Shot in the dark

[Guest 98 Guy]

Re: Shot in the dark

 

James Hahn wrote:

> There is no similarity between a license and a product key

> other than that they might refer to the same piece of software.

 

Can you have a license without having a product key?

 

Does every product key represent a license?

 

I never said that a product-key and a license were the *same* thing.

I said there was a fixed relationship between them. The product-key

is a substitute for a paper contract between microsoft and the

end-user. The act of clicking the "I agree" button when installing

the software is a substitute for signing a paper contract.

> 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 I find a product-key for Windows-98 and use it to install the

software, and if I click on the "I agree" button, and if indeed I am

in compliance with the EULA, then nothing illegal is being done, no

law has been broken.

 

If I find a key to your front door, and if a note attached to they key

has a list of people that are allowed to use it, and if my name is on

the list, then I have the right to enter your house. In the absence

of note attached to the key, then then criminal trespass laws would

apply. In the case of software, the display of the EULA and the "I

agree" button is eqivalent to the note attached to the key.

 

The note attached to they key and the display of the EULA during the

software installation process are equivalent. They both spell out who

has the right to use the item.

 

If Microsoft has anticipated some sort of serial ownership of the

license for (some, most, all) of their products, then what is their

interest in defining *how* the ownership is transfered, so long as the

EULA is obeyed?

> 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.

 

If I am not in violation of the EULA, then what other condition must I

satisfy to have the right to use the software? And where or how is

this condition written or conveyed to the end-user?

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

> to find.

 

If so, then how can I purchase a license on E-bay? What am I

acquiring in that situation that I couldn't similarly acquire from a

trash can?

> You don't abandon a licence, ...

 

Sure you do. When you stop using it, when the means by which you were

able to excercise it no longer exist, when your records of the license

(ie the product-key) become lost to you or if you discard them, you

have effectively abandoned the license. But the license still

exists. Even when you abandon the license, it will continue to exist,

because it was granted, created by Microsoft, and only they can

withdraw, take back, cancel or destroy the license.

> but you might repudiate it, in which case it ceases to exist

> - the contract is ended.

 

The only way I can cause it to become (practically) non-existant is if

I destroy all evidence of it so that nobody else can acquire it by any

means.

> 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.

 

Great!

 

Then you should have no problem in quoting the specific sentences

from, say, a Windows-98 license agreement that would prevent me from

legally using a win-98 product key that I might find in a garbage can.

[Guest thanatoid]

Re: Shot in the dark

 

98 Guy <98@Guy.com> wrote in news:468FA9D8.9BC93E37@Guy.com:

> thanatoid wrote:

>

>> ... I remember reading somewhere (and it makes perfect

>> sense) that there being hundreds of millions of Windows

>> installations

>

> Which version of Windows?

 

No one knows which version or exactly how many. MS can name any

figure they want and no one can disprove it. Still, there are

6.5 billion people in the world, I would guess 5-10% have a

computer, and most of those use Windows.

 

<SNIP>

> I don't know where you are getting a 5-digit serial number.

 

I didn't say it applied to MS products. Shareware etc.

> 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.

 

Just about the only upgrade 95 and 98 need is for the owner to

never use IE or Office. A few minor net-protocol-related

upgrades may be useful, as well as the Me version of scandisk

and defrag.

 

<SNIP>

 

--

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

reality.

[Guest James Hahn]

Re: Shot in the dark

 

"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:468FB743.C7E8FFD8@Guy.com...

> James Hahn wrote:

>

>> There is no similarity between a license and a product key

>> other than that they might refer to the same piece of software.

>

> Can you have a license without having a product key?

>

Of course. Why not? The product might not require a key. I might have

lost the key.

> Does every product key represent a license?

>

I don't know what you mean by 'represent' as they are two completely

different things, but it is possible to have a product key and no license.

A key doesn't simply disappear because the license is terminated or expires.

> I never said that a product-key and a license were the *same* thing.

> I said there was a fixed relationship between them. The product-key

> is a substitute for a paper contract between microsoft and the

> end-user. The act of clicking the "I agree" button when installing

> the software is a substitute for signing a paper contract.

