Re: OEM
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 20:27:17 -0400, norm <noone@afakeddomain.net>
wrote:
>Donald L McDaniel wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 12:42:46 -0400, norm <noone@afakeddomain.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:58:09 -0400, norm <noone@afakeddomain.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:52:09 +0100, Alias
>>>>>> <iamalias@removethisgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 10 Mar 2008 18:43:38 +0100, "DM" <themusgravefamily@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Many thanks to all. I have come to the conclusion that, as an amateur, I
>>>>>>>>> will not purchase any OEM products; especially from eBay.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also, I was once told that over 60% of all statistics are inaccurate. Figure
>>>>>>>>> that one out!
>>>>>>>> You've probably made a very wise decision. I certainly commend you.
>>>>>>>> However, many cannot afford the retail price for Vista ($199-$399),
>>>>>>>> but can afford the OEM price ($119-$159). Which is why many,
>>>>>>>> especially those who build their own rigs, opt to pay for an OEM
>>>>>>>> License rather than a Retail license.
>>>>>>> Um, to buy a copy of a generic OEM, be it XP or Vista, one has to also
>>>>>>> buy a CPU, RAM, hard drive and motherboard.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's all about cash-flow, folks.
>>>>>>> It certainly isn't about concern for the paying customer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>> You know, "alias", sometimes you have a lot on the ball. But
>>>>>> sometimes you show your idiocy, such as claiming that one MUST
>>>>>> purchase "a CPU, RAM, hard drive and motherboard."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is simply NOT SO!!!
>>>>>> Generic OEMs may be purchased by anyone, as long as he/she/it
>>>>>> purchases them with a "necessary hardware item". This may be
>>>>>> something as inexpensive as a power cord or cheapie mouse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While OEM versions of Windows previous to XP required the purchase of
>>>>>> a motherboard, hd, or an entire Computer, with the release of XP, such
>>>>>> draconian requirements were softened considerably, to such an extent
>>>>>> that MANY local computer stores will sell such copies even without the
>>>>>> purchase of "a necessary hardware item", or will include that
>>>>>> "necessary hardware item" in the price of the product.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PLEASE, friend, STOP spreading F.U.D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Daniel, you might want to investigate further the requirements you
>>>>> believe to be in force. If you were to go to newegg, for instance, you
>>>>> would find xp sp2 oem for sale with the following requirement:
>>>>> Disclaimer: Qualifying proof of purchase must be recent receipts showing
>>>>> the purchase of a mother board, hard drive, RAM and a CPU. The
>>>>> components can be on multiple receipts; not necessarily all on one
>>>>> receipt nor on the same receipt as the qualifying Windows XP/Office 2003
>>>>> that you purchased.
>>>>> The purchase of the oem version of vista home premium, however, has no
>>>>> such requirement, or for any "necessary hardware item", for that matter.
>>>>> If you were to visit tigerdirect, you would find that BOTH the xp sp2
>>>>> and the vista home premium versions are offered with no "necessary
>>>>> hardware requirement".
>>>>> At one time in the past year, newegg sold xp sp2 without ANY hardware
>>>>> requirement. It looks like the jury is out on just what is
>>>>> required/permissible for oem sales, and that if such hardware
>>>>> requirements are indeed required, they are unenforced by ms.
>>>>> You may find other vendors with a different take altogether on this issue.
>>>> First, my name is "Donald", not "Daniel" (which is actually part of my
>>>> surname).
>>> Sorry about the name mistake. It wasn't intentional.
>>>> With that out of the way, I no longer use XP. I've transitioned
>>>> pretty-much to Vista Ultimate. However, I do believe that what I know
>>>> about the licensing terms of XP is correct from Microsoft's POV.
>>> I have a couple vista home premium machines. One I purchased complete
>>> for my wife, and the one I use is home built with an oem copy that I
>>> purchased from newegg. The issue as I see it is not what the ms pov is,
>>> but what the terms for the retailers actually state. I am not privy to
>>> such info, so the only issue I raise is that there is no consistency
>>>from vendors that have the right to sell oem version of the product. So
>>> who is right and who is wrong? Newegg for requiring a hardware purchase,
>>> or tigerdirect, not doing so? Is Alias really spreading fud?
