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

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:31:01 -0800, Gene Fitz
<GeneFitz@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Donald,
>
> First of all, I have to apologise to you. Many times, I get frustrated
>with a topic, and say mean things. It really isn't my intention to offend.
> As I have read through these posts, and as I have heard the complaints,
>my replies, I know may sound un-sympathetic. That is really not my intent
>either.
> I understand the complaints. I understand that the new rules and
>regulations can be more than just annoying, they can seem down right unfair.
>I do sympathize with you on that. This will be a step back for many power
>users. I can only pray that if the Microsoft rule makers read these posts and
>that they change their EULA stipulations to a base that is more "twiget
>friendly."
> I do, however believe that though the game may be in the later stages,
>it isn't over yet, there may still be changes made.

Microsoft has recently published its EULA's for Vista, publically. Once
they publish these, they seldom back down on them. So I have no doubts
that these are indeed the final form of the Vista EULA's.

> But as it looks right now, as the EULA reads now, Microsoft has layed
>the rules down, and whether we agree with their intent or now, if we are to
>use the program, we have to do it on their terms, for better, or for worse.

This is just not so, Gene. I don't know about the U.K., but here in the
States, consumers have the right to disagree with the sales terms of
products. We can do this in a Public court of Law, even as high as our
Supreme Court.

>Right now, they are making the rules, and the stand is "If you don't like it,
>don't buy it."

This is rather arrogant of them, wouldn't you say? Are they really THAT
rich and powerful?

Remember King George III? He was extremely rich and powerful, yet we here
told him just exactly how little power he really had, once we made our
minds up.

> I know I have said that over and over, but it isn't because I am trying
>to fight with you, or anyone else, but because those are the options
>Microsoft has layed out before us.

This is a scenario which will play out in a court of Law, I am sure.
So Microsoft may have layed out the "options" ("Options"? What a
ridiculous word to use in this instance? WHAT "Options"? Use it or not?

Right.

> For the record, I do agree with you. I do believe that XP's
>stipulations were better, because you could keep the program as yours

Sorry, Gene, but this is not so. Even the XP EULA called a sale of the
software the sale of a LICENSE to use the software, and expressly stated
that Microsoft owned the software once.

This is a problem with ALL "shrink-wrap licenses", not just Microsoft's.
They deny the user "fair use".

>and and use it on what ever computer you are using. It was easier to do major
>upgrades and system changes under XP. I agree with you, and many other
>computer information sources like ZDNET who claims that the new EULA will
>alienate many power users and "twigets," who, honestly are the life blood of
>the computer technology companies (Gamers and computer enthusiasts). The new
>EULA is not fair to them.

Nor is it "fair" to ANYONE but Microsoft and its stockholders.

> As I understand that for most, users, the OEM users, the "My computer
>came ready to go with Vista pre-loaded." It will be a transparent change. And
>I do believe that Microsoft, with Vista, has catered more to these people
>than the people who would rather spend the money for custom built systems and
>personal touch performance.

Not all OEM editions are sold with new machine, Gene. Haven't you ever
heard of "Generic OEM's"? These products may be sold with ANY "necessary"
piece of hardware, even a power chord or mouse, not just a complete system.

The facts are, Microsoft has just gotten EXTREMELY greedy this time, and
put it down in writing.

> As far as the Linux and OSX statement, that was kind of rude of me. As
>a Linux user myself, honestly, I wouldn't want to throw Linux on someone who
>isn't an experienced linux user. Windows, love it or hate it, is more user
>friendly. Which is why it is the most popular OS for PC based systems. I
>can't really talk about Windows on MAC, because I am not a Mac Power user.

Nor am I a Mac Power-user. I have OS X on my Apple Intel PC for a simple
reason: IT is impossible to update the Apple firmware if OS X is not
installed on the HD. If it were possible to install the Apple firmware in
a way which would not require OS X's presence on the HD, I assure you,
Windows would be installed as my exclusive OS.

