Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Only the account holder is licensed which would be one person, and you wouldn't be using it for eval purposes.
Free one year subscription to Microsoft technet
- Thread starter moremoney
- Start date
Only the account holder is licensed which would be one person, and you wouldn't be using it for eval purposes.
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Mar 2009
- Posts
- 1,628
- Location
- Leicester
Definately because its only going to be in one persons name, so if the other 9 have copies registered to him that would be in breach of the contract, whether they had paid or not surely :S.
Hawker
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
An eval that lasts over a year? Unlikely.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 139
Update, it's now disabled again. Oh well, it cost me nothing so I'm no worse off.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 8,797
- Location
- *̡̡ı ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡
The donwload site now wont even open
It's just you, all fine here, back to a basic sub but all fine.
MAPS rocks, I've got to take the tests and evaluations on renewal now as it's mainly for re-sellers but really useful for small companies.
I'm trying to get work to get a full TechNet subs now in the wake of this trial, management were impressed at what was available
Looks like the keys are going to be blacklisted!
Update from Microsoft (Posted on Neowin)
"The Microsoft TechNet Consumer Service Pilot program was intended for use only by those invited through the ITAC program, in which you had to fill out a survey and be accepted as a member of ITAC before being sent an invitation to the TechNet Pilot program.
All of the subscriptions that are listed under the TechNet Consumer Service Pilot have been taken offline and placed "under examination". Any subscriptions created by legitimate ITAC members with valid contact information will continue to have a valid subscription. For those who are not a member of ITAC and signed up directly with the web address
will have their subscriptions revoked and any claimed product keys will be placed on a blacklist with Microsoft Genuine Advantage and Product Activation to prevent against software piracy."
Update from Microsoft (Posted on Neowin)
"The Microsoft TechNet Consumer Service Pilot program was intended for use only by those invited through the ITAC program, in which you had to fill out a survey and be accepted as a member of ITAC before being sent an invitation to the TechNet Pilot program.
All of the subscriptions that are listed under the TechNet Consumer Service Pilot have been taken offline and placed "under examination". Any subscriptions created by legitimate ITAC members with valid contact information will continue to have a valid subscription. For those who are not a member of ITAC and signed up directly with the web address
will have their subscriptions revoked and any claimed product keys will be placed on a blacklist with Microsoft Genuine Advantage and Product Activation to prevent against software piracy."
Welcome to Friday
Thanks. It seems a bit more organised than the neowin offering.
Last edited:
This isn't clear cut as far as legalities are concerned. There are arguments to be made for both sides.
You could argue that MS has entered into a legally binding contract. A legally binding contract requires an an offer, acceptance, and consideration amongst other things.
Offer
This wasn't an offer at all. In fact, this was an invitation to treat. MS had no obligation to provide you the subscription for £0.00. When you clicked on the "Place Order" button, it was in MS's discretion whether or not to accept your order. You make the offer to purchase the subscription for £0.00, MS then decides whether it wishes to accept or refuse your offer.
Regarding the survey, you could argue there was no indication on the sign up page or in the T&Cs that a survey was to be filled in, thus it is outside of the contract. MS would obviously argue the opposite.
Acceptance
Because it was an invitation to treat, it is MS who are accepting your order. You could argue that by providing you access to the subscribed service, MS accepted your offer.
Are MS also implicitly accepting that the survey was outside of the contract because they provided you access to the service, even though you didn't fill in the survey? An argument could be made.
Consideration
This is the crux of the matter. Consideration is something that is "valueable" in the eyes of the law. It doesn't have to be monetary but often is. For there to be a legally binding contract, both sides must provide consideration.
MS's consideration = giving you access to their service.
Your consideration = nothing, whether monetary or otherwise.
This is a one-sided bargain. But there are arguments you could make for both sides.
Consumer: Could rely on cases which state that consideration does not have to be adequate. The general rule is freedom of contract. The courts shouldn't interefere with agreements decided by the parties themselves, even if it is a harsh and one-sided agreement (as it is here). This means that even consideration which is nominal (meaning trivial or insignificant) can be valid, thus allowing a one-sided contract to be enforced. Freedom of contract is the reason why courts tend not to look too greatly at whether the consideration given by one side was adequate.
MS: Could rely on cases which state that consideration must be sufficient and of economic value. MS could also argue that consideration was not even nominal (e.g. £0.01), it was actually non-existent (£0.00), therefore no valid contract exists.
Terms and Conditions
Assuming that the court takes the consumer's side and decides that the contract is legally binding, MS may then be able to rely on a clause in the contract.
(Of course, it may be that consideration was not valid and therefore no legally binding contract exists in the first place, which means that you wouldn't even look at the T&Cs)
Remember this page when you signed up? Always worth reading and saving:
That's MS covering their back. You agreed to that term before you placed your order.
However, the double-underlined bit is crucial. A consumer could cite UK legislation which may potentially render that clause unenforceable.
Read the bold underlined bits. What that means is, MS can only rely on the highlighted term (which effecitvely allows them to not carry out their side of the bargain) if it is fair an reasonable to include that terms in the contract. This opens up another avenue of arguments and legalities.