>

No and No. The product key has nothing to do with the license. It is a

mechanisim (not very effective) for controlling access to the software.

Clicking the "I agree" button _might_ be a substitute for signing a

contract, but the point is moot. You can "sign" the contract as much as you

like, but if the other party hasn't agreed then it's not worth a thing.

>> 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 I find a product-key for Windows-98 and use it to install the

> software, and if I click on the "I agree" button, and if indeed I am

> in compliance with the EULA, then nothing illegal is being done, no

> law has been broken.

You can't surely be serious in proposing this. It's like saying that if you

find my car key in the street then you are entitled to drive my car around

town provided that you obey the traffic laws and leave me a note promising

to wash it for me when you return it. It's nonsense. If you install and

use someone else's software without being licensed to do so, you are

breaking the law in exactly the same way you are breaking the law if you

drive around in my car without asking my permission first. Whether or not

you had a key, and whether or not you made certain promises about how you

would use it is simply not relevant.

>

> If I find a key to your front door, and if a note attached to they key

> has a list of people that are allowed to use it, and if my name is on

> the list, then I have the right to enter your house. In the absence

> of note attached to the key, then then criminal trespass laws would

> apply. In the case of software, the display of the EULA and the "I

> agree" button is eqivalent to the note attached to the key.

>

If the inclusion of your name on the list represents my approval for you to

use the house, then how you got the key doesn't matter. It doesn't even

matter whether you use the key - i have agreed to let you use the house.

Similarly, if you have an arangement with MS, or someone authorised by MS

such as a reseller, to provide you with a licence, then how you got the key

or the software doesn't matter - if you agree to the conditions then your

license will be valid. But it doesn't work the other way - you can't create

a licence by locating the software and the key and agreeing to the

conditions.

> The note attached to they key and the display of the EULA during the

> software installation process are equivalent. They both spell out who

> has the right to use the item.

That assumption suits your point of view, but it is simply incorrect. Read

the EULA.

>

> If Microsoft has anticipated some sort of serial ownership of the

> license for (some, most, all) of their products, then what is their

> interest in defining *how* the ownership is transfered, so long as the

> EULA is obeyed?

You would have to ask MS. Many software manufacturers do not permit any

form of transfer of the license by the end user. MS allows it under some

carefully specifed conditions. Perhaps they think that makes the product

more attractive to their customers and therefore allows them to charge a

higher price for it, while still making control of licensed copies

manageable. Your guess is as good as mine., but it doesn't really matter

why they do it, they just do.

>

>> 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.

>

> If I am not in violation of the EULA, then what other condition must I

> satisfy to have the right to use the software?

You must have a license - an agreement between yourself and the owner of the

software that gives you the right to use their product.

> And where or how is this condition written or conveyed to the end-user?

It's the first clause in the EULA.

>

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

>> to find.

>

> If so, then how can I purchase a license on E-bay? What am I

> acquiring in that situation that I couldn't similarly acquire from a

> trash can?

The E-bay seller (whether manufacturer, retailer or end-user) is allowed to

sell you his licence. The ability to do that is part of the conditions of

the agreement he entered into with Microsoft when he acquired the licence.

MS has said that a licence will exist if it is transferred under that

procedure. It will not exist in any other circumstance, so you can never

find one in a trash can.

>

>> You don't abandon a licence, ...

>

> Sure you do. When you stop using it, when the means by which you were

> able to excercise it no longer exist, when your records of the license

> (ie the product-key) become lost to you or if you discard them, you

> have effectively abandoned the license. But the license still

> exists. Even when you abandon the license, it will continue to exist,

> because it was granted, created by Microsoft, and only they can

> withdraw, take back, cancel or destroy the license.

>

You are ignoring reality. As i said, there is no such thing as abandoning a

licence. It is not possible to throw it in the trash or leave it behind at

your last known place of residence because there is nothing to throw in the

trash or to leave behind. It is an agreement between two parties - it is

not a document or a number or a CD or anything that you can dispose of. You

can repudiate it: ie you can undertake an action (as specified in the EULA)

that terminates the licence. In that case it disappears (if you watch

closely you can see the puff of smoke).