>I
>only use a MAC in the studio, and it is only used for Pro-tools.
> I just get a little frustrated with all the "linux props" thrown into a
>Windows news group. Some of these guys seem like they should be getting
>advertisement money for the mentions. But hey, that's just me.
> Donald, I think my point is that I am not trying to create hard
>feelings.

I doubt seriously whether there are any "hard feelings" against you, Gene.
Most who post to the Usenet are paper tigers, who forget what they posted
the minute they click on "Send". So don't feel as if you are being
attacked personally. I doubt that you are. I certainly am not attacking
you personally. I happen to disagree with your opinions of the
immutability of the Vista EULA. And I am certainly not alone. But we are
all adults here, my friend (hopefully). We can disagree peacefully, like
all mature adults, and still remain friends.


>I know I have been labeled in the news groups as a "Gung ho
>Microsoft supporter," and in some instances I may be.

I am certainly not a "gung ho" Microsoft supporter. While I do like
Microsoft products (I also like their keyboards and mice) I do NOT like
Microsoft's business philosophy. How such a fine OS can come out of such
an evil corporation, I do not know. But it is a fact.

>But please understand
>that it isn't always that I agree with everything that is layed out on the
>EULA. It is just that I understand that these are the rules they have layed
>out and if I am going to use Vista, I have to do it by their rules.

This is probably a result of living under a political system which is still
theoretically ruled by a group of autocrats. I certainly respect British
respect for Law. Americans also share that respect. But we also have a
rebellious streak a mile wide. And we have a history (as you well know) of
rebelling against unfair laws, either publically, or privately.

>And I am trying to point out that all complaints aside this is the way it will be.

This is what you believe. Good. It is good to have beliefs. Faith is a
good thing to have. But only faith in God is immutable. Any other faith
can change.

Many are unhappy with Microsoft concerning this criminally greedy EULA.

Many will rebel against this EULA, and when hacks are available, which
allow them to have fair use of their legally purchased products, they will
rebel privately, to the further loss of respect for Law in the States.

Hopefully, a movement will begin to address this in a court of Law, where
the users may receive redress for their grievances, thus preserving a
healthy respect for Law, as is proper for civilized human beings (if that
is what we truly are.)

>Very Respectfully
>Gene


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

Again Donald,

Not to sound combative, but Microsoft does have the right to liscense, their
product as they see fit. This is business.

I can sell pinecones. If I choose to charge $150.00 for them, I have all the
right to price them at that rate. If I am, as Microsoft puts it, "Leasing"
the pinecone to you at that price, I have the ability to lay out the terms of
the lease. It is your choice whether to accept those terms and sign it, or
not to accept it, don't sign it, and get your pine cone somewhere else.
It isn't really much different than leasing a house. If you are leasing a
house from me, and I tell you that you can only have one car in the driveway,
or are not allowed to paint the walls or hang pictures, and write that down
in the lease agreement, I have the right to do so.
And as far as others being able to control your property, I see it no
differently than what i have to deal with where I live, having deed
restrictions. Yes, I own the house, yes, I own the land, but if I don't cut
my grass, Someone cuts it and charges me for it. Or as the restrictions say,
I can not have more than one car in the drive way for any length of time over
3 days, without moving them. It is my car, my house, my land, but I still
have to abide by the deed restrictions, because that was part of the contract
I signed when buying the land.

Microsoft puts the EULA up in big print for you before set-up. It is done
that way because:

1. Before you check the "I Agree" box, you should have read the terms.
2. Once you click the "I Agree" box, you have signed and agreed to those
terms.

Can you take it to court? Well, this is America, you can take anyone to
court over anything.
But my honest opinion is that the judge will most likely say, "If you didn't
like the terms of the contract, why did you sign it? Moreover, if you knew
the terms of the Liscense Agreement before you bought it, you disagreed with
it, why did you buy it?

End User Liscense Agreement = If you choose to use use this liscense, you
must agree to these terms. If not, you are not allowed to use it.
Explaination in a nutshell.

