XP OEM - Interesting conversation with MS employee



Pages : [1] 2

Michael C
07-09-2005, 11:20 PM
Last night I upgraded a customers machine with new motherboard, cpu, memory,
video card, netcard and soundcard. The only thing that was the same was the
HDD, dvd drive, tape backup and scsi card. I was having trouble with the
internet so I phoned MS to activate XP again. After it activated I asked him
what the limit is to hardware change before XP won't activate. He said that
XP oem has to always remain on the same PC to be activated. In return I
asked "what constitutes the same PC?". He kept going around in circles and
not answering my question and just stating that it has to always remain on
the same PC. He never gave me a definition of what "same PC" means. In the
end I asked if it was more of a policy than a technical limitation and he
said "thank you for calling microsoft to activate your software" and hung
up!

I suspect that means that it can be installed on a completely new machine
and will activate ok. Is that true?

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
"Michael C" <me@nospam.com> wrote

> Last night I upgraded a customers machine with new motherboard, cpu,
> memory, video card, netcard and soundcard. The only thing that was the
> same was the HDD, dvd drive, tape backup and scsi card. I was having
> trouble with the internet so I phoned MS to activate XP again. After it
> activated I asked him what the limit is to hardware change before XP won't
> activate. He said that XP oem has to always remain on the same PC to be
> activated. In return I asked "what constitutes the same PC?". He kept
> going around in circles and not answering my question and just stating
> that it has to always remain on the same PC. He never gave me a definition
> of what "same PC" means. In the end I asked if it was more of a policy
> than a technical limitation and he said "thank you for calling microsoft
> to activate your software" and hung up!
>
> I suspect that means that it can be installed on a completely new machine
> and will activate ok. Is that true?

Good guess.

See http://www.microscum.com/mmpafaq/ for more details.

Alias

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
In article <42813cae$0$79456$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, me@nospam.com
says...
> Last night I upgraded a customers machine with new motherboard, cpu, memory,
> video card, netcard and soundcard. The only thing that was the same was the
> HDD, dvd drive, tape backup and scsi card. I was having trouble with the
> internet so I phoned MS to activate XP again. After it activated I asked him
> what the limit is to hardware change before XP won't activate. He said that
> XP oem has to always remain on the same PC to be activated. In return I
> asked "what constitutes the same PC?". He kept going around in circles and
> not answering my question and just stating that it has to always remain on
> the same PC. He never gave me a definition of what "same PC" means. In the
> end I asked if it was more of a policy than a technical limitation and he
> said "thank you for calling microsoft to activate your software" and hung
> up!
>
> I suspect that means that it can be installed on a completely new machine
> and will activate ok. Is that true?

You've asked/speculated two different things:

1) What are the rules
2) What can you get away with

One has little to do with the other, the other has a lot to do with the
one, you can read it as you want :)

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Woody
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
<I suspect that means that it can be installed on a completely new machine
and will activate ok. Is that true? >

from what Mike Brannigan , an MS employee and frequent poster , has been
saying of late is that it's up to the oem to determine when the original
machine is no longer the original machine . definately a major retreat from
earlier interpretations of the ms oem eula . MS seems to be intentionally
vague .

hey , i build my own computers . purchase oem vers of the operating system
in complete compliance therefor i am the one to determine when it is no
longer the original computer as far as i'm concerned .

Michael C
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ceb0d68324d00a59896dd@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> You've asked/speculated two different things:
>
> 1) What are the rules
> 2) What can you get away with
>
> One has little to do with the other, the other has a lot to do with the
> one, you can read it as you want :)

That's exactly what I asked him. I asked "if it was more of a policy than a
technical limitation". I don't want to pirate XP but if a customer has
bought XP I'd like to know what I can do to their machine before a new copy
is required. If XP hadn't worked after their machine was upgraded it would
have been a problem and it would have been good for me to know before hand.
I probably should have found out earlier but there are so many things I
should have found out earlier and MS don't make it easy sometimes. Anyway,
it looks like I can do whatever I want to the machine and it will still
work, which is a good thing. :-)

Michael

Carey Frisch [MVP]
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
Q. "I suspect that means that it can be installed on a completely new machine
and will activate ok. Is that true?"

A. Not if its an OEM version....only a "Retail Version".

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Michael C" wrote:

| Last night I upgraded a customers machine with new motherboard, cpu, memory,
| video card, netcard and soundcard. The only thing that was the same was the
| HDD, dvd drive, tape backup and scsi card. I was having trouble with the
| internet so I phoned MS to activate XP again. After it activated I asked him
| what the limit is to hardware change before XP won't activate. He said that
| XP oem has to always remain on the same PC to be activated. In return I
| asked "what constitutes the same PC?". He kept going around in circles and
| not answering my question and just stating that it has to always remain on
| the same PC. He never gave me a definition of what "same PC" means. In the
| end I asked if it was more of a policy than a technical limitation and he
| said "thank you for calling microsoft to activate your software" and hung
| up!
|
| I suspect that means that it can be installed on a completely new machine
| and will activate ok. Is that true?



---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0519-0, 05/09/2005
Tested on: 5/10/2005 6:36:44 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Richard Urban
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
Did he tell you that?

--
Regards,

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)

If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!


"Michael C" <me@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:42813cae$0$79456$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
> Last night I upgraded a customers machine with new motherboard, cpu,
> memory, video card, netcard and soundcard. The only thing that was the
> same was the HDD, dvd drive, tape backup and scsi card. I was having
> trouble with the internet so I phoned MS to activate XP again. After it
> activated I asked him what the limit is to hardware change before XP won't
> activate. He said that XP oem has to always remain on the same PC to be
> activated. In return I asked "what constitutes the same PC?". He kept
> going around in circles and not answering my question and just stating
> that it has to always remain on the same PC. He never gave me a definition
> of what "same PC" means. In the end I asked if it was more of a policy
> than a technical limitation and he said "thank you for calling microsoft
> to activate your software" and hung up!
>
> I suspect that means that it can be installed on a completely new machine
> and will activate ok. Is that true?
>

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
In article <4281450a$0$79452$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, me@nospam.com
says...
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1ceb0d68324d00a59896dd@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> > You've asked/speculated two different things:
> >
> > 1) What are the rules
> > 2) What can you get away with
> >
> > One has little to do with the other, the other has a lot to do with the
> > one, you can read it as you want :)
>
> That's exactly what I asked him. I asked "if it was more of a policy than a
> technical limitation". I don't want to pirate XP but if a customer has
> bought XP I'd like to know what I can do to their machine before a new copy
> is required. If XP hadn't worked after their machine was upgraded it would
> have been a problem and it would have been good for me to know before hand.
> I probably should have found out earlier but there are so many things I
> should have found out earlier and MS don't make it easy sometimes. Anyway,
> it looks like I can do whatever I want to the machine and it will still
> work, which is a good thing. :-)

Actually, you can call MS and ask for Licensing information, not the
activation drones, MS proper and ask for a email/document explaining
licensing. Now, after I've said this, you are also going to get people
telling you that you can do what you want as MS has never taken any
personal user/installer to court over multiple installs against a single
key/license.

In the grand scheme of software licensing, it's up to you to determine
what is right/wrong and what you feel you can get away with. Some of us
are hard-line and purchase a OEM copy considering that additional MS
documents call the Motherboard the defining component, while others look
at the EULA and say that the power cord could be the single defining
component. It's all in what you are comfortable with until you ASK MS
legal what they mean.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Woody
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
<1) What are the rules
2) What can you get away with

One has little to do with the other, the other has a lot to do with the
one, you can read it as you want :) >

they both have a lot to do with each other !!!! how can anyone know wtf is
going on if even MS won't just spell it out one way or the other . and why
should we even be put in this position in the first place ? people keep
asking the question "<1) What are the rules ? " yet there never seems to be
a definative answer . yes we get sorta answers but they even seem to change
from day to day .

the latest from mike brannigan is that it's the oem that determines when the
original computer is no longer the original computer . so who built the
computer , who bought the oem os and who installed the os on that computer
determines the rules as far as i read it .

T. Waters
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
He said it by implication - He hung up!

Richard Urban wrote:
> Did he tell you that?
>
>
> "Michael C" <me@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:42813cae$0$79456$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>> Last night I upgraded a customers machine with new motherboard, cpu,
>> memory, video card, netcard and soundcard. The only thing that was
>> the same was the HDD, dvd drive, tape backup and scsi card. I was
>> having trouble with the internet so I phoned MS to activate XP
>> again. After it activated I asked him what the limit is to hardware
>> change before XP won't activate. He said that XP oem has to always
>> remain on the same PC to be activated. In return I asked "what
>> constitutes the same PC?". He kept going around in circles and not
>> answering my question and just stating that it has to always remain
>> on the same PC. He never gave me a definition of what "same PC"
>> means. In the end I asked if it was more of a policy than a
>> technical limitation and he said "thank you for calling microsoft to
>> activate your software" and hung up!
>>
>> I suspect that means that it can be installed on a completely new
>> machine and will activate ok. Is that true?

