Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Microsoft Shuts Auction Doors On Old Windows

Posted by timothy on Mon Oct 15, 2001 10:34 AM
from the better-sell-the-hard-drive-too dept.
mrv writes "Microsoft is keeping a more-vigilant eye on online auctions of old copies of Windows software, with people trying to offload it due to the upcoming release of XP. Also within the story is info and tips for donating a computer (and software licenses) to charity. (Charities must have site licenses for Windows 98 or newer!)" A lot of users seem to think that they can sell off their no-longer-used software to subsidize upgrades, but that's just not what the EULAs say (at least with pre-installed MS software). Time to go re-read what sellers of used software have had to say last year, and the MS method of shutting own eBay auctions.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • a Realistic Threshold (Score:3, Insightful)

    by No-op (19111) on Monday October 15 2001, @10:38AM (#2431080)
    I should point out that microsoft rarely goes after people selling pirated or improperly licensed MS software when the amount is under $50,000 (US) or so. I have tried several times in the past to have marketplace competitors shut down for blatantly pirating software, and each time Microsoft has been primarily interested in the money value of the software in question. I suspect that there is a cost limit for them, and under a certain value there is nothing gained by prosecution or even basic legal action.

    So with the obvious eBay incidents aside, I get the feeling you can quietly pirate your software to your heart's content, as long as you stay under the high-water mark.

    my 2 cents.
    • Re:a Realistic Threshold by ryanvm (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @11:18AM
    • Re:a Realistic Threshold by Teun (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @11:23AM
    • Re:a Realistic Threshold (Score:4, Interesting)

      by DickBreath (207180) <danny@suEINSTEIN ... minus physicist> on Monday October 15 2001, @11:38AM (#2431489) Homepage
      At the time I write this, there are two other posts under the parent (siblings to this) that suggest that you are a bad guy for contradictory reasons.

      1. You [parent poster] are a bad citizen because you (rightly) suggest that people might get away with pirating MS products if you stay under a certian dollar threshold. It seems to me that you're merely passing on information, not telling anyone to start pirating.

      But then...

      2. You try to "sabatoge" competitors who take unfair advantage by blatently pirating software. Implication, you should do the "right thing". Stop turning them in, and start pirating software yourself. This would be the honorable thing to do.

      A very intresting contradiction. Damned if you do, and damned if you don't. That's slashdot.

      Either you pirate software like your competitors do so you are not at a competitive disadvantage, or you "sabatoge" them..

      But if you choose not to pirate, and to "sabatoge" your competitors who do, then you are a bad citizen because you rightly point out MS's lack of interest in cases under $50,000.

      The tone of the parent post seemed to suggest the latter. (One of be honest, turn in competitors using unfair methods.) He didn't say to start pirating. He just said "I get the feeling...".

      This is slashdot. We are anti-capitalist. In the future please observe the following. Be quite about your competitors illegal actions. Don't engage in piracy yourself. Suffer being at a competitive disadvantage. Keep your mouth shut about MS's inaction. There. That should keep slashdotters satisfied.
      [ Parent ]
    • NOT by Dego (Score:3) Monday October 15 2001, @11:54AM
      • Re:NOT by rohdem (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @12:12PM
      • Re:NOT by rprycem (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @12:30PM
      • Re:Tagline by bLanark (Score:1) Tuesday October 16 2001, @07:37AM
    • Re:a Realistic Threshold (Score:4, Interesting)

      by DocJTM (452653) on Monday October 15 2001, @02:30PM (#2432592)
      I'm wonder if M$'s apparent apathy regarding what seems to be blatant online software pirating is really due to a monetary value threshold not being reached or perhaps due to "special" deals they have with some vendors.

      Here's my experience:

      I needed to buy two copies of MS Visual Studio 6 Enterprise. I did an internet search for Visual Studio (using the M$ search button on the toolbar in IE 5) and the top listed result was www.office2000pro.com. So I go there and am amazed to find it on sale for $899 with free shipping, woohoo! One of my employees (who does a lot of purchasing for us) then makes a bet with me that he can beat the price by calling a person he frequently deals with a Micro-Warehouse. I take the bet. They can't beat the price and she wants to talk to me. She says that the software is likely pirated and I shouldn't buy it and I should report the site to M$. I tell her it was the top search result and to report them herself and she gives me some line about how I should do it so I can get rewarded by M$ (pfft, yeah right). My bullshit/FUD-o-meter is dinging away at this point, so I decide to check for myself. So I tell her I'll call her back if I find out it's a pirate site.

