Microsoft Software for Sale, Slightly Used 159
Alsee writes "The Register reports that recent UK business Discount-Licensing.com has been having booming growth reselling pre-owned Microsoft software licenses 20-50% below retail, after spotting the opportunity in Microsoft's licensing terms and Britain's insolvency laws for insolvent and downsizing businesses. Sorry, no discount personal OS resales, corporate bulk resales only."
What a crazy idea! (Score:5, Informative)
What a crazy idea!-The Leaning Forum of "/." (Score:1, Insightful)
And if they don't, you'll never hear about it on this forum.
Re:What a crazy idea! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it would be, if Microsoft sold sofware.
Which they don't.
Whether you think i's a good idea for society or not, they sell licenses. A license by its very nature is more ambiguous than ownership, because it is, at its heart, an agreed upon, ungoing relationship between the licensee and licensor.
So, what is going on here is something a bit extraordinary. It's saying that licensees have in certain cirumstances the ability to transfer their relationship with the licensor to a third party, without the licensor's consent.
Re:What a crazy idea! (Score:2)
Re:What a crazy idea! (Score:1)
Re:What a crazy idea! (Score:2, Informative)
No one walked into a store and out with a box, it's not an install EULA, or even a shrinkwrap license, and I have no problem with MS trying to keep people from reselling them. They are almost always company or
Re:What a crazy idea! (Score:2)
I've been saying that for a while now - courts have been pretty clear since the first cases involving such things (software and media); if it's sold as a commodity item, right of first sale applies. You OWN it and you can resell it, rent it, give it away, shred it, make backup copies in accordance with Fair Use (but if the original changes hand the backups must accompany them or be destroyed), and so forth.
Volume licensing is a contract - you don't buy commodity items when
Re:What a crazy idea! (Score:5, Informative)
SGI has for years sold software under a license where you physically sign an agreement to purchase, and the license forbids resale of the software without express permission of Silicon Graphics. The thing is, they have the attitude toward their media that most of us wish that the record/movie companies had toward CD/DVD's..if it gets damaged, lost, stolen, etc. then they replace it for free...usually overnight Fedex. But that was back in the day, I'm unsure if they still do this now.
Anyway, I'm glad to see someone do this with the corporate licenses; it's about damn time.
Re:What a crazy idea! (Score:1)
And that strategy seems to be working really well for them [yahoo.com].
Re:What a crazy idea! (Score:2)
Re:What a crazy idea! (Score:3, Informative)
When you walk into a shop, pick a box off the shelf and pay for it, does it say "Windows" on it, or does it say "A license for Windows" on it? When you see adverts for computers in magazines, does it say that they come with Windows, or does it say that they come with a license for Windows?
If Microsoft aren't selling Windows, then millions of people around the world have not got what they legitimately paid for and have been de
Re:What a crazy idea! (Score:2)
I think you missed my point. You walk into a shop. You pick up a box that says "Windows" on it. You bring it to the counter. You give them money for the box that says "Windows" on it. They take your money. You walk out of the shop with what you have just bought, a copy of Windows.
How is that not buying a copy of Windows? Why do you think that it's in any way legal for Microsoft to turn around after the sale and say that no, you haven't actually bought what you have jus
Re:What a crazy idea! (Score:2)
If PC World can get attacked by the ASA for "misleading advertising" by using the phrase "Connect to the net anywhere with the builtin wireless technolog
Re:What a crazy idea! (Score:5, Informative)
A number of courts have held that the sale of software is the sale of a good within the meaning of Uniform Commercial Code. Advent Sys. Ltd. v. Unisys Corp., 925 F.2d 670, 676 (3d Cir. 1991); Step-Saver, 929 F.2d at 99-100; Downriver Internists v. Harris Corp., 929 F.2d 1147, 1150 (6th Cir. 1991). It is well-settled that in determining whether a transaction is a sale, a lease, or a license, courts look to the economic realities of the exchange.
Other courts have reached the same conclusion: software is sold and not licensed. See, e.g., RRX Indus., Inc. v. Lab-Con Inc., 772 F.2d 543, 546 (9th Cir. 1985); Applied Info. Mgmt., Inc, v. Icart, 976 Supp. 149, 155 (E.D.N.Y. 1997) finding that whether a transaction denominated a "license" was in act a sale conveying ownership was a disputed question of fact); Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9975 (S.D. Tex. 2000). In Novell, a software manufacturer was pursuing a discount retailer for copyright infringement. Like Adobe, CPU argued that it purchased the software from an authorized source, and was entitled to resell it under the first sale doctrine. Novell claimed that it did not sell software but merely licensed it to distribution partners. The court held that these transactions constituted sales and not a license, and therefore that the first sale doctrine applied. 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9975 at *18.
