Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Shuts Auction Doors On Old Windows

timothy posted more than 12 years ago | from the better-sell-the-hard-drive-too dept.

Microsoft 403

mrv writes "Microsoft is keeping a more-vigilant eye on online auctions of old copies of Windows software, with people trying to offload it due to the upcoming release of XP. Also within the story is info and tips for donating a computer (and software licenses) to charity. (Charities must have site licenses for Windows 98 or newer!)" A lot of users seem to think that they can sell off their no-longer-used software to subsidize upgrades, but that's just not what the EULAs say (at least with pre-installed MS software). Time to go re-read what sellers of used software have had to say last year, and the MS method of shutting own eBay auctions.

cancel ×

403 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

ft (-1)

Dead Fart Warrior (525970) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431061)

First toast [drtoast.com] bitches

Re:ft (-1)

Dead Fart Warrior (525970) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431071)

turd toast [drtoast.com]

Re:ft (-1)

puhtime2go (516969) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431114)

Propz to you first toastmaster general...

ATTENTION: ALL TROLLS (-1)

Sunken Kursk (518450) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431121)

*****Attention: For Immediate Release*****

All trolls are requested to report to TrollMan 5000's Journal [slashdot.org] to coordinate tomorrow's Troll Tuesday activities.

ATTENTION: ALL MODERATORS (-1)

TrollMan 5000 (454685) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431278)

MODERATOR CRACK SOLD HERE! JUST $3!

Just click that little link below.

gay fucking post (-1)

Sexual Asspussy (453406) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431065)

Bill Gates takes dick

Re:gay fucking post (-1, Offtopic)

LinuxIsForAssholes (527253) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431092)

Do you have proof of this? Otherwise you could be charged with libel.

a Realistic Threshold (3, Insightful)

No-op (19111) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431080)

I should point out that microsoft rarely goes after people selling pirated or improperly licensed MS software when the amount is under $50,000 (US) or so. I have tried several times in the past to have marketplace competitors shut down for blatantly pirating software, and each time Microsoft has been primarily interested in the money value of the software in question. I suspect that there is a cost limit for them, and under a certain value there is nothing gained by prosecution or even basic legal action.

So with the obvious eBay incidents aside, I get the feeling you can quietly pirate your software to your heart's content, as long as you stay under the high-water mark.

my 2 cents.

Re:a Realistic Threshold (0, Flamebait)

Saint Stephen (19450) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431255)

Yep, and the IRS won't prosecute you unless you really cheat on your taxes a whole lot, and the cops won't give you a speeding ticket unless you're really speeding, and you won't go to prison for smoking pot.

Thanks for the newsflash, and thanks for being such a stellar example of citizenship.

Jessus.

By definition... (4, Informative)

sphealey (2855) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431081)

An upgrade is a change or refresh of a product you already own. If you sell the original product, you no longer have the right to install the upgrade. It's been that way in the PC market since 1978 (well before M$ became dominant) and in the commercial software market long before that. Why would anyone think otherwise?

Similarly, even William Mossberg (of the WSJ) seems to think that it is onerous of Micros$oft to require home users to purchase a copy of the (M$) OS for each home PC that they wish to run that OS on. That has _always_ been required (with the specific exception of WordPerfect) for all PC software as long as I can remember.

I am not happy about Microsoft's licensing policies, but some of these complaints are pretty bizarre in my ears.

sPh

Re:By definition... (3, Insightful)

Brian Kendig (1959) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431217)

The complaint isn't that a user must have an original license for every computer -- the complaint is that the user must purchase a *new* license for every computer. What if you're upgrading to a new PC, you won't be using the old one any more, and you want to use your old copy of Windows 98 on the new PC; why should you be required to purchase Windows XP bundled with the new PC? What if you do get this new PC with Windows XP on it, why aren't you then allowed to give your copy of Windows 98 to someone else?

Re:By definition... (1)

grahamm (8844) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431304)

Or even transfer your Windows 98 to the new computer and give away the XP.

Re:By definition... (2, Interesting)

RWarrior(fobw) (448405) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431228)

> That has _always_ been required (with the specific
> exception of WordPerfect) for all PC software as
> long as I can remember.

Borland's licence used the "like a book" model. You could install the software on as many computers as you wanted, but you could only use one copy at a time, just like a (paper) book can only be read by one person at a time.

It was an interesting system. I run a 100% Microsoft-free system here, so I have no recent Borland products to look at to see if they've changed it in recent years.

Sort of. (5, Insightful)

www.sorehands.com (142825) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431233)

What you say is true, but there is a rub. I have 3 copies of Windows that I don't use. They were preloaded, but I did not agree to the terms. I have not been able to get refunds for these packages either.

Since they refused to take the return, does the EULA that I did not agree to hold valid?

Re:Sort of. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2431279)

maybe. EULAs are covered under state law, not federal law.

