bigtallgeezer said:
Technically, although activated your XP install isn't legal, but thats irrelevant if you want an OEM copy of Vista. It's perfectly fine to get an OEM copy of Vista, and I would say it's the best way to licence your PC.
Burnsy
The Official OcUK Vista Licencing Questions FAQ Thread
- Thread starter Burnsy2023
- Start date
Technically, although activated your XP install isn't legal, but thats irrelevant if you want an OEM copy of Vista. It's perfectly fine to get an OEM copy of Vista, and I would say it's the best way to licence your PC.
Burnsy
Caporegime
because its an upgrade. you have to have previous MS OS and your fine to use that version!
Meatball said:
Same restrictions as XP OEM. Not so pricy now that OEM is out, but then I told you so
Burnsy
Nickg said:
Not for OEM you don't.
Burnsy
Ronaldo said:
That's a very unusual upgrade path. I'm not sure if you'll be able to upgrade an MSDNAA copy. Anyway if you can upgrade it, the best way will be via a Windows Anytime Upgrade Licence, which is not avaliable yet and won't be for a few months. MS hasn't released pricing yet, so I have no idea how much it'll cost.
Burnsy
Soldato
It'll be your next OS regardless. And that goes for everyone.Meatball said:
People can say that they'll go Linux or OSX or whatever can preach all they want, but the fact is that if they want to use 90% of the programs that are out there, and use their existing stuff, and play the latest games, they are gonna have to use or own Vista.
/rant.
BoomAM said:It'll be your next OS regardless. And that goes for everyone.
People can say that they'll go Linux or OSX or whatever can preach all they want, but the fact is that if they want to use 90% of the programs that are out there, and use their existing stuff, and play the latest games, they are gonna have to use or own Vista.
/rant.
I was going to upgrade to it anyway but being only £78 it makes it even more sweeter
My post was just badly worded Nickg said:
Windows Vista Home Premium OEM No it's not?
Last edited:
ok with regards to 64bit vs 32bit, what if i purchase 64bit oem and my driver support isnt what it should be. if i then decide to (or am forced to) downgrade to 32bit am i left in the lurch even though i have purchased a valid oem license for the machine. once the package is opened it cant be returned or exchanged but at the same time if it doesnt work is it fit for the purpose?
and so far as the MS giving out product codes or activations my viewpoint on this is if your mobo dies then your license is dead, if MS give me another free license by way of giving me a product code then i shall graciously accept their gift and consider myself licensed under the new license they've given me, corporate generosity is rare so ill take it if its offered
and so far as the MS giving out product codes or activations my viewpoint on this is if your mobo dies then your license is dead, if MS give me another free license by way of giving me a product code then i shall graciously accept their gift and consider myself licensed under the new license they've given me, corporate generosity is rare so ill take it if its offered
Well I think I'll be putting OEM on my laptop. Shouldn't be any problems since I won't be doing any massive upgrades and if I ever replace it, a new laptop should have vista pre-installed. I'll probably go with OEM on my home system pc. I don't upgrade very often (I'm only on my 2nd motherboard since I originally got XP) so this shouldn't be any problem either. The only question is do I go for 32 bit or 64 bit on my pc? Think I'll wait until release to see how things go.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 4
burnsy2023 said:
Thanks for that.....appreciated.
Just went to order and see that there is an upgrade to XP home in the retail version, but no mention of upgrade in the OEM home premium version. Does that mean it will want a formatted hard drive or would an option be given to upgrade? Starting to get a bad feeling here.....can't face a re formatting job....got waaaaaay too much stuff on the computer to start trying to reinstall everything.
Sorry if the answer is obvious to any experts here....I did say I wasn't one.......
Thanks again
bigtallgeezer said:
No, you can't upgrade with an OEM version, however, an upgrade would be useless if you want to be legal, whoch would only leave the retail edition, which is expensive.
