A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » General XP issues or comments
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Have licences, where can I get XP media/files



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old December 16th 08, 12:59 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Alias[_27_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default 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  
Old December 16th 08, 04:41 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Daave
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,568
Default 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  
Old December 16th 08, 05:45 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Alias[_27_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default 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  
Old December 16th 08, 06:30 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Daave
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,568
Default 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  
Old December 16th 08, 06:39 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Alias[_27_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default 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  
Old December 17th 08, 08:38 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
M.I.5¾
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,722
Default 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  
Old December 17th 08, 08:45 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
M.I.5¾
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,722
Default 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  
Old December 17th 08, 08:48 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
M.I.5¾
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,722
Default 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  
Old December 17th 08, 12:49 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Alias[_22_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 44
Default 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  
Old December 18th 08, 08:52 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
M.I.5¾
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,722
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.