Slashdot Mirror
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."
Tell me Mr. Anderson: what good is a MICROSOFT LICENSING 6.0 if you are unable to KEEP USING IT AFTER YOU SELL YOUR COMPUTERS?
Now that innovation!
Mabye this is what they kept talking about during all of those trials.
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.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
what if my computer catches fire, and is reduced to carbon? do i still keep on paying to MS?
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
I've often wondered - I've got a Sony Vaio, which came for a licence for Windows ME (which I don't use anyway). But when the laptop eventually dies, does the licence die with it?
Or am I allowed to move it to another computer?
-- Even if a god did exist, why the fsck should I worship it?
Maybe Apple was right with their (globally lambasted) "Lemmings" super bowl ad in 1985. Business just blindly walked off the cliff and right into Gates/Ballmers' bank accounts.
Of course I suspect if history had been different and we'd all ended up buying Apple's the result would not be that different. We'd have a Steve Jobs/Borg head icon instead perhaps. =)
At least we didn't all buy Amigas... then we'd all have to off ourselves for being such bleating wankers.
heh.
..."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?
comment directly in my journal
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.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
From the office of Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf :
In post Saddam Iraq, Microsoft licenses you.
Karma: The shiznight, mostly because I am the Drizzle.
Please do continue your efforts to rip^H^H^H fleece^H^H^H^H^H^H provide "value-added" propositions to your customers through your wonderful License Agreement.
You are making my world domination^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H job so much easier.
Thank you so much in advance,
Yours respectfully,
Linus Torvalds
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
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...
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
" what if my computer catches fire, and is reduced to carbon? do i still keep on paying to MS?"
Give us your URL. We'll find out.
As businesses get wise to these kind of contracts, they will get smarter about entering into them. For years now, most companies have been "stupid" when it comes to IT -- but times are changing. Companies are getting MUCH more sophisticated about how they handle their IT.
This is a short term problem.
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.
We are under EA (enterprise agreement) version 6 here at my company and this is how it works. Once a year you tell MS how many computers are using what software products. This only happens once per year. Yes, if you cut the number of machines in half you won't see an immediate savings until the next time you give MS your numbers.
However, if you end up doubling your computers you come out ahead: you basically get free use of the software until you update your numbers with MS.
This also means you could get free use of software if you only used it for part of a year. For example, if you give MS numbers each January, you could install extra stuff in February, remove it in December, and MS would never have to know you used it.
The EA does end up saving money if you were going to upgrade all the time anyway, or perhaps only skip one version. If you tend to skip two or more versions, the EA would most likely cost you more money.
Just you wait until, along with a new social security number, you're required to purchase a Windows 2014 license for your new child, along with lifetime maintenance.
All in the name of curbing copyright infringement, mind you.
We purchase all of the new PCs we order with a Microsoft EA SA agreement. It's a nightmare trying to keep track of which boxes at which location have what version OS on them, what kind of upgrades they're covered up through, and so on. There's a dedicated guy just for our department that does nothing but dealing with licensing.
For anybody who's never taken the time to read through some of these contracts, print one out sometime or read through the EULA next time you upgrade Windows and be prepared to be suprised. Honestly, MS plays by their own rules.
The crappy thing is there is no real alternative. There's over 50,000 computers in this organization. Switching these boxen over to linux isn't an option (sorry guys, I love linux as much as the next guy, but the average 50 year-old in HR ISN'T going to be able to use it). And as expensive as dealing with MS is, it's still cheaper than buying 50,000 Macs and running OSX on them. Besides, most propritery medical apps only run on Windows from what I've seen.
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned for SEGA. ..."
Why didn't I think of that.
Me: "Hey boss, I don't like the new MS license system. Letstop using Ms products."
Boss: "Sure, what would that entail?"
Me: "Um, well, the accounting, mail, DNS, Database, HR and Engineering servers would have to be completely redone, half of our software would have to go as well. We would also need to replace about half of our support staff with more expensive staff."
Boss: "Why haven't I fired you yet?"
"The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
Someone spent a lot of time researching something pretty basic - if you sell a computer that has an "open license" (the license is not tied to the computer), Microsoft will allow the ownership of the operating system to transfer, but not the right to "free" upgrades. Umm, duh? Who, in their right mind, if they aren't giving way their software, would?
DAMMIT! STOP MAKING ME DEFEND MICROSOFT!!! ARGH!
Essentially, Microsoft are saying "We're going to sell you a three-year non-transferrable support and upgrade contract." Nothing wrong with that. They also let you make payments instead of paying for the full three years up front. Again, nothing bad about that. They DO specify that you have to pay off the balance on any machines that you sell, though. How's that any different than, say, requiring you to pay off your bank loan before you sell your car?
It seems to be that nobody'd be complaining if they just required the entire payment for three years up-front and said"It's non-transferrable. Cope." People are pissed because Microsoft offers a payment plan, but they won't automatically transfer that plan.
Forward, retransmit, or republish anything I say here. Just don't misquote me.
Not that anyone who isn't actually buying or selling divisions of companies cares, but here are a couple of other things you might think about to make sure you're protected:
- make sure each legal entity is the licensor of its own licenses (ie. Bluelight should have been the licensor, not Kmart); then when the division is sold or divested, it is transparent to Microsoft (you may lose some volume discount here, of course);
- if you haven't done the above or are selling assets instead of equity, set up a permanent lease of the computers to the buyer instead of transferring ownership; make sure payments are structured (probably through some sort of escrow account or trust) so the lease is a lease and not a sale;
- in a bankruptcy, ask the judge to tell Microsoft to stuff it, which he may well have the power to do, and if he's a Windows user will certainly *want* to do.
Does it need to be said? IANAL.