Burnsy
n3vrmind said:
You're on rocky ground there, I doubt you'd find getting a refund easy if possible.
n3vrmind said:and so far as the MS giving out product codes or activations my viewpoint on this is if your mobo dies then your license is dead, if MS give me another free license by way of giving me a product code then i shall graciously accept their gift and consider myself licensed under the new license they've given me, corporate generosity is rare so ill take it if its offered
*Repeatedly bangs head on desk*
Burnsy
Soldato
n3vrmind said:
In theory, you are correct... However, the reality is way off
The phrase "Your statutory rights are not affected" comes into play here.
You buy a drink or pack of crisps, you cant ask for your money back just because you dont like it... Same goes with the O/S.
I have a law degree and have taken the LPC - which is the 1 year post grad course for qualification to be a solicitor so I know quite a bit about this kinda stuff (although I am sure there is at least one person who has been a barrister for the last 20 years waiting to correct me!)!
I recently changed my mobo, and I changed my processor! (so basically I built a new PC!) and I reinstalled windows XP pro- which I guess was an OEM version... When I installed it I had no problems it accepted my old license and was activated - I then went out and got a new graphics card and it told me I had made too many hardware changes and to call Microsoft - which I did and I told them I changed my mobo and the lady gave me a new key which worked - no problems... now from what I have read here she should not have done that and wouldn't if I did that on vista....
Considering I am pretty certain my new mobo is faulty and it is going to break anyday (as it seems to randomly reset and sometimes make strange noises! but it never does it enough for anyone to find anything wrong with it which makes it hard to replace without a large argument with the PC shop that fitted it!) I am concerned that if I install Vista and then have to change my mobo I will have a problem - and I would always replace it was a better model as in my opinion of something goes wrong its always better to go for a better version if you can!
My understanding is that Vista will not then be activated or whatever the term is...?
I have to be honest from my legal knowledge I would say that Microsoft if they refused to give me a new license should that happen would have a real problem - I have a very strong feeling that the terms of the EULA in respect of upgrading PC componants may fall foul of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and therefore be void for being unreasonable.
I had no problem when I had to call them and I would hope I wouldn't should I install Vista then my mobo need replacing BUT if I did I believe anyone would have a legal reason to take MS to court to claim damages (we are talking damages to replace Vista not £millions! lol)
I recently changed my mobo, and I changed my processor! (so basically I built a new PC!) and I reinstalled windows XP pro- which I guess was an OEM version... When I installed it I had no problems it accepted my old license and was activated - I then went out and got a new graphics card and it told me I had made too many hardware changes and to call Microsoft - which I did and I told them I changed my mobo and the lady gave me a new key which worked - no problems... now from what I have read here she should not have done that and wouldn't if I did that on vista....
Considering I am pretty certain my new mobo is faulty and it is going to break anyday (as it seems to randomly reset and sometimes make strange noises! but it never does it enough for anyone to find anything wrong with it which makes it hard to replace without a large argument with the PC shop that fitted it!) I am concerned that if I install Vista and then have to change my mobo I will have a problem - and I would always replace it was a better model as in my opinion of something goes wrong its always better to go for a better version if you can!
My understanding is that Vista will not then be activated or whatever the term is...?
I have to be honest from my legal knowledge I would say that Microsoft if they refused to give me a new license should that happen would have a real problem - I have a very strong feeling that the terms of the EULA in respect of upgrading PC componants may fall foul of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and therefore be void for being unreasonable.
I had no problem when I had to call them and I would hope I wouldn't should I install Vista then my mobo need replacing BUT if I did I believe anyone would have a legal reason to take MS to court to claim damages (we are talking damages to replace Vista not £millions! lol)
Soldato
It wasnt aimed at you.Meatball said:I was going to upgrade to it anyway but being only £78 it makes it even more sweeter
Just a general rant.
Soldato
spinstorm said:
I am sorry, but what part of this ACT are you referring to exactly?
I was being general and saying that I would fancy my chances arguing in court that the EULA may contain unreasonable terms which are onerous (excuse my spelling its 4am!) and therefore should be void.
I would have to see the EULA and read it to be sure at this stage it is a gut feeling based on all my years of studying law in a way similar to a PC engineer being able to guess what went wrong from the "symtoms" the system exhibits without actually checking properly.
