Slashdot Mirror
Used Microsoft Licenses For Sale
An anonymous reader writes "A secondhand dealer in Britain has been given the green light by Microsoft to resell software licenses from insolvent or downsizing companies, ZDNet is reporting. The reseller, Disclic, is legally allowed to sell the licenses at a discounted rate of between 20 percent to 50 percent, much lower than Microsoft's resellers. Partners of the software giant have expressed unhappiness over the issue as it undercuts their business. "I've never heard the like, and I am stunned," said Gordon Davies, the commercial director of Microsoft reseller Compusys. "This is clearly going to take away revenue from the channel and from Microsoft," he said."
I can't wait for the day I can buy "used" mp3s too!
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
The supply of these licenses is limited and must be labeled "used." Sure, CDs are CDs but it still is a different product. Competitors are free to negotiate a similar license, or even buy these cheap used copies from the reseller and resell them themselves at a tiny profit.
This situation makes me think of the whole (wrong) idea of predatory pricing. It doesn't exist. In 1904, Henry Dow exported bromine to Germany, to sell at a price far below the cartels. The cartels decided to drop their price below cost to destroy Dow's business. Dow bought their sub-cost Bromine and resold it to the German market at a hefty pricing.
This deal is good for budget-conscious consumers and will only be a blip for most resellers. There are numerous ways for them to compete. Whining to Microsoft is not an answer.
Disclic?
In a perfect world, isn't this how it should work anyway?
What's interesting is M$ is consenting to it???
Car makers have to compete against a huge used market and still survive (well except maybe GM).
This is a great idea, if everyone can make some money and in turn people save money form not having to buy full priced ones. Of course the resellers are worried, but there will be a limited supply, eventually companies will have to go back to them. And resellers will have the newest versions, which used licenses typically won't be for.
KeepTrackOfIt.com - Find the lowest gas prices in your area graphically
. . . a revised EULA in the next Fix Pack.
If, as TFA suggests, this is a loophole in the licensing agreements, a simple change to the already largely ignored EULA should adroitly close it.
Raoul Mitgong: Unhelpful.
Ford and Fiat enraged about this new "Used car" sales that are taking away their revenue!
I've got a couple of used Linux licenses knocking around if anyone wants one. At $349.50 that's 50% below the retail price! Offers to cheaplinux@mailinator.com
It's unlikely one second-hand dealer is going to change Microsofts fortunes whilst it might be beneficial to him it'd be hard to imagine enough 2nd hand licenses being found to come anywhere close to the ammount of new licenses required daily in terms of volume. "This is clearly going to take away revenue from the channel and from Microsoft," Yeah but how much? MS wouldnt've given the green light if they hadn't analyzed the situation and determined that it was very insignificant to them.
...Gordon Davies would be so "stunned" if he was a creditor owed money by a liquidated company. This is great news for creditors, because they've got more money in the pot to cover the debts owed.
And at the same time, people get cheap software. And I don't really think this will be taking business away from Microsoft resellers - the article doesn't mention it, but I assume this second-hand software won't come with any of the additional support bundled with new programmes.
Cheap, very cheap. Call today!
From the Wikipedia article on first sale:
District courts in California and Texas have issued decisions applying the doctrine of first sale for bundled computer software in Softman v. Adobe (2001) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000) even if the software contains a EULA prohibiting resale.
M$ can grumble all they want, but (at least for some of us) reselling Windows is a legal right regardless of the contents of the EULA.
I'm glad to see this come about. So maybe this is only OK'd in the UK, but is there anything preventing American companies from purchasing licenses abroad?
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
Usually you get a discount on used items because the item's value has decreased due to said use. Using a license for software does not degrade the quality or value of that software, so why should there be a discount for a used license? On the other hand, maybe you are taking a risk in that the license might still be in use by another guy (or leaked on the Internet) and the key or whatever will be deactived. I do find it really wierd that Microsoft gave this guy the go-ahead, though.
Gee thanks, Bill, for telling us what we're legally allowed to do with the product we bought from you.
Take your useless support and shove it. We bought the right to use your rotten code, we bought the right to resell it for whatever we can get. We're Americans you fascist SOB.
You may be the richest man on Earth, but you're still a lying, cheating, two-faced, fuckwad... And your mother drinks elderberry wine. You have earned the right to be first at the guillotine.
What I'm trying to say is FUCK YOU.