Re:By definition... (1)

cplater (155482) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431263)

Does anyone else remember the good old days when OS upgrades were free? When newer version of the OS for the Apple ][ line were released, all you had to do was take a blank disk to your local dealer or user group, and you could get a legit copy. I'm pretty sure that the other OS's at the time (mid to late 80s) had similar update processes. In fact, Mac OS worked this way up until System 7.

Simple. (1, Troll)

jd (1658) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431273)

With Microsoft products, you NEVER own the software. You own the licence, but the software remains property of Microsoft, Inc.


(It's no wonder they got three times more anthrax than everyone else. bin Laden must have realised the implications of that EULA.)

MS method? (-1, Troll)

10100101 (524621) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431082)

The MS method of shutting down auctions: E-mail a copy of the secret windows uninstaller, name it 'BritnetSpears.jpg.exe'

Re:MS method? (0, Offtopic)

hAkron (448427) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431117)

Could I get a copy of that 'BritnetSpears.jpg.exe'?

How barbaric. (1)

dave-fu (86011) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431083)

It's lovely to see that we don't actually own the things we pay for (boy, do we ever) anymore, isn't it?
Would the legislation that the RIAA failed to get pushed through [wired.com] be viable for Microsoft if they decided they wanted to go blanking peoples' disks in the future?

Re:How barbaric. (2, Insightful)

spongman (182339) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431154)

Remember that you're not buying the software, you're buying a license to use that software. It's the same for most distributed media/services, and it's been like that for a while.

Re:How barbaric. (1)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431290)

No. That's what they want you to believe. Just like they want you to believe that copying and sharing software is a crime, when there is no actual victim.

What if... (5, Funny)

spectrum (92555) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431090)

I 'donate' windows to my friendly neighbourhood sanitation engineer?

Seems to me that the best answer here is... (4, Interesting)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431094)

...to NOT buy Windows. Really, it's very simple. People claiming that there's no applications on the alternatives aren't thinking clearly- there's applications on MacOS, Linux, and *BSD. Furthermore, all those applications would come your way real quick if you got off of the Windows platform. It's an addiction, like any other- you've got to quit it because it's becoming very obvious that the pusher's come a collecting all on all of you.

Re:Seems to me that the best answer here is... (1)

brood (126904) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431164)

My complaint isn't that there aren't applications, but that there aren't any games on the alternatives. I'm sure even CmdrTaco playing Diablo II on the Windows partition of his laptop will agree with me there.

Re:Seems to me that the best answer here is... (1)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431260)

That's less because of Linux and more due to you playing everything on Windows. Believe me when I tell you if a sizable portion of the potential customer base uses something else, they'll make the games for that something else. You don't see a lot of CP/M or OS/2 applications about do you? In the case of CP/M, it was THE OS back before MS-DOS and IBM came along.

Re:Seems to me that the best answer here is... (1)

analog_line (465182) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431269)

You might have picked a better game to use as an example. Diablo 2 is out for MacOS. Hell, the latest versions come on hybrid CDs for both Windows and MacOS.

Re:Seems to me that the best answer here is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2431177)

Absolutely. Very well put, too. What I don't get is this: the Supreme Court refused to hear Microsoft's appeal for violating the anti-trust laws. While IANAL, it seems to me that when the Supremes turned them down and let the lower court ruling stand, Microsoft officially became a criminal enterprise. So, why in the hell is the U.S. government still doing business with Microsoft? Maybe we should ask our representatives in Congress the same question.

Re:Seems to me that the best answer here is... (1)

Brian Kendig (1959) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431253)

Unless you're knowledgeable enough to build a PC on your own from parts, generally any pre-built PC you buy from any name-brand PC company is required to have Windows bundled in with it. You can't buy a PC from Compaq, Dell, or Gateway without Windows included in the price.

How many people would then pay *more* to purchase another operating system with fewer applications, just because they want to thumb their nose at Microsoft?

EULAs worthless in Germany (3, Informative)

Sique (173459) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431102)

Luckily the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court) in Germany ruled recently, that selling no longer used MS licenses is perfectly legal in Germany as long as you don't keep a copy with your computers and files. And even reselling them with new computers is legal too.


So for everyone who wants to sell his old license: Look for your german mates and let them do the ebay.

Re:EULAs worthless in Germany (2, Interesting)

Kruemelmo (21012) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431200)

Indeed, the rules of ebay Germany [pages.ebay.de] do not say a word about OEM or pre-installed software, whereas the matching ebay.com page [ebay.com] states explicitly that you "generally cannot sell the software to someone else unless you are also selling them the machine it came on."

Can you or somebody give a reference to more info about the legal situation in Germany? Is it completely legal to sell OEM licenses separately? Does Microsoft agree on that, or do they still hunt people who do so?

Oh, dip shit m$ size dick (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2431106)

Dip shit mother fucking Microsoft fucking ass donkey shit popcorncarasdaskhjalsdjhaklhfdöajfh

My feelings are these though: I !love you Microsoft

Shrinkwrap licenses? (2)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431109)

Isn't windows only protected by a shrinkwrap license? How can they use that license to stop sales/auctions when it hasn't even been tested in court?

