WindPipe wrote:
> "mcullet" <mcullet@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> newsD449FA6-95AD-4BBA-ADC8-0C4FC84CDF80@microsoft.com...
>
>> Game on MS ... I'm not happy and I do not appreciate being inconvenienced
>> without due cause.
>>
>> Watch this space ...
>>
>
> You're Hilarious. Truly.
>
> Pick up the phone and activate, it will all be over soon after that.
>
> - WindPipe
>
>
It's not a question of time spent or how much hassle is involved. It's
the principle that is bothersome: MS assumes you're a pirate until you
prove otherwise over and over and over and over again. Of course, the MS
fanboys like you react with a "How high?" when MS says "Jump!".
"Alias" <iamalias@gmailREMOVE.com> wrote in message news:g8914v$uha$1@aioe.org...
> WindPipe wrote:
>> "mcullet" <mcullet@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> newsD449FA6-95AD-4BBA-ADC8-0C4FC84CDF80@microsoft.com...
>>
>>> Game on MS ... I'm not happy and I do not appreciate being inconvenienced
>>> without due cause.
>>>
>>> Watch this space ...
>>>
>>
>> You're Hilarious. Truly.
>>
>> Pick up the phone and activate, it will all be over soon after that.
>>
>> - WindPipe
>
> It's not a question of time spent or how much hassle is involved. It's the
> principle that is bothersome: MS assumes you're a pirate until you prove
> otherwise over and over and over and over again. Of course, the MS fanboys like
> you react with a "How high?" when MS says "Jump!".
>
> Alias
WindPipe wrote:
> Continue blowing yourself you Oedipal idiot.
Typical MS Fanboy knee-jerk reaction: insult the messenger (usually with
a elementary school type insult) and ignore the content.
Alias
>
> - WindPipe
>
> "Alias" <iamalias@gmailREMOVE.com> wrote in message news:g8914v$uha$1@aioe.org...
>> WindPipe wrote:
>>> "mcullet" <mcullet@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> newsD449FA6-95AD-4BBA-ADC8-0C4FC84CDF80@microsoft.com...
>>>
>>>> Game on MS ... I'm not happy and I do not appreciate being inconvenienced
>>>> without due cause.
>>>>
>>>> Watch this space ...
>>>>
>>> You're Hilarious. Truly.
>>>
>>> Pick up the phone and activate, it will all be over soon after that.
>>>
>>> - WindPipe
>> It's not a question of time spent or how much hassle is involved. It's the
>> principle that is bothersome: MS assumes you're a pirate until you prove
>> otherwise over and over and over and over again. Of course, the MS fanboys like
>> you react with a "How high?" when MS says "Jump!".
>>
>> Alias
>
>
So, if under Australian law the EULA in NOT enforceable and someone refuses
to re-activate they still will have an O/S that doesn't work.
It seems the next step is for someone to take Microsoft to Court to remedy
the situation of their having non-working system by not re-activating. Has
anyone done that?
The law might be the law, but until someone sues to have it enforced, it's
rather useless.
Alan
"John H" <johnH4999@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:evzb%23ADAJHA.4148@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> The MS "Windows any version" Eula is NOT enforceable where he lives in
> Australia.
>
> It has been tested in an Australian court and found to be in breach of a
> section
> of the Australian trade practises act 1988 as amended 2001.
> Not that it stops MS from giving impression it is enforceable.
> John H
>
>
> "PA Bear [MS MVP]" <PABearMVP@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23oibaN7$IHA.5048@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> In the time it took you to write your post, you could have called a
>> toll-free number and reactivated.
>>
>> Description of Microsoft Product Activation:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/302806
>>
>>> For any legal minded folk, the onus of proof shifts from presumption of
>>> innocence to presumption of guilt. I have to prove innocence. MS need
>>> do
>>> nothing apparently - their work is done having caught me in a criminal
>>> act
>>> of BIOS altering without their permission or consent.
>>
>> Have you read your WinXP EULA lately?
>>
>>
>> mcullet wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I do not endorse piracy. You use it - you pay for it.
>>>
>>> MS has a legitimate right to protect their commercial interests. It's
>>> one
>>> of those self evident statements that are tough to argue against.
>>> However,
>>> as with all things the devil is in the detail.
>>>
>>> MS Does not have the right to kick down my door at 3 am to see if I have
>>> a
>>> COA on hand. Sounds absurd? How about this? MS decides I'm a pirate
>>> (might be a pirate?) and unilaterally pulls the pin on XP PRO after 3
>>> days
>>> UNLESS I behave like a good little sheep and do as I'm told (see
>>> Pavlov)?
>>>
>>> The problem with large organisations (and government) is that they need
>>> to
>>> be reminded once in a while that they are not all powerful and they do
>>> not
>>> have unqualified control (power / authority / legal rights) over what we
>>> do.
>>> Staying only with MS, the issue is one of enforcement of contractual
>>> obligations: essentially enforcement of promises.
>>>
>>> I legally purchased an XP PRO licence and have used it strictly in
>>> accord
>>> with the licence agreement. Software changes, as we are all to familiar
>>> with observing. These occur because of an amalgam of bug fixes,
>>> security
>>> patches and evolution (feature enhancement or deprecation). The
>>> hardware
>>> environment is more likely to change as the machine ages. I'll leave it
>>> to
>>> others to determine at what point the original PC changes sufficiently
>>> to
>>> warrant paying for another licence but this issue is central to MS
>>> dilemma
>>> and needs wide debate.
>>>
>>> MS abuse their positon every time they unjustifiably force a user to
>>> reactivate their legally purchased software. In legal terms, they are
>>> in
>>> breach of contract because they unilaterally terminate the agreement by
>>> rendering the OS unusable. If I wanted to be an idiot I could waste my
>>> life
>>> getting MS to play the reactivation game 24 / 7. I have more
>>> interesting
>>> things to do. However, this is the absurd position MS force upon
>>> legitimate
>>> customers and themselves because they (MS) distributed flawed security
>>> controls in their operating system - XP PRO.
>>>
>>> The definition of flawed is to be interpretted in its natural meaning.
>>>
>>> I changed no hardware on my PC. Not one piece of hardware was added or
>>> removed excluding inter alia, as required, attchment of USB drives /
>>> printeres.
>>>
>>> I altered a bios setting.
>>>
>>> This heinous act triggered MS's software control systems which
>>> 'determined'
>>> that I had breached my contractual agreement with MS: I've been given a
>>> generous 3 days to fix the problem (re-activate) or MS will functionally
>>> challenge my lawful ability to enjoy my XP licence INCLUDING all other
>>> functions and features (games / internet / documents / commercial
>>> applications etc). This is distrubingly, ominously reminisent of
>>> Orwellian
>>> logic (courtesy of 1984): "double speak". The MS security control was
>>> triggered ergo I am a criminal until I prove otherwise. The control
>>> would
>>> not have triggered unless I was in breach of my contract with MS (logic
>>> loop).
>>>
>>> For any legal minded folk, the onus of proof shifts from presumption of
>>> innocence to presumption of guilt. I have to prove innocence. MS need
>>> do
>>> nothing apparently - their work is done having caught me in a criminal
>>> act
>>> of BIOS altering without their permission or consent.
>>>
>>> Sorry. The only thing wrong is with MS's flawed anti-piracy efforts.