OMG.. I can use my windows Volume License KeyGen, make 10,000 keys and sell them at $1 each! with $10,000 I'll be a millionaire!! Though I just need to get that fancy burner MS uses to make the shiny art on the CDs.
God is real unless declared as int
...just like selling used food. Believe me, I've got plenty more where that came from.
There are countries where this practice has been perfectly legal, confirmed by courts, for example in Germany. A software license is no different than any other products. Trading used books for example has been done for centuries.p =8500
http://www.informationweek.de/cms/938.0.html?&scf
Partners of the software giant have expressed unhappiness over the issue as it undercuts their business.
"I don't like it because our competition is selling the product for less than we are. That will cut into our profits. How do people expect me to keep fuel in my Hummer and my Lear jet in the air? It's not fair!"
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
This is great for Microsoft.
It allows people who would have otherwise overlooked one of their products to pick it up cheap. Once their company is using it and begins to develop policy around it, they're now dependant on this product.
When the new version comes out, it's highly doubtful that there will be exactly the same amount of used licenses lying around and available to them. So they'll have to buy the new version at full price.
Microsoft's business strategy is most definitely NOT about keeping people from using their products. They WANT people to be using Microsoft anything at any cost. That's why they undercut. That's why they turn a mostly blind eye to piracy.
Ubiquity is their game.
it doesn't seem very MS like to give up possible licensing revenue.
i see several possibilities
1: ms thought this would end up being allowed by uk law whether they liked it or not and decided to do a deal before it wen't to court.
2: they wanted to hurt existing resellers who were being disloyal
3: they wanted to provide a kickback to someone.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
At hamfests you always could find someone with gobs of copies of just out of date and old MS apps and OS's with the magical license sticker or certificate for dirt. Hell last year at Dayton you could buy unmarked offbrand OEM XP pro licenses for $25.00 each that register just fine.
This is simply large scale with MS's blessing. Others have been doing it anyways and telling MS to f themselves for years.
I bought 4 copies to sell with laptops I rebuild/recondition. Microsoft would call me a pirate/evil person but I really dont give a rats ass what they think. They register, validate perfectly and have the magical feel-good sticker with install key. That's all I care about and that is also all the people I sell the laptops to care about.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
They are reselling these licenses with Microsoft's blessings... they aren't grumbling.
-everphilski-
Could this be an indicator that even MSFT sees the marketshare writing on the wall?
To quote from your link at:c le.asp?ID=486
http://www.educationreport.org/depts/ecodevo/arti
In such cases, some economists distinguish between "bad" and "good" monopolies. A "bad" monopoly is a firm or cartel that restricts output of a particular product in order to raise prices. Consumers are worse off because they must either pay the high price or go without; the firm or cartel is better off because it earns greater profits. A "good" monopoly is a firm that earns its largebut not exclusivemarket share by lowering prices, improving quality, and expanding its output to better satisfy consumer demand. Consumers are better off because they get higher quality products at lower prices, and the firm is better off because its profits are a reward for "building a better mousetrap."
The evidence supports the "good" monopoly view of Microsoft. Its large market share is due mainly to its improvements in quality, reductions in price, and customer satisfaction: precisely the type of competitive innovation the antitrust warriors should encourage and not prosecute.
You must be new here. Thanks. That was hilarious!
Software has been (legitimately and legally) bought and sold on e-bay for some time now. Does anyone think that a few more Windows 2000 users is bad news for Microsoft or its resellers? It's just another way of increasing the potential market for the next version (not counting those of us that know that newer!=better).
IIRC pretty much all standard M$'s EULAs are very specific about non-transferability (well, this is a standard feature in most EULAs, not just M$'s). Does this mean that they acknowledge the non-enforceability of this clause ? (I'm really curious to know, perhaps somebody with IP law background can help me).
The Raven
Here is the link to the Disclic Ltd website...
w _software/
URL: http://www.discount-licensing.com/
There is also a more in-depth article on the topic here:
URL: http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2005/11/10/outla
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
It is often said that windows' largest competitor is their older OS's. If businesses could resale their Win 2000 licenses, they might be a little more interested in upgrading to Vista.
Furthermore, these "used" licenses would allow MS to compete with other low cost operating systems. Granted, MS would not make anything of the sale, but since they will be making mad money lute from their future subscription services, they should be able to maintain a profit...maybe
When it gets down to it, couldn't vulnerabilities be analogous to dents and dings (or major engine trouble)? I know my Win2000 server keeps hanging on Microsoft's recent DirectX v9 patch, if that's not the same as a thrown rod, I donno what is (sure, she still runs, but you're only going to get more damage until it gets "repaired")!
