Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft: You Need Permission to Sell Our Software
IEEEmember writes "Microsoft has objected to the sale of bankrupt KMart's Bluelight.com Internet unit to United Online. Microsoft's objection to the sale is based on the non-transferability of software licenses protected by copyright law according to the Reuters story on Yahoo! News. This action by Microsoft should serve as a warning to any corporation that has a significant investment in Microsoft licenses. Dependency on Microsoft licenses may grant Microsoft the ability to veto your business decisions."
It is a common clause in most licenses. Though, it seems that MS is just being a real dick of a corporation for putting up a fight. What would they prefer? BlueLight go to Solaris? Sheesh. (Having said that, they'll probably pay up for all new copies on Windows.)
Anti-Trust
There isn't much to argue about here - it is an unfortunate fact but the fine print makes it so. Some companies do allow the transfer of software licenses but it is often so expensive it is easier to obtain new licenses and update the software in the process. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes..
Sure, pick on the company with no money to fight you in court. Why don't you dunk them in salt and kick 'em in the bleeding, festering wounds while you're at it?
I thought that it had been determined that first-sale applied to software. Is that only for home users?
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
Would this really be enforceable? AFAIK, no legal precedent has been set regarding the EULA's where this provision is. Maybe this will provide a good test case with lots of money on both sides.
what in the holy hell happened to the first sale doctrine?First Sale
So if you sell your PC with the windows license to another person, say, your next door neighbour, it becomes an illegal copy of windows? or Am I way off here?
Therefore, are licences no longer an asset, and instead a liability?
How can one work around such pitfalls when selling, not a company per se, but instead a laptop or a used computer?
Are they able to tell us that we cannot transfer our licenses to the people purchasing our equipment?
Feh!
I know a place you can get them cheap.. real cheap!! Yes, you too can own a Microsoft License for that "copy" of Microsoft Windows you have secretly installed on your second computer.
To gain a Cheap Microsoft Windows License, just find ANY company in bankrupcy and offer 10 bucks a license. You too can have the joy of cheap MS products.
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
Let's say I've got a 500 person company, we've got a couple NT servers, workstations for the employees, etc etc...
If some company buys us, or we merge, do we have to replace all those? Even though we aren't a web operation, we use computers in our day-to-day activities....
IANAL, and IANAB (I am not a businessman)
Yet another reason to use free software...
Does MS have a say in whether or not I can give my lil bro my old PC?
Hmmm...another issue about Microsoft licensing. It seems to me that Microsoft has more interest in sneaky business than making a good product.
The more I am sold on the value and ease of Windows, the less and less I want to patronize this company.
If this stands, Microsoft has successfully become the deciding party in all major corporate mergers and aquisitions. Who is going to buy another sizable company knowing that they'll be forced to relicense all of their software?
Talk about extending your monopoly.
IMO, nobody at Microsoft believes that they will lose in the long run, and that's made them both overcomfortable and vulnerable. The more they tighten their graip, the more syste^H^H^H companies will slip through their fingers.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Sorry attempt at FUD. It is Microsoft and other companies. The story relates something to the effect that the objection was over not only software licensing, but tax issues. Whenever a big public corporation sells part or all of itself, there is always someone who objects. The story just stated that Microsoft opposed it because KMart hadn't made clear what licenses were to be transferred to the buyer. Its just a bunch of companies looking to make some money off the transaction, and it just happens to include Microsoft.
Surely if the business unit owns the licenses, and the *entire* business unit is sold (transferring the business unit to a new owner), the licenses are still valid, as they still belong to the (now renamed) business unit?
Seriously, when an organisation is being sold as a unit, the vendors' interest in any icensed stuff is part and parcel of the deal, and transferable, just as any other property rights - Microsoft is just trying to do its' usual bullshit.
From the story:
"The licenses that debtors (Kmart) have of Microsoft's products are licenses of copyrighted materials and, therefore, may not be assumed or assigned with Microsoft's consent," said Microsoft.
That statment is confusing as hell to me. It's got to be "without" doesn't it?
So according to this if the company I work for is bought by another company, then do the Licences that are on my computer beocme OSB, Does the new company have to buy New licences.
Something to think about?
A good warning to people to actually pay attention to what these travesties actually say.
When my former employer went belly-up they sold licenses as they were assets of the company. What Microsoft is, in act, doing is making their software a non-asset, consumed immediately and utterly worthless beyond that. That's a pretty piss-poor business plan, for both parties.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Seems like they can't win. First they have aggressive tactics from Wal-Mart, basically putting them out of business in many cities.
Now Target's making a bid for power, and Wal-Mart is scurrying. KMart is left in the dust. (By the way, at Target, I notice an unusually large proportion of highly attractive women. Could Target be hiring cute 'mystery shoppers' kind of like the 'leaners' hawking cellphones at bars?)
So now Microsoft gets in on the beating. It's just dismal.
...
Microsoft Tells Apple they won't stand new product line. Microsofts reply: "Because... uh... our licenses told us to" Apples reply: Kevin, you've got the whole world in your hands.
It presumes that any monies you have paid towards such a product is forfeit even if the circumstances dictating the business change are entirely outside your control.
I think this is a positive move in its effects; this will make a greater number of business consumers start reading EULAs very carefully indeed, and I expect very many won't like what they find in there. We may see some changes on the horizon.
Like the infamous we-reserve-the-right-to-inspect-your-business clause that found itself into a licence I won't name [because I'm not sure I remember exactly which] :-) meant to be Open Source some time ago.
-- MG
Are you legally allowed to sell your copy of Windows 2K to a third party?
If you are, then they should be able to add the "price" of the licenses to the price of the company and list it as an asset.
If you're not, then this makes more sense.
A search for "Microsoft Windows" on ebay returns 1040 results.
According to the OEM EULA with Windows, the copy of Windows must remain with the hardware. The license is forever married to the box it came with. Microsoft caused a big stink about this a month or two ago, warning schools about accepting donated hardware.
Now Microsoft is saying that normal licenses can't be transfered because the software is copyrighted?
It was my understanding that a license was an asset. You owned it and you could transfer it. Something isn't sitting right with me here. There must be more to the story that's being left out. (Yea, I know, Microsoft is the Evil Empire. However, I still think there's more than meets the eye going on here.)
I was not touched there by an angel.
The article really doesn't provide enough information to make the assumption that Microsoft is making an unfair business decision on this point. It's entirely possible that Microsoft sold licenses based upon support contracts or a subscription-based service offered only to K-Mart, or possibly even custom code to drive the site. Without this knowledge it's difficult to make a valid assumption as to whether or not Microsoft is being unfair with this particular dispute.
This is probably the same reason Microsoft is objecting, with a business that large it's hard to keep track of all of your clients and what exactly they have from you. Would you allow a company to sell 10,000 licenses for software that you had given them on the basis that they were maintaining a multi-million dollar support contract with you? I don't think so, and though it would be up to the company to make sure the support contracts were upheld, this would only be the case if they were notified of this dependency and paperwork was filed, etc.
Microsoft may very well be in the right in saying "Hey, you should tell us what of our intellectual property you're selling before you sell it."
