Slashdot Mirror
MS Wants To Know Whose PC Is Windows-Free
AJGriff writes: "This article over at Aaxnet details an e-mail sent from Microsoft to computer system builders in an effort to bribe them in to handing over the customers that bought OS-less pcs from them. The more users they turn over the better, too. The prize for fingering one of your customers who was irresponsible enough to buy an OS-less pc, or more accurately a Microsoft OS-less pc: 5 Microsoft Games, a Fossil watch, and a grill and lawn chair combo." This sounds like an extension of the policy of harrassing the makers of "naked PCs" touched on a few months ago, except with some bland prizes. (It's as if Microsoft believes that all computers need to run Windows ...)
With MSFT down 50% from it's all time high and the company's growth levelling off, it should surprise no one that Microsoft's blood-lust for license-money is getting more and more desperate. Their hunger was kept at bay by massive revenues, but now that those are not as large as they once was, they are starting to really squeeze the PC buying public.
As noted by several people, clearly the intent is to turn in those companies bidding on machines who have existing (?site?) licenses with Microsoft. However, this has several significent legal and ethical problems even within that context.
There are THREE classes of companies that would do this; 1) those companies upgrading machines whole and believing they should be able to reuse their existing licenses on new machines rather than paying for windows twice! 2) those certainly that do just pirate windows onto additional desktops (very rare in the US anyway), and 3) those REDUCING their dependence on MS software by purchasing machines for use with free operating systems.
In that this could be used to get a list to threaten or intimidate companies in category 3, who are trying to reduce their use of MS software, and has significent anti-trust implications. Category 1 is simply shameless exploitation, but nothing new, as other articles have plenty of info on how Microsoft has been forcing companies to re-purchase windows multiple times for the same users thru various licensing changes, and represent either a healthy lesson in monopoly 101; the economics of why monopolies are bad and hurt their customers, or the last breath of a company desperate to make next quarter revenues.
Since they are encouraging people to turn in companies and organizations engaged in competitive bids, this could provide another significent set of potential civil "liabilities" for Microsoft, starting with restraint of trade and/or tortious interference in a contract depending on if one considers the supplier or purchaser.
Whats to say they can't have a mixed environment of both Linux and Windows machines? Sounds to me that M$ will be more worried about pilot programs using Linux instead of Windows in a company or the company jumping ship on M$ altogether. If I'm a company who is buying 500 "naked" PC's, M$ site license or not, it is NONE OF THEIR GOD DAMN BUISINESS that I bought the PC's without an OS. The seller has absolutely no right (well they shouldn't if they actually do) to go handing off my private information to Microsoft. Now if there is real evidence that I am using unlicensed versions, I can see them pushing for a license audit, but I feel they need more than just that fact that I purchased it to do that. If I go out and buy a hunting rifle, does that mean that the gun shop should give my info to anti-gun protestors so they can raid my house and dig into my background to see if might be connected with some unsolved murder? No it does not, this kind of thing should be illegal and if it is not, then we the people need to stand up to this lest we lose even more rights to the corporate pigs who seem to be running this country.
To: SBWest@microsoft.com
Subject: google.com RFP
I have been informed that google.com in Mountain View, CA. has purchased over 8,000 PCs without Microsoft OEM OS on them. They claim they're running something called Leenux and this entitles them to OS-less PCs. They must be installing Microsoft Windows on them, because we all know PC's won't even boot up unless you have Microsoft Windows.
Can you ship my eight Grills and Travel chairs to my P.O. box?
Thanks.
Just last week, the small startup company where I work was invaded by Microsoft lawyers who wanted to see proof of every piece of MS software we had. They called the invasion a euphemistic "Microsoft census". It wasn't a search warrant invasion; but since our IT is enslaved to Microsoft, they felt that they must obey.
Since we buy all of our MS software preloaded on machines, we really had nothing to fear. But why would they invade us so suddenly? The answer is connected to this article.
A few weeks before the invasion, we bought 100 rackmount PCs from Dell without any software preloaded. We needed them for development of our own proprietary operating system. This article just confirms what I already suspected, Microsoft probably found out that Dell sold 100 PC's with no MS preloaded to a startup company (which frequently like to conserve cash, and are easy to bully). Of course, MS found no wrongdoing. They just assumed we must be pirating.
I hope Microsoft's hubris comes back to bite them hard.