      I call up the M$ pirate line and give them the URL www.office2000pro.com and tell them the almost half-price rate for VS6 Ent. The guy tells me he's taking down the info, checks the site himself, and tells me 80-90% of the M$ software sold online is pirated. So I ask him to tell me whether this site is legit. He claims they will have to check it out. I say fine, here's my email contact me when you guys decide if they are legit, because if they are, I want to pay the $899 price instead almost twice that. He says they can't contact me to let me know, it's some other division that does the checking, yada, yada, yada, and feeds me some bullshit.

      Well by this time I figure if M$ doesn't care enough to contact me to keep me from purchasing pirated versions of their software, I don't really care if it's pirated either. So I wait a couple weeks to see if the site stays up so I won't be ripped off, and sure enough it's still there. So I buy the software and it promptly arrives in nice shrink-wrapped boxes and surely looks legit to me. I haven't tried to register it yet so I guess I'm not sure it's legit, but it looks the same as my registered version (only newer).

      Anyway my point is, this seems like it might be:

      1) Price fixing amongst all the people that sell M$ software and one company decided not to go along

      2) M$ has some "special" deal with this site because they move super high volume or sell only M$ software.

      3) A pirate site that M$ is too lazy to prosecute (but if their client list is for real, they're likely WAY over $50,000 in sales).

      4) It's a front for M$ to sell their software online at a big discount and get a lot of direct sales with a BIG restocking fee (30%) without pissing off their sales partners or their big corporate clients for gouging on the restocking fees.

      Or maybe it's something else altogether, I dunno, but if you want to buy M$ software cheap, www.office200pro.com has the best prices I've seen and the shipping is free and it's been over two months since I reported them and they've not been taken down yet, curious...
      [ Parent ]
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:a Realistic Threshold by zmooc (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @11:24AM
    • Re:a Realistic Threshold by No-op (Score:3) Monday October 15 2001, @11:38AM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • By definition... (Score:4, Informative)

    by sphealey (2855) on Monday October 15 2001, @10:39AM (#2431081)
    An upgrade is a change or refresh of a product you already own. If you sell the original product, you no longer have the right to install the upgrade. It's been that way in the PC market since 1978 (well before M$ became dominant) and in the commercial software market long before that. Why would anyone think otherwise?

    Similarly, even William Mossberg (of the WSJ) seems to think that it is onerous of Micros$oft to require home users to purchase a copy of the (M$) OS for each home PC that they wish to run that OS on. That has _always_ been required (with the specific exception of WordPerfect) for all PC software as long as I can remember.

    I am not happy about Microsoft's licensing policies, but some of these complaints are pretty bizarre in my ears.

    sPh
  • How barbaric. by dave-fu (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @10:39AM
    • Re:How barbaric. by spongman (Score:2) Monday October 15 2001, @10:50AM
      • Re:How barbaric. by Nicolas MONNET (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @11:11AM
      • Re:How barbaric. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by aozilla (133143) on Monday October 15 2001, @11:30AM (#2431425) Homepage

        I've heard this said over and over again, but it's simply not true. You are buying a CD with an installer on it. As long as you obtained that CD legally you have the right to install it on your computer and use it, unless you give up that right some other way. You do not need a license to install and run software, just like you don't need a license to read a book. You only need a license to copy, distribute, or create a derivitive work. While installation involves copying, it is exempted by copyright law as long as you follow certain rules (basically, you have to have purchased the copy legally and cannot install it on more than one computer at a time).

        [ Parent ]
      • Same as early records... but look at them now. by coyote-san (Score:3) Monday October 15 2001, @12:42PM
    • Re:How barbaric. by DrSpin (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @11:28AM
  • What if... (Score:5, Funny)

    by spectrum (92555) on Monday October 15 2001, @10:40AM (#2431090) Homepage
    I 'donate' windows to my friendly neighbourhood sanitation engineer?

    • Re:What if... by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @11:30AM
    • Re:What if... by ackthpt (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @12:03PM
    • Re:What if... by Jaysyn (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @07:04PM
  • by Svartalf (2997) on Monday October 15 2001, @10:40AM (#2431094) Homepage
    ...to NOT buy Windows. Really, it's very simple. People claiming that there's no applications on the alternatives aren't thinking clearly- there's applications on MacOS, Linux, and *BSD. Furthermore, all those applications would come your way real quick if you got off of the Windows platform. It's an addiction, like any other- you've got to quit it because it's becoming very obvious that the pusher's come a collecting all on all of you.
  • EULAs worthless in Germany (Score:3, Informative)

    by Sique (173459) on Monday October 15 2001, @10:42AM (#2431102) Homepage
    Luckily the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court) in Germany ruled recently, that selling no longer used MS licenses is perfectly legal in Germany as long as you don't keep a copy with your computers and files. And even reselling them with new computers is legal too.


