OEM Windows licence goes with the PC right? but what about this...

[tmileson]

But you have answered my question too, it was a defect mobo, so it is legit.

Not me, I just grabbed a link from the MS site...

You've said yourself several time that it's not the same PC - Your words, not mine. You didn't just get a direct replacement for a faulty motherboard under warranty, you got an upgraded motherboard that was incompatable with your original system. It was (and still is) perfectly possible to get a direct replacement motherboard capable of using your original CPU.

You interpret it however you feel is right at the end of the day.

You could always give MS a ring and ask them direct

 

[PinkPig]

You could always give MS a ring and ask them direct

There's really no point - a verbal answer is no good anyway, and the answer you get will depend entirely on who you happened to speak to. Not sure you'd ever be able to get anyone even representing Microsoft's legal team on the phone, you'd probably just be directed to read the license agreement and told that "OEM licenses are not transferable between computers".

 

[Raymond Lin]

It was (and still is) perfectly possible to get a direct replacement motherboard capable of using your original CPU.

You interpret it however you feel is right at the end of the day.

So i quote the MS site again.

"If the motherboard is upgraded or replaced for reasons other than a defect, then a new computer has been created and the license of new operating system software is required."

I did exactly that, UPGRADED due to a DEFECT.

 

[Moeks]

Raymond, the wording of Microsoft's EULA does exempt you, without a doubt.

It makes no mention of using the same type of motherboard, indeed as you pointed out it says if you upgrade the motherboard because the old one was defective then you're ok for the purpose of licensing.

 

[PinkPig]

Raymond, the wording of Microsoft's EULA does exempt you, without a doubt.

It makes no mention of using the same type of motherboard, indeed as you pointed out it says if you upgrade the motherboard because the old one was defective then you're ok for the purpose of licensing.

Again, agreed.

 

[Slam62]

i think this clinches it, good point

 

[tmileson]

Hmmmm...

I can't help but think that the reasoning you suggest would make the EULA unworkable and it would suprise me if the combined MS legal teams were that daft. Otherwise you'd get "Oh, My PC crashed twice last week, I think the motherboard in my Pentium 66 may be duff, I'll just get a "replacement" AMD Nforce4 board and FX60, new RAM, new video card, new hard drive, case, floppy drive and PSU etc". In fact if you could just buy an entire new PC as a replacement and transfer the software onto it. Kind of negates the whole original PC only thing doesn't it.

Lets not forget you're arguing about why the motherboard was changed. The over riding rule is it cannot be transfered to a different PC, you've already said twice yourself it's a different PC now. If it's a different PC you cannot transfer the license.

All i've posted is a quick cut and paste from a Q&A, there's bound to be more detail somewhere. I certainly wouldn't use a few words on a forum as a basis for a legal judgement, especially as the words aren't even the actual EULA and OEM conditions.

In fact on the OEM site it says:

Can a PC with OEM Windows XP have its motherboard upgraded and keep the same license? What if it was replaced because
it was defective?

Generally, you may upgrade or replace all of the hardware components on your customer’s computer and the end user may maintain the license for the original Microsoft® OEM operating system software, with the exception of an upgrade or replacement of the motherboard.

An upgrade of the motherboard is considered to result in a “new personal computer” to which Microsoft® OEM operating system software cannot be transferred from another computer. If the motherboard is upgraded or replaced, then a new computer has been created and the license of new operating system software is required. If the motherboard fails and is replaced UNDER WARRANTY, you do NOT need to acquire a new operating system license for the PC

Was your motherboard replaced under warranty by the OEM or did you pay extra for it? If it was a direct replacement under warranty then it sounds like you have no problem.

At the end of the day no one is ever going to check, so if you're happy, there's no problem.

 

[Slam62]

Ah yes but like all law related things, it all depends on the wording and your interpretaion of it. I think you need to dig deeper and check the exact definitions. In any legal document, such as an insurance schedule, these will be defined. Although, as i said its only a possible legal document anyway, microsoft do not write uk law.

Most consumer agreements do not comply with uk consumer statutary rights, its just that they dont get challenged in a court of law.

This is just my opinion but i am correct.

 

[tmileson]

This is just my opinion but i am correct.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Right, let me add my 2p to this arguement...err....discussion.

