Shot in the dark

[MEB]

Let me drop out of legal mode: ah better, my take another couple more lines
to work it all out...

"thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns99657F3F3FE35thanexit@66.250.146.158...
| 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.

If you remember that key in conjunction with *something* creates a
uniquely identifiable number.
Such as when installing 98FE I was provided with a 20 digit *personal
identification number* to be used thereafter. So exactly how many people can
be included within a 20 digit number?
Let's see thats:
00,000,000,000,000,000,000 people...

|
| 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.

Yes, you would be close. Law suits were filed for such activities against
Microsoft. WGA [Windows Genuine Advantage, and WPA [Windows Product
Activation] along with several other questionable aspects have been dragged
through the courts.

|
| 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.)

They do with XP and VISTA, or rather they are required to do so.

|
| "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?

So far, not much save several suits [is it now 46 or more] brought by
Microsoft for pirated software. Mainly against companies caught doing so,
though Microsoft has participated in several prosecutions against
individuals caught with pirated software [including unlicensed OS versions].

However, don't be mistaken, Microsoft still has interest in ALL of its OSs
and products.

|
| (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.)

And Microsoft has placed its foot upon Linux and other software companies
recently. I also openly object to the patents given to Microsoft.

|
| 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.

Okay, think I got the legal worked out a me...

Well Linux is still free [or at least there are still free versions
available], and does have growing support, mostly from disgruntled Windows
users.
I think it comical that Microsoft users forget that Microsoft OSs displaced
Unix style systems from the business/commercial world, yet many of the
servers running the world ARE Unix/Linux or other non-Microsoft servers.

This Microsoft cult [and it is a cult] got so lost in GUI and WYSIWYG, they
gave up the ability to have absolute control of the system AND the OS. Now
they rely upon Microsoft design, whereas they could have the ability to
compile the EXACT environment, security, and every other aspect they need.
Of course that requires knowledge of computers, the system and other
aspects, by the user. Gone are the days of the computer geek, those who
intimately knew the workings. Computers today are seen as just another
appliance to be used.
-------
Can it connect to the Internet, great.
Do I have to know anything to get there?
No, great, I've got more important things to do
{like spy on the neighbors {I think they're smoking pot or engaged in
terrorist activities. My gawd its unamerican what I see go on there...}}
and
[hey, wait, there's my cell phone,, yeah, yeah, sure,, when, sure, call me
back I'm on the net... what? sure I'll text the address to you in a min..yep
its funny, where? youtube, sure, yep..okay, sure, yep,,,, call me in five...
hang on I've got another call.. hey whatsup... sure... no, ah okay,, yeah,,,
oh you got to check out this neat video I fou... huh, oh, on Kaaza.. yeah
the entire album I just ripped that for you... hang on I got Bob on hold....
hey... yeah.. sure...]
time is money.

Is it fast? Okay then, so it has a few flaws....
--------

Somehow or for some reason, over the last 25 or so years, computer users
quite literally became, ah, how do I put this acceptably, consumerized. Now
we see Microsoft spreading itself *cross da world*... and these new foreign
users think using Microsoft makes them *more like Americans*. What a people
to emulate! But I digress...

Can everything done in Windows be done in Linux? Sure, and the extra
software is also generally free. Yet Microsoft cultists dutifully go out and
buy the new OS AAAAAAAAAND the new software to go with it.... then spend
large parts of their time bitching to Microsoft trying to patch the system
to plug the new holes and breaches, tweak it [within Microsoft constraints]
and ... ah well, here I sit at this Microsoft run machine....

Say, anyone used Mepis? Still trying to figure out what Linux I should try
the next install...

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
________

 

[John John]

98 Guy wrote:

> 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.

Oh really? What you *think* and what businesses and corporations do is
a completely different different ball of wax! No comptroller in a large
business would run on your logic, and no accountant who does books and
fiscal returns for smaller business would ever run things your way!
When an asset is disposed it is *NOT* still listed as present! I'm not
going to debate Microsoft EULA's and the law with you, but when it comes
to business accounting practices or GAAP you are 100% wrong, you may as
well stop digging while you can still get out of your hole! Or do you
want a bigger shovel?

John

 

[James Hahn]

This is the silliest discussion i have seen in a newsgroup for a long time.

There is no similarity between a license and a product key other than that
they might refer to the same piece of software.

A product key enables the software to be unlocked and used, exactly like the
front door key to my house allows me to unlock the door and enter. 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 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.

A licence is a contractual arrangement between the owner of the software and
the user of the software that gives the user the right to use the software.
You can't find a licence in the trash because there's nothing to find. You
don't abandon a licence, but you might repudiate it, in which case it ceases
to exist - the contract is ended. If the licence conditions permit, the
licence can be transfered. 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. Unless
the new licensee acquires the license in the specific circumstances
Microsoft allows then there is no agreement, no license, and no right to use
the software. That's what the 'chain of ownership' refers to - a specific
agreement between Microsoft and each person who successively took over the
rights bestowed by the licence - from the distributor to the retailer to the
user. You are not obliged to document this chain, but it must exist
nonetheless. Each of the licensees must have acquired the license using a
procedure approved by the software owner in order for the licence to be
valid. Clicking on an answer at a startup screen will commit a licensee to
the conditions in the EULA, but it will not create a valid license where
none exists.

Purchase of a book or DVD is not purchase of a licence - it is a purchase of
a physical unit which can be tossed away to be found and used by someone
else. There is no agreement between the reader/listener and the owner of
the material: that's why copyright law exists - to protect the rights of
the owner when there is no agreement with the user. Software companies long
ago decided that copyright didn't offer adequate protection of their rights,
and that's why they use licensing agreements. Therefore your analogies are
irrelevant.

"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.
>
> 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?

 

[98 Guy]

thanatoid wrote:

> ... I remember reading somewhere (and it makes perfect sense)
> that there being hundreds of millions of Windows installations

Which version of Windows?

> 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),

> So if you have a key of which there are tens of thousands
> (millions?) in use, ...

Windows 98 and XP (and win-95?) has a 25-character alpha-numeric key
sequence.

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

There are plenty of combinations to be able to code uniquely for each
and every license that was ever sold.

The only product-keys that can code for more than once license are the
ones used by corporations or educational institutions who (I believe)
purchase them directly from Microsoft. And even they are (probably)
issued unique product keys. I'm not sure if those bulk keys were only
made available for XP, or if win-98 also had bulk keys as well.

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. Does anyone know what MS does in a situation like that?
Are they known to deny access to updates in that case? Or worse, to
somehow render the system non-functional?

 

[98 Guy]

John John wrote:

> No comptroller in a large business would run on your logic

I'm not arguing that a disposed asset is supposed to come off the
books.

Whether or not it happens depends on how much internal paperwork,
process and tracking goes on inside a company.

If a custodian (janitor) takes a broken chair and moves it to the rear
loading dock for disposal, it's not a given that the comptroller will
know about it and scratch the chair off the corporation's asset list.

Even in a small company, those who run the accounting system (but who
don't necessarily prepare the books at tax-time) probably never
realize they could (or should) remove office equipment and furnature
from their asset list when they get taken out to be thrown away. It
is incredibly time consuming to deal with every asset in that manner,
especially if there is no tangible financial benefit to be gained (in
the long run) by doing so.

 

[98 Guy]

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.

 

[thanatoid]

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.

 

[James Hahn]

"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.

 

[98 Guy]

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)?

 

[thanatoid]

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.

 

[glee]

"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

 

[James Hahn]

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
>

 

[98 Guy]

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".

 

[glee]

"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