    So for everyone who wants to sell his old license: Look for your german mates and let them do the ebay.

    • Re:EULAs worthless in Germany by Kruemelmo (Score:2) Monday October 15 2001, @10:56AM
      • Re:EULAs worthless in Germany (Score:5, Informative)

        by Sique (173459) on Monday October 15 2001, @11:16AM (#2431324) Homepage
        Can you or somebody give a reference to more info about the legal situation in Germany? Is it completely legal to sell OEM licenses separately? Does Microsoft agree on that, or do they still hunt people who do so?


        The situation was this: A german computer distibutor got problems with Microsoft where Microsoft claimed, the distributor was selling not licensed preinstalled Windows. Microsoft claimed, that the distributor was selling CD-ROM and Book with different computers and thus selling every license twice.


        So Microsoft stopped the contract with this distributor, and the distributor was not getting OEM licenses anymore.


        Then the distributor was starting to bid for not used OEM licenses on eBay and resold them with his computers instead of directly licensed software from Microsoft. Microsoft brought the distributor to court for violating license agreements in the OEM EULA, which included a non reselling clause.


        The federal court ruled, that those clauses are only valid for the original licensee, that is the computer dealer, who sold the first computer with this license. But it is not legally binding for anyone else, including even the buyer of the first computer. And as long as there is no technological difference between the software, that comes with the different licenses, there is no right for Microsoft, to controle the distribution ways for the different licenses.


        The federal court stated, that there is "no way to deduce from Copyright a right to control distribution channels."

        [ Parent ]
  • Shrinkwrap licenses? by drinkypoo (Score:2) Monday October 15 2001, @10:43AM
    • Re:Shrinkwrap licenses? (Score:5, Informative)

      by egburr (141740) on Monday October 15 2001, @10:47AM (#2431135) Homepage
      The reason they are able to use the shrinkwrap license to stop sales is because it hasn't been tested in court. Until someone has the desire, time, and money to take them to court over their enforcement of the shrinkwrap license, and convince the court it is invalid, they can do pretty much whatever they want. Something like this would probably be a multiple-year-long process, through appeals and counter appeals, all the way up to the supreme court. Do you have the desire, time, and money to do this for all of us?
      [ Parent ]
    • by ackthpt (218170) on Monday October 15 2001, @11:51AM (#2431533) Homepage Journal
      Let's see here...

      I see an advert for Dull Komputers, model 1000, includes Memorysuck Windows 99

      I buy computer, not having to sign anything.

      I power it up and run it for a couple years.

      I decide I've seen the Plaid Screen '0 The Banshee too many times and opt for an alternative O/S

      I wipe the hard drive, and install my other O/S

      I take the CDROM and shrinkwrapped license and put it up for sale on Peoples Soviet Stalinistic Auction Site

      I'm informed in a-not-so-polite way that my sale violates the terms and conditions of use for the license and software I have

      Seems to me that barking at Memorysuck, Inc. and the auction site are the end of the line, which began with Dull Komputers announcement that I was getting the O/S, as part of the product, the sold. I should be able to sell off any part, as I owned it, right? Power supply, monitor, disk drive... seems whatever came with it is a component and should have been clearly stated if it was not, i.e.

      You are granted use of the operating system and all software loaded upon this system so long as it remains installed only on this computer.

      Of course there's the slight problem of... I replace the HD, I replace the MB, I replace the case, I replace all the cards, hey, it's a completely different computer! I must be in violation, eh?

      Just my 3.5 cents (adjusted for inflation) and by the way IANAL.

      [ Parent ]
  • I delt with this. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by steveo777 (183629) on Monday October 15 2001, @10:43AM (#2431111) Homepage Journal
    I was told to "aquire" 10 new lisences for NT at my place of work. So, I loaded up my favorite place to find prices online [pricewatch.com]. I found some really cheap lisences for about 26 bucks. They said w/o CD, so I assumed that was the reason for the price being so good.
    When they arrived, all I got was the books that have the authenticity cert on them. Each one had the "For distribution with a new PC only. NOT FOR RESALE" stickers partially remmoved. There went 260 down the drain.
  • "That's not what the EULAs say"... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Wakko Warner (324) on Monday October 15 2001, @10:43AM (#2431112) Homepage Journal
    ...we're making a tremendous leap of logic in assuming the EULAs are legally binding, aren't we?