Now understand, I am not trying to be mean about this, but that is what the
EULA is all about. They have the right to lay out their liscense agreement,
and you have the right to accept it, and use it, or don't accept it and don't
use it. Call it how you want, but that is the way it goes.
Now I am no lawyer, but I do know that it is a Microsoft program, it is
owned by the Microsoft coperation. There is no legal statement that I know of
that can dictate how Microsoft liscenses their product.

And as far as the "If you don't like the Liscense agreement, don't buy the
program" statement, Well, yes, that is what Microsoft is saying, and they
have every right to say that. Are they that rich and powerful? Well, yes, but
that is a different topic. They can be that arrogant, because they own the
program. When you have the best hand at the table, you can afford to raise
the stakes. If you lose a couple players, fine, but those who stay at the
table will most likely make up forthe losses.

But again, this isn't supposed to sound mean or combative, but you can look
for a legal standing against this EULA, but I don't think you will find it.

Oh, and by the way, I am not british, I am in Washington, and a Sailor in
the US Navy. Sorry for any confusion in my post. :-)

Gene Fitz wrote:
> Again Donald,
>
> Not to sound combative, but Microsoft does have the right to liscense, their
> product as they see fit. This is business.
>
> I can sell pinecones. If I choose to charge $150.00 for them, I have all the
> right to price them at that rate. If I am, as Microsoft puts it, "Leasing"
> the pinecone to you at that price, I have the ability to lay out the terms of
> the lease. It is your choice whether to accept those terms and sign it, or
> not to accept it, don't sign it, and get your pine cone somewhere else.
> It isn't really much different than leasing a house. If you are leasing a
> house from me, and I tell you that you can only have one car in the driveway,
> or are not allowed to paint the walls or hang pictures, and write that down
> in the lease agreement, I have the right to do so.
> And as far as others being able to control your property, I see it no
> differently than what i have to deal with where I live, having deed
> restrictions. Yes, I own the house, yes, I own the land, but if I don't cut
> my grass, Someone cuts it and charges me for it. Or as the restrictions say,
> I can not have more than one car in the drive way for any length of time over
> 3 days, without moving them. It is my car, my house, my land, but I still
> have to abide by the deed restrictions, because that was part of the contract
> I signed when buying the land.
>
> Microsoft puts the EULA up in big print for you before set-up. It is done
> that way because:
>
> 1. Before you check the "I Agree" box, you should have read the terms.
> 2. Once you click the "I Agree" box, you have signed and agreed to those
> terms.
>
> Can you take it to court? Well, this is America, you can take anyone to
> court over anything.
> But my honest opinion is that the judge will most likely say, "If you didn't
> like the terms of the contract, why did you sign it? Moreover, if you knew
> the terms of the Liscense Agreement before you bought it, you disagreed with
> it, why did you buy it?
>
> End User Liscense Agreement = If you choose to use use this liscense, you
> must agree to these terms. If not, you are not allowed to use it.
> Explaination in a nutshell.
>
> Now understand, I am not trying to be mean about this, but that is what the
> EULA is all about. They have the right to lay out their liscense agreement,
> and you have the right to accept it, and use it, or don't accept it and don't
> use it. Call it how you want, but that is the way it goes.
> Now I am no lawyer, but I do know that it is a Microsoft program, it is
> owned by the Microsoft coperation. There is no legal statement that I know of
> that can dictate how Microsoft liscenses their product.
>
> And as far as the "If you don't like the Liscense agreement, don't buy the
> program" statement, Well, yes, that is what Microsoft is saying, and they
> have every right to say that. Are they that rich and powerful? Well, yes, but
> that is a different topic. They can be that arrogant, because they own the
> program. When you have the best hand at the table, you can afford to raise
> the stakes. If you lose a couple players, fine, but those who stay at the
> table will most likely make up forthe losses.
>
> But again, this isn't supposed to sound mean or combative, but you can look
> for a legal standing against this EULA, but I don't think you will find it.
>
> Oh, and by the way, I am not british, I am in Washington, and a Sailor in
> the US Navy. Sorry for any confusion in my post. :-)

You've laid out what you think a company's rights are. Can you do the
same for consumers' rights when dealing with a de facto monopoly?

