new vista oem licence required after motherboard swap

[str]

Actually, hypothetically speaking I could call Microsoft and inform them I've installed and activated my previously used copy of Windows OEM on my PC after I upgraded it's motherboard and ask them them if they will take me to court because in their opinion I am not allowed to do so because I have created a new PC therefore I have broken the terms of the license agreement?

Seriously, I could do that!?

 

[AtreuS]

Actually, hypothetically speaking I could call Microsoft and inform them I've installed and activated my previously used copy of Windows OEM on my PC after I upgraded it's motherboard and ask them them if they will take me to court because in their opinion I am not allowed to do so because I have created a new PC therefore I have broken the terms of the license agreement?

Seriously I could do that!?

Good point. Because of they dont take action then the contract is still in force? is that what you mean?

 

[str]

I would imagine so as well but ive not read the whole thing

What im trying to say through all my waffle is that does the mere act of installing it on a new board AUTOMATICALLY recind the license or do microsoft ( the other party ) have to make notice to the end user as to the fact the license HAS been broken and therefore voided?

Like in the example i gave of the credit agreement, it remains in force untill one party informs the other in writing.

If you have paid for a real genuine OEM coa and disc then you have not pirated it. SO no law has been broken from a criminal point of view. All thats in debate is the arguement over wether the EULA is fair or not. That would have to goto a civil court and be decided there... to my knowledge this has not yet happened in regards to the motherboard swapping clause. So surely untill that has been ruled in a court calling it illegal when someone swaps a board is not really correct yes?

Does anyone know it this particular question has ever been ruled upon in a court in the uk so far?

I haven't heard of anything like that being ruled upon in a UK court.

So are we thinking it is unfair of Microsoft to terminate our right to use our purchased copy of Windows OEM without informing us first?

 

[str]

Good point. Because of they dont take action then the contract is still in force? is that what you mean?

Exactly!

They must defend it should they decide to maintain what they believe is their right to terminate my contract because I failed to abide by the terms of the license agreement?

 

[str]

Oh, and until that opinion is defended by Microsoft and subsequently clarified in a court of law we are allowed to continue using our purchased copy of Windows OEM on our upgraded motherboard PC?

 

[AtreuS]

Oh, and until that opinion is defended by Microsoft and subsequently clarified in a court of law we are allowed to continue using our purchased copy of Windows OEM on our upgraded motherboard PC?

An interesting question that maybe one of our legal eagles could look into. Just because its in the EULA does that mean its automatically deemed as a fair clause in the uk if its not been ruled on?

no one is claiming its ok to pirate vista and make copies.. the sticking point is that having paid £50+ for a genuine version of vista, thats been legally and legitimately purchased, is it fair for microsoft to not allow you to use it on your pc... even if you swap the motherboard. You still are only running it on one pc and its been paid for. Yes i know someone will come back and say "but there is a retail version etc etc " and im not questioning that. Im asking that does the mere fact its in the EULA make it set in stone, or does it have to be tested in court before it becomes something that cannot be questioned and argued about as being fair? ( under uk law )

We are well aware that under the terms written out in the EULA that microsft deem it a fair clause but does that automatically make it fair under uk law and if not then to say someone isnt licenced when they do swap boards is you merely making a statement of opinion. If its not been tested in a court then the exact legality of the EULA and this clause is still in doubt surely?

Im no legal eagle so im just asking as i find this whole debate interesting. For the record i still use a retail xp pro on my machine

 

[Burnsy2023]

Actually, hypothetically speaking I could call Microsoft and inform them I've installed and activated my previously used copy of Windows OEM on my PC after I upgraded it's motherboard and ask them them if they will take me to court because in their opinion I am not allowed to do so because I have created a new PC therefore I have broken the terms of the license agreement?

Seriously, I could do that!?

Yes, you could, but they'd never start legal action against you, it's not worth the legal costs.

Burnsy

 

[Burnsy2023]

Like in the example i gave of the credit agreement, it remains in force untill one party informs the other in writing.

I don't think that the case, but I'm reaching the end of my knowledge on contract law here.

Burnsy

 

[AtreuS]

Yes, you could, but they'd never start legal action against you, it's not worth the legal costs.

Burnsy

Now what would the legal viewpoint be in that case. Is the license still valid as microsoft have not taken action, and not revoked the license?

The EULA is an agreement between you and microsoft, if you inform them and they do nothing then how would it be viewed legally i wonder. As i understand it the EULA reserves the rights of both parties to take the relevant action under certain situations, by not taking the relevant action does that mean the license is still valid as the 2nd party, in this case microsoft, has not enforced the clause? its certainly an interesting thought.