"1984" was ment to be a warning, not a guidebook. You hear that Kim Jong-il!? BushCo?!
That's bound to be a boom. Because everybody knows, nothing holds value like an old Microsoft distribution! Yes, I'm sure IT professionals nationwide are dying to get ahold of Windows 95 disks - still loading as good as the day they were sold!
You might want to distinguish between the howls of complaint from any business when foreign manufacturers sell goods cheaper than the business can themselves produce and the real concept of predatory pricing.
Predatory pricing does exist and is effective in the right circumstances to protect a monopoly and enhance profits. Thinly veiled trade protectionism also exists. Don't confuse the two - even if people sometimes try to talk about trade issues as predatory pricing.
In particular, predatory pricing can be a very useful tactic for a monopolist in network industries - such as those that Microsoft dominates.
This is just a smart tactic to create lockin and ensure future revenue.
In a few years software will either be rented e.g. a service, or made useless without the "free" support that ONLY goes to the first person to install it.
You'll still be able to sell your never-installed copy of MS-Windows-2029, but once you've installed it good luck selling it - Microsoft will find a way to not support the 2nd user unless they ante up.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
"I've never heard the like, and I am stunned," said Gordon Davies, the commercial director of Microsoft reseller Compusys. "This is clearly going to take away revenue from the channel and from Microsoft," he said.
And there you have another problem when you deal with a monopoly. We know it's bad for software, but it's also bad for business. One entity makes the rules - there is no appeal, and no other supplier if you disagree.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
The reseller, Disclic, is legally allowed to sell the licenses at a discounted rate of between 20 percent to 50 percent, much lower than Microsoft's resellers.
That's why they're so cheap. They lick all of the discs before mailing them to you.
I totally agree that treselling used licences of MS is OK. It is logical and right. If you buy a licence for a Windows OS, no reason this licence can't be resold under the same terms...
However, it is important to note that licence is not a simple product like a TV screen or a fruit.
Here are three reasons:
1. Lets say a licence was bought discounted as part of a non-profit or educational licence pack (schools, universities, organizations..). Such a licence should not be resold to a business entity or a private user.
2. A licence bares commitments by the client, more than most products. For example, you are not allowed to share the product freely, or copy it. (maybe not only because of licencing issues but also because of such). In some cases, a licence allows the use of a product only to a specific person, or under specific terms (specific hardware, environment). For example, not allowing the use of a product by non-development personnel. Not allowing the use of a product on a multiple CPU computers, etc...
3. Partly like #2, licencing sometimes are regional. Some people suggest that if its allowed in the UK for now, it should be open to international trade as well. Well.. not necessarily. For example, some licences are regional. Sometimes for good reason (allowing 3rd world countries the use of software that is very expensive for them if they had to buy it in other countries). OR limits of technology/security export. Sometimes cross-border trading has to be limited. That is true - noone likes to be limited, but sometimes there might be a good reason to accept such limitation
Can't think of any other differences for now, but those two demonstrate in my opinion why there are some differences with licencing.
With that said, reselling of a licence under the same obligations/terms as the original purchase is something I think is very right and just and should be implemented world-wide.
Just my 2 cents.
"From the moment I could talk, I was ordered to listen" - Cat Stevens
All your revenue are belong to Microsoft- apparently.
Actually, as bizarre as this might sound, I think Microsoft's reasoning behind this has to do with their position regarding Intellectual Property. They don't really stand to lose anything backing a company that is selling licenses to something intangible as if it were tangible, material property. Microsoft--and most big companies concerned about IP rights--knows full well that by throwing their weight behind something that can push intangible goods closer to the boundary of "real" property, society and, eventually, the courts will side with them.
While this seems like a Good Thing (tm), I am suspicious of the software giant's motives. Microsoft certainly stands to gain a lot by having your average Joe User think of software as something synonymous with real property. Ultimately, I think that this move could have potential ramifications for software-as-speech. We all know that Microsoft really wants software to be treated like any other tangible property, and certainly something as trivial as a license seems insignificant--it might even seem like the right thing to do. A license is property, after all, but the idea is a bit bigger than that. Perhaps I'm a cynic, but it seems odd to me that Microsoft would support something like this--unless they see a strong legal benefit in the near future, particularly by set precedence...
