since when is a license agreement a contract.
isn,t it just terms and conditions of use.
A contract is between , for example, a purchaser and a seller.
MS - "OEM Vista on home built PCs is UNLICENSED"
- Thread starter Rainmaker
- Start date
isn,t it just terms and conditions of use.
A contract is between , for example, a purchaser and a seller.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
And the licence agreement is a contract between the end user (licencee) and the MS the licensor.
It is a contract and is governed by all civil contract legislation.
Burnsy
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 4,652
- Location
- Nottingham
as far as I can make out from all the legal mumbo-jumbo on the oem site.. it works like this.
If you build a computer, install windows, and sell the computer on to a third party. You are perfectly okay to be using an OEM copy, as you are then taking responsibility for providing end-user support.
If however, you build a computer, install windows, and intend to use the computer yourself. You would no longer be operating within the rules of the legal rubbish, and microsoft wont like it.
So.. quite simply, sell the computer to a friend for 2p, then buy it back for a penny since its 'depreciated'.
If you build a computer, install windows, and sell the computer on to a third party. You are perfectly okay to be using an OEM copy, as you are then taking responsibility for providing end-user support.
If however, you build a computer, install windows, and intend to use the computer yourself. You would no longer be operating within the rules of the legal rubbish, and microsoft wont like it.
So.. quite simply, sell the computer to a friend for 2p, then buy it back for a penny since its 'depreciated'.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Nope, you don't need to sell it, in fact you don't need to distribute it what so ever, hence no need to preinstall etc.
Burnsy
Contract is mostly governed by the common law (unfair clauses are an exception). 'Civil' contract legislation is a misnomer. All contracts are civil.
EULAs are on very shakey grounds as far as contract formation is concerned. By the usual understanding of contract law you do not see them until after the deal is complete. Suddenly saying "hey guys, you've bought this -- but actually we're not letting you use it if you change your motherboard" isn't something protected by law. Talk away.
But the law is the law -- is it not?
The whole area of copyright law is a hot topic at the moment, especially with the EU Commission. Does that mean we can talk about it now?
I'm afraid the information you're coming out with is about as useless as that of the Indian support guy.
Just to add/clarify, the second (English) MS guy told me that not only is it fine to install OEM on your own machine without selling it on, but he's got several machines running OEM himself! So it's definitely OK to do.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
You missed my point, I'm not saying it's any less illegal, just that the comparison doesn't really hold.
You have a point, but either way what is the point of buying a licence if you are not going to stick by it's terms and therefore void it later?
My main concern is about making sure any licences I have responsibility for are still worth something.
My comments on it's legality are debatable and open to conjecture, but my comments on MS policy are fact.
Burnsy
Last edited:
I'm not going to argue further than this post, as I've got to get on with finals work (LLB).
You said: "My comments on it's legality are debatable and open to conjecture". This is the first time in the thread you have admitted this.
It is clear you have little understanding of law. If you want to talk about "what MS say" then you are welcome to. Just don't frame MS's point of view as the law, which you have been doing. It isn't necessarily. Eg.
eg. "Since when was an EULA legally binding?
Err... since any contract became legally binding?"
eg. (2). "Anyway, the contract is formed on installation when you click 'I agree', not when you buy it."
Debatable and open to conjecture? Not from the sound of things. But it certainly is. And the point you've just made is a very unreasonable assertion.
That's it from me, folks.
You said: "My comments on it's legality are debatable and open to conjecture". This is the first time in the thread you have admitted this.
It is clear you have little understanding of law. If you want to talk about "what MS say" then you are welcome to. Just don't frame MS's point of view as the law, which you have been doing. It isn't necessarily. Eg.
eg. "Since when was an EULA legally binding?
Err... since any contract became legally binding?"
eg. (2). "Anyway, the contract is formed on installation when you click 'I agree', not when you buy it."
Debatable and open to conjecture? Not from the sound of things. But it certainly is. And the point you've just made is a very unreasonable assertion.
That's it from me, folks.