>>> Unless I do what MS tell me (reactivate) then I am at fault. "Honest
>>> people
>>> won't object ... just the pirates." Yeah - pigs fly. I'm seriously
>>> annoyed
>>> and about to be seriously inconvenienced by a party to a software
>>> contract
>>> imposing additional costs (consideration) upon me after a legal contract
>>> was
>>> executed. I have no remedy other than take MS to court.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, using purely lawful means, I can bring this absurdity
>>> to
>>> the attention of the media who love bashing MS and let them feed on the
>>> company. Bad publicity for bad practices ... seems to be an elegant
>>> balance
>>> of karma.
>>>
>>> MS - I am not a pirate but a lawful and legal customer. I've done
>>> nothing
>>> wrong. You do not have any right to terminate my lawful enjoyment of
>>> this
>>> software (XP PRO) and your efforts to do so are called conversion - a
>>> tort.
>>> It is actionable per se which means I do not need to prove anything
>>> other
>>> than that this has happened. MS's legal defences are limited and in
>>> context, none apply.
>>>
>>> So, how inconvenient would it be for me to take MS to court for trespass
>>> property and or breach of contract? To me - not much. Like I said, I
>>> need
>>> only prove MS has interfered with the lawful enjoyment of my software
>>> licence.
>>>
>>> Why not just call MS and sort it out? Well, I've done nothing wrong.
>>> I've
>>> paid for the licence. Phone calls aren't free nor is my time or the
>>> inconvenience to me. I anticipate I may make a few adjustments to BIOS
>>> settings / hardware configuration (swapping SATA drives in / out etc)
>>> ...
>>> system performance tweaking. If i activate then I will be forced to
>>> call
>>> MS
>>> (big brother) to calm them down and get their OK to live a normal life.
>>> Good grief ... people have become too hesitant to speak out against
>>> absurd
>>> commercial practices that intrude too far into our lives. I'm not a
>>> sheep
>>> nor an evangelist ... just one annoyed customer who has finally had
>>> enough
>>> of this crap.
>>>
>>> Game on MS ... I'm not happy and I do not appreciate being
>>> inconvenienced
>>> without due cause.
>>>
>>> Watch this space ...
>>>
>>> Mike
>>> Australia
>>
>
>
The real question is: Why does it bother YOU?
"Alias" <iamalias@gmailREMOVE.com> wrote in message
news:g890r9$m8u$6@aioe.org...
> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>> Yeah, the button you always hit when you hijack someone else's thread to
>> grind your axe.
>
> Not my ax, hoss. It's Microsoft that assumes you are guilty of piracy
> until you prove otherwise. If that doesn't bother you, there's something
> wrong with you and you've obviously been brainwashed to react with a "how
> high?" when MS says "jump".
>
> Alias
>>
>> Alias wrote:
>>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>>>> Butt out, Alias.
>>>
>>> My, what a convincing argument! LOL! Hit a button, did I?
>>>
>>> Alias
>>>>
>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>>>>>> In the time it took you to write your post, you could have called a
>>>>>> toll-free number and reactivated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not the point.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Description of Microsoft Product Activation:
>>>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/302806
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For any legal minded folk, the onus of proof shifts from presumption
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> innocence to presumption of guilt. I have to prove innocence. MS
>>>>>>> need do
>>>>>>> nothing apparently - their work is done having caught me in a
>>>>>>> criminal
>>>>>>> act
>>>>>>> of BIOS altering without their permission or consent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have you read your WinXP EULA lately?
>>>>>
>>>>> You mean the one that if you don't agree with it you can't get your
>>>>> money back, that one? How many people who bought a preinstalled copy
>>>>> of
>>>>> XP on a new computer got the chance to read it before accepting it or
>>>>> is
>>>>> the acceptance assumed when they purchase the system?
>>>>>
>>>>> WPA and WGA only serve to inconvenience paying customers and do
>>>>> absolutely nothing to stop piracy.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alias
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mcullet wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I do not endorse piracy. You use it - you pay for it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MS has a legitimate right to protect their commercial interests.
>>>>>>> It's
>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>> of those self evident statements that are tough to argue against.
>>>>>>> However,
>>>>>>> as with all things the devil is in the detail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MS Does not have the right to kick down my door at 3 am to see if I
>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>> COA on hand. Sounds absurd? How about this? MS decides I'm a
>>>>>>> pirate
>>>>>>> (might be a pirate?) and unilaterally pulls the pin on XP PRO after
>>>>>>> 3
>>>>>>> days
>>>>>>> UNLESS I behave like a good little sheep and do as I'm told (see
>>>>>>> Pavlov)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem with large organisations (and government) is that they
>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>> be reminded once in a while that they are not all powerful and they
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> have unqualified control (power / authority / legal rights) over
>>>>>>> what we
>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>> Staying only with MS, the issue is one of enforcement of contractual
>>>>>>> obligations: essentially enforcement of promises.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I legally purchased an XP PRO licence and have used it strictly in
>>>>>>> accord
>>>>>>> with the licence agreement. Software changes, as we are all to
>>>>>>> familiar
>>>>>>> with observing. These occur because of an amalgam of bug fixes,
>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>> patches and evolution (feature enhancement or deprecation). The
>>>>>>> hardware
>>>>>>> environment is more likely to change as the machine ages. I'll
>>>>>>> leave it
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> others to determine at what point the original PC changes
>>>>>>> sufficiently to
>>>>>>> warrant paying for another licence but this issue is central to MS
>>>>>>> dilemma
>>>>>>> and needs wide debate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MS abuse their positon every time they unjustifiably force a user to
>>>>>>> reactivate their legally purchased software. In legal terms, they
>>>>>>> are in
>>>>>>> breach of contract because they unilaterally terminate the agreement
>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>> rendering the OS unusable. If I wanted to be an idiot I could waste
>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>> life
>>>>>>> getting MS to play the reactivation game 24 / 7. I have more
>>>>>>> interesting
>>>>>>> things to do. However, this is the absurd position MS force upon
>>>>>>> legitimate
>>>>>>> customers and themselves because they (MS) distributed flawed
>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>> controls in their operating system - XP PRO.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The definition of flawed is to be interpretted in its natural
>>>>>>> meaning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I changed no hardware on my PC. Not one piece of hardware was added
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> removed excluding inter alia, as required, attchment of USB drives /
>>>>>>> printeres.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I altered a bios setting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This heinous act triggered MS's software control systems which
>>>>>>> 'determined'
>>>>>>> that I had breached my contractual agreement with MS: I've been
>>>>>>> given a
>>>>>>> generous 3 days to fix the problem (re-activate) or MS will
>>>>>>> functionally
>>>>>>> challenge my lawful ability to enjoy my XP licence INCLUDING all
>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>> functions and features (games / internet / documents / commercial
>>>>>>> applications etc). This is distrubingly, ominously reminisent of
>>>>>>> Orwellian
>>>>>>> logic (courtesy of 1984): "double speak". The MS security control
>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>> triggered ergo I am a criminal until I prove otherwise. The control
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> not have triggered unless I was in breach of my contract with MS
>>>>>>> (logic
>>>>>>> loop).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For any legal minded folk, the onus of proof shifts from presumption
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> innocence to presumption of guilt. I have to prove innocence. MS
>>>>>>> need do
>>>>>>> nothing apparently - their work is done having caught me in a
>>>>>>> criminal
>>>>>>> act
>>>>>>> of BIOS altering without their permission or consent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry. The only thing wrong is with MS's flawed anti-piracy
>>>>>>> efforts.
