Vista's EULA Product Activation Worries: Mark Rasch looks at the license agreement for Windows Vista and how its product activation component, which can disable operation of the computer, may be like walking on thin ice.
The terms of Microsoft's End User License Agreement (EULA) for its upcoming Vista operating system raises the conflict between two fundamental principles of contract law. The first, and more familiar, is that parties to a contract can generally agree to just about anything, as long as what they agree to doesn't violate the law and isn't "unconscionable." The second principle is that the law generally disfavors the remedy of "self-help." That is to say that, if there is a violation of the terms of a contract, you usually have to go to court, prove the violation, and then you are entitled to damages or other relief.
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. Even then, you wont be able to get any damages from Microsoft, and may not even be able to get the cost of the first license back.
Product activiation in the Vista license
Suppose you buy a new computer after January 2007, or purchase an early upgrade for one of the various flavors of Vista. The first problem is, you may think you bought a copy of the operating system. Actually, the OS is still owned by Microsoft. You may own a physical DVD, but what you have "bought" is the right to use the software subject to any of the terms and conditions of the End User License Agreement (EULA), which you may or may not have access to at the time you buy the computer or disk. Typically, the EULA will be contained in micro-print on the outside of a DVD, or may be on a splash screen that prompts you to unequivically declare, "I agree.." as a condition precedent to installing or booting the software. Courts have pretty much established that this manner of acquiescence is okay, provided that there is some way for you to get your money back if you don't agree to the EULA.
The Vista EULA informs the licensee that Vista will automatically send information about the version, language and product key of the software, the user's Internet protocol address of the device, and information derived from the hardware configuration of the device.
The EULA ominously warns that "Before you activate, you have the right to use the version of the software installed during the installation process. Your right to use the software after the time specified in the installation process is limited unless it is activated. This is to prevent its unlicensed use. You will not be able to continue using the software after that time if you do not activate it. " What does this mean? Essentially, if you buy a license to the software from a reputable dealer, but choose not to transmit information to Microsoft, you forfeit your ability to use the licensed software.
What is interesting is not whether you have the right to use unactivated-but-properly-purchased software, but how Microsoft enforces its right. What Microsoft says is that the software will simply stop working. So, where is the proof that the software is not activated? Who has the burden of proof? What if you assert that you did activate the product, but Microsoft claims you did not? What if you attempt to activate the product, but Microsoft's serve
translated their entire operating system and hardware line into a new technical architecture
Actually they've done that twice. And don't forget they also successfully transitioned from under-featured Classic to a future-ready UNIX platform.
In truth, Microsoft ARE dishonest, exploitative, thieving and dangerous scum that have been nothing but an crushing burden and impediment on civilisation. Let's hope this is the beginning of the end for them.
For those who sleepwalked through past adventures in "keeping you and your data apart": This "feature" exists only for the purpose of DEACTIVATION, so let's be honest and call it that.
Switch to something that's AlwaysActivated(TM): Linux, OS X, BSD, Solaris 10. Then we can talk about genuine advantages. As in "genuine" and "advantageous", rather than "marketingspeak" and "sure to bite you in the ass".
Yagman said his firm has handled hundreds of cases similar to Tabatabainejad's
If it can happen to this guy - innocent of any wrongdoing but with a most spectacularly justified distrust of the dimwit powertrippers carrying the weapons - then it can happen to anyone.
All respect to the students and others present who challenged this outrageous abuse of authority, as far as they felt able. I can only hope I'd have similar courage in their place.
And read on, for PJ's wonderfully to-the-point response to Microsoft's spin malarkey:
I hope everyone will please think about what software patents are doing to the industry. Microsoft didn't have to deal with them when it was building its business, but now it has them in hand to try to bully Linux, the better mousetrap that endangers its monopoly, to death. Yes. To death. Think about whether that is the patent policy you really want, and if it isn't, you need to change it. Because the community will not let go of the GPL as its license of choice, and the GPL and software patents simply don't mix. So, if the world wants GNU/Linux to survive -- and the development model that made it happen, and by that I mean unpaid volunteers, because that is who wrote Linux -- it will have to make some changes to the US patent system, some fundamental changes, or all you'll have is things like Vista and Zune. Read their EULAs, then read the GPL, and then think it over. What kind of world do you really want?
The 451 Commercial Adoption of Open Source (CAOS) Research Service is an analytical service designed to help enterprise end users, software vendors and investors track and understand the opportunities and threats presented by open source.
The American standard of living was a fluke. It was supported by the opening up of vast areas of land and dispossesing the original inhabitants and then pumping and exporting oil like crazy... So the early 20th century lead is not coming back.
Exactly: That's just how it is. Thanks for saying it so accurately and concisely; if I'd made that comment, I'd have been mod'd down into oblivion.:)
(Of course the same applies pretty much to Australia and Canada, both enjoying resources boomlets.)