Re:Shrinkwrap licenses? (5, Informative)

egburr (141740) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431135)

The reason they are able to use the shrinkwrap license to stop sales is because it hasn't been tested in court. Until someone has the desire, time, and money to take them to court over their enforcement of the shrinkwrap license, and convince the court it is invalid, they can do pretty much whatever they want. Something like this would probably be a multiple-year-long process, through appeals and counter appeals, all the way up to the supreme court. Do you have the desire, time, and money to do this for all of us?

I delt with this. (3, Interesting)

steveo777 (183629) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431111)

I was told to "aquire" 10 new lisences for NT at my place of work. So, I loaded up my favorite place to find prices online [pricewatch.com] . I found some really cheap lisences for about 26 bucks. They said w/o CD, so I assumed that was the reason for the price being so good.
When they arrived, all I got was the books that have the authenticity cert on them. Each one had the "For distribution with a new PC only. NOT FOR RESALE" stickers partially remmoved. There went 260 down the drain.

You got what you paid for... (2)

Svartalf (2997) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431174)

$26 w/o CD is rather cheap for NT copies, no matter what you say. At that point, you're taking chances of being took for all you're worth. In this case, you were had for $260.

Perhaps using NT's not in your best interests if you can't afford it through more legit channels...

Re:I delt with this. (2)

spongman (182339) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431198)

did you tell Microsoft [microsoft.com] and the FBI [ifccfbi.gov] ?

Re:I delt with this. (2)

istartedi (132515) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431245)

What do you mean that 286 isn't a new PC? It's new to me!!!

"That's not what the EULAs say"... (5, Insightful)

Wakko Warner (324) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431112)

...we're making a tremendous leap of logic in assuming the EULAs are legally binding, aren't we?

- A.P.

Re:"That's not what the EULAs say"... (2)

sphealey (2855) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431132)

...we're making a tremendous leap of logic in assuming the EULAs are legally binding, aren't we?
Well, there's also the minor philosophical/moral point concerning whether or not violating the EULA provisions is stealing. Even if you (and your lawyer) believe that certain provisions of the EULA are unconscionable, that doesn't justify violating the basic property rights of the seller.

sPh

Re:"That's not what the EULAs say"... (4, Interesting)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431221)

Property rights of the seller?

What about property rights of the buyer, aka right of first sale?

Re:"That's not what the EULAs say"... (2)

mpe (36238) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431239)

Even if you (and your lawyer) believe that certain provisions of the EULA are unconscionable, that doesn't justify violating the basic property rights of the seller.

Except that basic rights of sellers would fall under the "doctorine of first sale". At least they would with real physical property.

Re:"That's not what the EULAs say"... (1)

analog_line (465182) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431297)

"not legally binding" only has any effect if you've paid your lawyer enough.

Godzilla may not have the legal right to trash Tokyo, but exactly what can you do to stop him?

what a load of complete... (1, Troll)

Gehenna_Gehenna (207096) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431116)

crap. I've always been at odds w- microsoft about this gay f-ing policy. Why can't you just let the lisence expire after say, 6 years or so. then let people knock themselves out. I mean come on, who is really using windows 95 anymore because they don't want to buy another lisence (put your hands down, I know there are a few in this community, but it that is NOT a global trend).

I can buy used microsoft video games at EB, why not used microsoft OS's.

This isn't quite right... (5, Informative)

update() (217397) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431118)

A lot of users seem to think that they can sell off their no-longer-used software to subsidize upgrades, but that's just not what the EULAs say (at least with pre-installed MS software).

That may be true but that's not what the article is about:

Charmaine Gravning, a product manager for Microsoft's Windows XP, said the policy is clear that people cannot sell or even share the software that comes pre-loaded on computers. If a consumer buys a copy of Windows in a store, they can resell the software, provided they include the license agreement, and all other documentation and don't try to sell multiple copies.

The issue here is cutomers trying to resell their bundled system software when they upgrade. If you upgrade to Linux, you're still not allowed to resell the bundled OS.

Re:This isn't quite right... (1)

Wells2k (107114) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431202)

This is why, if I were to purchase a system from a store that I was not intending to run a Microsoft product on, I would return to the store the bundled software and request my money back for that portion. The EULA does allow for that kind of instance, although I have not checked on it in a while now. Perhaps with Windows XP it is different.

Re:This isn't quite right... (4, Insightful)

dattaway (3088) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431287)

I would return to the store the bundled software and request my money back for that portion.

When I bought my new Toshiba laptop last month, the seal on the box had large type stating the enclosed software operating system is sold with the unit, cannot be seperated, and may not be subject to a refund, except for the whole unit.

Since I bought a laptop, I was legally required to buy Windows and it would be illegal for me to sell it, unless I sold my laptop with it. Great free country we live in, eh?