Interesting replies so far guys, thanks
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Ok, since you're obviously more qualified then me, what is your view on the legality of software licence agreements? Are they enforceable in the UK? If not then why not?
Burnsy
Edit: oh and I will make one assertion, software licensing in law is grey at best and this isn't helped by lack of precedent and so anything on here is merely opinion. I'll accept that you may have a better informed opinion and so I'm happy to listen and take it on board
Last edited:
for the EULA to be binding as contractual requirement or restrictions, it would need to be seen before the contract was completed, which the point the user pays.
have a read on wikipedia re contract law, you will see that the contract is complete at purchase.
some sites have a clause for incorrect pricing which states that the contract is not complete until the order ships. this is ok becuase you read this before the payment.
all EULAs are dodgy imho.
have a read on wikipedia re contract law, you will see that the contract is complete at purchase.
some sites have a clause for incorrect pricing which states that the contract is not complete until the order ships. this is ok becuase you read this before the payment.
all EULAs are dodgy imho.
Talking of software laws (seeing as this is starting to go round in circles a bit 
)...
I know that software patents aren't enforceable in the UK (hence we can have multimedia goodies like codecs in Linux distros), but how far does that go? From what I gather codecs can be distributed willy-nilly in the UK, unlike say the US where even linking to a codec can be prosecutable.
But does anyone know how this works, and what it applies to? An external link would be fine - I don't expect anyone to start typing IP patent law essays If there's nothing to stop a Linux distro including codecs in the UK, because software patents aren't enforceable, what's to stop someone reverse engineering Windows and bringing out a copy of that too?
)...I know that software patents aren't enforceable in the UK (hence we can have multimedia goodies like codecs in Linux distros), but how far does that go? From what I gather codecs can be distributed willy-nilly in the UK, unlike say the US where even linking to a codec can be prosecutable.
But does anyone know how this works, and what it applies to? An external link would be fine - I don't expect anyone to start typing IP patent law essays
If there's nothing to stop a Linux distro including codecs in the UK, because software patents aren't enforceable, what's to stop someone reverse engineering Windows and bringing out a copy of that too?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
I think your referring to the contract of sale and not the acceptance of the EULA.
Burnsy
If you don't physically buy the OS and it comes pre-installed on a machine, you won't even get to see the EULA, let alone agree to it yet are bound by its terms as an end user. I recently bought my mom a laptop which came with HP and on 1st boot up, apart from the 'thanks for buying a samsung' blurb there was nothing about an actual contract being held between myself and MS. Does the EULA only affect whoever installs the OS and not the end user?
It would be so much easier if MS were clear in what is and isn't legally allowed in each country as it appears there are a lot of confused/conflicting statements which may be correct for US law but wrong for UK law and countless other countries it supplies.
It would be so much easier if MS were clear in what is and isn't legally allowed in each country as it appears there are a lot of confused/conflicting statements which may be correct for US law but wrong for UK law and countless other countries it supplies.
Hi w3bbo,
I bought a HP Pavillion laptop (Core2Duo, 4GB ram, 500GB raid hdds) recently and the preinstalled Vista brought up an EULA screen on first boot. Maybe this varies by manufacturer? Every time I've bought a PC though, I've always seen the EULA acceptance screen on first boot.
I bought a HP Pavillion laptop (Core2Duo, 4GB ram, 500GB raid hdds) recently and the preinstalled Vista brought up an EULA screen on first boot. Maybe this varies by manufacturer? Every time I've bought a PC though, I've always seen the EULA acceptance screen on first boot.
on most preinstalled windows systems u do see the EULA.. also u gonna click I AGREE....
the EULA document should be on the cd/dvd too
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
If it's properly preinstall using the Windows Preinstallation kit, then you will see and have to accept the EULA.
Burnsy
This stuff is totally stupid. I bought an x64bit OEM DVD to find that the motherboard I am planning to upgrade will not activate. Before this, I was pirating vista for a year with no problem - If Microsoft are going to carry on like this with their OEM bs I'm continuing to pirate... at least it means if I re-install/fit new hardware I wont need to worry.