Tech: Microsoft rips us off again!

25 Feb 06 - 07:18 AM (#1678408)
Subject: Tech: Microsoft rips us off again!
From: The Fooles Troupe

Microsoft has recently made changes to the Windows license agreement, saying that "An upgrade of the motherboard is considered to result in a new personal computer to which Microsoft OEM operating system software cannot be transferred from another computer."

This will force users who upgrade their motherboard, even via the OEM, to purchase a new license agreement. The only exception is a defect for which the OEM replaces the motherboard.

Microsoft claims it needs to have "one base component left standing that would still define that original PC. Since the motherboard contains the CPU and is the heart and soul of the PC, when the motherboard is replaced (for reasons other than defect) a new PC is essentially created."

Microsoft has asked its OEM partners to begin enforcing the new policy when they upgrade clients computers.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Microsoft_changes_OEM_license%2C_forcing_new_purchases_after_motherboard_upgrade

---

25 Feb 06 - 08:07 AM (#1678437)
Subject: RE: Tech: Microsoft rips us off again!
From: Leadfingers

Well we all have to do our bit to keep Mister Gates in the manner to which he has become accustomed !

---

25 Feb 06 - 08:17 AM (#1678442)
Subject: RE: Tech: Microsoft rips us off again!
From: Ron Davies

Except those of us who've gone to Apple. At home, this should be progressively more possible for more people.

---

25 Feb 06 - 08:54 AM (#1678460)
Subject: RE: Tech: Microsoft rips us off again!
From: Liz the Squeak

Hasn't he got a $13million fine to work off somehow?

LTS

---

25 Feb 06 - 09:04 AM (#1678469)
Subject: RE: Tech: Microsoft rips us off again!
From: Ron Davies

Indeed he does. In fact, according to the Wall St Journal (24 Feb 2006) "In December, the EU's antitrust commissioner issued a formal complaint to Microsoft and threatened to fine the company as much as 2 million euros, or about $2.4 million, a day, backdated to Dec 15."

That ought to get his attention.

Couldn't happen to a nicer arrogant monopoly.

---

25 Feb 06 - 12:59 PM (#1678629)
Subject: RE: Tech: Microsoft rips us off again!
From: JohnInKansas

But is there anything to the speculation that Apple has already reached an agreement to replace OS-X with a new MacWindows on the MacTel that's been announced?

John

---

25 Feb 06 - 01:36 PM (#1678657)
Subject: RE: Tech: Microsoft rips us off again!
From: Stilly River Sage

If you have a backup (ghost) image from one computer that you install into another computer, OS and all, you're putting that same OS into a new computer (motherboard, etc.). It seems to me that you could simply backup the entire thing and put it back in place with the new motherboard, couldn't you? No one at Microsoft the wiser?

I have my own issue with Microsoft software today. I have a version of Microsoft Money (2004) that I thought I'd update. My old one is a Standard version that came with the computer a couple of years ago. Come to find out (after a tiny screen tells you so and disappears after three seconds) the MM2006 is a reduced version of the old one so it doesn't do as much. Now apparently you need to buy a "deluxe" version to get the same features that were standard in 2004. Last night when I installed the new version I also found that it is "incompatible" with all of the data in my 2004 version. Good thing I backed up the 2004 the day before, because 2006 fried my access to 2004 and wouldn't use the data. In the end I uninstalled everything, put 2004 back and restored it with my backup disk. I'll take the Microsoft Money back and ask for a refund because I'm very unhappy with it. Even if I bought a deluxe version to get the same features, I still have a couple of years' worth of data that it won't accept and would have to start from scratch.

SRS

---

25 Feb 06 - 01:50 PM (#1678662)
Subject: RE: Tech: Microsoft rips us off again!
From: GUEST,dopfer

That's bullshit. A licensing agreement only states that you will only use the program on one computer at a time. Replacing a MB doesn't constitute a 2nd computer. A MB doesn't retain any SW other than BIOS anyway. It's the HD that matters.
Somebody's reading something wrong or, as usual, MS is seeing how many gullible sheep it can fleece before getting caught.

---

25 Feb 06 - 02:03 PM (#1678674)
Subject: RE: Tech: Microsoft rips us off again!
From: Ron Davies

John--

Not that I've heard--I'm certainly not the ultimate authority. They are going to Intel, which is a change--supposedly will allow for more speed in the future.

---

25 Feb 06 - 02:11 PM (#1678677)
Subject: RE: Tech: Microsoft rips us off again!
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T

Linux has never seemed so attractive........