Nevertheless I have provided several of the areas that may apply to a EULA - its a rough outline of all the parts of the act and I have no tried to apply any of them to the EULA as I have not seen it but you can based on what you have seen figure out which parts if any apply - but remmeber that a lawyers job is to argue that certain things apply that a normal person may not even think of so I have looked at this and I feel there are some parts which would apply even if you or anyone else here can't see them at first!
--------------------------------------------------------------
C. THE UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ACT 1977
The basic purpose of UCTA 1977 is to restrict the extent to which liability in a contract can be excluded for breach of contract and negligence, largely by reference to a reasonableness requirement, but in some cases by a specific prohibition.
1. THE SCOPE OF UCTA 1977
The Act does not apply to insurance contracts; the sale of land; contracts relating to companies; the sale of shares; and the carriage of goods by sea (Schedule 1); or to international supply contracts (s26).
Business Liability and Dealing as a Consumer
Most of the provisions of the Act apply only to what is termed "business liability". This is defined by s1(3) as liability arising from things done by a person in the course of a business or from the occupation of business premises. The exceptions are ss6 and 7 where the Act also applies to private contracts.
The Act gives the greatest protection to consumers. Under s12(1) a person "deals as a consumer" if he does not contract in the course of a business while the other party does contract in the course of a business; and if it is a contract for the supply of goods, they are of a type ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption. But see:
Peter Symmons & Co v Cook [1981] 131 NLJ 758
R & B Customs Brokers v United Dominions Trust Ltd [1988] 1 WLR 321.
2. THE MAIN PROVISIONS
s2, Exemption of Liability for Negligence
* Under s2(1) no one acting in the course of a business can exclude or restrict his liability in negligence for death or personal injury by means of a term in a contract or by way of notice.
* Under s2(2) liability for negligence for any other kind of loss or damage can be excluded provided the term or notice satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.
s3, Exemption of Liability for Breach of Contract
Where one party deals as a consumer or on the other party's written standard terms of business, then the other party cannot exclude or restrict his liability for breach of contract, non-performance of the contract or different performance of the contract unless the exemption clause satisifies the requirement of reasonableness.
s4, Unreasonable Indemnity Clauses
Indemnity clauses in contracts where one of the parties deals as a consumer are unenforceable unless they are reasonable.
s5, Guarantees of Consumer Goods
A manufacturer or distributor cannot exclude or restrict his liability in negligence for loss arising from defects in goods ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption by means of a term or notice contained in a guarantee.
s6, Exemption of Implied Terms in Contracts of Sale and Hire-Purchase
* In contracts for the sale of goods and HP, the implied terms as to title cannot be excluded or restricted by a contract term: s6(1).
* The implied terms as to correspondence with description or sample, fitness for purpose and satisfactory quality cannot be excluded or restricted by any contract term against a person dealing as a consumer: s6(2).
* Where the person is not dealing as a consumer, such liability can only be excluded or restricted in so far as the term is reasonable: s6(3).
s7, Exemption of Implied Terms in other Contracts for the Supply of Goods
* Exclusion clauses relating to title in contracts of hire are subject to the reasonableness test.
* The implied terms as to correspondence with description or sample, fitness for purpose and satisfactory quality cannot be excluded or restricted at all in consumer contracts.
* Where the person is not dealing as a consumer the exemption is subject to the requirement of reasonableness.
s8, Exemption of Liability for Misrepresentation
Any clause which excludes or restricts liability for misrepresentation is ineffective unless it satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.
s10, Exclusion Clauses in Secondary Contracts
Section 10 contains an anti-avoidance provision which prevents the rights preserved under one contract from being removed by a secondary contract.
3. THE REQUIREMENT OF REASONABLENESS
Under s11(1) the requirement of reasonableness is that "the term shall have been a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made."
Section 11(2) provides that, in determining whether the clause is a reasonable one for the purposes of ss6 and 7, regard shall be had to the Guidelines set out in Schedule 2 of the Act, which are as follows:
(1) The bargaining strengths of the parties relative to each other and the availability of alternative supplies.