Re:This isn't quite right... (3, Interesting)

garcia (6573) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431209)

if it came bundled w/your computer I don't see how it isn't yours according to a "REAL" definition. Just b/c if came w/your computer does not mean that you didn't somehow end up paying for it.

They do that to be sneaky. Blah. If you paid for a computer w/an MS product installed you paid for Windows someway, somehow.

Email the seller a question when you see (2, Insightful)

typical geek (261980) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431123)

some software you want. When Ebay pulls his auction a day later, you can email him privately and pick up the woftware for a song.

hmm.. (1)

TheStruuus (263229) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431128)

So you are saying that if i buy windows 98se and then decide i dont want it i am not allowed to sell the media and license? WTF?

Re:hmm.. (2)

Mr. Sketch (111112) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431274)

No, they are saying that if the software came pre-installed on your computer you are not allowed to sell it. If you go to the store and buy a boxed copy, you can see it provided you don't have copies and you include the license agreement with it.

At least if I read the article correctly that's the way it works.

What's the difference? (3, Interesting)

Green Aardvark House (523269) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431130)

From the Yahoo article:

Why does Microsoft care about 5-year-old software anyway? I think they want to prevent people from selling used software so others have to buy the latest and greatest from Microsoft."


Why Microsoft is so worried about old software puzzles me. If users want the latest (and greatest?) Windows OS, they'll still have to buy it anyway. Newer software will not run on the old OS's eventually, rendering it useless.

They're really overdoing it with re-selling old ssoftware. Even the RIAA does not seem to mind secondhand CD's in the marketplace.

Re:What's the difference? (5, Interesting)

hAkron (448427) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431146)

well, why would I spend $500 on a copy of Office XP when I could buy a copy of Office 95 for $20 and then an upgrade copy of XP for $200

Re:What's the difference? (2)

mpe (36238) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431265)

Why Microsoft is so worried about old software puzzles me. If users want the latest (and greatest?) Windows OS, they'll still have to buy it anyway. Newer software will not run on the old OS's eventually, rendering it useless

Maybe because the 5 year old software, which is prefectly good for many real world tasks, would otherwise be in competition with the new stuff they are trying to push.
When your product is close to indestructable (be it software or diamonds) you don't want a thriving second hand market.

Microsoft don't want you running old versions (2, Insightful)

MeerCat (5914) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431271)

Why Microsoft is so worried about old software puzzles me

Apart from all the valid points contributed so far about ownership etc. I'd also point out that...
MS don't want you running old software, they want you to buy new software, and then pay to upgrade, and pay to upgrade it continuously.

New MS software in one area tends to force you to use new software elsewhere (XP ? Better upgrade to Office XP as 2000 is being phased out and might have problems. And IE6, as 5 may not run properly. Oh, and that include WMP, maybe you'd better buy something else too) - its called locking in the users and raiding their wallets.... and thats the part of their business model that I find unethical.... (wanna run IE, its free, but the new version with the bug fixes needs a new version of windows)

T

A Question of Depreciation (3, Interesting)

4of12 (97621) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431140)

So, since these licenses cause the software to become value-less, is this sort of depreciation of software in line with accepted accounting practices?

If I'm a small business owner, can I depreciate the MS software that I purchase and thereby offset income and capital gains on my tax return?

I just wondered, because, IIRC, there are strict rules on how this can be done for real property, etc.

Re:A Question of Depreciation (1)

fcw (17221) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431246)

My (UK-based) accountants have always treated PC software as a consumable, rather than an asset, precisely because of the difficulty of realising any value from its sale at a later date. Consequently, it's written off within the same year as it's purchased. Ask your own accountant if you can treat your PC software purchases this way.

Pay for Windows? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2431142)

Who would pay for Windows?

It comes on every Dell, Compaq, etc.
You can find a bazillion copies on the net.

Who would go out of his way to purchase Windows????

Re:Pay for Windows? (1)

praedor (218403) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431276)

Naive. You DO pay for windoze when you buy a new PC. The cost of windoze is rolled into the price of the computer. They hide this from you by not itemizing the bill and by preinstalling it and charging for THAT service so that it APPEARS you are getting windoze for "free" with the computer.


Come on MS, take one for the team... (3, Insightful)

billmaly (212308) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431145)

Sad but true, if it's in the license agreement that "Thou shalt not resell this OS", then that's the way the ball bounces, cookie crumbles, yadda yadda. It sucks, but that's the bitter pill that we as the consumer will probably have to swallow.

OTOH, if a person wants to DONATE a computer/software to a charity, or a school, I think MS ought to shut their collective legal yaps and let the charity/school get what productivity they can out of the thing, gratis. Nailing the Red Cross or a rural elementary school $100US for a 6 year old version of Win95 borders on criminal...I mean, how many BILLIONS does Gates and company really need?

So long as schools and charities are not using their software to pirate or commit crimes, MS ought to make themselves into a shining white knight and give their OS away to them. They do that, and the govt' will suddenly seem like the bully, rather than MS.

