UK Judge Rules COA is Not Evidence of a License 296
blane.bramble writes "In a ruling against a company selling counterfeit and genuine licenses, a UK judge seems to have ruled that the Certificate of Authenticity is not itself sufficient proof of license possession. This could have major ramifications for UK businesses that consider keeping the COA as proof of being licensed. The quote in question is 'Thus it can confer no license for the use of any Microsoft software by passing on the COA (certificate of authenticity), nor can the COA be evidence of, or itself confer, such a license'."
Get lawyers on staff (Score:5, Funny)
I think I'll go into the market of blood-filled pens. I think blood is still binding, but I am (thankfully) not a lawyer!
Re:Get lawyers on staff (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Get lawyers on staff (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Get lawyers on staff (Score:2)
Re:Get lawyers on staff (Score:2)
Re:Get lawyers on staff (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Get lawyers on staff (Score:3, Funny)
Out of Context? You screwed buddy (Score:5, Funny)
What? How possibly could this be taken out of context???? Unless of course you were saying something to the effect of "Well, if you want to get sued by Microsoft then I can do you an Office 2003 [Microsoft software] without a licence for eighty-five quid. The licensed version is one hundred and eighty-five quid. With the eighty-five quid one we're not lining Bill Gates's pocket. If he's installing it in a business or something he might want to do the licence. He might want to do it properly."
Re:Out of Context? You screwed buddy (Score:4, Insightful)
No question that the letter of it is being broken in that MS has structured their EULAs and bulk purchase agreements in such a way as to restrict this, but this is different I would argue than flat out piracy or counterfitting.
Have you ever purchased something expensive on a friend's Sam's Club card? Had a second rebate mailed to your friend's house for something you bought two of? Bought one of those "Do not sell Radio Promo CDs"?
I'm not saying any of these things are right, but the context you can't seem to find is that this software was bought from MS (they got paid) and because they couldn't use it they then resold it to someone else (prohibited by MS). The selective quote by the salesperson makes it sound like what's going on is on the far side of wrong, but with context it seems to be one of those gray in between things instead. (Assuming what was related was true.)
What Microsoft is doing here is taking legitimate software (they made it and they sold it) and by fiat converting it into pirated/counterfeit software solely by stint of how they have their EULA structured. The software hasn't been reproduced, isn't being used by multiple people, in fact the core of the argument rests on the fact that the software has been completely unused prior to the sale.
Re:Out of Context? You screwed buddy (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought the EULA wasn't binding until agreed to. Until I install the software or break certain seals, I do in fact
Re:Out of Context? You screwed buddy (Score:4, Interesting)
From the article:
The defence argued that if a large organisation, such as a bank, bought a large number of computers and never used the bundled Microsoft software and sold on the licences, that a company such as Digital could sell those licences, for which Microsoft had already been paid.
The judge rejected the argument. "The fallacy in the argument is that if the bank does not accept the EULA [licence] terms [by operating the software and agreeing the terms], it receives no licence. Thus it can confer no licence for the use of any Microsoft software by passing on the COA (certificate of authenticity), nor can the COA be evidence of, or itself confer, such a licence. Thus, provided that the licensing system is enforceable in law, the circumstances exemplified cannot give rise to a legitimate trade in COAs."
So, according to this judge, in the UK, if you don't agree to the licenses, you don't, in fact, own anything, even if you've paid for it.
Kinda scary.
Who buys that? (Score:2)
Do people really think that the box and the manuals and the stamped CDs really cost that much? If you're going to get "unlicensed" software, why not just pay someone a couple of bucks to dupe the CDs? That's effectively what you're getting; a set of installation media without any right to use the software that's on it.
I bet if you called up Microsoft as a licensed user and said that your dog had eaten your media, that they p
Re:Who buys that? (Score:2)
"That's a pirate copy."
"No it isn't."
"Yes it is, you burnt that CD yourself."
"Yes, and here's my MSDN licence key to use the software. Problem?"
"... But it's illegal!"