>>>>>>> Unless I do what MS tell me (reactivate) then I am at fault.
>>>>>>> "Honest
>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>> won't object ... just the pirates." Yeah - pigs fly. I'm seriously
>>>>>>> annoyed
>>>>>>> and about to be seriously inconvenienced by a party to a software
>>>>>>> contract
>>>>>>> imposing additional costs (consideration) upon me after a legal
>>>>>>> contract
>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>> executed. I have no remedy other than take MS to court.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On the other hand, using purely lawful means, I can bring this
>>>>>>> absurdity
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> the attention of the media who love bashing MS and let them feed on
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> company. Bad publicity for bad practices ... seems to be an elegant
>>>>>>> balance
>>>>>>> of karma.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MS - I am not a pirate but a lawful and legal customer. I've done
>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>> wrong. You do not have any right to terminate my lawful enjoyment
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> software (XP PRO) and your efforts to do so are called conversion -
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> tort.
>>>>>>> It is actionable per se which means I do not need to prove anything
>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>> than that this has happened. MS's legal defences are limited and in
>>>>>>> context, none apply.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, how inconvenient would it be for me to take MS to court for
>>>>>>> trespass
>>>>>>> property and or breach of contract? To me - not much. Like I said,
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>> only prove MS has interfered with the lawful enjoyment of my
>>>>>>> software
>>>>>>> licence.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why not just call MS and sort it out? Well, I've done nothing
>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>> paid for the licence. Phone calls aren't free nor is my time or the
>>>>>>> inconvenience to me. I anticipate I may make a few adjustments to
>>>>>>> BIOS
>>>>>>> settings / hardware configuration (swapping SATA drives in / out
>>>>>>> etc) ...
>>>>>>> system performance tweaking. If i activate then I will be forced to
>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>> MS
>>>>>>> (big brother) to calm them down and get their OK to live a normal
>>>>>>> life.
>>>>>>> Good grief ... people have become too hesitant to speak out against
>>>>>>> absurd
>>>>>>> commercial practices that intrude too far into our lives. I'm not a
>>>>>>> sheep
>>>>>>> nor an evangelist ... just one annoyed customer who has finally had
>>>>>>> enough
>>>>>>> of this crap.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Game on MS ... I'm not happy and I do not appreciate being
>>>>>>> inconvenienced
>>>>>>> without due cause.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Watch this space ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>> Australia
>>
MS needs to protect themselves from people like you.
"Alias" <iamalias@gmailREMOVE.com> wrote in message
news:g8914v$uha$1@aioe.org...
> WindPipe wrote:
>> "mcullet" <mcullet@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> newsD449FA6-95AD-4BBA-ADC8-0C4FC84CDF80@microsoft.com...
>>
>>> Game on MS ... I'm not happy and I do not appreciate being
>>> inconvenienced
>>> without due cause.
>>>
>>> Watch this space ...
>>>
>>
>> You're Hilarious. Truly.
>>
>> Pick up the phone and activate, it will all be over soon after that.
>>
>> - WindPipe
>
> It's not a question of time spent or how much hassle is involved. It's the
> principle that is bothersome: MS assumes you're a pirate until you prove
> otherwise over and over and over and over again. Of course, the MS fanboys
> like you react with a "How high?" when MS says "Jump!".
>
> Alias
Unknown wrote:
> The real question is: Why does it bother YOU?
That's obvious; I don't like being accused of piracy when I have bought
the product. I especially don't like being accused over and over and
over again. As an example, once I had a problem with my NIC and ended up
having to change it. I had to activate not once, not twice but five
times before it would accept the fact that changing a NIC does not a
pirate make. I was frustrated enough with the NIC problem that the LAST
thing I needed was to have to jump through the WPA hoop FIVE times.
Alias
> "Alias" <iamalias@gmailREMOVE.com> wrote in message
> news:g890r9$m8u$6@aioe.org...
>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>>> Yeah, the button you always hit when you hijack someone else's thread to
>>> grind your axe.
>> Not my ax, hoss. It's Microsoft that assumes you are guilty of piracy
>> until you prove otherwise. If that doesn't bother you, there's something
>> wrong with you and you've obviously been brainwashed to react with a "how
>> high?" when MS says "jump".
>>
>> Alias
>>> Alias wrote:
>>>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>>>>> Butt out, Alias.
>>>> My, what a convincing argument! LOL! Hit a button, did I?
>>>>
>>>> Alias
>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>>>>>>> In the time it took you to write your post, you could have called a
>>>>>>> toll-free number and reactivated.
>>>>>> Not the point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Description of Microsoft Product Activation:
>>>>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/302806
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For any legal minded folk, the onus of proof shifts from presumption
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> innocence to presumption of guilt. I have to prove innocence. MS
>>>>>>>> need do
>>>>>>>> nothing apparently - their work is done having caught me in a
>>>>>>>> criminal
>>>>>>>> act
>>>>>>>> of BIOS altering without their permission or consent.
>>>>>>> Have you read your WinXP EULA lately?
>>>>>> You mean the one that if you don't agree with it you can't get your
>>>>>> money back, that one? How many people who bought a preinstalled copy
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> XP on a new computer got the chance to read it before accepting it or
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> the acceptance assumed when they purchase the system?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WPA and WGA only serve to inconvenience paying customers and do
>>>>>> absolutely nothing to stop piracy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> mcullet wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do not endorse piracy. You use it - you pay for it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> MS has a legitimate right to protect their commercial interests.
>>>>>>>> It's
>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>> of those self evident statements that are tough to argue against.
>>>>>>>> However,
>>>>>>>> as with all things the devil is in the detail.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> MS Does not have the right to kick down my door at 3 am to see if I
>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>> COA on hand. Sounds absurd? How about this? MS decides I'm a
>>>>>>>> pirate
>>>>>>>> (might be a pirate?) and unilaterally pulls the pin on XP PRO after
>>>>>>>> 3
>>>>>>>> days
>>>>>>>> UNLESS I behave like a good little sheep and do as I'm told (see
>>>>>>>> Pavlov)?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem with large organisations (and government) is that they
>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>> be reminded once in a while that they are not all powerful and they
>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> have unqualified control (power / authority / legal rights) over
>>>>>>>> what we
>>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>>> Staying only with MS, the issue is one of enforcement of contractual
>>>>>>>> obligations: essentially enforcement of promises.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I legally purchased an XP PRO licence and have used it strictly in
>>>>>>>> accord
>>>>>>>> with the licence agreement. Software changes, as we are all to
>>>>>>>> familiar
>>>>>>>> with observing. These occur because of an amalgam of bug fixes,
>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>> patches and evolution (feature enhancement or deprecation). The
>>>>>>>> hardware
>>>>>>>> environment is more likely to change as the machine ages. I'll
>>>>>>>> leave it
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> others to determine at what point the original PC changes
>>>>>>>> sufficiently to
>>>>>>>> warrant paying for another licence but this issue is central to MS
>>>>>>>> dilemma
>>>>>>>> and needs wide debate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> MS abuse their positon every time they unjustifiably force a user to
>>>>>>>> reactivate their legally purchased software. In legal terms, they
>>>>>>>> are in
>>>>>>>> breach of contract because they unilaterally terminate the agreement
>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>> rendering the OS unusable. If I wanted to be an idiot I could waste
>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>> life
>>>>>>>> getting MS to play the reactivation game 24 / 7. I have more
>>>>>>>> interesting
>>>>>>>> things to do. However, this is the absurd position MS force upon
>>>>>>>> legitimate
>>>>>>>> customers and themselves because they (MS) distributed flawed
>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>> controls in their operating system - XP PRO.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The definition of flawed is to be interpretted in its natural
>>>>>>>> meaning.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I changed no hardware on my PC. Not one piece of hardware was added
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> removed excluding inter alia, as required, attchment of USB drives /
>>>>>>>> printeres.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I altered a bios setting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This heinous act triggered MS's software control systems which
>>>>>>>> 'determined'
>>>>>>>> that I had breached my contractual agreement with MS: I've been
>>>>>>>> given a
>>>>>>>> generous 3 days to fix the problem (re-activate) or MS will
>>>>>>>> functionally
>>>>>>>> challenge my lawful ability to enjoy my XP licence INCLUDING all
>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>> functions and features (games / internet / documents / commercial
>>>>>>>> applications etc). This is distrubingly, ominously reminisent of
>>>>>>>> Orwellian
>>>>>>>> logic (courtesy of 1984): "double speak". The MS security control
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> triggered ergo I am a criminal until I prove otherwise. The control
>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>> not have triggered unless I was in breach of my contract with MS
>>>>>>>> (logic
>>>>>>>> loop).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For any legal minded folk, the onus of proof shifts from presumption
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> innocence to presumption of guilt. I have to prove innocence. MS
>>>>>>>> need do
>>>>>>>> nothing apparently - their work is done having caught me in a
>>>>>>>> criminal
>>>>>>>> act
>>>>>>>> of BIOS altering without their permission or consent.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry. The only thing wrong is with MS's flawed anti-piracy
>>>>>>>> efforts.