(2) Whether the customer received an inducement to agree to the term. (The supplier may have offered the customer a choice: a lower price but subject to an exemption clause or a higher price without the exemption.)
(3) Whether the customer knew or ought reasonably to have known of the existence and extent of the term.
(4) Where the term excludes or restricts any relevant liability if some condition is not complied with, whether it was reasonable at the time of the contract to expect that compliance with that condition would be practicable.
(5) Whether the goods were manufactured, processed or adapted to the special order of the customer.
Under s11(3) in relation to a notice (not being a notice having contractual effect), the requirement of reasonableness is that it should be fair and reasonable to allow reliance on it, having regard to all the circumstances obtaining when the liability arose or (but for the notice) would have arisen. This provision applies a test of reasonableness to disclaimers for tortious liability. See:
Smith v Eric Bush [1989] 2 All ER 514.
Under s11(4) where the exclusion clause seeks to limit liability rather than exclude it completely, the court must have regard to two factors: the resources available to meet the liability, and the extent to which insurance cover was available to the party aiming to limit liability. See also:
Ailsa Craig Fishing Co v Malvern Fishing Co [1983] 1 All ER 101
George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd [1983] 2 All ER 737
St Albans District Council v ICL [1996] 4 All ER 481.
Section 11(5) provides that it is up to the person who claims that a term or notice is reasonable to show that it is.
4. s13 CLAUSES
A party to a contract may try to disguise an exclusion clause, even though the effect of such a clause is to exclude liability. Section 13(1) tries to stop this and prevents:
(a) making the liability or its enforcement subject to restrictive or onerous conditions;
(b) excluding or restricting any right or remedy in respect of the liability, or subjecting a person to any prejudice in consequence of his pursuing any such right or remedy;
(c) excluding or restricting rules of evidence or procedure.
Such clauses are void or must be reasonable if they exclude or restrict liability respectively. Section s13, for example, will apply to terms: (a) imposing a time limit for making claims; (b) limiting a buyer's right to reject defective goods; and (c) stating that acceptance of goods shall be regarded as proof of their conformity with the contract. See also:
Stewart Gill v Horatio Myer [1992] 2 All ER 257.
---------------------------------------------
Despite all these people posting in this thread (and I have not read EVERY page) I don't recall anyone actually saying that they had any problems with MS when activating XP and I don't see why that should change with Vista - if it does then I am sure someone will take MS to court - or threaten them with legal action and get their copy of windows activated even if they didn't do it at first!
Also please remember that if I was unhappy with the EULA and felt MS were being difficult it is procedure to write asking for them to come to an agreement with you before you threaten legal action and normally big companies would rather settle than have the hassle of someone insignificant taking them to court - we are talking small claims here and a court fee of around £20 to get MS to court, and the chances are (and this happens with big companies) that they won't even turn up at court if they are meant to and you would get a default judgement! But considering all you want is your copy of Vista activated I am sure MS would relent before that stage and just activate it to save the money and time of court proceedings in some insignificant local court in the middle of nowehere!
I would have to see the EULA and read it to be sure at this stage it is a gut feeling based on all my years of studying law in a way similar to a PC engineer being able to guess what went wrong from the "symtoms" the system exhibits without actually checking properly.
Nevertheless I have provided several of the areas that may apply to a EULA - its a rough outline of all the parts of the act and I have no tried to apply any of them to the EULA as I have not seen it but you can based on what you have seen figure out which parts if any apply - but remmeber that a lawyers job is to argue that certain things apply that a normal person may not even think of so I have looked at this and I feel there are some parts which would apply even if you or anyone else here can't see them at first!
--------------------------------------------------------------
C. THE UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ACT 1977
The basic purpose of UCTA 1977 is to restrict the extent to which liability in a contract can be excluded for breach of contract and negligence, largely by reference to a reasonableness requirement, but in some cases by a specific prohibition.
1. THE SCOPE OF UCTA 1977
The Act does not apply to insurance contracts; the sale of land; contracts relating to companies; the sale of shares; and the carriage of goods by sea (Schedule 1); or to international supply contracts (s26).