He who has no
Apparently you've been here for a long enough time to forget how many people out there would choose Windows over OS X, GNOME, KDE, Black Box, Enlightenment, etc.
Microsoft's products seem to be better quality (I can't remember the last time XP crashed on me), it is certainly cheaper than it used to be (I can remember shelling out more for MS-DOS than Windows XP Home can be bought for), and most people are perfectly happy to use it.
That story is cool, but it does not apply to all cases of predatory pricing. It only worked because the cartel was charging different prices in different countries. In this age, the only situations where that happens it is backed by law preventing someone like Dow from doing what he did.
When a large company prices below the market value (be it in the world market or a walled off local market), and they have deep enough pockets to take a small loss, then there is nothing that the small companies can do about it. They can't buy up the product and resell it, as it will still be more expensive than the original. Predatory pricing does exist, and a single anicdote does not dispel that fact.
He's "stunned"
Well, according to Microsoft, it's within the parameters of the license agreement and MS has OK'ed the selling. So Davies is just pissed off because somebody can undercut him. Booo hoo.
What??? You mean the guy in Kazakhstan selling me licenses of MS products on eBay isn't endorsed by Microsoft.
Those partners aready got paid for that copy. Since that used one is being sold and no copies are on the market, no new revenue belongs to the partners. Deal with it. The books balance.
Compusys? Compusies? There's a porn joke in there somewhere.
Man, I'd never buy a used MP3 - you never know what you're gonna get. If the previous owner(s) didn't take care of it, it might be all scratched.
Unless it was a rare classic, then I might buy it.
Quote:
"I've never heard the like, and I am stunned," said Gordon Davies, the commercial director of Microsoft reseller Compusys. "This is clearly going to take away revenue from the channel and from Microsoft," he said."
Ok I see this taking money from the reselling partners..
However Microsoft will be seeing $$$ signs.. Why well those extra licenses will end up on computers that likely have no more support. Therefore Microsoft stands to make a Significant amount of money at 200-250 per occurrence.
If I was a reseller I'd want a share of those profits. (Pun on Riaa)
sorry, i know it's licenses and not mattresses (but imagine!)
OK, this may be flamebait, but here goes. What's up with this page?? Does anyone else notice that the headers are the same color as the comments in Firefox? WTF? Also this so called Disclic company? Where Who? I'm from the generation that knows if Google can't find it... it doesn't exist.... :)
believing the big bang requires a certain amount of supernatural faith
It'd give a whole new meaning to the term "download manager."
This is clearly going to take away revenue from the channel and from Microsoft
I feel the same way about that statement that I would when a multi-millionaire complains about losing $10000. Yeah, yeah, this might affect others, but he needs to be more specific or the response is likely to be "pffft, why should I care? They're fantastically rich anyway!"
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
WTF? Who cares?
Hasn't this been done before? It's usually the resell of a PC/Server complete with restore disks(hopefully already applied). That would include OS and bundled software right?
You've still bought an outmoded system. Where does this go without server or workstation hardware. Last I heard it's fairly difficult to get any kind of decent new hardware without bundled OEM licenses from guess who? MS. So if this transaction didn't include hardware, how is this cool?
Hey guys I've just obtained 20 NT4 server licenses with 300 CALs! Lets fire up our new dual processor/ 4Gig RAM/ 5 blade dual processor 2TB fiber channel storage server with $70,000 worth of VMWare and get down to business. bah!
Buying outdated server hardware and software is a fools game.
This could indicate however, the upcoming buyer's market for software?
but would that additional support include user support, or stuff like live updates, free upgrades, and so on? because not including an upgrade service or security patches would be a significant disadvantage for some kinds of software--and a major disincentive to buy it secondhand--but retail versions of large suites like Windows or Officious don't really come with discounts on major version upgrades anyway.
...a bit prohibitive if you ask me.
in order to make retail licenses significantly more appealing than secondhand, a developer'd have to up the services they provide with the original licenses, nerf the secondhand-license services, and on top of all that, somehow keep track of which is which.
but this is slashdot, so to hell with retail software anyway. VIVA LA OPEN SOURCE REVOLUCION!
/. is what happens when geeks talk. get used to it.
