Shot in the dark

July 4, 2007

Hi,

I am going to ask for help without being able to give you too much

information. I have a friend who has an old computer with Win 98 and he

can't open IE. He tells me that when he tries to open it, it gives him and

error message that says it needs to shut down because of some conflict

problem and then it quits.

Any suggestions on where he/I can start to get IE working again. If not, I

can get more detailed info tomorrow.

Thanks,

Tom

July 4, 2007

Re: Shot in the dark

We will need *at least* the complete exact error message, in its entirety. If he

gets an "illegal operation" error message, click the "Details" button, and post back

with the exact details word for word, up to but not including the memory registers.

Is it Win98 or Win98SE?

What IE version....IE5.0, 5.5, 5.5 SP1, 5.5 SP2, IE6, or IE6 SP1?

Have him go here with Internet Explorer =>

http://aumha.org/mydetail.htm

Drag his mouse across the info it shows in the grey box to select it, then

right-click, and pick Copy.

Paste the information into a message to you, so you can paste it to this thread.

--

Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+

http://dts-l.org/

http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

"Tom Brown" <Nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message

news:ujYgy7lvHHA.3476@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Hi,

>

> I am going to ask for help without being able to give you too much information. I

> have a friend who has an old computer with Win 98 and he can't open IE. He tells

> me that when he tries to open it, it gives him and error message that says it

> needs to shut down because of some conflict problem and then it quits.

>

> Any suggestions on where he/I can start to get IE working again. If not, I can

> get more detailed info tomorrow.

>

> Thanks,

>

> Tom

>

July 4, 2007

Re: Shot in the dark

1. Tell you friend to go to http://www.aumha.org/a/quickfix and follow the

instructions carefully and completely. The site deals with malware detection

and remedy.

2. If a formal malware diagnosis turns up negative, try IE Repair. Go to

Add/Remove Programs, double-click the Internet Explorer entry, choose

Repair.

3. If still no luck, force reinstall IE by going to the same Add/Remove

Programs entry and choosing Add Components, instead, putting a check mark in

every item that's bolded (where possible.)

4. If none of the above helps, then more in-depth diagnosis is required, and

your friend would do well to attend this group directly for instructions.

You can attend this group without needing IE.

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

http://www.grystmill.com

"Tom Brown" <Nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message

news:ujYgy7lvHHA.3476@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Hi,

>

> I am going to ask for help without being able to give you too much

> information. I have a friend who has an old computer with Win 98 and he

> can't open IE. He tells me that when he tries to open it, it gives him

> and error message that says it needs to shut down because of some conflict

> problem and then it quits.

>

> Any suggestions on where he/I can start to get IE working again. If not,

> I can get more detailed info tomorrow.

>

> Thanks,

>

> Tom

>

July 4, 2007

Re: Shot in the dark

"Tom Brown" <Nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message

news:ujYgy7lvHHA.3476@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Hi,

>

> I am going to ask for help without being able to give you too much information. I

> have a friend who has an old computer with Win 98 and he can't open IE. He tells

> me that when he tries to open it, it gives him and error message that says it needs

> to shut down because of some conflict problem and then it quits.

>

> Any suggestions on where he/I can start to get IE working again. If not, I can get

> more detailed info tomorrow.

>

> Thanks,

>

> Tom

>

See if repairing it helps:

To repair IE

Click Start>Run, type the following and click Enter, for IE6x: RUNDLL32

SETUPWBV.DLL,IE6Maintenance

Choose the Repair option, and continue.

If the repair says it cannot complete, reinstall Internet Explorer over itself.

or

Error Message: Explorer Caused an Invalid Page Fault in Module Browseui.dll

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;293174&Product=w98

or Blank Desktop or Illegal Operations Error Message After You Install Internet

Explorer:

http://support.microsoft.com/?id=kb;en-us;249191

--

Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Shell/User }

Conflicts start where information lacks.

http://basconotw.mvps.org/

Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

July 4, 2007

Re: Shot in the dark

"Tom Brown" <Nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message news:ujYgy7lvHHA.3476@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Hi,

>

> I am going to ask for help without being able to give you too much

> information. I have a friend who has an old computer with Win 98 and he

> can't open IE. He tells me that when he tries to open it, it gives him and

> error message that says it needs to shut down because of some conflict

> problem and then it quits.

>

> Any suggestions on where he/I can start to get IE working again. If not, I

> can get more detailed info tomorrow.

>

> Thanks,

>

> Tom

>

If he's lucky there will be a folder named "Windows Update Setup Files" either right under the

Windows folder or as a subfolder of Windows.

If so, then just double click on IE6Seup.exe

Galen

July 4, 2007

Re: Shot in the dark

Tom Brown wrote:

> I have a friend who has an old computer with Win 98 and he

> can't open IE.

Then why didn't you title your post with a subject like "Can't start

IE" or "IE shuts down after startup".

Why did you give your post a stupid title like "shot in the dark" ?

July 4, 2007

Re: Shot in the dark

ROFL!!!! Now YOU'RE the net nanny? Go on back to twiddling your thumbs and

thinking up more nonsensical legal theories to bore us with. Let us do what

we're really here to do. Help.

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

http://www.grystmill.com

"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:468C148F.F13BE18D@Guy.com...

> Tom Brown wrote:

>

>> I have a friend who has an old computer with Win 98 and he

>> can't open IE.

>

> Then why didn't you title your post with a subject like "Can't start

> IE" or "IE shuts down after startup".

>

> Why did you give your post a stupid title like "shot in the dark" ?

July 4, 2007

Re: Shot in the dark

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote:

> Go on back to twiddling your thumbs and thinking up more

> nonsensical legal theories to bore us with.

I'm still waiting to hear your explanation on the difference between

product key and license, as well as for you to point out where or how

Microsoft requires a "chain of ownership" as part of their EULA (or

was that just a shot in the dark on your part?).

July 5, 2007

Re: Shot in the dark

Product key, license

equivalent

car key, drivers license

theft of the car key is not a license to drive

--

-- -- -- -- --

Adaware http://www.lavasoft.de

spybot http://www.safer-networking.org

AVG free antivirus http://free.grisoft.com/

Etrust/Vet/CA.online Antivirus scan

http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/virusinfo/scan.aspx

Super Antispyware http://www.superantispyware.com/

Panda online AntiVirus scan http://www.activescan.com

Panda online AntiSpyware Scan

http://www.pandasoftware.com/virus_info/spyware/test/

Catalog of removal tools (1)

http://www.pandasoftware.com/download/utilities/

Catalog of removal tools (2)

http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/newsinfo/collateral.aspx?CID=40387

Trouble Shooting guide to Windows http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/

Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts file

http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm

links provided as a courtesy, read all instructions on the pages before

use

Grateful thanks to the authors/webmasters

_

"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:468C2A48.A588E432@Guy.com...

> "Gary S. Terhune" wrote:

>

> > Go on back to twiddling your thumbs and thinking up more

> > nonsensical legal theories to bore us with.

>

> I'm still waiting to hear your explanation on the difference between

> product key and license, as well as for you to point out where or how

> Microsoft requires a "chain of ownership" as part of their EULA (or

> was that just a shot in the dark on your part?).

July 5, 2007

Re: Shot in the dark

I'm through with giving you answers to a question only to have you pop up

with five more stupid ideas. The answers are quite easy to find. Someone

with your supposed experience shouldn't need me to hold his hand.

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

http://www.grystmill.com

"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:468C2A48.A588E432@Guy.com...