Business Liability and Dealing as a Consumer
Most of the provisions of the Act apply only to what is termed "business liability". This is defined by s1(3) as liability arising from things done by a person in the course of a business or from the occupation of business premises. The exceptions are ss6 and 7 where the Act also applies to private contracts.
The Act gives the greatest protection to consumers. Under s12(1) a person "deals as a consumer" if he does not contract in the course of a business while the other party does contract in the course of a business; and if it is a contract for the supply of goods, they are of a type ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption. But see:
Peter Symmons & Co v Cook [1981] 131 NLJ 758
R & B Customs Brokers v United Dominions Trust Ltd [1988] 1 WLR 321.
2. THE MAIN PROVISIONS
s2, Exemption of Liability for Negligence
* Under s2(1) no one acting in the course of a business can exclude or restrict his liability in negligence for death or personal injury by means of a term in a contract or by way of notice.
* Under s2(2) liability for negligence for any other kind of loss or damage can be excluded provided the term or notice satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.
s3, Exemption of Liability for Breach of Contract
Where one party deals as a consumer or on the other party's written standard terms of business, then the other party cannot exclude or restrict his liability for breach of contract, non-performance of the contract or different performance of the contract unless the exemption clause satisifies the requirement of reasonableness.
s4, Unreasonable Indemnity Clauses
Indemnity clauses in contracts where one of the parties deals as a consumer are unenforceable unless they are reasonable.
s5, Guarantees of Consumer Goods
A manufacturer or distributor cannot exclude or restrict his liability in negligence for loss arising from defects in goods ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption by means of a term or notice contained in a guarantee.
s6, Exemption of Implied Terms in Contracts of Sale and Hire-Purchase
* In contracts for the sale of goods and HP, the implied terms as to title cannot be excluded or restricted by a contract term: s6(1).
* The implied terms as to correspondence with description or sample, fitness for purpose and satisfactory quality cannot be excluded or restricted by any contract term against a person dealing as a consumer: s6(2).
* Where the person is not dealing as a consumer, such liability can only be excluded or restricted in so far as the term is reasonable: s6(3).
s7, Exemption of Implied Terms in other Contracts for the Supply of Goods
* Exclusion clauses relating to title in contracts of hire are subject to the reasonableness test.
* The implied terms as to correspondence with description or sample, fitness for purpose and satisfactory quality cannot be excluded or restricted at all in consumer contracts.
* Where the person is not dealing as a consumer the exemption is subject to the requirement of reasonableness.
s8, Exemption of Liability for Misrepresentation
Any clause which excludes or restricts liability for misrepresentation is ineffective unless it satisfies the requirement of reasonableness.
s10, Exclusion Clauses in Secondary Contracts
Section 10 contains an anti-avoidance provision which prevents the rights preserved under one contract from being removed by a secondary contract.
3. THE REQUIREMENT OF REASONABLENESS
Under s11(1) the requirement of reasonableness is that "the term shall have been a fair and reasonable one to be included having regard to the circumstances which were, or ought reasonably to have been, known to or in the contemplation of the parties when the contract was made."
Section 11(2) provides that, in determining whether the clause is a reasonable one for the purposes of ss6 and 7, regard shall be had to the Guidelines set out in Schedule 2 of the Act, which are as follows:
(1) The bargaining strengths of the parties relative to each other and the availability of alternative supplies.
(2) Whether the customer received an inducement to agree to the term. (The supplier may have offered the customer a choice: a lower price but subject to an exemption clause or a higher price without the exemption.)
(3) Whether the customer knew or ought reasonably to have known of the existence and extent of the term.
(4) Where the term excludes or restricts any relevant liability if some condition is not complied with, whether it was reasonable at the time of the contract to expect that compliance with that condition would be practicable.
(5) Whether the goods were manufactured, processed or adapted to the special order of the customer.
Under s11(3) in relation to a notice (not being a notice having contractual effect), the requirement of reasonableness is that it should be fair and reasonable to allow reliance on it, having regard to all the circumstances obtaining when the liability arose or (but for the notice) would have arisen. This provision applies a test of reasonableness to disclaimers for tortious liability. See:
Smith v Eric Bush [1989] 2 All ER 514.