    - A.P.
  • what a load of complete... by Gehenna_Gehenna (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @10:43AM
  • This isn't quite right... (Score:5, Informative)

    by update() (217397) on Monday October 15 2001, @10:44AM (#2431118) Homepage
    A lot of users seem to think that they can sell off their no-longer-used software to subsidize upgrades, but that's just not what the EULAs say (at least with pre-installed MS software).

    That may be true but that's not what the article is about:

    Charmaine Gravning, a product manager for Microsoft's Windows XP, said the policy is clear that people cannot sell or even share the software that comes pre-loaded on computers. If a consumer buys a copy of Windows in a store, they can resell the software, provided they include the license agreement, and all other documentation and don't try to sell multiple copies.

    The issue here is cutomers trying to resell their bundled system software when they upgrade. If you upgrade to Linux, you're still not allowed to resell the bundled OS.

    • Re:This isn't quite right... by Wells2k (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @10:56AM
      • Re:This isn't quite right... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by dattaway (3088) on Monday October 15 2001, @11:10AM (#2431287) Homepage
        I would return to the store the bundled software and request my money back for that portion.

        When I bought my new Toshiba laptop last month, the seal on the box had large type stating the enclosed software operating system is sold with the unit, cannot be seperated, and may not be subject to a refund, except for the whole unit.

        Since I bought a laptop, I was legally required to buy Windows and it would be illegal for me to sell it, unless I sold my laptop with it. Great free country we live in, eh?
        [ Parent ]
    • Re:This isn't quite right... by garcia (Score:3) Monday October 15 2001, @10:58AM
    • Re:This isn't quite right... by The_Rook (Score:2) Monday October 15 2001, @11:35AM
    • Re:This isn't quite right... by mrv (Score:2) Monday October 15 2001, @11:38AM
    • Re:This isn't quite right... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by maxpublic (450413) on Monday October 15 2001, @12:17PM (#2431691) Homepage
      So far as I know this 'policy' - which isn't law and never has been - hasn't been tested in a U.S. court. Just because MS saws it's legal and fair doesn't make it so; even the fanboys can't argue this point (or they could, I suppose, but they'd look like idiots trying to pass themselves off as judges).

      It's part of the MS philosophy that however they proclaim the world works, must actually be the way the world works - and they'll crush anyone who says different. This whole idea of 'bundled software' is, remember, something that MS just made up to cut prices on mass orders to distributors while still being able to prosecute 'piracy' in the future. Imagine if a publisher sold OEM 'bundled' books which a customer couldn't resell after they read them.

      If it were a book, or pretty much anything else, you'd say "what a crock". But since it's software and most of you've been bludgeoned about the head with propaganda stating "this is the way things are because we say that's the way things are", a good many people have actually come to believe that software is, in some strange fashion, actually different from other commodities.

      It isn't. Certain corporations and industries would like us to believe that, since it results in an ecology of artificial scarcity which drives up prices. But this ecology is, indeed, *artificial* and completely imaginary; it has nothing to do with real-world scarcity of any kind. If software were licensed like a book (use it, resell it as you would) then some small amount of profit would be lost; but more importantly, *people wouldn't automatically give credence to bizarre and nonsensical EULA's*. They might actually start asking a few pointed questions concerning pricing and idiotic use restrictions.

      Companies bent on turning a profit on artificial scarcity can't have the sheep questioning the system, now can they? Give those damned consumers and inch and they'll take a mile!

      Max
      [ Parent ]
    • Re:This isn't quite right... by Sloppy (Score:3) Monday October 15 2001, @12:40PM
    • Re:This isn't quite right... by redneck_kiwi (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @01:02PM
    • Re:This isn't quite right... by Wolfier (Score:2) Monday October 15 2001, @01:57PM
    • Bullshit. by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @01:58PM
    • Re:This isn't quite right... by infochuck (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @03:02PM
    • Sig by pompomtom (Score:1) Tuesday October 16 2001, @02:52AM
  • Email the seller a question when you see by typical geek (Score:2) Monday October 15 2001, @10:45AM
  • hmm.. by TheStruuus (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @10:45AM
    • Re:hmm.. by Mr. Sketch (Score:2) Monday October 15 2001, @11:08AM
  • What's the difference? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Green Aardvark House (523269) on Monday October 15 2001, @10:46AM (#2431130)
    From the Yahoo article:

    Why does Microsoft care about 5-year-old software anyway? I think they want to prevent people from selling used software so others have to buy the latest and greatest from Microsoft."


    Why Microsoft is so worried about old software puzzles me. If users want the latest (and greatest?) Windows OS, they'll still have to buy it anyway. Newer software will not run on the old OS's eventually, rendering it useless.