> "Gary S. Terhune" wrote:

>

>> Go on back to twiddling your thumbs and thinking up more

>> nonsensical legal theories to bore us with.

>

> I'm still waiting to hear your explanation on the difference between

> product key and license, as well as for you to point out where or how

> Microsoft requires a "chain of ownership" as part of their EULA (or

> was that just a shot in the dark on your part?).

July 5, 2007

Re: Shot in the dark

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote:

> I'm through with giving you answers

You can't explain it, can you?

Is it possible to have a license and not have a corresponding

product-key?

Does every product-key represent a license?

Where in Microsoft's EULA's does it dictate that a license is valid

only if a "chain of ownership" exists?

> The answers are quite easy to find.

Don't play games Gary. People are reading this, and they know you're

ducking the questions.

July 5, 2007

Re: Shot in the dark

"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:468C5B4D.D18AB84@Guy.com...

> "Gary S. Terhune" wrote:

>

>> I'm through with giving you answers

>

> You can't explain it, can you?

Yes, I just don't feel like looking up all the references, so you'll have to

do with these final responses. After this, you go on the List. You have

proven that you have no redeeming value.

> Is it possible to have a license and not have a corresponding

> product-key?

Well, you have to have both, but the license in no way corresponds to the

Product Key. Licenses are unique. Product Keys are not.

> Does every product-key represent a license?

Certainly not. There are potentially millions of licenses for any one

Product Key.

> Where in Microsoft's EULA's does it dictate that a license is valid

> only if a "chain of ownership" exists?

It's inherent in the licensing. To have a legal license, you have to obtain

a license from someone else who obtained it legally or from the original

licenser. There is no such thing as an abandoned license. Even if someone

stops using it, they still own the license.

>> The answers are quite easy to find.

>

> Don't play games Gary. People are reading this, and they know you're

> ducking the questions.

You're the game player. That or you're a LOT more stupid than I think. (Then

again, you STILL can't distinguish a License from a Product Key?) People

reading this can take my word for it or look it up for themselves.

There. You sucked me in again. I know you're happy, because that's you're

whole pitiful game. Truly, I feel sad for you.

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

http://www.grystmill.com

July 5, 2007

Re: Shot in the dark

Thanks so much to all of you who offered all those great ideas. I do

appreciate the time you took to help. Unfortunately, I finally got a look

at the guy's laptop and I see it's an old Sony VAIO P-III with Windows ME.

I think I recall that MS no longer supports ME and I guess that might apply

here. He tells me he has an XP upgrade at home that he has not installed

yet. I advised him to take $600 and go to Best Buy and get an inexpensive

new laptop.

But, if anyone is still reading, I did get a copy of the exact error

message. It happens when he tries to open IE6 or My Computer or Windows

Media Player. The error message is:

"IEXPLORE (or Explorer, or Windows Media Player) has caused an error in

IEXPLORE (or Explorer, or Windows Media Player) will now close.

If you continue to experience problems, try restarting your computer."

So, I think it looks like he needs to reinstall the O/S and should upgrade

to XP.

The other problem I noticed was that he had no internet connectivity even

though he was plugging into the same Ethernet cable in the hotel that I was

able to use. I checked his TCP/IP settings and it was installed for his

Intel Pro/100VE Network Adapter. I used the RUN/COMMAND and then an

IPCONFIG

/ALL and could see that he was getting an IP address from somewhere. But, I

could not PING http://www.yahoo.com.

So, if anyone is adventurous and wants to offer any temporary solutions, we

would appreciate it. He is stuck in a hotel away from home for two more

weeks and has no access to email or internet.

Finally, for the obtuse person who didn't like my title, the reason I came

up with that

was that I was just "taking a shot in the dark" hoping to find someone who

could help. It was not my intent to stir your anger. I am happy to see that

I found Glee, Gary, Brian, and Galen who were willling to help me with the

shot in the dark.

Thanks again,

Tom

"Galen Somerville" <galen@surewest.net> wrote in message

news:ux7c7smvHHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>

> "Tom Brown" <Nospam@nospam.net> wrote in message

> news:ujYgy7lvHHA.3476@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>> Hi,

>>

>> I am going to ask for help without being able to give you too much

>> information. I have a friend who has an old computer with Win 98 and he

>> can't open IE. He tells me that when he tries to open it, it gives him

>> and

>> error message that says it needs to shut down because of some conflict

>> problem and then it quits.

>>

>> Any suggestions on where he/I can start to get IE working again. If not,

>> I

>> can get more detailed info tomorrow.

>>

>> Thanks,

>>

>> Tom

>>

>

> If he's lucky there will be a folder named "Windows Update Setup Files"

> either right under the

> Windows folder or as a subfolder of Windows.

>

> If so, then just double click on IE6Seup.exe

>

> Galen

>

July 5, 2007

Re: Shot in the dark

Gary, I'm not creating or perpetuating this line of thinking just to

piss you off, and you don't have to throw in personal insults as part

of your response.

Yes, there are some licenses and product keys intended for

institutional or campus-wide use. The obtainment and use of those

product keys in a setting for which they were not intended would be a

violation of the EULA. But my example does not pertain to that

situation.

Again, my hypothetical situation is where a conventional retail or

system-builder license and product key are discovered or made known to

someone, and there is complete certainty that there is no system

currently using (or will ever again use) that product key.

You say for me to be able to use that product key (and it's

corresponding license) that the last owner of that license must sell

or give it to me (a "chain of ownership" as you say). I say that

simple abandonment of that license and product key (that may occurr,

for example, if the current owner throws the system away in the trash)

is a legit way for me to come to own that license - if I happen to

come across the computer as it sits in a garbage can at the curbside.

The concept of license abandonment, or that an abandoned license and

product-key can be re-used by someone seems to rub you the wrong way.

If you want to strengthen your argument that such concepts are

specifically contemplated by microsoft, or that such use violates MS's

EULA, you should at least point to some MS document, white-paper, etc.

Product licensing is central to Microsoft's business model. After 25

years of operation, Microsoft should have copious amounts of on-line

material pertaining to licenses and licensing. It should be a trivial

excercise for you, an MS MVP, to locate documents explaining MS's

position on licenses in terms of abandonment, discovery, transfer, and

re-use.

Interesting that no other MVP's who are undoubedly reading this are

eager to voice their own opinion or show supporting material on this

matter.

July 6, 2007

Re: Shot in the dark

Your questions delve into full legal qualifications, hence would be more

appropriate to a legal forum.

Try misc.legal.moderated

A short answer is thus:

You claim is *abandoned, discovered, etc.* keys/license, and your ability

to use such. Microsoft need make no statement in the EULA concerning Law

unless special aspects are applied. You are to know the Law. Microsoft

includes the EULA with its products. Its inclusion brings with it ALL

applicable Law. If your curious about what Laws apply then check the DOJ's

site relating to Microsoft's various prosecutions. Most Law has been

explained or addressed there.

The plain answer is keys MIGHT be usable [save for what you already

indicated]. However, your traipsing into the realm of copyright, trademark,

patent, commerce, and other aspects. Use of a key WITHOUT a lawful license

is illegal.

Your scenario of a thrown away computer means little.

If the business or individual is still claiming the computer under IRS

statutes [timed deductions], you would have to obtain the actual license/key

and authorization {see additional below} and many businesses do take LONG

deductions for massed purchases.

If, as was presented before in this group, the computer was salvaged from a

fire or otherwise, the license/key would be automatically transferred to the

Insurance Company, you would need to obtain salvage rights from the

Insurance Company.

