Microsoft Software for Sale, Slightly Used

Alsee writes "The Register reports that recent UK business Discount-Licensing.com has been having booming growth reselling pre-owned Microsoft software licenses 20-50% below retail, after spotting the opportunity in Microsoft's licensing terms and Britain's insolvency laws for insolvent and downsizing businesses. Sorry, no discount personal OS resales, corporate bulk resales only."

Comments

This is legal in the US too

[Anonymous Coward]

This is legal in the US too. And protected under the "Doctrine of First Sale", much as the software companies would like it didn't exist.

"US copyright case law supports that consumers cannot make copies of computer programs contrary to a license, but may resell what they own."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

"Software publishers claim the first-sale doctrine does not apply because software is licensed, not sold, under the terms of an End User License Agreement (EULA)."

but if it's licensed then one should be allowed to make backups of the disc or receive a replacement disc if the disc gets lost or damaged. Software companies will argue either way where it suits them.

they can't have the cake and eat it. It's either or

Re:Here's how they will "fix" this

[ajs318]

So if the license says you can't transfer it, you can still transfer it?

Yes, because the Law of the Land says you may transfer a licence -- and rights given to you by the Law of the Land cannot be denied to you by entering into a contract. That's what the magic words "Your statutory rights are not affected" mean. It's also the reason why EULAs have a severability clause; that's the bit that says if any provision is found not to be applicable it shall not prejudice any other provision.

Does that mean that if it says you can't install the software multiply that you may indeed install it as many times as you want?

No, because the Law of the Land does not say you may install it as many times as you want. Though, you might argue in court that this constituted Fair Dealing {a deliberately ambiguous term: it is for the courts to decide what does or does not constitute fair dealing}. If you were successful, you would set a precedent.

Does it mean that licenses are completely worthless to the licensor?

Pretty much so, yes.

Are you a lawyer?

No, but I know my rights.

Re:What a crazy idea!

[hey!]

What a crazy idea - the thought that you actually can do what you want with something you purchased.

Well, it would be, if Microsoft sold sofware.

Which they don't.

Whether you think i's a good idea for society or not, they sell licenses. A license by its very nature is more ambiguous than ownership, because it is, at its heart, an agreed upon, ungoing relationship between the licensee and licensor.

So, what is going on here is something a bit extraordinary. It's saying that licensees have in certain cirumstances the ability to transfer their relationship with the licensor to a third party, without the licensor's consent.