Shot in the dark

[Tom Brown]

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

 

[glee]

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
>

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

1. Tell you friend to go to 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
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
>

 

[Brian A.]

"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=kben-us293174&Product=w98

or Blank Desktop or Illegal Operations Error Message After You Install Internet
Explorer:
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=kben-us249191




--

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

 

[Galen Somerville]

"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

 

[98 Guy]

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" ?

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

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
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" ?

 

[98 Guy]

"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?).

 

[AlmostBob]

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?).

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

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
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?).

 

[98 Guy]

"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.

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

"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
www.grystmill.com

 

[Tom Brown]

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
<unknown>
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 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
>

 

[98 Guy]

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.

 

[MEB]

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
________

 

[98 Guy]

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?

 

[thanatoid]

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.

 

[MEB]

"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
________

 

[John John]

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

 

[98 Guy]

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.