If the licensing was purchased by a business, then it remains with that

business [an asset, which can be essentially valueless and may not even be

listed as such for tax purposes or sale], regardless whether the computer

was thrown away.

Keys issued to that business also follow under the business's control.

Only a lawful assignment of ownership to you can properly transfer

ownership. There is no "adverse possession" associated with this type of

property; *fair use* controls.

Unless you could prove beyond ALL doubt the license was obtained legally

through lawful ownership change, there is no way for you to proof the

license [or key] was abandoned or obtained legally. The old *abandonware

sites* found this out. If it was once held under Copyright or Patent then

considerable years must elapse before it becomes public domain, should the

owner object.

Hence any use places the user under potential fraud statutes as well as

potential violations of copyright, patent, and other law. Also note that a

license is for ONE [1] computer, unless multiple licenses are bought; or the

license may be for a specific reason [think service tech, program testing,

etc.]; use otherwise is a violation of that license..

For review see Titles of United States Code:

15 - Commerce and Trade;

17 - Copyrights [and Trademarks];

18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure;

22 - Foreign Relations and Intercourse;

28 - Judiciary and Judicial Procedure;

31 - Money and Finance;

35 - Patents;

42 - The Public Health and Welfare

You must also include various Acts of Congress into consideration

{Electronic Communications Acts, Millennium Copyright Act, various Public

Law, etc.}.

Why ALL of these MUST be considered is vastly beyond the scope of this

group or perhaps even misc.legal.moderated. Find newsgroups for Commerce,

Patent, Copyright, etc., or search on the Law sites.

You also would need to check State and local laws as well [including of

course International Laws if other nations are involved]. Think additionally

relating to Laws regarding property and contracts....

Generally the Law likes to see some minimal lawful transfer of ownership,

such as $1.00 changing hands for whatever is transferred, or direct

communications. Falling back to your garbage computer, perhaps the actual

owner used the software on a new system, or intends to at sometime. Doesn't

matter, because you did not obtain the right to the license without them

transferring it to you.. California is a good place to check for this type

of activity/prosecutions.

Just one more thing: should you have actually purchased a lawful license

[CDROM or otherwise], but lost your key, you likely could use another key

for an UNSUPPORTED operating system [Microsoft has suggested along those

lines]. However, knowing a key does NOT grant license or any legal right to

the software.

Personally, I have questioned the purchase of a lawful license and key, the

destruction {from/for whatever reason} of the original product and

subsequent use of another copy with that license and key. There appears to a

vagueness regarding this legal aspect. [Why? Because the copy might come

from someone else's licensed version, and that license precludes

installation on more than one computer.]

As a cautionary note:

You may run across duplicated copies on the net for various OSs, even

offered for sale.

Unless it is a lawful sale [complete lawful transfer of ownership, e.g.,

one copy with license, no other copies {unless authorized}, party authorized

to sell] you CAN be prosecuted. Purchase from a non-authorized source places

you in a tenuous position; it matters little that you may have THOUGHT that

ebay/auction/site purchase was cheap. You accept [part of] the

responsibility and personal liability.

Mere use of licensable software [such as from a torrent] without a license

is in direct violation of Law, there would be no excuse.

Beyond this, I will not go into here.. Ignorance of Law is no excuse, as

the courts WILL advise you, and under

which you might be prosecuted.

--

MEB

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

________

July 6, 2007

Re: Shot in the dark

MEB wrote:

> Your questions delve into full legal qualifications, hence would

> be more appropriate to a legal forum.

> Try misc.legal.moderated

One reason why I think the law does not address the issues I raised is

because (1) there would have to be a law written specifically for

Microsoft in such a way as to enshrine their EULA's as "law", and (2)

license agreements (such as MS's EULA's) are contracts, and would

theoretically be covered under contract law.

I am not raising any issues pertaining to trademark or copyright law

in my example, so we need not delve down those avenues.

Basically, as you install most any MS product, a EULA screen will be

presented to you, in which you must clisk "I agree" before the product

will install itself. MS relies on that to effectively bind you to an

agreement with them. It is that agreement that presumably would have

to specify or make reference to (or define) what constitutes "license

ownership". So again I ask if MS even mentions the concepts of

license abandonment or that a "chain of ownership" must exist for a

license.

> A short answer is thus:

>

> You claim is *abandoned, discovered, etc.* keys/license, and

> your ability to use such. Microsoft need make no statement

> in the EULA concerning Law unless special aspects are

> applied. You are to know the Law.

I believe there is legal precedent that discarded property can be

freely obtained and "owned" by others without the express permission

(or even knowledge) of the previous owner. A license is a form of

property.

I make the analogy with a music CD, a movie DVD, or a book. For those

items, you are never buying the rights of ownership to the music, the

movie, or the book. You are buying the rights to view/enjoy/use the

content in a limited, personal manner. If you throw the CD, the DVD,

or the book away in a dumpster at the curbside, I can come along and

retrieve them and the license to view/use them passes to me. If you

did not intend for the license to pass to anyone else, then you could

/ should destroy the CD/DVD/book.

> Use of a key WITHOUT a lawful license is illegal.

I contend that just as in the case with a CD/DVD/book, the license for

software is intangible. The product-key is tangible, and essentially

represents, enumerates, or identifies the license. Within the

constraints of a retail or system-builder product, any single given

product-key represents a single, unique license.

Until the product-key is used, the license is not excercised. If the

product-key is used to perform an installation of the product on ONE

computer, then the license becomes utilized. If the computer is

dammaged, dissassembled, or otherwise becomes defunct, then the

license becomes separable from the hardware and can be used on another

system. The only caveat is that the product-key not be used to

install the product on more than one functioning system

simultaneously, because that would require more than one license.

> Your scenario of a thrown away computer means little.

> If the business or individual is still claiming the computer

> under IRS statutes [timed deductions], you would have to ...

If you bought an asset for business use (such as a desk, a computer, a

license for a software product) then you would claim a deduction for

those items on a declining-cost basis based on depreciation over

time. Even if you discarded those items a week, month or year after

purchase, you would still be claiming them for years into the future

until they were fully depreciated according to standard accounting

rules.

If I came along and somehow acquired those discarded items, because I

would have paid zero for them I would not be in a position to claim

them for my own business expenses (assuming I put them to commercial

use). No fraud or nothing contrary to law is occurring in that

situation. So I fail to see why you are bringing this up in the

context we are discussing.

> If, as was presented before in this group, the computer was

> salvaged from a fire or otherwise, the license/key would be

> automatically transferred to the Insurance Company, you would

> need to obtain salvage rights from the Insurance Company.

But presumably the salvage or insurance company could put the license

and product-key to use for themselves if they so choose.

And if the salvage or insurance company instead throws a computer

(with it's software license) into a dumpster - what then?

> If the licensing was purchased by a business, then it remains

> with that business [an asset, which can be essentially valueless

> and may not even be listed as such for tax purposes or sale],

> regardless whether the computer

If the product-key sticker or booklet was thrown away, and the

business (or person) has no other record of the license-key, (and the

software is no longer installed or in use), then can you really say

that the business (or person) is still in possession of the license?

If yes, then tell me how they would go about excercising the license.

> Keys issued to that business also follow under the business's

> control. Only a lawful assignment of ownership to you can

> properly transfer ownership. There is no "adverse possession"

> associated with this type of property; *fair use* controls.

Why is a software license not treated as an asset or as property, in

which case it can be purchased, bartered, sold, destroyed, lost, or

abandoned? And by the same token it can be found, discovered, or

re-used?