If there is a God, you are an authorized representative. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
is certainly not uncommon in the enterprise level software world. Many vendors want some sort of say-so in terms of mergers, etc. especially if they are giving you some soft of "deal" on the price. The reasons are numerous, but this is not a case where you necessarily need to single out MS. Any time you want to transfer a license, the vendor may want to get involved and renegotiate. It is up to you as a CIO to read the fine print and decide if it is something you can live with. These things are often negotiable.
You have violated the laws of United MSNation, and the United MStates by breathing air that you have agreed not to breath when you were forced to sign the EUBA (End User Birth Agreement).
Please wait for the FBI.NET team to arrive or press CTRL-ALT-DEL to activate the 10000V circuit built into your chair.
Thank you for using Windows WD, the World Dominance edition!
Join the elite! Post at score:2! Ghostwheel is online.
So M$ is balking about KMart trying to sell off some assets due to licensing issues. What does M$ expect to get out of it? KMart is out! I've got a solution, but if you feel the ground freeze under you, you'll know Hell froze over first. If M$ keeps KMart afloat, then they won't have to worry about their prescious license being broken.
In truth, all M$ has to do is sell the purchasing company a license for the software. I'm sure that would be far more cost effective than pulling out the gaggle of lawyers to stop the sale.
First of all, that article absolutely sucked, where are the details? Next, perhaps KMart bought some custom made software from MS that MS just licenced to them, remember Windows and Office are not the only software MS has. So perhaps this is what MS is fighting, they are fighting the sale of software made specifically for kmart. Then again, I could be on crack and I have no idea what I am talking about since I have no information.
dam(u)
Useless sig.
"Once you start down the dark path...FOREVER will it dominate your destiny".
-Alec Guinness (as Obi-Wan 'Ben' Kenobi), Star Wars (1977)
They're selling the business unit, not the computers themselves alone. They're selling the owner of the license. If i were a slave and had a license for Windows, and I were sold but the PC was still considered in some contrived manner to be mine and came with me, would I have to relicense? no. Because I'm licensed. How should that work any different for a business unit?
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
mod it down
you know it's true
all hail Willy Gates!
I'm not sure what the arguments to this article will be. It's a matter of contract law.
Aggrivating, perhaps, but hope lies predominantly in MSoft's competitors; MS will not reign forever. Nobody can.
Goodbye dear, blue, Kmart.
Go Target. They have a man in Senate (Dayton-MN). Maybe he would execute a transition to Linux. Would have to train those employees, wouldn't you?
Think about it.
hi, I like pancakes -.-- -.-- --..
First sale doctrine.
:)
GOODNIGHT EVERYBODY!
That was easy.
At first I thought this was uncompetitive action (but I'm sure someone else will scream monopoly), then I thought 'oh, but there are other choices in the market, kmart can go with them instead, so it is just weird' and then I read the article.
:-) and Intel said that Via didn't have the rights to manufacture them, and that the licenses were non-transferrable.
It is pretty weird, if you ask me. Some creditors (and Microsoft) are opposed to the sale of the internet unit because the licenses were made with kmart, and therefore can't be transferred. This sounds to me like when Via bought another company (was it a division of SiS or Acer or something?) that had license to make Pentium 4 busses (bussen?
I still find it odd that non-Microsoft entities are getting involved against the sale, but that seems more like a tax- and payment-avoidance issue than something directly Microsoftian.
fair.org counterpunch.com truthout.com indymedia.org salon.com
eff.org guerrilla.net debian.org gentoo.org
I've been trying to figure it out for YEARS!!!!
Bill Gates isn't Borg trying to assimilate everything, he's the Riddler.
Think about it: he always does things that don't seem to make sense, often contradicting himself. He has his enemies, keeps all his secrets to himself, and everything that happens seems to fall into his plan perfectly. He also makes statements that are half-truths that are confusing and enigmatic, but in the end come out making some sense.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Wow! I never thought that Microsoft would so carelessly sign it's own death warrant! When it comes to business, don't rock the boat. Microsoft is meddling in the business affairs of corporations. It's one thing to piss of the mob. Worse case scenario is they kill you. Piss of a corporation... damn I don't even want to think about it... endless litigations and court appearances so you can keep a job, blacklisting, starving, no home... jeez what a living hell....
!!!!!!!WARNING!!!!!!!
Sorry this post has ended due to the fact it's author is now rocking himself back and forth sucking on the collar of his shirt mumbling
"Ticky Tack, Ticky Tack, Lawyers Coming, Give Me That! Got No Job, Got No Life, Got no Money, got No Wife!"
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
This business decision was denied by a Swarm of Microsoft Circus Mummies for BlueLight.com.
?
I know more than you drink.
They'll let this one lie.. This isn't about software licenses, it's about commerce...
The Govt. already believes they're one big dick of a corporation....Messing about in bankrupcies is kicking someone when they're down and out.
You have a lousy P.R. Dept., Ball(buster)mer.
Better fire them and get one that KNOWS how to make a good image for M$.
lol, only a windows user would spell fsck with a capital f.
and you nearly got away with it too!
Is this what America has come to in order to enrich their business? What ever happen to one business helping out another?
Of course the agreements have all been signed and such, but for god's sake, K-Mart isn't going to suddenly pull a competitive new OS out of their ass and throw it on the market.
From what I gather, this isn't specifically a EULA issue in that the 'end user' agreement wouldn't necessarily state anything about this. I'm going out on a limb to guess that - as with most big companies - Kmart negotiated a blanket licensing deal with MS. THOSE terms most likely dictate that in consideration for 'less than market rates' for the software, certain terms apply. If Kmart actually paid 100% 'retail' price for each desktop, each SQL server, and everything else, they could probably simply abide by the 'transfer' clause in the standard EULA (you can transfer, but remove the original copy on first machine). I don't think anything's that cut and dried when you're talking millions of dollars and MS (or any other sufficiently large software house - could you easily transfer millions of dollars of Norton AV from one company to another? Or Adobe stuff?)
creation science book
Whoa! Umm that title was supposed to be the END IS NEAR.. Don't ask where NEW came from... Must have dozed off...
Posted Anon cuz it's soooo off topic.. I guess
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You (as a private person) may sell your license to your neighbour (first sale doctrine). However, as a commercial business, you do not have the same rights, and need to get the copyright holder's permission.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
IANAL so I've always wondered about the following: Let's say I have a company and I build a bunch of for-internal-use-only custom modifications of GPL software. That seems fine by GPL standards.
But...
What if I decide to sell my company? The software I've developed is certainly an integral part of the value of my company. Would GPL require me to publish all of the modified source code if I sell the company?
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
Although the article is light on details, I would guess these are not regular boxed copies of microsoft software.
:)
Many people are asking if this means that they can not sell their copy of windows. These are completly different situations. Kmart probably didn't buy a truck load of boxed copies of windows. They licensed the software at a significant discount (a discount because of the quantity they were buying AND because of the restrictive agreement).
I work in the California State University system (CSU Chico specifically). Due to budget cuts the state had to discontinue the site license they had with Microsoft, fortunetly part of the contract was that any computer that already has the software on it when the contract ends, gets to keep it. Needless to say, we upgraded all of our computer labs from win98 to win2k and from office2k to officeXP over the summer
I mean, if the licenses were to the Bluelight.com entity, then just reselling them shouldn't be a violation of the agreement, should it? On the other hand, if the licenses are marked as Kmart's, then it would be.
A big bottle of semantic joy.
Slashdot. It's Not For Common Sense
When my former employer went belly-up they sold licenses as they were assets of the company. What Microsoft is, in act, doing is making their software a non-asset
This could throw off the meaning of financial reports. One of the reported items is the total value of all assets. This helps an investor make decisions such as, "If the company belly's up, then how much can be raised from selling assets to compensate primary investors like (potentially) me?"
It sounds like they will have to make a new accounting category: "Non-sellable assets". Which you are right about: it makes it essentially a non-asset.
It may still be something for *mergers*, but not bankruptcy. Thus, 3 categories may even be needed. (At that point they are attributes, not categories.) Just what the world needs: more complex financial reports.
Table-ized A.I.
Unless the new company has pretty comprehensive site licenses for the software. Basically, all MS software we have that isn't covered by our new parent company's site license but was covered by our old one must be deleted from all company computers ASAP.
For us, that means we can keep all Office components (We have a site license for them) except for Access (Which the new company doesn't).
As far as I can tell, our licenses for most other software (Matlab, Microwave Office, various CAD/ECAD tools, etc.) were not a problem to transfer.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
If this was just a matter of click-wrap licensing, M$ wouldn't be able to get away with what they're doing here, which is basically saying "We have a lien on your business because you're in a contract with us." BlueLight probably had engaged in a so-called "Open|Select License Agreement" with Microsoft, which is their form of site licensing. I'm pretty certain that to get such a license agreement, you have to physically sign a contract and give Bill a sizeable check each time you renew your license.
If this is the case, and it probably is... what Microsoft is doing here is scary and legal. It's no different than you leasing a multifunction copier from Xerox and then making plans to sell your business and Xerox asking a court to enjoin you from doing so due to their unsecured interest in your company.
"I am root. Bow before me." To this I say, "You are root, and you bear the sins of the world upon your shoulders."
THAT is HILARIOUS!!! (I'm not being smart assed, either)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Dear World,
IMHO...Microsoft wouldn't be pushing this if Bluelight.com and United Online were textile companies. They are Internet Service Providers and as such, direct competitors of MSN. Microsoft is on a 300M push of MSN now, so they need to disrupt its competition.
Companies change hands all of the time. Have you heard about this happening before? I haven't and suspect that you haven't as well. So, what's he real motivation? I say it is to help MSN by preventing the sale.
Later,
-Slashdot Junky
.
Landfill Mining Co.
Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
Orange overalls with random numbers stenciled on the back, and black-and-white striped pajamas...
This sure looks like "Tortious Interference in a Business Relationship" to me..
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
asshole!
I loaded this page and got a MS Visual .Net ad! Take their money /., take it. . .
This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
If you purchase a retail copy in a box ( not an upgrade ) can you not transfer/sell this?
It wasn't attached to a pc.. nor was it purchased as part of the borderline extortive MOLP.
Doesn't help those already enslaved, but perhaps a way out for others just starting out?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Miscrosoft is the great Satan that Nostradamus predicted would rise to power in the 80's. ;-P
*Believe it or not*
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So, you need Microsoft's permission to sell their software.
:) )
But selling Microsoft software to someone is an act of evil and cruelty.
Therefore, the only ones who would do this are evil villains (preferably cartoonish supervillains).
Evil villains aren't known for getting permission to perpetrate their evil acts.
So, I don't really see a problem here... except maybe that selling software is a kind of wussy villainous act, compared to, say, blocking out the sun.
(I'm taking bets on how many moderators miss the joke and mark this as a "troll" or "flamebait".
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
So we have telecoms like Cisco and Nortel selling far too much equipment like routers and switches a few years ago to hundreds of companies that didn't survive the dot bomb. Now they can't move new equipment out into the market because the equipment has been sold off to clearing houses at ridiculously small fractions of their purchase price, then being sold again by these clearing houses to companies still standing for a considerable profit (but still far less expensive than new from Cisco or Nortel).
I'm sure the telcos would just LOVE to include a "cannot resell" clause to equipment purchases, but they can't (can you just imagine some of the other clauses they'd eventually have to put in, "this router cannot be used in the illegal transfer of data, as defined by the DCMA"). Why should MS (or any other software company for that matter) be able to restrict the sale and transfer of licenses, so long as the original owners have no copies remaining? They're no more deserving of assured profit via new product purchases than the telcos are.
Does this mean that MS software is viral in that its licensing terms attach to your property in a viral like manner and you are not free to use your property in the proprietary interest you see fit?
Oh wait, that is only for free software, excuse me.
Also, how this move from 'M$' is the only thing screwing KMart since it's clear that everyone and their mother wants a piece of the sale.
Otherwise, please create a new /. section called "Gratuitous FUD" and post this there instead. k? thx.
The licenses are owned by the business (bluelight online) therefore when the business is sold the licenses are still owned by that business so no transfer has taken place.
MS LICENSING AGENT [on phone, reviewing a file]:
I zee...this is all well and good, but I do not zee your PAPERS. You must have the proper papers! Vere are your papers!? Don't wait for ze phone delay--answer me now!!!
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
Microsoft can't have their software being used by competitors now, can they?
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
PS: Want some fun and 30 (count 'em, 30) mod points to play with? Go hammer^H^H^Htest brak.slashdot.org!
It is painfully obvious that about 1 out of every 10 posts here is well reasoned and presents evidence, and the other 9 are morons with wild misunderstandings or blatant anti-Microsoft rhetoric that can't stand on its own two legs. Bravo to those making claims and derisions without using the thought processes that logically connect A and B! Bravo I say!
evil adrian
I don't want your steenking old weenndoze box. Mom's getting me a Dell (and a Slackware CD).
Sorry guys, this is a no brainer. Just ignore it. If more people would start doing this then EULA would become useless. Software patents would be null and void, stupid concepts like software licenses would become a mute point.
Here is how it works in my world. If I buy it I own it and that is the end of it. I pay you money for say office xp then it's mine. No some stupid licenses, not some some piece of platic with dimples in it. Office XP is mine. Mine to do with as I please and that is excatly how I operate.
...and redesign the site too.
The look is getting long in the tooth...
Slashcode programmers: Please make it impossible to put a re-direct in a comment.
Is the nerve that they have to say this. Basically, what they're claiming is that even thought Kmart paid for the licenses, it can't resell them without Microsoft's consent. This has nothing to do with a EULA - Kmart is not the end user. What Microsoft is asserting is that buying something from Microsoft no longer entitles you to the rights of ownership.
The real reason why this is important is because this was a software sale, not a license. Microsoft sold Kmart the licenses. Unlike most users of Windows, which merely license the code, KMart bought licenses with the explicit purpose of redestribution, and now Microsoft is claiming that Kmart cannot sell what it legally owns, because of copyright restrictions. But Microsoft didn't license the software, they sold it as a commodity. So copyright shouldn't apply.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
nuff said
The state blocking a sale for tax reasons isn't news relevant to this site. MS blocking it due to software licensing is. FUD yourself.
Only now, when it's too late do they realize the power of the dark side...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Its nice to have a BSA audit, and take them out back, open up a big cardboard box, and show them the boxes[...]