T. Waters
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
Wonder if you mean that activation will be denied under these circumstances?
How do you know this?
"Can vs May," or, "one thing I remember from the first grade."


Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote:
> Q. "I suspect that means that it can be installed on a completely
> new machine and will activate ok. Is that true?"
>
> A. Not if its an OEM version....only a "Retail Version".
>
>
>> Last night I upgraded a customers machine with new motherboard, cpu,
>> memory, video card, netcard and soundcard. The only thing that was
>> the same was the HDD, dvd drive, tape backup and scsi card. I was
>> having trouble with the internet so I phoned MS to activate XP
>> again. After it activated I asked him what the limit is to hardware
>> change before XP won't activate. He said that XP oem has to always
>> remain on the same PC to be activated. In return I asked "what
>> constitutes the same PC?". He kept going around in circles and not
>> answering my question and just stating that it has to always remain
>> on the same PC. He never gave me a definition of what "same PC"
>> means. In the end I asked if it was more of a policy than a
>> technical limitation and he said "thank you for calling microsoft to
>> activate your software" and hung up!
>>
>> I suspect that means that it can be installed on a completely new
>> machine and will activate ok. Is that true?
>
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 0519-0, 05/09/2005
> Tested on: 5/10/2005 6:36:44 PM
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
> http://www.avast.com

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
In article <uOTW1qbVFHA.2664@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, Woody@ByteMe.com
says...
> the latest from mike brannigan is that it's the oem that determines when the
> original computer is no longer the original computer . so who built the
> computer , who bought the oem os and who installed the os on that computer
> determines the rules as far as i read it .

Not that I want to get into this again, but if you go into the OEM site
at MS, read around the documents, it seemed very clear to me that the
OEM software is tied to the first computer it's installed on, and that
the computer, by MS's documents on the OEM site, indicate that the
Motherboard is the "computer".

When I, as a personal choice, choose OEM, I limit the scope of the
license to the motherboard.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

T. Waters
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
According to what a MS representative told Kerry Brown recently, the
restriction of OEM XP to the first machine it is installed on is for the
purpose of limiting an OEM's responsibility for support to the machine that
the OEM built. The idea was not to create an ephemeral version of Windows.
The idea was not to make more money, even though the results may have
deviated from the concept in some cases.
If an individual is their own OEM, it kind of begs the question of support,
doesn't it?
I am one of those who believe that honoring the spirit of a rule is more
sensible than blindly honoring the word of a rule. I have been known to cut
the label from a pillow!

Leythos wrote:
> In article <uOTW1qbVFHA.2664@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, Woody@ByteMe.com
> says...
>> the latest from mike brannigan is that it's the oem that determines
>> when the original computer is no longer the original computer . so
>> who built the computer , who bought the oem os and who installed the
>> os on that computer determines the rules as far as i read it .
>
> Not that I want to get into this again, but if you go into the OEM
> site at MS, read around the documents, it seemed very clear to me
> that the OEM software is tied to the first computer it's installed
> on, and that the computer, by MS's documents on the OEM site,
> indicate that the Motherboard is the "computer".
>
> When I, as a personal choice, choose OEM, I limit the scope of the
> license to the motherboard.
>
> --

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote

Woody@ByteMe.com > says...
>> the latest from mike brannigan is that it's the oem that determines when
>> the
>> original computer is no longer the original computer . so who built the
>> computer , who bought the oem os and who installed the os on that
>> computer
>> determines the rules as far as i read it .
>
> Not that I want to get into this again, but if you go into the OEM site
> at MS, read around the documents, it seemed very clear to me that the
> OEM software is tied to the first computer it's installed on, and that
> the computer, by MS's documents on the OEM site, indicate that the
> Motherboard is the "computer".
>
> When I, as a personal choice, choose OEM, I limit the scope of the
> license to the motherboard.

You are saying one cannot upgrade a computer if you have an OEM licence and
that by upgrading it, you lose the licence to use the software you bought
for this upgraded computer. Scam, no matter how you slice it.

Example. Last year I got a MoBo with an AGP 4x slot and it can only handle
266 RAM. I want an 8x slot and a motherboard that can handle 400 RAM and a
faster 400 processor to go with it. With your theory, I would have to buy
another copy of an OEM Windows XP to upgrade the same computer the first OEM
was installed on and I say that is a scam if true, it is designed to make
people buy software they already have and paid for. Now, I will buy the
motherboard and new RAM and if I have to call MS, I will only give them the
number, as is outlined in their FAQs and not feel like a thief or weasal but
as a person who merely upgraded his computer and didn't want to be forced to
buy something I already have again!

Please explain how all of this relates to piracy, be it for profit or
"casual". I am all ears.

Alias

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
In article <undRn6bVFHA.3188@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
aka@maskedandanonymous.org says...
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote
>
> Woody@ByteMe.com > says...
> >> the latest from mike brannigan is that it's the oem that determines when
> >> the
> >> original computer is no longer the original computer . so who built the
> >> computer , who bought the oem os and who installed the os on that
> >> computer
> >> determines the rules as far as i read it .
> >
> > Not that I want to get into this again, but if you go into the OEM site
> > at MS, read around the documents, it seemed very clear to me that the
> > OEM software is tied to the first computer it's installed on, and that
> > the computer, by MS's documents on the OEM site, indicate that the
> > Motherboard is the "computer".
> >
> > When I, as a personal choice, choose OEM, I limit the scope of the
> > license to the motherboard.
>
> You are saying one cannot upgrade a computer if you have an OEM licence and
> that by upgrading it, you lose the licence to use the software you bought
> for this upgraded computer. Scam, no matter how you slice it.
>
> Example. Last year I got a MoBo with an AGP 4x slot and it can only handle
> 266 RAM. I want an 8x slot and a motherboard that can handle 400 RAM and a
> faster 400 processor to go with it. With your theory, I would have to buy
> another copy of an OEM Windows XP to upgrade the same computer the first OEM
> was installed on and I say that is a scam if true, it is designed to make
> people buy software they already have and paid for. Now, I will buy the
> motherboard and new RAM and if I have to call MS, I will only give them the
> number, as is outlined in their FAQs and not feel like a thief or weasal but
> as a person who merely upgraded his computer and didn't want to be forced to
> buy something I already have again!
>
> Please explain how all of this relates to piracy, be it for profit or
> "casual". I am all ears.
>
> Alias

Alias, I'm not getting into a word game. I've said how I read the
details on the OEM site, the documents the provided on their site, and
how I choose to interpret what they said in those documents.

I also said that it's up to each person to interpret what MS means until
the actually call MS and ask for clarification - which I don't expect
many to admit to doing.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
Michael C wrote:
> Last night I upgraded a customers machine with new motherboard, cpu,
> memory, video card, netcard and soundcard. The only thing that was
> the same was the HDD, dvd drive, tape backup and scsi card. I was
> having trouble with the internet so I phoned MS to activate XP again.
> After it activated I asked him what the limit is to hardware change
> before XP won't activate. He said that XP oem has to always remain on
> the same PC to be activated. In return I asked "what constitutes the
> same PC?". He kept going around in circles and not answering my
> question and just stating that it has to always remain on the same
> PC. He never gave me a definition of what "same PC" means. In the end
> I asked if it was more of a policy than a technical limitation and he
> said "thank you for calling microsoft to activate your software" and
> hung up!
> I suspect that means that it can be installed on a completely new
> machine and will activate ok. Is that true?

Yes, as long as you don't tell them that it is a totally different
computer, they can figure it out from the encrypted PA data, so they
will activate you.

Some MS employees CLAIM that changes the motherboard makes it a new
computer, so be careful about what you tell PA reps, as you might get
one that is of that opinion.

PA is a total waste of time, and if it weren't for the errors it throws
at people, it would be a complete farce!

http://www.microscum.com/mmpafaq/

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Bruce Chambers
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
Woody wrote:

>
> from what Mike Brannigan , an MS employee and frequent poster , has been
> saying of late is that it's up to the oem to determine when the original
> machine is no longer the original machine . definately a major retreat from
> earlier interpretations of the ms oem eula .
>
>

No, that's no "retreat." That's what the official policy, as stated by
Microsoft employees, has always been.