And once it is abandoned or discarded and then found and re-used, once

you click the "I agree" button, you become the entity that has entered

into a contract with (microsoft) and you must ensure that you comply

with the EULA. I contend that the EULA doesn't care (or speak to)

*how* you came to possess the license, just that you are using the

license according to it's terms.

> Unless you could prove beyond ALL doubt the license was obtained

> legally through lawful ownership change, there is no way for you

> to proof the license [or key] was abandoned or obtained legally.

Anyone in possession of a product-key, product-key sticker or booklet,

or even complete retail package, would be in the same boat - it's your

contention that they are continuously and perpetually in a situation

where they must be able to prove ownership. Prove to who, I wonder?

I contend that onus is on Microsoft to be able to show, in a court of

law, that you are using the product in violation of the EULA, and that

how you came to be in possession of the product key (where you got it,

from who, for how much) is irrelavent. Microsoft could demonstrate a

violation of the EULA if, for example, they could show proof that the

product-key was already in use on another system (practically

speaking, given that we are talking about windows-98, their search of

multiple systems using the same product key would be limited to the

same premisis or vendor/system-builder reseller).

> If it was once held under Copyright or Patent then considerable

> years must elapse before it becomes public domain, should the

> owner object.

We are not talking about copyrights or patent ownership issues of the

product in the current discussion.

> Just one more thing: should you have actually purchased a lawful

> license [CDROM or otherwise], but lost your key, you likely

> could use another key for an UNSUPPORTED operating system

> [Microsoft has suggested along those lines].

In the absense of a product-key, what would be in your possession that

would constitute proof that you had actually purchased a license -

beyond your own good will?

> However, knowing a key does NOT grant license or any legal right

> to the software.

Knowing a key *AND* not violating the EULA *does* allow you to use the

software.

If that statement is not true in all situations, then please give one

counter-example.

> Unless it is a lawful sale [complete lawful transfer of ownership,

Where in MS's EULA does it stipulate that a "lawful transfer of

ownership" must occurr?

Does Microsoft even provide any boiler-plate forms or documents to aid

in this hypothetical "transfer of ownership" process?

Do the product booklets have inside them a formatted place to inscribe

the name of the purchaser/owner of the license, as well as a

transfer-of-ownership form?

Does the EULA stipulate that installer must document his/her ownership

of the license by filling out the appropriate forms inside the booklet

that accompanies the license and media CD?

Don't you think that MS could ask for something that simple if it was

their intention to include license ownership as an aspect of the EULA?

July 6, 2007

Re: Shot in the dark

I could be wrong, but I remember reading somewhere (and it makes

perfect sense) that there being hundreds of millions of Windows

installations all over the world, there are no unique keys -

which is why any key will work with the corresponding OS

release. It's an algorithm (or something), probably more

complicated with each subsequent OS release.

I think this is most applicable to older versions of Windows

(and most other software I have run across, where sometimes the

same 5-digit serial number is usable thru years of versions of

the product), and probably why much more stringent controls

(including hidden call-MS spyware or "verify-ware" if you

prefer) have been introduced with XP and Vista.

So if you have a key of which there are tens of thousands

(millions?) in use, and you lost your documentation and original

CD, how can anyone prove you were not the original purchaser? (I

don't know the statistics but from what I have seen it would

seem that roughly 95% of OTC purchasers never register the

software.)

"Unsupported" is also an interesting concept. If MS don't give a

crap about 3.1 or 95 98 anymore (even though you can still buy

full shrinkwrapped legal copies if you look around) and are

concentrating on not letting a single Vista user get away with

putting an extra memory chip in their machine, what does it even

matter?

(OK, I'm exaggerating - but also can't help mentioning the fact

that they are also probably spending an awful lot of their time

rubbing their hands over the fact that they have the patents to

FAT and FAT32 - which came from free Unix in the first place -

so now they can claim they own part of Linux and should get

royalties from *free* software.)

Also, many companies less greedy than MS GIVE AWAY full copies

of their previous-to-last software release (on magazine CD's

etc.), hoping it will inspire the user to upgrade and pay a

reduced upgrade price - which many do but many don't since most

software is perfectly acceptable and usable in early versions

and it is only greedy bastards or incompetents whose software is

lacking essential features until version 7 or 8.

t.

--

Any mental activity is easy if it need not be subjected to

reality.

July 6, 2007

Re: Shot in the dark

"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:468E635F.E905B427@Guy.com...

| MEB wrote:

|

| > Your questions delve into full legal qualifications, hence would

| > be more appropriate to a legal forum.

| > Try misc.legal.moderated

|

| One reason why I think the law does not address the issues I raised is

| because (1) there would have to be a law written specifically for

| Microsoft in such a way as to enshrine their EULA's as "law", and (2)

| license agreements (such as MS's EULA's) are contracts, and would

| theoretically be covered under contract law.

|

| I am not raising any issues pertaining to trademark or copyright law

| in my example, so we need not delve down those avenues.

Here your wrong, in fact, your comments reflect that you have essentially

ZERO understanding of the applicable issues, legal ramifications, and what

comes necessarily into consideration. Nothing needs created for Microsoft.

Microsoft enjoys the protection of ALL applicable Laws, including the

Patriot Act and the UCC. Best read those before you make further comments.

This is typical of parties with no knowledge of Law or refuse to understand

its depth. You're attempt to separate issues and deal with them in a form

which is conducive to your point of view, while ignoring key controlling

elements. Moreover, when directed to the applicable issues, you counter in

the same form of ignorance, apparently thinking the attempt to proceed in

this fashion would be acceptable with the courts, or otherwise qualify your

activities.

No, it will not, your issues will be tossed with the garbage should you

find yourself in a court.

You were directed to proper forums so you could at least discuss these

issues with licensed attorneys, and others versed in Law. You instead

proceed here with the same lack of understanding and misconceptions,

attempting to push issues upon individuals who could, at best, only give you

their impressions of Law. I would imagine I may be the only one here with

any sort of legal background. If any others monitor here, they would likely

not waste their time with this. Your argument hold no sway and is pure waste

of time..

You have a set mind frame, based upon nothing but apparent ignorance. You

present the same issues that can be found in every alt.binaries, torrent,

discussions related to pirated software, and the like; which discuss or

participate in unlawful activities. When advised of such and provided with

the Law, the same ridiculous arguments are rolled out that were used in the

BBS and FIDO days [early electronic public forums].

|

| Basically, as you install most any MS product, a EULA screen will be

| presented to you, in which you must clisk "I agree" before the product

| will install itself. MS relies on that to effectively bind you to an

| agreement with them. It is that agreement that presumably would have

| to specify or make reference to (or define) what constitutes "license

| ownership". So again I ask if MS even mentions the concepts of

| license abandonment or that a "chain of ownership" must exist for a

| license.

Read the EULA for once.

|

| > A short answer is thus:

| >

| > You claim is *abandoned, discovered, etc.* keys/license, and

| > your ability to use such. Microsoft need make no statement

| > in the EULA concerning Law unless special aspects are

| > applied. You are to know the Law.

|

| I believe there is legal precedent that discarded property can be

| freely obtained and "owned" by others without the express permission

| (or even knowledge) of the previous owner. A license is a form of

| property.