Can i first assert my stance on this. I strongly disagree with tmileson's view on this.

In the EU, I believe that large chunks of the EULA are unworkable, especially in the transfer of licence from one machine to another. This is by no means concrete as it hasn't been tested in court but many professional laywers think that MS would be unlikely to succeed if it did.

This all centers around two things. The right to sell an OEM licence and thus transfer it from one machine to another, and secondly, the continual existance of of licence after the disposal of the original machine.

The sale of computer programs is legeslated under the 1991 Computer Software Directive which has been encorperated into UK law. It states:

The first sale in the Community of a copy of a program by the rightholder or with his consent shall exhaust the distribution right within the Community of that copy, with the exception of the right to control further rental of the program or a copy thereof. (Article 4 (c))

This could be seen as a consumer having the right to sell a copy of OEM Windows at their discretion as long as they don't rent it or break other enforcable sections of the EULA. This questions the non-transferability of the OEM licence.

Another EU directive (I can't remember which one, i'll look it up later) states that when a consumer buys a product, this product/licence must always exist and therefore when a computer has been significantly changed you must still be able to use the licence.

Backroom barrister I maybe, but Raymond Lin has the ethical right to the software and in all probability the legal right.

Burnsy

 

[oddjob62]

So i quote the MS site again.

"If the motherboard is upgraded or replaced for reasons other than a defect, then a new computer has been created and the license of new operating system software is required."

I did exactly that, UPGRADED due to a DEFECT.

TBH i think you could argue that statement if it came down to it.

I think what is meant by that statement is:
"If the motherboard is upgraded, or the motherboard is replaced for reasons other than a defect"

IE: if you upgrade you have to renew the license, if you replace for reason other than defect you have to renew the license

However the way it is worded you could easily say i "upgraded because of defect" hence i am fine to use the old license.

Tough titties to MS i say

 

[Slam62]

exactly, and when you phone microsoft the one thing they always ask is, is it installed on only one pc, which is fair enough and makes me think they havent got a lot of confidence in the motherboard stipulation but try it on to increase sales.

 

[tmileson]

Quote:
The first sale in the Community of a copy of a program by the rightholder or with his consent shall exhaust the distribution right within the Community of that copy, with the exception of the right to control further rental of the program or a copy thereof. (Article 4 (c))

Surely that would mean that Microsoft (or whoever) once having sold the license cannot re distribute it again. They retain the right to prevent further rental or copy of the program, i.e. copying it to a different PC? It's still subject to the original conditions.

Don't forget with software you never own it - you only ever buy a license to use it in specific circumstances detailed in the licence. If you don't agree with the terms of the license buy one that you do or don't buy it at all.

Look at my comparison with football tickets, or buying a fishing license cheap because it allows you the rights to use one specific river. You don't then go it another river and claim that because you should be allowed to fish a top stocked river because the first no longer has fish in it. If you want to fish anywhere you buy the appropriate license.

/shrug

At the end of the day the intention of an OEM license is that it contains limitations for it's use, but, because of that is substantialy cheaper. The intention of the OEM is that it's a cheap way to put a OS on a single PC.

It's not the only choice, if you want a copy of XP where it explicitly allows you to take it from machine to machine you buy the retail version.

The info from the OEM site (still not the detailed EULA) says it's ok if the motherboard is replaced under warranty specifically. If the OP had it replaced directly under warrenty then I would suggest he's fine.

If you had no choice then i'd be somewhat more sympathetic to the view you're taking. However you do have a choice. I object to people buying something because it's cheaper with limitations and then trying to justify why they should be allowed bypass the limitations. Buy the version that suits you and stick to it, no one forces you to buy the cheaper OEM version.

 

[tmileson]

TBH i think you could argue that statement if it came down to it.

I think what is meant by that statement is:
"If the motherboard is upgraded, or the motherboard is replaced for reasons other than a defect"

IE: if you upgrade you have to renew the license, if you replace for reason other than defect you have to renew the license

However the way it is worded you could easily say i "upgraded because of defect" hence i am fine to use the old license.