Don T.

---

25 Feb 06 - 02:13 PM (#1678680)
Subject: RE: Tech: Microsoft rips us off again!
From: Ron Davies

Well, thank goodness there are alternatives to the Evil Empire.

---

25 Feb 06 - 02:15 PM (#1678682)
Subject: RE: Tech: Microsoft rips us off again!
From: JohnInKansas

The brief article linked doesn't really give a coherent story, so it will take some investigating to find out what, if anything, it really means.

Since earlier Windows versions were subject to different rules that specifically allowed transfer (but not copying) to another system, and since all these earlier ones are obsolete and unsupported, it would appear that only WinXP and possibly some server OS versions could be affected.

Guest dopfer - for WinXP, the EULA has always stated that the OS is licensed to one specific computer and cannot be transfered to another computer. This was a fundamental change to the concept of "what kind of property" the OS is, and to who "owns" it, but it's been that way, for WinXP, since day one.

John

---

25 Feb 06 - 02:42 PM (#1678706)
Subject: RE: Tech: Microsoft rips us off again!
From: JohnInKansas

Ron –

I'm sure you're familiar with John Dvorak, so you'll put on your waders to stay above the Bull Shit level, but one "speculation" appears at Will Apple Adopt Windows?, PCMagazine, 02.15.06.

A notable point is that there appears to have been some substantial exchange of money, and presumedly contracts/agreements, between Microsoft and Appler recently, "for undisclosed purposes."

Not anything to be too concerned about, but if you haven't heard something you, and other Mac folk, may be interested in New Safari Flaw, Worms Turn Spotlight on Apple Security, By Paul F. Roberts, eWeek, February 21, 2006. The note that two variants of one of the worms appeared within a couple of days of the first appearance of the original is probably the most worrisome bit, since it indicates (maybe) that somebody's picking up on it.

John

---

26 Feb 06 - 05:40 AM (#1679119)
Subject: RE: Tech: Microsoft rips us off again!
From: Richard Bridge

A licence licenses what it licenses. If it only licenses THE COMPUTER you originally put the software on and then defines a motherboard upgrade as not THE COMPUTER then it does not license the software for use on the new motherboard - although it does seem arguable to me that this term is intended to restrict or distort competition and so it would possibly be illegal under art. 81 TEU.

European law creates certain "backup rights" that cannot be overriden by the licence. Time perhaps for our masters in Brussels to do something useful (the last time they did that was when they created TUPE).

---

26 Feb 06 - 06:37 AM (#1679132)
Subject: RE: Tech: Microsoft rips us off again!
From: JohnInKansas

Although I'll admit I haven't looked very hard, I havent' found anything much more specific than the article originally linked.

The great majority of copies of WinXP are sold preinstalled on a computer by OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturers) under an OEM license. Since WinXP was introduced, the OEM license has restricted the use of the WinXP OS to the machine with which it was sold. That particular software cannot be, and never could be, legally tranferred to another computer.

There have been reports of a few OEM builders who have attempted to, in essence, sell people a new machine via a pretense that the new machine was an "upgrade" to avoid providing a new OEM OS license. So far as I've heard, this was limited to a few "kitchen table" builders. No large companies were reported as being involved, but there are quite a few "tiny" ones.

Under the terms clearly stated in the OEM license, moving the OS to a "new machine" is clearly not permitted. Arguments about what constitutes "repair," or "upgrade" vs "new" have been fairly common, but unless it's a replacement with a like kind due to a component failure or other defect, declaring that a new motherboard with significantly enhanced capabilities constitutes making a new machine is not without some merit.

I haven't seen the EULA that comes with the open market WinXP that you can buy separately. Although I suspect it contains a similar restriction, that the OS can only be used on the first machine on which it is installed. It may contain language more similar to that for older Windows versions, which did permit moving the software to another machine. I would expect, however, that it takes the stance that installing WinXP on a machine "creates" a specific and unique computer, and the license is for use of the OS on that machine only. In effect, that interpretaton makes the person who installs the OS a "licensed (OEM) builder."

The OEM license probably meets the "backup rights" requirements of any jurisdiction I've heard of, since you can copy the installation CDs, or mirror the installation from a hard drive for backup purposes. The legal restriction in the license agreement that you can use the backup only to restore the system on the original machine most likely doesn't conflict with any "rights" laws of which I'm aware. Note: IANAL - this is not a "legal opinion."