Partially Wrong. discarded property remains with the party whom discarded

such until such time as control is lost/relinquished. Court cases discussing

your issues [large tangible items] and such things as identity theft from

waste have already dealt with these issues. When the property is transfer to

the garbage, the transfer is to the waste company [via the container or

bag]. If stored temporarily upon the property of the original owner, joint

ownership [primary to you the owner] and trespass/property issues are also

in play. When placed upon the curb in public access areas, the property

control remains with the waste company and with the original owner as

secondary, and the municipality/city/village/whatever as third party. You as

*dumpster diver* or *trash hog* are not in the picture save in the most

tenuous postition. There are cases presently in the courts dealing with

these very issues.

Mind you, [one of] the parties MUST take issue with an encroachment [you

taking the waste], which allows such things as those unlimited pick-up days

when couches and the like find their way to the street or public access and

may potentially be taken.

If interested [which I see your not] review the rulings related to

paparazzi and other theft/id/other, pertaining to trash/garbage/waste.

|

| I make the analogy with a music CD, a movie DVD, or a book. For those

| items, you are never buying the rights of ownership to the music, the

| movie, or the book. You are buying the rights to view/enjoy/use the

| content in a limited, personal manner. If you throw the CD, the DVD,

| or the book away in a dumpster at the curbside, I can come along and

| retrieve them and the license to view/use them passes to me. If you

| did not intend for the license to pass to anyone else, then you could

| / should destroy the CD/DVD/book.

Wrong argument. Those items fall in another category. Computers, but in

particular software, are held differently.

|

| > Use of a key WITHOUT a lawful license is illegal.

|

| I contend that just as in the case with a CD/DVD/book, the license for

| software is intangible. The product-key is tangible, and essentially

| represents, enumerates, or identifies the license. Within the

| constraints of a retail or system-builder product, any single given

| product-key represents a single, unique license.

As such, the keys were issued under contractual agreement with the party to

whom they were given and to NO-ONE ELSE. Contain within that agreement is

the manner in which they will be used. Other use constitutes breach of

contract and potential fraud.

|

| Until the product-key is used, the license is not excercised. If the

| product-key is used to perform an installation of the product on ONE

| computer, then the license becomes utilized. If the computer is

| dammaged, dissassembled, or otherwise becomes defunct, then the

| license becomes separable from the hardware and can be used on another

| system. The only caveat is that the product-key not be used to

| install the product on more than one functioning system

| simultaneously, because that would require more than one license.

It matters not, that the keys may not have been used by the authorized

agent. What matters is the form under and in which the contract was drawn

and issued.

For example let's say this occurs:

Microsoft enters into a contractual agreement with a fictitious Xwidgets

Inc. to issue seven hundred keys and licenses for VISTA at a reduced price

for use within the corporation. Xwidgets was previously under a similar

agreement for XP.

Xwidgets uses only six hundred and seventy eight of those VISTA licenses

and keys, deciding to keep the other machines using XP for whatever reason.

May Xwidgets sell or distribute those extra licenses and keys, NO. Xwidgets

was not authorized within the contract to sell any of those, or distribute

outside itself, UNLESS such was specifically allowed within the contract.

May Xwidgets transfer ownership of those reduced purchase rate VISTA

versions or keys and licenses to other parties? NO, the agreement is between

Microsoft and Xwidgets. Xwidgets MIGHT be able to do so if allowed within

its contract with Microsoft OR within its corporate charter/bylaws.

Microsoft's attorneys [or now its sales agents since it has been doing this

for years] would likely have already covered such within the contract [e.g.

X years of use beyond contract or otherwise claused].

Who owns the software? Microsoft.

Who has a license to use the software? Xwidgets, the corporation.

Do you, as an employee of Xwidgets have any control over either Microsoft,

Xwidgets, or the software? NO, you are not a party to the contract.

Let's say your position with Xwidgets is in maintenance or the roll-out

department, or otherwise the parties who would take the old XP machines to

the dumpster or remove old software. Do you or are you authorized to

transfer ownership of those XP machines and/or software or Keys?

Not unless you were given such by the corporation, in conjunction with its

agreement/contract with Microsoft [the terms/clauses of the contract].

The agreement is between Xwidgets and Microsoft, not you or any other

party.

May you, a third party, then pick up those XP machines or software from the

dump or trash and lay claim to the machine or software? The machine

potentially, the software NO. The license and keys authority remains with

Xwidgets, the software still OWNED by Microsoft. Read any EULA created by

Microsoft, those terms are spelled out specifically.

Can a recycler pull the software off one of those Xwidget machines or a

hard drive with the OS on it, and which has the sticker for the key on the

system case, then SELL those OSs or hard drives with the OSs with the Key?

NO, Microsoft OWNS the software and has not authorized the recycler to do

so. The original Xwidget/Microsoft contract still controls, UNLESS transfer

of license ownership was effected from Xwidgets to the recycler.

However, Xwidgets is still bound by its original contract with Microsoft

and must be allowed within the contract, to transfer ownership.

May a recycler, Xwidgets, or other parties who have Product Key numbers;

sell, post, or otherwise distribute those Keys?

A private individual CAN by lawfully transferring the original CD or its

copy [the original destroyed], OR a hard drive or machine with OS and KEY so

long as there are NO other copies [including copies of the Key] ANYWHERE. A

corporation, business, or other, MAY not be able to do the same unless

somehow authorized.

[deleted irrelevant response]

|

| > If it was once held under Copyright or Patent then considerable

| > years must elapse before it becomes public domain, should the

| > owner object.

|

| We are not talking about copyrights or patent ownership issues of the

| product in the current discussion.

Yes we are, because they ARE a controlling issue. It matters not you choose

to ignore them and the full ramifications of ALL applicable Law which

applies. MICROSOFT OWNS THE SOFTWARE, the Patents, the Trademarks, the

Copyrights; and every applicable Law applies. Standing in the background of

every argument or discussion is the full weight of Law.

|

| > Just one more thing: should you have actually purchased a lawful

| > license [CDROM or otherwise], but lost your key, you likely

| > could use another key for an UNSUPPORTED operating system

| > [Microsoft has suggested along those lines].

|

| In the absense of a product-key, what would be in your possession that

| would constitute proof that you had actually purchased a license -

| beyond your own good will?

You as defendant would have the right to produce such at trial, the

prosecution need merely show that you MAY have pirated and/or stolen and/or

otherwise conspired with others to commit fraud or other violations of Law.

Possession of the questionable software would be prima fascia evidence that

you have the software at issue, the burden would be upon your shoulders to

proof your licensing/authorization.

The original CD case {with attached Key] might be compelling relevant

proof. OR the nifty little paper/cardboard with the "Don't Lose This Number!

You must use it every time you install this software." with its scannable

product key/strip. OR perhaps the sticker on the machine, however, if it was

registered to someone else, you then would have to proof train of ownership

and/or lawful transfer. Microsoft DOES keep data bases of

registered/licensed users and related information. So do other businesses.

|

| > However, knowing a key does NOT grant license or any legal right

| > to the software.

|

| Knowing a key *AND* not violating the EULA *does* allow you to use the

| software.

|

| If that statement is not true in all situations, then please give one

| counter-example.

Read this post, though I expect, as usual, that you won't be able to grasp

what this post encompasses.

|

| > Unless it is a lawful sale [complete lawful transfer of ownership,

|

| Where in MS's EULA does it stipulate that a "lawful transfer of

| ownership" must occurr?

Read it for once. Then apply the Law.

|

| Does Microsoft even provide any boiler-plate forms or documents to aid

| in this hypothetical "transfer of ownership" process?

Boiler plate... haha, so you think boiler plate wording and contract has to

be provided? Get real. NO ONE has EVER created completely "boiler plate"

legal documents.