Charity (-1, Flamebait)

perdida (251676) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431150)

Pirates are like ants pouring into the cracked seams of an edifice.

They are slowly chipping away at the value (not the utility, but the value) of MS products.

Once the products have no value, they won't be donated to charity by most people, because most people count on tax deductions when stuff's donated to charity.

Tax deductions are based on value, not utility.

This will hurt charities, who won't have the use of the software.

You can say that charities should use Linux, but it's rather elitist to force an overworked nonprofit staff to attempt the rathers steep learning curve of Linux in order to get their work done.

Now multiply this process by ten for computer related charities, which use donated computers to teach kids valuable skills.

You pirates can generally afford the new software, but you're hurting people who are really disadvantaged by the digital divide.

Watch out guys... (-1, Offtopic)

kanayo (311491) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431158)

In the United States of America, sharing music is now called "stealing", and having MP3s on your computer is now a terrorist activity.

sales of used CDs is legal though (2, Interesting)

Onan The Librarian (126666) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431160)

I still can't get past the fact that it's legal for the local CD store to buy & sell used CDs. The owner (I used to work for the place) makes an incredible amount of money by purchasing used CDs at $4 (tops) and selling them for $8. He keeps *all* the profit, not one penny goes back to the artists, the record labels, or the RIAA. So here's how it goes: it's illegal for me to *share* my CDs but it's legal for him to *sell* them ? Dylan described it best: "Money doesn't talk, it swears".

Re:sales of used CDs is legal though (1)

GreyPoopon (411036) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431281)

I still can't get past the fact that it's legal for the local CD store to buy & sell used CDs. The owner (I used to work for the place) makes an incredible amount of money by purchasing used CDs at $4 (tops) and selling them for $8. He keeps *all* the profit, not one penny goes back to the artists, the record labels, or the RIAA. So here's how it goes: it's illegal for me to *share* my CDs but it's legal for him to *sell* them ? Dylan described it best: "Money doesn't talk, it swears".

Ah, but there is truly a difference between selling and sharing. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong in what follows.

If you buy a CD, then rip some of the songs into MP3's to listen to on your computer, you are just abiding by "fair use" (let's leave out DMCA for the moment). If you then trade your MP3's with another person, you are still retaining a copy of the music. Because of this, somebody who would have otherwise had to pay for the CD will now have the music they wanted at no charge. This (according to RIAA) eats into their profits and "harms" them. Thus, it is piracy.

If, on the other hand, you sell your CD to a reseller because you are done with it, you are selling all rights to use of that music back. That means that the MP3's on your hard drive must also be destroyed, as they are no longer covered by "fair use." Now somebody else purchases that CD, and the rights to listen to and use that music are transferred to them. As long as you've complied by erasing any copies of the CD or its music that you possess, there is still only one person in possession of the single copy of the music that was originally sold. That way, you aren't really eating into the bottom line of the publisher.

That's the theory anyway. Not that I believe any of this holds true in practice. I'm sure almost nobody sells back their CD's without at least keeping a copy on cassette tape....

Re:sales of used CDs is legal though (1)

joe52 (74496) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431307)

Because it's a piece or property. Used car dealers buy cars and resell them for more than they paid. They don't have to give the original manufacturer a dime.

If you want an example that involves something a little more similar to used CDs (and one where the margins are even better), look at the used textbook market. University bookstores buy up textbooks that have been used for one semester for a fraction of what they sold them for. They then turn around and sell them to other students for a lost more than twice what they just paid for them. Of course textbook publishers try to minimize this loss of revenue on new books by regularly releasing new editions.

-joe

EULA's (3, Interesting)

secondsun (195377) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431162)

For us 14-17 year old hackers out there, how binding are EULA's (since a minor cannot enter into a legally binding conract with out his or her guardian)?

Summers

Re:EULA's (4, Informative)

garcia (6573) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431234)

not very. BMG suffers a lot from young kids screwing them over. They have no right to enter into a contract and thus BMG has little course of action to take against one.

I really don't understand why BMG lets them get CDs but I guess the ones that don't pay are a lot less than those that actually do.

New Oxymoron (2, Funny)

_Ludwig (86077) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431170)

Over a year ago, eBay began the VeRO program, which allows owners of intellectual property to notify eBay when they find an infringement of their property rights. The auctioneer will make "good faith effort" to close the sale, eBay spokesman Kevin Pursglove said.

Besides Microsoft, among the other 2,000 VeRO members include Adobe, Warner Bros, Vanderbilt University and the Hard Rock Café.

Hard Rock Cafe Intellectual Property?

Dosen't matter, Microsoft lost their Copyright. (2, Interesting)

HaeMaker (221642) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431173)

IANAL!

While this has not be challenged in court, and it would be a tough battle. According to the letter of the law, Microsoft can not challenge copyright infringement on any of their products included in the antitrust case, since it used its copyright for antitrust purposes.

This would not cover XP.