    They're really overdoing it with re-selling old ssoftware. Even the RIAA does not seem to mind secondhand CD's in the marketplace.
  • A Question of Depreciation (Score:3, Interesting)

    by 4of12 (97621) on Monday October 15 2001, @10:48AM (#2431140) Homepage Journal

    So, since these licenses cause the software to become value-less, is this sort of depreciation of software in line with accepted accounting practices?

    If I'm a small business owner, can I depreciate the MS software that I purchase and thereby offset income and capital gains on my tax return?

    I just wondered, because, IIRC, there are strict rules on how this can be done for real property, etc.

  • Come on MS, take one for the team... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by billmaly (212308) <[ten.asudoelcm] [ta] [ylam.llib]> on Monday October 15 2001, @10:49AM (#2431145)
    Sad but true, if it's in the license agreement that "Thou shalt not resell this OS", then that's the way the ball bounces, cookie crumbles, yadda yadda. It sucks, but that's the bitter pill that we as the consumer will probably have to swallow.

    OTOH, if a person wants to DONATE a computer/software to a charity, or a school, I think MS ought to shut their collective legal yaps and let the charity/school get what productivity they can out of the thing, gratis. Nailing the Red Cross or a rural elementary school $100US for a 6 year old version of Win95 borders on criminal...I mean, how many BILLIONS does Gates and company really need?

    So long as schools and charities are not using their software to pirate or commit crimes, MS ought to make themselves into a shining white knight and give their OS away to them. They do that, and the govt' will suddenly seem like the bully, rather than MS.
  • sales of used CDs is legal though by Onan The Librarian (Score:2) Monday October 15 2001, @10:51AM
  • EULA's (Score:3, Interesting)

    by secondsun (195377) <gtg261s@mail.gatech.edu> on Monday October 15 2001, @10:51AM (#2431162) Journal
    For us 14-17 year old hackers out there, how binding are EULA's (since a minor cannot enter into a legally binding conract with out his or her guardian)?

    Summers

    • Re:EULA's (Score:4, Informative)

      by garcia (6573) on Monday October 15 2001, @11:01AM (#2431234) Homepage
      not very. BMG suffers a lot from young kids screwing them over. They have no right to enter into a contract and thus BMG has little course of action to take against one.

      I really don't understand why BMG lets them get CDs but I guess the ones that don't pay are a lot less than those that actually do.
      [ Parent ]
      • Re:EULA's by Amazing Quantum Man (Score:2) Monday October 15 2001, @11:39AM
      • BMG by byoon (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @01:28PM
      • Re:EULA's by yesthatguy (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @03:11PM
      • Re:EULA's by Chris Johnson (Score:2) Monday October 15 2001, @04:05PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • New Oxymoron by _Ludwig (Score:2) Monday October 15 2001, @10:51AM
  • Dosen't matter, Microsoft lost their Copyright. by HaeMaker (Score:2) Monday October 15 2001, @10:52AM
  • If only charities... by Green Aardvark House (Score:2) Monday October 15 2001, @10:52AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Great Quote (Score:4, Funny)

    by Saint Aardvark (159009) on Monday October 15 2001, @10:53AM (#2431180) Homepage Journal
    From the article:

    "The preponderance of history is against them in this case, but light bends when it gets near Microsoft," said Kay.

  • Win2K EULA About Transfer by robbyjo (Score:2) Monday October 15 2001, @10:53AM
  • So let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Brian Kendig (1959) on Monday October 15 2001, @10:54AM (#2431185) Homepage
    Let me get this straight. It's basically not possible any more to purchase a new PC without a copy of Windows bundled in (and included in the price), and you're not legally allowed to sell or even give this copy of Windows to anyone else?

    So, even if you're upgrading from an old PC to a new PC and you want to use your copy of Windows 98 on this new PC, you're still required to pay for a copy of Windows XP that you can't get rid of? And if someone wants to get some new life out of an old PC, he's not allowed to have a copy of Windows 95 unless Microsoft lets him buy it from them (yeah right), even if you have an extra legal copy you're not using?

    And what's more, Microsoft appears to be strong-arming the issue to get even more leeway. The article [yahoo.com] says that Ron Faul was selling two copies of Windows 95 and that Microsoft had eBay shut down the auctions; it doesn't say that these were preinstalled copies. I especially like this quote: "The preponderance of history is against them in this case, but light bends when it gets near Microsoft."