My favorite part of that article is "We always thought 'compliant' had decidedly negative connotations, as in: 'a spineless, compliant little boot-licker'. Leave it to Microsoft to sell submissiveness as a virtue."
Ah, the Register-- blunt, punny language + BOFH. What more could you ask?
There's been a fair amount of press lately about Microsoft cracking down on licensing. They go after big targets (like towns, universities, large businesses), so I doubt this is an effort to finger *nix users.
What it does suggest is that things are getting ugly at Uncle Bill's farm. Microsoft has always preferred to litigate rather than innovate. In the early days of Windows, Microsoft benefitted from OS piracy. People wanted the OS to run applications, therefore the OS had value. Now, the PC market is nearly saturated and Microsoft has to squeeze organizations to show profits to their shareholders.
If Microsoft were a star, they'd been in the red giant phase right now. Red giants expand by atomically fusing heavier elements together, having run out of the lighter fuel (hydrogren). Fusion with these heavier elements requires a lot more engery. To anthropomorphize this process, it's like a drowning man desperating treading water while wearing lead boots. This phase doesn't last long (in celestial terms).
This is a sign of things to come for Microsoft.
From the article:
;P
By submitting bids that request PC systems without an Operating System due to a Microsoft site license, you can earn points and win!
(emphasis mine)
It's not "PCs sold without an OS", it's "*new* PCs sold to companies that possess (or claim to possess) a site license, which request that the seller not include an OS on the PCs" - Basically MS is trying to track down companies that are claiming they have a site license (in order to get a discount per unit on new PCs they order), but in fact are just using one copy of Windows that gets "passed around".
Still, it's kind of dirty pool, in a "guilty until proven innocent" way. MS calls up your IT department, and tells them they're suspected of piracy, and need to PROOVE they're innocent.
It should be up to MS to prove them guilty, not the other way around. Although I'm not entirely sure HOW that could be accomplished without covert ops...
Somebody just posted to Slashdot with the correct usage of "cite" and "site" in the same post?!? What's this world coming to?
I don't think there's any doubt that MS is the victim of a lot of piracy. I can understand that they would want to try to climb on top of the problem, but it seems like a lot of the stuff they do -- recovery cds vs. full versions of the OS on cd, and things like harassing pc manufacturers who don't install Windows -- puts unfair burdens on their own customers and even on people who don't use their products.
People have been screaming about the new MS license servers. But if they work, won't it be a good thing for Linux users? If they can actually control piracy, what happens to their argument in situations like this? And how will they justify giving people crippled recovery CDs?
Commerical software piracy is bad for free software because it tends to blur the difference between the free stuff and the commercial stuff. MS Office is better than Star Office. If a guy can borrow the CDs from work, he's going to use MS Office. But if he has to pay $400 to run it, he's probably going to run Star instead.
So I think we should support reasonable and well targeted efforts on the part of MS to elminate piracy. Harassing naked PC people isn't reasonable and it isn't well targeted. But the license severs are both of those things.
We have the Data Protection Act in the UK, which requires companies to have your permission before they pass on any data at all about you to third parties (including other branches of the same company). It seemed rather draconian, until I read this, and suddenly began to understand :-)
Move along, nothing to see...
I have a friend who, about a year ago, came up with this interesting scheme to get free stuff from Microsoft. He would call up their returns and exchanges number, and claim "I bought [some product] at Best Buy and it doesn't work. They said to call you." The guy on the other end would then send my buddy a brand new whatever it was (always to some proxy address) and asked my friend to please send the receipt ASAP. Of course, he never did, and the bare-bones version of the product always arrived in a timely fashion.
Over the course of a few months, I think he got every piece of Microsoft-manufactured hardware that existed and was being sold in stores. Several of those top of the line Intellimouse Optical things, as well - Christmas gifts for a bunch of people (not me, of course). The scam ended when my buddy asked for some programmable remote control that was advertised on Microsoft's site.
"Yes, I bought this remote at Circuit City and it doesn't work."
"Sir, that remote isn't being sold in stores."
Needless to say, he stopped that practice relatively quickly. I bet the scheme still works, though.
Cheers,
levine
You didn't even read the quote you included in your article:
..."
"...each new PC that will be running a Microsoft Operating System be pre-installed with an OEM version
They're targeting companies that buy a few hundred PCs for their WINTel shop, and say they don't want to buy windows, because they can handle getting Windows themselves.
They don't care about your single PC, and they don't care about a Linux shop. But if a customer says, "yes, I plan to run windows on these" and then doesn't buy Windows, MS wants to know.
So, yes, that's sleazy and underhanded. But it isn't what you're saying it is.
Not representing or approved by my company or anybody else.
Practices like this establish an antagonistic relationship between Microsoft and its customers. While I of course recognize that MS has the legal and ethical right to take whatever actions necessary to enforce compliance with any and all license agreements that it creates, this seems really, really stupid.
Sure, they need to combat piracy. Companies and individuals steal copies of Windows every day. I have, I'm sure many people have as well. While I think that MS charges too much for too little, they certainly have the right to do so. But again, this is a dumb way to combat piracy.
The solution is to entice people to pay for copies of Windows. Right now, there are no incentives (besides avoiding fees and fines if MS finds you) for being compliant. Thus, people pirate their copies. Simple actions like license amnesty days will not solve the problem. And now, by setting customers in opposition to MS, they have made it worse. If MS instead tried to figure out a way to make customers want to pay for licenses instead of simply ordering them to do so, they would be far more successful.
In psychology, business, and life, you catch more bees with honey than with vinegar.
Does anyone know what happened about that clause in MS's license agreement that stated if you blew away the OEM install, you had to buy another license? If that still stands, then MS is trying to get large companies to buy their OS twice, once to get their own install on, and once to avoid the MS Police pounding on the door, disrupting their entire IT operation for days/weeks/months and charging the company with whatever systems are illegal due to; negligence, user "upgrades", administrative error, or whatever.
That said, it's not just MS that does this, every member of FAST, BSA, whatever is responsible for just these sort of actions. Last company I worked for had a visit from these cowboys. The representative, who came round with a promise to help us check we were compliant, and a veiled threat of a raid if we didn't, turned out to be a salesman. He was essentially selling a "we won't break your door down" pack, and made it clear that failure to comply would be detrimental. Luckily we were bought out before they could do anything, so we just pointed them at head office. The really annoying part is we walked into the meeting with the results of our latest audit (2 weeks old) that showed we were compliant, but they didn't care.
Stealing a rhinoceros should not be attempted lightly.
a reseller who's willing to tick off the kind of customer who buys 1K PCs at a pop, in exchange for what amounts to a chance to win a free lottery ticket?
Pushing boxes is such a hardscrabble existence. The slightest chance that you could get blacklisted by a free spending customer is a much higher cost than the possibility you might be eligble to win fabulous prizes.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Having known a company that got audited, it's a bitch, but here's my question
Let's say I have a shop with NO Microsoft software, and that has NEVER had any Microsoft software. Can they audit me, and , if they can, what gives them the right?
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
Note the text:
Therefore, we strongly advise that each new PC that will be running a Microsoft Operating System be pre-installed with an OEM version of the Operating System.
So if the PC is not going to be running Windows, MS doesn't care. A major shift from MS's naked PC "if it doesn't have an OS, the user is going to pirate a MS OS" policy.
So now anyone who wants to buy a bunch of hardware to put free software on needs to include a countering phrase in the RFQ.
Put a statement into every RFQ (most places already have a boilerplate of necessary statements) that warns the channel that any participation with the M$ grasser (snitch) policy is a binding agreement to pay any and all costs associated with any resulting audit, regardless of whether the bid was placed with the channel or not. That should make the channel think twice about losing customers in return for a cheap watch and a few lousy games (which they probably already have pirated). Any channel not wanting to alienate potential customers will quickly establish a policy to never contact M$.
Assuming M$ doesn't continue to use its monopoly position to force channel partners to participate, market forces will eventually punish enough snitches. Customers who are legitimately buying kit for non-M$ purposes will not want to pay 2x-3x the price for an audit, and will quickly learn not to deal with bad suppliers.
the AC
Hemos is like...sci-fi fans;he thinks technology is cool, but he hasn't bothered to understand the science it's based on
Last week I bought a PC that didn't include Windows... I got it from MacWarehouse.
--
Don't lead me into temptation... I can find it myself.
Did you skip the part where people from Gorton's show up to do an audit of your freezer, hoping to levy fines? If not, how is this at all the same?