Many computer programmers are accomplished musicians; it's the rare software company that can't put together a decent house band. However, many programmer/musicians might be unaware of an interesting area in which their vocations and avocations intersect: algorithmic music composition. Algorithmic music composition is the application of a rigid, well-defined algorithm to the process of composing music. Cellular automata (CAs) -- a class of mathematical structures that evolve over time -- present an intriguing avenue for algorithmic music composition. Computers are ideal for computing the evolutions of a cellular automaton (CA) and displaying them graphically. You can also represent the evolutions with sound, including music. But finding techniques of mapping CA evolutions into pleasing and interesting music is a highly nontrivial problem. This article presents some techniques for doing CA-based musical composition in the Java language and explores specific mappings that yield especially good results.
Creating a small world -- a ghetto, I call it -- where like-minded developers can hang out. Microsoft has their "Microcosm"; for the rest of us, the entire global web is our collaborative space.
It's a perfect analogy to how the MS model of closed development died on that day in 1991 when the web was born. Not even MS can field enough developers to compete with "everyone else".
I neither said it was "not OK" for Vista to have a startup sound, nor that it was "OK" for OS X not to have one, nor that it was "OK" for the hardware to BONG!
I simply pointed out that the sound you hear, ain't the O/S. (To forestall spurious comment. Oh well.)
Slashdot Mirror
Did you really think there wouldn't be any?
Vista's EULA Product Activation Worries: Mark Rasch looks at the license agreement for Windows Vista and how its product activation component, which can disable operation of the computer, may be like walking on thin ice.
translated their entire operating system and hardware line into a new technical architecture
Actually they've done that twice. And don't forget they also successfully transitioned from under-featured Classic to a future-ready UNIX platform.
In truth, Microsoft ARE dishonest, exploitative, thieving and dangerous scum that have been nothing but an crushing burden and impediment on civilisation. Let's hope this is the beginning of the end for them.
Apple don't sell it to run on whitebox (unlike MS). There's no comparison.
(Personally, I don't think it would be good for anyone if they did.)
For those who sleepwalked through past adventures in "keeping you and your data apart": This "feature" exists only for the purpose of DEACTIVATION, so let's be honest and call it that.
Switch to something that's AlwaysActivated(TM): Linux, OS X, BSD, Solaris 10. Then we can talk about genuine advantages. As in "genuine" and "advantageous", rather than "marketingspeak" and "sure to bite you in the ass".
'One of the biggest challenges... is to fight that perception that old versions of software are good enough,'
That should be an easy sell for anyone who's used Microsoft's rubbish.
The hard sell is that the next version down the pike WILL be 'good enough'.
Has anyone got one of Michael Richards being Tasered 5 times on stage? He sure as heck earned it...
Yagman said his firm has handled hundreds of cases similar to Tabatabainejad's
If it can happen to this guy - innocent of any wrongdoing but with a most spectacularly justified distrust of the dimwit powertrippers carrying the weapons - then it can happen to anyone.
All respect to the students and others present who challenged this outrageous abuse of authority, as far as they felt able. I can only hope I'd have similar courage in their place.
And read on, for PJ's wonderfully to-the-point response to Microsoft's spin malarkey:
(emph. mine)
Hmm, this smells of undue influence. Pressure. Calls were made. Kickbacks. Payoffs. Bribes. The Microsoft way of doing business.
Because there's no way any rational analysis could conclude that Windows is appropriate for public PCs. (Or any PC, but that's another post.)
If nothing else, kiosks are a whole new threat model: You can walk up, install your favourite malware, and watch the passwords come rolling in...
Told you.
Why else would we elect a dickhead like John Howard... THREE TIMES?
Anyone else feel like they're time travelling when they're reading this?
"Free Software's thoughts on Steve Ballmer."
Exactly: That's just how it is. Thanks for saying it so accurately and concisely; if I'd made that comment, I'd have been mod'd down into oblivion. :)
(Of course the same applies pretty much to Australia and Canada, both enjoying resources boomlets.)
link
Creating a small world -- a ghetto, I call it -- where like-minded developers can hang out. Microsoft has their "Microcosm"; for the rest of us, the entire global web is our collaborative space.
It's a perfect analogy to how the MS model of closed development died on that day in 1991 when the web was born. Not even MS can field enough developers to compete with "everyone else".
"and yours was pretty low."
I assume you accidentally omitted the qualifier "battle tested and found utterly inadequate for modern computing".
Mine doesn't.
I neither said it was "not OK" for Vista to have a startup sound, nor that it was "OK" for OS X not to have one, nor that it was "OK" for the hardware to BONG!
I simply pointed out that the sound you hear, ain't the O/S. (To forestall spurious comment. Oh well.)
(Some compositions I made.)
And the investment would be wasted anyway -- startups generally happen only when you ask for them.
(That sound you hear when you turn on your Mac is NOT the operating system starting.)
The poor saps are gonna be hearing that a lot... shortly after The BSOD Sound and the We Think You're a Damned Pirate sound.