If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Have licences, where can I get XP media/files
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. Alias |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Have licences, where can I get XP media/files
"M.I.5¾" wrote in message
... "Alias" wrote in message ... 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. These are two separate issues. It is not Microsoft's position that once the shrinkwrap has been opened, that the EULA has been agreed to. The purchaser should be able to return the product for a full refund as long as it hasn't been used (i.e., installed using the unique product key). Now if there have been any documented cases of *this* occurrence (where the consumer is unable to return the product for a full refund), that would be a breach of the law in the consumer's favor. Can you point me to any documented instances of these situations? I would like to know if the individual vendors are wrongly unlitaterally refusing to conduct the return or if Microsoft is pulling strings in the background. If the latter is true, a class action suit would certainly be warranted. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Have licences, where can I get XP media/files
Daave wrote:
"M.I.5¾" wrote in message ... "Alias" wrote in message ... 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. These are two separate issues. It is not Microsoft's position that once the shrinkwrap has been opened, that the EULA has been agreed to. The purchaser should be able to return the product for a full refund as long as it hasn't been used (i.e., installed using the unique product key). Now if there have been any documented cases of *this* occurrence (where the consumer is unable to return the product for a full refund), that would be a breach of the law in the consumer's favor. Can you point me to any documented instances of these situations? I would like to know if the individual vendors are wrongly unlitaterally refusing to conduct the return or if Microsoft is pulling strings in the background. If the latter is true, a class action suit would certainly be warranted. The vendors don't care what the EULA says. If you open it, it's yours. This, I assume, is to prevent people from buying the software, copying it, and then going in for a refund. Alias |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Have licences, where can I get XP media/files
"Alias" wrote in message
... Daave wrote: "M.I.5¾" wrote in message ... "Alias" wrote in message ... 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. These are two separate issues. It is not Microsoft's position that once the shrinkwrap has been opened, that the EULA has been agreed to. The purchaser should be able to return the product for a full refund as long as it hasn't been used (i.e., installed using the unique product key). Now if there have been any documented cases of *this* occurrence (where the consumer is unable to return the product for a full refund), that would be a breach of the law in the consumer's favor. Can you point me to any documented instances of these situations? I would like to know if the individual vendors are wrongly unlitaterally refusing to conduct the return or if Microsoft is pulling strings in the background. If the latter is true, a class action suit would certainly be warranted. The vendors don't care what the EULA says. If you open it, it's yours. This, I assume, is to prevent people from buying the software, copying it, and then going in for a refund. Do the vendors have this right? If they do (but I'm not sure they do), then I can definitely see the Catch-22! |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Have licences, where can I get XP media/files
Daave wrote:
"Alias" wrote in message ... Daave wrote: "M.I.5¾" wrote in message ... "Alias" wrote in message ... 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. These are two separate issues. It is not Microsoft's position that once the shrinkwrap has been opened, that the EULA has been agreed to. The purchaser should be able to return the product for a full refund as long as it hasn't been used (i.e., installed using the unique product key). Now if there have been any documented cases of *this* occurrence (where the consumer is unable to return the product for a full refund), that would be a breach of the law in the consumer's favor. Can you point me to any documented instances of these situations? I would like to know if the individual vendors are wrongly unlitaterally refusing to conduct the return or if Microsoft is pulling strings in the background. If the latter is true, a class action suit would certainly be warranted. The vendors don't care what the EULA says. If you open it, it's yours. This, I assume, is to prevent people from buying the software, copying it, and then going in for a refund. Do the vendors have this right? If they do (but I'm not sure they do), then I can definitely see the Catch-22! They put up little signs saying no software can be returned once opened in their brick and mortar as well as their on line stores. Alias |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Have licences, where can I get XP media/files
"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. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Have licences, where can I get XP media/files
"Daave" wrote in message ... "M.I.5¾" wrote in message ... "Alias" wrote in message ... 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. These are two separate issues. It is not Microsoft's position that once the shrinkwrap has been opened, that the EULA has been agreed to. The purchaser should be able to return the product for a full refund as long as it hasn't been used (i.e., installed using the unique product key). Now if there have been any documented cases of *this* occurrence (where the consumer is unable to return the product for a full refund), that would be a breach of the law in the consumer's favor. Can you point me to any documented instances of these situations? I would like to know if the individual vendors are wrongly unlitaterally refusing to conduct the return or if Microsoft is pulling strings in the background. If the latter is true, a class action suit would certainly be warranted. This is one of the main issues. Although there are rulings and declarations, no software vendor has dared to allow an actual case to get anywhere near a court. I can't speak for other countries in Europe but here in the UK, there is no such thing as a class action suit. All cases have to be considered on their individual merits (assuming they get that far). As for being unable to obtain a refund once the EULA has been rejected, there are a number of instances where this has happened (and I posted one such case). It is not clear whether this is solely the vendor or if Microsoft have a hand. My money is on the former. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Have licences, where can I get XP media/files
"Alias" wrote in message ... Daave wrote: "Alias" wrote in message ... Daave wrote: "M.I.5¾" wrote in message ... "Alias" wrote in message ... 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. These are two separate issues. It is not Microsoft's position that once the shrinkwrap has been opened, that the EULA has been agreed to. The purchaser should be able to return the product for a full refund as long as it hasn't been used (i.e., installed using the unique product key). Now if there have been any documented cases of *this* occurrence (where the consumer is unable to return the product for a full refund), that would be a breach of the law in the consumer's favor. Can you point me to any documented instances of these situations? I would like to know if the individual vendors are wrongly unlitaterally refusing to conduct the return or if Microsoft is pulling strings in the background. If the latter is true, a class action suit would certainly be warranted. The vendors don't care what the EULA says. If you open it, it's yours. This, I assume, is to prevent people from buying the software, copying it, and then going in for a refund. Do the vendors have this right? If they do (but I'm not sure they do), then I can definitely see the Catch-22! They put up little signs saying no software can be returned once opened in their brick and mortar as well as their on line stores. As long as they add the phrase "This does not affect your statutory rights". That phrase, by the way, translates as, "The foregoing is probably a load of ********". Consumer law in the UK allows you to return software in exactly the same way as hardware for the same reasons. You have to open the box to discover that it doesn't do what it claims to do. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Have licences, where can I get XP media/files
M.I.5¾ wrote:
"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. Spain has its own rules. For example, downloading music from eMule is not illegal unless you plan to sell it. This kind of piracy is covered with a tax on CDs, DVDs and DVD burners. Alias |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Have licences, where can I get XP media/files
"Alias" wrote in message ... M.I.5¾ wrote: "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. Spain has its own rules. For example, downloading music from eMule is not illegal unless you plan to sell it. This kind of piracy is covered with a tax on CDs, DVDs and DVD burners. Spain is not unique with that provision. The Netherlands and Germany have a similar arrangement. The UK doesn't have such an arrangement but strangely blank audio CDs are still much more expensive than their conventional counterparts. But Spain *is* subject to the European ruling on EULAs that are not visible at the point of sale. However, I suspect that the software vendors are as reluctant to bring a case in Spain as anywhere else just in case someone decides to take it all the way. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|