Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft as a Company => Topic started by: mobrien_12 on 9 July 2006, 22:59
-
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/07/1412247
The defence argued that if a large organisation, such as a bank, bought a large number of computers and never used the bundled Microsoft software and sold on the licences, that a company such as Digital could sell those licences, for which Microsoft had already been paid.
The judge rejected the argument. "The fallacy in the argument is that if the bank does not accept the EULA [licence] terms [by operating the software and agreeing the terms], it receives no licence. Thus it can confer no licence for the use of any Microsoft software by passing on the COA (certificate of authenticity), nor can the COA be evidence of, or itself confer, such a licence. Thus, provided that the licensing system is enforceable in law, the circumstances exemplified cannot give rise to a legitimate trade in COAs."
So, according to this judge, in the UK, if you don't agree to the licenses, you don't, in fact, own anything, even if you've paid for it.
WTF...
-
if the bank does not accept the EULA [licence] terms [by operating the software and agreeing the terms], it receives no licence.
Um...yes it does?
-
What it means is the bank have already agreed to the licence by purchasing it. The EULA is in affect a contract.
But doesn't this mean MS have to provide a highly visible warning that there by purchasing the software at a store that you are bound by a rather restrictive contract (EULA)? Or is it totally the customers responsibility to check if certain software deviates from standard software licensing ?
-
No, it means that by not using the software, the bank forfeits all rights to it.
-
No, it means that by not using the software, the bank forfeits all rights to it, even though MS gets paid.
Nice racket, huh? The mafia should get in on that action.
-
Haha ... M$ is a mafia all of it's own ... besides there's more than 1 mafia ... there's Chinese mafia, Italian (the best known), Russian, M$, etc.
-
Haha ... M$ is a mafia all of it's own ... besides there's more than 1 mafia ... there's Chinese mafia, Italian (the best known), Russian, M$, etc.
[offtopic]Yeah, I don't get where people think the Mafia is dead - the Gambinis have probably been nailed these days, but Triads, Yakuza, Solsnetskaya, etcetera still flourish.[/offtopic]
-
This is old news, everyone knows the ELUA prohibits resale - something which in itself should be against the law, there should be some rights given to consumers regarding fair use and the right to transfer or sell a licence. I made a thread about this awhile a go but no one seemed to care.
-
This is old news, everyone knows the ELUA prohibits resale - something which in itself should be against the law, there should be some rights given to consumers regarding fair use and the right to transfer or sell a licence. I made a thread about this awhile a go but no one seemed to care.
Why would we care? I'd bet that most of the folks here use either Linux, one of the *BSDs, or Mac OS X. We simply don't have these problems. MS can do whatever the hell they like with their EULAs. I don't have any MS soft running here.
-
It was more than just MS, I talked about copyright in general and how companies shouldn't be allowed to abuse it, remember MS aren't the only guilty ones.
Everyone should be to have the right to resell or transfer a license to another party/piece of hardware and make a backup copy, the only exemtion I would make is for firmware on ROMs. Of course others might disagree and want to abolish pay per use/copying licences but I think this would swing too far in the rights of the consumer.