It's nice to get fucked up the ass by some private organization, acting as though it has the authority to execute a search warrant without probable cause, in order to determine if you have "boxes" (and licenses) to all your copies of Microsoft software? That's your idea of fun? When the BSA knocks on my office door, demanding their audit, I'll slam the door in their face. And when they buy a search warrant from some pliant judge, I'll gladly show them Linux installed on hundreds of desktops and servers. Seriously.
Frankly, given the management hassle involved with MS licensing, never mind the potential risks even if you're legit, you'd have to be an idiot to deploy Windows en masse given Microsoft's current licensing crackdown. I know many organizations who are ripping their MS server infrastructure out in preparation for a potential migration to desktop Linux should the situation get worse. MS is walking on thin ice here. JMO!
--Maynard
...is, is Microsoft basing it on a license the KMart customers sign, or on a license KMart signed?
If it's the customer's license, then, hot damn, we've got a smoking gun for monopolistic practices.
If it's a license KMart signed, well, then Microsoft is perfectly within their right.
What's this Submit thingy do?
in 2-3 years when the court settlement finally gets hammered out, the machines in question will be outdated, obsolete, and depreciated.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Some companies have decent systems in place so that you can purchase the liceses and install from a intranet server, but you still have to worry about all the software the users bring in to install on their systems. So it just never ends.
Everyone knows this, so does Microsoft. Hell, even M$ has PCs in their company will illegal software on it. But every now and then they have to flex their muscles to show the power and control they have over their users. So they go after high profile cases and hope that this serves as a warning and reminder to others.
"I bet I'll get blamed for this." --Mayor Quimby
This is not the sale of a company in an ordinary business deal, this is a disposition of an asset in bankruptcy court. The court has great
discretion in approving changes to contracts and other pre-bankruptcy agreements (e.g., labor contracts, leases), since the main focus of bankruptcy law is to protect the creditors of the bankrupt party. IANAL, but I would expect the court to consider the licenses to be an asset of K-Mart and allow their transfer.
It's very odd that first sale seems to be overshadowed by the EULA. Granted we have a license, but the same could be said for a book. I bought a physical copy of the book and therefore I can sell _that_ copy. I should be able to sell the copy of software I purchased. If I recall, there was a case where a company was breaking up bundles of Adobe software and reselling them. This was deemd legal under the first sale doctrine. This may be because the company never installed, and thus agreed to the EULA (if someone has the case, please post), but it should not matter. EULA became a big item in the 80s when the idea of software being copyrightable was untested. Now the courts ahve ruled that it is copyrightable, so why should they be able to trump copyright, fair use and first sale doctrine by the EULA?
"There's only 3 certainties in the world, my Son: Death, Taxes, and Microsoft; and Microsoft makes the first two worse."
Table-ized A.I.
This is potent ammunition for the fight for FOSS and Linux in general.
Am I the only gettting popups covering the damn story? I just got thorugh updating and running ad-aware before this post so I dont have spyware. I am wondering is this a new slashdot annoy...er i mean feature?
Ben
Microsoft is not the first, and will not be the last to try this... Does anyone remember Digital? I hear that it was more difficult to understand their licensing then it was to program one of these beasts... A google groups search confirms:
usenet post
-jerdenn
It seems that selling the assets does not allow you to get the licences. However, if someone buys the whole company, wouldn't the licences go over? Because the new entity subsumes the old, and is bound to all its obligations and contracts, which include the right to use the software.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
CIO:We should pass on this acquisition; they run Windows on everything.
CEO:What? So?
CIO:Well, we'll have to buy licenses for all the servers, client access licenses for every connection, and licenses for all the other software they have installed when we acquire them. We're talking several millon dollars.
CEO:Can't we just go to Linux?
CIO:Sure, but it'll take months to migrate, we'll have to port and test our applications, and we'll still have to pay the licensing fees if we acquire them before the migration is complete...
way to fuck over kmart. good going you dopes. watchout for suse, they're comin!
This is my attempt to show that it is possible to create a system for Licensing price-camparison. It is probably obvious that I'm a high school student and have no h4xx0r skills. But hey, at least I tried. Resistans is not futile, we will NOT be assimilated!
Her bill that she introduced near the end of this legislative session (the companion bill to Boucher's) would formally extend the doctrine of first sale to cover this sort of situation (i.e. once you've purchased a license, you can transfer your rights to another person or entity without the permission of the copyright owner). Then we wouldn't even be talking about all this.
Tuck
Tuck's Journal.
Why does Microsoft have a problem with this? Is it because United Online would get the software for free? I would think that would be able to negotiate new terms with the company. This just seems way out of line.
- the most current os
- the most current office version
- sql server CALs
- Win2k CALs
- etc.
In order to do this, the company signs a legal contract with Microsoft, and pays either a lower rate per desktop, or a yearly fee.So in this case, being that K-Mart used it's large size to get better deals for their software, they simply can't resell those (especially if they are on a subscription) at the price they get for their huge quantity discount.
If they could, that would open a whole new market for a large company: but tons of extra licenses at your super-cheap price and resell them at retail. If you owned the software company, would you let that happen?
Well that makes it all right then.
/. ers, actively defending Microsoft licensing issues.
Where are we going, and why are we in this handbasket?
Such non-transferable license agreements will never stand up in court.
Reselling licensed software is no different than transfering ownership of a legally purchased music CD.
Last time I looked, second-hand record shops have been alive and well for decades.
US Court says buyers can unbundle EULA-covered software.
Also take a look at this very well argued thesis on the same issue. Same paper in HTML format
"Get Microsoft behind your business"
So they can royally screw you over licensing most probably.
Yes, that is a common misconception.
When you distribute GPL code, you must make the source available to those you distribute the code to, not anyone else.
If you sell the company, and the software being critical is part of that company, you are required to give THEM the source. However you don't have to give the source or binaries to anyone else.
The GPL was crafted with this exact situation in mind, you don't have to share with others, but if you do, you must do so under the terms of the GPL.
Does this remind anyone else of of ToySmart.com?
/. story
They sold stuff that they where under a contracted not to sell.
As other posters have noted, this isn't uncommon; Oracle comes immediately to mind, for example.
But more surprising is Network Appliance's used equipment policy. You can resell your netapp equipment, but you can't transfer the license. Instead the buyer mustalso buy a new license...which coincidentally costs the same as a whole new machine!
I bet there wasn't a peep from Microsoft when these two merged. So is merging different than purchasing or is MS just not stupid enough to attack the biggest pocket pc creators?
Property is property, as far as I'm concerned. You can't have it both ways.
How many cars are sold at a discount with the caveat that you cannot resell this car to another party? TVs? Books?
Someday somebody will look back on these days and wonder how we all let ourselves agree to abide by these arbitrary, unfair, solely-for-profit license rules. Amazing.
So, they're holding up an $8.4 million dollar transaction over a transfer of licenses worth, what, $10,000? Less?? Someone's priorities are screwed up here - KMart should just throw those licenses on the floor.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
Quick everyone! If we slashdot bluelight.com (reducing the server to a pile of putrid slag), the whole case will become moot since bluelight.com will be worthless!
