Replacing parts on a HP pavillon

[visions of effty]

Its more complicated than that, legally.



And legally its just a repaired system, whatever MS likes to try and
claim.

Doesnt matter what the EULA says, thats the law.

Hmmm...

This topic actually makes me curious. I think it's a legal grey area that
MS takes advantage of, but I wonder where the right to define what
constitutes the "system" (and such) actually falls?

Legally, yes, I think it would be easier to consider the HDD, and the
install on it as "the computer" for all purposes. I remember reading
somewhere in the XP clickwrap (or somewhere) that "significant upgrades"
could cause activation to be refused, but what that means is pretty
ill-defined.

I'm going to do some research on this. I agree with you guys that the
customer (or "end user") has to maintain some rights, but I'm guessing that
they are less than we suppose.

I'll check back with whatever I find.

~e.

 

[Rod Speed]

This topic actually makes me curious. I think it's a legal grey area that MS takes
advantage of,

Nope, not when the system is repaired.

but I wonder where the right to define what constitutes the "system" (and such) actually
falls?

Its irrelevant legally. You are legally entitled to repair
your system regardless of where the failure is.

Legally, yes, I think it would be easier to consider the HDD, and the install on it as
"the computer" for all purposes. I remember reading somewhere in the XP clickwrap (or
somewhere) that "significant upgrades" could cause activation to be refused, but what
that means is pretty ill-defined.

Legally they cant stop you continuing to use their OS
when you upgrade the system significantly either.

And the OEM systems dont have the validation crap anyway.

I'm going to do some research on this. I agree with you guys that the customer (or "end
user") has to maintain some rights, but I'm guessing that they are less than we suppose.

No they arent. The law is VERY clear, you are legally entitled
to repair a system. MS gets to like that or lump it and cant do
anything about that with some uttery bogus EULA 'agreement'

 

[kony]

This topic actually makes me curious. I think it's a legal grey area that
MS takes advantage of, but I wonder where the right to define what
constitutes the "system" (and such) actually falls?

It's also been discussed over and over on usenet, there is
no point in rehashing again in a hardware group.

 

[Rod Speed]

It's also been discussed over and over on usenet, there
is no point in rehashing again in a hardware group.

Yes there is when its repair being discussed.

That other discussion involves selling the OS separate
to the hardware and MS cant legally sustain that claim
either in any country with a decent legal system anyway.

 

[visions of effty]

Yes there is when its repair being discussed.

That other discussion involves selling the OS separate
to the hardware and MS cant legally sustain that claim
either in any country with a decent legal system anyway.

Yeah. If they're going to change things on the software end that cause
major pains for hardware upgrades, I think it's a valid topic.

Anyway, as far as I can tell, you are 100% right, kony. And yes, it has
been thoroughly discussed elsewhere.

The intention with Vista is to make a Windows license non-transferable
through an upgrade of the motherboard.

http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/49364

I hate to turn any thread into a bitch about M$ thing (not really) but if
this is true then I don't see a lot of the people in this group going to
Vista. We love shiny new motherboards. If they tell us we can't have them,
then I think they'll lose some segment of alt.comp.hardware as a customer
base.

Microsoft doesn't make computers, they make software, yet this claim of
tying software to hardware makes them de facto computer manufacturers. In
my mind it comes down to your software trying to define your hardware in
order to sell you more software. If not illegal, it certainly seems
unethical.

I'll shut up now.

~e.

 

[Rod Speed]

Yeah. If they're going to change things on the software end that
cause major pains for hardware upgrades, I think it's a valid topic.

Anyway, as far as I can tell, you are 100% right, kony.

Not legally he aint with the repair being discussed.

And yes, it has been thoroughly discussed elsewhere.

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

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

I hate to turn any thread into a bitch about M$ thing (not really) but if this is true
then I don't see a lot of the people in this group going to Vista.

I doubt that most will give a damn about that particular M$ stupidity.

We love shiny new motherboards. If they tell us we can't have them,

They arent even saying that. That is clearly just
relevant to the OEM versions, not the retail package.

then I think they'll lose some segment of
alt.comp.hardware as a customer base.

I doubt it. I doubt many of those are using an OEM package anyway,
and those that are should be able to do an end run around that shit.

Microsoft doesn't make computers, they make software,

They do make some hardware.

yet this claim of tying software to hardware makes them de facto computer manufacturers.

No it doesnt. Its just a software license detail.

In my mind it comes down to your software trying to
define your hardware in order to sell you more software.

Nope, since it ONLY applys to the OEM versions of the OS.

If not illegal, it certainly seems unethical.