Doesn't this mean that we are allowed to sell our old licenses? If you upgrade a bunch of machines to XP from Windows 2000, and you buy full licences of XP, wouldn't you be allowed to sell the windows 2000 copies? Are they going to be using the license on the same machine? Surely this means that I can transfer my Windows XP Pro to the new machine if my old machine is no longer going to have an OS on it? Is this going to work in the US as well? What about Canada? Does it set a precedent I wonder?
Mean what you say...say what you mean.
"...and most people are perfectly happy to use it."
And most people are morons that get it preinstalled and know no better. That is because Microsoft is a monopoly. And just like the crack dealer on the corner, they know that once you get them hooked they hardly ever get free!
B.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
Uh.. The main reasons people pick Windows over alternatives mainly has to do either with the fact that Windows is normally preinstalled and most don't have the knowledge to install something else, or compatibility with programs. Neither of those have *anything* to do with the quality of Windows.
I am not an economist, but doesn't a secondary market for a product (i.e. being able to sell your car used) have a positive impact on first-time sales?
Windows 95 is no longer sufficiently popular to attract the virus writers.
Alright... So Windows is crack and Windows users are just stupid crackheads?
There are probably others.
Companies don't just walk away from revenue.
If licensing revenue is no longer such a priority for MS be assured another source of revenue will be replacing it. I would guess MS will be dropping licenses completely in favor of subscription access to hosted applications.
As someone who just recently tried to figure out the license mess of using Remote Desktop on Win 2003, I think the expensive license mess is going to be one of the things that makes MS look like crap and Linux come out smelling like roses.
I figure a) the biggest majority of people are in violation on their licenses for the use of software through Remote Desktop, or b) they want to stay legal but then find out how expensive everything is and don't do it at all.
At some point, you start thinking if Linux had similar terminal services and the apps that business people needed, oh for the love of God how much easier it would be to not have to worry about the 14 different types of licenses you need ON TOP OF the 5 CALs that you thought were all you needed when you started looking at $600.00 - $800.00 copy of Win 2003 Server with 5 CALs.
Do you know, if you bypass terminal services/citrix all together and use WinConnect Server XP (remote desktop for WinXP Pro), that if you had five WinConnect CALs, you are legally required by Microsoft to have a licenses for each person accessing XP remotely...plus the licenses for the software the people use.
Way back in the day, I ran a Wildcat BBS. Can you imagine what would have happened to the BBS scene if MS thought they could make BBSs have a DOS license for each person accessing a computer remotely? People would have thought they were freaking nuts.
Anyway, if there was good accounting software for Linux and good terminal services to use it remotely, it would kill MS in the small business market.
Usurper_ii.
Ron Paul
I used to buy used copies of software so I could send in the manual cover or an install disc and get the upgrade price. Though that's probably not a much offered route anymore, consider how this can mean potential upgrade business down the road. If a company buys six licenses of an older version of SQL or even Windows, especially a small organization, they could potentially upgrade to the 'full' version for 1/2 the price of the new software. I'm not sure what the pricing works out to, but this could be a very smart move on MS's part to generate upgrade customers who would otherwise not own the product in the first place.
The Luddites were ahead of their time.
For already such great price you can buy genuine high quality Microsoft software, I refuse and protest MS allowing to sell 2nd hand!!! Gees, I'd rather pay 20% MORE to stop them doing this!!!
I don't think you understand how the Microsoft Channel Provider system works. The largest part of that channel and collectively the largest retailer of Microsoft software is the humble mom and pop store. The big sellers get huge discounts while the small shops pay something very close to retail and manage to sell $400 software packages. The times are changing, it seems and Microsoft is slapping them in the face.
Historically, Microsoft pushed their software through the likes of Dell but supported it through a network of local shops. There is no real way for the "majors" to service all of the stuff they sell outside of contracting local firms to send to large businesses. Dell has no physical presence and people like Gateway who tried that lived to regret it. Places like ComUSA are a joke. Fixing M$ bugs and "making it work" in the real world has and still falls on everyone else. The dirty work of saving data files, wiping and reloading windoze has always gone to family members or local shops. It is there, at the local shop that people pay $99 for the retail version of Windoze because they lost or never had their "original" CD and don't want to buy a new computer.
Shaking up the channel network is the biggest change M$ has made to it's business model since dumping VB. I imagine they realize they won't be able to sell $400 packages which contain little more than a productivity suite and email client with a spell checker. They might also realize that computers are so cheap, people will just buy new ones (Good for me but not Earth friendly!) The local mom and pop store already makes next to nothing by selling the software and most of it on servicing it. This, however, will make them look like fools or thieves. Worse, it will legitimize those horrible spammers who sell pirated Windoze and further disintegrate what's left of the chain of trust that starts at Redmond and ends at the local store. It's a kick in the teeth to people who have already been treated poorly.
