Vista's EULA Product Activation Worries

applejax writes "SecurityFocus is running an article regarding some concerns about Vista's activation terms. Do you have the right to use properly purchased but not validated software? What happens if Microsoft deactivates your OS that was legally purchased? The article goes into some detail about Vista's validation and concerns." From the article: "The terms of the Vista EULA, like the current EULA related to the 'Windows Genuine Advantage,' allows Microsoft to unilaterally decide that you have breached the terms of the agreement, and they can essentially disable the software, and possibly deny you access to critical files on your computer without benefit of proof, hearing, testimony or judicial intervention. In fact, if Microsoft is wrong, and your software is, in fact, properly licensed, you probably will be forced to buy a license to another copy of the operating system from Microsoft just to be able to get access to your files, and then you can sue Microsoft for the original license fee."

Re:Could this be illegal?

[b0s0z0ku]

Microsoft has broken the law before, and been found guilty. Nothing substantial happened.

MS has never tried something like *this* before. If they deactivate, they're probably overstepping some hitherto invisible line. Just wait until some gov't agency's or some Federal judge's copies of Windows get deactivated. I think that using extortionate tactics like this will get MS into some deep legal shite.

-b.

Re:They said the same thing about XP.

[mochan_s]

This is almost word for word what the fear mongers where saying about XP. Yes software activation is a pain.

Not. It is not.

Even if you run a non-genuine version of XP, Microsoft cannot turn off your XP. They will deny will some updates in the Microsoft Update but not deny you access to your computer.

Re:Who owns it?

[Red Flayer]

If they own it, its an asset, it must have value, be on their books, be depreciated. None of which is true.

False. Not all assets depreciate; furthermore, assets such as the Vista code do not have a set value, as it is completely dependent upon sales. Finally, it's not a physical asset, so no physical inventory can be taken; therefore, no asset depreciation can be calculated according to standard practices.

But it is on your books, and you can depreciate it, write it off against taxes and so on.

Well, that just depends. Did you purchase a site license? If so, you can't write off depreciation -- instead, you must allocate the expense over the term of the license. Did you purchase it bundled? Then go ahead and depreciate it, but as part of the system it was installed on, according to the depreciation schedule of the hardware.

If we're saying, it is theirs, you have licensed it, by a one time payment with no further obligations to them, how does it differ from a sale except in name?Legally. There is quite a difference, as with a license, the licensor still has some control over the use and disposition of the good. The licensee, unlike a purchaser, does not obtain full control of whatever is purchased.

It may seem logical to apply the same set of rules to a purchase as to a license with infinite or unspecified term, but the two are very different, and the law recognizes that.

RTFA

[Silver Sloth]

From TFA

The UCITA also provides a procedure for "electronic self-help" - that is, the termination of access or use of the software without a court order. The first thing to note is that, in Maryland at least, the law expressly notes that, "electronic self-help is prohibited in mass-market transactions." Microsoft's EULA is undoubtedly a mass-market transaction, and therefore Microsoft may be prohibited from exercising self-help in Maryland. Moreover, even in non mass-market transactions, before you can resort to self-help, the contract must provide notice that self help will be used, who will be told about the exercise of self help, and provide other notice. The Maryland law also provides that "electronic self-help may not be used if the licensor has reason to know that its use will result in substantial injury or harm to the public health or safety or grave harm to the public interest substantially affecting third persons not involved in the dispute."

This is just a short extract. TFA is quite clear that in Maryland and Washington there may well be situations where M$ have opened themselves up to punative damages. IANAL - but the guy who wrote the article is.

Re:Who owns it?

[Budenny]

I agree that intangibles do not have to be depreciated. However, we are not talking intangibles here, we are not talking trademarks, we are talking this particular copy, on this CD, serial number nnn which I just bought in Best Buy, source MS. Either MS or Best Buy owns this, or I do. Which is it? I'm not an expert, but have come on one UK case in which this question was tested in the courts for tax purposes, and it was held that the lack of any continuing financial interest by the seller, and the lack of any continuing financial obligations by the buyer, meant that it was a purchase and not a license - which made a difference to the tax treatment.

Yes, earlier post abut site license with a defined term, probably so. That probably really is a license not a sale.

Did I license my copy of the World According to Garp? Regardless of what it says in the Eula in the front cover, the answer is no, I bought it. I can read it in the bath if I want.

Re:O rly?

