new vista oem licence required after motherboard swap

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have read the thread and i can see both sides to the story

If others care to search ms site in usa side of things, You will find they aren't fully against new motherbords in certain circumstances on oem's, Just don't take the wee wee

Anyhow posted an idea but i know it's the eula that's the bane of contention

Hmm does that make sense i'm slightly groggy lol

Ciao

Def
 
Interesting thread - My own take is that Microsoft are taking the preverbial with their licensing. With open document standards looking to become widespread MS's will loose the "must have windows to work" angle.

The only thing that will change MS licensing policy is consumers. Unfortunately while the argument about what is licensed according to the EULA is all very interesting, the debate smacks of one side being blinkered by the law according to MS, and the other side expecting too much freedom from a corporation that has tried its hand at cornering every market it can think to buy its way into.

I'm not an MS hater by the way - I find Apple's recent Iphone launch in the UK one of the most anti-competitive events I've ever had the misfortune to witness, but I feel MS are making a rod for their own backs. You can buy a copy of OSX 10.5 that you can install on 5 machines for half the price of one retail Vista license.

Unfortunately Apple only license it for use on Apple machines. Maybe once those standard document formats hit and business's wake up to the fact that you don't have to use "Office" to see what Joe from accounts has sent on email then we can see some real competition in the OS market.

Nothing will get rid of the frankly stupid restrictions on products than open competition and consumers voting with their feet.

I guess the two sides of the argument are being argued by those who follow the letter and those who question why the letter is like that in the first place..... I'll let you decide which camp I'm in.....
 
OK! This is just crazy!

I actually fully read the System Builder License and the OEM Vista Home Premium License.

The following is hypothetical. I haven't actually become a System Builder or whatever it's just a story I am making up based on what I've recently learned:

I am a System Builder and I purchase an unopened OEM copy of Windows Vista Home Premium.

I build a new PC and open and preinstall that OEM copy of Windows Vista Home Premium and attach the COA to the case and do any other legal obligations set out in the System Builder License.

I distribute the new PC and the relevant OEM Vista Home Premium disk and leaflet etc to my End User and he boots it up and is presented with the OEM Vista Home Premium License Terms and a choice of I agree or do not agree. When the End User clicks I agree he permanently assigns the preinstalled OEM copy of Windows Vista Home Premium to the device with which he acquired his copy of Windows Vista.

I agreed to the System Builder License and my End User has agreed to the OEM Vista Home Premium License.

The System Builder License informs the System Builder that he is the licensor of the copy of OEM Vista Home Premium in other words I as the System Builder receive ownership of the license to use the copy of OEM Vista Home Premium.

The OEM Vista Home Premium License informs the End User that the Terms in the License are an agreement between the End User and the device manufacturer that distributes the copy of OEM Vista Home Premium with the device meaning the System Builder.

There is no mention of the definition of the device in the OEM Vista Home Premium License.

Now here is where I am going with this:

It is surely a fact that the only legal obligation I as the System Builder have with regards to Microsoft is to ensure that I do not break the Terms of the System Builder License.

It is surely also a fact that Microsoft has no legal standing whatsoever with regards to the System Builder's End User because the End User has a contract with the System Builder not with Microsoft.

I the System Builder am the licensor. I own the license to use the OEM copy of Windows and I grant the End User the right to use it so long as he adheres to the OEM Vista Home Premium License Terms.

Now where does the End User go for clarification of the OEM Vista Home Premium License Terms?

Of course, he goes to the licensor - the System Builder!

The End User asks the System Builder what is the definition of the "licensed device" in the OEM Vista Home Premium License Terms and the System Builder answers that the "licensed device" is the metal case enclosure.

The End User thanks the System Builder for clarifying the OEM Vista Home Premium License Terms and upgrades every single component in the licensed device and after completion he checks to make sure the licensed device is still working properly and satisfied that it works perfectly he proceeds to reinstall his OEM copy of Vista Home Premium and finally he successfully reactivates it.

Am I wrong? :)
 
Last edited:
Interesting if thats how its worded. Its like i said before, its upto the warranty provider as to what they constitute as a new machine surely, not microsoft?

If its microsofts choosing then why arent they also providing the warranty!.... they of course dont provide the warranty of the machine so why should they have ANy say in what the warranty provider does to fix a machine they sold? if the case and drives stay the same ( with the same serial number on the case from the pc provider ) then its the same pc as far as ANY company building pcs ive worked for is concerned, and ive worked in a few over the years.
 
gareth170 said:
well microsoft as said its the motherboard, which i can understand.
Click to expand...

Yup, the motherboard is the heart of the system so no complaints here. It just struck me as odd that it wasn't made 100% clear in the EULA what they considered constituted a "licensed device" to be.
 
Sp!ke said:
Yup, the motherboard is the heart of the system so no complaints here. It just struck me as odd that it wasn't made 100% clear in the EULA what they considered constituted a "licensed device" to be.
Click to expand...
because theres other devices that can run windows, not just pc's.. microsoft can't list every single device that run windows because new devices are being made...
 
Last edited:
Sp!ke said:
Yup, the motherboard is the heart of the system so no complaints here. It just struck me as odd that it wasn't made 100% clear in the EULA what they considered constituted a "licensed device" to be.
Click to expand...
No, the motherboard is most certainly NOT considered the heart of the system.

That opinion is in a FAQ on Microsoft's website.

Opinions such as those found in a FAQ have absolutely no legal standing with regards to the System Builder or with regards to the End User because it is not in the License Terms they agreed to.
 