>>>> Different retailers will offer different requirements, depending on
>>>> how well educated they are concerning Microsoft's sales requrements.
>>>>
>>>> I do remember when the sales requirements for an OEM copy of a Windows
>>>> product stated that it must be sold with a full computer, a
>>>> motherboard or HD. In those days, few were building their own
>>>> machines, since they were so expensive, so Microsoft's System Builder
>>>> program was only geared toward those who manufactured or administered
>>>> multiple computers. With XP SP2, Microsoft changed the purchase
>>>> requirements to accomodate home builders. Since then, more and more
>>>> have been building their own computers, and it appears that the Vista
>>>> purchase requirements are even less specific.
>>> As I stated in my original post, the inclusion of a requirement for a
>>> hardware purchase for xp is a fairly new (within the last year)
>>> development. I had, prior to the time the requirement appeared,
>>> purchased an oem version of xp having NO hardware requirement mentioned.
>>>> However, consumers have pretty much transferred their interpretation
>>>> of the System Builder License agreement of XP to Vista as a "fait
>>>> accompli", and the general understanding is still that "a necessary
>>>> piece of hardware" (with the "necessary" part being kind of up to the
>>>> retailer's own interpretation of the System Builder License) must
>>>> accompany the sale (or be supplied as part of the sale.)
>>> A general understanding does neither ms or anyone using their products
>>> any good.
>>>The actual legalities are what should matter.
"Shoulda, coulda, woulda..." These words are all irrelevant, since
they are all hypothetical statements, not statements of fact.
>>>> Let's face it: When few computers were being sold -- and those that
>>>> were were manufactured by a few OEMs -- the OEM purchase requirements
>>>> made sense. But now, anyone and his brother can build their own
>>>> computers from off-the-shelf parts fairly cheaply. Requiring the
>>>> purchase of an entire machine [or motherboard/CPU/HD] to obtain a copy
>>>> of the OS makes no sense in the context of the hobby builder. To
>>>> those who build their own machines, the OS is simply another part they
>>>> have to provide, and the cheaper the better.
>>> I agree about the cost issue. That is why I have purchased oem versions
>>> for use on machines used by me.
>>>> I guess NewEgg is one of those companies which still sell OEM Windows
>>>> products with an out-dated interpretation of the OS license.
>>> Do you know that to be true with certainty? Is there a source for a
>>> layman to view the that info? And just for the sake of discussion, what
>>> is the rule if I purchased an oem copy of either xp or vista without a
>>> hardware requirement and then decided that I do not need it for anything
>>> I have. Can I, as in individual, sell it for what I paid for it, as it
>>> hasn't been sold to me with a piece of hardware or installed on a
>>> system? For me, there is nothing certain on this issue. It seems that
>>> conjecture and hearsay are more available than the actual requirements
>>> of ms, whatever they might be.
>>
>> If you want to start, read your Microsoft OEM EULA. Just click on the
>> Start button, and in the Search bar enter "winver". On the resulting
>> popup, there will be a link to the EULA. Click on it, and read it
>> carefully. It will give you much information.
>>
>> Then, go here to read the System Builder Kit EULA
>> (NOTE, Adobe Reader required for following link
>> http://oem.microsoft.com/Public/sblicense/2007_SB_Licenses/FY07_SB_License_English.pdf
>The system builder kit eula does not address my question or your
>"outdated interpretation of the os license" statement, that I can see.
>Among other things, it states: "You accept this license when you open
>this package. By accepting this license, you agree that you are a system
>builder. If you do not open this package, you may deliver it to another
>system builder. “System builder” means an original equipment
>manufacturer, an assembler, refurbisher, or pre-installer of software on
>computer systems. ”Distribution” and “distribute” means the point in
>time when a fully assembled computer system leaves the control of system
>builder." In the section that I quoted or in any other section of the sb
>kit eula, it says nothing about selling the generic oem package with a
>mb, a hd, ram and cpu as required by one seller and not another. Again,
>the issue is one clouded with non-information.