A further thought occurs. If the EULA and this clause has never been defended in court, or action taken by microsft over it does that mean they dont care.. or does it mean they know they might loose so they dont want to test it. because if they know damn well its fair surely by now they would have made a test case and provided a case as precident.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Now what would the legal viewpoint be in that case. Is the license still valid as microsoft have not taken action, and not revoked the license?

I think automatic revocation of contracts is legal, but I'm well out of my knowledge zone here.

Also, str, talk to the OFT Unfair Contracts Unit and see what they say

Burnsy

 

[Burnsy2023]

A further thought occurs. If the EULA and this clause has never been defended in court, or action taken by microsft over it does that mean they dont care.. or does it mean they know they might loose so they dont want to test it.

Or does it mean the negative PR would lose them more money then what they would get from potential damages?

Burnsy

 

[AtreuS]

Maybe so. But conversely it would set a precident case and so make further cases very quick and easy for them to win.

I suspect its a case of a bit of both. Its probably a very small problem overall and is mostly confined to people like us endlessly debating it on forums round the world! hehe

Still it keeps us amused...

 

[Burnsy2023]

Maybe so. But conversely it would set a precident case and so make further cases very quick and easy for them to win.

I suspect its a case of a bit of both.

But you need to remember this isn't really a widespread problem for MS. The PC enthusiast market is really quite small. They have no interest in stating court action against consumers because it'd cost more then they'd receive. It's a lose, lose situation for MS.

Burnsy

 

[AtreuS]

But you need to remember this isn't really a widespread problem for MS. The PC enthusiast market is really quite small. They have no interest in stating court action against consumers because it'd cost more then they'd receive. It's a lose, lose situation for MS.

Burnsy

oops you missed my edit. yeah i agree thats very probably the real reason. I suspect if you did actually test it in court like has been suggested you would stand a fair chance of getting a ruling in your favor.

 

[str]

Also one thing I completely forgot about is that there is another question asked when calling Microsoft's telephone (re)activation. The question is along the lines of:

Was your copy of Windows preinstalled on the PC or was it purchased in a retail shop?

Even with my OEM copies of Windows I answer purchased in a retail shop because the word purchased is the operative word especially when compared to preinstalled which my purchased copies of OEM Windows were most certainly not.

Does anyone on here believe preinstalled on my PC should be my answer?

 

[str]

I think automatic revocation of contracts is legal, but I'm well out of my knowledge zone here.

Also, str, talk to the OFT Unfair Contracts Unit and see what they say

Burnsy

Yeah!, that won't really cost me anything except of course my free time.

 

[AtreuS]

Also one thing I completely forgot about is that there is another question asked when calling Microsoft's telephone (re)activation. The question is along the lines of:


Even with my OEM copies of Windows I answer purchased in a retail shop because the word purchased is the operative word especially when compared to preinstalled which my purchased copies of OEM Windows were most certainly not.

Does anyone on here believe preinstalled on my PC should be my answer?

Another good point. All this comes from the problem that oem copies were probably never meant to be sold to people who build pcs themselves. Its become the norm now for places to sell oem copies and not retail due to the price factor and due to there being more and more enthusiasts like us.

The only way to stop it would be to make oem copies only purchasable to people who can prove they have a business and not just to any tom dick or harry who walks in off the street and claims to be a "system builder". If you arent buying for a business and you arent registered self employed than you cant buy oem.. that would fix the problem. Well ok maybe not fix it but drasticly reduce the arguements!

 

[Burnsy2023]

All this comes from the problem that oem copies were probably never meant to be sold to people who build pcs themselves.

This has never been the case, MS has nothing against this as long as you accept the system builder and EULA.

Burnsy

 

[str]

Yeah, and I suspect Microsoft are too late to do anything in todays consumer market with regards to how much consumers are willing to pay for a copy of Windows that they can use as they see fit to do so.

Can you imagine the Retail price as being the only option for consumers?

I suspect there would be a media frenzy about such a restriction on consumers possibly resulting in a much cheaper Enthusiast version of Windows being made available by Microsoft which would likely be almost exactly the same as the current OEM version of Windows.

Of course the Enthusiast version of Windows would contain almost the same license agreement and rights as the Retail version (meaning you can upgrade your motherboard and still be licensed). The one exception would likely be that unlike the Retail version the Enthusiast version would not be entitled to tech support from Microsoft in the same way that the OEM version of Windows doesn't provide entitlement to tech support from Microsoft.

 

[AtreuS]

This has never been the case, MS has nothing against this as long as you accept the system builder and EULA.

Burnsy

So what does he answer? if he says its came pre installed then hes lying, if he said he bought it in a retail shop he isnt. Yet surely the real answer to an OEM code inquiry would be that it came preinstalled!