To: sbwest@microsoft.com From: Eponymous, Showered Hello - I frequently purchase and send requests for PCs without any operating system. You see, I build Linux systems for friends and local non-profit organizations so they aren't caught on the expensive Microsoft upgrade treadmill that they'll eventually fall off of. I'm hoping to persuade our local library to switch to Linux as well. Thus, I'd like to enroll myself in the RFPs and Qs contest. Since the Microsoft game titles will not function on my Linux computers, please send the Fossil watch. If you can't do that, then I'll accept the games. I suspect I can get a few dollars for them on eBay. Thanks for such an excellent contest - my fellow open source users and I will certainly enjoy the prizes.
Site licenses only cover machines you already own, not ones you'll be buying in the future. That's the long and short of it.
You don't like those rules? No one's stopping you from using another OS; they're just trying to stop big corporations from "recycling" licenses.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
The UCITA legislation will give them the right. On top of that, it will give them the right to close down your business while they do the search for the unlicensed software. That's why UCITA is so damned scary. Microsoft could do something like temporarily halt a competing business' operations (e.g. Red Hat) looking for pirated software that they know doesn't exist. That's why UCITA is so damned scary.
Yes, yes, this is definitely a troll post blown out of proportion. That said, however, there is still some interesting meat here.
The interesting part really is the focus on corporate bulk purchasers justifying OS-less PC hardware by virtue of existing site licenses.
Why interesting, you say?
Well, because those buyers would be the intelligent cost-conscious consumers of new PC hardware, that's why!
If you have a n 1000 site license like my large corporation, where PC support wipes the disk clean at Stage Zero before Ghosting on the full complement of officially sanctioned and approved corporate standard (Windoze) apps suite, etc., then why should you buy a PC with an OS already installed if you're going to blow it away first thing?
The only reason I can think of for doing so is to implicitly provide MS with a gratuitous revenue stream from an effective double purchase of an OS: the preinstalled one and the one for which we have the site license. This happens all the time with one-off purchases of PC hardware that inevitably comes with a preinstalled OS. Since most large corporations have left hands and right hands operating independently, I suspect this revenue stream is not insubstantial.
MS is simply curious who has figured this out and wants to FUD them back into what is the more profitable business model for them.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Prizes for turning in your customers? A "Fast Cook & Grill Combo and Travel Chair"?
I think I'm finally starting to understand the secret to Microsoft corporate culture: the complete and utter lack of any sense of irony.
Honestly, this is revolting...
What is the basis you making this assertion? If I am a company that is convinced of the value of Linux and want to deploy it in MY COMPANY, the chance that I will use an illegal license is ZERO, The chance that I will resell them is ZERO.
And if I do resell it, as long as I don't put a pirated version of Windows on it, it is not illegal. Why should MS care that I have "an increased chance of reselling a legal non-Windows PC"?
I believe people still have the right of association. I can walk into a Honda dealer, buy a Honda and couldn't care less what the Ford dealer across the street thinks. That dealer has no right, simply becuase I choose to do this, to invade my privacy. The MOST he could do is attempt to make a survey, and find out why I did that. And even for that, I am under no obligation to comply.
I could be making a purchase for a College computer lab.
Or I could be a Linux reseller, interesred in providing Linux solutions to OTHER SMALL BUSINESSES who want such a PC. I buy the computers in volume, and resell my services in installation Linux/FreeBSD.
Whatever my business it, the basis for making this claim is a narrow-minded categorization. 1000 PC's == Amazon Server Farm? Think again.
Again I assert the right not to have to my business "spied upon" by MS.
Basically MS is trying to track down companies that are claiming they have a site license (in order to get a discount per unit on new PCs they order), but in fact are just using one copy of Windows that gets "passed around".
Bzzzt! Wrong!
What MS is saying (and has said all along) is that a site license only covers the PCs at the site at the time it went into effect. A site license, in MS terms, does not cover new computers. If you buy a new computer, you have to pay for a licensed copy of Windows regardless of whether you already have a site license for all the computers in your organization.
I guess that's the rub. You pay umpteen dollars for a business-wide site license, but that does absolutely nothing to your licensing situation. You already paid for all the Windows licenses on the computers you've already purchased, and you have to pay for licenses on any new computers you purchase, so a "site license" is simply a sacrifice to the MS legal department to keep them from considering you for an audit (unless you buy new computers).
Do I have this at all right?
But if I, as an individual or as a company, choose to buy PCs with no MS products on them (and since the MS Apps only run on the MS OS's, buying a non-windows pc means it's MS-free), then what on earth would give them any rights whatsoever to information about my activities?