Its hardly that when you dont have to get the OEM version.

I'll shut up now.

Wota wimp.

 

[visions of effty]

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

Okay, here's the point though. Microsoft wants to define a new computer as
a new motherboard for the most common licensing arrangement, but if you have
a machine with 5 years on it and the motherboard dies are you going to
replace it with an exact duplicate? They would ask you to *repair* the
machine where *upgrading* it would probably be cheaper. I mean, at some
point in every computer's life upgrading the mobo is probably cheaper than
finding an exact replacement.

No, you don't have to buy computers with bundled software, but most people
do. I think it's an odd agreement. I can't think of any other things you
might purchase that when one part breaks (the motherboard) you aren't
legally allowed to continue to use the other part (the OS), but that seems
to be the crux of the OEM licensing deal. You purchased both, but you
cannot use both independantly. You can use the hardware without the OS, but
you can't use the OS without the hardware. It's a bizarre trick they have
us buying into, and I find it hard to justify.

Also, the *only* reason people use OEM software to begin with is that
Windows is repulsively expensive. It's the main deal breaker that keeps
people from building their own computers. If Windows XP were around $30, I
would have bought 10 copies by now. Over $100? I've only bought one.

~e.

 

[kony]

Okay, here's the point though. Microsoft wants to define a new computer as
a new motherboard for the most common licensing arrangement,

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

...but if you have
a machine with 5 years on it and the motherboard dies are you going to
replace it with an exact duplicate? They would ask you to *repair* the
machine where *upgrading* it would probably be cheaper. I mean, at some
point in every computer's life upgrading the mobo is probably cheaper than
finding an exact replacement.

Non-applicable unless it was a specific case of an OEM EULA
with the explicit clause about the motherboard. Remember
that OEM license IS significantly cheaper than retail, and
it is for this reason- that arguably there has to be a line
drawn, it ceases to distinguish between an OEM and retail
license if you can change anything... and if we take the
arguement that the board would simply have to fail, what's
to stop someone from just taking a screwdriver to it to kill
it after it's 5 years old, then worn out and worthless?

Again I will mention that you are WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME.
There is NO POINT to pursue this discussion as it has been
rehased time and time and time again in group after group
after group.

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

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

It may be that retail licenses are expensive but that has to
be treated as separate, because the legal system still
pretends it's a free market even though they haven't gotten
around to doing anything about the MS monopoly. We could
speculate why but it seems most likely that some feel
keeping MS whole is in the public interest and it is a fair
arguement since the evolution of the PC benefitted greatly
from a unifying platform... just a pity it was MS at the
helm.

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

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

Basically, the high price of Windows Retail is an example of
why the MS monopoly is bad for consumers. We can ignore the
finer details because nothing is going to change so long as
they have no need to compete in the market.

 

[Yugo]

If you want to talk about conspiracies let's talk about M$ refusing
to ship OEM disks with new PCs within the last 6 or 7 years! That drives me
nuts! You get an OS with a very limited capacity for upgrades, which really
helps devalue your hardware in the long run. Essentially, you can't
"transfer" your license to the "new" computer. The only work around is
paying an arm and a leg for OEM discs. It keeps you in the market for a new
budget system with the same shitty pre-installed OS. It's like paying for
something you don't get.

I'd use it as an excuse to get a nice, hacked version of XP and call it
even.

Or Linux?

 

[Rod Speed]

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

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

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

Legally MS gets no say on that choice.

They dont if you want to upgrade either legally.

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

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

Most in here likely dont.

I think it's an odd agreement.

Legally it isnt even an 'agreement'

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

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

And what MS claims isnt the law anyway.

You purchased both, but you cannot use both independantly.

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

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

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

It's a bizarre trick

Yes, its clearly just another MS con job legally.

they have us buying into,

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

and I find it hard to justify.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure, and plenty dont bother to buy even one.

 

[Rod Speed]

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

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

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

Which it doesnt even have with a repair.

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

Nope, the main difference is who provides the support.

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

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

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

What is the point in killing anything ?

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

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

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

It hasnt with REPAIRS.

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

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

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

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

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

Or they have noticed that it aint a monopoly.

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

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

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

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

Corse they do when anyone can use linux.

 

[kony]

Wrong.

yes Rod, we already know you're in a generally disagreeable
mood but you've spewed so much BS recently, it just isn't
worth coddling your comments.

 

[Rod Speed]

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

yes Rod, we already know you're in a generally disagreeable mood but you've
spewed so much BS recently, it just isn't worth coddling your comments.

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

No surprise that you got the bums rush, right out the door.