Re:Dosen't matter, Microsoft lost their Copyright. (2)

danheskett (178529) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431219)

You are definately not an lawyer.

Can you find references, quotes, sources and experts to verify your claims?

I doubt that you can, but also remember that the MS trial is *ongoing*.

Re:Dosen't matter, Microsoft lost their Copyright. (1)

JenovaSynthesis (528503) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431299)

Wanna bet? Better have your checkbook ready to pay the $600,000+ fine.

If only charities... (2, Insightful)

Green Aardvark House (523269) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431176)

Charities must have site licenses for Windows 98 or newer!

If only charities could find the time and know-how to use open source, they could save a lot of money, and direct the saved funds into their work.

Maybe tech-savvy people could donate know-how, instead of money in this case.

Although, AFAIK Microsoft does offer some sort od discount for charities.

Great Quote (4, Funny)

Saint Aardvark (159009) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431180)

From the article:

"The preponderance of history is against them in this case, but light bends when it gets near Microsoft," said Kay.

Win2K EULA About Transfer (2, Informative)

robbyjo (315601) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431182)

Here's Win 2K EULA excerpt about transfer of license:

Transfer to Third Party. Initial user of the Product may make a one-time transfer of the Product to another end user. The transfer has to include all component parts, media, printed materials, this EULA, and if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity. The transfer may not be an indirect transfer, such as a consignment. Prior to the transfer, the end user receiving the Product must agree to all the EULA terms.

Now, Microsoft may condemn people on the auction site as the seller cannot assert the buyer agreement to the EULA. Then, M$ can say the seller cannot assert that the buyer will not resell the software. All in all, this EULA does NOT rigorously govern on how the software may be resaled. Thus, M$ can bend this to their significance.

IANAL, but be careful on this issue.

So let me get this straight... (5, Insightful)

Brian Kendig (1959) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431185)

Let me get this straight. It's basically not possible any more to purchase a new PC without a copy of Windows bundled in (and included in the price), and you're not legally allowed to sell or even give this copy of Windows to anyone else?

So, even if you're upgrading from an old PC to a new PC and you want to use your copy of Windows 98 on this new PC, you're still required to pay for a copy of Windows XP that you can't get rid of? And if someone wants to get some new life out of an old PC, he's not allowed to have a copy of Windows 95 unless Microsoft lets him buy it from them (yeah right), even if you have an extra legal copy you're not using?

And what's more, Microsoft appears to be strong-arming the issue to get even more leeway. The article [yahoo.com] says that Ron Faul was selling two copies of Windows 95 and that Microsoft had eBay shut down the auctions; it doesn't say that these were preinstalled copies. I especially like this quote: "The preponderance of history is against them in this case, but light bends when it gets near Microsoft."

Years and years and years of court cases against Microsoft, from their killing DR-DOS back in the early 1980's by spreading Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt all the way up to their killing Netscape in the late 1990's by 'cutting off their air supply,' and they're still powerful enough to pull trash like this -- Bill Gates is probably laughing his head off at the all-bark-no-bite of the American legal system.

Re:So let me get this straight... (1)

Platinum Dragon (34829) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431250)

Let me get this straight. It's basically not possible any more to purchase a new PC without a copy of Windows bundled in (and included in the price), and you're not legally allowed to sell or even give this copy of Windows to anyone else?

Hence the term "Microsoft tax." Even if you don't like it, you still have to pay it - just like your income and sales taxes!

You could get a custom-built box from a local dealer, but I understand MS has been leaning on such places to cut down on "naked PCs." There was a /. article about this a while back.

Re:So let me get this straight... (1)

debest (471937) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431262)

It IS possible to avoid paying for a new copy of your software... buy from a Mom & Pop shop that doesn't require you to buy Windows with your PC. Granted you won't legally be able to use your old (preinstalled) copy of Windows on it, that's what shrinkwrapped copies are for.

Or just put your favorite distro on it and forget about it :-)

Darren Best

Re:So let me get this straight... (2)

mpe (36238) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431282)

Let me get this straight. It's basically not possible any more to purchase a new PC without a copy of Windows bundled in (and included in the price)

Depends where you get the machine from. If it's one of the "big boys" who have enguaged in the illegal deals then yes. If it's a smaller supplier who is paying close to the retail price then they are likely to be happy to omit a component they make no money on.

MS - Shooting themselves in the foot (5, Interesting)

nyquist_theorem (262542) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431190)

If, as the story suggests, MS really is going after those selling even single lisences, (I can understand them freaking if I sold 20,000 NT lisc. packs all at once, for example), they're doing themselves no service. A few reasons for my statement.