>>>>>>>> Unless I do what MS tell me (reactivate) then I am at fault.
>>>>>>>> "Honest
>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>> won't object ... just the pirates." Yeah - pigs fly. I'm seriously
>>>>>>>> annoyed
>>>>>>>> and about to be seriously inconvenienced by a party to a software
>>>>>>>> contract
>>>>>>>> imposing additional costs (consideration) upon me after a legal
>>>>>>>> contract
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> executed. I have no remedy other than take MS to court.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On the other hand, using purely lawful means, I can bring this
>>>>>>>> absurdity
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> the attention of the media who love bashing MS and let them feed on
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> company. Bad publicity for bad practices ... seems to be an elegant
>>>>>>>> balance
>>>>>>>> of karma.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> MS - I am not a pirate but a lawful and legal customer. I've done
>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>> wrong. You do not have any right to terminate my lawful enjoyment
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> software (XP PRO) and your efforts to do so are called conversion -
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> tort.
>>>>>>>> It is actionable per se which means I do not need to prove anything
>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>> than that this has happened. MS's legal defences are limited and in
>>>>>>>> context, none apply.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, how inconvenient would it be for me to take MS to court for
>>>>>>>> trespass
>>>>>>>> property and or breach of contract? To me - not much. Like I said,
>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>> only prove MS has interfered with the lawful enjoyment of my
>>>>>>>> software
>>>>>>>> licence.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why not just call MS and sort it out? Well, I've done nothing
>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>>> paid for the licence. Phone calls aren't free nor is my time or the
>>>>>>>> inconvenience to me. I anticipate I may make a few adjustments to
>>>>>>>> BIOS
>>>>>>>> settings / hardware configuration (swapping SATA drives in / out
>>>>>>>> etc) ...
>>>>>>>> system performance tweaking. If i activate then I will be forced to
>>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>>> MS
>>>>>>>> (big brother) to calm them down and get their OK to live a normal
>>>>>>>> life.
>>>>>>>> Good grief ... people have become too hesitant to speak out against
>>>>>>>> absurd
>>>>>>>> commercial practices that intrude too far into our lives. I'm not a
>>>>>>>> sheep
>>>>>>>> nor an evangelist ... just one annoyed customer who has finally had
>>>>>>>> enough
>>>>>>>> of this crap.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Game on MS ... I'm not happy and I do not appreciate being
>>>>>>>> inconvenienced
>>>>>>>> without due cause.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Watch this space ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>> Australia
>
>
Unknown wrote:
> MS needs to protect themselves from people like you.
Another top posting MS fanboy having the typical knee-jerk reaction:
don't comment on content, insult the poster.
Alias
> "Alias" <iamalias@gmailREMOVE.com> wrote in message
> news:g8914v$uha$1@aioe.org...
>> WindPipe wrote:
>>> "mcullet" <mcullet@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> newsD449FA6-95AD-4BBA-ADC8-0C4FC84CDF80@microsoft.com...
>>>
>>>> Game on MS ... I'm not happy and I do not appreciate being
>>>> inconvenienced
>>>> without due cause.
>>>>
>>>> Watch this space ...
>>>>
>>> You're Hilarious. Truly.
>>>
>>> Pick up the phone and activate, it will all be over soon after that.
>>>
>>> - WindPipe
>> It's not a question of time spent or how much hassle is involved. It's the
>> principle that is bothersome: MS assumes you're a pirate until you prove
>> otherwise over and over and over and over again. Of course, the MS fanboys
>> like you react with a "How high?" when MS says "Jump!".
>>
>> Alias
>
>
IN LINE!
"Alias" <iamalias@gmailREMOVE.com> wrote in message
news:g89gh9$b0k$1@aioe.org...
> Unknown wrote:
>> The real question is: Why does it bother YOU?
>
> That's obvious; I don't like being accused of piracy when I have bought
> the product.
Who accused you? Is it in your mind?
I especially don't like being accused over and over and
> over again.
How many times? Your imagination?
As an example, once I had a problem with my NIC and ended up
> having to change it. I had to activate not once, not twice but five times
> before it would accept the fact that changing a NIC does not a pirate
> make.
Does reactivating really hurt your ego that much? Calm down and go with the
flow.
I was frustrated enough with the NIC problem that the LAST
> thing I needed was to have to jump through the WPA hoop FIVE times.
You must be extremely nervous. With that characteristic why do you have a
computer?
>
> Alias
>> "Alias" <iamalias@gmailREMOVE.com> wrote in message
>> news:g890r9$m8u$6@aioe.org...
>>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>>>> Yeah, the button you always hit when you hijack someone else's thread
>>>> to grind your axe.
>>> Not my ax, hoss. It's Microsoft that assumes you are guilty of piracy
>>> until you prove otherwise. If that doesn't bother you, there's something
>>> wrong with you and you've obviously been brainwashed to react with a
>>> "how high?" when MS says "jump".
>>>
>>> Alias
>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>>>>>> Butt out, Alias.
>>>>> My, what a convincing argument! LOL! Hit a button, did I?
>>>>>
>>>>> Alias
>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>>>>>>>> In the time it took you to write your post, you could have called a
>>>>>>>> toll-free number and reactivated.
>>>>>>> Not the point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Description of Microsoft Product Activation:
>>>>>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/302806
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For any legal minded folk, the onus of proof shifts from
>>>>>>>>> presumption of
>>>>>>>>> innocence to presumption of guilt. I have to prove innocence. MS
>>>>>>>>> need do
>>>>>>>>> nothing apparently - their work is done having caught me in a
>>>>>>>>> criminal
>>>>>>>>> act
>>>>>>>>> of BIOS altering without their permission or consent.