Conclusion
The vast majority of those that signed up to this were unaware of any surveys, the linked page did not mention this and nor did the T&Cs. There were no bad intentions for the most part (although a few did abuse the system). MS made a geniune mistake by keeping the link unrestricted and due to this, most people assumed it was a genuine promotion by MS. From a moral point of view, you should not use the keys or downloaded media as it is now clear that it was a genuine mistake. From a legal point of view...not clear. Personally, I will not be using the downloaded media or keys.
And one last point, damages is not the only remedy available. Specific performance is also available (which would require MS to provide the subscription), but this is entirely at the court's discretion.
Edit: The information contained in this post does not constitute legal advice, it is merely my personal opinion. You should seek professional legal advice if you require such advice.
You could argue that MS has entered into a legally binding contract. A legally binding contract requires an an offer, acceptance, and consideration amongst other things.
Offer
This wasn't an offer at all. In fact, this was an invitation to treat. MS had no obligation to provide you the subscription for £0.00. When you clicked on the "Place Order" button, it was in MS's discretion whether or not to accept your order. You make the offer to purchase the subscription for £0.00, MS then decides whether it wishes to accept or refuse your offer.
Regarding the survey, you could argue there was no indication on the sign up page or in the T&Cs that a survey was to be filled in, thus it is outside of the contract. MS would obviously argue the opposite.
Acceptance
Because it was an invitation to treat, it is MS who are accepting your order. You could argue that by providing you access to the subscribed service, MS accepted your offer.
Are MS also implicitly accepting that the survey was outside of the contract because they provided you access to the service, even though you didn't fill in the survey? An argument could be made.
Consideration
This is the crux of the matter. Consideration is something that is "valueable" in the eyes of the law. It doesn't have to be monetary but often is. For there to be a legally binding contract, both sides must provide consideration.
MS's consideration = giving you access to their service.
Your consideration = nothing, whether monetary or otherwise.
This is a one-sided bargain. But there are arguments you could make for both sides.
Consumer: Could rely on cases which state that consideration does not have to be adequate. The general rule is freedom of contract. The courts shouldn't interefere with agreements decided by the parties themselves, even if it is a harsh and one-sided agreement (as it is here). This means that even consideration which is nominal (meaning trivial or insignificant) can be valid, thus allowing a one-sided contract to be enforced. Freedom of contract is the reason why courts tend not to look too greatly at whether the consideration given by one side was adequate.
MS: Could rely on cases which state that consideration must be sufficient and of economic value. MS could also argue that consideration was not even nominal (e.g. £0.01), it was actually non-existent (£0.00), therefore no valid contract exists.
Terms and Conditions
Assuming that the court takes the consumer's side and decides that the contract is legally binding, MS may then be able to rely on a clause in the contract.
(Of course, it may be that consideration was not valid and therefore no legally binding contract exists in the first place, which means that you wouldn't even look at the T&Cs)
Remember this page when you signed up? Always worth reading and saving:
That's MS covering their back. You agreed to that term before you placed your order.
However, the double-underlined bit is crucial. A consumer could cite UK legislation which may potentially render that clause unenforceable.
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 said:
Read the bold underlined bits. What that means is, MS can only rely on the highlighted term (which effecitvely allows them to not carry out their side of the bargain) if it is fair an reasonable to include that terms in the contract. This opens up another avenue of arguments and legalities.
Conclusion
The vast majority of those that signed up to this were unaware of any surveys, the linked page did not mention this and nor did the T&Cs. There were no bad intentions for the most part (although a few did abuse the system). MS made a geniune mistake by keeping the link unrestricted and due to this, most people assumed it was a genuine promotion by MS. From a moral point of view, you should not use the keys or downloaded media as it is now clear that it was a genuine mistake. From a legal point of view...not clear. Personally, I will not be using the downloaded media or keys.
And one last point, damages is not the only remedy available. Specific performance is also available (which would require MS to provide the subscription), but this is entirely at the court's discretion.
Edit: The information contained in this post does not constitute legal advice, it is merely my personal opinion. You should seek professional legal advice if you require such advice.
Last edited:
quite a thorough and researched post, are you in the legal profession or a lay person interpreting the situation?
I would say that it IS reasonable for MS to rely on the clause stating they're allowed to remove the service in this case, as clearly it was not intended for the majority of applicants, which would allow them to proceed, and mistakes do get made, hence covering themselves for this. Though as pointed out, it's not completely clear cut.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Explicit, can you drop me an email, I'd like to pick your brains if you don't mind 
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
He's a professional, he knows what he's talking about.
Of course nothing he says here could consitute legal advice mind
He's a professional, he knows what he's talking about.
Of course nothing he says here could consitute legal advice mind
From reading that I assumed as much, and of course your caveat is correct and duly noted
I was being sarcastic of course. He's obvioulsy not interested in evaluating. In any case the licence would be invalid anyway as he's sharing with others.
I was doing paralegal work up until recently when the recession kicked in. Also have a law degree and LPC.
But yeah, that's merely my interpretation of this situation, not legal advice in anyway.
I wouldn't like to take on MS's deep pockets
Explicit, can you drop me an email, I'd like to pick your brains if you don't mind
Sure