visions of effty <impeach_the_shrub@verizon.net> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> visions of effty <impeach_the_shrub@verizon.net> wrote

>>> The intention with Vista is to make a Windows license
>>> non-transferable through an upgrade of the motherboard.
>>> http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/49364

>> That isnt legally sustainable in any country with a decent legal system. And clearly
>> doesnt even apply to the REPAIR being discussed anyway.

> Okay, here's the point though. Microsoft wants to define a new
> computer as a new motherboard for the most common licensing
> arrangement, but if you have a machine with 5 years on it and the
> motherboard dies are you going to replace it with an exact duplicate?

Legally you dont have to, regardless of what MS wants to claim.

> They would ask you to *repair* the machine where *upgrading* it would probably be
> cheaper.

Legally MS gets no say on that choice.

They dont if you want to upgrade either legally.

> I mean, at some point in every computer's life upgrading the mobo is probably cheaper
> than finding an exact replacement.

Sure.

> No, you don't have to buy computers with bundled software, but most people do.

Most in here likely dont.

> I think it's an odd agreement.

Legally it isnt even an 'agreement'

> I can't think of any other things you might purchase that when one part breaks (the
> motherboard) you aren't legally allowed to continue to use the other part (the OS), but
> that seems to be the crux of the OEM licensing deal.

Nope, the bit cited clearly doesnt apply to a REPAIR.

And what MS claims isnt the law anyway.

> You purchased both, but you cannot use both independantly.

Legally you can in any country with a decent legal
system, regardless of what MS trys to claim.

> You can use the hardware without the OS, but you can't use the OS without the hardware.

Legally you can in any country with a decent legal
system, regardless of what MS trys to claim.

> It's a bizarre trick

Yes, its clearly just another MS con job legally.

> they have us buying into,

Those who understand the law dont buy into that con job.

> and I find it hard to justify.

Sure. MS essentially claims that you are getting a cheaper
version of the OS with an OEM so they claim that they can
say what it can be run on. They are wrong, legally.

> Also, the *only* reason people use OEM software to begin with is that Windows is
> repulsively expensive.

It isnt necessarily. MS isnt bothering with any proof of qualification
here with academic editions and the price isnt too bad for those.

> It's the main deal breaker that keeps people from building their own computers.

Nope. Plenty dont bother to buy a licensed copy at all.

> If Windows XP were around $30, I would have bought 10 copies by now. Over $100? I've
> only bought one.

Sure, and plenty dont bother to buy even one.