--

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

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
I just sent the following to my MS Partner contact at MS:

********
I have read the EULA, the OEM site documents, but as a MS Partner
company I can not get clarification on what constitutes a "Computer" for
the OEM licensing agreement. The agreement states that the OEM license
is tied to the first "Computer" that it is installed on, so what single
or group of components does MS strictly consider as the "Computer". I
have thought it was the motherboard, but the EULA doesn't state that,
others have suggested that it's the power cord.

Please provide a MS answer that clearly defines what constitutes a
"Computer" so that my customers can upgrade their computers without
violating their OEM licensing agreements.
*******

When I get a reply I will post it - they say it could be 24 hours for a
reply.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <4281450a$0$79452$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, me@nospam.com
> says...
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1ceb0d68324d00a59896dd@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
>>> You've asked/speculated two different things:
>>>
>>> 1) What are the rules
>>> 2) What can you get away with
>>>
>>> One has little to do with the other, the other has a lot to do with
>>> the one, you can read it as you want :)
>>
>> That's exactly what I asked him. I asked "if it was more of a policy
>> than a technical limitation". I don't want to pirate XP but if a
>> customer has bought XP I'd like to know what I can do to their
>> machine before a new copy is required. If XP hadn't worked after
>> their machine was upgraded it would have been a problem and it would
>> have been good for me to know before hand. I probably should have
>> found out earlier but there are so many things I should have found
>> out earlier and MS don't make it easy sometimes. Anyway, it looks
>> like I can do whatever I want to the machine and it will still work,
>> which is a good thing. :-)
>
> Actually, you can call MS and ask for Licensing information, not the
> activation drones, MS proper and ask for a email/document explaining
> licensing. Now, after I've said this, you are also going to get people
> telling you that you can do what you want as MS has never taken any
> personal user/installer to court over multiple installs against a
> single key/license.
>
> In the grand scheme of software licensing, it's up to you to determine
> what is right/wrong and what you feel you can get away with. Some of
> us are hard-line and purchase a OEM copy considering that additional
> MS documents call the Motherboard the defining component, while
> others look at the EULA and say that the power cord could be the
> single defining component. It's all in what you are comfortable with
> until you ASK MS legal what they mean.

LOL! The End User never agree to that post EULA password-protected
webpage that makes the unsubstantiated claim that the MOBO is the
defining component!

And different MS employees tell a different story about at what point
does upgrading components constitute a new and different computer.

Leythos you really should just give it up! The OP actually talked to a
MS employee and couldn't get a straight answer out of him. And why is
that? Because MS rather keep the FUD surrounding when upgrading a
computer turns it into another computer by defining it in the EULA. MS
KNOWS if pressed their POST EULA FUD is in no way enforceable.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Bruce Chambers
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
Michael C wrote:
> Last night I upgraded a customers machine with new motherboard, cpu, memory,
> video card, netcard and soundcard. The only thing that was the same was the
> HDD, dvd drive, tape backup and scsi card. I was having trouble with the
> internet so I phoned MS to activate XP again. After it activated I asked him
> what the limit is to hardware change before XP won't activate. He said that
> XP oem has to always remain on the same PC to be activated. In return I
> asked "what constitutes the same PC?". He kept going around in circles and
> not answering my question and just stating that it has to always remain on
> the same PC. He never gave me a definition of what "same PC" means. In the
> end I asked if it was more of a policy than a technical limitation and he
> said "thank you for calling microsoft to activate your software" and hung
> up!
>


According to the EULA, an OEM license may not be transferred from
one distinct PC to another PC. However, this most emphatically does not
prohibit one from repairing or upgrading the PC on which an OEM license
is installed.

Now, some people believe that the motherboard is the key component
that defines the "original computer," but the OEM EULA does not make any
such distinction. Others have said that one could successfully argue
that it's the PC's case that is the deciding component, as that is where
one is instructed to affix the OEM CoA label w/Product Key. Again, the
EULA does not specifically define any single component as the computer.
(Licensed Microsoft Systems Builders, who are allowed to distribute
OEM licenses with computers they sell, are contractually obligated to
"define" the computer as the motherboard, but this limitation/definition
can't be applied to the end user until the EULA is re-written.)

Microsoft has, to date, been very careful _not_ publicly to define
when an incrementally upgraded computer ceases to be the original
computer. The closest I've ever seen a Microsoft employee come to this
definition (in a public forum) is to tell the person making the inquiry
to consult the PC's manufacturer. As the OEM license's support is
solely the responsibility of said manufacturer, they should determine
what sort of hardware changes to allow before the warranty and support
agreements are voided. To paraphrase: An incrementally upgraded
computer ceases to be the original computer, as pertains to the OEM
EULA, only when the *OEM* says it's a different computer. If you've
built the system yourself, and used a generic OEM CD, then _you_ are the
"OEM," and _you_ get to decide when you'll no longer support your product.


> I suspect that means that it can be installed on a completely new machine
> and will activate ok. Is that true?
>
>


That depends on the type of OEM installation CD provided. Major OEMs
frequently design the CDs so that the license *cannot* be installed on
other hardware. OEM Recovery/Restore CDs are the same. Further,
Microsoft has just tightened the activation policy in regards to OEM
licenses distributed by the major OEMs.

A generic OEM CD, however, will install on any compatible computer.
So, can an OEM license be moved to a completely different computer?
Yes, if CD isn't locked to a specific BIOS, if the second computer is
compatible, and if the license holder lacks the integrity to abide by
the terms of the EULA, to which he has already agreed to respect. (If
you have such a customer, insist that he pay in cash. You won't be able
to trust his checks or his credit.)


--

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

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
T. Waters wrote:
> Wonder if you mean that activation will be denied under these
> circumstances? How do you know this?
> "Can vs May," or, "one thing I remember from the first grade."
>
>
> Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote:
>> Q. "I suspect that means that it can be installed on a completely
>> new machine and will activate ok. Is that true?"
>>
>> A. Not if its an OEM version....only a "Retail Version".
>>
>>
>>> Last night I upgraded a customers machine with new motherboard, cpu,
>>> memory, video card, netcard and soundcard. The only thing that was
>>> the same was the HDD, dvd drive, tape backup and scsi card. I was
>>> having trouble with the internet so I phoned MS to activate XP
>>> again. After it activated I asked him what the limit is to hardware
>>> change before XP won't activate. He said that XP oem has to always
>>> remain on the same PC to be activated. In return I asked "what
>>> constitutes the same PC?". He kept going around in circles and not
>>> answering my question and just stating that it has to always remain
>>> on the same PC. He never gave me a definition of what "same PC"
>>> means. In the end I asked if it was more of a policy than a
>>> technical limitation and he said "thank you for calling microsoft to
>>> activate your software" and hung up!
>>>
>>> I suspect that means that it can be installed on a completely new
>>> machine and will activate ok. Is that true?
>>
>>
>>
>> ---
>> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
>> Virus Database (VPS): 0519-0, 05/09/2005
>> Tested on: 5/10/2005 6:36:44 PM
>> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
>> http://www.avast.com

Carey wouldn't know, all his aswers are from other sources, not from
personal experience. Except for having access to the MS newsgroups, I
doubt he knows how to do anything else with his computer!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
Leythos wrote:
> I just sent the following to my MS Partner contact at MS:
>
> ********
> I have read the EULA, the OEM site documents, but as a MS Partner
> company I can not get clarification on what constitutes a "Computer"
> for the OEM licensing agreement. The agreement states that the OEM
> license is tied to the first "Computer" that it is installed on, so
> what single or group of components does MS strictly consider as the
> "Computer". I have thought it was the motherboard, but the EULA
> doesn't state that, others have suggested that it's the power cord.
>
> Please provide a MS answer that clearly defines what constitutes a
> "Computer" so that my customers can upgrade their computers without
> violating their OEM licensing agreements.
> *******
>
> When I get a reply I will post it - they say it could be 24 hours for
> a reply.
>
> --

Worthless. It is not in the EULA, no one agreed to it.

Even the EULA is not the law, and if MS wants to sue someone over a
breach of EULA MS has to prove it in court. Just because something is
actually in the EULA, doesn't mean it's enforceable. And if it is not
in the EULA, MS can't PROVE in a court of law that the END USER ever
agreed to it!