Last edited:
gareth170 said:
because theres other devices that can run windows, not just pc's.. microsoft can't list every single device that run windows because new devices are being made...
Click to expand...
The OEM Windows Vista Home Premium License Terms are an agreement between the System Builder and the End User.

Microsoft cannot claim any legal standing whatsoever with regards to the contract between the System Builder and the End User so obviously it is up to the System Builder to clarify his contract with his End User.
 
str said:
It is surely also a fact that Microsoft has no legal standing whatsoever with regards to the System Builder's End User because the End User has a contract with the System Builder not with Microsoft.
Click to expand...

I agreed with you up until here. The SB is not the licensor, merely the licensor's agent which distributes the licence on behalf of the licensor within that terms of the SB licence.

Burnsy
 
str said:
No, the motherboard is most certainly NOT considered the heart of the system.
Click to expand...

How so? If that's not the heart of the system, what is?
Opinions such as those found in a FAQ have absolutely no legal standing with regards to the System Builder or with regards to the End User because it is not in the License Terms they agreed to.
Click to expand...

I would agree that it's probably not legally binding, but then it all depends what interpretation of 'licensed device' you have. Personally, I think that's potentially a lot more restrictive then just a motherboard.

Burnsy
 
str said:
The OEM Windows Vista Home Premium License Terms are an agreement between the System Builder and the End User.

Microsoft cannot claim any legal standing whatsoever with regards to the contract between the System Builder and the End User so obviously it is up to the System Builder to clarify his contract with his End User.
Click to expand...

Again, I refer you to one of my previous posts. The end user still has a contract with MS, it's just assigned through a licensed third party.

BUrnsy
 
With a little research Microsoft's System Builder License Terms and the OEM Vista Home Premium License Terms become very easy to read and understand from a legal perspective.

I am actually appauled that some on here have suggested that either of the above mentioned License Terms contain a motherboard upgrade restriction.

It is FICTION and has no legal standing whatsoever!

So I ask anyone who believes the above mentioned License Terms contain a motherboard upgrade restriction:

Please quote on here the motherboard upgrade restriction in the License Terms?
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Again, I refer you to one of my previous posts. The end user still has a contract with MS, it's just assigned through a licensed third party.

Burnsy
Click to expand...
The contract (the agreement between the System Builder and the End User) is VERY clearly established in the OEM Vista Home Premium License and Microsoft cannot claim ownership of it.
 
str said:
Please quote on here the motherboard upgrade restriction in the License Terms?
Click to expand...

I'll quote myself from a few posts upward:
I would agree that it's probably not legally binding, but then it all depends what interpretation of 'licensed device' you have. Personally, I think that's potentially a lot more restrictive then just a motherboard.
Click to expand...

Burnsy
 
I've personally decided to leave this thread - I haven't bothered to reply for a couple of pages now.
Mainly because this whole thread is just going around in one big circle.

There are a few people here who don't agree with the EULA.
But for some reason cannot understand that just because they don't agree with it it's still valid and enforceable.

As the EULA is Microsoft's then it is up to them how they define certain things - if they have decided that it is the motherboard that the license is tied to, then so long as the EULA doesn't infringe on statutory rights (which it doesn't) then it is up to Microsoft.

I'm sure there are many rules & regulations that people don't agree with.
However in society we have two choices - obey and be a part of society or don't and sit on the fringes - it really is your choice at the end of the day.

Certain people can argue until they are blue in the face - however unless you are willing to take this argument to those that matter and actually challenge the EULA in a court of law then it realy doesn't matter.
As soon as you installed your OS you were bound by the EULA you agreed to - if you didn't read it then that is your own fault, nobody else.

No matter what you say the simple fact is that if you have broken the EULA then you are no longer licensed.
I know that some people in this thread just don't want to accept this - the very thought that after spending £50 on an OEM copy of the OS that they are actually grouped with the people who just download their copy via a torrent.

So I think I'll now exit this thread and let those with more time on their hands go over and over the same points again and again.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
I agreed with you up until here. The SB is not the licensor, merely the licensor's agent which distributes the licence on behalf of the licensor within that terms of the SB licence.

Burnsy
Click to expand...
Seriously, read the System Builder License again. It catagorically states that the System Builder IS the licensor.
 
str said:
With a little research Microsoft's System Builder License Terms and the OEM Vista Home Premium License Terms become very easy to read and understand from a legal perspective.

I am actually appauled that some on here have suggested that either of the above mentioned License Terms contain a motherboard upgrade restriction.

It is FICTION and has no legal standing whatsoever!

So I ask anyone who believes the above mentioned License Terms contain a motherboard upgrade restriction:

Please quote on here the motherboard upgrade restriction in the License Terms?
Click to expand...

OK, I'm sorry - just one final post.

The interpretation widely accepted is motherboard.
If however you read further the license actually might be a lot more restrictive than that - maybe to the point of no hardware changes.

By accepting the motherboard as the tied to for licesning purposes (as Microsoft are currently doing) you are probably being cut a litte bit of slack.
If pushed I'm sure Microsoft would be happy to 100% clarify the situation, however I think you would then find that the memory is probably the only thing you can upgrade before a new OEM license is required.

But as I've said before - you don't abide by the license anyway.
The only way you will is if it says "You can do what you like" and as it will never say that you will just remain one of the unlicensed ones forever...well until Microsoft move to the OS rental model and then it will all change.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom