Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Judge Rules COA is Not Evidence of a License

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the need-more-than-that dept.

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'."

3 of 296 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Well, duh by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  2. Unwanted volume licences by Curmudgeonlyoldbloke · · Score: 3, Informative

    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
    > 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+ goes+on+sale/2100-1012_3-5944617.html

    http://www.openfree.org/opinion/?p=31

  3. Re:Implicit sadness by roystgnr · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.