    Years and years and years of court cases against Microsoft, from their killing DR-DOS back in the early 1980's by spreading Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt all the way up to their killing Netscape in the late 1990's by 'cutting off their air supply,' and they're still powerful enough to pull trash like this -- Bill Gates is probably laughing his head off at the all-bark-no-bite of the American legal system.
  • MS - Shooting themselves in the foot (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nyquist_theorem (262542) <mbelleghemNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday October 15 2001, @10:54AM (#2431190) Homepage
    If, as the story suggests, MS really is going after those selling even single lisences, (I can understand them freaking if I sold 20,000 NT lisc. packs all at once, for example), they're doing themselves no service. A few reasons for my statement.

    #1 - a lot of the software in question can NOT be purchased new any more, so its not like MS is missing out on a Win95 sale - there's plenty of legitimate uses for old Win9x OS, esp if you have a machine that has limited RAM or CPU (ie my toshiba libretto, a P75 with 16MB). IE no loss. So why spend the $

    #2 - people buying used OS's are not buying them to get the disks. Come on, everybody and their brother has a CDR and will burn you off a copy of the Windows cabinet files. I'd like to see a geek version of Survivor, where we get dropped into a foreign country and have to come up with a CDR filled with Microsoft Juarez as quickly as possible. It would be a half-hour show, unedited. Point: people are buying these things on EBay because they want to be quasi-legitimate, ie "I should buy a copy of the software that I use!". Remove that as a possibility, and how many people are really going to spend $150 on an OS for a $150 computer? Arrr, Billy, time t'uh fire up me CDR!

    #3 - Given that many computer buyers pay extra for their copy of Windows (ie, it was an option for $100 or so - most system builders do this in the US, yes?). If I pay extra for a feature, can I not sell it off seperately? I (as joe computer buyer) didn't sign or agree anything beyond that flimsy click-through contract at startup, and who's to say it was even me that set up the computer instead of my 7 year old daughter?

    I can't see this being a smart idea. All it does is make M$ look bad, and encourage those who want to go legit but don't want to buy, or cant use, the latest OS, to pirate.

    Smart move, Billy....
  • Hooray for Microsoft (Score:3, Funny)

    by pubjames (468013) on Monday October 15 2001, @10:55AM (#2431196)

    We should all be thankful to Microsoft for tracking down these criminals. People like this are a menace to modern society. Microsoft employees have seen their stock options slide significantly in recent months, a cause of considerable stress for them. People who freely give away computers or sell for peanuts on auction sites - often without the proper licenses and documentation - these people are no better than thieves. Schools, charities for homeless people and orphanages are all implicated in this evil trade, which is causing some Microsoft employees to turn gray with worry. Well done Microsoft, you are a role model for us all.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Upgrading... by tomknight (Score:2) Monday October 15 2001, @10:56AM
  • Ok, question for the masses (Score:3, Insightful)

    by M_Talon (135587) on Monday October 15 2001, @10:56AM (#2431204) Homepage
    I know that a Microsoft related question may be way off base here, but I want to get a feeling for this.

    How many of you actually own a retail version of a previous version of Windows? This excludes pirated copies as well as copies that came with computers when you bought them (those are OEM copies and are subject to bundling licenses).

    In my experience (your mileage may vary), most people don't own a retail version. They have OEM versions that came with their computers. Microsoft doesn't like people selling OEM versions, since there's a whole big nasty license that goes with it that says that particular version of Windows is for that PC only. You also get into the sob stories of people wasting their money on a copy of Windows that doesn't work on their PC because it's actually a recovery CD or a special load.

    Does anyone have a strong case where Microsoft froze a resale of true retail copies of their software? I'd like to hear about it. Right now, it seems like Microsoft is justified in the auctions it's closed.
  • It's a boring day, with slow news... by frleong (Score:2) Monday October 15 2001, @10:57AM
  • First Sale (Score:4, Informative)

    by bwt (68845) on Monday October 15 2001, @10:57AM (#2431207) Homepage
    Reselling software is a first sale right. A EULA that takes this away is misuse of copyright. Trying to enforce that EULA should be an antitrust violation. Somebody should sue.
  • MS ain''t the only ones... by JenovaSynthesis (Score:2) Monday October 15 2001, @11:03AM
  • by sirgoran (221190) on Monday October 15 2001, @11:04AM (#2431249) Homepage Journal
    If they prevent people from making a profit, or trying to re-coup expenses when getting rid of old equipment (hardware and software) then how could anyone not think that they are a monopoly. I think that the courts really need to define just how far the EULA extends, and not Microsoft.

    If I buy a computer that comes pre-installed with Software, use it for a year or two, I should be able to sell it lock, stock and barrel.