On a related note, why doesn't some unemployed entrepreneur out there start a company that buys unused MS licenses (for Windows and Office, say) from companies that are downsizing or going out of business, then resell them to large companies that are being audited by MS? I know a few that would pay decent money just to not have to sort out the mess that is their file cabinet full of licenses, even if they do lose SA.
Milo
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.
I hope that after I die the one word people use to describe me is "resurrected."
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...
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
License agreements are becoming more and more abusive. I decided to jump several steps ahead (short steps) and write the final EULA:
The final license agreement:
- I can do anything I like.
- You have no power.
- You can't say anything bad about me.
- Everything belongs to me.
I knew a 3-year-old who said this. He has since become an adult, which is more than I can say for some executives.Is that even if MS went away tomorrow, we wouldn't suddenly have a great new OS to replace them. I mean, 12 years later Linux, while having made great strides, is NOT ready for mainstream yet.
Sad but true.
Once Linux becomes capable enough to make it mainstream MS won't be able to keep it out. Because there is little real financial burden on Linux. It's an open source product where ALOT of the work is done, in essence, for free. So MS can't bully it out of the marketplace by putting pressure on their vendors until the OS suffocates itself for lack of funds like a competing comppany would surely do.
It's here to stay because nobody is paying for it, and nobody is financially burdened by it. So it developson it's own, with TONS of fierce competition from MS. And it does nothing but grow and grow.
People should STOP complaining about Ms being a monopoly and START contributing to Linux/GNU.
One of the above posters said if you don't like it, don't use it. Thats dead wrong. As with everything else in life, if you don't like it, do something to change it. Do something to enhance Linux and/or its acceptance.
"The saddest words of mice and men, are not those which were, but should have been."
No need to jump off the cliff, I have made this suggestion many times to people who dislike microsoft's policies and are "stuck", basically, when it comes time to upgrade a certain product, consider the alternative, and slowly move on to another solution, just take your time, eventually, 3-4 years you will be rid of ms completly, with a very low cost as the transition will have been slow.
Posting useless rant since 2003.
...why the US Army rejected Windows XP. Under NO--repeat, NO--circumstances are they willing to enter a situation where a vendor can shut them down. If push comes to shove because of file-format issues, Microsoft can look forward to selling *ONE* XP computer to the Army until they can convert anything involved into open formats. Period. End of story. (yes, I am somewhat in the know on this)
The answer is, most contracts are in some way transferrable. If your aunt dies and leaves you a computer, its warrantee is transferred to you... in most states it's actually illegal to have it not transfer. If you sign up for three years' prepaid DSL in a house of six college students, and then transfer after the first year, you can (I have) transfer the service over to somone else's name, as long as they're at the same address. If your car comes with 60,000 mile power train protection, it doesn't matter if your car was sold eleven times, you're still entitled to it. (Unless your car has been sold as a salvage vehicle.)
There are non-transferrable contracts, but those have to be scrutinized carefully. For example, the idea a non-transferrable *END-USER* software license has been invalidated by the courts a number of times. Right of first purchase comes with the right to transfer your license to anyone else. (Do you honestly think there would be any way of transferring licenses for MS software if this weren't the case? There is, as long as it wasn't an OEM copy of Windows... and even then you can transfer it as long as you sell the hardware in tandem.)
Here we have a software purchase agreement which is nontransferrable. It's just that this one is for a big company, and so MS can, perhaps, get away with it.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
"So, it sounds like Micro$oft has got you by the ball's eh. It's called a monopoly."
Nope, at least not in the example he used. The problem he described wasn't that the stuff wasn't unavailble, the problem was that it'd cost them money. The ability to move is there, he's not being prevented from switching platforms. His company was too reliant on one vendor.
This can easily happen whether the vendor is a monopoly or not.
I don't know why anybody would want to throw everything out overnight.
But haven't it occured to you that maybe just stop upgrading Windows and using Linux boxes when the hardware needs to be replaced is a viable alternative.
That's what I would do.
The other point is that contracts usually get judged solely on what's contained inside of them, unless there's fraud, illegality, mistake, mutual recission, and a few other exceptions. So if you want to know what you've gotten yourself into, then RTFC. There are no state or federal laws (with a few small exceptions) that force you to agree to certain things, so it's all in the contract. And you don't need a law degree to understand them, either. Most of the legalese is shorthand so that broad concepts don't have to take pages and pages of explanation. Get a law dictionary (don't use Black's if you're a novice- it explains legal terms with legal terms, get one that uses layperson definitions) and go through it yourself. It might not be pleasant, but you'll understand more than you think you will.
IAAL
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.
/. 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.
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
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.
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.)
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
In this case, you are proposing to them an alternate contract, which they must accept. Silence can never be a means of contract acceptance. For example, if you are sent a magazine without asking for it with the legal terminology "failure to cancel in 30 days will be construed as acceptance of a subscription and we will bill you," you can't legally be held to their billing request -- and in fact, by not answering you can continue to recieve the magazine for free.
Furthermore, if you sent the contract back to Microsoft, you couldn't use the software until you either recieved a reply or decided to agree to the EULA.
Sorry, but this post suffers from flawed legal reasoning: silence or the failure to respond cannot be considered legal acceptance of a contract. Check with any lawyer...
Statistically speaking, there's a 99.998% chance that my IQ is higher than yours. Get over it.
Run something else!
There arent that many killer apps not availiable on alternative OS any longer. On a average company you can come a long way with linux if you plan for linux from day one. Same with Apple albeit more expensive hardware is required. The only problem as i can see it is if a company is tailored to run on Microsoft software. With licenses like that it sure looks as if its is well worth the pain to migrate away to ABM.
Im sitting on a friends Windows right now and i feel it lacks a lot of things. The ONLY thing Windows has is more applications, as an OS it is just an empty shell.
HTTP/1.1 400