If they want to find this info, they can ask their good friends at Intel how many x86 chips they've shipped and then compare that with the sales figures for Windows. That would be intrusive maybe, but ethically reasonable.
But to ask the suppliers for information about someone else's customers is just preposterous. And probably contrary to Data Protection laws in those countries which have them
TomV
Do you USA folks have a privacy act? Not a flame, it's a question. My understanding, is that in Australia (where I'm from) the company you bought the machine from would possible be exposing itself to breaches of the privacy act.
I gotta admit, while I'm fairly OS agnostic, this DOES tick me off. Who gives MS the right to know whether I'm intending to put in windows or Solaris or Linux or whatever..... None of there fking business
I work in a workplace with a hybrid selection of pc's and the like. Solaris for DB's, Linux for firewallrouters & various inetd type tasks an Win+ange box, various NT workstations, theres even an old novell box dickin' around somewhere.
F*k MS if there going to profile me however. We occasionally do defence contracts and I'd be stuffed if a foreign company is gonna get it's dirty mits on info on our LAN
I'd assume American companies feel the same way. Perhaps they ain't gonna do it here tho. Whats the privacy law situ in the states?
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
I believe what was meant by the 'going after individuals' was they are pitching this to individuals at the distributor willing to turn in customers who buy OS-less computers.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
By submitting bids that request PC systems without an Operating System due to a Microsoft site license, you can earn points and win!
Sure sounds like they only want RFQ's where the company actually says that they have a site license. Yes, their motives may not be completely pure, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt this time and save the bashing for something truly heinous.
"You will only be remembered for two things: the problems you solve or the ones you create." Mike Murdock
You need to turn in customers who purchased at least 500 machines in order to be eligible for a prize.
A more descriptive (and more accurate) story is on TheRegister.
If you buy an OS-less PC and put Linux on it, they won't care, If you're buying 1000 OS-less PC's there's a far greater chance you'll resell them or use an illegal liscense.
-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.
Contact information on customers who purchase more than one shirt, sweater or jacket, without at the same time buying shorts, pants or a skirt, will be contacted by The Gap with special offers for these items.
The Gap's management claims that this will greatly reduce the problem of public nudity and indecency, which is sure to result from too many customers owning only the top portion of a complete Gap Brand outfit.
An un-named, but high ranking, Gap Official was quoted as saying " We at The Gap feel that it would be indecent, nay! Immoral, for all those people to prance around in Old Navy shirts without matching Gap Khakis! We're just trying to protect the children. "
The REAL jabber has the /. user id: 13196
The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
What you do today will cost you a day of your life
that five or so local computer stores were under investigation for piracy a year or so ago. I shopped at a few of them and asked - seems Microsoft was concerned about them selling "bundle only with a new PC" copies of Office, and Microsoft and them were haggling over what a "new" PC is. This is really a can of worms for people who upgrade boxes - myself, I have had had the same hammer for years, replacing 3 heads and 5 handles - but that is another rant....
At the same time, a shop that was not on the list was selling Office 97 with a main board / hard drive at OEM prices. I was building a new box for a friend, so I bought what I thought was a legit copy. Turns out, the CD with "on-line" activation was really a replacement media CD that was priced like an OEM version of Office. They are now gone, so what do you do?
Anyhow, a few shops survived the inquisition. I see the problem, but have mixed feelings about their tactics.
(PS, for all the jokes we make about Big Brother, it is be worth mentioning 1984 is a fantastic read and worth doing in your off-line hours.)
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
Emphasis mine. They're going after people who are misusing a Microsoft license, not regular customers. Microsoft's email is a bit confusing, but no more so than slashdot. Thanks for keeping me on my toes. You guys are unresponsible, unaccountable morons. More predictable than a computer.
It states in the letter that they are looking for volume purchases where it is stated by the purchaser that the reason an OS is not needed is because of *existing* MS volume licences. It makes no mention of reporting purchases where the stated intent is to install alternate operating systems.
Of course not, and for two very good reasons:
1. According to Microsoft (when dealing with OEMs anyway), there is no such thing as an alternative OS. It's Windows or nothing. If you go back and do some reading on the letters that MS started sending out regarding "naked PCs" a few months ago, you will see this mentality shining through. In Microsoft's mind, a naked PC will end up with a pirated version of Windows on it.
and
2. If they didn't mention the "erroneous" claims of MS volume licenses, then they'd have absolutely no business asking for this info. Not that they really have any right to ask for it in the first place, but throwing in this line about volume licenses does at least add the veneer of legitimacy to it.