How were these transcripts obtained (Score:2)
How were these transcripts obtained? Did either of the parties know they were being recorded. Did the test purchaser lead Edward Hill into making incriminating statements.
Re:Out of Context? You screwed buddy
Now that is ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
But I guess it supports the idea that you don't buy software, you buy a license.
I guess first sale law doesn't apply to software in the UK any more.
The sad part is that aside from the receipt, with which microsoft (for example) might or might not give you a new code, the only important part of buying windows or other software is getting the COA with the reg code. The CD is utterly unimportant if all you bought was a license to use the software; you have a license, so you have a legal right to make backup copies. The CD that came in the package doesn't mean shit.
Assuming you even got a CD...
Re:Now that is ridiculous (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a money grab (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Thanks to MS anti-piracy lobbying and differential pricing, it's not even possible to buy a PC without Windows on it from a major OEM any more. Or not without paying for Windows anyway: see Dell's Linux PCs or PCs without an OS, that cost exactly as much or more than the same with Windows. (And if you managed to get one without an OS anyway, it would get added to BSA's piracy statistics anyway.) And
2. Most corporations prefer to have a small numbers of standard configurations, to minimize support and training costs. Mom and pop shops may just leave whatever OS was on that PC, but for a corporation supporting 10,000 PCs or more, they prefer to install their version of Windows, Outlook, Office, etc, on each of them. So they buy a corporate version of all that stuff.
The problem is that in the process that corporation has paid twice for Windows and maybe for a few other programs too. E.g., they bought 100 new Dell computers with Windows XP Home on them, and then went and installed their corporate Windows 2000 image on each of them. It paid for both.
And this is just one of the many episodes where MS tries to defend its right to fleece them twice. It tried repeatedly to get it its way that you can't stop paying twice by either:
1. just buying your computers without an OS, if you have your corporate license anyway. (Believe it or not, it actually went on record as saying that the corporate licenses were some sort of "upgrade" to the Windows OEM license bought with the computer, and hence illegal to install on a blank machine.)
2. selling your unwanted and unused OEM licenses (Like the bank in TFA did. This is all that this BS about COA not proving purchase is: being told that, nope, you're not allowed to sell those unwanted OEM licenses that you were forced to buy.)
It's a money grab. Plain and simple. It's fucking stupid to pay for an OS twice. (And it's even more fucking stupid to pay for an OS once when you don't use it: e.g., being unable to sell that Windows OEM license that came with the computer, when you really wanted to install Linux on it.) But for MS it's more money if they can keep forcing you to do just that.
And as long as they can, they and the BSA will do all they can to prevent people from finding a way out of this stupidity.
And don't think that such lawsuits are the only thrust in that war. The BSA isn't just the enforcing arm, it's also a useful source of BS and FUD in that campaign. As I may have mentioned before, even if you did manage to establish your right to buy a PC without an OS, the BSA will write it as a PC running pirated software anyway. That's how they make their infamous statistics: pull an assumption of how many PCs should have also caused a sell of Software X, and anything lower than that is automatically piracy. So if your company bought 1000 PCs without Windows, Office, etc (e.g., because you're installing Linux and OpenOffice on them), it _will_ be written by the BSA as 1000 PCs that are running pirated software.
Cue inflated statistics about rampant piracy and appeals to the governments and courts to give them more power.
Re:Now that is ridiculous (Score:2)
Should have been a different ruling (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a pretty disturbing ruling! (Score:2)
Unfortunately, he did exactly the opposite. From TFA:
I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds disturbingly as though a High Court judge just ruled EULAs legally binding in the UK without even having the case go to court.
Trust no one? At all? (Score:3, Insightful)
How in the world you can prove legality of anything, then?
What about the money in your wallet? Should it automatically lose its legal tender status just because some bills can be counterfeit?
Re:Trust no one? At all? (Score:2)
The EULA is considered a contract, but that's not what's in dispute here.
Uh, so what's left? (Score:5, Insightful)
While I don't think MS would want to alienate their customer base, but if they wanted to they could really turn that ruling into a money factory.
Re:Uh, so what's left? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would they stop now?
Dump Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Dump Microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Dump Microsoft (Score:5, Interesting)
Bottom line... we have dropped IT costs in just machines and setup time by about 20k a year, and we are not a large company. It used to take one person an afternoon to set up two windows machines since they had to wipe and re-install to get rid of all the pre-installed crap. Then run bandwidth intensive updates, install and update virus software etc. We could not use an image as the hardware was always just enough different it did not work, but even if we did it would not reduce the time much as a lot if it is updates which need to be monitored.
With Linux we have an image we copy from CD onto the machine which has everything pre-done and bam, one machine out the door in 20-30 minutes (10 of which was getting it out of the box).
The Macs are just as easy... the only thing we install is Office (necessary evil for execs, they MUST have their powerpoint) and that is done via copying a folder and inputting a key. No complicated process. Hell it even picks up our wireless network during install (gigabit landline reserved for engineers) and considers it a native interface rather than a hack like Windows.
Now instead of spending 80% of my day troubleshooting Windows I spend maybe 15% on maintenance tasks and the rest adding value to the company by implementing new things like the VOIP phones that we can use thanks to the network not having so much unnecessary traffic on it, which incidentally is going to save us another $5k a year or so while we pay for the hardware and $10k a year after.
All made possible by dumping Microsoft Windows XP.
Re:Uh, so what's left? (Score:2)
BTW, what proves a real license right now if not the CoA? A CD doesn't prove it either anymore (or so I read) in some cases so I assume this ruling will be effective in stopping the transfer of second hand licenses period (legal wise). And for t
What do you show the auditors? (Score:5, Insightful)
It complicates the issue of licence management for a great many businesses, providing another incentive for using libre software instead.
Re:What do you show the auditors? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:What do you show the auditors? (Score:2)
The key word is purchased, not leased. Can you explain to me how purchasing a piece of software does not legally entitle me to use it into eternity?
The rest of your post really makes it sound like the mafia == BSA.
interesting (Score:2, Insightful)
sum.zero
Re:interesting (Score:2)
(I'm not trying to be a PITA, I actually want to know.)
Re:interesting (Score:2)
EULA's are, indeed, enforceable throughout the U.S. There maybe a provision here or there that a judge might have a quibble with, but on the whole there's no reason to think that the EULA would be found invalid.
Yet Another Reason to Avoid Microsoft Software.
Re:interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
And 5 years later we have SoftMan Products Co. v. Adobe Systems Inc. 2001 [wikipedia.org] stating that buying a box of software in fact gives you ownership of that copy, and that no EULA exists unless you in fact assent to be bound by that contract. Note the key letter A in EULA for agreement. If there is no agreement then there is no EULA and you are not bound by any of its terms. And of course that also means that you receive noth
Implicit sadness (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Implicit sadness (Score:2, Informative)
That is what you buy when you buy software from anyone, the Right to Use the software. The obvious exception to this rule would be if you purchased the Copyright itself.
Re:Implicit sadness (Score:5, Informative)
No, you buy a copy of the software. The right to use that copy is implicit; nowhere does copyright law restrict that right to copyright holders, and it's as fundamental as the right to read a legally purchased copy of a book. Software companies originally tried to use a "you can't use our software without making a copy in RAM, so you need a license!" argument, but in the USA at least that was made explicitly legal in Title 17 a. 1. 117.
Of course, this is assuming that you walk into a store, pick out some software, hand them some money, and don't sign anything except a credit card receipt. If you buy anything by specifically agreeing to a license beforehand, then certainly the license terms apply.
Re:Implicit sadness (Score:2)
Re:Implicit sadness (Score:2)
Boiling down my understanding (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm trying to get my head around this ruling. On one hand it makes sense, on the other hand it doesn't. My question: if the bank receives no license because it paid money but didn't accept the EULA, then what did it receive for the money it paid?
Possible answers I can come up with:
1. The bank bought a computer, and chose not to use some software bundled with it, the same as if I "bought" Norton Antivirus with a new computer but never used it because I choose to use AVG. Dell won't refund to me their cost of the Norton software just because I don't choose to use it. Arguable, but not overly evil.
2. The bank bought a computer which was probably loaded with an OEM "only for sale with a new computer" license for Windows. The license should travel with the hardware, then. Arguable, moderately evil because of the whole "only with a computer" distinction.
3. ???
4. The judge got it wrong, and the bank should be able to sell the unused license the same as if they bought too many office chairs and sold the ones they never used. Non-evil, but IANAL.
Thoughts?
Option #1 is Correct (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe the intention is to elminate the ability to transfer -any- license, even the one you have when you agree to MS's EULA. Thereby increasing consumption of new OS licenses.
This is the logical step forward in a society that fully embraces capitalism. Microsoft/RIAA corporations own the co
Re:Option #1 is Correct (Score:2)
It's really a stretch to call this "capitalism" at work. True capitalists want less government regulation. Copyright exists only because of government regu
then how the hell ??? (Score:2)
And it also says:
there are circumstances in which disused or unwanted volume licences for some Microsoft software can be transferred; but this trade must be compliant with Microsoft's own transfer terms and conditions
Rrrright. So, somebody, please, educate us, what _can_ be an evidence of us properly using our legitim
Not America (Score:2)
Yet... (Score:2)
ruling over here or not remains to be seen, but just because it's not happened yet over here
doesn't mean it won't.
What about using paper currency? (Score:5, Interesting)
Instead of reinventing the wheel, companies could use an existing "certificate" with built-in anti-counterfeit measures... common paper currency.
For example...
And there you have a counterfeit-resistant, anonymous, verifiable proof of registration.
Re:What about using paper currency? (Score:2, Insightful)
Well maybe they could give you an activation code when you license the software. So basically you download the software, go to the website and put in your credit card number and the serial number from your dollar and get an activation code. You get charged for the software and your serial number is stored in a database at the company at the same time. The activation code could be some kind of hash based on your serial number or whatever, depending on how paranoid the software company is.
Then when its tim
OR ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What about using paper currency? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Time for RedHat to move in for the kill (Score:2)
OEM preinstalled software (Score:3, Interesting)
Depends... (Score:2)
All kidding aside, it looks like this ruling would keep people in the UK from peeling that label off the laptop and transferring it to someone else.
My old Thinkpad has a Windows 98 license key on the bottom. It looks like this ruling would prevent me from, for example, installing that copy of Windows 98 on a PC for my sister and giving it to her. It might even prevent me from installing that license in a copy of Parallels running on my Mac, or u
It's always been this way in the US (Score:3, Informative)
Well, that's fucking stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
So let me get this straight...
I've made a point to buy all software I use, if buying a license or CD is even possible. So, yes, even the SuSE Linux 10.0 that I'm writing this on is bought and I have the CDs and manual next to me. (Hey, lip service is cheap. I prefer to vote for OSS with my wallet.) I also have bought a copy of Windows for each of my two computers, because I do play games a lot. At any rate, I have the COAs and CDs and everything. I also have these three bookcases full of games I've bought. With original case, CD, manual, whatever. I've also bought all music I'm listening to, and I can show you an original CD for any MP3 you might find on my hard drive.
So now you're telling me that someone could come and say that in the eyes of the law I'm a bigger pirate than Blackbeard? Just because I didn't keep the receipts from EBGames and whatnot? That someone could look at all those hundreds of games in their original cases and all, and count them _all_ as pirated software?
Nothing personal, and please understand that my anger isn't directed at _you_, but I find that bloody stupid and offensive. Essentially then the US is calling me a pirate and a thief, in spite of my efforts to be a honest lawful gamer, and in spite of the ample evidence to the contrary. I find it utterly insulting.
Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty, ffs? It seems to me like the current attitude is basically the exact opposite: you're by default a pirate, and from there it's your uphill battle to prove yourself innocent. And, oh, let's also make it nearly impossible to prove that. You may have the original CD, the box, the manual, the certificate of authenticity and everything else that a sane person would have guessed would be enough, but if you can't find the receipt you're a thief anyway. I mean, seriously, wtf?
And what next? Should I expect that my washing machine or TV also count as stolen, because I threw away the receipts once they got out of warranty? Should I start keeping the receipts for the groceries I buy, or be considered a thief that lived on stolen food for the last decade? WTF?
Something interesting about this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Most likely, you don't. What you probably have, if you have anything, is receipt of purchase from the dealer - not the receipt of purchase from the manufacturer. This document is known as the "Manufacturer's Statement of Origin" (MSO).
Most people "purchase" their vehicles through a dealer, via a loan or credit. A payment schedule is set up, a down payment is made, and the new "owner" drives off with the vehicle and a dealer "receipt". The MSO (among other documents) is transferred to the Motor Vehicle Department of the owner's state of residence. When the loan is paid off, the owner may get a copy of the MSO sent to him, but more likely he just gets a note and/or receipt saying the loan is paid in full. The state still has the original MSO. The dealer receipt is not valid proof of ownership of the vehicle - only the MSO is. If you don't have the MSO, and the state does, guess who really owns your vehicle?
The only way (that I know of) to get the MSO of a vehicle is to buy the vehicle directly from the manufacturer, and not the dealer. You can pay cash, credit, or have a private loan to do this, but you will need a trailer to move the vehicle, since it isn't licensed in any way. Actually, this is somewhat false - in theory, you can drive it, without insurance or a license, under the doctrine of "Right to Travel" - but you must have that MSO with you to have any chance of beating this in court when you are hauled in.
As far as I have been able to research, this is all true. It is simply way more obscure than even the whole FIJA (fully informed jury) issue. "Right to Travel" is yet another one of those areas of law which make judges and the states seethe at the mere mention of it, because it is a Constitutionally protected sovereign right of a free man who owns property. At a certain level, it removes control of the state from an otherwise law-abiding person. This angers the state, but they are (currently) unable to do anything about it.
What has been done about it is a nearly institutionalized form of slavery of perpetual indebtedness of citizens via "easy credit" and loans, among other measures (such as the separation of selling mineral rights from property rights, for instance). If a man does not actually own his own property - is he really free, or is he merely another form of a slave?
Licenses, DRM, the DMCA, etc - it is all a part of a very real pattern to control the populace via removal of property ownership rights. Unfortunately, most of the citizens - er, consumers - are playing right along. It is even at a point now where people look at you strangely when you tell them you are paying off your credit, or you use cash, etc - a form of peer pressure to conform to economic slavery. You are suspected if you don't play along, or if you play differently (such as by "living within your means" instead of racking up credit debt). These are sad times we Americans live in - what is pathetic is that most people aren't even aware of what is happenning, and nearly ostracize you if you so much as suggest it...
The MSO conspiracy doesn't exist. (Score:3, Informative)
And? When I buy a book I get a receipt of purchase from Barnes & Noble, not from O'Reilly and Associates.
The MSO is not a receipt of purchase. It's exactly what it claims to be, a statement of origin. "This car came directly from us." It's essentially a title to the vehicle.
When title
The basis of appeal (Score:2)
Microsoft will use the terms that it sees fit. (Score:3, Interesting)
BSA comes to your business for a audit.
-You have COA? we will need to see the receipts.
-You have receipts? we will affidavits from all persons who clicked the EULA.
-You have COA, receipts, EULA's? we will need to see the CD's.
-etc.etc.etc.
repeat till you fail their never ending requirements of Proof of Purchase/Ownership/Bloodletting.
Re:Microsoft will use the terms that it sees fit. (Score:3, Funny)
please standby for document transfer
Re:Microsoft will use the terms that it sees fit. (Score:2)
(ST2:Wrath of Khan, 1982)
Unwanted volume licences (Score:4, Informative)
>
> with Microsoft's own transfer terms and conditions.
is entirely correct - it's a "feature" of UK insolvency laws. See here:
http://news.com.com/Secondhand+Microsoft+software
http://www.openfree.org/opinion/?p=31 [openfree.org]
So I buy a Dell... (Score:2)
Re:So I buy a Dell... (Score:2)
I tried calling compaq and talked to Mike with a heavy Indian accent who spoke no english who said it was piracy and refused to ship the cd's.