The single best *boiler plate*, the United States Constitution, has been

repeatedly and deliberately busted. That's the contract which RULES all

other contracts and Law in this nation.

Boiler Plate is such only until it is circumvented.

|

| Do the product booklets have inside them a formatted place to inscribe

| the name of the purchaser/owner of the license, as well as a

| transfer-of-ownership form?

Don't need them, implied consent by use. Since Win95, the OS license is

registered to the original purchaser/licensee. I remind you that even Win95

had a web-updates site at one time.

|

| Does the EULA stipulate that installer must document his/her ownership

| of the license by filling out the appropriate forms inside the booklet

| that accompanies the license and media CD?

Doesn't need to. Implied consent, use, clicking the proceed/Accept,

installing {intent}; all BIND the party under Law.

|

| Don't you think that MS could ask for something that simple if it was

| their intention to include license ownership as an aspect of the EULA?

Sure, but that's in a world that doesn't presently exist. You are to know

the Law, and are bound to and under it.

Stupid questions, so here's some more....

Does the federal government ask you to fill out forms [except for the IRS

forms] so the Law will apply to you?

Do the State governments ask you to fill out forms accepting the Law as

applied to you?

Do the municipal governments have you fill out forms so the local Law

applies to you?

Does your failure to fill out forms or their failure to supply forms

relieve you from the weight of Law?

The answers are plain, so take your supposed arguments to a proper legal

forum for discussion should you wish to continue. I am done here.

I will leave you with this, I suggest you read it carefully and understand

what it means:

Title 18 Sec. 3551

(a) In General - Except as otherwise specifically provided, a defendant who

has been found guilty of an offence described in any Federal statute,

including section 13 and 1153 of this title, other than an Act of Congress

applicable exclusively in the District of Columbia or the Code of Military

Justice, shall be sentenced in accordance with the provisions of this

chapter so as to achieve the purposes set forth in subparagraphs (A) through

(D) of 3553(a)(2) to the extent that they are applicable in light of all the

circumstances of the case.

TAKE DUE NOTICE: *offence described in any Federal statute* and *in light

of all the circumstances of the case*. Read through those thousands of

federal statutes, Acts of Congress, and Public Law which I directed you to.

--

MEB

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com/people_v_bonini/expose/Expose_crimes_V1.html

________

July 7, 2007

Re: Shot in the dark

98 Guy wrote:

> If you bought an asset for business use (such as a desk, a computer, a

> license for a software product) then you would claim a deduction for

> those items on a declining-cost basis based on depreciation over

> time. Even if you discarded those items a week, month or year after

> purchase, you would still be claiming them for years into the future

> until they were fully depreciated according to standard accounting

> rules.

When you dispose of assets in a business you either have a recapture or

a terminal loss. You don't go on claiming Capital Cost Allowance for

years in the future on assets that were disposed. Your grasp of

accounting principles is a bit tenuous...

John

July 7, 2007

Re: Shot in the dark

John John wrote:

> You don't go on claiming Capital Cost Allowance for

> years in the future on assets that were disposed.

Assuming that the corporation has a working asset control system in

place and it is used correctly to track the disposition of assets.

It doesn't matter if an asset (like a software license) is mismanaged

such that when it is disposed of it is still listed as present. It's

cost will eventually be fully captured. I bet most companies and

corporations don't realize that when they dispose of a computer that

they are also disposing of a software license (or licenses) for

software that they would have bought separately.

July 7, 2007

Re: Shot in the dark

Let me drop out of legal mode: ah better, my take another couple more lines

to work it all out...

"thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message

news:Xns99657F3F3FE35thanexit@66.250.146.158...

| I could be wrong, but I remember reading somewhere (and it makes

| perfect sense) that there being hundreds of millions of Windows

| installations all over the world, there are no unique keys -

| which is why any key will work with the corresponding OS

| release. It's an algorithm (or something), probably more

| complicated with each subsequent OS release.

If you remember that key in conjunction with *something* creates a

uniquely identifiable number.

Such as when installing 98FE I was provided with a 20 digit *personal

identification number* to be used thereafter. So exactly how many people can

be included within a 20 digit number?

Let's see thats:

00,000,000,000,000,000,000 people...

|

| I think this is most applicable to older versions of Windows

| (and most other software I have run across, where sometimes the

| same 5-digit serial number is usable thru years of versions of

| the product), and probably why much more stringent controls

| (including hidden call-MS spyware or "verify-ware" if you

| prefer) have been introduced with XP and Vista.

Yes, you would be close. Law suits were filed for such activities against

Microsoft. WGA [Windows Genuine Advantage, and WPA [Windows Product

Activation] along with several other questionable aspects have been dragged

through the courts.

|

| So if you have a key of which there are tens of thousands

| (millions?) in use, and you lost your documentation and original

| CD, how can anyone prove you were not the original purchaser? (I

| don't know the statistics but from what I have seen it would

| seem that roughly 95% of OTC purchasers never register the

| software.)

They do with XP and VISTA, or rather they are required to do so.

|

| "Unsupported" is also an interesting concept. If MS don't give a

| crap about 3.1 or 95 98 anymore (even though you can still buy

| full shrinkwrapped legal copies if you look around) and are

| concentrating on not letting a single Vista user get away with

| putting an extra memory chip in their machine, what does it even

| matter?

So far, not much save several suits [is it now 46 or more] brought by

Microsoft for pirated software. Mainly against companies caught doing so,

though Microsoft has participated in several prosecutions against

individuals caught with pirated software [including unlicensed OS versions].

However, don't be mistaken, Microsoft still has interest in ALL of its OSs

and products.

|

| (OK, I'm exaggerating - but also can't help mentioning the fact

| that they are also probably spending an awful lot of their time

| rubbing their hands over the fact that they have the patents to

| FAT and FAT32 - which came from free Unix in the first place -

| so now they can claim they own part of Linux and should get

| royalties from *free* software.)

And Microsoft has placed its foot upon Linux and other software companies

recently. I also openly object to the patents given to Microsoft.

|

| Also, many companies less greedy than MS GIVE AWAY full copies

| of their previous-to-last software release (on magazine CD's

| etc.), hoping it will inspire the user to upgrade and pay a

| reduced upgrade price - which many do but many don't since most

| software is perfectly acceptable and usable in early versions

| and it is only greedy bastards or incompetents whose software is

| lacking essential features until version 7 or 8.

|

| t.

|

| --

| Any mental activity is easy if it need not be subjected to

| reality.

Okay, think I got the legal worked out a me...

Well Linux is still free [or at least there are still free versions

available], and does have growing support, mostly from disgruntled Windows

users.

I think it comical that Microsoft users forget that Microsoft OSs displaced

Unix style systems from the business/commercial world, yet many of the

servers running the world ARE Unix/Linux or other non-Microsoft servers.

This Microsoft cult [and it is a cult] got so lost in GUI and WYSIWYG, they

gave up the ability to have absolute control of the system AND the OS. Now

they rely upon Microsoft design, whereas they could have the ability to

compile the EXACT environment, security, and every other aspect they need.

Of course that requires knowledge of computers, the system and other

aspects, by the user. Gone are the days of the computer geek, those who

intimately knew the workings. Computers today are seen as just another

appliance to be used.

-------

Can it connect to the Internet, great.

Do I have to know anything to get there?