Using your "logic", prohibition would still be in place because the way
it was overturned was *breaking the law*.

Using, your "logic", the USA would still be a colony of England because
the revolutionaries *broke the law*.

Using your logic, blacks would still be sitting at the back of the bus
because Rosa Parks *broke the law*.

It is time honored tradition in the USA to change laws by breaking them.

Alias

Gene Fitz wrote:

Hi Gene.

> Again Donald,
>
> Not to sound combative, but Microsoft does have the right to liscense, their
> product as they see fit.

Unless the license infringes upon a consumer's fair use rights or is
unconscionable.

>
> I can sell pinecones. If I choose to charge $150.00 for them, I have all the
> right to price them at that rate. If I am, as Microsoft puts it, "Leasing"
> the pinecone to you at that price, I have the ability to lay out the terms of
> the lease. It is your choice whether to accept those terms and sign it, or
> not to accept it, don't sign it, and get your pine cone somewhere else.

What kind of choice do you have with a post shrink wrapped license?

> It isn't really much different than leasing a house. If you are leasing a
> house from me, and I tell you that you can only have one car in the driveway,
> or are not allowed to paint the walls or hang pictures, and write that down
> in the lease agreement, I have the right to do so.
> And as far as others being able to control your property, I see it no
> differently than what i have to deal with where I live, having deed
> restrictions. Yes, I own the house, yes, I own the land, but if I don't cut
> my grass, Someone cuts it and charges me for it. Or as the restrictions say,
> I can not have more than one car in the drive way for any length of time over
> 3 days, without moving them. It is my car, my house, my land, but I still
> have to abide by the deed restrictions, because that was part of the contract
> I signed when buying the land.

Bad comparison because houses are not sold or leased under a post shrink
wrapped license.

>
> Microsoft puts the EULA up in big print for you before set-up.

But not before you purchase your shrink wrapped retail or (some) generic
oem copies of software.

It is done
> that way because:
>
> 1. Before you check the "I Agree" box, you should have read the terms.
> 2. Once you click the "I Agree" box, you have signed and agreed to those
> terms.
>
> Can you take it to court? Well, this is America, you can take anyone to
> court over anything.
> But my honest opinion is that the judge will most likely say, "If you didn't
> like the terms of the contract, why did you sign it? Moreover, if you knew
> the terms of the Liscense Agreement before you bought it, you disagreed with
> it, why did you buy it?

You are not being informed of the license before you purchase the
software because the license is not on the outside of the box or package
where I can read it. Not everyone will know to go online for the
license before purchase.

>
> End User Liscense Agreement = If you choose to use use this liscense, you
> must agree to these terms. If not, you are not allowed to use it.
> Explaination in a nutshell.
>
> Now understand, I am not trying to be mean about this, but that is what the
> EULA is all about. They have the right to lay out their liscense agreement,
> and you have the right to accept it, and use it, or don't accept it and don't
> use it. Call it how you want, but that is the way it goes.
> Now I am no lawyer, but I do know that it is a Microsoft program, it is
> owned by the Microsoft coperation. There is no legal statement that I know of
> that can dictate how Microsoft liscenses their product.

They are not allowed to violate the consumers' fair use rights or civil
liberties with their license.

>
> And as far as the "If you don't like the Liscense agreement, don't buy the
> program" statement, Well, yes, that is what Microsoft is saying, and they
> have every right to say that. Are they that rich and powerful? Well, yes, but
> that is a different topic. They can be that arrogant, because they own the
> program. When you have the best hand at the table, you can afford to raise
> the stakes. If you lose a couple players, fine, but those who stay at the
> table will most likely make up forthe losses.
>
> But again, this isn't supposed to sound mean or combative, but you can look
> for a legal standing against this EULA, but I don't think you will find it.

See above.

>
> Oh, and by the way, I am not british, I am in Washington, and a Sailor in
> the US Navy. Sorry for any confusion in my post. :-)