Oh wait it already was, nevermind.
Symbol Last Trade Change Volume
TGT 4:01pm $31.53 +0.21 +0.67% 4,080,400
--
E_NOSIG
"All your license are belong to us!"
This comment was generated by a squadron of trained super elite albino ninja chickens for you.
[insert microsoft bashing or joke]
[auto-mod to +5: Insightful]
Kmart asked the court to overrule Microsoft's objection, saying the licenses the software maker referred to were not part of the sale. Kmart said the sale included one server license and 25 desktop licenses it bought from Microsoft.
It sounds like Kmart and Microsoft agree about what Kmart can or cannot do with the licenses and that it was merely a case of KMart not specifying that the licenses being talked about were not part of the sale.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Now your code should compile correctly.
Unix is a standard, DOS is a standard, windows XX is not.
In fact, I gather that the spokesperson from Microsoft has claimed that they can block the transfer of these licenses because of copyright ownership rather than simply claiming commercial contract law.
This is very interesting, because commercial contract law is of course subject to local interpretation, and in fact is often far weeker than it may appear. Contracts that are adhesive, or where the buyer had no choice but to enter, may be expediatically nullified in full or in part by an honest judge. When a monopoly is involved, and hence where there is no alternative choice available, courts can interpret any agreements engaged in as potential agreements of adhesion, depending on the broad mindedness of the judge.
To stake a claim on copyright, however, has other dangers, or similarly to claim that copyright and commercial contract law can be mixed together to form restrictions that neither provide seperatelym or to deliberately and fraudulently take away fair use rights and commercial right to second sale. This is often referred to as misuse of copyright. In fact, the one means by which a commercial entity can be stripped of it's existing copyrights is through a successful persuit of a misuse of copyright case against it.
Of course, it doesn't take much courage for a bully to pick on a bankrupt company. Nor does it seem to take much courage for Microsoft to try and use terror tactics to convince other's that Microsoft's incorrect and invalid interpretation of copyright and contract law are somehow valid.
Overall, I am simply disgusted.
Just a little reality check; there is plenty to argue about here. What almost everyone in this thread seems to have ignored (and what makes the case interesting, despite the tiny dollars apparently involved) is that this is a bankruptcy proceeding. The question is not whether you or I can resell our MS products under the EULA, it's whether a bankruptcy court chooses to ignore the alleged "license" and deem the software an asset of the estate.
It is important to remember that Bankruptcy Courts, unlike ordinary courts, are not required to attempt to enforce the will of the parties to a given contract. Rather, they are supposed to look through the contract and determine whether the terms, as written, create a fraudulent (or otherwise voidable) conveyance. Consider the following: I know I am going bankrupt, but I want to save my Ferrari. I agree to sell it to you for a dollar. You agree not to sell it to anyone else for a year and to sell it back to me in one year for 100 dollars. In return you get the use of the Ferrari. We sign the contract, title passes to you and I declare bankruptcy. A year later I have discharged my debts, I'm free and clear and I enforce my contractual right to buy back my Ferrari for $100. Right?
Wrong. Such a contract would be voided by a Bankruptcy Court and you'd have to give up the car. You'd probably even lose the dollar you paid. The car would become part of estate and would be sold. The money would be used to pay creditors. This is called fraudulent conveyance. It's pretty complicated (and dull) and I can't begin to give all necessary details here but what is interesting about this case is that a court will decide whether the material effect of a purchase of software if to transfer ownership or merely to create a license right, regardless of the language in the EULA.
IAAL, and my guess is the Court will punt on it and come up with other reasons to permit the transfer.
"The true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government." - George Washington
Remember when Adobe sued that guy for breaking up the Adobe packaged software and sold them individually. Adobe sued for voilating the license. The judge ruled that the seller had the "Right of First Sale" and was permitted to sell the software.
The same holds for K-Mart. They own the software licenses, they have the right to sell their license to anyone, and I am confident the court will hold as such.
Some one like redhat should come in and give then the linux equiv. just to show good PR.
Micro$oft may or may not have a contractual basis for obstructing the sale, but it is strictly a contractual matter; US copyright law includes the "first sale" doctrine, which allows reselling of copyrighted material.
I wonder what affect bankruptcy law has on the license terms?
Company A buys 1000 PC's from say HP. The systems come loaded with a Windows operating system. The company however reinstalls Windows with their license that they now have to pay for yearly/monthly, etc...Why not keep the license on the desktop they bought? Am I missing something? WHen you buy a PC does the EULA say 'You can't use this for commercial use?'
Do you recall a MS FUD campaign having to do with donating PCs telling recipients not to accept the PCs without the software licenses that go with it? Aren't these licenses ALSO non-transferable or am I missing something?
For MS to warn people against accepting free hardware without the software would seem to be encouraging piracy somehow wouldn't it? After all, MS clearly does not respect license transfers. So in the end, MS has been telling people to require non-transferable licenses and to operate these donated PCs illegally.
Makes ya wonder doesn't it?
Oh, they knew about it. They'd already hired Martha Stewart.
Microsoft has hereby succeeded in defining software as a service instead of an asset, which is what they've been trying to move towards all along because it represents a more lucrative revenue model than selling something that can be used and used and used until you get decide you want something more.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the long term.
Fundamentally there's no reason why a bunch of instructions on a hard disk cannot be used a whole heckuva a lot more than till the next upgrade cycle. Neither is there any good reason I can see why it can't simply sold outright to someone else that wants to use it. Of course, when Palladium and hardware locking becomes tighter, time-bombed software will make it easier for this model to be enforced. Meanwhile, there's growing quantities and quality of free software that can be run AS MUCH AS YOU LIKE!This will mean that many current businesses may be severely overvalued. Their true worth in sale will be much less if critical parts of their infrastructure are not transferable.
You think Qwest's recent $4e10 write-down of its networks is large? How much have businesses invested in Microsoft software?
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Obviously it depends on if K-Mart management had agreed in writing with a Microsoft sales representative to a specific license which explicitly removed the right of transfer for a reduced price. This is possible, in which case they should, under normal circumstances, have the right to license their copyrighted work with this restriction. However, if the set of licenses are OEM and bundled with each individual machine (the hardware as a product purchased from a vendor) on purchase, and further they were purchased without a clear and written contract signed by both consenting parties, then I think MS doesn't have a leg to stand on. Finally, I think it's very fishy that a convicted monopolist is invoking restraint-of-trade clauses in their shrink-wrap and bundled licensing deals as an impediment toward transferring a software asset legally purchased. Any contract lacking reciprocity or a misrepresentation of terms is null and void even if signed by both parties.
All this said without a law degree or any experience practicing law. Correction(s) by real lawyers encouraged.
--Maynard
More importantly, it is a capital expense, similar to the purchase of computer equipment, automobiles, and other property necessary to run the business. Unlike coffee filters, light bulbs, and rent which are merely expenses, the software and the computer equipment on which it runs may be liquidated. This makes computers and software assets, albeit the quickly depreciating sort.
If KMart purchased the software under restrictions that prohibit resale, then yes, they are stuffed. Otherwise, the First Sale rules, and they can sell it as easily as any other capital they have on hand.
-Hope
Listen, any time there is a transfer of property, the government and business tries to take their piece.