>>>>>>>> Have you read your WinXP EULA lately?
>>>>>>> You mean the one that if you don't agree with it you can't get your
>>>>>>> money back, that one? How many people who bought a preinstalled copy
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> XP on a new computer got the chance to read it before accepting it
>>>>>>> or is
>>>>>>> the acceptance assumed when they purchase the system?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WPA and WGA only serve to inconvenience paying customers and do
>>>>>>> absolutely nothing to stop piracy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> mcullet wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I do not endorse piracy. You use it - you pay for it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> MS has a legitimate right to protect their commercial interests.
>>>>>>>>> It's
>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>> of those self evident statements that are tough to argue against.
>>>>>>>>> However,
>>>>>>>>> as with all things the devil is in the detail.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> MS Does not have the right to kick down my door at 3 am to see if
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>> COA on hand. Sounds absurd? How about this? MS decides I'm a
>>>>>>>>> pirate
>>>>>>>>> (might be a pirate?) and unilaterally pulls the pin on XP PRO
>>>>>>>>> after 3
>>>>>>>>> days
>>>>>>>>> UNLESS I behave like a good little sheep and do as I'm told (see
>>>>>>>>> Pavlov)?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The problem with large organisations (and government) is that they
>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>> be reminded once in a while that they are not all powerful and
>>>>>>>>> they do
>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>> have unqualified control (power / authority / legal rights) over
>>>>>>>>> what we
>>>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>>>> Staying only with MS, the issue is one of enforcement of
>>>>>>>>> contractual
>>>>>>>>> obligations: essentially enforcement of promises.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I legally purchased an XP PRO licence and have used it strictly in
>>>>>>>>> accord
>>>>>>>>> with the licence agreement. Software changes, as we are all to
>>>>>>>>> familiar
>>>>>>>>> with observing. These occur because of an amalgam of bug fixes,
>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>> patches and evolution (feature enhancement or deprecation). The
>>>>>>>>> hardware
>>>>>>>>> environment is more likely to change as the machine ages. I'll
>>>>>>>>> leave it
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> others to determine at what point the original PC changes
>>>>>>>>> sufficiently to
>>>>>>>>> warrant paying for another licence but this issue is central to MS
>>>>>>>>> dilemma
>>>>>>>>> and needs wide debate.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> MS abuse their positon every time they unjustifiably force a user
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> reactivate their legally purchased software. In legal terms, they
>>>>>>>>> are in
>>>>>>>>> breach of contract because they unilaterally terminate the
>>>>>>>>> agreement by
>>>>>>>>> rendering the OS unusable. If I wanted to be an idiot I could
>>>>>>>>> waste my
>>>>>>>>> life
>>>>>>>>> getting MS to play the reactivation game 24 / 7. I have more
>>>>>>>>> interesting
>>>>>>>>> things to do. However, this is the absurd position MS force upon
>>>>>>>>> legitimate
>>>>>>>>> customers and themselves because they (MS) distributed flawed
>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>> controls in their operating system - XP PRO.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The definition of flawed is to be interpretted in its natural
>>>>>>>>> meaning.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I changed no hardware on my PC. Not one piece of hardware was
>>>>>>>>> added or
>>>>>>>>> removed excluding inter alia, as required, attchment of USB drives
>>>>>>>>> /
>>>>>>>>> printeres.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I altered a bios setting.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This heinous act triggered MS's software control systems which
>>>>>>>>> 'determined'
>>>>>>>>> that I had breached my contractual agreement with MS: I've been
>>>>>>>>> given a
>>>>>>>>> generous 3 days to fix the problem (re-activate) or MS will
>>>>>>>>> functionally
>>>>>>>>> challenge my lawful ability to enjoy my XP licence INCLUDING all
>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>> functions and features (games / internet / documents / commercial
>>>>>>>>> applications etc). This is distrubingly, ominously reminisent of
>>>>>>>>> Orwellian
>>>>>>>>> logic (courtesy of 1984): "double speak". The MS security control
>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>> triggered ergo I am a criminal until I prove otherwise. The
>>>>>>>>> control
>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>> not have triggered unless I was in breach of my contract with MS
>>>>>>>>> (logic
>>>>>>>>> loop).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For any legal minded folk, the onus of proof shifts from
>>>>>>>>> presumption of
>>>>>>>>> innocence to presumption of guilt. I have to prove innocence. MS
>>>>>>>>> need do
>>>>>>>>> nothing apparently - their work is done having caught me in a
>>>>>>>>> criminal
>>>>>>>>> act
>>>>>>>>> of BIOS altering without their permission or consent.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sorry. The only thing wrong is with MS's flawed anti-piracy
>>>>>>>>> efforts.
>>>>>>>>> Unless I do what MS tell me (reactivate) then I am at fault.
>>>>>>>>> "Honest
>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>> won't object ... just the pirates." Yeah - pigs fly. I'm
>>>>>>>>> seriously
>>>>>>>>> annoyed
>>>>>>>>> and about to be seriously inconvenienced by a party to a software
>>>>>>>>> contract
>>>>>>>>> imposing additional costs (consideration) upon me after a legal
>>>>>>>>> contract
>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>> executed. I have no remedy other than take MS to court.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, using purely lawful means, I can bring this
>>>>>>>>> absurdity
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> the attention of the media who love bashing MS and let them feed
>>>>>>>>> on the
>>>>>>>>> company. Bad publicity for bad practices ... seems to be an
>>>>>>>>> elegant
>>>>>>>>> balance
>>>>>>>>> of karma.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> MS - I am not a pirate but a lawful and legal customer. I've done
>>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>>> wrong. You do not have any right to terminate my lawful enjoyment
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> software (XP PRO) and your efforts to do so are called
>>>>>>>>> conversion - a
>>>>>>>>> tort.
>>>>>>>>> It is actionable per se which means I do not need to prove
>>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>> than that this has happened. MS's legal defences are limited and
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> context, none apply.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, how inconvenient would it be for me to take MS to court for
>>>>>>>>> trespass
>>>>>>>>> property and or breach of contract? To me - not much. Like I
>>>>>>>>> said, I
>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>> only prove MS has interfered with the lawful enjoyment of my
>>>>>>>>> software
>>>>>>>>> licence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why not just call MS and sort it out? Well, I've done nothing
>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>>>> paid for the licence. Phone calls aren't free nor is my time or
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> inconvenience to me. I anticipate I may make a few adjustments to
>>>>>>>>> BIOS
>>>>>>>>> settings / hardware configuration (swapping SATA drives in / out
>>>>>>>>> etc) ...
>>>>>>>>> system performance tweaking. If i activate then I will be forced
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>>>> MS
>>>>>>>>> (big brother) to calm them down and get their OK to live a normal
>>>>>>>>> life.
>>>>>>>>> Good grief ... people have become too hesitant to speak out
>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>> absurd
>>>>>>>>> commercial practices that intrude too far into our lives. I'm not
>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>> sheep
>>>>>>>>> nor an evangelist ... just one annoyed customer who has finally
>>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>> enough
>>>>>>>>> of this crap.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Game on MS ... I'm not happy and I do not appreciate being
>>>>>>>>> inconvenienced
>>>>>>>>> without due cause.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Watch this space ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>>> Australia
>>
You deserve every bit of it! Get a life!
"Alias" <iamalias@gmailREMOVE.com> wrote in message
news:g89gkm$b0k$2@aioe.org...