>> but you might repudiate it, in which case it ceases to exist

>> - the contract is ended.

>

> The only way I can cause it to become (practically) non-existant is if

> I destroy all evidence of it so that nobody else can acquire it by any

> means.

If the contract is terminated, MS requires you to destroy your copies of the

software and the documents. The converse is not true - the license can

still exist if everything is destroyed. MS recognises this by providing

replacement software and documentation (for a fee) if your license is

current but you no longer have your copies of the software or documents. MS

also sells licenses without documents or software.

>

>> 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.

>

> Great!

>

> Then you should have no problem in quoting the specific sentences

> from, say, a Windows-98 license agreement that would prevent me from

> legally using a win-98 product key that I might find in a garbage can.

Why not just read it for yourself? The relevant bit for W98SE OEM is:

"You may pemanently transfer all your rights under this EULA as part of a

permanent sale or transfer of the HARDWARE, provided you retain no copies,

you transfer all of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (including all component parts, the

media, the printed materials, any upgrades, this EULA and, if applicable,

the Certificate(s) of Authenticity). and the recipient agrees to the terms

of this EULA."

 

That's the only way you can get hold of someone else's license. If the

previous licensee has not done all these things then the license is not

transferred and the recipient of those materials does not have a valid

license. Throwing everything in the trash with the intention that it be

disposed of does not constitute a permanent sale or transfer for this

purpose.

[Guest 98 Guy]

Re: Shot in the dark

 

James Hahn wrote:

> > Can you have a license without having a product key?

> >

> Of course. Why not? The product might not require a key.

 

We are talking about an OS product from Microsoft, and if you like,

specifically windows-98.

> I might have lost the key.

 

Then you can twidle your thumbs and stare at your Win-98 CD all day

long and keep saying to yourself that you have a license, but you

won't be able to excercise (install) it unless you have a product key.

> > Does every product key represent a license?

> >

> I don't know what you mean by 'represent' ...

 

A coin has two sides. You can't have a coin with only one side. The

front side is not the same "thing" as the back side. The front side

is not the back side. There is, however, a fixed and well defined

relationship between the front and back sides.

 

A software product from microsoft (say, win-98) has a license and a

product key. You can't use/install the product unless you have a

license and a key. The license is not the same "thing" as the product

key. The license is not the key. There is, however, a fixed and well

defined relationship between the license and the key.

> A key doesn't simply disappear because the license is

> terminated or expires.

 

A specific (microsoft) key essentially disappears if all paper records

(or decal/sticker or electronic files) that it is written or embossed

on is destroyed or erased. Even if MS has a record of that key, I'm

not aware of any mechanism by which they would / could restore it to

you.

 

And we know that microsoft can make any given key invalid, which you

could say is one way of making it disappear.

 

It's my contention that every product key is "the other side of the

coin" to a license. Unless Microsoft invalidates a particular key,

then no key (and it's associated license) ever exipires or terminates

(unless there is a specific end-date or other condition in the

license, which for a win-98 license I don't believe there is).

> No and No. The product key has nothing to do with the license.

 

That is complete misinformation.

 

Microsoft sells people licenses to use their products. The key is

used as the technical mechanism to convey the license to the end user

or product installer. The key is a very important aspect of license

acquisition and utilization because of the absense of a signed

document between Microsoft and the end-user or license-owner. The key

also serves to uniquely identify a license for (obsensibly) legal

issues and license-violation investigations.

> It is a mechanisim (not very effective) for controlling access

> to the software.

 

I agree with that statement, but you are going out of your way to not

use the term "license". I would have said:

 

"It is THE mechanism (not very effective) for enabling the

license-holder to have access to the software - to utilize the

license."

> Clicking the "I agree" button _might_ be a substitute for

> signing a contract, but the point is moot.

 

No it isn't moot. Clicking the "I agree" button is central to the

contract between MS and the end-user/installer.