So far as I can see, nothing has changed except to clearly and publicly state Microsoft's opinion on what constitutes "creating a new computer." I don't believe it's changed that opinion to anything different than what they have consistently asserted since WinXP was introduced.

Note: Nothing here should be taken as asserting that I like these rules; but they've been pretty clear for anyone not trying to bend them to the limit - provided that they've actually read the EULA.

John

---

26 Feb 06 - 09:57 AM (#1679289)
Subject: RE: Tech: Microsoft rips us off again!
From: mack/misophist

One of the on line computer magazines checked with MS on the licensing issue. MS replied that they have always considered the mother board to be the key element of a computer.

---

26 Feb 06 - 10:15 AM (#1679300)
Subject: RE: Tech: Microsoft rips us off again!
From: GUEST,Woodsie

Don't pay little fat rich boy a penny - download all microsoft stuff FREE!!! using bit torrent sites.

---

26 Feb 06 - 10:24 AM (#1679307)
Subject: RE: Tech: Microsoft rips us off again!
From: GUEST,Woodsie

See page on mininova for just one example!

---

26 Feb 06 - 03:37 PM (#1679578)
Subject: RE: Tech: Microsoft rips us off again!
From: JohnInKansas

As to what this "earth-shaking" announcement is all about, one of numerous rather old articles is at Windows Anti-Piracy Program a Genuine Triviality. By Larry Seltzer, January 26, 2005

Note that this article is more than a year old.

As I know that those who are first to scream, yell, whine, piss and moan will usually be the last to actually attempt to examine a link, a couple of brief samples:

[quote]

Opinion: Confirming you haven't pirated your software is part of the Windows landscape now. Like many landscape features, you won't notice it unless you go looking.

When Windows Product Activation was announced for Windows XP, the predictions from some were dire. Surely, it was argued, this onerous burden and the certain failures of it to operate properly would finally inspire people to move from Windows.

Of course it didn't turn out that way. Activation has been, at worst, a minor nuisance. Such will be the case with awkwardly named Genuine Microsoft Software program, an anti-piracy initiative that has been voluntary for some time but that, it now appears, will be made mandatory some time in the second half of 2005.

[end quote]

From the link within the above quotation:

[quote]

The "Windows Genuine Advantage" initiative, which Microsoft launched in September 2004, is designed to check whether consumer and small-business customers are running legitimately licensed copies of Windows XP. Since September, about five million users have participated in the voluntary validation process, according to Microsoft officials.

Users validate by providing Microsoft-requested system information, including their Windows product keys, names of PC manufacturers and operating system versions, which the Redmond, Wash., software company uses to determine if customers are running legitimate copies of Windows. Microsoft officials have said that none of this information can be used to identify or contact individual users.

Microsoft has been testing the Genuine Advantage program on the Microsoft Download Center, where it has been requesting that users validate their copies of XP before obtaining certain Microsoft programs, patches and fixes for download. If users decide against validating, they are still allowed to obtain the requested downloads.

But starting later this year, Microsoft will require users who want any of the Windows-client-related code from the Microsoft Download Center and Windows Update sites to first validate their software as part of the Genuine Advantage program.

Microsoft has created a loophole for "customers who may require more time to move to genuine Windows software," however: For some undetermined amount of time, Microsoft will allow these users to obtain critical security updates only via the Microsoft Automatic Update site, even if they don't pass validation muster.

[end quote: boldface and italics added for reference]

An indication of how "the evil empire" persecutes users may be taken from the report that as of January 2005 when the last quoted article appeared, there were 5 million users voluntarily participating in the "validation" program. At about that time, the typical automatic update downloads of critical Windows updates were reported to be going to 300 million users. This does not include those who were downloading updates manually by visiting Microsoft update websites individually for each update.

I did, on one occasion, get a question about the "re-verification" of my Windows copy, when I made a significant, if not major, component substitution. I was offered the option of downloading critical updates only, without further action regarding the validity of my software, or of providing additional information to confirm that my software was legal. The only thing they asked for was the name of the OEM builder of my computer and date of purchase.

In this case, the "clinker" was that the monitor I pulled out to replace the one that failed dated back prior to two changes in name by the OEM builder, so the verification routine did, correctly, detect a "significant change." The whole verification process was done in less than about three minutes. (The optional update, for which I did need to do the verification, took a little over 2 hours to download.)

John

---

27 Feb 06 - 09:17 AM (#1680196)
Subject: RE: Tech: Microsoft rips us off again!
From: pavane

Just shows how ludicrous the system is, if it expects you to pay for a new copy of WINDOWS, or justify yourself, when you change a monitor?