> Unknown wrote:
>> MS needs to protect themselves from people like you.
>
> Another top posting MS fanboy having the typical knee-jerk reaction: don't
> comment on content, insult the poster.
>
> Alias
>> "Alias" <iamalias@gmailREMOVE.com> wrote in message
>> news:g8914v$uha$1@aioe.org...
>>> WindPipe wrote:
>>>> "mcullet" <mcullet@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>> newsD449FA6-95AD-4BBA-ADC8-0C4FC84CDF80@microsoft.com...
>>>>
>>>>> Game on MS ... I'm not happy and I do not appreciate being
>>>>> inconvenienced
>>>>> without due cause.
>>>>>
>>>>> Watch this space ...
>>>>>
>>>> You're Hilarious. Truly.
>>>>
>>>> Pick up the phone and activate, it will all be over soon after that.
>>>>
>>>> - WindPipe
>>> It's not a question of time spent or how much hassle is involved. It's
>>> the principle that is bothersome: MS assumes you're a pirate until you
>>> prove otherwise over and over and over and over again. Of course, the MS
>>> fanboys like you react with a "How high?" when MS says "Jump!".
>>>
>>> Alias
>>
Unknown wrote:
> IN LINE!
> "Alias" <iamalias@gmailREMOVE.com> wrote in message
> news:g89gh9$b0k$1@aioe.org...
>> Unknown wrote:
>>> The real question is: Why does it bother YOU?
>> That's obvious; I don't like being accused of piracy when I have bought
>> the product.
> Who accused you? Is it in your mind?
> I especially don't like being accused over and over and
>> over again.
> How many times? Your imagination?
> As an example, once I had a problem with my NIC and ended up
>> having to change it. I had to activate not once, not twice but five times
>> before it would accept the fact that changing a NIC does not a pirate
>> make.
> Does reactivating really hurt your ego that much? Calm down and go with the
> flow.
> I was frustrated enough with the NIC problem that the LAST
>> thing I needed was to have to jump through the WPA hoop FIVE times.
> You must be extremely nervous. With that characteristic why do you have a
> computer?
More insults, no comment on content. Ho hum.
Alias
>
>> Alias
>>> "Alias" <iamalias@gmailREMOVE.com> wrote in message
>>> news:g890r9$m8u$6@aioe.org...
>>>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>>>>> Yeah, the button you always hit when you hijack someone else's thread
>>>>> to grind your axe.
>>>> Not my ax, hoss. It's Microsoft that assumes you are guilty of piracy
>>>> until you prove otherwise. If that doesn't bother you, there's something
>>>> wrong with you and you've obviously been brainwashed to react with a
>>>> "how high?" when MS says "jump".
>>>>
>>>> Alias
>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>>>>>>> Butt out, Alias.
>>>>>> My, what a convincing argument! LOL! Hit a button, did I?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In the time it took you to write your post, you could have called a
>>>>>>>>> toll-free number and reactivated.
>>>>>>>> Not the point.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Description of Microsoft Product Activation:
>>>>>>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/302806
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For any legal minded folk, the onus of proof shifts from
>>>>>>>>>> presumption of
>>>>>>>>>> innocence to presumption of guilt. I have to prove innocence. MS
>>>>>>>>>> need do
>>>>>>>>>> nothing apparently - their work is done having caught me in a
>>>>>>>>>> criminal
>>>>>>>>>> act
>>>>>>>>>> of BIOS altering without their permission or consent.
>>>>>>>>> Have you read your WinXP EULA lately?
>>>>>>>> You mean the one that if you don't agree with it you can't get your
>>>>>>>> money back, that one? How many people who bought a preinstalled copy
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> XP on a new computer got the chance to read it before accepting it
>>>>>>>> or is
>>>>>>>> the acceptance assumed when they purchase the system?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WPA and WGA only serve to inconvenience paying customers and do
>>>>>>>> absolutely nothing to stop piracy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>>>>> mcullet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I do not endorse piracy. You use it - you pay for it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> MS has a legitimate right to protect their commercial interests.
>>>>>>>>>> It's
>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>> of those self evident statements that are tough to argue against.
>>>>>>>>>> However,
>>>>>>>>>> as with all things the devil is in the detail.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> MS Does not have the right to kick down my door at 3 am to see if
>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>>> COA on hand. Sounds absurd? How about this? MS decides I'm a
>>>>>>>>>> pirate
>>>>>>>>>> (might be a pirate?) and unilaterally pulls the pin on XP PRO
>>>>>>>>>> after 3
>>>>>>>>>> days
>>>>>>>>>> UNLESS I behave like a good little sheep and do as I'm told (see
>>>>>>>>>> Pavlov)?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The problem with large organisations (and government) is that they
>>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>>> be reminded once in a while that they are not all powerful and
>>>>>>>>>> they do
>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>> have unqualified control (power / authority / legal rights) over
>>>>>>>>>> what we
>>>>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>>>>> Staying only with MS, the issue is one of enforcement of
>>>>>>>>>> contractual
>>>>>>>>>> obligations: essentially enforcement of promises.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I legally purchased an XP PRO licence and have used it strictly in
>>>>>>>>>> accord
>>>>>>>>>> with the licence agreement. Software changes, as we are all to
>>>>>>>>>> familiar
>>>>>>>>>> with observing. These occur because of an amalgam of bug fixes,
>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>> patches and evolution (feature enhancement or deprecation). The
>>>>>>>>>> hardware
>>>>>>>>>> environment is more likely to change as the machine ages. I'll
>>>>>>>>>> leave it
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> others to determine at what point the original PC changes
>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently to
>>>>>>>>>> warrant paying for another licence but this issue is central to MS
>>>>>>>>>> dilemma
>>>>>>>>>> and needs wide debate.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> MS abuse their positon every time they unjustifiably force a user
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> reactivate their legally purchased software. In legal terms, they
>>>>>>>>>> are in
>>>>>>>>>> breach of contract because they unilaterally terminate the
>>>>>>>>>> agreement by
>>>>>>>>>> rendering the OS unusable. If I wanted to be an idiot I could
>>>>>>>>>> waste my
>>>>>>>>>> life
>>>>>>>>>> getting MS to play the reactivation game 24 / 7. I have more
>>>>>>>>>> interesting
>>>>>>>>>> things to do. However, this is the absurd position MS force upon
>>>>>>>>>> legitimate
>>>>>>>>>> customers and themselves because they (MS) distributed flawed
>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>> controls in their operating system - XP PRO.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The definition of flawed is to be interpretted in its natural
>>>>>>>>>> meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I changed no hardware on my PC. Not one piece of hardware was
>>>>>>>>>> added or
>>>>>>>>>> removed excluding inter alia, as required, attchment of USB drives
>>>>>>>>>> /
>>>>>>>>>> printeres.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I altered a bios setting.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This heinous act triggered MS's software control systems which
>>>>>>>>>> 'determined'
>>>>>>>>>> that I had breached my contractual agreement with MS: I've been
>>>>>>>>>> given a
>>>>>>>>>> generous 3 days to fix the problem (re-activate) or MS will
>>>>>>>>>> functionally
>>>>>>>>>> challenge my lawful ability to enjoy my XP licence INCLUDING all
>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>> functions and features (games / internet / documents / commercial
>>>>>>>>>> applications etc). This is distrubingly, ominously reminisent of
>>>>>>>>>> Orwellian
>>>>>>>>>> logic (courtesy of 1984): "double speak". The MS security control
>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>> triggered ergo I am a criminal until I prove otherwise. The
>>>>>>>>>> control
>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>> not have triggered unless I was in breach of my contract with MS
>>>>>>>>>> (logic
>>>>>>>>>> loop).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For any legal minded folk, the onus of proof shifts from
>>>>>>>>>> presumption of
>>>>>>>>>> innocence to presumption of guilt. I have to prove innocence. MS
>>>>>>>>>> need do
>>>>>>>>>> nothing apparently - their work is done having caught me in a
>>>>>>>>>> criminal
>>>>>>>>>> act
>>>>>>>>>> of BIOS altering without their permission or consent.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry. The only thing wrong is with MS's flawed anti-piracy
>>>>>>>>>> efforts.
