Vista's EULA Product Activation Worries

applejax writes "SecurityFocus is running an article regarding some concerns about Vista's activation terms. Do you have the right to use properly purchased but not validated software? What happens if Microsoft deactivates your OS that was legally purchased? The article goes into some detail about Vista's validation and concerns." From the article: "The terms of the Vista EULA, like the current EULA related to the 'Windows Genuine Advantage,' allows Microsoft to unilaterally decide that you have breached the terms of the agreement, and they can essentially disable the software, and possibly deny you access to critical files on your computer without benefit of proof, hearing, testimony or judicial intervention. In fact, if Microsoft is wrong, and your software is, in fact, properly licensed, you probably will be forced to buy a license to another copy of the operating system from Microsoft just to be able to get access to your files, and then you can sue Microsoft for the original license fee."

Comments

Re:Could this be illegal?

[b0s0z0ku]

Microsoft has broken the law before, and been found guilty. Nothing substantial happened.

MS has never tried something like *this* before. If they deactivate, they're probably overstepping some hitherto invisible line. Just wait until some gov't agency's or some Federal judge's copies of Windows get deactivated. I think that using extortionate tactics like this will get MS into some deep legal shite.

-b.

Re:They said the same thing about XP.

[mochan_s]

This is almost word for word what the fear mongers where saying about XP. Yes software activation is a pain.

Not. It is not.

Even if you run a non-genuine version of XP, Microsoft cannot turn off your XP. They will deny will some updates in the Microsoft Update but not deny you access to your computer.

RTFA

[Silver Sloth]

From TFA

The UCITA also provides a procedure for "electronic self-help" - that is, the termination of access or use of the software without a court order. The first thing to note is that, in Maryland at least, the law expressly notes that, "electronic self-help is prohibited in mass-market transactions." Microsoft's EULA is undoubtedly a mass-market transaction, and therefore Microsoft may be prohibited from exercising self-help in Maryland. Moreover, even in non mass-market transactions, before you can resort to self-help, the contract must provide notice that self help will be used, who will be told about the exercise of self help, and provide other notice. The Maryland law also provides that "electronic self-help may not be used if the licensor has reason to know that its use will result in substantial injury or harm to the public health or safety or grave harm to the public interest substantially affecting third persons not involved in the dispute."

This is just a short extract. TFA is quite clear that in Maryland and Washington there may well be situations where M$ have opened themselves up to punative damages. IANAL - but the guy who wrote the article is.

Re:O rly?

[CodeBuster]

They can say whatever they want in the EULA, but what they can actually enforce in court is another matter entirely. It is not possible to use contract law to abrogate other laws which have higher precedence and grant rights in the legal systems of the United States many other countries. Also, it is the responsibility of the company to enforce their license terms in civil court, so unless you are engaging in large scale criminal infringement you can violate the EULA all you want and nothing is likely to happen. Microsoft knows this and that is why they have begun to implement technical measures to enforce their contracts outside of the court systems.

Re:because it doesn't

[mrsbrisby]

But you have to remember: You are not buying a complete OS X for generic hardware, you are buying an UPGRADE for APPLE hardware. The license restricts you to that, and Apple is VERY clear about it. It really doesn't matter what you want to do - Apple does not sell a license for toasters. If you however want to shread your copy of OS X, you are free to do so.

Who cares what Apple thinks? I didn't sign anything, and no one can take away my rights by ``license'' unless I sign something. US Courts were very clear about this in Vault v. Quaid, 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988).

Not only am I legally allowed to install Mac OS X on my toaster, I can give people patches that let other people install it on their toasters: See Galoob v. Nintendo, 780 F. Supp 1283 (N.D. Cal. 1991).

The bottom line is that you can't compare OS X with Vista in this way because the two companies have very different business models. One is a software company that sells some hardware, the other a hardware company that sells some software for that hardware. With Apple, it's very clear that you are buying the Apple experience from top to bottom. You don't get that with Microsoft.

No, that was very clear that you were buying that.

The very first thing I did with My mac-mini was install Linux on it. I then proceeded to install Mac OS X Panther (obtained via a broken 166mhz iMac) and Tiger on top of it using MOL. Apple can forbid me to do this all they like, it still isn't illegal, and still shouldn't be.

The problem is that laws change. They change simply by having enough people believe that they already have (Just ask OJ "if he did it"), and right now, you believe the law has changed.

Once you believe all they have to do is worm some text into a thousand line document that was at least partially on the screen when you clicked a button, you've had that meeting of the minds they're always talking about, and suddenly, that law actually does apply to you.

Yes Virginia, the solution really is that simple: Ignore that EULA. Click I accept but do not read it. Know that it is false and unenforcable and lies, and you will be safe.