If a contractual term is not in that contract, and not agreed to by both
parties, does it make a sound?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kony
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
On Tue, 10 May 2005 23:56:41 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
wrote:

>In article <uOTW1qbVFHA.2664@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, Woody@ByteMe.com
>says...
>> the latest from mike brannigan is that it's the oem that determines when the
>> original computer is no longer the original computer . so who built the
>> computer , who bought the oem os and who installed the os on that computer
>> determines the rules as far as i read it .
>
>Not that I want to get into this again, but if you go into the OEM site
>at MS, read around the documents,

You are not bound to anything MS has on their 'site, that
didn't exist at the of purchase and was prominently
displayed to the customer on the packaging or upon direct
inquiry, a very specific pointing to that exact document as
it existed then. However, this of course means that should
the issue arise, one would need have proof of the
then-current documentation provided.

>it seemed very clear to me that the
>OEM software is tied to the first computer it's installed on, and that
>the computer, by MS's documents on the OEM site, indicate that the
>Motherboard is the "computer".
>
>When I, as a personal choice, choose OEM, I limit the scope of the
>license to the motherboard.


I think that is reasonable... up to a point. It becomes
questionable when an OEM box has it's board fail and the OEM
wants 50% the cost of the system to replace the board so
user seeks another compatible board. That to me isn't same
thing as replacing : board, memory, CPU, video, etc, etc.
In other words, I don't find it reasonable that only the
case remained the same even though that's usually where the
license sticker is. Therein lies the problem for MS, to
clearly define this. Anything they didn't define at the
time can't be added after the fact.

kony
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
On Wed, 11 May 2005 00:28:46 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
wrote:


>I also said that it's up to each person to interpret what MS means until
>the actually call MS and ask for clarification - which I don't expect
>many to admit to doing.

That's where you went wrong. MS cannot LATER clarify,
further restrict a license.

There is nothing a call to MS can tell you that isn't
already in the license as shipped.

I'm not suggesting it would be fair to upgrade the entire
system a piece and a time and think an OEM license is still
valid for it, BUT on the other hand neither the seller nor
buyer of the license can further redefine it later.

T. Waters
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
Bruce Chambers wrote:
> Michael C wrote:
>> Last night I upgraded a customers machine with new motherboard, cpu,
>> memory, video card, netcard and soundcard. The only thing that was
>> the same was the HDD, dvd drive, tape backup and scsi card. I was
>> having trouble with the internet so I phoned MS to activate XP
>> again. After it activated I asked him what the limit is to hardware
>> change before XP won't activate. He said that XP oem has to always
>> remain on the same PC to be activated. In return I asked "what
>> constitutes the same PC?". He kept going around in circles and not
>> answering my question and just stating that it has to always remain
>> on the same PC. He never gave me a definition of what "same PC"
>> means. In the end I asked if it was more of a policy than a
>> technical limitation and he said "thank you for calling microsoft to
>> activate your software" and hung up!
>>
>
>
> According to the EULA, an OEM license may not be transferred from
> one distinct PC to another PC. However, this most emphatically does
> not prohibit one from repairing or upgrading the PC on which an OEM
> license is installed.
>
> Now, some people believe that the motherboard is the key
> component that defines the "original computer," but the OEM EULA does
> not make any such distinction. Others have said that one could
> successfully argue that it's the PC's case that is the deciding
> component, as that is where one is instructed to affix the OEM CoA
> label w/Product Key. Again, the EULA does not specifically define
> any single component as the computer. (Licensed Microsoft Systems
> Builders, who are allowed to distribute
> OEM licenses with computers they sell, are contractually obligated to
> "define" the computer as the motherboard, but this
> limitation/definition can't be applied to the end user until the EULA
> is re-written.)
>
> Microsoft has, to date, been very careful _not_ publicly to
> define when an incrementally upgraded computer ceases to be the
> original computer. The closest I've ever seen a Microsoft employee
> come to this definition (in a public forum) is to tell the person
> making the inquiry to consult the PC's manufacturer. As the OEM
> license's support is
> solely the responsibility of said manufacturer, they should determine
> what sort of hardware changes to allow before the warranty and support
> agreements are voided. To paraphrase: An incrementally upgraded
> computer ceases to be the original computer, as pertains to the OEM
> EULA, only when the *OEM* says it's a different computer. If you've
> built the system yourself, and used a generic OEM CD, then _you_ are
> the "OEM," and _you_ get to decide when you'll no longer support your
> product.
>
>
>> I suspect that means that it can be installed on a completely new
>> machine and will activate ok. Is that true?
>>
>>
>
>
> That depends on the type of OEM installation CD provided. Major OEMs
> frequently design the CDs so that the license *cannot* be installed on
> other hardware. OEM Recovery/Restore CDs are the same. Further,
> Microsoft has just tightened the activation policy in regards to OEM
> licenses distributed by the major OEMs.
>
> A generic OEM CD, however, will install on any compatible computer.
> So, can an OEM license be moved to a completely different computer?
> Yes, if CD isn't locked to a specific BIOS, if the second computer is
> compatible, and if the license holder lacks the integrity to abide by
> the terms of the EULA, to which he has already agreed to respect. (If
> you have such a customer, insist that he pay in cash. You won't be
> able to trust his checks or his credit.)

Bruce your explanation of OEM support of Windows XP was very enlightening
You got to the actual point of limiting the OEM to the first machine. So I
found it odd that you summed up that brilliant and rational explanation with
a simplistic statement as to the morals of a person who moves OEM XP to
another computer. They are not violating the MS intent of freeing the OEM
from supporting an OS on a computer the OEM did not build! Are you devoutly
religious, by any chance?

kony
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
On Tue, 10 May 2005 23:42:05 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
wrote:


>
>Actually, you can call MS and ask for Licensing information, not the
>activation drones, MS proper and ask for a email/document explaining
>licensing.

No, you quite specifically cannot do this.
It is not binding to add terms and not legal to try to
enfore them. Of all possible avenues, MS cannot supply you
with "Further" details about a license that weren't already
part of that license. If someone simply can't find their
EULA then they might be SOL.


>In the grand scheme of software licensing, it's up to you to determine
>what is right/wrong and what you feel you can get away with. Some of us
>are hard-line and purchase a OEM copy considering that additional MS
>documents call the Motherboard the defining component,

That's not "hard-line", that's ignorance.
If the license agreement that came with the product
specifies the motherboard, then it is (a) defining
component. It is improper and pointless to make any mention
at all of "additional MS documents". If those documents had
told you that you are bound to reformat your hard drive
every 7 days, would you do that too?


>while others look
>at the EULA and say that the power cord could be the single defining
>component. It's all in what you are comfortable with until you ASK MS
>legal what they mean.

No reasonable person will conclude the power cord is a
defining component, UNLESS the license was purchased with
that cord, if the EULA allows it.

It is NOT "what you are comfortable with until you ask MS
legal".

MS legal cannot add, subtract, or redefine a EULA after the
sale.

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
In article <#fbe6HcVFHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> And different MS employees tell a different story about at what point
> does upgrading components constitute a new and different computer.
>
> Leythos you really should just give it up! The OP actually talked to a
> MS employee and couldn't get a straight answer out of him. And why is
> that? Because MS rather keep the FUD surrounding when upgrading a
> computer turns it into another computer by defining it in the EULA. MS
> KNOWS if pressed their POST EULA FUD is in no way enforceable.

What part of "my personal" did you miss - Hell, I even stated your and
Alias's positions of being able to do anything you want.

I've not made a statement as to one or the other being fact in this
thread.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
In article <edOj7KcVFHA.3024@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> Those of us that ain't MS partners and have absolutely no conflict of
> interest when it comes to having business dealings with MS have never
> agree, and most have never even seen the password protected web site of
> FUD about the mobo is the computer and bill gates is god!

And I stated that he (actually anyone) could do what they want on a
personal level. I never stated that anyone has to follow anything.

You are remembering and making more out of it this time than I said - I
DID NOT TAKE SIDES OR A STANCE ON IT THIS TIME. I EVEN SUGGESTED IT WAS
UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL.


--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
Bruce Chambers wrote:
> Woody wrote:
>
>>
>> from what Mike Brannigan , an MS employee and frequent poster , has
>> been saying of late is that it's up to the oem to determine when the
>> original machine is no longer the original machine . definately a
>> major retreat from earlier interpretations of the ms oem eula .
>>
>>
>
> No, that's no "retreat." That's what the official policy, as stated
> by Microsoft employees, has always been.

Tell it to Lameboy, and his password-protected system builder web page!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Woody
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
<Not that I want to get into this again>

why not , you feel free to spread youre opinion

<When I, as a personal choice, choose OEM, I limit the scope of the
license to the motherboard.>

why ? to place limitations on your customers that don't exist ?

Carey Frisch [MVP]
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
Bruce has "character" and is 100% honest!