#1 - a lot of the software in question can NOT be purchased new any more, so its not like MS is missing out on a Win95 sale - there's plenty of legitimate uses for old Win9x OS, esp if you have a machine that has limited RAM or CPU (ie my toshiba libretto, a P75 with 16MB). IE no loss. So why spend the $

#2 - people buying used OS's are not buying them to get the disks. Come on, everybody and their brother has a CDR and will burn you off a copy of the Windows cabinet files. I'd like to see a geek version of Survivor, where we get dropped into a foreign country and have to come up with a CDR filled with Microsoft Juarez as quickly as possible. It would be a half-hour show, unedited. Point: people are buying these things on EBay because they want to be quasi-legitimate, ie "I should buy a copy of the software that I use!". Remove that as a possibility, and how many people are really going to spend $150 on an OS for a $150 computer? Arrr, Billy, time t'uh fire up me CDR!

#3 - Given that many computer buyers pay extra for their copy of Windows (ie, it was an option for $100 or so - most system builders do this in the US, yes?). If I pay extra for a feature, can I not sell it off seperately? I (as joe computer buyer) didn't sign or agree anything beyond that flimsy click-through contract at startup, and who's to say it was even me that set up the computer instead of my 7 year old daughter?

I can't see this being a smart idea. All it does is make M$ look bad, and encourage those who want to go legit but don't want to buy, or cant use, the latest OS, to pirate.

Smart move, Billy....

Hooray for Microsoft (3, Funny)

pubjames (468013) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431196)


We should all be thankful to Microsoft for tracking down these criminals. People like this are a menace to modern society. Microsoft employees have seen their stock options slide significantly in recent months, a cause of considerable stress for them. People who freely give away computers or sell for peanuts on auction sites - often without the proper licenses and documentation - these people are no better than thieves. Schools, charities for homeless people and orphanages are all implicated in this evil trade, which is causing some Microsoft employees to turn gray with worry. Well done Microsoft, you are a role model for us all.

Upgrading... (2, Insightful)

tomknight (190939) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431201)

A lot of users seem to think that they can sell off their no-longer-used software to subsidize upgrades

I really found myself smiling at this. Isn't the idea that if you're upgrading that you have to still have the original licence?

For example.... with Dreamnweaver 3, when the user of that damn softawre in my company was given a new computer, part of the installation procedure was to type in the licence key for Dreamweaver 2. Okay, so this is really just to avoid people buying an upgrade when they aren't upgrading, but I think it's valid enough.

Tom.

Ok, question for the masses (3, Insightful)

M_Talon (135587) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431204)

I know that a Microsoft related question may be way off base here, but I want to get a feeling for this.

How many of you actually own a retail version of a previous version of Windows? This excludes pirated copies as well as copies that came with computers when you bought them (those are OEM copies and are subject to bundling licenses).

In my experience (your mileage may vary), most people don't own a retail version. They have OEM versions that came with their computers. Microsoft doesn't like people selling OEM versions, since there's a whole big nasty license that goes with it that says that particular version of Windows is for that PC only. You also get into the sob stories of people wasting their money on a copy of Windows that doesn't work on their PC because it's actually a recovery CD or a special load.

Does anyone have a strong case where Microsoft froze a resale of true retail copies of their software? I'd like to hear about it. Right now, it seems like Microsoft is justified in the auctions it's closed.

Re:Ok, question for the masses (2)

mpe (36238) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431294)

How many of you actually own a retail version of a previous version of Windows? This excludes pirated copies as well as copies that came with computers when you bought them (those are OEM copies and are subject to bundling licenses).

Depends where you are. A German court ruled that the OEM/retail distinction was a nonsense. Depending exactly why they ruled this might apply to the entire EU anyway.

Re:Ok, question for the masses (5, Insightful)

Deagol (323173) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431308)

Reminds me of the "shipbuilder problem" in philosophy class. Back in the days when ships were big, a shipbuilder is contracted to repair someone's vessel. Over the years, he'd take home each piece he replaced on the old ship, until he had the parts to build is own ship. The person who paid him sued for "his" ship back.

So, what's meant by "that PC"? Do I need a new license for each part I replace? If not, then if I've replaced everything (either over time or wholesale), then I should be able to use that license on the improved "old" machine.

Gets kinda sticky, doesn't it?

It's a boring day, with slow news... (2)

frleong (241095) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431206)

... and this triggers the automatic MS bashing procedure at slashdot. I just remember that I read something like this [slashdot.org] just about two weeks ago.

Software is different than hardware and is easily cloneable. You can sell software for free like Linux, but you hardly can do that with hardware. So different rules apply here, i.e., if EULAs tell that you cannot resell that piece of software, so be it. The money you paid MS is only a right to use, not a right to sell (in most cases, but there are also scenarios where you can really "sell", i.e., transfer your right to somebody else).

Re:It's a boring day, with slow news... (1)

FrankNputer (141316) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431266)

You can sell software for free like Linux

Ummm...if it's free, then it's not for sale.

First Sale (4, Informative)

bwt (68845) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431207)

Reselling software is a first sale right. A EULA that takes this away is misuse of copyright. Trying to enforce that EULA should be an antitrust violation. Somebody should sue.

Re:First Sale (3, Insightful)

sql*kitten (1359) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431231)

Reselling software is a first sale right. A EULA that takes this away is misuse of copyright.

