Sell Your Computers, Keep Paying MS For Licenses

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft Licensing 6.0 requires a company to pay up on software maintenance when the computers that are covered under the license are sold off. Here's the kicker though: MS is no longer obligated to provide maintenance even though the contract is paid up! Read the Infoworld article."

Comments

remember.....

[Lxy]

You don't own software. Software is a contract, and even though you shelled out $x for a piece of software, you are bound to the agreement. Transfering a Windows license is like any other contract.. read it carefully and make sure you're permitted to do so.

I'm not saying that MS is good, quite the contrary. They will rape their customers for as much money as they can, but from a bunsiness standpoint they're just just doing business.

If you don't like it, use linux.

Re:remember.....

[dachshund]

read it carefully and make sure you're permitted to do so.

And if you don't like the terms, suck it up. MS has a monopoly on the desktop, especially in terms of business software. They can put any damned thing they want into their licenses, because most businesses have nowhere else to go.

This story simply helps to illustrate the difference between having a monopoly and abusing one.

Re:remember.....

[Mac Degger]

Yes, correct. But the only reason software is a contract is because we have let it become that. It's still rediculous: it's like the phones of old (at least in parts of europe) which you rented/leased instead of bought.
Personally I want it spelled out to me: do I buy this or do I lease it. And for me, if I go to a store and buy something, without having to sign a piece of paper which I'd read very carefully, I have bought something. No matter what some clickthru EULA says.

Of course, Licence 6.0 is nothing like that. But even so, I'd say that this is a perfect example of MS leveraging their monopoly position for vendor lock-in. due to the fact that it is unfeasable for many companies already running MS to switch to anything else [yeah, it's possible, but only with clear changeover protocols and policies...which these companies might not have]. This can have multiple reasons, from financial (retraining) to time factors (retraining ;) ) and many others. But the end result is that MS gains a lot of extra money for no effort, due to restrictive and amoral licencing which many companies jhust can't get out of.

last two paragraphs in article sums it up...

[emptybody]

..."What microsoft is really doing is saying, 'Hey, just recognize you are truly at our mercy.' "
If you didn't already know that, you just haven't been paying attention.

How many more reasons do companies need to dump Microsoft and go with unix/linux?

Re:last two paragraphs in article sums it up...

[Sylver Dragon]

How many more reasons do companies need to dump Microsoft and go with unix/linux

1 and only 1. The problem is, that 1 reason has to be that Linux/Unix/etc. have a similar level business app that just runs on them. None of this silly, get the source, modify if for a company's purpose, and then complie it. Ah, shit, ok, go find dependancies, complie. Damn, missed one, get that one, compile. Crap, that one had 4 more, ok get those, complie. Hey, we have an app that looks like hell and really doesn't do what we need.
The *nix community needs to get some serious developer support before companies will really start to look at it seriously. Also the whole RTFM attitude is doing tons of harm to the movement as well. When the only support you can get for an OS is found on the web, and half the responses are along the lines of "RTFM 1d10t, y0ur a 1user, and 1m 37337" this does not instill confidence in that OS.
Sadly, in the end, the things that make Linux attractive are going to be the same things that hold it back from taking more of the business desktop market.
- It's free - Which usually means there isn't a company behind it that will support it.
- It's open source - So you can modify it to do what you want it to do. This, of course, takes time and money, and there isn't a company you can go to and pay them to do it.
Businesses like fire and forget solutions, they don't care about the politics of it. And for all its flaws, Windows is quick and easy to get going.

Blah blah blah, it's called a contract

[stratjakt]

If I sign a 4 year maintanaince contract with Pedros lawn care, I have to keep paying even if I move and the new owners dont want them running around the yard spraying pesticide.

The same goes with many other maintanaince/support contracts. Dont like it? Do business with someone else.

We have customers who still contractually pay for support on HP big iron boxes that havent been plugged in for years.

Another case of MSFT doing the same thing everyone else does, execpt (heres the kicker!) for some reason it's "evil" because you dont like windows.