A fee to transfer the licenses to a new company is just as common as the fee paid to transfer a automobile or a realestate.
From a Software Sales Rep's point of view, MS probably gave them an option to pay a transfer fee, and said company said no. MS said WHAT? do you know who we are? BAM vito'd merger.
- Yo Grark
"Canadian Bred with American Buttering"
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
Who knows how much Kmart owes MS? In bankruptcy situations, often suppliers have little room to negotiate for their money. Effective day 1 of bankruptcy, Kmart no longer had any obligation to continue to pay their suppliers.
Perhaps this is MS way of garnering some attention in the Chapter 11 proceedings -- to make sure they get paid.
From the Article:
"Lenders led by J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. Inc. (NYSE:JPM - News) also filed an objection, saying the proceeds from any sale should be reserved for the creditors and not go directly to Kmart.
However, Kmart said it had a roughly $18 million administrative claim against Bluelight.com, which would have to be paid in full before unsecured creditors -- including lenders -- received anything. "
?sp
I'm a bit confused as to what MS is complaining about. The company I used to work for did the consulting, design and implementation for bluelight.com -- we used a farm of linux servers -- not a single license of Microsoft software is being used in the production server environment.
Hmm... so could they be complaining about the individual MS Office and MS Windows licenses that are sitting on the desktops of the front-office employees?
If so... YEESH -- that'd be REALLY picky and cheap of MS to do so (although, I guess I wouldn't be too surprised).
http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/021029/1445000813_1.html
" While the parties' agreements do allow the licenses to be transferred under certain conditions, this includes obtaining a legal proof of the license. Microsoft said while legal proofs have been paid for some of the licenses, no such proofs have been issued for others."
Do I have to relicense?
bound by the paper contracts that you signed with Microsoft when you set up your enterprise agreements with them as a major purchaser of softwarek, and THOSE are legally binding without question.
Do you think an enterprise like K-mart just buys it's software of the shelf at best-buy?
Microsoft is saying that according to the contracts that K-mart signed in good faith, they DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to transfer the license on that software to anyone else.
This is very common in large enterprise software, by the way.. it is not 'trampling on their rights'. I'm sure their lawyers looked at it and agreed to it way back when.
--actually, the great unwashed have been faked into this 'driving is a privelege" noise for everyday NON commercial driving. This includes cops and low level judges. It's a revenue generating scam perpetuated for generations now, roughly similar on how they scammed (most) people into using some private bank's perpetual debt "note"* in place of lawful US coined money, which still exists by the way although most people don't use it.
Is Is driving a right or a privelege?
* If you are curious, lookup what a "bank note" is, you'll be surprised-maybe. For those that don't know, the cliff notes version, it's a DEBT INSTRUMENT,a named "official" legal document that YOU agree to a DEBT, that you "owe" them. It's one of those little known issues that most people don't care about, until every other or third generation or so the ponzi scheme crashes and steals their wealth. THEN they care and do a little research into it, AFTER the fact of needing to educate themselves.
I know these are two separate issues, both of which are sideways to this microsoft EULA selling, but law is law is a law,and "commonly understood" illusions aren't real, even if millions "believe in them". And the supreme Court is notably absent on a host of constitutional issues, for several generations now. they pick and chose the easy stuff and constantly dodge the bread and butter isues,most notably the first, the second amendment, the fourth, the fifth, the tenth. The black robed wonders are ALL WITHOUT EXCEPTION paid off appointed political hacks of one of either of the two controlling criminal gangs that seized the government of the united States and now run it as a for-profit criminal enterprise for their members,and that's about it.
How is this different than any other license? Here is a snipet from the article:
"According to court documents, Microsoft said Kmart had not specifically identified which Microsoft software licenses it planned to transfer to United Online as part of the sale."
Since bluelight.com was the licensee then doesn't it make sense that when you sell the asset (software license) to someone else (United Online), that you should let the entity you licensed the software from (Micro$oft) know that the license has changed owners? Lacking more specific information than the article provides, I guess that I just don't see the problem here. The article doesn't really say that they have to ask M$ for permission to sell the license. It's probably just me...
Sue the fuckin' piss out of them for wasting your time. Seriously, since a BSA audit shuts down your company while their thugs go crawling through your machines bill 'em. Creatively.
A couple of years ago I was outfitting an office with Office 2000.
We needed about 60 copies.
I first called Microsoft; they told me there was no real discount to be had unless we had more copies (or more other microsoft products in the same class in the same purchase). We weren't large enough to get a discount.
Okay.. fine. So I called my favorite var.
They gave us a nice price.. better than what MS offered us on bulk licensing. Then they came back with an even better deal:
"Well, if you buy 50 copies of Microsoft Works, and then 50 copies of Office 2000 Upgrade, you end up saving about $150 off each copy".
Now. think about this for a second.
Going to a retail outlet and buying a truckload of software I'm never even going to use along with the product I want was actually way cheaper than simply asking microsoft for bulk licensing (which doesn't require them to ship a truckload of boxes).
That's messed up.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Mike
For those times when I need to explain the advantages of Open Source software.
The cost of licenses, activation nonsense, BSA audits, and "software assurance" make open source look better by the minute. Add in this latest example of vendor's granting themselves the right to meddle in corporate affairs, and I'm ready to [figuratively] open fire on the next enemy sales droid that crosses my path.
Or has MS decided that being a cancer is okay, too, now.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
Back about 10 years ago, the New York Times did a piece on a firm of lawyers in Texas that was particularly (ie vicious and nasty) respected because they could put anyone away with their particularly hard-hitting tactics, like depositioning the executives of a software firn to death while their business went to hell. The firm's initials were B & B. They developed these tactics about transfers of software to other firms in various deals. A certain insurance company had licensed software from a big software company. The insurance company got into financial trouble, divested some subsidiaries, and then outsourced its data center to a firm that was not the author of the insurance system running in the data center. B & B showed up representing the company that marketed the system and sued. During the trial, the people who had 'written' the system testified that they had copied it directly from a system put into the public domain by IBM, but B&B managed to 'win' the case by forcing both the insurance company and their data center outsourcer to surrender under the legal onslaught.
Kmart said the sale included one server license and 25 desktop licenses it bought from Microsoft.
All this over 25 licenses? Who cares about 25 licenses? This isn't even worth the "evil lawyers" fees?
There has got to be more to this story. Maybe Microsoft legal just sends out a boilerplate document and objects to any and all Chapter 11 filings. I'd like to know more about this story if anyone has more details.
Stories like this are great to save in my file and drag out for the next Open Source vs. Proprietary Software license debate.
The way this reads, stories on Reuters define copyright law!
Microsoft's objection to the sale is based on the non-transferability of software licenses protected by copyright law according to the Reuters story on Yahoo! News.
What would happen if people and companies simply gave away their extra or unused copies of Microsoft licenses rather than selling them?
Microsoft was running that ad where the computers all get along during the merger even if the humans don't because it's all happy work-together Microsoft deals. Now they have shot that.
Watch some serious back-pedaling. Of course they wouldn't have to backpedal if they weren't constantly looking to shark someone.
You know, this was probably some VP trying to justify cash bonuses in a downward-trending stock option world. Almost any company has those, but few companies can screwover so many mergers as Microsoft can.