Re:So I buy a Dell... (Score:2)
Um, no. You are fine if you buy a computer from an authorized reseller. Dell is authorized by Microsoft to sell OEM licensed systems. Want to resell Microsoft software? Check out oem.microsoft.com [microsoft.com]. Selling used computers has been grey market for years because of Microsoft's OEM license.
MS actively discourages manufacturers sending out CDs.
Um, no. Just the opposite in fact. Only the largest resellers are allowed to resell Microsoft software without a holographic CD. The only reason they can is because
SGI has been this way (Score:3, Informative)
Turn it around - Prove I am NOT licenced (Score:2)
Seems to me in most matters legal, the burden is on the plaintif to prove the defendant did something. Said defendant is innocent until proven guilty, and need not testify on his own behalf... for or against himself.
Lawyer: You are not licensed.
User: Prove it.
Lawyer: We have no record of you having purchased a license.
User: I can't help it if you have shotty book-keeping.
etc.
Judge: interesting statements (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Judge: interesting statements (Score:2)
I've seen similar things. The judge is obliged to assume certain things, like the validity of the licensing scheme, unless one party or the other questions them. My bet is that the defendants here tried arguing within the assumptions of the EULA terms. In that case they'll lose. What they probably didn't do is argue that they never need to get to the EULA terms, they got a license from the actual purchase under the standard laws of commerce, that that license and contract of sale exist independently of the
What IS evidence of a licence? (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the funny things about EULAs, is that there never is any direct evidence of a license. The copyright holder never has any evidence (i.e. a signed contract) that the user agreed to the terms. The user's only evidence, is a piece of paper which doesn't even say to whom the license has been granted, so they really don't have any serious proof either.
EULAs are a nearly invisible contract that one side never consents to, and neither side can proove exists.
So while this case appears to be a win for Microsoft, I think this is a double-edged sword. EULAs were already pretty shady, and now a judge has gone on the record, saying that the COA is not proof of a license. This is another nail in the coffin of all EULAs' appearance of legitimacy.
I also think it's hilarious that a bank can't transfer a license but a retail software store can. Neither party is Microsoft, neither party has a direct relationship or contract with Microsoft, neither party even breaks a seal with a sticker on it that says "by breaking this seal, you agree to..." and neither party clicks on a "by clicking on 'install' you agree to.." button. And yet they also (in addition to the end user) are bound by a contract that they have never even seen? EULAs are so cheesy and fake-looking, that I can't believe anyone takes them seriously. Wake up, judges. If fake contracts can be applied to people without their knowledge, how do you know I'm not going to make up a contract and apply it you you?
Re:When what is? (Score:3, Insightful)
I wondered the same thing. Okay, so when you buy software, you're not really buying the software, you're buying a license (or so they tell us). Fine; but where the hell is the license? What confers it? The purchase receipt? Possession
Re:When what is? (Score:2, Interesting)
More importantly, how is it that a *minor* (who cannot be legally bound to a contract) can walk into any store, hand over cash and receive a copy of Windows? Won't somebody think of the
Re:When what is? (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not a prohibition, like selling drugs (where you can do it, but it's illegal), it's just a nullification of their ability to agree to the terms. Thus, anything they'd sign would be unenf
Re:When what is? (Score:2)
It can't be 'illegal' for them to enter into a contract, because as far as the law is concerned, they can't do it.
Yes they can. They can turn around and break the contract without consequence. Of course, this is the UK - they may have different ideas.
Re:When what is? (Score:2)
AFAICT, the cat is not legally responsible for the consequences of its actions.
See EULA kitty,
Click EULA kitty,
nice kitty - here is a piece of catnip!
Re:When what is? (Score:2)
Isn't it illegal for a minor to enter into a contract. Something like "corrupt a minor" or some such law?
No. But it is voidable, if the contract is not for "necessities." So presumably, a minor could argue that the licensing agreement was void, even if they clicked "I agree," and use the software in ways prohibited by the license.