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"T. Waters" wrote:
|
| Bruce your explanation of OEM support of Windows XP was very enlightening
| You got to the actual point of limiting the OEM to the first machine. So I
| found it odd that you summed up that brilliant and rational explanation with
| a simplistic statement as to the morals of a person who moves OEM XP to
| another computer. They are not violating the MS intent of freeing the OEM
| from supporting an OS on a computer the OEM did not build! Are you devoutly
| religious, by any chance?



---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0519-0, 05/09/2005
Tested on: 5/10/2005 8:21:27 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
In article <i2n28115ei7fck158f8aq74vgdbo57jgpf@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
says...
> On Wed, 11 May 2005 00:28:46 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
> wrote:
>
>
> >I also said that it's up to each person to interpret what MS means until
> >the actually call MS and ask for clarification - which I don't expect
> >many to admit to doing.
>
> That's where you went wrong. MS cannot LATER clarify,
> further restrict a license.
>
> There is nothing a call to MS can tell you that isn't
> already in the license as shipped.
>
> I'm not suggesting it would be fair to upgrade the entire
> system a piece and a time and think an OEM license is still
> valid for it, BUT on the other hand neither the seller nor
> buyer of the license can further redefine it later.

I'm not taking sides, it seemed it would be good, legal or not, to get
an official MS stated position that could be references as FROM A MS
Legal department.

I actually don't care one way or the other if anyone does anything,
really, I don't care, I quit caring about 5 months ago. I also don't
make any attempt to sway anyone into thinking one way or another. I have
only mentioned what I've read on the MS site, seen in posted (web) MS
documents, and how I handle it myself.

Since I don't care how you handle it, or Kurt or Alias, and since I'm
only presenting that MS has documents that clarify their position on the
OEM site, there is no argument to be entered into - you can do what you
want.

I only sent the email to my partner contact for the benefit of myself
and those that ask - I never suggested that it would be a legal binding
or that it would change any agreements already in place. Sheesh, I just
wanted an official MS clarification on it so that I could have the
information.

Again, I don't care what anyone does, what their orientation is, what
they like (beer/wine coolers), now many times they install the same XP
key, what parts they change - why can't people see that. All I said is
that MS has documents that explain their position to OEM's. I don't care
if you want or don't want to read them, or even if you do / don't agree
with them - I'm not asking you to. I just made the statement that they
exist, that was it.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
In article <p6m281101cnf8a3gcern4998c3vm52auqa@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
says...
> >In the grand scheme of software licensing, it's up to you to determine
> >what is right/wrong and what you feel you can get away with. Some of us
> >are hard-line and purchase a OEM copy considering that additional MS
> >documents call the Motherboard the defining component,
>
> That's not "hard-line", that's ignorance.
> If the license agreement that came with the product
> specifies the motherboard, then it is (a) defining
> component. It is improper and pointless to make any mention
> at all of "additional MS documents". If those documents had
> told you that you are bound to reformat your hard drive
> every 7 days, would you do that too?

So, if I were a registered OEM, having agreed to the OEM agreements, you
are saying that I should ignore the documents on the OEM site that I've
already read concerning the definitions of terms before I sign my OEM
agreement?

Dude, you missed my point, I never suggested that anyone was bound by
the clarification, only informed by it, not bound by it - come down off
the soap-box.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <#fbe6HcVFHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> And different MS employees tell a different story about at what point
>> does upgrading components constitute a new and different computer.
>>
>> Leythos you really should just give it up! The OP actually talked
>> to a MS employee and couldn't get a straight answer out of him. And
>> why is that? Because MS rather keep the FUD surrounding when
>> upgrading a computer turns it into another computer by defining it
>> in the EULA. MS KNOWS if pressed their POST EULA FUD is in no way
>> enforceable.
>
> What part of "my personal" did you miss - Hell, I even stated your and
> Alias's positions of being able to do anything you want.
>
> I've not made a statement as to one or the other being fact in this
> thread.

You still talk about the motherboard fantasy as it it is part of the
EULA.

IT IS NOT A PART OF THE EULA! It is only binding on you in your
delusions!

NOT ONE END USER EVER AGREED TO IT!

MS'S MOTHERBOARD NONSENSE HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY
AGREEMENT!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
kony wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2005 23:42:05 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Actually, you can call MS and ask for Licensing information, not the
>> activation drones, MS proper and ask for a email/document explaining
>> licensing.
>
> No, you quite specifically cannot do this.
> It is not binding to add terms and not legal to try to
> enfore them. Of all possible avenues, MS cannot supply you
> with "Further" details about a license that weren't already
> part of that license. If someone simply can't find their
> EULA then they might be SOL.
>
>
>> In the grand scheme of software licensing, it's up to you to
>> determine what is right/wrong and what you feel you can get away
>> with. Some of us are hard-line and purchase a OEM copy considering
>> that additional MS documents call the Motherboard the defining
>> component,
>
> That's not "hard-line", that's ignorance.
> If the license agreement that came with the product
> specifies the motherboard, then it is (a) defining
> component. It is improper and pointless to make any mention
> at all of "additional MS documents". If those documents had
> told you that you are bound to reformat your hard drive
> every 7 days, would you do that too?
>
>
>> while others look
>> at the EULA and say that the power cord could be the single defining
>> component. It's all in what you are comfortable with until you ASK MS
>> legal what they mean.
>
> No reasonable person will conclude the power cord is a
> defining component, UNLESS the license was purchased with
> that cord, if the EULA allows it.
>
> It is NOT "what you are comfortable with until you ask MS
> legal".
>
> MS legal cannot add, subtract, or redefine a EULA after the
> sale.

Amen!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <edOj7KcVFHA.3024@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> Those of us that ain't MS partners and have absolutely no conflict of
>> interest when it comes to having business dealings with MS have never
>> agree, and most have never even seen the password protected web site
>> of FUD about the mobo is the computer and bill gates is god!
>
> And I stated that he (actually anyone) could do what they want on a
> personal level. I never stated that anyone has to follow anything.
>
> You are remembering and making more out of it this time than I said -
> I DID NOT TAKE SIDES OR A STANCE ON IT THIS TIME. I EVEN SUGGESTED IT
> WAS UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL.

Your personal delusions about the motherboard are off-topic.

MS's System Builder site is NOT for END USERS. NO ONE EVER AGREED TO
ANYTHING SAID THERE. IT IS TOTALLY NONSENSE, AND IS NOT WORTH
MENTIONING, EXCEPT IN YOUR WET DREAMS ABOUT BILLY G!



--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <p6m281101cnf8a3gcern4998c3vm52auqa@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
> says...
>>> In the grand scheme of software licensing, it's up to you to
>>> determine what is right/wrong and what you feel you can get away
>>> with. Some of us are hard-line and purchase a OEM copy considering
>>> that additional MS documents call the Motherboard the defining
>>> component,
>>
>> That's not "hard-line", that's ignorance.
>> If the license agreement that came with the product
>> specifies the motherboard, then it is (a) defining
>> component. It is improper and pointless to make any mention
>> at all of "additional MS documents". If those documents had
>> told you that you are bound to reformat your hard drive
>> every 7 days, would you do that too?
>
> So, if I were a registered OEM, having agreed to the OEM agreements,
> you are saying that I should ignore the documents on the OEM site
> that I've already read concerning the definitions of terms before I
> sign my OEM agreement?
>
> Dude, you missed my point, I never suggested that anyone was bound by
> the clarification, only informed by it, not bound by it - come down
> off the soap-box.

If you aren't bound by it, then you really isn't worth the toilet paper
I used to wipe my ass with today!

And neither my used toilet paper or you non-binding web page has any
place in this thread!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
In article <#NRPCncVFHA.628@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> Leythos wrote:
> > In article <p6m281101cnf8a3gcern4998c3vm52auqa@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
> > says...
> >>> In the grand scheme of software licensing, it's up to you to
> >>> determine what is right/wrong and what you feel you can get away
> >>> with. Some of us are hard-line and purchase a OEM copy considering
> >>> that additional MS documents call the Motherboard the defining
> >>> component,
> >>
> >> That's not "hard-line", that's ignorance.
> >> If the license agreement that came with the product
> >> specifies the motherboard, then it is (a) defining
> >> component. It is improper and pointless to make any mention
> >> at all of "additional MS documents". If those documents had
> >> told you that you are bound to reformat your hard drive
> >> every 7 days, would you do that too?
> >
> > So, if I were a registered OEM, having agreed to the OEM agreements,
> > you are saying that I should ignore the documents on the OEM site
> > that I've already read concerning the definitions of terms before I
> > sign my OEM agreement?
> >
> > Dude, you missed my point, I never suggested that anyone was bound by
> > the clarification, only informed by it, not bound by it - come down
> > off the soap-box.
>
> If you aren't bound by it, then you really isn't worth the toilet paper
> I used to wipe my ass with today!
>
> And neither my used toilet paper or you non-binding web page has any
> place in this thread!