The arrogance knows no bounds.
________________________________________ History Must Not Fall Into The Wrong Hands ___________________________________
So for extra credit, what's the legal obligations of Bluelight.com to United Online if Bluelight.com uses GPL code and modifications to thoose GPL apps, since this is a sale?
"Kmart said the sale included one server license and 25 desktop licenses it bought from Microsoft." Wow ... is it just me, or is there something wrong with this?
1) Bluelight.com only having one server?
2) M$ making a big fuss over about $3k of software?
I'm confused. What is the problem with using a GPL'd binary? If I'm looking for an alternative to Word, I can use AbiWord or OpenOffice.org Writer. I don't to worry about licensing issues because I don't intend to modify the source.
The real strength in these products is when you can use the product WITHOUT needing the source. You get the 'free as in beer' part and you don't need to worry about the 'viral nature of the license' because you're not writing any code for it.
My father is a blogger.
Copyright holders want the right to transfer their IP to another party at any time for any reason (including their own death) but they won't let us have the right to transfer our purchased physical property?!?!?!
--Joey
1. get a tax write off for the value of the software
2. Dump the software, boxes, manuals, etc. on MS corporate hq.
3. (optional). have a bonfire.
When travelling, it's ok if the airlines lose your emotional baggage.
Yes I know that the current laws say quite the opposite but this was never truly thought through.
The reason is simple binary software is not a copyrightable product - it does not confrom the fundamental rule with regard to copyright - it applies to human understandable material.
Think about it, binary software CANNOT by any reasonable means be understood (''read'') by a human being. Every other copyrightable work can - music, movies, books, paintings - every one of these things have MEANING. Even music without words have meaning - I doubt anybody would argue against that.
But binary software have no meaning - it is not a copyrightable work. Source code IS copyrightable - because it is a form of speech. It has MEANING, it can be understood.
Open source is like a book - a written work understandable by people.
A binary software program is not unless the sources come with it. Selling only binary versions of a program can be compared to an author who writes a book - the book is obviously copyrighted. Now imagine the author meticulously paints black over every written page. The book is still a product of potential value (don't ask me for what) but it is deffinitely not copyrighted anymore. Not unless an unpainted version is available to the consumer.
I know this is not law, but can anybody give me a good reason why it shouldn't be ?
A windows CD is just that - a flat piece of plastic you buy which because it has the potential to increase the abillities of your computer.
You can no more copyright that than you can copyright a frisbee (which by the way is a far more viable application for this particular piece of plastic).
Furthermore, by denying you the source, a company should lose out on AL the advantages of copyright.
Microsoft should not be able to touch you for copying and distributing there CD's anymore than FORD can sue VOLVO for building an equally shitty car.
Which one of you bright American's want to forward this to your congressman ? I will gladly relinguish my copyright to you, in order that it may be the opinion of actual american voters.
It will be worth it for the entertainment value.
"Semper in excretum set alta variant"
Why, YES! Yes it could!
Get OpenSource and the problem goes away! Gee, wasn't it Mr. Balmer who was bad-mouthing OpenSource? Small wonder, now we see the evil plan unfurl like a roll of used toilet paper.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I thought M$ wanted assumed the right to automate your business decisions in the latest version of the EULA?
CitrusTV (http://www.citrustv.net): the Nation's Oldest & Largest Entirely Student-Run Television Station
This may very well be an Internet urban legend, I can't really be sure as I wasn't even thought of at the time but...
Didn't a judge once rule that you couldn't copyright software because it was just a bunch of generic instructions?
Obviously that idea has changed a lot since then, if it ever really happened.
Also, let me pose another question... I'm a minor. If I agree to an EULA, am I really bound by it? After all, I can't even write a check.
CitrusTV (http://www.citrustv.net): the Nation's Oldest & Largest Entirely Student-Run Television Station
I purchased a COA from buymstar.com. Which to my knowledge was perfectly legit. Well they 'accidentally' sold me two(2) and refused to refund my money on one of them because I'd already seen the product key. So I head on over to ebay to auction the other Certificate of Authenticity (the product key has never been registered, etc.) and my auction gets cancelled because I'm not selling a EULA along with the COA or the software. I tell Microsoft, "wait a minute! I bought it this way, why can't I sell it this way?" Here is their answer: "Hello, First, I have forwarded buymstar.com to our investigators for further review. They could not sell the license without the EULA, because the EULA (End User License Agreement) is the license. It appears they have sold you the COA or COAL which is not the license. These cannot be distributed without the software. The COA is a security certificate that accompanies all Microsoft OEM products. The COA label (COAL) is a security label that accompanies all Retail products and can be found on the spine of the retail box. The COAL may also be found on the cable cord of OEM hardware products such as the Natural Keyboard, Mouse and IntelliMouse. The COA is used to assure the end user that the software program is not counterfeit. For instance, if you purchased a computer system from a computer store and it came with Windows 95 operating system software preinstalled on its hard drive, the COA should also be included. See below link for examples of both the OEM and Retail COAs. Additionally, the COA contains anti-counterfeiting devices, such as a latent image, to prevent the production of counterfeit Microsoft products. If you have not received a COA with your OEM or retail product, or if your COA appears to be counterfeit or distributed through unauthorized channels, please call 1-800-RU-LEGIT or e-mail piracy@microsoft.com or contact your local Microsoft sales office or subsidiary. Basically, I copied the last two paragraphs from the following link. This link may also help in my explanation. http://www.microsoft.com/education/license/eula.as p#8
I would suggest you return the COAs for a full refund and report
buymstar.com to the above anti-piracy sites.
If you have any further question, please contact us.
Thanks again,
Daren
Internet Auction Monitoring Team"
They haven't answered my question regarding the EULA that you have to answer (by hitting F8) when installing XP...
Money not found! A)bort, R)etry, D)eclare Bankruptcy
I've been selling technology for a while and four things really have bothered me about software:
1) It's almost always overpriced.
2) It generally is oversold and doesn't deliver.
3) There's no consumer recourse if it doesn't work.
4) The license "agreement" is usually total unfair to the customer.
Say what you will, but why do I want to pay too much for broken software that doesn't do what it's supposed to do that ties me up with strings like Gulliver? This is just another example where KMART/BLUELIGHT/Whoever:
1) Paid too much for their software
2) It was oversold
3) It underdelivered
4) The license is hosing the buyer
Enough already. Don't these people know the number one rule for a parasite is not to kill the host!?
$G
-- $G
The more licensing becomes a pain the more it will make other companies weak up and realize that openness is important. Microsoft is doing us a favor. Tough luck for Kmart. Maybe next time they will think harder when they decide to implement a technology into their infrastructure.
C) PROFIT!
and the lesson is: don't ever use any Microsoft products. They are not good, cost a lot of money, and you can't sell them either. Did I mention that you have to buy them again every third year? This whole thing is worse than being married to the mob.
How could driving be a mere "privelege"?
Where I live, rural Maine, and in other places like it, if you can't get around in a car you starve - or live off the charity of neighbors. You've *got* to have a car to live. It makes my blood boil to hear people talk about our necessary right to transportation as a "privelege."
Tyrants. Probably urban tyrants.