> You can "sign" the contract as much as you like, but if

> the other party hasn't agreed then it's not worth a thing.

 

The "other party" is Microsoft, and they themselves wrote the contract

to which you are electronically signing.

> It's like saying that if you find my car key in the street

> then you are entitled to drive my car around town provided

> that you obey the traffic laws and leave me a note promising

> to wash it for me when you return it. It's nonsense.

 

You're counter-argument is nonsense.

 

Again, with regard to a product like win-98, I have to agree to the

terms of the EULA. That is a contract.

 

If I find your car key, there is no contract, no agreement that comes

with the key that dictates the terms by which I am (or could be)

allowed to use the key to drive your car. So in that case, me having

the car key does not grant me an automatic right to use it.

> If you install and use someone else's software without being

> licensed to do so,

 

But can a license be discarded, thrown away, or abandoned?

 

You can discard, throw away, or abandon your car somewhere. To make

the analogy with software more similar, you car (all cars) are not

registered with any level of gov't or with the manufacturer, so even

if the car has a VIN number, there is no central registry that could

associate your abandoned car with you. So I could take your abandoned

car and start using it - unless it's parked in your driveway or your

garage or if you are driving it (remember, you don't own the car, you

only purchased a license from the manufacturer or a re-seller to drive

it, and they never ask for or buy back that license, even if you're

done with it).

> > If I find a key to your front door, and if a note attached to

> > they key has a list of people that are allowed to use it, and

> > if my name is on the list, ...

> If the inclusion of your name on the list represents my approval

> for you to use the house, then how you got the key doesn't matter.

 

Exactly. How I got the key does not matter. What matters is that I

am not violating any of the terms on the note attached to the key.

> Similarly, if you have an arangement with MS, or ...

 

Nobody ever enters into a personal "arrangement" with MS or any level

of reseller, all the way down to an e-bay seller, when they acquire a

license / product key.

 

You acknowledge that you are in conformity with and agree to the terms

of the EULA at the time of product installation and thereafter during

it's use. There is absolutely no agreement or contract that occurs at

the time of product purchase or license acquisition.

> such as a reseller, to provide you with a licence,

 

I can buy an educational license for a product (like win-98 or XP) but

if I'm not a student then I can't use the license. Note that the

purchse of the license was allowed, but I would be in violation of the

EULA if I tried to install and use it. Your argument that the simple

purchase of a license from an "authorized" source will automatically

convey to me a legal right to use the product is not true.

> - you can't create a licence by locating the software and

> the key and agreeing to the conditions.

 

If a license can be bought, sold, or traded, then it can also be lost,

discarded, and found.

 

So long as a given license is used in a serial manner (that it is not

used on more than one machine simultaneously) and if no other terms of

the EULA are violated, then there is no violation of the law.

> Many software manufacturers do not permit any form of

> transfer of the license by the end user. MS allows it

> under some carefully specifed conditions.

 

And how does MS register the granting of licenses to particular

end-users so that they can enforce such a denial of license transfer?

> > If I am not in violation of the EULA, then what other

> > condition must I satisfy to have the right to use the

> > software?

> You must have a license - an agreement between yourself

> and the owner of the software that gives you the right

> to use their product.

 

Do you have a license to use a particular microsoft product?

 

Where is it? What form does it take? Is is a paper contract, signed

by you and Bill Gates?

> The E-bay seller (whether manufacturer, retailer or end-user)

> is allowed to sell you his licence. The ability to do that

> is part of the conditions of the agreement he entered into

> with Microsoft when he acquired the licence.

 

Wrong.

 

If I walk into a store and purchse a retail copy (and license) for a

product like win-98 or XP, I have entered into NO agreement with

microsoft. If I turn around and sell that retail copy on e-bay, I am

doing so without any knowledge, interference, approval or objection

from Microsoft.

 

I have no agreement with them regarding what I do with the product as

I walk out of the store. They have no record of me buying it. I

could throw it into a dumpster in the parking lot. It's absurd for

you to insist that someone else couldn't come along and take it out of

the dumpster and legally use it.

 

Again you are confusing the simple possession of a license with

actually using it.