Microsoft is really a company whose business model ran out of steam and is flailing for a new one. Outside of the DRM lockdown nightmare world of "Trusted Computing" they have none. Free software now does everything M$ can and more better than M$. Good bye and good riddance.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
***mart in small town areas. Happens a lot and is quite researchable. They come in with a new store and it is tremendously cheaper than all the local mom and pops. After these stores have been driven into bankruptcy, ***mart puts their prices back up to their normal range. I have an aquaintance was in the home appliance business for 30 years that this happened to. His wholesalers, who also supply ***mart, would not sell him one single unit cheaper than what the new ***mart had them for retail. In fact, they were trying to charge him a wholesale dealer price of around ten to fifteen dollars more a unit. This happened exactly as the new store opened, their prices super low, he all of a sudden can't get normal wholesale prices or even any parity. Fairly coincidental timing. Granted, his inventory was small, but taken as a national collective, all the little independents added up had a hefty share at one time, tens of thousands have now been driven out of business. It takes them a year or two to destroy local stores, then they up the prices, business by business. You can search for the ***mart effect and how they manipulate prices locally, the info is out there, it is (apparently) standard operating practice with them across the country.
Anyway, if you are looking for other examples, the term is dumping, easy enough to find other examples.
One of the more interesting angles now, not dumping per se but close, a variation, is with counterfeit goods. Very hard to compete when your competitor has no need for R & D or market research or anything like that. In the news this week, the korean electronic manufacturers have completely given up trying to stop their wares being produced illegally in china, they realise the global fix is in. It is no wonder ***mart is such great biz partners with them, birds of a feather....
More like grapes and tomatoes, but what do I know? I just proved you wrong and you choose to focus on nonsense. Win98 = Antiquated OS. NT4 = Antiquated OS. How bout you burn some karma AC and show your face.
"1984" was ment to be a warning, not a guidebook. You hear that Kim Jong-il!? BushCo?!
..... Ballmer throw a chair across the room. After all, much of the revenue stream of M$ is based their ability to sell new and renewal licenses. I wonder how long it will take M$ to try and kill this idea off?
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
I have a new laptop I bought recently that included a bundled Windows XP Home. It's a dedicated Linux box now, and I honestly have no use for Windows on the machine. Maybe sometime in the near future, I can resell the license and get my money back for something I never used?
I plan on buying a new computer pretty soon.
Does this mean after I install Linux, I can sell the Windows shit^H^H^H^Humm^H^H^Hsh*t and recoup about 1/5 of the price of the computer?
Maybe it is about accounting rules. It could be that the software can only go on the books as an asset if it can be resold.
Religion is the main cause of atheism.
Most computer users don't even know that anything besides Windows exists. Given a choice between a Windows, Mac, and Linux computer (Assuming the customer was educated in the advantages/disadvantages of all three, software support was the same, and the proper drivers were available on all systems), I highly doubt anyone would pick Windows. Just purchasing Windows isn't enough; you also must buy Anti-Spyware, Anti-Virus, and Firewall software so your computer doesn't become a zombie overnight. Windows' interface pales in comparison to Macs', and the majority of Linux distros (Most Linux disto's I've seen use either Gnome or KDE; both of which are much more responsive than the Windows GUI, and support virtual desktops)
Since when are Microsoft's products reliable? Although they deserve much credit from drastically cutting down the number of crashes since Windows 9X; I've experianced many more problems with Windows than any other operating system. Besides the constant restarts (You installed a security update? Restart! You changed a non-major setting? Restart!), the GUI feels very unpolished. For example, the drop-down list in the address bar seems to take a surprisingly long amount of time to load, regardless of computer speed.
it is scratched....
I dual boot XP and Ubuntu, so obviously I do "know better," but I still use Windows primarily. It's more stable, has more programs available, and it's easier for me to set it up how I like it. At this point I COULD switch to linux as my primary OS, but I really have no inclination to since it's a noticably less mature product. I support the open source movement all the way, and use quite a bit of open source software even in Windows, but I'm not about to call everyone who uses commercial software a moron or a crackhead.
