http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2243185,00.asp
That guy says an EULA is unconscionable and I'm inclined to agree.
That guy says an EULA is unconscionable and I'm inclined to agree.
MS - "OEM Vista on home built PCs is UNLICENSED"
- Thread starter Rainmaker
- Start date
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2243185,00.asp
That guy says an EULA is unconscionable and I'm inclined to agree.
The problem is, the only person who could say whether a contract is 'unconscionable' is a judge.
Burnsy
the point is that under UK law, you cannot add clauses to a contract after its been completed.
once you buy the software, its yours under the terms of the contract, and the contract does not refer to and cannot refer to the EULA.
once you buy the software, its yours under the terms of the contract, and the contract does not refer to and cannot refer to the EULA.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Can someone answer this question for me. I've just sent back a laptop to HP and they're going to replace the system board under there extended warranty. Installed on it is a OEM copy of Vista Ultimate that I bought a couple of months ago, and installed myself. Will I need to purchase a new copy of Vista?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
No, it's being repaired under a warranty replacement. Your license is still valid and legal.
Burnsy
Interesting link, which although it states that using the scottish ruling (if) then the eula is enforceable, however it also states that the eula is pointless given the copywright laws in place. Also, that some terms in the eula may not be legal such as liability.
In dogslow software's case, sorry, MS, the motherboard rule may be such a case, but we probably will never find out one way or the other. As people have paid to use the software, it would be an interesting ruling. Personally I feel that the eula doesn't really help and should be much simpler.
AS far as threads like this go, both sides of the arguement could be correct.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
AS far as threads like this go, both sides of the arguement could be correct.
An of course we won't have anything concrete until a court judge gives some guidance or precedent.
Burnsy
What do you do if your mobo breaks outside of its warranty period? You have to go out and buy a new one, obviously. However, clearly a year on you are not going to want to buy the same mobo as you had before, as for the same money you can get one which is far better. What happens with your OEM version of Vista then?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Depends if you built the machine yourself or you bought it from a big OEM.
If you bought it from a OEM then you need a new licence, if you built it yourself, you can buy another mobo which is supposed to be as close to your existing mobo as possible.
Burnsy
Like I say, though, you arent going to want to buy the same mobo a year on. To start with, it would be pretty hard to get hold of, and secondly surely you would want to get the best mobo you could for your money? That is a slightly unreasonable clause that MS are putting in there, in terms of breakdowns.
but if the motherboard breaks outside of warranty period, you would still need buy a license because the motherboard isn't under warranty.
Just throwing this into the general melee, if you install the software without clicking the "I agree to this EULA" (and yes this is possible with a little effort and the right tools) where does that leave both you and the software company?
Unlicensed (probably) in the case of the user, but since you did not agree to the EULA in the first place the software company can have no claim against you?
(Note this is only a partially serious question )
On the subject of Vista licensing I'm sticking with XP (for the forseeable future) and Linux as I can't be bothered with the hassle TBH
Unlicensed (probably) in the case of the user, but since you did not agree to the EULA in the first place the software company can have no claim against you?
(Note this is only a partially serious question
)On the subject of Vista licensing I'm sticking with XP (for the forseeable future) and Linux as I can't be bothered with the hassle TBH
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 3,871
Hello Sp!ke, if you purchased Windows legally, why would you want to do the above in the first place?
The licensing terms are exactly the same for both Windows XP and Windows Vista.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Strictly speaking editing memory. It can be done without changing the software. (Although, yes, there is I'm sure a "No reverse engineering/decompile clause. But again thats in the EULA I'm not agreeing with
)As said it was a slightly tounge in cheek comment, but maybe in a court of law.........
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
That bit on the mobo isn't actually in any terms specifically defined by MS, only guidance I've been told by the MS Licensing team.
The main point that I'm trying to get across is that this is wholly based on trust and MS trust you not to upgrade a mobo for any other reason then failure and so any upgrade should be limited.
gareth170 said:
Ahh, but the question is who supplies the warranty? As a system builder you can supply a warranty and therefore replace a mobo without voiding a licence. But this is not a reason to upgrade a mobo whenever you like.
Burnsy
Hello Sp!ke, if you purchased Windows legally, why would you want to do the above in the first place?
The licensing terms are exactly the same for both Windows XP and Windows Vista.
I'm not necessarily talking about OS's it applies to any software.
The license terms are the same yes, but the headaches that Vista caused me with numerous reactivations (Retail copy, fully licensed
) were enough to give my arse an headache, so I went back to XP for that amongst other more serious issues. XP requires reactivation only occasionally and I can put up with that.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
I'm sure in a court the judge would take into consideration the spirit of the law and rule accordingly.
I doubt this would go anywhere, but then as so aptly been shown, I am not a lawyer.
Burnsy
Yes probably right, although finding a judge who understood what a EULA actually was could be fun. (Burnsy, despite you not being a lawyer your posts are exceedingly informative and AFAIK pretty much spot on, certainly as far as Microsofts umm let's say "interpretation"** of their EULA is concerned.)
**Just to keep the lawyers happy/something to moan about
~S