Big fat whoop. MS Licensing is a business support contract, and pretty much a standard one at that.

Re:Blah blah blah, it's called a contract

[sehryan]

Actually, the first post was a very good analogy. Look at it like this:

I am with Sprint PCS and have a one year agreement with them. I choose to switch to Verizon before my agreement is up. I cannot use my Sprint PCS phone with Verizon, so I decide to sell it.

1. Sprint PCS is going to charge me for breaking my contract.

2. The new owner of the phone has to start their own contract with Sprint PCS if they want service. The remainder of my contract will not carry over to the new owner of the phone.

This example is what actually happens if I were to do all of this. But we don't see Sprint PCS, Verizon or any of the other carriers posted on Slashdot.

Fact is, this is just basic business. It only makes headlines on Slashdot because it's Microsoft.

Re:Blah blah blah, it's called a contract

[Carbonite]

Actually your analogy also has serious flaws. The companies in the posted article weren't trying to terminate the contract, they were simply transferring it to new owners. In many cases it would be the same person using the computer, just under a different company name.

If John Smith changes his name to John Jones, does Sprint PCS force an "acceleration" of the original contract and then make John Jones sign a new contract? No, that would be absurd. However, if a computer that once was part of Company X is now part of Company Z, the contract must be paid in full, yet Company Z must now also purchase a new contract.

The main reason your analofy doesn't hold up is because the situation are just too different. Cell phone contracts are relatively short (1-2 years) and inexpensive ($25-50/month) compared to software licenses. There's also numerous companies who offer very similar service. Microsoft is the only company who sells Windows XP, 2003 Server, etc. You can't go "somewhere else" unless you plan on migrating away from MS entirely. This is usually far too expensive, it's not at all like switching cell service. I do agree that companies need to read the contract much more carefully, but that doesn't excuse the fact that Microsoft is abusing its monopoly status.

Re:And the GPL requires you to release your source

[be-fan]

Not to *use* it, it doesn't. The GPL only asks for your source if you use it's source. It's like consensual sex vs rape...

Linux Call the Manufacturer Day

[cyber_rigger]

Instead of whining here are some things that you can do.

Ask computer manufacturers if their machines are linux compatible

(especially laptops)video cards, sound cards, etc.

Most have a toll free numbers.

If the don't support linux ask "them when will they?".

Ask software suppliers it they have ported their products to linux.
Call their main office. Once one company listens others will follow.

We need a "Linux Call the Manufacturer Day".

They will get the message.

Microsoft and the RIAA are actually useful

[TrueJim]

Legislatures often pass bad laws. Their intentions are good, but the letter of the law often leads to ridiculous conclusions when taken to the extreme.

It usually takes many years to discover how badly a law has been written, because it usually takes many years for people (or companies) to get around to pushing the wording to its logical conclusion. When Microsoft (or the RIAA, etc.) imposes seemingly ridiculously licensing terms on the public, they're actually doing us all a service in the long run, by quickly demonstrating to legislators that the applicable public policies are (in the long run) unworkable.

We know Microsoft isn't going to "win" in the long run (they're losing our data centers already, and eventually they'll lose our desktops and office suites as well), but when they do these extremely silly things they actually help hasten their own eventual demise, by rapidly educating the public (and the policy makers) about what's wrong with current regulation.

Getting laws corrected may feel like it's occuring with glacial slowness to those of us who already understand where things are heading, but it'll actually happen much more quickly than it would otherwise, the worse Microsoft behaves. So I say, heck ya Microsoft! Charge us twice for things you don't deliver...charge us ten times, twenty! Let's show the world what the phrase "illegal monopoly" -really- means.

Re:So?

[gl4ss]

better way to put it:

-hey, there's this company that wants us to pay them even if we stop using their product and there's an extra contract included that gives them rights to anything we have on our systems if they would want it. the contract also includes an extortion option for them we can do nothing about, and the system is going to go through expensive forced migration to another backwards incompatible system in short time, and this we can do nothing about either if we want our business to be safe. oh, and there's an alternative for using them that would free our balls from their fist.