Re:When what is? (Score:2)
--dave
The licence is a legal construct (Score:2)
Re:When what is? (Score:2)
In short, if you scoop your brain out of your head and hook it up to a wireless network so it can communicate with a receiver in your now (otherwise empty) skull, where "are" you? What if they sectioned your brain and scattered it across the world, each still connected to the other parts (and your body) by the intranets. Then where "are" you?
Re:When what is? (Score:2)
The license doesn't need to be carried through a physical object any more than the copyright that you're desiring to license. That's why it's called "intellectual property", it only ex
Re:When what is? (Score:2)
So, again guessing, I think the point of the judgement is that the COA is not *necessarily* a proof of license. In the case here, there was clearl
Re:When what is? (Score:2)
If we create a legal construct, but there's no objective evidence of it being created or agreed to, then can the construct really be said to exist?
If it's uncontested, it may not be an issue; but as soon as one party tries to contest some part of the construct, then whether or not there's evidence of the agreement/construct becomes a serious problem. That's why we have contracts and signatures -- not because they are legal constructs
Re:Well, duh (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Well, duh (Score:2)
Even if all of that were true (which it is not), all that says is that you can use the COA to satisfy yourself of certain facts, not to use it as evidence in court.
But it isn't true anyway. The COA tells you that your copy is "genuine", not that it
Re:Well, duh (Score:3, Interesting)
Then how do you prove you have a license then? Keep the original receipt? How do you prove you haven't had your license revoked? Oh wait, we're talking about an artificial construct that Microsoft has utter control over and can use to screw you whenever they feel like it.
Re:Well, duh (Score:2)
Because facts have no place in a court of law. It isn't, "I swear to tell the facts, the whole facts, and nothing but the facts," it's truth. Facts are for the cops. (Thank God it's Joe Friday.) Courts are a place for truthiness.
And that's The Word.
Re:Well, duh (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it's because these are the wrong facts. The COA will protect you against claims that you knowingly purchased a pirated copy, but there are many other facts that need to be established in order to determine that you actually have a license (like the fact that you purchased the software at all).
Re:Well, duh (Score:3, Insightful)
And I'm sure everyone who has given someone a copy of Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition as a gift has always included a receipt, let alone one that was not printed on thermal paper which erases itself over time.
I would think it would be Microsoft's burden of proof to prove I obtained the valid certificate illicitly, not mine to prove I obtained
Re:Well, duh (Score:2)
Yes, it means exactly that.
It is a license limited to the original system. It is not transferrable. That might feel unfair, but then again it almost certainly cost a lot less than a full retail license.
MS have been pretty clear on OEM licenses and transfers, eg. ahref=http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/partners/You rPC_do.mspxrel=url2html-32541 [slashdot.org]http://www.microsoft. com/piracy/partners/YourPC_do.mspx
corrected link (Score:2)
http://www.microsoft.com/piracy/partners/YourPC_d
Re:Well, duh (Score:2)
Re:Well, duh (Score:2)
Re:Well, duh (Score:3, Informative)
I just took a look at the COA for XP Home on the bottom of my Lenovo laptop. It actually has the words "Proof of License" printed on it, along the left edge, directly above the words "Certificate of Authenticity".
However, it also has "Label not to be sold separately" printed along the right edge.
This is in the US, though. Maybe they print different labels for the UK market.
Re:Well, duh (Score:2)
Proof of License
Certificate of Authenticity
Re:Well, duh (Score:2)
Re:I would understand... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I would understand... (Score:2)
XP pro: 403,67 TTC
http://www.ldlc.be/fiche/PB00023592.html [www.ldlc.be]
XP pro + Keyboard: 182,01 TTC
http://www.ldlc.be/fiche/PB00020660.html [www.ldlc.be]
Re:Hey, Windows/Linux Refugees! (Score:2)
Re:Hey, Windows/Linux Refugees! (Score:2)
Dude, I know. She has those ... boobs ... getting in the way. I bet she doesn't even have a penis. How boring can you get?
P.S.
You're gay.
P.P.S.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.