It had as much place as a statement about a conversation with a
contractor that does PA without any real knowledge of licensing rules or
documents for the product they are activating.

I never claimed it was worth anything to anyone, it's just as good an
information source as you provide.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Bruce Chambers
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
T. Waters wrote:

>
>
> Bruce your explanation of OEM support of Windows XP was very enlightening
> You got to the actual point of limiting the OEM to the first machine.


Thank you.


> So I
> found it odd that you summed up that brilliant and rational explanation with
> a simplistic statement as to the morals of a person who moves OEM XP to
> another computer.


What's "simplistic" about it? In this situation, the purchaser of the
OEM license agrees to abide by the terms of the EULA, and then
subsequently reneges on his agreement and installs the OEM license
elsewhere. This indicates quite clearly that this person's given word,
or signature on a contract, for that matter, cannot be trusted. If
he'll break the agreement to abide by the EULA, he cannot be trusted not
to break any other agreements.



> Are you devoutly
> religious, by any chance?
>
>


No. Why do you feel the need to be so gratuitously insulting? Every
religion I know of is the very anti-thesis of integrity - they're all
founded on self-delusion.


--

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

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote:
> Bruce has "character" and is 100% honest!

This is like having OJ say that Tony Blake is "100% not guilty" too!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

VWWall
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
Bruce Chambers wrote:
> Woody wrote:
>
>>
>> from what Mike Brannigan , an MS employee and frequent poster , has been
>> saying of late is that it's up to the oem to determine when the original
>> machine is no longer the original machine . definately a major retreat
>> from
>> earlier interpretations of the ms oem eula .
>>
>
> No, that's no "retreat." That's what the official policy, as stated
> by Microsoft employees, has always been.
>
>
If I buy a keyboard with my OEM WinXP Pro x64, as one purveyor has been
offering, can I change anything on the original computer on which I
installed the OS as long as I use the same keyboard?

Even stranger is the fact that the keyboard is not even included in the
hash function used to indicate a change in OS installation.

Am I missing something here?

--
Virg Wall

T. Waters
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
Sorry, Bruce, for sounding insulting. In my mind, you sounded like some
orthodox practioners of religion I know.
I guess it is just a question of priorities. For me, it is infinitely more
important that people wash their hands after using the restroom than that
they abide by the OEM rules in the MS EULA., and I mean this seriously.

Bruce Chambers wrote:
> T. Waters wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Bruce your explanation of OEM support of Windows XP was very
>> enlightening You got to the actual point of limiting the OEM to the
>> first machine.
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>> So I
>> found it odd that you summed up that brilliant and rational
>> explanation with a simplistic statement as to the morals of a person
>> who moves OEM XP to another computer.
>
>
> What's "simplistic" about it? In this situation, the purchaser of the
> OEM license agrees to abide by the terms of the EULA, and then
> subsequently reneges on his agreement and installs the OEM license
> elsewhere. This indicates quite clearly that this person's given
> word, or signature on a contract, for that matter, cannot be trusted.
> If he'll break the agreement to abide by the EULA, he cannot be
> trusted not to break any other agreements.
>
>
>
>> Are you devoutly
>> religious, by any chance?
>>
>>
>
>
> No. Why do you feel the need to be so gratuitously insulting? Every
> religion I know of is the very anti-thesis of integrity - they're all
> founded on self-delusion.

T. Waters
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
VWWall wrote:
> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>> Woody wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> from what Mike Brannigan , an MS employee and frequent poster , has
>>> been saying of late is that it's up to the oem to determine when
>>> the original machine is no longer the original machine . definately
>>> a major retreat from
>>> earlier interpretations of the ms oem eula .
>>>
>>
>> No, that's no "retreat." That's what the official policy, as
>> stated by Microsoft employees, has always been.
>>
>>
> If I buy a keyboard with my OEM WinXP Pro x64, as one purveyor has
> been offering, can I change anything on the original computer on
> which I installed the OS as long as I use the same keyboard?
>
> Even stranger is the fact that the keyboard is not even included in
> the hash function used to indicate a change in OS installation.
>
> Am I missing something here?

Virg, the keyboard has nothing to do with it.
The consensus within this group leans towards the power cord as the
irreducible essence of a "computer." (;-)

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
In article <NIdge.518$Dh.191@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
vwall@DEADearthlink.net says...
> If I buy a keyboard with my OEM WinXP Pro x64, as one purveyor has been
> offering, can I change anything on the original computer on which I
> installed the OS as long as I use the same keyboard?

The vendor I purchase OEM software through sells all MS OEM products and
only requires a hardware purchase, a MS Mouse is about $14, so it's
cheap enough to not really count.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
VWWall wrote:
> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>> Woody wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> from what Mike Brannigan , an MS employee and frequent poster , has
>>> been saying of late is that it's up to the oem to determine when
>>> the original machine is no longer the original machine . definately
>>> a major retreat from
>>> earlier interpretations of the ms oem eula .
>>>
>>
>> No, that's no "retreat." That's what the official policy, as
>> stated by Microsoft employees, has always been.
>>
>>
> If I buy a keyboard with my OEM WinXP Pro x64, as one purveyor has
> been offering, can I change anything on the original computer on
> which I installed the OS as long as I use the same keyboard?
>
> Even stranger is the fact that the keyboard is not even included in
> the hash function used to indicate a change in OS installation.
>
> Am I missing something here?

Yeah, your are expecting sh*t about software licensing to be logical,
and it is as logical as software companies complaing about software
piracy when the piracy rate is lower now than it was before almost every
home had a computer, in 1994

Actually since MS introduced copy-protection in 2000 with MSO2KSP1, the
piracy rate stopped its steady downward trend.

The Business Software Alliance Global Software Piracy Rate:

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003*
49 46 43 40 38 36 37 40 39 36

* - 1st year using IDC methodology.

See the piracy rate had been declining since 1994 as more and more PCs
were sold to people for Home Use. And since MS first introduce PA the
piracy rate has been fluctuating up & down. For calculating the piracy
rate in 2003, the BSA changed its methodology, so that drop is a result
of the change. Mike Newton, campaigns relations manager for the BSA, at
the time of the release of that year's report said, "Right now we feel
that piracy rates are on the up."

PA isn't about PIRACY and never has been. It is about behavior
modification and getting you to accept the bogus rules of soul-less
corporate software copyright owners in the privacy of your home!

While the EULA is a perfectly acceptable commercial use license, it has
NEVER been proven to also be a legally enforceable private use licence.
And so all these rules, policies and copy protection is about anything
except FUDing the individual consumer into believeing that the corporate
elite words are the law, without actually having to prove it!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

VWWall
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
T. Waters wrote:
> VWWall wrote:
>
>>Bruce Chambers wrote:
>>
>>>Woody wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>from what Mike Brannigan , an MS employee and frequent poster , has
>>>>been saying of late is that it's up to the oem to determine when
>>>>the original machine is no longer the original machine . definately
>>>>a major retreat from
>>>>earlier interpretations of the ms oem eula .
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, that's no "retreat." That's what the official policy, as
>>>stated by Microsoft employees, has always been.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>If I buy a keyboard with my OEM WinXP Pro x64, as one purveyor has
>>been offering, can I change anything on the original computer on
>>which I installed the OS as long as I use the same keyboard?
>>
>>Even stranger is the fact that the keyboard is not even included in
>>the hash function used to indicate a change in OS installation.
>>
>>Am I missing something here?
>
>
> Virg, the keyboard has nothing to do with it.
> The consensus within this group leans towards the power cord as the
> irreducible essence of a "computer." (;-)
>
>
I did not find anyone offering WinXP Pro x64 with just a power cord. I
have so many of them it would be hard keeping track which was the
original one allowed by the EULA. Maybe attach the COA to it?

--
Virg Wall

kony
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
On Wed, 11 May 2005 01:25:13 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
wrote:

>In article <p6m281101cnf8a3gcern4998c3vm52auqa@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
>says...
>> >In the grand scheme of software licensing, it's up to you to determine
>> >what is right/wrong and what you feel you can get away with. Some of us
>> >are hard-line and purchase a OEM copy considering that additional MS
>> >documents call the Motherboard the defining component,
>>
>> That's not "hard-line", that's ignorance.
>> If the license agreement that came with the product
>> specifies the motherboard, then it is (a) defining
>> component. It is improper and pointless to make any mention
>> at all of "additional MS documents". If those documents had
>> told you that you are bound to reformat your hard drive
>> every 7 days, would you do that too?
>
>So, if I were a registered OEM, having agreed to the OEM agreements, you
>are saying that I should ignore the documents on the OEM site that I've
>already read concerning the definitions of terms before I sign my OEM
>agreement?

