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'."

Comments

Get lawyers on staff

[Trigun]

And maybe a notary as well. Some videographers would help out for all those business deals.

I think I'll go into the market of blood-filled pens. I think blood is still binding, but I am (thankfully) not a lawyer!

Re:Well, duh

[morgan_greywolf]

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.

Boiling down my understanding

[hanshotfirst]

The defence argued that if a large organisation, such as a bank, bought a large number of computers and never used the bundled Microsoft software and sold on the licences, that a company such as Digital could sell those licences, for which Microsoft had already been paid.

The judge rejected the argument. "The fallacy in the argument is that if the bank does not accept the EULA [licence] terms [by operating the software and agreeing the terms], it receives no licence. Thus it can confer no licence 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 licence. Thus, provided that the licensing system is enforceable in law, the circumstances exemplified cannot give rise to a legitimate trade in COAs."

I'm trying to get my head around this ruling. On one hand it makes sense, on the other hand it doesn't. My question: if the bank receives no license because it paid money but didn't accept the EULA, then what did it receive for the money it paid?
Possible answers I can come up with:
1. The bank bought a computer, and chose not to use some software bundled with it, the same as if I "bought" Norton Antivirus with a new computer but never used it because I choose to use AVG. Dell won't refund to me their cost of the Norton software just because I don't choose to use it. Arguable, but not overly evil.
2. The bank bought a computer which was probably loaded with an OEM "only for sale with a new computer" license for Windows. The license should travel with the hardware, then. Arguable, moderately evil because of the whole "only with a computer" distinction.
3. ???
4. The judge got it wrong, and the bank should be able to sell the unused license the same as if they bought too many office chairs and sold the ones they never used. Non-evil, but IANAL.
Thoughts?

What about using paper currency?

[rdmiller3]

Instead of reinventing the wheel, companies could use an existing "certificate" with built-in anti-counterfeit measures... common paper currency.

For example...

To complete your registration, label an ordinary envelope,
"WidgiCorp SuperApp Registration". Then choose a [US]$1.00 bill
and enter the full serial number from that bill: _________________
Press the "Register Now" button to send the serial number.

Put this bill into the envelope and store it with your copy of
the license agreement. This serial number will be added to a
publicly accessible list of registrations so that posession of
this bill will prove that you have licensed this software.

And there you have a counterfeit-resistant, anonymous, verifiable proof of registration.

Re:Dump Microsoft

[cyber-dragon.net]

We are in the same situation at my company. Management did an analysis of risk and TCO of running windows, which thanks to me included probability of getting sued by Microsoft, security etc and decided it was not a good business decision to stay with them. And yes, I gave a fair an impartial analysis and was realistic about training and maintenance times caused by the switch. Over the last year we have been slowly replacing all computers with either Linux for engineers or Macs for execs. Well, some of the engineers wanted Macs after the first couple came in too.

Bottom line... we have dropped IT costs in just machines and setup time by about 20k a year, and we are not a large company. It used to take one person an afternoon to set up two windows machines since they had to wipe and re-install to get rid of all the pre-installed crap. Then run bandwidth intensive updates, install and update virus software etc. We could not use an image as the hardware was always just enough different it did not work, but even if we did it would not reduce the time much as a lot if it is updates which need to be monitored.

With Linux we have an image we copy from CD onto the machine which has everything pre-done and bam, one machine out the door in 20-30 minutes (10 of which was getting it out of the box).

The Macs are just as easy... the only thing we install is Office (necessary evil for execs, they MUST have their powerpoint) and that is done via copying a folder and inputting a key. No complicated process. Hell it even picks up our wireless network during install (gigabit landline reserved for engineers) and considers it a native interface rather than a hack like Windows.

Now instead of spending 80% of my day troubleshooting Windows I spend maybe 15% on maintenance tasks and the rest adding value to the company by implementing new things like the VOIP phones that we can use thanks to the network not having so much unnecessary traffic on it, which incidentally is going to save us another $5k a year or so while we pay for the hardware and $10k a year after.

All made possible by dumping Microsoft Windows XP.