---

27 Feb 06 - 05:59 PM (#1680619)
Subject: RE: Tech: Microsoft rips us off again!
From: The Fooles Troupe

My feelings entirely.

---

28 Feb 06 - 02:24 AM (#1680868)
Subject: RE: Tech: Microsoft rips us off again!
From: Bert

I go along with Don T.   Linux is FREE.

---

28 Feb 06 - 05:08 PM (#1681570)
Subject: RE: Tech: Microsoft rips us off again!
From: Lin in Kansas

Yes, indeedy! God forbid a businessman should be upset by people stealing his legitimate product! Screw Gates--he's got no right to complain...after all, our computers would work much better without any of that damned Microsoft software his lousy company makes!

Lin

---

28 Feb 06 - 10:20 PM (#1681843)
Subject: RE: Tech: Microsoft rips us off again!
From: Richard Bridge

Lin, you miss the point.

I build a computer.
I get Windows.
I install Windows.

I build a new computer.
I uninstall Windows off the old one.
I put it on the new one.

I am still only using one Windows. How is that stealing anything?

It is a definitional trick by Microsnot to say that the licence is limited to the first computer only. There is no option to have a licence without this definitional trick in (save at exhorbitant cost). That is an abuse of a dominant position.

---

28 Feb 06 - 11:27 PM (#1681892)
Subject: RE: Tech: Microsoft rips us off again!
From: JohnInKansas

Richard -

If you read the EULA that came with your OS, you will find that you DO NOT OWN the software. You paid a license fee to use it under specific terms and conditions, and those terms and conditions to which you agreed when you installed the software for the first time do not permit you to move it to another machine (assuming you're talking WinXP). The USE for which it was licensed ENDS when you quit using the original machine.

That language has been common in "enterprise" software such as Server OS licensing for at least 30 or 40 years, so it isn't really surprising that it's crossed down into PC licenses.

It's been true for PCs at least since WinXP first hit the street. So how long does it take to read your EULA, or do you sign contracts without reading them? (Rhetorical question: I know, we all do.)

John

---

01 Mar 06 - 02:15 AM (#1681942)
Subject: RE: Tech: Microsoft rips us off again!
From: JohnInKansas

Believe or not, this isn't just cut and paste. I've tried to boil down a lot of stuff.

According to the RIAA:

"Each year, the [music] industry loses about

               $4.2 billion

to piracy worldwide – 'we estimate we lose millions of dollars a day to all forms of piracy.'"

So the recording industries secretely foist root kits on our computers that disable the operating systems and make our computers vulnerable to other malicious invasion, make "copy protected" CDs and DVDs that won't play in common playback devices, have been accused, with some credible evidence, of deliberately spreading malware to "break" websites and FTP operators they "think" may be involved in illegal distribution, have filed several hundred lawsuits in the US alone against individuals, and vigorously lobby for new laws to "protect them" and "screw the public."

We understand the RIAA concern. We can shed a small tear for them.



According to the most recent Global Software Piracy Study by the Business Software Alliance (.pdf 900KB):, 36% of the software installed on computers worldwide in 2003 was pirated, representing a loss of

               $29 billion.

(6.9 times the loss claimed by the RIAA – just for some perspective)

Thirty-five percent of the software installed on personal computers worldwide was pirated in 2004, a one percentage point decrease from 36 percent in 2003. Yet, losses due to piracy increased from $29 billion to

               $33 billion.

The Business Software Alliance (BSA) estimates that 29% of all software installed in the UK last year is illegal in some way. That is an estimated loss to the software industry of

               $1.963 billion from the UK alone.

(46.74% of what the RIAA claims to lose worldwide)

The US does a bit better, at only 21% pirated, but the larger base of users gives a loss for 2004 of

               $6.645 billion from the US.

(1.5821 times the total global RIAA loss claimed)

International Data Corporation (IDC), "the information technology (IT) industry's leading global market research and forecasting firm."(?) and the Business Software Alliance estimate:

"Globally, businesses and consumers will spend more than $300 billion on PC software over the next five years, according to IDC estimates. Given the current piracy rates, IDC predicts that, during the same five-year period, almost $200 billion worth of software will be pirated."

This is not just a "business" problem. Since software pirates don't pay taxes:

"In an April 2003 economic impact study conducted for BSA, IDC concluded that lowering piracy by 10 percentage points over four years would add more than one million new jobs and $400 billion in economic growth worldwide. As the software industry becomes bigger, those benefits increase."