> MS also sells licenses without documents or software.

 

What do they provide you with in that case? Would it be, by chance, a

product-key?

> > Then you should have no problem in quoting the specific sentences

> > from, say, a Windows-98 license agreement that would prevent me from

> > legally using a win-98 product key that I might find in a garbage can.

> The relevant bit for W98SE OEM is:

>

> "You may pemanently transfer all your rights under this EULA

> as part of a permanent sale or transfer of the HARDWARE,

> provided you retain no copies, you transfer all of the SOFTWARE

> PRODUCT (including all component parts, the media, the printed

> materials, any upgrades, this EULA and, if applicable, the

> Certificate(s) of Authenticity). and the recipient agrees to

> the terms of this EULA."

 

Note that they say "sale or transfer of the ...". How do they define

transfer? What if I transfer it to the curbside? Note also that it

doesn't say that the HARDWARE and SOFTWARE must be transfered to the

same recipient.

 

Do they not mention anything related to cessation of use, of

discarding the product?

 

What if I have a store-bought license for win-98 installed on a

system, and if later I throw the computer away with the intent of

buying a new one, but I never do, but I still have the complete retail

package (the CD, the certificate of authenticity, etc). Can I sell

the package on e-bay or give it away to someone so they can install it

on their system? According to the above terms, no they can't.

> Throwing everything in the trash with the intention that it

> be disposed of does not constitute a permanent sale or

> transfer for this purpose.

 

Intent is not a factor. Throwing everything into the trash is a

TRANSFER. It is being transfered out of my hands or out of my

posession. You could even put a sign on it saying "free" as it sits

at the curb. What then? What if the sign has blown off before I come

around and see it. Can I still acquire the license in that case?

 

Here's a final question to leave you with:

 

If someone steals my computer (with a store-bought, retail version of

windows installed on it) does Microsoft have legal grounds to charge

the theif with violating the terms of the EULA should the theif start

using the computer? (in other words, was the license properly

conveyed to the theif, and if not, can, or has microsoft ever, charged

anyone in a situation like that)?

[Guest thanatoid]

Re: Shot in the dark

 

98 Guy <98@Guy.com> wrote in news:46911184.2D0D678@Guy.com:

 

<SNIP>

> Then you can twidle your thumbs and stare at your Win-98 CD

> all day long and keep saying to yourself that you have a

> license, but you won't be able to excercise (install) it

> unless you have a product key.

 

You can get keys from hundreds of places, and they all work. In

fact, I believe I once saw a formula for creating a key which

will work with all older MS products (like up to 2000 or

something)

> A specific (microsoft) key essentially disappears if all

> paper records (or decal/sticker or electronic files) that

> it is written or embossed on is destroyed or erased. Even

> if MS has a record of that key, I'm not aware of any

> mechanism by which they would / could restore it to you.

 

As was documented a little over a year ago, they sometimes

refuse to provide it to the REGISTERED owner.

> And we know that microsoft can make any given key invalid,

> which you could say is one way of making it disappear.

 

Where the hell did you get THAT from? As I said earlier, there

is an almost infinite number of keys and they all work (for pre-

XP - which is what you claim you are talking about).

 

<SNIP>

>> Many software manufacturers do not permit any form of

>> transfer of the license by the end user. MS allows it

>> under some carefully specifed conditions.

 

And some software manufacturers allow installation of their

software on more than one computer by the same registered user.

 

 

--

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

reality.

[Guest glee]

Re: Shot in the dark

 

"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:46911184.2D0D678@Guy.com...

> James Hahn wrote:

> snip

>

>> The relevant bit for W98SE OEM is:

>>

>> "You may pemanently transfer all your rights under this EULA

>> as part of a permanent sale or transfer of the HARDWARE,

>> provided you retain no copies, you transfer all of the SOFTWARE

>> PRODUCT (including all component parts, the media, the printed

>> materials, any upgrades, this EULA and, if applicable, the

>> Certificate(s) of Authenticity). and the recipient agrees to

>> the terms of this EULA."

