There is no stipulation that "the heart of the system" be defined in the System Builder License or the OEM Vista Home Premium License.
new vista oem licence required after motherboard swap
- Thread starter adriancal
- Start date
- Status
Man of Honour
No way!
The System Builder has agreed to the contract between himself and Microsoft and Microsoft cannot place any further legal requirements without drawing up ANOTHER contract.
The End User HAS NO CONTRACT with Microsoft so of course there are no legal requirements at all between the two.
What does it matter what I believe it to be?
It is my right as the System Builder and the Contract Holder with regards to the End User to clarify the "licensed device" and when I am the System Builder AND the End User surely that means I can do as I please with regards to the definition of it?
Seriously, is it not the case that Microsoft have attempted to brainwash everyone into believing that a motherboard upgrade restriction exists in either the System Builder License and/or the OEM Vista Home Premium License?
If something someone says is not legally binding then surely it has to be classed as fiction and therefore such fiction when it affects what we consider to be our rights can be ignored?
If something someone says is not legally binding then surely it has to be classed as fiction and therefore such fiction when it affects what we consider to be our rights can be ignored?
Man of Honour
All the SB has the right to do is distribute the OEM licence. You keep going on about the end user not having a contract with MS, this IS NOT THE CASE. Please quote terms in the SB licence where it says this.
Burnsy
Man of Honour
Here you go (note at the end who Microsoft say is the licensor of the license to install and use Windows):
I agree it is important in this discussion.
Microsoft have legally bound the System Builder to be the licensor of the license to install and use that copy of Windows so it is the System Builder's right to define what the licensed device is.
In the context of this thread the System Builder and the End User can be and often are the same person so it's a moot point?
Also just to clear up on who licenses the copy of OEM Vista Home Premium to the End User. Here it is in the OEM Vista Home Premium License and if anyone is interested in verifying such a claim you will find it near the top of the OEM Vista Home Premium License:
The License is informing the End User that the License Terms are an agreement (in otherwords a contract) between him and the System Builder.
The License is informing the End User that the License Terms are an agreement (in otherwords a contract) between him and the System Builder.
Burnsy, seriously mate should you read the System Builder Lcense Terms and the OEM Vista Home Premium License Terms in their entirety then I will have no doubt you will agree with me on this.
I am not angry with Microsoft or whatever because I understand like any business they are simply attempting to maximise their revenue but in this case they most certainly have overstepped clearly defined legal boundaries.
I am not angry with Microsoft or whatever because I understand like any business they are simply attempting to maximise their revenue but in this case they most certainly have overstepped clearly defined legal boundaries.
Man of Honour
The term licensor, just refers to the fact that the SB distributes the licence. It doesn't mean they are the hold any other rights to the licence. Like I've said, they are an agent working on behalf of MS and so the end user's contract ultimately lies with MS.
Burnsy
Burnsy
You are reaching mate. There is no way the legal definition of a licensor can be redefined by you or Microsoft:
The System Builder issues the license to use the OEM copy of Windows Vista Home Premium and under the terms of the agreement the contract is between the licensor (System Builder) and the End User.
I have limited understanding of law but that is crystal clear even to me.
Just to be clear and honest about this. I had no specific understanding of the law to back up my opinion that Microsoft's restrictions were unreasonable or unfair.
Based on what I've learned over the last few days I now have clear indication that my unreasonable restrictions opinion is backed up by law rather than solely being my opinion.
Based on what I've learned over the last few days I now have clear indication that my unreasonable restrictions opinion is backed up by law rather than solely being my opinion.
Actually another thing.
I would say that the generally accepted term known as an upgraded PC is an old PC that has had a component upgraded. It is very likely that an upgraded PC be generally accepted to be the same PC.
Now Microsoft is entitled to their opinion regarding a new PC being one that is previously used and subsequently had it's motherboard upgraded but since that is in direct conflict with what could be the generally accepted term known as an old PC or the generally accepted term of an upgraded PC.
But remember there is no legal requirement for anyone to adhere to such opinion because it is not legally binding in any form whatsoever. A new contract would be required to do so for the consumers who are currently using an OEM copy of Windows meaning they are perfectly within their rights to ignore Microsoft's opinion with regards to the OEM copy of Windows they have already purchased in a retail shop.
I would say that the generally accepted term known as an upgraded PC is an old PC that has had a component upgraded. It is very likely that an upgraded PC be generally accepted to be the same PC.
Now Microsoft is entitled to their opinion regarding a new PC being one that is previously used and subsequently had it's motherboard upgraded but since that is in direct conflict with what could be the generally accepted term known as an old PC or the generally accepted term of an upgraded PC.
But remember there is no legal requirement for anyone to adhere to such opinion because it is not legally binding in any form whatsoever. A new contract would be required to do so for the consumers who are currently using an OEM copy of Windows meaning they are perfectly within their rights to ignore Microsoft's opinion with regards to the OEM copy of Windows they have already purchased in a retail shop.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
I had another thought:
Microsoft's current opinion needs it to be considered that after we upgrade our motherboard we have in fact created a new PC because it gives them the right to claim that an End User is not licensed to use their copy of OEM Windows anymore.
They are attempting to eliminate what could very easily be considered the generally accepted reasoning of a PC owner that he be allowed to opinion that his PC after he has upgrade it's motherboard is an upgraded PC which by defination makes it effectively the same PC.
I suspect there is absolutely no way whatsoever that Microsoft would be able to convince a court of law that the definition of an upgraded PC is the samer as the definition of a new PC!
Microsoft's current opinion needs it to be considered that after we upgrade our motherboard we have in fact created a new PC because it gives them the right to claim that an End User is not licensed to use their copy of OEM Windows anymore.
They are attempting to eliminate what could very easily be considered the generally accepted reasoning of a PC owner that he be allowed to opinion that his PC after he has upgrade it's motherboard is an upgraded PC which by defination makes it effectively the same PC.
I suspect there is absolutely no way whatsoever that Microsoft would be able to convince a court of law that the definition of an upgraded PC is the samer as the definition of a new PC!
Man of Honour
They don't have to, they just need to convince a judge the machine is no longer the 'licensed device'.
Burnsy
Sorry mate but you are still reaching.
That definition of licensor doesn't change anything I have said but of course I am open to clarification should you be able to convince me otherwise.
I suspect you will have to admit (perhaps not in this thread) but in the future that your recomendation to the OP was in fact wrong.
Even should I decide not to take this subject any further I have very little doubt that someone else will because what I have uncovered is reasonable to accept and no doubt there are many out there who would very much like the task of proving Microsoft's opinion (evidenced in their FAQ) is wrong.
- Status