[CodeBuster]

They can say whatever they want in the EULA, but what they can actually enforce in court is another matter entirely. It is not possible to use contract law to abrogate other laws which have higher precedence and grant rights in the legal systems of the United States many other countries. Also, it is the responsibility of the company to enforce their license terms in civil court, so unless you are engaging in large scale criminal infringement you can violate the EULA all you want and nothing is likely to happen. Microsoft knows this and that is why they have begun to implement technical measures to enforce their contracts outside of the court systems.

Re:because it doesn't

[644bd346996]

Apple doesn't sell "the complete OS X product in a box." They only sell it as an upgrade to a previous Mac OS that came preinstalled on an Apple computers. Apple's restrictions are no worse than the way upgrade versions of windows require you to have a previous version of windows. I wish I could buy a pc version of OS X, but I don't deny Apple the right to not offer such a product.

Re:Unplug your Windows box!

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The law differentiates between general public viewing and private 'electronic mail' to minors.

Yeah, but if you're going to be running Windows in a VM, why run it as the host OS as well? You might as well run it on Linux or OS X and then you have the application sets of both OS's. I use OS X as my base OS on my laptop and run Windows and Linux in VMs on top of that. This provides me the capability to use a wider set of applications and features. I sometimes even run OpenBSD in my VM to test a simulation of one of the servers I work on. Having a more secure host OS also reduces the chances I'll be compromised by some random worm that does not have a user interaction component. A subset of games even work natively in OS X for those network games you mention. Finally, since OS X has the best migration path to new machines pulling all my files, programs, certs, settings, and VMs onto a newer machine is a painless one step process via the firewire cable. It easily saves me several days of time whenever I move to a newer laptop.

Re:Upgrade

[falconwolf]

But I got really pissed of Windows when it told me that my copy of XP was pirated... when it came PREINSTALLED in my HP Pavillion ZV5000 machine... which has a Microsoft Windows XP Proffessional 1-2CPU sticker under it. Oh, And it wont allow getting into my computer "windows can not verify the genuinity of this software"... FUCK YOU!!.

For me that would be a reason to instantly replace the original version with a pirated one. If they sell you a copy that is DOA then I think you have the right to replace it with something that works.

Ah but even if you're running a pirated version of Windows you're still supporting Microsoft. You're also giving them more ammo in their quest to further restrict users by more draconian measures of activating and spying. Instead if you can find a bunch of others with the same problem you should get a lawyer and sue MS.

Falcon

Re:because it doesn't

[mrsbrisby]

But you have to remember: You are not buying a complete OS X for generic hardware, you are buying an UPGRADE for APPLE hardware. The license restricts you to that, and Apple is VERY clear about it. It really doesn't matter what you want to do - Apple does not sell a license for toasters. If you however want to shread your copy of OS X, you are free to do so.

Who cares what Apple thinks? I didn't sign anything, and no one can take away my rights by ``license'' unless I sign something. US Courts were very clear about this in Vault v. Quaid, 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988).

Not only am I legally allowed to install Mac OS X on my toaster, I can give people patches that let other people install it on their toasters: See Galoob v. Nintendo, 780 F. Supp 1283 (N.D. Cal. 1991).

The bottom line is that you can't compare OS X with Vista in this way because the two companies have very different business models. One is a software company that sells some hardware, the other a hardware company that sells some software for that hardware. With Apple, it's very clear that you are buying the Apple experience from top to bottom. You don't get that with Microsoft.

No, that was very clear that you were buying that.

The very first thing I did with My mac-mini was install Linux on it. I then proceeded to install Mac OS X Panther (obtained via a broken 166mhz iMac) and Tiger on top of it using MOL. Apple can forbid me to do this all they like, it still isn't illegal, and still shouldn't be.

The problem is that laws change. They change simply by having enough people believe that they already have (Just ask OJ "if he did it"), and right now, you believe the law has changed.

Once you believe all they have to do is worm some text into a thousand line document that was at least partially on the screen when you clicked a button, you've had that meeting of the minds they're always talking about, and suddenly, that law actually does apply to you.

Yes Virginia, the solution really is that simple: Ignore that EULA. Click I accept but do not read it. Know that it is false and unenforcable and lies, and you will be safe.

Re:Unplug your Windows box!

[Trelane]

Only compelling reason is that Direct3D acceleration only works if both the host OS and the guest OS are both Windows. Info here.

I think you misunderstood the sentence "Experimental support for Direct3D applies only to Windows 2000 and Windows XP guests, on hosts running Windows 2000, Windows XP, or Linux." [emphasis mine]