>
>>
>> The Microsoft EULA pretty much spells out the requirements to sell or
>> transfer an OEM license.
Don't believe me? Read clause 15 of the Windows Vista OEM EULA:
It reads:
"15. TRANSFER TO A THIRD PARTY. You may transfer the software
directly to a third party only with the licensed device. You may not
keep any copies of the software or any earlier version. Before any
permitted transfer, the other party must agree that this agreement
applies to the transfer and use of the software. The transfer must
include the Certificate of Authenticity label."
>>
>> The terms of transfer:
>> 1) The ORIGINAL installation media must be transferred.
>> 2) The ORIGINAL machine the media was installed on must be transferred
>> along with the ORIGINAL installation media.
See above. This is exactly what clause 15 states.
>> **** If there is NO ORIGINAL INSTALLATION MEDIA, the license may NOT
>> be transferred, since a valid license consists of the ORIGINAL
>> installation media PLUS the ORIGINAL COA sticker containing the
>> 25-character alphanumeric CD key. People have ignored this clause
>> since the very beginning. But it's still there.
>>
>> 3) The COA and all other materials provided with the package must be
>> transferred.
>> 4) Any COPIES of the original installation media must be transferred
>> or permanently destroyed.
>> 5) All installations which use the CD-Key provided on the COA must be
>> removed entirely from ANY machine the seller owns.
>> 6) NO COPIES of the installation media may be retained by the seller.
>> 7) When this license is transferred, all license rights and
>> responsibilities transfer to the new owner, INCLUDING the right to
>> transfer the license ACCORDING to the above terms.
>
>The xp eula I have for my system does not state what you have quoted. It
>is the only eula I have access to, it is from an installation on one of
>my own machines, and it does not address the question about selling the
>unopened shrink wrapped oem version that I might have in my possession,
>nor can it ever address the question as the eula can only be in effect
>if the software package is opened.
Obviously, if the package is unopened, the EULA is not in force,
making its clauses null and void in that case. Therefore, if one has
such an unopened shrink-wrapped OEM copy, he has the right to transfer
it any way he chooses (i.e., with or without the original hardware)
according to the "Fair Use" principle.
Come on, friend, where's your common sense?
>It only addresses a sale with
>hardware, which I take to mean a computer with the os installed: "1.2
>SOFTWARE as a Component of the Computer - Transfer. This license may not
>be shared, transferred to or used concurrently on different computers.
NOTE the use of the word "concurrently". IT does NOT mean "it can
NEVER be used on a second machine. PERIOD."
Obviously, it means that if it IS transferred, it must be REMOVED from
the first machine, but may be installed on a second machine as long as
it is not installed on the first.
"Concurrently", in this case, means "at the same time".
Basically, it means that to transfer an OEM license, the machine it is
originally installed on must be transferred along with the license,
the principle of which is stated by you below:
>The SOFTWARE is licensed with the COMPUTER as a single integrated
>product and may only be used with the COMPUTER."
This basically means that the license may only be used with the
original machine it was installed on.
However, the "Fair Use" principle permits the resale of anything one
owns, whether the XP EULA states it or not. Common Sense also tells
us this.
Any lawyer worth his salt would be able to show clearly that what you
quote above is logically extensible to sale or resale of such
licenses. That such transfers are not specifically defined in the
EULA does NOT mean licensees do not have the right to transfer their
license, since such rights are laid out elsewhere other than
Microsoft.
To think that Microsoft could actually STOP us from selling (or even
give away) our own hardware (along with the license to use the OS) is
irrational and silly.
Microsoft updated the language of its OEM EULA with Vista to
specifically include such transfer conditions.
--
Donald L McDaniel
How can so many otherwise very intelligent people screw up
something so simple so badly? If you stick a computer
keyboard in front of most people, they'll suddenly drop
30 points off their IQs. Much like placing a "Pork Barrel"
bill in front of a politician: He'll forget all about
"cooperation" the minute he counts the zeroes before the
decimal point.