-why exactly are we doing business with this company again?

surely, not as black'n'white as that, but if executives actually read and understood half of the stuff they agree with ms...

Re:So?

[Grishnakh]

So if it's too much trouble, and they'd rather pay for maintenance that they're not going to use, then they should shut up and stop complaining.

Honestly, if I really hate some vendor I'm a customer of, I simply dump them and go somewhere else. The only time I can't do this is if it's a utility monopoly, like the trash service. The phone system used to be like this too, but now I've dumped Qwest and gotten a cellphone, so I have no need for that monopoly anymore. MS is a monopoly too, in the sense that they have control of 90%+ of some markets, but just like Qwest vs. cellphones, there are alternatives out there for those willing to go through the trouble.

Reading articles here on /. about MS Licensing is fun in order to keep up with the evil empire's latest shenanigans, and to laugh at people who willingly put up with them. But I really have no sympathy for anyone who does, for no really good reason. If they're not willing to go through some trouble to free themselves of this abuse, they deserve all the abuse they get. At no time in history has liberty come without cost.

Re:Linux and Macs will not solve world hunger

[Grishnakh]

How do I sell my CFO and my CEO on non-Microsoft platforms when all our clients want work done using MS technologies?

Simple: you don't! If your clients want MS crap, then you have two choices: 1) give it to them, and put up with all that entails. 2) tell your clients to go to hell, and get some new clients.

Your decision here can be made using simple economics; for choice 1, you determine how much revenue you're getting from these MS-loving clients, and how much you're paying (license fees, etc.) to provide what they want. If you're profitable, then be happy. But if you're losing money, then who cares what the clients want? Either raise prices to become profitable (which may cause the clients to bail on you) or find some new clients.

Seriously, why are you here? If you're happy using MS crap, because a bunch of dumb clients are paying you to provide stuff using MS crap, and you're profitable, then you have nothing to complain about, regardless of MS's crazy licensing schemes, and might as well ignore this whole discussion topic. If you, as an individual, is unhappy working with MS crap, but your company is happy, then you need to either learn to put up with it or find a better job. If your company is losing money because of Licensing 6.0 and is about to go down the toilet, but management is too stupid to make the hard decisions necessary to fix the problem (i.e., get new customers), then you should probably start working on your resume.

Re:buy a cell phone w/ 2 year license...

[Anonym0us Cow Herd]

buy a cell phone w/ 2 year license
lose cell phone after 6 months
still pay remainig 1.5 years left in license...

How hard is that to understand?

This is easy to understand, and fair.

The cell phone network heavily subsidizes your purchase of the cell phone. equipment. They want you to commit in order to get that subsidy. You can't just buy the phone, and then switch service in 30 days, taking the phone that they mostly paid for over to their competitors network, paying the competitor for network service.

There is no such comparison here. If I'm going to pay for 3 years of upgrades, even if I pay today, then it seems fair that this covered computer should get three years of upgrades, even if said computer is in someone else's hands. You can't have it both ways. (Of course, Microsoft can because they have monopolost control -- the very definition of which is not the absence of competition, but one of control where they can get away with stuff that they could not in a non-monopoly situation.)

If I pay for 3 years of insurance, the covered computer gets coverage for three years. What is so different here? If I cancel the policy, then I stop paying, and stop getting coverage.

Why are you trying to defend Microsoft's unfair practice? (Just curious.)

If I'm 1 year into a 3 year payment and upgrade plan, then why wouldn't it be fair that the software on my computer today is fully licensed if I cancel the plan today. It is also fair that I should get no further upgrades under the plan. But not getting either of these is simply unfair. Remember this plan is upgrade advantage. Not acquisition. You still have to acquire the product before enrolling it in upgrade advantage. I stop paying in 2 months, I stop having any rights to upgrade at that time. The original acquisition, and any upgrades received thus far should be mine. Shouldn't they? (If everything were fair.)