If you sold your copy of Windows NT and bought a new full retail copy of Windows XP, I don't think MS would mind. If you sold your NT and only bought a cheaper "upgrade" to XP, then there is a problem, since you no longer have a right to run the upgrade. That's the core of the matter.

Abandonware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2431220)

So does this all make it abandonware then? If the company that makes it doesn't even want people to sell it on, surely they think that no-one would really get any use outof it, that it isn't useful in todays PC environment etc. etc... so why not abandonware it and let people get it for free?

And I would really love them to tell me what the hell the difference is between an OS and a game. Its' all software, it's all mine, and I can damn well sell it if I want to. If you find me, you can tell me not to, but it's a bigger incentive for me and a bigger cash raiser if the goods I sell become grey-market...

Talcum powder (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2431225)

To tie up their mail room. Fitting, especially since it is a licensing issue.

MS ain''t the only ones... (2, Interesting)

JenovaSynthesis (528503) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431243)

Why is this even an issue for people? It's not as if this is the only company that does this. Alias|Wavefront is another company that does this. So good luck to anyone who has an EBay copy that A|W will not support. You can have the original discs, dongle, etc and Alias will say you are not lisenced and will not grant you a decryption key.

And this doesn't make them a monopoly? (5, Interesting)

sirgoran (221190) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431249)

If they prevent people from making a profit, or trying to re-coup expenses when getting rid of old equipment (hardware and software) then how could anyone not think that they are a monopoly. I think that the courts really need to define just how far the EULA extends, and not Microsoft.

If I buy a computer that comes pre-installed with Software, use it for a year or two, I should be able to sell it lock, stock and barrel.

It's how I buy a car, furniture, music, or anything else I have. I sell off or trade in my old crap to finance the new stuff. Maybe if Microsoft would offer trade-ins on the old stuff they wouldn't have to whine so much on the sales of older software. I for one would be willing to trade in my old copies of Win 3.1, 3.11, and 95 disks for some newer stuff.

Goran

Re:And this doesn't make them a monopoly? (2, Insightful)

JenovaSynthesis (528503) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431283)

No, it doesn't because otherwise they in good company with Avid, Discreet, Alias|Wavefront and a host of others. Comparing tangible, physical constructs to digital ones is Apples vs Oranges. End *USER* License means use, not sell. If you want to sell Windows, become an MS Reseller.

Fuck EULA (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2431258)

EULA does not override the local law. For example in Finland can legally resell your Windows, because Microsoft EULA is in conflict with the local laws.

So, just to clarify... (3, Interesting)

mpytlik (304502) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431259)


I'd love to know what my rights are here.

I recently spent about $1000 on PARTS for a complete system which I put together myself. I went back to the same store a week later, looking to buy an original copy of Windows 2000, and the guy sold me an OEM (no receipt, cash only) on the basis that I'd basically bought a system there the week before. I think he sold it to me for $280CDN. Fine.

I've since stopped using Windows 2000 (long story) on my PC, and since I wasn't using the OEM at all, I figured I'd get rid of it on eBay. I was completely unfront about my item in the auction - mentioned that it was an OPEN OEM copy, and that it had the original manuals, certificate of authentication, etc. and that I was no longer using it on my PC. Lo and behold, eBay pulled the auction about 12 hours later.

I guess my question involves rights. Did Microsoft + eBay have a right to pull my auction? And, if so, why?

Mark
mpytlik@home.com

E-bay has the right (3, Informative)

wiredog (43288) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431298)

They can do business with whomever they please.

Selling the last MS software package I BOUGHT. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2431264)

Anyone wanna buy a copy of MS flight simulator 1.0? Anyone?

paying for it? (1)

sewagemaster (466124) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431285)



we all have used windows before one way or the other and we hardly ever pay for it anyway...

either from pirate CDs, or warez or a copy from a friend - whose copy's probably pirated as well..

i'm really trying to understand something here. if you never payed for a copy of windows, why would you want to save up the money for a copy of XP?

another thing is that they people who want they old copy of windows would keep it... win98 SE is one of the better/moderately stable ones that dont take too much resources - relatively.

hmmm wait a minute. they probably need the extra cash for more RAM, more diskspace, and a new chipset whether or not they're going to pay for their copy of XP?

maybe we should aution off our pirate copies of BOTH MS_OFFICE and MS_WINDOWS....

... i guess win 3.1 all the 386es out there can run anyway..

And the moral of the story is... (1)

hhe_hee (470065) | more than 12 years ago | (#2431291)

That people shouldn't go bying Xp or any other M$ product at all. This article says it all "Go install a free operating system".

And I wonder why M$ doesn't make their cd's copy protected in the first place? That would surely stop this sort of problems ;-)

win 3.1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#2431301)

All you guys complain about stupid issues like this.... And i can't even Get my company to upgrade from win 3.1...and those are the good ones
some still use crappy monocrome terminals
If you don't like it get something else!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>