The Court finds that the circumstances surrounding the transaction strongly suggests that the transaction is in fact a sale rather than a license. For example, the purchaser commonly obtains a single copy of the software, with documentation, for a single price, which the purchaser pays at the time of the transaction, and which constitutes the entire payment for the "license." The license runs for an indefinite term without provisions for renewal. In light of these indicia, many courts and commentators conclude that a "shrinkwrap license" transaction is a sale of goods rather than a license.12
The reality of the business environment also suggests that Adobe sells its software to distributors. Adobe transfers large amounts of merchandise to distributors. The distributors pay full value for the merchandise and accept the risk that the software may be damaged or lost.13 The distributors also accept the risk that they will be unable to resell the product.14 The distributors then resell the product to other distributors in the secondary market. The secondary market and the ultimate consumer also pay full value for the product, and accept the risk that the product may be lost or damaged. This evidence suggests a transfer of title in the good. The transfer of a product for consideration with a transfer of title and risk of loss generally constitutes a sale. VWP of Am., Inc. v. United States, 175 F.3d 1327, 1338-39 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
[signed]
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge
Re:What a crazy idea! (Score:2)
Re:What a crazy idea! (Score:2)
HOWEVER...
In this particular case, in this particular story, is one of those very rare times where we really
Re:What a crazy idea! (Score:2)
No, it's not. It's using terms in the license that allow the licensee to transfer the license. The featured company is acting as a broker, matching interested parties, and they use MS's own forms to do the transfer.
Re:What a crazy idea! (Score:2)
If it's a business contract, such as software assurance, where I pay a continuing fee to the software holder fo
Re:What a crazy idea! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What a crazy idea! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What a crazy idea! (Score:2)
I'm going to mix things and hope you won't notice (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, modern has nothing to do with it. And just living with another person will restrict your freedom. Ask any married man. But some of those rules are societal such as you mention:
"you cannot buy alcohol and give it to minors"
or
"[you cannot] drive a car around without a license"
Let's be clear about these things. They are *laws* debated and agreed to by *represented officials* and can be changed at any time if society at large decides these rules need to be changed.
Also, it's worth noting these laws don't restrict the sale or ownership of an item, they restrict the use of an item.
Let's compare that with a EULA from MS not to resell that item.
1) It's not against the law to buy or sell software
2) Copyright law has no jurisdiction in this case, because it deals with reproduction, not sale
3) First sale doctrine encourages me to resell what I own
4) Microsoft would rather I didn't and they put it in a EULA.
5) Nobody voted on this restriction. In fact, they didn't even get a say. I bought a PC a few years ago, it came with XP Pro, I assumed I could sell it, but no, it's licensed to the box and I can't resell it. Why? Well... just because. I don't think it would hold up in court, but it's not worth it to try.
So please stop comparing a EULA to underage drinking and societal conventions because they are not at all related. EULAs are a trick that may or not be legal and they are enforced by big money, not society.
Re:I'm going to mix things and hope you won't noti (Score:1)
Re:I'm going to mix things and hope you won't noti (Score:2)
Let's be even clearer.
Re:What a crazy idea! (Score:2)
Now there's a cogent argument.
Re:What a crazy idea! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What a crazy idea! (Score:2)
The MOT & tax you might get away with once, if you have a pre-booked appointment at the garage. But being alowed to drive, unaccompanied, to the driving test location is bullshit.
Seven days grace is b
Re:What a crazy idea! (Score:2)
Oh and fuck you too. Have a nice day, dumbass.
Here's how they will "fix" this (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Here's how they will "fix" this (Score:2, Informative)
In the UK at least, once you sell something -- even something nebulous like a licence to do something the Law of the Land already gives you the right to do -- then it is no longer your property and you lose control of it.
They can put a clause in the licence that apparently forbids transfer of licences; but UK law gives you the right to transfer licences. And a promise not to exercise a statutory right is worthless, so invoking the "severability" clause found in almo
Re:Here's how they will "fix" this (Score:2, Interesting)
Does that mean that if it says you can't install the software multiply that you may indeed install it as many times as you want? Does it mean that licenses are completely worthless to the licensor?
Are you a lawyer?
Re:Here's how they will "fix" this (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes
Does that mean that if it says you can't install the software multiply that you may indeed install it as many times as you want?
No, because copyright law prevents that.
Does it mean that licenses are completely worthless to the licensor?
Licenses are useful for one thing only - making exceptions to your copyright. Any other terms are meaningless.