Tough titties to MS i say

When arguing about specific interpetations though keep in mind that is not the EULA, just a web Q&A. Guidence on the OEM site specifically says that only applies if the motherboard is replaced under warrenty. Obviously the upgrade option is there as you could have a 3 year warrenty where the original M/B is not longer available.

Just using common sense tbh. Any arguing about the exact interpretation of the wording of the license is pointless here as no one has actualy posted the full license with all the conditions and definitions...

 

[Burnsy2023]

tmileson, you seem to think that because we have the option to buy a more expensive version of windows, we automatically should lose all right to fair software. A lot of your argument seems to be condoning MS's questionable business ethics and this carries on to thier licencing policies.

Before you start saying that i'm probably a Linux user, for the most part MS do some really good software and they have had some bad press that they haven't deserved. But they didn't get to their state of dominence with a softly softly approach.

As for you interpretation of the directive; have a read of this register article: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/05/08/selling_oem_windows_copies_you/

Burnsy

 

[bledd]

if the motherboard breaks, you can replcae it with a new one


basically, you WILL be allowed to do what you're doing, if you phone up the activation number and say that you've replcaed the mobo becuase it was f00bar they'll sort it for you

 

[tmileson]

Ahh the register, a bastion of factual and accurate reporting
**Edit*8 Just read the article, got to love the whole stance of "this is fact" with the cop out at the end

I've got to do the boring lawyer thing and say the foregoing is not advice: it's my own personal view, so if you publish this and people get hammered by Microsoft by trying to exercise the rights granted to them under E.U. law, I won't either be (1) surprised or (2) liable.

Not that confident then is he, makes a good headline and publicity for him though

I certainly wasn't going to suggest you were a linux advocate in any way. You can put a spin on the words though

tmileson, you seem to think that because we have the option to buy a more expensive version of windows, we automatically should lose all right to fair software.

How about you have the option to buy a fair priced full version of the OS that gives you the option to do all the things you say you want to. However you also have the option to buy a more limited version that is substatialy cheaper if you are happy with the limitations to get you a bargin?

Surely the person or company that produces a product or service is entitled so agree whatever price for those services or products they feel appropriate given the conditions.

If you agree to be paid £300 per week to go to work for a 40 hour week 1 hour from your home, would you expect the people purchasing your labour (services/product) to stick to that or would you be happy for them to insist you then work a 100 hour week 400miles away? You may be prepared to do that but I dare say that would be the Burnsy option that costs more money for them.

See what i mean?

You buy what is approprite and then stick to it, especially if the option you went for is discounted because of the limitations.

Please see lots of previous refernces to football matches and fishing

 

[Slam62]

oh dear.... its a trading comunity(the eu), it controls how people trade and what is allowed and what isnt, if you dont like the rules then dont trade in the eu. The eu dont take evreyone to task over terms and conditions unless a consumer raises it. So just because its in the small print doesnt mean its enforcible. The eu decide who can and cant trade and under what conditions, if you dont like it, go and trade else where.

MS need to trade in the eu as its a big market, as you know, the eu and ms dont exactly agree on a fair strategy.

 

[oddjob62]

When arguing about specific interpetations though keep in mind that is not the EULA, just a web Q&A. Guidence on the OEM site specifically says that only applies if the motherboard is replaced under warrenty. Obviously the upgrade option is there as you could have a 3 year warrenty where the original M/B is not longer available.

Just using common sense tbh. Any arguing about the exact interpretation of the wording of the license is pointless here as no one has actualy posted the full license with all the conditions and definitions...

I never claimed to have read the EULA or the OEM site. I was just stating that it's easy to see why the poster was confused by that statement.

 

[tmileson]

Excellent arguement...

Using your logic I could suggest that given the EUs disposition to take Microsoft to court you'd have thought that a EULA that was breaking millions of EU residents rights would have been first up in court years ago.

Not only has it not been bu there are no plans for it to be.

Using your logic suggests the EU believes the EULA is reasonable...

Comon, lets not be niave, a lot of the EU/Microsoft and other companies stuff is based on politics. Taking MS to court to make sure they offer a version of Windows XP with no Media Player for the same price? That was a great use of tax payers money - who in their right mind would buy that version? The US and Asian countries/trading blocks do this stuff all the time, it's political horse trading.