Re: Legality of OEM Win XP 1-2 CPU

From: Bruce Chambers (bchambers_at_nospamcableone.net)
Date: 06/04/04 

Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 21:24:21 -0600

Greetings --

"Tee" <crappolagozhere@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:2ia64oFl4lm8U1@uni-berlin.de...
>
> Fact is that most software companies don't try to limit people to
this by
> making them buy 3 separate cds or licenses if they have 3 computers
in their
> home.

    Based on this assertion, I can only conclude that you've very,
very limited experience in purchasing software, and have _never_ read
the license agreements accompanying those products you have purchased.
Real life experience in the IT community proves quite the opposite, I
assure you. There are very, very few successful commercial software
manufacturers who do _not_ have restrictive licensing.

> That's not to say that I don't respect the EULA or
> MS's right to try and place this restriction on people but I do
think its
> unfair.

    So which is it? Does Microsoft have the right to determine how it
wants to market and license it's own product, or do they not? You
cannot have it both ways. And you cannot very well respect the EULA
if you're publicly advising people to go ahead and violate it, thereby
breaking, until a court determines otherwise, both copyright law and
contract law.

> I still don't believe that, in a court of law MS v Jane Doe, that
> MS would win because Jane Doe installed XP Home on two computers in
her
> house.

    Let us know when you get the courage to take Microsoft to court,
especially as you claim to have a copyright attorney on your side,
because their license and product activation violate your "rights."
We're all waiting with bated breath.

Bruce Chambers 

-- 
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. - RAH