No, why would you assime I'm saying that?

I'm saying those "documents on the OEM site that I've
already read... before I sign" are all there is. You cannot
have MS (nor youself) further elaborate them in scope or
terms after that contract is made.


>
>Dude, you missed my point, I never suggested that anyone was bound by
>the clarification, only informed by it, not bound by it - come down off
>the soap-box.

What you wrote could be misconstrued. I clarified my
opinion on it, and what I believe to be the legality
involved as well. If the EULA doesn't specify
"motherboard", MS can't later come back and claim it does.
on the other hand, if the EULA claims use of one OEM system,
one can't replace it all and then claim it's the same one
OEM system either after all but a power cord has been
changed.

Bruce Chambers
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
T. Waters wrote:
> Sorry, Bruce, for sounding insulting.


Accepted.


> In my mind, you sounded like some
> orthodox practioners of religion I know.


For my clarification then, and so as to avoid such a misunderstanding
in the future, could you tell me just how I "sounded" hypocritical?
Surely the desire for integrity in one's business partners and other -
even social - associates isn't dependent upon superstition.


> I guess it is just a question of priorities. For me, it is infinitely more
> important that people wash their hands after using the restroom than that
> they abide by the OEM rules in the MS EULA., and I mean this seriously.
>
>
>


Not to discount your perfectly valid concern for sanitation and
personal hygiene, does this mean that you don't care when people lie to
you or break their promises to you? Set aside the subject of a
Microsoft EULA - this comes down to basic honesty, period. It doesn't
matter to whom a promise is made, with whom an agreement or contract is
made, or what specifics the promise, agreement , or contract concerns.
A broken promise is a broken promise. I don't see how a person who
reneges on an agreement to anyone else - even an "anonymous" corporate
entity - can be trusted to keep one with me; the reneger (is that a
word?) has clearly and irrefutably demonstrated his untrustworthiness.


--

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

kony
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
On Wed, 11 May 2005 01:22:22 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
wrote:


>I'm not taking sides, it seemed it would be good, legal or not, to get
>an official MS stated position that could be references as FROM A MS
>Legal department.

No more good than MS getting an official statement from your
"legal department". Believe it or not I'm not trying to be
mundane or argumentative here, it's simply that one CANNOT
refer to the other party in a contract for what THEY deem a
contact to "mean" after they wrote it and further that point
in time of sale has passed. Their interpretation of it
after the fact is no more valid than anyone else's,
specifically a court's if we want to nit-pick.


>
>I actually don't care one way or the other if anyone does anything,
>really, I don't care, I quit caring about 5 months ago. I also don't
>make any attempt to sway anyone into thinking one way or another. I have
>only mentioned what I've read on the MS site, seen in posted (web) MS
>documents, and how I handle it myself.

I can appreciate that and I'm not necessarily trying to
convince you otherwise, but for the benefit of others it is
good to make it known that there is nothing that contacting
MS can do for them. What is not "clear" in a contact cannot
later be pointed out by one of the two parties involved and
be binding on the other.


>
>Since I don't care how you handle it, or Kurt or Alias, and since I'm
>only presenting that MS has documents that clarify their position on the
>OEM site, there is no argument to be entered into - you can do what you
>want.

I agree that in some circumstances those docs may cover
current licensing, when they're referred to in that license
agreement. I was never referred to those and I don't know
anyone who was when talking about single-OEM-system license.

NoStop
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
VWWall wrote:

> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>> Woody wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> from what Mike Brannigan , an MS employee and frequent poster , has been
>>> saying of late is that it's up to the oem to determine when the original
>>> machine is no longer the original machine . definately a major retreat
>>> from
>>> earlier interpretations of the ms oem eula .
>>>
>>
>> No, that's no "retreat." That's what the official policy, as stated
>> by Microsoft employees, has always been.
>>
>>
> If I buy a keyboard with my OEM WinXP Pro x64, as one purveyor has been
> offering, can I change anything on the original computer on which I
> installed the OS as long as I use the same keyboard?
>
> Even stranger is the fact that the keyboard is not even included in the
> hash function used to indicate a change in OS installation.
>
> Am I missing something here?
>
You just aren't understanding the bullsh*t marketing muscle of Big Brother
MickeyMouse. I've seen retailers allowing you to purchase OEM XP by simply
buying a case fan. Of course, when the case fan fails, you have to go and
purchase another copy of OEM XP I guess? Now you know why Bill Gates is the
richest man in the world.

--

`,,`,,`,,``,,`
Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
A brief overview of Windows' most serious design flaws
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS_A.html

kony
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
On Tue, 10 May 2005 19:43:41 -0600, Bruce Chambers
<bchambers@h0tmail.c0m> wrote:


> What's "simplistic" about it? In this situation, the purchaser of the
>OEM license agrees to abide by the terms of the EULA,

At this point you're making a giant leap.
How many people do you know that reviewed and accepted the
EULA before there was any penalty involved in declining it?

Is that EULA even stated on the outside of the packing?
Myself and many others are aware of the need to review these
EULAs, but the average OEM system purchaser- I highly doubt
they agree to anything ahead of purchase time, except to pay
X amount for Y system.

That's not necessarily pointing blame at MS, nor the
customer, rather there is not a standardized mechanism in
place for acceptance of softwrae EULAs and a decline of that
EULA before the customer enters into the sale agreement.
Only prior customers buying same thing a second time may be
fully aware of the EULA, IF they can assume it hasn't
changed.



>and then
>subsequently reneges on his agreement and installs the OEM license
>elsewhere.


I feel the average person does know this can't be done, that
their license is meant for one system only. They may not
realize it can't be transferred to another system though,
until they research it. This is part of the core problem,
that they weren't fully informed of this PRIOR to the sale.




>This indicates quite clearly that this person's given word,
>or signature on a contract, for that matter, cannot be trusted.

When did they give their word or sign the EULA?
I agree more than a little bit with your concept but in it's
application it's not a valid argument.

>If
>he'll break the agreement to abide by the EULA, he cannot be trusted not
>to break any other agreements.

Nonsense.
Somewhere there's somone who doesn't like some particular
thing _you_ do, and could make similar excuse for hassling
you... and it's just an excuse, people are still innocent
until proven guilty, and guilty of only that which they've
done, not that which you "assume" they might do because you
argue it into being some "remotely similar" thing.

NoStop
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
VWWall wrote:

> T. Waters wrote:
>> VWWall wrote:
>>
>>>Bruce Chambers wrote:
>>>
>>>>Woody wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>from what Mike Brannigan , an MS employee and frequent poster , has
>>>>>been saying of late is that it's up to the oem to determine when
>>>>>the original machine is no longer the original machine . definately
>>>>>a major retreat from
>>>>>earlier interpretations of the ms oem eula .
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, that's no "retreat." That's what the official policy, as
>>>>stated by Microsoft employees, has always been.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>If I buy a keyboard with my OEM WinXP Pro x64, as one purveyor has
>>>been offering, can I change anything on the original computer on
>>>which I installed the OS as long as I use the same keyboard?
>>>
>>>Even stranger is the fact that the keyboard is not even included in
>>>the hash function used to indicate a change in OS installation.
>>>
>>>Am I missing something here?
>>
>>
>> Virg, the keyboard has nothing to do with it.
>> The consensus within this group leans towards the power cord as the
>> irreducible essence of a "computer." (;-)
>>
>>
> I did not find anyone offering WinXP Pro x64 with just a power cord. I
> have so many of them it would be hard keeping track which was the
> original one allowed by the EULA. Maybe attach the COA to it?
>
It's the power code that has a phone connection on the end of it, so that it
can phone home whenever it's replugged in and get activated again.