>

> "98 Guy" wrote:

> Note that they say "sale or transfer of the ...". How do they define

> transfer? What if I transfer it to the curbside? Note also that it

> doesn't say that the HARDWARE and SOFTWARE must be transfered to the

> same recipient.

 

Your argument is so absurd and self-serving, it would be laughable if it weren't so

pathetic. You also do not appear to have sound reading comprehension skills.

 

The OEM excerpt given states (with the parenthetical description omitted): ""You may

permanently transfer all your rights under this EULA as part of a permanent sale or

transfer of the HARDWARE, provided you retain no copies, you transfer all of the

SOFTWARE PRODUCT, and the recipient agrees to the terms of this EULA."

 

It is clear from the statement that they are referring to ONE transfer en masse of

the hardware AND the software to the ONE recipient mentioned at the end of the

sentence. This was the standard provision of OEM licenses at that time. Note that

the current OEM licensing for current MS OS's is far stricter and even this type of

transfer is not permitted. Also please note, as mentioned below, that OEM licenses

have nothing to do with retail licenses, which is apparently what you are arguing

about.

>

> snip

>

> What if I have a store-bought license for win-98 installed on a

> system, and if later I throw the computer away with the intent of

> buying a new one, but I never do, but I still have the complete retail

> package (the CD, the certificate of authenticity, etc). Can I sell

> the package on e-bay or give it away to someone so they can install it

> on their system? According to the above terms, no they can't.

 

The excerpt from the EULA that James posted is, as he specifically noted, from

Win98SE OEM. You reply with an argument about "a store-bought license", "the

complete retail package". Are you not aware of the difference between "retail" and

OEM"? Surely you are not that ignorant of the license types. The terms of an OEM

license are far different than those of a retail copy of Windows.

 

Instead of wasting your time, our time, and everyone's bandwidth with a useless

debate on legal licensing agreements about which you have no expertise, why not

address this to a lawyer or an attorney's office or legal forum, where at least

someone might have some actual information to supply, as opposed to your constant

baseless conjecture with no apparent understanding of the law.

 

This is yet ANOTHER thread started by someone else regarding their computer problem,

which you have once again hijacked and turned totally off-topic for your own, quite

frankly stupid, ends.

 

The subject line of this and every thread you so hijack to the detriment of all the

people in this group looking for or administering help, should well be re-named:

Subject: "Another tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying

nothing....."

--

Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+

http://dts-l.org/

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

[Guest James Hahn]

Re: Shot in the dark

 

You are quite correct. I should have looked at the history - it's very

illuminating.

 

"glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message

news:%23H$0P6YwHHA.3684@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> "98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:46911184.2D0D678@Guy.com...

>> James Hahn wrote:

>> snip

>>

>>> The relevant bit for W98SE OEM is:

>>>

>>> "You may pemanently transfer all your rights under this EULA

>>> as part of a permanent sale or transfer of the HARDWARE,

>>> provided you retain no copies, you transfer all of the SOFTWARE

>>> PRODUCT (including all component parts, the media, the printed

>>> materials, any upgrades, this EULA and, if applicable, the

>>> Certificate(s) of Authenticity). and the recipient agrees to

>>> the terms of this EULA."

>>

>> "98 Guy" wrote:

>> Note that they say "sale or transfer of the ...". How do they define

>> transfer? What if I transfer it to the curbside? Note also that it

>> doesn't say that the HARDWARE and SOFTWARE must be transfered to the

>> same recipient.

>

> Your argument is so absurd and self-serving, it would be laughable if it

> weren't so pathetic. You also do not appear to have sound reading

> comprehension skills.

>

> The OEM excerpt given states (with the parenthetical description omitted):

> ""You may permanently transfer all your rights under this EULA as part of

> a permanent sale or transfer of the HARDWARE, provided you retain no

> copies, you transfer all of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, and the recipient agrees

> to the terms of this EULA."