No, great, I've got more important things to do

{like spy on the neighbors {I think they're smoking pot or engaged in

terrorist activities. My gawd its unamerican what I see go on there...}}

and

[hey, wait, there's my cell phone,, yeah, yeah, sure,, when, sure, call me

back I'm on the net... what? sure I'll text the address to you in a min..yep

its funny, where? youtube, sure, yep..okay, sure, yep,,,, call me in five...

hang on I've got another call.. hey whatsup... sure... no, ah okay,, yeah,,,

oh you got to check out this neat video I fou... huh, oh, on Kaaza.. yeah

the entire album I just ripped that for you... hang on I got Bob on hold....

hey... yeah.. sure...]

time is money.

Is it fast? Okay then, so it has a few flaws....

--------

Somehow or for some reason, over the last 25 or so years, computer users

quite literally became, ah, how do I put this acceptably, consumerized. Now

we see Microsoft spreading itself *cross da world*... and these new foreign

users think using Microsoft makes them *more like Americans*. What a people

to emulate! But I digress...

Can everything done in Windows be done in Linux? Sure, and the extra

software is also generally free. Yet Microsoft cultists dutifully go out and

buy the new OS AAAAAAAAAND the new software to go with it.... then spend

large parts of their time bitching to Microsoft; trying to patch the system

to plug the new holes and breaches, tweak it [within Microsoft constraints]

and ... ah well, here I sit at this Microsoft run machine....

Say, anyone used Mepis? Still trying to figure out what Linux I should try

the next install...

--

MEB

http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

________

July 7, 2007

Re: Shot in the dark

98 Guy wrote:

> John John wrote:

>

>>You don't go on claiming Capital Cost Allowance for

>>years in the future on assets that were disposed.

>

> Assuming that the corporation has a working asset control system in

> place and it is used correctly to track the disposition of assets.

>

> It doesn't matter if an asset (like a software license) is mismanaged

> such that when it is disposed of it is still listed as present. It's

> cost will eventually be fully captured. I bet most companies and

> corporations don't realize that when they dispose of a computer that

> they are also disposing of a software license (or licenses) for

> software that they would have bought separately.

Oh really? What you *think* and what businesses and corporations do is

a completely different different ball of wax! No comptroller in a large

business would run on your logic, and no accountant who does books and

fiscal returns for smaller business would ever run things your way!

When an asset is disposed it is *NOT* still listed as present! I'm not

going to debate Microsoft EULA's and the law with you, but when it comes

to business accounting practices or GAAP you are 100% wrong, you may as

well stop digging while you can still get out of your hole! Or do you

want a bigger shovel?

John

July 7, 2007

Re: Shot in the dark

This is the silliest discussion i have seen in a newsgroup for a long time.

There is no similarity between a license and a product key other than that

they might refer to the same piece of software.

A product key enables the software to be unlocked and used, exactly like the

front door key to my house allows me to unlock the door and enter. If you

find my front door key in the trash you will be able to get into my house,

but that doesn't give you any right to be there. If you find a software

product key in the trash you might be able to make the software run on your

machine, but that doesn't mean you have the right to use it.

A licence is a contractual arrangement between the owner of the software and

the user of the software that gives the user the right to use the software.

You can't find a licence in the trash because there's nothing to find. You

don't abandon a licence, but you might repudiate it, in which case it ceases

to exist - the contract is ended. If the licence conditions permit, the

licence can be transfered. Microsoft sets out the ways in which this can

be done in order for the licence to continue to be valid, and this does not

include any process of 'abandonment'. The specific things that both the

current licensee and the new licensee must do in order for the license to

continue to be valid are set out in detail in the license agreement. Unless

the new licensee acquires the license in the specific circumstances

Microsoft allows then there is no agreement, no license, and no right to use

the software. That's what the 'chain of ownership' refers to - a specific

agreement between Microsoft and each person who successively took over the

rights bestowed by the licence - from the distributor to the retailer to the

user. You are not obliged to document this chain, but it must exist

nonetheless. Each of the licensees must have acquired the license using a

procedure approved by the software owner in order for the licence to be

valid. Clicking on an answer at a startup screen will commit a licensee to

the conditions in the EULA, but it will not create a valid license where

none exists.

Purchase of a book or DVD is not purchase of a licence - it is a purchase of

a physical unit which can be tossed away to be found and used by someone

else. There is no agreement between the reader/listener and the owner of

the material: that's why copyright law exists - to protect the rights of

the owner when there is no agreement with the user. Software companies long

ago decided that copyright didn't offer adequate protection of their rights,

and that's why they use licensing agreements. Therefore your analogies are

irrelevant.

"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:468E635F.E905B427@Guy.com...

> MEB wrote:

>

>> Your questions delve into full legal qualifications, hence would

>> be more appropriate to a legal forum.

>> Try misc.legal.moderated

>

> One reason why I think the law does not address the issues I raised is

> because (1) there would have to be a law written specifically for

> Microsoft in such a way as to enshrine their EULA's as "law", and (2)

> license agreements (such as MS's EULA's) are contracts, and would

> theoretically be covered under contract law.

>

> I am not raising any issues pertaining to trademark or copyright law

> in my example, so we need not delve down those avenues.

>

> Basically, as you install most any MS product, a EULA screen will be

> presented to you, in which you must clisk "I agree" before the product

> will install itself. MS relies on that to effectively bind you to an

> agreement with them. It is that agreement that presumably would have

> to specify or make reference to (or define) what constitutes "license

> ownership". So again I ask if MS even mentions the concepts of

> license abandonment or that a "chain of ownership" must exist for a

> license.

>

>> A short answer is thus:

>>

>> You claim is *abandoned, discovered, etc.* keys/license, and

>> your ability to use such. Microsoft need make no statement

>> in the EULA concerning Law unless special aspects are

>> applied. You are to know the Law.

>

> I believe there is legal precedent that discarded property can be

> freely obtained and "owned" by others without the express permission

> (or even knowledge) of the previous owner. A license is a form of

> property.

>

> I make the analogy with a music CD, a movie DVD, or a book. For those

> items, you are never buying the rights of ownership to the music, the

> movie, or the book. You are buying the rights to view/enjoy/use the

> content in a limited, personal manner. If you throw the CD, the DVD,

> or the book away in a dumpster at the curbside, I can come along and

> retrieve them and the license to view/use them passes to me. If you

> did not intend for the license to pass to anyone else, then you could

> / should destroy the CD/DVD/book.

>

>> Use of a key WITHOUT a lawful license is illegal.

>

> I contend that just as in the case with a CD/DVD/book, the license for

> software is intangible. The product-key is tangible, and essentially

> represents, enumerates, or identifies the license. Within the

> constraints of a retail or system-builder product, any single given

> product-key represents a single, unique license.

>

> Until the product-key is used, the license is not excercised. If the

> product-key is used to perform an installation of the product on ONE

> computer, then the license becomes utilized. If the computer is

> dammaged, dissassembled, or otherwise becomes defunct, then the

> license becomes separable from the hardware and can be used on another

> system. The only caveat is that the product-key not be used to

> install the product on more than one functioning system

> simultaneously, because that would require more than one license.

>

>> Your scenario of a thrown away computer means little.

>> If the business or individual is still claiming the computer

>> under IRS statutes [timed deductions], you would have to ...

>

> If you bought an asset for business use (such as a desk, a computer, a

> license for a software product) then you would claim a deduction for

> those items on a declining-cost basis based on depreciation over

> time. Even if you discarded those items a week, month or year after

> purchase, you would still be claiming them for years into the future

> until they were fully depreciated according to standard accounting

> rules.