Are you a lawyer?Not yet
Re:Here's how they will "fix" this (Score:1)
Unless I'm not understanding some weird UK-style legal mumbo jumbo that doesn't all
Re:Here's how they will "fix" this (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure there's no entitlement to do this. There are a few general copyright exceptions - "copies necessary for the intended use of the work" and "transitory copies the sole purpose of which is an otherwise legal use of the work" are those which spring to mind - but nothing like as extensive
Re:Here's how they will "fix" this (Score:2)
Correct as stated. Copyright law prevents you doing that unless you have a license allowing you to do so.
This makes no sense whatsoever. Licenses are useful for tons of things, depending on the interests of the parties etc. Your understanding of the relationship of licensing agreements to statutory IP rights is incorrect. The former is not an annex of the la
Re:Here's how they will "fix" this (Score:5, Insightful)
This probably won't last for very long. (Score:3, Interesting)
Apparently, a Microsoft rep said that to the article writer.
Something tells me that Windows Vista and future versions of Office, etc. will probably restrict their licenses somehow to prevent this. Some company had "net saving in the region of £10,000." That means Microsoft probably lost a lot more than that.
Too bad they won't sell to individuals; I might actually purchase a Microsoft product if I could just download it from P2P and go buy a cheap license from these guys. Even better, someone should go start collecting unused Windows licenses and giving them away to those who need them, like college students (okay, just kidding).
Re:This probably won't last for very long. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This probably won't last for very long. (Score:1)
Re:This probably won't last for very long. (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft didn't "lose" any money on this sale, neither did they "make" any money. This is similar to me buying the Monopoly(tm) board game at a garage sale. Parker Brothers neither lost nor made any money on the deal.
Re:This probably won't last for very long. (Score:3, Informative)
You're right, Microsoft didn't lose money per se. However, Microsoft did lose a fairly substantial potential business because of this.
This is similar to me buying the Monopoly(tm) board game at a garage sale. Parker Brothers neither lost nor made any money on the deal.
Perhaps Parker Brothers should put some kind of license agreement in their board games that prohibits resale of Monopoly. This is of course, the move
Re:This probably won't last for very long. (Score:1)
-A
Obligatory Simpsons reference (Score:2)
Wiggum: How do those Parker Brothers sleep at night?
Re:This probably won't last for very long. (Score:2)
Personal possession of goods that are part of a company's Intellectual Property is so 20th century, who does that nowadays? Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I get the impression that "buying" is seen more and more as "buying a restricted license" instead of "buying" mean to "obtain complete possession over the bought goods, and allowing you to do what you want with it".
Re:This probably won't last for very long. (Score:1)
Companies are different; they are taking a huge risk by illegally copying the software they use. As in my quote, one company saved £10,000; had the used license reseller not offered them cheaper licenses, they would have had to buy legit first-hand retail versions, and MS would have made the money.
In essence, because of
Re:This probably won't last for very long. (Score:2)
Remember, the licenses aren't copyable the way music/software is, so the doctrine of first sale isn't even a grey area in this case.
Re:This probably won't last for very long. (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember also, cars wear out and die; a used software license installs and works perfectly every time. The CD might wear out, of course, but that's not what you paid for (that's why backing up any piece of media should always be legal... you didn't pay $300.00 for a $0.03 piece of plastic, you bought the numbers recorded on it).
You could argue that software goes obsolete; but the company that saved all th
Re:This probably won't last for very long. (Score:2)
Re:This probably won't last for very long. (Score:1)
I'll agree to look at it your way, that even though companies have always had to purchase their bulk MS software directly from MS or one of its licensed vendors and now, for the first time ever, they don't, they aren't losing any money because of this. I'm sure that's how MS looks at it as well; "it's no bother, we're not losing anything..."
I wasn't trying to say that this company is stealing money fro
Re:This probably won't last for very long. (Score:2)
Bit rot (Score:2, Interesting)
Remember also, cars wear out and die; a used software license installs and works perfectly every time.
True, but the software itself bit-rots as crackers discover new vulnerabilities in an end-of-lifed operating system.
I don't believe software makers should have the right to this "forced non-resale" licensing
If it's banned, publishers of proprietary programs will just phrase their EULAs as 95 year rental agreements.