    It's how I buy a car, furniture, music, or anything else I have. I sell off or trade in my old crap to finance the new stuff. Maybe if Microsoft would offer trade-ins on the old stuff they wouldn't have to whine so much on the sales of older software. I for one would be willing to trade in my old copies of Win 3.1, 3.11, and 95 disks for some newer stuff.

    Goran
  • Fuck EULA by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @11:05AM
    • Re:Fuck EULA by Glanz (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @01:00PM
  • So, just to clarify... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mpytlik (304502) on Monday October 15 2001, @11:06AM (#2431259)

    I'd love to know what my rights are here.

    I recently spent about $1000 on PARTS for a complete system which I put together myself. I went back to the same store a week later, looking to buy an original copy of Windows 2000, and the guy sold me an OEM (no receipt, cash only) on the basis that I'd basically bought a system there the week before. I think he sold it to me for $280CDN. Fine.

    I've since stopped using Windows 2000 (long story) on my PC, and since I wasn't using the OEM at all, I figured I'd get rid of it on eBay. I was completely unfront about my item in the auction - mentioned that it was an OPEN OEM copy, and that it had the original manuals, certificate of authentication, etc. and that I was no longer using it on my PC. Lo and behold, eBay pulled the auction about 12 hours later.

    I guess my question involves rights. Did Microsoft + eBay have a right to pull my auction? And, if so, why?

    Mark
    mpytlik@home.com
  • paying for it? by sewagemaster (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @11:10AM
  • And the moral of the story is... by hhe_hee (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @11:11AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Good to live in good old Germany :-) (Score:5, Informative)

    by Moritz Moeller - Her (3704) <mmh @ g mx.net> on Monday October 15 2001, @11:19AM (#2431340)
    Our Bundesgerichtshof (federal civil court) has decided last year, that all Microsoft provisions trying to prevent the unbundling of OEM versions of the machines they came with are not enforcable against customers. Basicly the same as the "frist sale " - doctrine of American law.

    Here is the press notice in German:
    http://www.jura.uni-sb.de/Entscheidungen/pressem 00 /BGH/zivil/bgh49-00.html
  • The Solution by Coward Anonymous (Score:2) Monday October 15 2001, @11:22AM
    • Re:The Solution by SCHecklerX (Score:3) Monday October 15 2001, @12:37PM
      • Re:The Solution by Coward Anonymous (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @01:54PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Ahhh...NOW I see by A_Non_Moose (Score:2) Monday October 15 2001, @11:26AM
  • Coasters for Sale? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rothfuss (47480) <chris_rothfuss@hotmail.com> on Monday October 15 2001, @11:42AM (#2431523) Homepage
    If we are not allowed to sell an MS operating system (which I would never dream of doing because Eula says it's wrong...good old Eula) maybe we would all be better off just selling the old CDs as coasters...e.g.

    "For Sale: Genuine Windows 98SE DRINK COASTER. Not for use as operating system. CD only included. Rendered useless for data retrieval by placement in PROTECTIVE SLEEVE. Please do not remove coaster from protective sleeve. $10."

    Basically, it's just like everyone does with their AOL CDs, only this time don't glue felt on the back.

    -Rothfuss
  • Not authorized to sell old windows? (Score:5, Informative)

    by rew (6140) <r.e.wolff@BitWizard.nl> on Monday October 15 2001, @11:52AM (#2431539) Homepage
    A lot of users seem to think that they can sell off their no-longer-used software to subsidize upgrades, but that's just not what the EULAs say (at least with pre-installed MS software).

    Ah, You must be living in that funny country across the big pond.

    Here in Europe, basic consumer rights say that you can sell whatever you leagally paid for, including software, even if the EULA says otherwise.

    If microsoft doesn't like that, they can come and battle with the EU governement, or stop selling their products out here.

    Roger.

    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Charities and Win98? by M-G (Score:2) Monday October 15 2001, @12:02PM
  • Experience selling bundled copy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SilentChris (452960) on Monday October 15 2001, @12:05PM (#2431616) Homepage
    As much as I'm indifferent towards MS (I don't share the rampant hatred most people have towards the company around here, but I don't think Windows ME was a stellar marketing decision, either) I have had one negative experience selling MS software on eBay.

    Specifically, I received a copy of Windows NT 4.0 workstation with my copy of Visual C++ I purchased in college. I attempted to sell just the NT 4.0 workstation CD (with key, and thus its license). I never installed the CD on any of my machines, so I thought it would be ok.

    MS contacted eBay and my auction was immediately shut down for "illegal goods". When I asked eBay customer support the reason, they said that Microsoft claimed I was selling the CD without a proper license. I said to them I was selling the CD with its associated license, and I had never installed the software. They said to contact Microsoft, which I did and it was never resolved.