(Worldwide growth in new software installations is estimated at around 5 - 7% or so. Growth in China is now running at about 15%.)

Although Microsoft isn't the whole industry by quite a bit, it's interesting what Microsoft has done.

They have issued a "clarification" of a ten year old EULA pointing out that the license to install their OEM OS (and Office programs) is, as it has always been, a license to use the OS on ONE MACHINE. The license is not transferable to a different machine than the one on which is first installed.

They have, almost incidentally, issued what amounts to a clarification of what they mean by ONE MACHINE, to say that an upgrade by replacement of the motherboard, other than as a like-kind repair, constitutes "making a new machine."

They have had the temerity to ask, politely, that people requesting software updates verify that they have a valid license for the copy of the OS in use.

You can decline the verification process, and if you do decline to validate they give you the Critical Updates anyway.

If you proceed with the verification, and there is a problem with confirming the validity of your licences, they suggest that you clean up your ownership, and they give you the Critical Updates anyway.

True, they have warned that they may cease giving out updates for pirated copies; but that warning is at least ten years old – since the first day WinXP hit the streets.

Microsoft has filed (last count) about 72 lawsuits for illegal distribution worldwide. So far as has been reported, all of these were against "Factory Counterfeiting" operations, or large scale sellers, and NONE have been filed against individual users.

The notice that you can't do a motherboard upgrade under the existing OEM EULA is apparently nothing but a "friendly warning" to a few (small?) OEMs who have been selling upgrades (essentially making new computers) without licensing a new OS as they have always been required to do under the OEM EULA. This is INSTEAD OF SUING THEM FIRST like the RIAA likely would have done.

The original article that instigated this rather specious bit of hand-wringing specifically refers to the OEM EULA. OEM builders get a substantial discount on what they pay for the OS and other software, on the condition that the license is for making ONE MACHINE and the licensed software is for use ONLY ON THAT SINGLE MACHINE.

My EULA, and OEM license installed with file date 08/28/2001, includes:
[quote]
* Software as a Component of the Computer - Transfer. THIS LICENSE MAY NOT BE SHARED, TRANSFERRED TO OR USED CONCURRENTLY ON DIFFERENT COMPUTERS. The SOFTWARE is licensed with the HARDWARE as a single integrated product and may only be used with the HARDWARE. If the SOFTWARE is not accompanied by new HARDWARE, you may not use the SOFTWARE. You may permanently transfer all of your rights under this EULA only as part of a permanent sale or transfer of the HARDWARE, provided you retain no copies, if you transfer all of the SOFTWARE (including all component parts, the media and printed materials, any upgrades, this EULA and the Certificate of Authenticity), and the recipient agrees to the terms of this EULA. If the SOFTWARE is an upgrade, any transfer must also include all prior versions of the SOFTWARE.
[end quote, bold added]

I do not know whether the retail "shrink-wrap" software contains the same or similar restrictions, and apparently neither does anyone else here. So far as I can see, no one has said that the "new conditions" apply to anything except the OEM version EULA. The agreement that came with your software should be on your hard drive, probably with filename "EULA.txt."

Note that you may have several files with this same name: probably separate ones for your OS and, if you have it, for Office (or for each individual Office program if you acquired them that way). Many other programs may use the same filename for their EULA. Some OEM builders add their own EULA, but it is IN ADDITION TO the Microsoft EULA.

To see what applies to your version, RTFM.

John

---

01 Mar 06 - 04:11 AM (#1681974)
Subject: RE: Tech: Microsoft rips us off again!
From: Richard Bridge

I know I don't "own" the software.

I've been up with computer law since the early 80s when I was doing batch processing agreements for TV companies. I agree the EULA does what you say. I don't agree that it is proper that it should do so. I repeat, so long as you have only got one copy of software loaded at any given time, the fact that the machine on which it is loaded has changed is not a legitimate (as distinct from a technically legal) concern of the licensor.

The reasons you give are some of the reasons I won't use XP.

The licence terms of XP are a ripoff.

It is time the EU commission took a look at this as well as the other restraints operated by Microsnot. Microsnot is due another kicking by them.

---

01 Mar 06 - 11:27 AM (#1682318)
Subject: RE: Tech: Microsoft rips us off again!
From: Bert

You get none of these problems with Linux, and the copy of Fedora core that I'm using came with Open Office and Gimp plus loads of games, plus Perl and a couple of C compilers.

---