>>>>>>>>>> Unless I do what MS tell me (reactivate) then I am at fault.
>>>>>>>>>> "Honest
>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>> won't object ... just the pirates." Yeah - pigs fly. I'm
>>>>>>>>>> seriously
>>>>>>>>>> annoyed
>>>>>>>>>> and about to be seriously inconvenienced by a party to a software
>>>>>>>>>> contract
>>>>>>>>>> imposing additional costs (consideration) upon me after a legal
>>>>>>>>>> contract
>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>> executed. I have no remedy other than take MS to court.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, using purely lawful means, I can bring this
>>>>>>>>>> absurdity
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> the attention of the media who love bashing MS and let them feed
>>>>>>>>>> on the
>>>>>>>>>> company. Bad publicity for bad practices ... seems to be an
>>>>>>>>>> elegant
>>>>>>>>>> balance
>>>>>>>>>> of karma.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> MS - I am not a pirate but a lawful and legal customer. I've done
>>>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>>>> wrong. You do not have any right to terminate my lawful enjoyment
>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> software (XP PRO) and your efforts to do so are called
>>>>>>>>>> conversion - a
>>>>>>>>>> tort.
>>>>>>>>>> It is actionable per se which means I do not need to prove
>>>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>> than that this has happened. MS's legal defences are limited and
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> context, none apply.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, how inconvenient would it be for me to take MS to court for
>>>>>>>>>> trespass
>>>>>>>>>> property and or breach of contract? To me - not much. Like I
>>>>>>>>>> said, I
>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>> only prove MS has interfered with the lawful enjoyment of my
>>>>>>>>>> software
>>>>>>>>>> licence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why not just call MS and sort it out? Well, I've done nothing
>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>>>>> paid for the licence. Phone calls aren't free nor is my time or
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> inconvenience to me. I anticipate I may make a few adjustments to
>>>>>>>>>> BIOS
>>>>>>>>>> settings / hardware configuration (swapping SATA drives in / out
>>>>>>>>>> etc) ...
>>>>>>>>>> system performance tweaking. If i activate then I will be forced
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>>>>> MS
>>>>>>>>>> (big brother) to calm them down and get their OK to live a normal
>>>>>>>>>> life.
>>>>>>>>>> Good grief ... people have become too hesitant to speak out
>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>> absurd
>>>>>>>>>> commercial practices that intrude too far into our lives. I'm not
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> sheep
>>>>>>>>>> nor an evangelist ... just one annoyed customer who has finally
>>>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>>> enough
>>>>>>>>>> of this crap.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Game on MS ... I'm not happy and I do not appreciate being
>>>>>>>>>> inconvenienced
>>>>>>>>>> without due cause.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Watch this space ...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>>>> Australia
>
Yes, and you deserve it all.
"Alias" <iamalias@gmailREMOVE.com> wrote in message
news:g89ht1$mhb$1@aioe.org...
> Unknown wrote:
>> IN LINE!
>> "Alias" <iamalias@gmailREMOVE.com> wrote in message
>> news:g89gh9$b0k$1@aioe.org...
>>> Unknown wrote:
>>>> The real question is: Why does it bother YOU?
>>> That's obvious; I don't like being accused of piracy when I have bought
>>> the product.
>> Who accused you? Is it in your mind?
>> I especially don't like being accused over and over and
>>> over again.
>> How many times? Your imagination?
>> As an example, once I had a problem with my NIC and ended up
>>> having to change it. I had to activate not once, not twice but five
>>> times before it would accept the fact that changing a NIC does not a
>>> pirate make.
>> Does reactivating really hurt your ego that much? Calm down and go with
>> the flow.
>> I was frustrated enough with the NIC problem that the LAST
>>> thing I needed was to have to jump through the WPA hoop FIVE times.
>> You must be extremely nervous. With that characteristic why do you have a
>> computer?
>
> More insults, no comment on content. Ho hum.
>
> Alias
>>
>>> Alias
>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@gmailREMOVE.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:g890r9$m8u$6@aioe.org...
>>>>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>>>>>> Yeah, the button you always hit when you hijack someone else's thread
>>>>>> to grind your axe.
>>>>> Not my ax, hoss. It's Microsoft that assumes you are guilty of piracy
>>>>> until you prove otherwise. If that doesn't bother you, there's
>>>>> something wrong with you and you've obviously been brainwashed to
>>>>> react with a "how high?" when MS says "jump".
>>>>>
>>>>> Alias
>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>>>>>>>> Butt out, Alias.
>>>>>>> My, what a convincing argument! LOL! Hit a button, did I?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>>>> Alias wrote:
>>>>>>>>> PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In the time it took you to write your post, you could have called
>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> toll-free number and reactivated.
>>>>>>>>> Not the point.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Description of Microsoft Product Activation:
>>>>>>>>>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/302806
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For any legal minded folk, the onus of proof shifts from
>>>>>>>>>>> presumption of
>>>>>>>>>>> innocence to presumption of guilt. I have to prove innocence.
>>>>>>>>>>> MS
>>>>>>>>>>> need do
>>>>>>>>>>> nothing apparently - their work is done having caught me in a
>>>>>>>>>>> criminal
>>>>>>>>>>> act
>>>>>>>>>>> of BIOS altering without their permission or consent.
>>>>>>>>>> Have you read your WinXP EULA lately?
>>>>>>>>> You mean the one that if you don't agree with it you can't get
>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>> money back, that one? How many people who bought a preinstalled
>>>>>>>>> copy of
>>>>>>>>> XP on a new computer got the chance to read it before accepting it
>>>>>>>>> or is
>>>>>>>>> the acceptance assumed when they purchase the system?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> WPA and WGA only serve to inconvenience paying customers and do
>>>>>>>>> absolutely nothing to stop piracy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Alias
>>>>>>>>>> mcullet wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I do not endorse piracy. You use it - you pay for it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> MS has a legitimate right to protect their commercial interests.
>>>>>>>>>>> It's
>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>> of those self evident statements that are tough to argue
>>>>>>>>>>> against.
>>>>>>>>>>> However,
>>>>>>>>>>> as with all things the devil is in the detail.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> MS Does not have the right to kick down my door at 3 am to see
>>>>>>>>>>> if I
>>>>>>>>>>> have a
>>>>>>>>>>> COA on hand. Sounds absurd? How about this? MS decides I'm a
>>>>>>>>>>> pirate
>>>>>>>>>>> (might be a pirate?) and unilaterally pulls the pin on XP PRO
>>>>>>>>>>> after 3
>>>>>>>>>>> days
>>>>>>>>>>> UNLESS I behave like a good little sheep and do as I'm told (see
>>>>>>>>>>> Pavlov)?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with large organisations (and government) is that
>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>> need to
>>>>>>>>>>> be reminded once in a while that they are not all powerful and
>>>>>>>>>>> they do
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>> have unqualified control (power / authority / legal rights) over
>>>>>>>>>>> what we
>>>>>>>>>>> do.