Re:This probably won't last for very long. (Score:1)
-A
Fallacy of Microsoft's "lost revenue" argument. (Score:2)
Microsoft only "lost" a potential sale, and even then, they lost a potential sale at a much lower price then they probably would have been willing to accept. I don't know what the pricing on used licenses is, but if we assume (just for the sake of argument here) that a used license is £50 and a new one is £200 and 10 licenses were purchased, they should only be able to claim that they 'didn't receive' £500. Because to claim £2000 is to say that the company
Re:Fallacy of Microsoft's "lost revenue" argument. (Score:2)
Calm down, I was just using numbers that were easy to work with for the sake of argument. I thought I made it
Re:This probably won't last for very long. (Score:2)
If your whole point is that MS is a sleazy corporation that would look first to using the laws against the public at every opportunity rather than coming up with a way to actually provide value worth paying for new and you think you're actually coming up with a point, then you really are new here
Re:This probably won't last for very long. (Score:2)
Re:This probably won't last for very long. (Score:1)
I see software as being different. Whereas Ford has the -potential- of making money even from someone who bought a used car (e.g. spare parts, repairs) assuming they go to a Ford dealer, MS provides for free patches to its OS. So no income unless you make many support calls. So if you've paid nothing for it to MS, they still have to pay bandwidth to let you download the updates. Thi
Re:This probably won't last for very long. (Score:3, Insightful)
From another perspective, if the person who previously bought a parker brothers product has spare spending money, they will be somewhat more likely to buy another parker brothers product (this last one is influenced highly by the satisfact
Re:This probably won't last for very long. (Score:2)
XP already does it with its activation scheme. Heck, my dad had to call Microsoft to get XP reactivated after he upgraded a couple of components in his computer.
Okay, that's a bit harsh, maybe it won't PREVENT resale, but it sure makes it more difficult. It'll be a sad day when I'm forced to 'upgrade' from Win2k.
Re:This probably won't last for very long. (Score:2)
Aw, it isn't that bad. A couple years ago, I was finally forced to upgrade my primary system from Windows 98SE Lite (that's 98SE with IE totally stripped out), because for some reason, the OS would go into seizures when there was more than one DIMM installed in the motherboard.
The upgrade was fairly painless. I went to Knoppix, then Mepis, and finally settled on pure Debian Sid. Haven't had any major problems with that system ever since then (othe
Re:This probably won't last for very long. (Score:2)
Maybe not for all, but the software I use to make a living is not available on Linux. I'm stuck with Windows. POTENTIALLY I could go to Mac, which is an option I need to keep open.
Re:This probably won't last for very long. (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft didn't lose anything. They made their money from the original sale of those licenses which were then resold. That would be like claiming nVidia would be losing whatever the current retail value is of the used GeForce card that I may sell, since I have replaced it with a new one. They made their money off it already.
Re:This probably won't last for very long. (Score:1)
This is legal in the US too (Score:5, Insightful)
"US copyright case law supports that consumers cannot make copies of computer programs contrary to a license, but may resell what they own."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine [wikipedia.org]
"Software publishers claim the first-sale doctrine does not apply because software is licensed, not sold, under the terms of an End User License Agreement (EULA)."
but if it's licensed then one should be allowed to make backups of the disc or receive a replacement disc if the disc gets lost or damaged. Software companies will argue either way where it suits them.
they can't have the cake and eat it. It's either or
Re:This is legal in the US too (Score:3, Insightful)
The exact same argument applies to the media (**AA) corps too (IMHO, IANAL). If I'm licensed to watch/hear your product, then replacing the physical medium or getting it in a different format should be a very nominal (pennies!) charge since I can show that I've got a license for the product. If I'm buying a copy of the product for my own, then how do they have any right to restrict what I do with my copy for my own use?
Re:This is legal in the US too (Score:2)
So in fact they do have a right to dictate certain things you might do with your copy of the software. But one of those rights is not the right to coerce you in
Re:This is legal in the US too (Score:2)
For Microsoft licensing you can get replacements, not for free, the media kits are normally around $10-$20.
Re:This is legal in the US too (Score:3, Insightful)
Here is the distribution right:
Here is first sale doctrine:
Not at all like used anything else (Score:3, Insightful)
But IP owners would have you think otherwise. They want you to think that licenses are akin to the actual CDs that the media came on. One CD, one installation. However, this is prima facie ludicrous. One CD suffices to create a farm of PC installations, the only thing needed is multiple licenses for each individual installation.
So don't be fooled into thinking that buying CDs is absolutely necessary. All you need are valid licenses and you have the rights to install as many times using the same CD as you have licenses.
Re:Not at all like used anything else (Score:3, Insightful)
But they do become obsolete faster than most other products. The Windows98 license I own is pretty worn out in one sense.