The simple fact is, until recently you had to buy an additional license if you had a volume license agreement and wanted to reimage a PC that came with an OEM installation. That's right, you pay for a new machine with an OEM Windows install on it, then you are required to buy an additional license in order to reimage it with your corporate standard. In this context, the MS letter makes perfect sense.
Unfortunately, MS modified it's volume licensing (Select and Open) agreements to allow you to re-image an OEM installation without having to buy a second license for that PC. The reason for this was because volume licensees (large corporations) started screaming about not only the existence of a Windows tax, but having to pay the Windows tax twice. Taken in this context, it would seem that you should be able to purchase additional licenses via Select or Open agreements and buy naked PC's and potentially save some money on your OEM deal.
What are they supposed to be doing? Install Windows and apps on thousands of machines?
In the original article about the rat out your clients game, there is a link to an article about licensing. In there you will find:
If you got your computer with an OEM license, but you "ghost" the hard disk as most larger companies do to achieve consistency, you have to buy a second Windows license for that computer. Installing this second license voids your OEM license so the OEM no longer provides support. You now have to get that from Microsoft at $350 per incident.
So in short, yes, you are supposed to install all apps individually onto a clean OEM Windows install.
Nope, no sig
No offense, but the odds of you finding one thousand computer users willing to keep Linux on their desktop for everyday use is also next to ZERO.
Gee, it would probably take me so long to look up a few Linux Users Group pages and ask who uses Linux for a desktop. There can't be any of them out there ...
Nope, no sig
The grill will have a 400 square inch cooking surface, but it'll only be able to heat one item at a time. You'll have to completely replace your patio with a new one before you can use the lawnchairs. The watch will display time in a non-standards-compliant proprietery format. And worst of all, you'll have to pick five games from Microsoft that don't totally suck.
Instead we have a situation where Microsoft can harass PC manufacturers who don't wish to play its game, and where the vast majority of PC buyers have to pay the Microsoft tax, regardless of whether they want Windows, a user friendly reliable alternative, or an open, reliable, and free speech alternative.
I'm not surprised the above wasn't the settlement. Microsoft is the company that's (found to have) violated antitrust laws, and the solution above would have "punished" "innocent" third parties. But perhaps this illustrates that the law doesn't work in this case. Microsoft can get away with harassing third parties, solutions that would punish it wont necessarily do anything about its monopoly, and solutions that would do something about the monopoly can't be implemented.
--
KMSMA (WWBD?)
I wonder if people who've recently bought naked pc's could:
a/ Mail me a picture...
b/ Mail me your address details - 500 mails and I get the BBQ set!!
Thx....every cloud has a silver lining for someone
**Vanuatu or bust**
How many non-Windows PCs has Microsoft bought for things like Hotmail?
This sounds more like something from a Douglas Adams novel than real life. Forget ethical/unethical, I have my doubts this is LEGAL. If it's against the law to incite or pay someone to commit a felony, what about this?
Oh, and to all you people out there who complain about anti-Microsoft flamers on this topic, going on about how Microsoft isn't the only company to do things like this: Hitler wasn't the only person to invade Poland, but that doesn't mean he also wasn't the first to set up death camps there.
Unless you purchased retail-box copies of Windows 98 that you put on those two new machines, you're in violation of the license terms on the OEM copies that you moved to the other machine.
Actually, the Retail box version of Windows, even at the higher cost, is a pretty good deal (albeit only from a non Freenix point of view) because you basically have the right to a completely transferrable copy of Windows that you can run forever on any single machine that you choose. A 'free' OEM license dies when the machine it was purchased on dies.
Guy: Hello? Microsoft: Hello. I'm Bob from Microsoft piracy control. We recently received an anonymous tipoff that you recently bought a large number of OS-less PCs. Guy: Yeah. We're putting BSD on them. We power our web services with them. Microsoft: I notice you used to have an NT licence. You know you can't use those NT licences anymore, right? Guy: Yeah we tried NT, but it bombed out miserably. We're back to BSD now. Microsoft: Very good. Thankyou for not using pirated software. Guy: Cool mate. Have a nice day. Thank you for calling Hotmail support. Just send the BBQ upstairs ASAP.
--