Under s11(4) where the exclusion clause seeks to limit liability rather than exclude it completely, the court must have regard to two factors: the resources available to meet the liability, and the extent to which insurance cover was available to the party aiming to limit liability. See also:
Ailsa Craig Fishing Co v Malvern Fishing Co [1983] 1 All ER 101
George Mitchell v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd [1983] 2 All ER 737
St Albans District Council v ICL [1996] 4 All ER 481.
Section 11(5) provides that it is up to the person who claims that a term or notice is reasonable to show that it is.
4. s13 CLAUSES
A party to a contract may try to disguise an exclusion clause, even though the effect of such a clause is to exclude liability. Section 13(1) tries to stop this and prevents:
(a) making the liability or its enforcement subject to restrictive or onerous conditions;
(b) excluding or restricting any right or remedy in respect of the liability, or subjecting a person to any prejudice in consequence of his pursuing any such right or remedy;
(c) excluding or restricting rules of evidence or procedure.
Such clauses are void or must be reasonable if they exclude or restrict liability respectively. Section s13, for example, will apply to terms: (a) imposing a time limit for making claims; (b) limiting a buyer's right to reject defective goods; and (c) stating that acceptance of goods shall be regarded as proof of their conformity with the contract. See also:
Stewart Gill v Horatio Myer [1992] 2 All ER 257.
---------------------------------------------
Despite all these people posting in this thread (and I have not read EVERY page) I don't recall anyone actually saying that they had any problems with MS when activating XP and I don't see why that should change with Vista - if it does then I am sure someone will take MS to court - or threaten them with legal action and get their copy of windows activated even if they didn't do it at first!
Also please remember that if I was unhappy with the EULA and felt MS were being difficult it is procedure to write asking for them to come to an agreement with you before you threaten legal action and normally big companies would rather settle than have the hassle of someone insignificant taking them to court - we are talking small claims here and a court fee of around £20 to get MS to court, and the chances are (and this happens with big companies) that they won't even turn up at court if they are meant to and you would get a default judgement! But considering all you want is your copy of Vista activated I am sure MS would relent before that stage and just activate it to save the money and time of court proceedings in some insignificant local court in the middle of nowehere!
Last edited:
Having skimmed the EULA at 4.30am! at:
http://download.microsoft.com/docum...lish_36d0fe99-75e4-4875-8153-889cf5105718.pdf
I am hard pressed to see anything at all that suggests that if I changed my mottherboard I could not reactivate windows in that EULA (if it is the wrong one please point me the right way!)
It only says there is one device that Vista can exist on - but not that it has to be the SAME device so that if you did in effect rebuild your PC, it mentions that can be reassigned again but does not mention if it can be moved to another device again.
I found a website that says this about it:
---------------------------------------------
Reinstallation blues
I saved the best for last. Most people never actually install Windows; instead, they just buy a new PC that has the OS pre-installed (of course, the fact that it's virtually impossible to buy a PC that doesn't have Windows already installed, so that Linux users end up paying the Windows tax, is a major problem, but that's an issue for another column). But I'll bet that most of my readers are exactly the kinds of people that end up buying retail copies of Windows and installing them on many different machines - or virtual machines, as I discussed above. Windows Activation, introduced with Windows XP, insures that you don't install the same copy of Windows on more than one machine at a time. That's fine - annoying, but fine. But clause 15 of the new Vista EULA - "REASSIGN TO ANOTHER DEVICE" - goes way beyond that.
a. Software Other than Windows Anytime Upgrade. The first user of the software may reassign the license to another device one time. If you reassign the license, that other device becomes the "licensed device."
b. Windows Anytime Upgrade Software. The first user of the software may reassign the license to another device one time, but only if the license terms of the software you upgraded from allows reassignment.
As I read this, you go to the store and buy a copy of Vista, which you install on a PC you had in your office. A year later, another PC becomes available that's a bit more up to date, so you decide to transfer your Vista license to that machine.