Re:Not at all like used anything else (Score:2)
Re:Not at all like used anything else (Score:1)
Re:Not at all like used anything else (Score:2)
Most EULAs have yet to be tested in co
Re:Not at all like used anything else (Score:1)
But software licenses are not anything at all like that. In fact, they do not wear out
Your license to use a particular version of Windows has effectively worn out once Microsoft announces the version's end of life and crackers find an exploitable vulnerability.
Should be co.uk (Score:2)
If it is, these guys are clearly aiming for international business, because any British person could tell you that businesses operating inside the uk always go for .co.uk domains.
That being said, there are a few mentions of being in the UK on the first page.
The best part so far has been seeing how they've dealt with the challenge of materialising somet
Re:Should be co.uk (Score:1)
- Hash and Sickle (those dirty commies)
- Sore nipple
- Scratched magnifying glass
- Stylized Islamic star and crescent
- Drunk Asian with hair in a topknot
- Drunk grandmother with hair in a bun
- Stylized '/.'
- C#/.
Re:Should be co.uk (Score:3, Interesting)
The favicon looks a bit like Netscape.
Strange that despite their business name they only claim to resell Microsoft software licenses. I wouldn't mind getting my hands on a copy of VMS.
I wonder what their Licence Procurement Division does. It that like dumpster diving?
Re:Should be co.uk (Score:1)
The best part so far has been seeing how they've dealt with the challenge of materialising something as abstract as software licences into a picture for a logo. What the hell is that thing?
My best guess is that it's a tennis racket, implying that they're "bouncing back" licenses to people. But yeah, who knows??
one question (Score:1)
Re:one question (Score:1)
Good and Bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Disclic aren't doing anything illegal, nor are they doing anything wrong {an important distinction in the UK, where many things that are not wrong are technically illegal, and many things that are wrong are not illegal}. I'm sure Microsoft would like to have a pop at them; but I don't know of anything that they could actually make stick. And if they do try, it will almost certainly call into question the legal enforcibility of EULAs in the UK.
Small things show just how bad it is. (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow, I'm underwhelmed.
Wake me up when you can sell the crappy CD that comes with your non-naked PC the same way you could sell it's floppy drive, the manuals or any other worthless component. It's funny they want to extend all of the limitations of physical property into the binary world and then binary limits into the physical world.
What an awesome idea... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What an awesome idea... (Score:2)
I am pretty sure you can do that where I live (Victoria, Australia) but if a cop asks to see your license and you show them something other than the license the state Government issued to you then you would be in trouble.
Used drivers licenses (Score:4, Interesting)
In some states you can also buy old license plates. That doesn't mean it's legal to put them on your car, but you can get them. In fact, I know of at least one state where the DMV sells "novelty" plates direct: they're not legal to actually use as a license plate, but if you wanted to get a historical one for your Model T, they'll sell it to you.
You can buy and sell all sorts of stuff that would be illegal if used in a certain way.
Re:What an awesome idea... (Score:2)
Re:What an awesome idea... (Score:2)
Re:What an awesome idea... (Score:1)
Think of a license this way: You are prohibited from driving on the road. A license is given to you, which means you are excempt from the restriction. But you are not prohibit
resell (Score:1)
used? (Score:2)
Good, good... muahahahahaha. (Score:2)
Oops... misread the title :( (Score:2)
Principle of First Sale (Score:1, Informative)
Retail software licenses are treated the same way by the court. Commercial agreements can be almost anything, though, that's why there is so much non
Re:Necrodupe? (Score:2)
Re:Subscription? (Score:2)
Re:Subscription? (Score:2)
Re:Necrodupe? (Score:3, Informative)
That's not a dupe.
First story, November 2005: "Disclic, through discount-licensing.com, this week began offering secondhand software licenses..."
Today's story, April 2006: "Sales of second-hand Microsoft software licences have doubled month-on-month since the market was opened in November 2005..."
A dupe is when we post the same story twice with no new news between the two stories. This is a followup -- thanks for bringing it to our attention, and I've added the November story to our Related Links sect
Re:How's that work? (Score:2, Informative)
If you bothered to read the article, you would see that, so far, they are only dealing with bulk licences -- not individual ones. No activation number involved. This makes sense on two levels; one, there'd be nothing to stop a company that was going out of business from passing on a bulk licence through some unofficial channel anyway, so it might as well be officialised; and two,
Re:How's that work? (Score:2)
You'll no doubt be explaining later how the burden of proof is reversed in libel cases. That's number 2.
Re:Learn some manners (Score:2)
To avoid potential misunderstandings which may arise from others misinterpreting your intentions in future, may I respectfully suggest that you consider logging in before posting bona fide questions?