Absolutly nothing. Microsoft doesn't care much about the lost revenue on the sale. They're looking at the big picture:
You know the drill: IANAL, but I am a law student. Also, I view EULAs to be legal abominations that should not be enforced by state or federal courts for a number of policy reasons.
reselling Windows is a legal right regardless of the contents of the EULA
No. Reselling Windows is explicitly a legal right regardless of the contents of the EULA in those jurisdictions that have ruled so. A federal district court decision is binding only in that district. A district may be anywhere from a fourth to a whole of a state. California and Texas both have four districts, so based solely on your referenced decisions this behavior is explicilty allowed, as a matter of law, only in those parts of those states.
And even then, it's not a given. I'd have to read the opinions (don't have time now), but if the judges actually relied on federal law (copyright right of first sale) as opposed to sitting in diversity and applying state contract law (which EULAs tend to fall under), then it would be binding. If the courts relied on state contract law, then the decision isn't even binding on those state courts that fall within the district. It does, however, remain persuasive ("persuasive" being a term of art.) Also, sister districts within a state tend to look at each other as very persuasive.
As a quick refresher, federal district court decisions relying on federal law are binding on state and federal courts in those same districts. Federal circuit courts relying on federal law are binding on state and federal courts in those same circuits (which cover multiple states). Federal supreme court decisions relying on federal law are binding on state and federal courts throughout the nation. If any federal court sits in diversity and relies on state law, then the decision is only persuasive, and is less persuasive outside of the federal court's jurisdiction.
- Neil Wehneman
My legal education, in nifty podcast format
And you're conveniently ignoring evidence of Microsoft's anti-competative behavior that came out during the infamous trial. The actual quality of Microsoft products is a good point - but it was hardly the entire argument (especially since not everything Microsoft does is actually 'good' - but perhapse more than it's toughest critics would admit).
I don't know how far your circle of friends and aquaintenances go, but I would suspect for every person you could name that specifically chooses Windows I can name someone else who would rather use one of the choices you listed or someone who really doesn't care one way or the other.
And there's the problem. Those who would use something else if given the choice often do not have the choice due to the behavior of Microsoft. And because of that, it's hard to tell exactly how many people WOULD really choose Windows over any other given alternative (or how many alternatives there really would be if the market hadn't been affected the way it has been).
The kicker is that Microsoft could probably compete entirely on the quality of its technology. But that would require a major change in Microsoft - a remixing of its culture to put technology back in control over marketing. And it would lead to a rougher time for Microsoft. It's much easier when you can dictate the direction of an industry. Just ask IBM.
With any luck... Microsoft will become the next IBM. The IBM of today. And we'll have true competition. And you'll be able to stick with your Windows and I'll stick with my Linux... and it won't matter. Except to those who have a stake in the current status quo.
law > contract
if i buy it, i should be able to give/sell it when i no longer want it. this reminds me of when garth brooks said he was going to boycott record stores that sell used cds. talk about greedy.
...it ticcles!
If I buy an old computer that has already had Windows 98 installed on it -- just do a quick wipe and reload of the base OS, and I shouldn't have to pay for the OS. It was already purchased for that computer anyways.
Why in the hell should it be purchased AGAIN?!
I'm not paying again to use the RAM in the computer. Or anything else.
And corporations wonder why people turn to piracy...
"Congratulations, Boots. Your robot has become self-aware. You're a daddy now." -- Dr. Rho Bowman
"A German appeal court has ruled that Microsoft can't stop dealers selling software it intends should ship only with new PCs separately."
So, in Germany, it's allowed to re-sell OEM licenses and basically de-couple them from a computer. More about this here (German). A press release from the court (German) about the case can be found here
There also is a German online shop, 2ndsoft, that offers used windows licenses.
You probably have an OEM copy which is tied to the machine. I remember something about a refund, but good luck going after it. You can't resell it, either.
Oh boo hoo that this practice may take away from Microsloths profits, now Bill Gates and his cronies will have to cut back and only buy diamonique slippers instead of the real deal.... You'd have to sell me a discounted Microsloth product, I wouldn't pay full price for the privilege of running a viral petri dish on my computer!
These licenses are already paid for. Micro$oft is just looking to capture revenue from companies that are using old software, want to get legal and don't want to buy new licenses.
Go here and read the article: http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2005/11/10/outlaw _software/
Notice the following: "It excludes operating system licences, such as those of Windows XP, because of transfer restrictions in these licences; but popular applications like Office XP and server-based software like Windows Server 2000 are available."