"Alias" wrote in message
...
M.I.5¾ wrote:
"Alias" wrote in message
...
M.I.5¾ wrote:
"Alias" wrote in message
...
M.I.5¾ wrote:
"Cody Jarrett" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 15:07:01 -0700, Bruce Chambers
wrote:

By your own admission, you have an OEM licenses for WinXP. An
OEM
version must be sold with a piece of hardware (normally a
motherboard or
hard rive, if not an entire PC) and is _permanently_ bound to the
first
PC on which it's installed.
Tell that to a bazillion retailers both on and offline. It would
appear that the requirement is urban legend.
That is not necessarily true. There is a body of opinion that in
certain jurisdictions that some of the conditions in Microsoft's EULA
(and in particular the bit about non transferability of the operating
system) are not actually enforceable. Microsoft disagrees with this
opinion (not unsurprisingly) however, this would need to be properly
tested in a court of law before it can formally be declared an urban
legend.
And it will be snowing in Caracas before MS grows the balls to take
anyone to court for EULA violation. They know it's unconscionable but
they also know hardly anyone reads them and relies on FUD to keep
their paying customers confused.

Absolutely, and indeed on those occasions when they have actually
issued proceedings, they have settled out of court at the 11th hour
rather than let the case come to court, usually with a non disclosure
agreement wrapping the settlement.

One of the more recent cases involved a student who bought the student
edition of Microsoft office before buying a laptop with the product
already installed. He sold the student Office on e-bay for a profit,
but Microsoft weren't impressed and issued proceedings. Part of said
student's defence was that the Office he bought stated that if he
didn't agree with the licence terms, then the product should be
returned for a full refund. He had in fact attempted to do so but the
return was allegedly refused.
Yeah, the Catch 22 of shrink wrapped software where you don't get to see
the EULA until after you've opened the package and an opened package --
per the vendor -- gets no refund.


There is no catch 22 at all. The European courts have actually ruled on
that point (and only reinforced what UK contract law already said). The
ruling was that any licence terms and conditions (EULA) that are not
visible to the purchaser, or drawn to his attention, before the contract
of sale is struck are not enforceable as they constitute an unlawful
unilateral variation to the established contract. In spite of this
Microsoft (and indeed other software vendors) continue to insist that
installing the software and checking the box that agrees to the EULA as
part of that process makes the EULA enforceable. This usually forms the
main plank of their litigation that never makes it to court.



In Spain, if you open it, it's yours.


Last time I checked, Spain was in the European Union and therefore should be
subject to the same ruling.