    To this date I harbor no ill will towards MS or eBay (I've completed dozens of other auctions without issue, and for what eBay does [getting a ton of people to look at your auction], it does well). Still, I can't imagine what it'll be like in the future.

  • Try this solution on E-bay! by dbretton (Score:2) Monday October 15 2001, @12:05PM
  • OEM copy of Windows for sale, motherboard included by prototype (Score:2) Monday October 15 2001, @12:12PM
  • Actual price by bmf033069 (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @12:23PM
  • by skoda (211470) on Monday October 15 2001, @12:23PM (#2431731) Homepage
    Now taking bids for this exquisite, brown cardboard box! This mildly used, but still fully functional, box will be shipped to the winner of this auction.

    As a special bonus, the winner of this box will receive Win98 OS for their PC, free!

    Bidding for the box starts at $10 + $5 shipping.
  • Future impact on Microsoft's "toy OS" by the Xbox by dprice (Score:2) Monday October 15 2001, @12:25PM
  • Microsoft Ebay policy = ridiculous. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by supabeast! (84658) on Monday October 15 2001, @12:28PM (#2431765)
    Microsoft's attacks on ebay extend beyond simple software, to just about anything they produce. Twice this year I have tried to sell a Microsoft Sidewinder joystick, specifically stating that it was just the hardware with NO software. Both times Microsoft had ebay shut the auction down because the M$ search bot told ebay that I was selling software innaproprietly. I replied to Microsoft's email stating that I was only selling hardware, and threatened to sue for libel. My email was ignored, and the auction unable to proceed.

    My only real recourse to this action would have been to actually sue Microsoft. Unfortunately I do not have the time to sue Microsoft over a small matter, especially given that they could likely blame the software and get away on technicalites.

    This incident was what really pushed me away from Microsoft. I have had mixed opinions about the company for a very long time, and over the years moved away from Windows anyway, but when they pushed me around with legal muscle, I decided to just walk away for good. Of course, it worked out well in the end, as I now get to enjoy Apple's OS X.
  • Just sell the physical "CD" by saridder (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @12:45PM
  • Why does Microsoft care about 5-year-old software? by aquarian (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @12:51PM
  • Monopoly laws by slasho81 (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @01:21PM
  • MS may be right (some of the time) by scharkalvin (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @01:31PM
  • Does anyone have a link to the EULA? by truthsearch (Score:2) Monday October 15 2001, @01:55PM
  • by pubjames (468013) on Monday October 15 2001, @01:55PM (#2432254)

    Responding to recent events on Earth, Bill Gates, the creator of the omniscient Windows, used by billions of computer users worldwide, angrily clarified His license agreement today.

    "Look, I don't know, maybe I haven't made myself completely clear, so for the record, here it is again" said Bill, visibly angry.

    "Somehow, people keep getting the idea that I don't mind them giving away or reselling copies of Windows. Well, I do mind. And to be honest, I'm really getting sick and tired of it. Get it straight. Not only can you not copy or give away Windows, but you can't resell a copy bought from an OEM. I don't care if you're a school, a charity, or a damn orphanage, the rules apply to you."

    "I don't care how poor you are, or how much you need a copy of Windows. If someone tells you I don't mind you making a copy, they're wrong. Got it? I own it all, ok? It's all there in the license agreement. It all belongs to me. You mean nothing to me. You bunch of fucking loosers."

    And he sniggered.
  • Tell the idiots to read the bloody license! by Anarchofascist (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @02:00PM
  • EULAs are binding by way0utwest (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @02:00PM
  • Screw EULAs by mickeyreznor (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @03:18PM
  • Donating is GOOD! by idResponse (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @03:51PM
  • underage by kpeerless (Score:2) Monday October 15 2001, @03:53PM
  • It's obvious where all this is going... by PHAEDRU5 (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @07:33PM
  • Ack. by lie as cliche (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @07:53PM
  • Class Action by JDAustin (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @08:31PM
  • New EULA by slight42 (Score:2) Monday October 15 2001, @09:12PM
  • Is it to stop software piracy, or...? by Guppy06 (Score:2) Tuesday October 16 2001, @09:44PM
  • Re:Pay for Windows? by praedor (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @11:08AM
  • Free software==Freedom to work by FrankNputer (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @11:17AM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • This has little to do with piracy... by Svartalf (Score:2) Monday October 15 2001, @11:22AM
  • Re:msft@buddy.ebay.com by psychalgia (Score:1) Monday October 15 2001, @02:48PM
  • 24 replies beneath your current threshold.