>

> It is clear from the statement that they are referring to ONE transfer en

> masse of the hardware AND the software to the ONE recipient mentioned at

> the end of the sentence. This was the standard provision of OEM licenses

> at that time. Note that the current OEM licensing for current MS OS's is

> far stricter and even this type of transfer is not permitted. Also please

> note, as mentioned below, that OEM licenses have nothing to do with retail

> licenses, which is apparently what you are arguing about.

>>

>> snip

>>

>> What if I have a store-bought license for win-98 installed on a

>> system, and if later I throw the computer away with the intent of

>> buying a new one, but I never do, but I still have the complete retail

>> package (the CD, the certificate of authenticity, etc). Can I sell

>> the package on e-bay or give it away to someone so they can install it

>> on their system? According to the above terms, no they can't.

>

> The excerpt from the EULA that James posted is, as he specifically noted,

> from Win98SE OEM. You reply with an argument about "a store-bought

> license", "the complete retail package". Are you not aware of the

> difference between "retail" and OEM"? Surely you are not that ignorant of

> the license types. The terms of an OEM license are far different than

> those of a retail copy of Windows.

>

> Instead of wasting your time, our time, and everyone's bandwidth with a

> useless debate on legal licensing agreements about which you have no

> expertise, why not address this to a lawyer or an attorney's office or

> legal forum, where at least someone might have some actual information to

> supply, as opposed to your constant baseless conjecture with no apparent

> understanding of the law.

>

> This is yet ANOTHER thread started by someone else regarding their

> computer problem, which you have once again hijacked and turned totally

> off-topic for your own, quite frankly stupid, ends.

>

> The subject line of this and every thread you so hijack to the detriment

> of all the people in this group looking for or administering help, should

> well be re-named:

> Subject: "Another tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

> signifying nothing....."

> --

> Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+

> http://dts-l.org/

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

>

[Guest 98 Guy]

Re: Shot in the dark

 

glee wrote:

> The OEM excerpt given states (with the parenthetical description

> omitted): ""You may permanently transfer all your rights under

> this EULA as part of a permanent sale or transfer of the HARDWARE

 

I have repeatedly talked about a retail or system-builder license, not

a license for a version of windows that is already installed on a

system that is purchased as new, such as a gateway, compaq, dell, etc,

system.

 

A retail or system-builder license does not begin it's life already

pre-installed on a system, therefore the requirement that it can only

be transfered to a new owner along with some specific, hypothetical

hardware is not enforceable, if indeed it is even stated in it's EULA.

> The excerpt from the EULA that James posted is, as he specifically

> noted, from Win98SE OEM. You reply with an argument about "a

> store-bought license", "the complete retail package". Are you

> not aware of the difference between "retail" and OEM"?

 

If I wasn't aware of the various types of licenses, then how I could I

make such a comment about limiting the issue to a discussion about

retail license rights?

> The subject line of this and every thread ....

 

Yes, please explain how I have hijacked a thread with the subject:

"Shot in the dark".

 

Please tell me what you expect a thread to contain when the subject is

"Shot in the dark".

[Guest glee]

Re: Shot in the dark

 

"98 Guy" <98@Guy.com> wrote in message news:4694104C.A7C10F31@Guy.com...

> glee wrote:

>

>> The subject line of this and every thread ....

>

> Yes, please explain how I have hijacked a thread with the subject:

> "Shot in the dark".

>

> Please tell me what you expect a thread to contain when the subject is

> "Shot in the dark".

 

You once again conveniently remove most of the sentence, leaving only a portion that

suits you.

 

The subject line of the thread refers to the issue the OP was trying to work out

without having a lot of details, due to not being at the computer with the problem.

No one else here but you seemed to have a problem understanding that. The thread is

about the CONTENT of the original post. There are plenty of threads with subject

lines that just say silly things like "Help", and we try to answer based on the

content, not by the subject line. We don't facetiously decide a thread with

subject: "Help" is an invitation to discuss Beatles songs.

 

I expect the thread to contain relevant info for the OP's questions, which is

exactly what this thread did contain until you came along and hijacked it to your

own ends.

 

This is enough.....you waste our time and your intelligence with this game-playing.

--

Glen Ventura, MS MVP Shell/User, A+

http://dts-l.org/

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