Posted by Donald McDaniel on 05/09/06 20:22

On Mon, 8 May 2006 11:14:51 -0700, Gordon Sande wrote
(in article <2006050815145116807-gsande@worldnetattnet>):

> On 2006-05-08 13:53:29 -0300, Donald McDaniel <orthocross@invalid.net> said:
>
>>> So, yes there are suppliers of "OEM" Windows who sell to retail customers.
>
>
>> Sorry, bud, but OEM Windows may NOT be sold to "retail customers". The
>> license is always sold to "system builders", and may ONLY be sold to
>> "system builders". Now, you may prefer to call them "retail
>> customers", but Windows users refer to those who purchase such licenses
>> as "system builders".
>
> There is a difference between Microsoft lawyers after a three page preamble
of
> jargonistic definitions and users.
>
> Having bought such a license for Win/XP rather than upgrading from Win/NT
> there was no representation that I was a system builder in any sense
> beyond Microsoft's self imposed fiction.
>
> You know about the duck test - walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and
> looks like a duck then it must be a duck.
>
>>> Not just white box clone assemblers but walkin cash customers, or internet
>>> credit card customers as the case may be. You just have to toss the cable,
>>> or whatever that makes it OEM, and live with the "clean only" installs for
>>> the savings. One presumes that Microsoft was a bit untidy with their
>>> license
>>> wording, or that the preferred wording would too restictive so they life
>>> with it.
>>
>> Microsoft chose the wording in all its EULAs very carefully, after
>> consulting with their Legal Department, as the majority of all
>> developers do.
>
> So carefully that a $0.17 piece of cabling gets around it! The hardware
> component
> is clearly so critical that they don't even bother speciying it so it
> is probably
> just something that would otherwise be tossed. Or maybe TigerOnline has such
> an
> old OEM contract that it does not have the new improved words. Or maybe
> they just
> choose not to look too hard.
>

I do admit that the XP EULA is more of a "a work of fiction in progress" than
a legal document.

Two years ago, it was possible to activate any OEM distribution via the Net,
and the EULA reflected this, but from what I've been reading, all such
activations must now be done via a phone call to their overseas Call Center
somewhere in India nowadays.

There, a man or woman named "Ralph" or "Louise" (or some such fiction) will
speak with you (very politely, usually) in fairly good English (though spoken
with a very bad accent), and attempt to keep you from activating your OEM
product.

Many Wintel users simply give them a "good story", and activate their OEM OS
with little trouble. I am persuaded that Microsoft is fully aware of this
fiction, but I don't really think they truly care.

They just can't bring themselves to lower the cost of the Retail version to
the point where most users would purchase it rather than an OEM version.

Those who want Retail versions, usually purchase the Retail Upgrade version,
rather than the Full Retail version, since it is a minimum of $100 cheaper
than the Full Retail.

In addition, a "Retail Upgrade" version will do ALL a Full Retail version
will, as long as one has a previous Windows OS disc (even copies of someone
else's licensed media), or a previous version of Windows already on their
HDs. Of course, using a copy of another's licensed media would be breaking
the EULA, but, is Microsoft gonna send out its "EULA police" to every house
in the world? Somehow, I kinda doubt it. With their firm hold on the PC
market, why should they really care, as long as a legal copy of XP is sold
somewhere along the line.

I really don't think that Microsoft should be claiming to be any less than
hypocrites themselves, so finding fault with others for their hypocrisy is
kinda ludicrous, wouldn't you say?.

--

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that the thread may be kept intact.
========================================================

[Back to original message]