>

> If I came along and somehow acquired those discarded items, because I

> would have paid zero for them I would not be in a position to claim

> them for my own business expenses (assuming I put them to commercial

> use). No fraud or nothing contrary to law is occurring in that

> situation. So I fail to see why you are bringing this up in the

> context we are discussing.

>

>> If, as was presented before in this group, the computer was

>> salvaged from a fire or otherwise, the license/key would be

>> automatically transferred to the Insurance Company, you would

>> need to obtain salvage rights from the Insurance Company.

>

> But presumably the salvage or insurance company could put the license

> and product-key to use for themselves if they so choose.

>

> And if the salvage or insurance company instead throws a computer

> (with it's software license) into a dumpster - what then?

>

>> If the licensing was purchased by a business, then it remains

>> with that business [an asset, which can be essentially valueless

>> and may not even be listed as such for tax purposes or sale],

>> regardless whether the computer

>

> If the product-key sticker or booklet was thrown away, and the

> business (or person) has no other record of the license-key, (and the

> software is no longer installed or in use), then can you really say

> that the business (or person) is still in possession of the license?

> If yes, then tell me how they would go about excercising the license.

>

>> Keys issued to that business also follow under the business's

>> control. Only a lawful assignment of ownership to you can

>> properly transfer ownership. There is no "adverse possession"

>> associated with this type of property; *fair use* controls.

>

> Why is a software license not treated as an asset or as property, in

> which case it can be purchased, bartered, sold, destroyed, lost, or

> abandoned? And by the same token it can be found, discovered, or

> re-used?

>

> And once it is abandoned or discarded and then found and re-used, once

> you click the "I agree" button, you become the entity that has entered

> into a contract with (microsoft) and you must ensure that you comply

> with the EULA. I contend that the EULA doesn't care (or speak to)

> *how* you came to possess the license, just that you are using the

> license according to it's terms.

>

>> Unless you could prove beyond ALL doubt the license was obtained

>> legally through lawful ownership change, there is no way for you

>> to proof the license [or key] was abandoned or obtained legally.

>

> Anyone in possession of a product-key, product-key sticker or booklet,

> or even complete retail package, would be in the same boat - it's your

> contention that they are continuously and perpetually in a situation

> where they must be able to prove ownership. Prove to who, I wonder?

>

> I contend that onus is on Microsoft to be able to show, in a court of

> law, that you are using the product in violation of the EULA, and that

> how you came to be in possession of the product key (where you got it,

> from who, for how much) is irrelavent. Microsoft could demonstrate a

> violation of the EULA if, for example, they could show proof that the

> product-key was already in use on another system (practically

> speaking, given that we are talking about windows-98, their search of

> multiple systems using the same product key would be limited to the

> same premisis or vendor/system-builder reseller).

>

>> If it was once held under Copyright or Patent then considerable

>> years must elapse before it becomes public domain, should the

>> owner object.

>

> We are not talking about copyrights or patent ownership issues of the

> product in the current discussion.

>

>> Just one more thing: should you have actually purchased a lawful

>> license [CDROM or otherwise], but lost your key, you likely

>> could use another key for an UNSUPPORTED operating system

>> [Microsoft has suggested along those lines].

>

> In the absense of a product-key, what would be in your possession that

> would constitute proof that you had actually purchased a license -

> beyond your own good will?

>

>> However, knowing a key does NOT grant license or any legal right

>> to the software.

>

> Knowing a key *AND* not violating the EULA *does* allow you to use the

> software.

>

> If that statement is not true in all situations, then please give one

> counter-example.

>

>> Unless it is a lawful sale [complete lawful transfer of ownership,

>

> Where in MS's EULA does it stipulate that a "lawful transfer of

> ownership" must occurr?

>

> Does Microsoft even provide any boiler-plate forms or documents to aid

> in this hypothetical "transfer of ownership" process?

>

> Do the product booklets have inside them a formatted place to inscribe

> the name of the purchaser/owner of the license, as well as a

> transfer-of-ownership form?

>

> Does the EULA stipulate that installer must document his/her ownership

> of the license by filling out the appropriate forms inside the booklet

> that accompanies the license and media CD?

>

> Don't you think that MS could ask for something that simple if it was

> their intention to include license ownership as an aspect of the EULA?

July 7, 2007

Re: Shot in the dark

thanatoid wrote:

> ... I remember reading somewhere (and it makes perfect sense)

> that there being hundreds of millions of Windows installations

Which version of Windows?

> all over the world, there are no unique keys -

> which is why any key will work with the corresponding

> OS release. It's an algorithm (or something), probably

> more complicated with each subsequent OS release.

>

> I think this is most applicable to older versions of Windows

> (and most other software I have run across, where sometimes

> the same 5-digit serial number is usable thru years of

> versions of the product),

> So if you have a key of which there are tens of thousands

> (millions?) in use, ...

Windows 98 and XP (and win-95?) has a 25-character alpha-numeric key

sequence.

I don't know where you are getting a 5-digit serial number.

There are plenty of combinations to be able to code uniquely for each

and every license that was ever sold.

The only product-keys that can code for more than once license are the

ones used by corporations or educational institutions who (I believe)

purchase them directly from Microsoft. And even they are (probably)

issued unique product keys. I'm not sure if those bulk keys were only

made available for XP, or if win-98 also had bulk keys as well.

We all know that because of the activation process for XP's product

keys, that microsoft is able to black-list XP product keys that it

deems have been abused and render them void. Win-98 does not require

an activation process in order to install itself, even with an abused

key. However, there are some situations (windows updates) where

microsoft has the opportunity to identify a win-98 system with an

abused key. Does anyone know what MS does in a situation like that?

Are they known to deny access to updates in that case? Or worse, to

somehow render the system non-functional?

July 7, 2007

Re: Shot in the dark

John John wrote:

> No comptroller in a large business would run on your logic

I'm not arguing that a disposed asset is supposed to come off the

books.

Whether or not it happens depends on how much internal paperwork,

process and tracking goes on inside a company.

If a custodian (janitor) takes a broken chair and moves it to the rear

loading dock for disposal, it's not a given that the comptroller will

know about it and scratch the chair off the corporation's asset list.

Even in a small company, those who run the accounting system (but who

don't necessarily prepare the books at tax-time) probably never

realize they could (or should) remove office equipment and furnature

from their asset list when they get taken out to be thrown away. It

is incredibly time consuming to deal with every asset in that manner,

especially if there is no tangible financial benefit to be gained (in

the long run) by doing so.

Sign In

Shot in the dark

Recommended Posts

Guest Tom Brown

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest glee

Guest Gary S. Terhune

Guest Brian A.

Guest Galen Somerville

Guest 98 Guy

Guest Gary S. Terhune

Guest 98 Guy

Guest AlmostBob

Guest Gary S. Terhune

Guest 98 Guy

Guest Gary S. Terhune

Guest Tom Brown

Guest 98 Guy

Guest MEB

Guest 98 Guy

Guest thanatoid

Guest MEB

Guest John John

Guest 98 Guy

Guest MEB

Guest John John

Guest James Hahn

Guest 98 Guy

Guest 98 Guy

Similar Content

Computer screen goes dark until full restart

My screen is so bright even on dark mode help

audio in 23H2 is all OK - play to an external speaker, OK, but in 24H2 - the newest installed - problems see shots below - What to do?

Microsoft - can you please create a dark mode for SSMS that doesn't require a work around method/admin rights?

Greetings ,my meccer laptop just went off when I press the start button the light pops up but the screen remains dark what should I do . It's urgent

Browse

Activity

Site Info