>>>>>>>>>>> Staying only with MS, the issue is one of enforcement of
>>>>>>>>>>> contractual
>>>>>>>>>>> obligations: essentially enforcement of promises.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I legally purchased an XP PRO licence and have used it strictly
>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> accord
>>>>>>>>>>> with the licence agreement. Software changes, as we are all to
>>>>>>>>>>> familiar
>>>>>>>>>>> with observing. These occur because of an amalgam of bug fixes,
>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>> patches and evolution (feature enhancement or deprecation). The
>>>>>>>>>>> hardware
>>>>>>>>>>> environment is more likely to change as the machine ages. I'll
>>>>>>>>>>> leave it
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> others to determine at what point the original PC changes
>>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently to
>>>>>>>>>>> warrant paying for another licence but this issue is central to
>>>>>>>>>>> MS
>>>>>>>>>>> dilemma
>>>>>>>>>>> and needs wide debate.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> MS abuse their positon every time they unjustifiably force a
>>>>>>>>>>> user to
>>>>>>>>>>> reactivate their legally purchased software. In legal terms,
>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>> are in
>>>>>>>>>>> breach of contract because they unilaterally terminate the
>>>>>>>>>>> agreement by
>>>>>>>>>>> rendering the OS unusable. If I wanted to be an idiot I could
>>>>>>>>>>> waste my
>>>>>>>>>>> life
>>>>>>>>>>> getting MS to play the reactivation game 24 / 7. I have more
>>>>>>>>>>> interesting
>>>>>>>>>>> things to do. However, this is the absurd position MS force
>>>>>>>>>>> upon
>>>>>>>>>>> legitimate
>>>>>>>>>>> customers and themselves because they (MS) distributed flawed
>>>>>>>>>>> security
>>>>>>>>>>> controls in their operating system - XP PRO.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The definition of flawed is to be interpretted in its natural
>>>>>>>>>>> meaning.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I changed no hardware on my PC. Not one piece of hardware was
>>>>>>>>>>> added or
>>>>>>>>>>> removed excluding inter alia, as required, attchment of USB
>>>>>>>>>>> drives /
>>>>>>>>>>> printeres.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I altered a bios setting.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This heinous act triggered MS's software control systems which
>>>>>>>>>>> 'determined'
>>>>>>>>>>> that I had breached my contractual agreement with MS: I've been
>>>>>>>>>>> given a
>>>>>>>>>>> generous 3 days to fix the problem (re-activate) or MS will
>>>>>>>>>>> functionally
>>>>>>>>>>> challenge my lawful ability to enjoy my XP licence INCLUDING all
>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>> functions and features (games / internet / documents /
>>>>>>>>>>> commercial
>>>>>>>>>>> applications etc). This is distrubingly, ominously reminisent
>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>> Orwellian
>>>>>>>>>>> logic (courtesy of 1984): "double speak". The MS security
>>>>>>>>>>> control was
>>>>>>>>>>> triggered ergo I am a criminal until I prove otherwise. The
>>>>>>>>>>> control
>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>> not have triggered unless I was in breach of my contract with MS
>>>>>>>>>>> (logic
>>>>>>>>>>> loop).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For any legal minded folk, the onus of proof shifts from
>>>>>>>>>>> presumption of
>>>>>>>>>>> innocence to presumption of guilt. I have to prove innocence.
>>>>>>>>>>> MS
>>>>>>>>>>> need do
>>>>>>>>>>> nothing apparently - their work is done having caught me in a
>>>>>>>>>>> criminal
>>>>>>>>>>> act
>>>>>>>>>>> of BIOS altering without their permission or consent.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry. The only thing wrong is with MS's flawed anti-piracy
>>>>>>>>>>> efforts.
>>>>>>>>>>> Unless I do what MS tell me (reactivate) then I am at fault.
>>>>>>>>>>> "Honest
>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>> won't object ... just the pirates." Yeah - pigs fly. I'm
>>>>>>>>>>> seriously
>>>>>>>>>>> annoyed
>>>>>>>>>>> and about to be seriously inconvenienced by a party to a
>>>>>>>>>>> software
>>>>>>>>>>> contract
>>>>>>>>>>> imposing additional costs (consideration) upon me after a legal
>>>>>>>>>>> contract
>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>> executed. I have no remedy other than take MS to court.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On the other hand, using purely lawful means, I can bring this
>>>>>>>>>>> absurdity
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> the attention of the media who love bashing MS and let them feed
>>>>>>>>>>> on the
>>>>>>>>>>> company. Bad publicity for bad practices ... seems to be an
>>>>>>>>>>> elegant
>>>>>>>>>>> balance
>>>>>>>>>>> of karma.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> MS - I am not a pirate but a lawful and legal customer. I've
>>>>>>>>>>> done
>>>>>>>>>>> nothing
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. You do not have any right to terminate my lawful
>>>>>>>>>>> enjoyment of
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> software (XP PRO) and your efforts to do so are called
>>>>>>>>>>> conversion - a
>>>>>>>>>>> tort.
>>>>>>>>>>> It is actionable per se which means I do not need to prove
>>>>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>>>>> than that this has happened. MS's legal defences are limited
>>>>>>>>>>> and in
>>>>>>>>>>> context, none apply.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, how inconvenient would it be for me to take MS to court for
>>>>>>>>>>> trespass
>>>>>>>>>>> property and or breach of contract? To me - not much. Like I
>>>>>>>>>>> said, I
>>>>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>>>>> only prove MS has interfered with the lawful enjoyment of my
>>>>>>>>>>> software
>>>>>>>>>>> licence.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why not just call MS and sort it out? Well, I've done nothing
>>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>> I've
>>>>>>>>>>> paid for the licence. Phone calls aren't free nor is my time or
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> inconvenience to me. I anticipate I may make a few adjustments
>>>>>>>>>>> to BIOS
>>>>>>>>>>> settings / hardware configuration (swapping SATA drives in / out
>>>>>>>>>>> etc) ...
>>>>>>>>>>> system performance tweaking. If i activate then I will be
>>>>>>>>>>> forced to
>>>>>>>>>>> call
>>>>>>>>>>> MS
>>>>>>>>>>> (big brother) to calm them down and get their OK to live a
>>>>>>>>>>> normal life.
>>>>>>>>>>> Good grief ... people have become too hesitant to speak out
>>>>>>>>>>> against
>>>>>>>>>>> absurd
>>>>>>>>>>> commercial practices that intrude too far into our lives. I'm
>>>>>>>>>>> not a
>>>>>>>>>>> sheep
>>>>>>>>>>> nor an evangelist ... just one annoyed customer who has finally
>>>>>>>>>>> had
>>>>>>>>>>> enough
>>>>>>>>>>> of this crap.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Game on MS ... I'm not happy and I do not appreciate being
>>>>>>>>>>> inconvenienced
>>>>>>>>>>> without due cause.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Watch this space ...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike
>>>>>>>>>>> Australia
>>
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
D449FA6-95AD-4BBA-ADC8-0C4FC84CDF80@microsoft.com...