I do licensing stuff for the Free Software Foundation.
Twice in the last few months, I've received notices from companies being sold that they're transfering their copies of Bash, etc. Often, they fuck up and claim that we own Perl (simply because one of Perl's two licenses has our name on it).
I laugh and recycle the notices.
I wonder if Microsoft laughs and files suit?
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
With lots of other highly priced licensed software it's not the actual company that purchases and hold the licenses but rather a 'holding company' that purchases and hold the licenses. When times dictate it's not the licenses that are then sold but the holding company that is sold.
On the licensing level the licensee has not changed but the 'owner of the licensee' changes.
IANAL - but this does work.
Be sure to check the expiration date on the software!
The truth shall set you free!
Your post highlights another problem with Intellectual Property: the issue of transferability.
As you stated, "A license is a *right* to do something. You can't sell a right."
Actually, there are two possible cases: either a particular right is transferrable [say, using the property on which your house rests] or it is not transferrable [an inherent right]. If it is transferrable, it may be partially transferrable [a lein] or only transferrable as a unit [that piece of gum you're chewing].
Those are all the logical possibilities that I can see.
Now, the question is, is an IP license inherently transferrable or not? If not, then you can't sell it, period. Typically, that is because there is something inherent about it that makes it impossible to sell (right to life: nobody else can live my life for me. Right to speech: nobody else can move my mouth.)
Here's one that isn't transferrable: the Hewlett Packard printer driver. It won't work, as a unit, on any other printer. It isn't designed to work on any other printer; its algorithms are specific to the HP hardware. Oh, pieces of the algorithms may work elsewhere, but you can also get those pieces elsewhere. As a result, although they had (previously) a clause that it could only be used on HP printers, they quickly saw that they didn't need such a clause -- the right was inherently non-transferrable. So they removed it, and made it open source.
But if there is nothing inherent about it that is non-transferrable, then it can be sold.
When laws try to say that a dog has five legs, they just make a fool of the law. In this case, a license is easily transferrable. Since the law is upholding the idea that it is not transferrable, then the law is essentially upholding a form of robbery. That being the case, business becomes riskier for businesses in countries that do this, and the economies head south, and some other country eventually will become dominant. Eventually, for example, America may become no more than the puppet-dictatorship that Iraq (once the shining star of the Western World) is today.
Something to think about, eh? The best that the law can do is to mimic real life, and provide false, non-damaging barriers for people before they hit real, damaging barriers.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
Do that in Freenet, that stops worries about NDAs or other legalese.
How seriously can the courts take EULAs? Clickthoughs are already a joke. People will click on anything, include a worm with a EULA.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Ought to sit up and pay very close attention here. Build a company...base it on .Net or other MS technology. The board decides to sell the company. When MS steps in to *block* the sale...someone's head is on the chopping block -- in a big way. Remember, corporate politics is all about CYA .
Another reason for OS solutions.
(off-topic, so sue me...)
Fraid not.
You have a right to travel on the highway. However, bear in mind the often-quoted maxim of "your right to swing your fist about ends at my nose". An untrained or just plain bad driver is a hazard to everyone around them, and everyone else's right to continue living trumps your right to travel however you like. This brings up another maxim, that "the Constition is not a suicide pact".
At the time the US Constitution was written, the fastest mode of transport was a horse. It's difficult to crash two horses into each other, and it doesn't cause major problems for other road users also travelling on horses. Just because George Washington didn't foresee the possibility of 10 lanes of cars travelling at 70mph, it doesn't mean everyone forever onwards is limited by that.
Grab.
Like we are talking K-Mart for christ sake !
Good I say throw the shit is the trash maybe the next company will run Linux instead and won't go bankrupt.
I cannot believe that Microsoft apologists trying to excuse this with double speak.
Kmart are selling the company (Bluelight.com) not software that Bluelight.com licenced.
What next ?
Microsoft approving every stock/share trade ?
Unless you are a prisoner, a minor or an incompetent, you have a choice over where you live.
You can't drive? You don't want to drive? Move to the city, where you can walk to the shops to buy your food. Find a job within walking distance.
When you don't know anything about the way people lived just fifty years ago, you don't realise how easy
life generally is for the vast majority of people in Japan, Europe and America these days.
Just fifty years ago it was quite common, where I'm from, for a man to get up at four in the morning, walk six kilometres to get to the factory, work a twelve hour shift, then walk home again. Some would walk eight or ten kilometres from the village to the edge of town, then catch the tram or bus to the factory. <cue voice of Michael Palin>
Be sure to check the expiration date on the software!
Good point.
I don't always trust the printed expiration date, though.
A more reliable way is to sniff your software and see if it smells bad.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
You must be one dirty, inbred, white trash son of a bitch to want women from walmart!
Did you take them back to your trailer!
All this over 25 licenses? Who cares about 25 licenses? This isn't even worth the "evil lawyers" fees?
Microsoft is supporting what they believe in. They obviously think expending the resources over small-time licensing issues helps them sleep at night. Money isn't a factor, here, nor does it matter that BlueLight is an MSN competitor. Yeah, that's it.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
(nt)
They must be having a cash flow problem to even bother about this.
Why are both sides making such a big stink over so few licenses? The licenses cost far less than their lawyer's fees. Oh, wait, the lawyers are ones who are behind the whole show...
A very good example, but you fail to mention the main point here: this case would be between you and the court only. Whatever company that have manefactured the car is completely irrelevant, and that company is not a part in the case.
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").
IANAL--well, duh. Lawyers get paid more than I do.
My dog tore up the software box, and only the CD remained, whilst I was installing it a screen came up but my cat jumped on the keyboard and pressed the Enter key.
The courts (which is where the applicability of all contracts are inevitably settled) in the USA are based on a "resonable man" standard for a lot of things. I suspect this is the same in the UK, considering that our contractual legal systems were identical up until about 225 years ago.
It would be rather farcical to try and claim that you did not know that Microsoft uses EULAs to sell a license to make copies of their software for use. It's written on the box, talked about on slashdot, and even mentioned in the "about" box of every single MS windows app; some even include the EULA online.
However, if we assume that you've got enough proof that you didn't know that MS sells their software this way, and that you unintentionally hit the "I agree" button without reading (or even seeing) the window, you'd probably wind up in a position to reverse the sale of the license--instead of being forced to pay the license costs + extra, you'd be given the option of "buy a license or delete the software."
(Oh, and violating an EULA isn't breaking a law, so it isn't illegal. It's the breach of a contract. The COPYRIGHT VIOLATION you'd probably commit is probably a crime, but it'd probably be on the scale of stealing pens when you're breaking your employment contract.)
IANAL/A (Last A is an Accountant)
Is fairly common in business for bankrupcy to void contracts (and a licence can be considered as a contract). Loan agreements, even things like energy purchase contracts become void.
I was just in a discussion today about credit management - companies can be quite worried about defaulting on certain contracts because it causes a domino effect on others.
+#if defined(__alpha__) && defined(CONFIG_PCI) /*
+
+ * The meaning of life, the universe, and everything. Plus
+ * this makes the year come out right.
+ */
+ year -= 42;
+#endif
-- From the patch for 1.3.2: (kernel/time.c), submitted by Marcus Meissner
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...