Microsoft: You Need Permission to Sell Our Software

IEEEmember writes "Microsoft has objected to the sale of bankrupt KMart's Bluelight.com Internet unit to United Online. Microsoft's objection to the sale is based on the non-transferability of software licenses protected by copyright law according to the Reuters story on Yahoo! News. This action by Microsoft should serve as a warning to any corporation that has a significant investment in Microsoft licenses. Dependency on Microsoft licenses may grant Microsoft the ability to veto your business decisions."

Licenses

[Ponty]

It is a common clause in most licenses. Though, it seems that MS is just being a real dick of a corporation for putting up a fight. What would they prefer? BlueLight go to Solaris? Sheesh. (Having said that, they'll probably pay up for all new copies on Windows.)

Question?

[The Dobber]

Does MS have a say in whether or not I can give my lil bro my old PC?

Poor KMart

[cybermace5]

Seems like they can't win. First they have aggressive tactics from Wal-Mart, basically putting them out of business in many cities.

Now Target's making a bid for power, and Wal-Mart is scurrying. KMart is left in the dust. (By the way, at Target, I notice an unusually large proportion of highly attractive women. Could Target be hiring cute 'mystery shoppers' kind of like the 'leaners' hawking cellphones at bars?)

So now Microsoft gets in on the beating. It's just dismal.

The End Is New!

[kenp2002]

Wow! I never thought that Microsoft would so carelessly sign it's own death warrant! When it comes to business, don't rock the boat. Microsoft is meddling in the business affairs of corporations. It's one thing to piss of the mob. Worse case scenario is they kill you. Piss of a corporation... damn I don't even want to think about it... endless litigations and court appearances so you can keep a job, blacklisting, starving, no home... jeez what a living hell....

!!!!!!!WARNING!!!!!!!
Sorry this post has ended due to the fact it's author is now rocking himself back and forth sucking on the collar of his shirt mumbling

"Ticky Tack, Ticky Tack, Lawyers Coming, Give Me That! Got No Job, Got No Life, Got no Money, got No Wife!"

From your fascist friends at Microsoft Licensing

[Spencerian]

MS LICENSING AGENT [on phone, reviewing a file]:

I zee...this is all well and good, but I do not zee your PAPERS. You must have the proper papers! Vere are your papers!? Don't wait for ze phone delay--answer me now!!!

Re:Licenses

[SirSlud]

> IT industry is create a web-site where everyone puts in the prices they pay for licenses

I can hear the IT sector scream from here: "OH GOD, NO .. PLEASE NO, NOT AN OPEN MARKET!"

Hopefully followed shortly by the *crash* of the Web of Lies(tm).

So KMart can't sell without Microsoft's blessing..

[Eric Damron]

Only now, when it's too late do they realize the power of the dark side...

Re:Yikes.

[operagost]

I hear the voices of thousands of shareholders crying out in pain, and then suddenly silenced.

When I was a young whipper-snapper.....

[Tablizer]

"There's only 3 certainties in the world, my Son: Death, Taxes, and Microsoft; and Microsoft makes the first two worse."

Re:Sounds fishy to me..

[liquidsin]

We're talking about Windows here. It was worth nothing *before* you clicked "yes".

*rimshot*

Re:EULA's?

[TitusC3v5]

Maybe this will provide a good test case with lots of money on both sides.

Yeah, except for the fact that one company is bankrupt and the other is Microsoft. Boy, bet that would be a fair fight. :-)

Has to be said. . .

[mntgomery]

"All your license are belong to us!"

Re:Licenses

[Misao]

> (On the other hand, if all I needed was a piece
> of plastic to pick my teeth with, I could buy
> the plastic which represents your drivers
> license and use it as I see fit.)

I kind of doubt it, actually. I suspect that if you look at your driver's licence you'll find that it remains the property of the issuing state :)

-misao

Re:Without consensus ad idem, the contract is void

[wandernotlost]

Any contract lacking reciprocity or a misrepresentation of terms is null and void even if signed by both parties.

Boy, I thought that contracts just happened to be confusing. I didn't know it was a formal requirement!

;)