> legal confusion. Software publishers claim the first-sale doctrine does
> not apply because software is licensed, not sold, under the terms of an
> End User License Agreement (EULA). The courts have issued contrary
> decisions regarding the first-sale rights of consumers. Bauer & Cie. v.
> O'Donnell and Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus are two US Supreme Court cases
> that deal with copyright holders trying to enforce terms beyond the
> scope of copyright and patent, but calling it a license. Many state
> courts have also ruled that a sale of software is indeed a sale of goods
> under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) at the point where funds are
> exchanged for the physical copy of the software. The licensed and not
> sold argument is held mostly in the 8th and 7th Circuits while other
> circuits tend to support the opposite, thus leading to conflicting court
> opinions such as seen in the 3rd Circuit Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc.
> v. Wyse Technology and fifth circuit Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software as
> opposed to the 8th Circuit Blizzard v. BNETD (Davidson & Associates v.
> Internet Gateway Inc (2004)), which have not been resolved by the
> Supreme Court.
>
>

Come on guys! Everybody just buy OEM versions as

1) enthusiasts qualify as system builders
2) Every John Doe on the street can legally buy and use an OEM version of
XP (hope that doesn't change for Vista) with every piece of "qualified"
hardware (ie, motherboard, hard disks, CPU).

And guess what, OEM version can be less than half the cost of retails.

This route is more expensive than the current XP RFPP licensing but hey, you
didn't have to shell out as much initially either........

"Robert Robinson" <robbiex@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:%23vi0MVw9GHA.4708@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> We make a point of trying to keep up with new technology and have
> installed and tested all of the MSDN available beta releases of Vista
> including #5744. Vista currently runs reliably, but I have yet to see that
> it has any advantages over XP/Windows 2003 Server.
> There are many obvious disadvantages:
> 1. It is a large and inefficient operating system that requires high
> performance computer hardware.
> 2. The "security features" are a major blunder. Their only purpose appears
> to be the creation of a maximum amount of user annoyance.
> 3. Microsoft has made still another change in driver software
> specifications. It may be a long time, if ever, that compatible drivers
> are available for many devices. This is especially true for some of the
> more exotic, professional level devices; for example, high quality sound
> converters.
> 4. Vista contains a significant amount of what qualifies as spyware. I
> strongly object to any software that "calls home". Regardless of the
> claims of Microsoft and other software vendors that their eavesdropping is
> harmless, this process always has the potential for considerable abuse.
> 5. Automated updating, especially if it is forced on a consumer, is not
> wise because of the well known problem that "software fixes" frequently
> cause unintended problems.
> 6. Microsoft appears to have gone overboard in meeting the desires of the
> MPAA and RIAA as opposed to supporting flexible, state of the art, user
> friendly technology.
> 7. The End User License Agreement places burdensome and unnecessary
> restrictions on the consumer.
>
>