You're now finished with that Vista license. Done. Game over, man. Whether you shelled out $199 for Home Basic or broke the bank with the $399 Ultimate makes no difference. You've reassigned the license twice, and that's all that Microsoft allows.
----------------------------------------------------------
Now that is an extremely badly worded condition in the EULA, it could be interpreted to mean that it can be reassigned as many times as you like but it only mentions 2 times.
yes I know is says that a user "may reassign the license to another device one time" but does that mean only once? MS's conduct in reactivating XP more than twice could be taken as proof that this is not the case despite MS claiming that it is, furthermore and this would be one hell of a stretch but may work if you did reinstall it more than twice and it would not be activated then there is an argument that the software falls foul of the Sales Of Goods Act 1979 as it would no longer be fit for its purpose (and other relevent clauses in that act).
Then there is the fact that this clause could be unreasonable, look at section 11(2) (under heading 3 in the explanation) and MS seems to fall foul of several of those conditions of reasonableness.
Also the clause in the EULA saying that if it is NOT activated it would cease to work even if it is an official copy would also in my opinion fall foul of the reasonableness test.
Like I said I would feel happy in writing a legal pleading against MS and succeeding, but as I said before I believe that MS would reactivate Vista anyway!
http://download.microsoft.com/docum...lish_36d0fe99-75e4-4875-8153-889cf5105718.pdf
I am hard pressed to see anything at all that suggests that if I changed my mottherboard I could not reactivate windows in that EULA (if it is the wrong one please point me the right way!)
It only says there is one device that Vista can exist on - but not that it has to be the SAME device so that if you did in effect rebuild your PC, it mentions that can be reassigned again but does not mention if it can be moved to another device again.
I found a website that says this about it:
---------------------------------------------
Reinstallation blues
I saved the best for last. Most people never actually install Windows; instead, they just buy a new PC that has the OS pre-installed (of course, the fact that it's virtually impossible to buy a PC that doesn't have Windows already installed, so that Linux users end up paying the Windows tax, is a major problem, but that's an issue for another column). But I'll bet that most of my readers are exactly the kinds of people that end up buying retail copies of Windows and installing them on many different machines - or virtual machines, as I discussed above. Windows Activation, introduced with Windows XP, insures that you don't install the same copy of Windows on more than one machine at a time. That's fine - annoying, but fine. But clause 15 of the new Vista EULA - "REASSIGN TO ANOTHER DEVICE" - goes way beyond that.
a. Software Other than Windows Anytime Upgrade. The first user of the software may reassign the license to another device one time. If you reassign the license, that other device becomes the "licensed device."
b. Windows Anytime Upgrade Software. The first user of the software may reassign the license to another device one time, but only if the license terms of the software you upgraded from allows reassignment.
As I read this, you go to the store and buy a copy of Vista, which you install on a PC you had in your office. A year later, another PC becomes available that's a bit more up to date, so you decide to transfer your Vista license to that machine.
You're now finished with that Vista license. Done. Game over, man. Whether you shelled out $199 for Home Basic or broke the bank with the $399 Ultimate makes no difference. You've reassigned the license twice, and that's all that Microsoft allows.
----------------------------------------------------------
Now that is an extremely badly worded condition in the EULA, it could be interpreted to mean that it can be reassigned as many times as you like but it only mentions 2 times.
yes I know is says that a user "may reassign the license to another device one time" but does that mean only once? MS's conduct in reactivating XP more than twice could be taken as proof that this is not the case despite MS claiming that it is, furthermore and this would be one hell of a stretch but may work if you did reinstall it more than twice and it would not be activated then there is an argument that the software falls foul of the Sales Of Goods Act 1979 as it would no longer be fit for its purpose (and other relevent clauses in that act).
Then there is the fact that this clause could be unreasonable, look at section 11(2) (under heading 3 in the explanation) and MS seems to fall foul of several of those conditions of reasonableness.
Also the clause in the EULA saying that if it is NOT activated it would cease to work even if it is an official copy would also in my opinion fall foul of the reasonableness test.
Like I said I would feel happy in writing a legal pleading against MS and succeeding, but as I said before I believe that MS would reactivate Vista anyway!
Last edited: