kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
> 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,

> ... pretty big leap, why assume that unless explicitly
> written? Remember, nobody and I mean nobody (short
> of a court), can redefine the terms of your EULA after the
> license has been paid for and it has been accepted.

Wrong. You're always welcome to work out what isnt legally
enforceable and make an obscene gesture in MS's general direction.

>> ...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? They would
>> ask you to *repair* the machine where *upgrading* it would probably
>> be cheaper. I mean, at some point in every computer's life upgrading
>> the mobo is probably cheaper than finding an exact replacement.

> Non-applicable unless it was a specific case of an OEM
> EULA with the explicit clause about the motherboard.

Which it doesnt even have with a repair.

> Remember that OEM license IS significantly
> cheaper than retail, and it is for this reason-

Nope, the main difference is who provides the support.

> that arguably there has to be a line drawn, it ceases to distinguish
> between an OEM and retail license if you can change anything...

Thats wrong too, most obviously with adding stuff to what you bought.

> and if we take the arguement that the board would simply have
> to fail, what's to stop someone from just taking a screwdriver
> to it to kill it after it's 5 years old, then worn out and worthless?

What is the point in killing anything ?

> Again I will mention that you are WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME.

You get no say what so ever on that or anything else at all, ever.

> There is NO POINT to pursue this discussion as it has been rehased
> time and time and time again in group after group after group.

It hasnt with REPAIRS.

And you get no say what so ever even if it has
been rehashed endlessly elsewhere anyway.

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

> Mainly it's because most people buy pre-built OEM systems,
> and when they buy the replacement pre-built OEM system,
> they need not reuse their old license because that next OEM
> license, actually the cumulative total cost for both, is still
> lesser cost than one retail license you'd want to transfer.

> It may be that retail licenses are expensive but that has
> to be treated as separate, because the legal system still
> pretends it's a free market even though they haven't gotten
> around to doing anything about the MS monopoly.

There is no monopoly. You are welcome to use any linux you like.

> We could speculate why but it seems most likely that some
> feel keeping MS whole is in the public interest and it is a fair
> arguement since the evolution of the PC benefitted greatly
> from a unifying platform... just a pity it was MS at the helm.

Or they have noticed that it aint a monopoly.

>> It's the main deal breaker that keeps people from building their
>> own computers. If Windows XP were around $30, I would have
>> bought 10 copies by now. Over $100? I've only bought one.

> It doesn't keep people from building their own, the desire
> to have a custom system overrides the ~ $70 cost difference.
> Also, remember your prior desire to reuse the license if
> retail so the cost of the retail license would be spred over
> the next system vs buying more than one OEM license to
> cover that next system (or upgrade to the old one
> substantial enough that it's deemed a different system).

> Basically, the high price of Windows Retail
> is an example of why the MS monopoly

There is no monopoly, you are welcome to use any linux you like.

> is bad for consumers. We can ignore the finer
> details because nothing is going to change so long
> as they have no need to compete in the market.

Corse they do when anyone can use linux.