Slashdot Mirror
UK Judge Rules COA is Not Evidence of a License
blane.bramble writes "In a ruling against a company selling counterfeit and genuine licenses, a UK judge seems to have ruled that the Certificate of Authenticity is not itself sufficient proof of license possession. This could have major ramifications for UK businesses that consider keeping the COA as proof of being licensed. The quote in question is 'Thus it can confer no license for the use of any Microsoft software by passing on the COA (certificate of authenticity), nor can the COA be evidence of, or itself confer, such a license'."
Because Microsoft itself seems to imply that the COA will be your guarantee that you are using a non-pirated version of Windows. If you want to make sure that your software is licensed properly and not pirated, you need to check your COA, according to Microsoft.
My blog
The concept of a Licence to Use is firmly, unquestionably, established both in UK and US legal jurisdictions and is the basis on which ALL software is licensed including under the GPL.
That is what you buy when you buy software from anyone, the Right to Use the software. The obvious exception to this rule would be if you purchased the Copyright itself.
This has always been the case in the US. You need a receipt of purchase to prove licensing, not a COA or the original box or the CDs. Proof of purchase only.
I'm not sure that the statement at the end
... unwanted volume licences for some Microsoft software can be transferred; but this trade must be compliant
+ goes+on+sale/2100-1012_3-5944617.html
>
> with Microsoft's own transfer terms and conditions.
is entirely correct - it's a "feature" of UK insolvency laws. See here:
http://news.com.com/Secondhand+Microsoft+software
http://www.openfree.org/opinion/?p=31
There is a very big difference between software licenses and software entitlements. Just becuase you purchased a piece of software in the past, does not mean that you are legally entitled to use it in the present. Buying upgrades may supercede your rights to use lower versions, failure to pay maintenance may invalidate your entitlements, etc. The way to determine what you are entitled to use today is to comb through your software purchase records with the goal of aggregating all of that data into a single report showing you what you are entitled to use. There is an entire industry niche, usually involving large teams of consultants or very specialized software, dedicated to doing just this. The other side of the equation is to determine the inventory you have deployed in the field. By providing an auditor with: a) A single report showing all of your software entitlements and b) A single report showing your inventory in the field, you get: c) A single report showing where you are overlicensed / underlicensed. If you show auditors that you are in such strong control of your licensing environment, then they will probably leave you alone and conclude that it isn't worth the cost to them to perform a full audit on you for the possibility of levying some license violation fees. The other way around the problem with audits is to overpurchase by a safe margin to reduce your risk of being slammed with license violation penalties. "I have 10,000 employees in my company, I bought 12,000 licenses to be safe" is also another line that auditors will accept. In that case, the auditors will also probably leave you alone, concluding that it isn't worth the cost to them to perform a full audit (and the fact that they already made their money off you when you overpurhcased your licenses by 20%).
I just took a look at the COA for XP Home on the bottom of my Lenovo laptop. It actually has the words "Proof of License" printed on it, along the left edge, directly above the words "Certificate of Authenticity".
However, it also has "Label not to be sold separately" printed along the right edge.
This is in the US, though. Maybe they print different labels for the UK market.
That is what you buy when you buy software from anyone, the Right to Use the software.
No, you buy a copy of the software. The right to use that copy is implicit; nowhere does copyright law restrict that right to copyright holders, and it's as fundamental as the right to read a legally purchased copy of a book. Software companies originally tried to use a "you can't use our software without making a copy in RAM, so you need a license!" argument, but in the USA at least that was made explicitly legal in Title 17 a. 1. 117.
Of course, this is assuming that you walk into a store, pick out some software, hand them some money, and don't sign anything except a credit card receipt. If you buy anything by specifically agreeing to a license beforehand, then certainly the license terms apply.
For much of their stuff, they consider that a license is invalidated by "transferring" it to another user and you'll have to repurchase it again, even if you have all the media. I found that out when trying to get some SGI software off Ebay.
That's a common misconception. I just had to deal with this situation, buying Dell PCs with Windows XP OEM licenses, but wanting to install the corporate/volume edition. I talked to my Dell rep and MS allows us to buy 1 corporate edition license and use it on all the systems as long as we continue to buy them with the OEM licenses.
I wanted to make sure so I talked to the MS licensing rep at Dell and they confirmed this is do-able. Actually you have to buy 5 CALs and 1 media CD of volume edition, but only because that's the minimim. You don't have to pay twice for a Windows license.
Now I've heard that Microsoft will eliminate the volume license key with Vista. That won't go over well with me. I don't have time to find and type in a unique key for every damn PC I setup. We're a big company with few IT staff.
And? When I buy a book I get a receipt of purchase from Barnes & Noble, not from O'Reilly and Associates.
The MSO is not a receipt of purchase. It's exactly what it claims to be, a statement of origin. "This car came directly from us." It's essentially a title to the vehicle.
When title in a car (or, say, a house) is transferred, the state wants to make sure that the previous title is gone. Otherwise two or more people could have titles and claim ownership. So to apply for title you typically need to turn in the old title. If you buy a car from me, I sign my title and give it to you. you go to the DMV and turn in my old title. The DMV issues you a new title.
Essentially the MSO is the original title for a vehicle. It gets sent to the state so the state is free to issue you the real title.
Your theory also fails if you get your auto loan from someone other than your auto dealer (as I did). In that case the dealer transferred the title to my credit union. At that point the MSO was gone and the credit union had a title. When I paid off the car they told the state (and turned in their title) and the state issued me a new title in my name.
If you have the title (in your name) to your car you own your car.
This will go down in practice about as well as attempts to not pay income tax. You'll get the occasional lucky people who manages to find a weird loophole or sloppy prosecutor, be most people trying this stunt will lose in court. Reasonable, non-discriminatory licensing of vehicles is no more infringing on your right to travel than licensing of broadcast airwaves infringes your right to free speech.
Search 2010 Gen Con events