--

`,,`,,`,,``,,`
Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
A brief overview of Windows' most serious design flaws
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS_A.html

NoStop
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
kurttrail wrote:

> Leythos wrote:
>> In article <#NRPCncVFHA.628@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
>> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>> In article <p6m281101cnf8a3gcern4998c3vm52auqa@4ax.com>,
>>>> spam@spam.com says...
>>>>>> In the grand scheme of software licensing, it's up to you to
>>>>>> determine what is right/wrong and what you feel you can get away
>>>>>> with. Some of us are hard-line and purchase a OEM copy considering
>>>>>> that additional MS documents call the Motherboard the defining
>>>>>> component,
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not "hard-line", that's ignorance.
>>>>> If the license agreement that came with the product
>>>>> specifies the motherboard, then it is (a) defining
>>>>> component. It is improper and pointless to make any mention
>>>>> at all of "additional MS documents". If those documents had
>>>>> told you that you are bound to reformat your hard drive
>>>>> every 7 days, would you do that too?
>>>>
>>>> So, if I were a registered OEM, having agreed to the OEM agreements,
>>>> you are saying that I should ignore the documents on the OEM site
>>>> that I've already read concerning the definitions of terms before I
>>>> sign my OEM agreement?
>>>>
>>>> Dude, you missed my point, I never suggested that anyone was bound
>>>> by the clarification, only informed by it, not bound by it - come
>>>> down off the soap-box.
>>>
>>> If you aren't bound by it, then you really isn't worth the toilet
>>> paper I used to wipe my ass with today!
>>>
>>> And neither my used toilet paper or you non-binding web page has any
>>> place in this thread!
>>
>> It had as much place as a statement about a conversation with a
>> contractor that does PA without any real knowledge of licensing rules
>> or documents for the product they are activating.
>>
>> I never claimed it was worth anything to anyone, it's just as good an
>> information source as you provide.
>
> Since MS doesn't support OEM software and it is up to the OEM to support
> MS software, it is only logical that it is up to the OEM to determine
> when they'll stop support the software after upgrading the hardware.
> Since I am my own OEM, my computer is never not my computer, no matter
> how much I upgrade it.
>
> I don't WANT OR NEED to have MS tell me what is right and wrong with my
> copy of software on my hardware! They have absolutely no right to know
> what I do in the privacy of MY home!
>
Yabut, remember when MickeyMouse made you agree to a new EULA when you
picked up a security patch? I don't imagine very many users read that sh*t
everytime a new patch or SP comes out, but be warned. It has happened and
will probably continue to happen. When MickeyMouse is finished with you,
you will have signed away ALL PRIVACY on your system to them. If you've got
your computer updated to the latest security patch, you've already given
MickeyMouse admin privileges to your box.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/06/30/ms_security_patch_eula_gives/



--

`,,`,,`,,``,,`
Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
A brief overview of Windows' most serious design flaws
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS_A.html

beamish
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
"Michael C" wrote:

> Last night I upgraded a customers machine with new motherboard, cpu, memory,
> video card, netcard and soundcard. The only thing that was the same was the
> HDD, dvd drive, tape backup and scsi card. I was having trouble with the
> internet so I phoned MS to activate XP again. After it activated I asked him
> what the limit is to hardware change before XP won't activate. He said that
> XP oem has to always remain on the same PC to be activated. In return I
> asked "what constitutes the same PC?". He kept going around in circles and
> not answering my question and just stating that it has to always remain on
> the same PC. He never gave me a definition of what "same PC" means. In the
> end I asked if it was more of a policy than a technical limitation and he
> said "thank you for calling microsoft to activate your software" and hung
> up!
>
> I suspect that means that it can be installed on a completely new machine
> and will activate ok. Is that true?
>
Hello, Had one experience with "activation". Purchased a unit from a company
that builds individual units. Due to a shipping problem the video card was
unseated. The card was replaced. Five months later had several problems
related to damaged done by the video card. I removed the HD's and returned
unit. The company decided to replace: motherboard, video card, memory, sound
card, cpu, and modem. I asked about "activation" they asked me to wait until
on-line to find out if it is needed. They had replace everything except the
modem and memory with new warranty replacements" same make and model" have
new boxes and registration numbers. The memory was same amount different size
modules. When on-line was informed that activatation not needed only modem
was listed as changed. The HD's (2), DVD burners(2) and power supply not
changed. Must be graduations in "activation" concerning make and model of
replaced items.
Interesting conversation.
Take Care.
beamish.

Michael C
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@h0tmail.c0m> wrote in message
news:uJqpdrcVFHA.2796@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> What's "simplistic" about it? In this situation, the purchaser of the OEM
> license agrees to abide by the terms of the EULA, and then subsequently
> reneges on his agreement and installs the OEM license elsewhere. This
> indicates quite clearly that this person's given word, or signature on a
> contract, for that matter, cannot be trusted. If he'll break the
> agreement to abide by the EULA, he cannot be trusted not to break any
> other agreements.

People don't want that degree of honesty. Most would never hire a 100%
honest tax agent, lawer, employee, whatever. They want someone who can bend
the rules just enough.

Michael

NoStop
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
kurttrail wrote:

> Leythos wrote:
>> In article <#fbe6HcVFHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
>> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>>> And different MS employees tell a different story about at what point
>>> does upgrading components constitute a new and different computer.
>>>
>>> Leythos you really should just give it up! The OP actually talked
>>> to a MS employee and couldn't get a straight answer out of him. And
>>> why is that? Because MS rather keep the FUD surrounding when
>>> upgrading a computer turns it into another computer by defining it
>>> in the EULA. MS KNOWS if pressed their POST EULA FUD is in no way
>>> enforceable.
>>
>> What part of "my personal" did you miss - Hell, I even stated your and
>> Alias's positions of being able to do anything you want.
>>
>> I've not made a statement as to one or the other being fact in this
>> thread.
>
> You still talk about the motherboard fantasy as it it is part of the
> EULA.
>
> IT IS NOT A PART OF THE EULA! It is only binding on you in your
> delusions!
>
> NOT ONE END USER EVER AGREED TO IT!
>
> MS'S MOTHERBOARD NONSENSE HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY
> AGREEMENT!
>

You can play lawyer all you want, but the reality is that 'dems with the
bucks make the rules. You want to take MickeyMouse on legally? Good luck!
Even the DOJ couldn't sustain a real challenge to MickeyMouse's illegal
activities. Gates has a war chest in the hundreds of millions of dollars to
do whatever he wants in the legal arena. It's just like the RIAA, when they
decide to slam a file sharer, most just cave in and settle out of court.

The reality is, MickeyMouse can determine what it considers significant
enough hardware changes to prevent a re-activation of the OS and thus force
the end-user to purchase a new license. So EULA at the end doesn't mean
squat. If you want to continue to be a slave of MickeyMouse you are forced
to play by MickeyMouse's rules. That's always the way it's been with MS and
always will be. Get over it! When you get fed up enough, you do have other
options.

Don't know whether you ever read chapter 7, but maybe you should ...

http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS_7.html

"Microsoft doesn't care where you want to go today. You'll go wherever
Microsoft tells you to go, period."

--

`,,`,,`,,``,,`
Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
A brief overview of Windows' most serious design flaws
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS_A.html

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
NoStop wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <#NRPCncVFHA.628@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
>>> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>> In article <p6m281101cnf8a3gcern4998c3vm52auqa@4ax.com>,
>>>>> spam@spam.com says...
>>>>>>> In the grand scheme of software licensing, it's up to you to
>>>>>>> determine what is right/wrong and what you feel you can get away
>>>>>>> with. Some of us are hard-line and purchase a OEM copy
>>>>>>> considering that additional MS documents call the Motherboard
>>>>>>> the defining component,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's not "hard-line", that's ignorance.
>>>>>> If the license agreement that came with the product
>>>>>> specifies the motherboard, then it is (a) defining
>>>>>> component. It is improper and pointless to make any mention
>>>>>> at all of "additional MS documents". If those documents had
>>>>>> told you that you are bound to reformat your hard drive
>>>>>> every 7 days, would you do that too?
>>>>>
>>>>> So, if I were a registered OEM, having agreed to the OEM
>>>>> agreements, you are saying that I should ignore the documents on
>>>>> the OEM site that I've already read concerning the definitions of
>>>>> terms before I sign my OEM agreement?
>>>>>
>>>>> Dude, you missed my point, I never suggested that anyone was bound
>>>>> by the clarification, only informed by it, not bound by it - come
>>>>> down off the soap-box.
>>>>
>>>> If you aren't bound by it, then you really isn't worth the toilet
>>>> paper I used to wipe my ass with today!
>>>>
>>>> And neither my used toilet paper or you non-binding web page has
>>>> any place in this thread!
>>>
>>> It had as much place as a statement about a conversation with a
>>> contractor that does PA without any real knowledge of licensing
>>> rules or documents for the product they are activating.
>>>
>>> I never claimed it was worth anything to anyone, it's just as good
>>> an information source as you provide.
>>
>> Since MS doesn't support OEM software and it is up to the OEM to
>> support MS software, it is only logical that it is up to the OEM to
>> determine when they'll stop support the software after upgrading the
>> hardware. Since I am my own OEM, my computer is never not my
>> computer, no matter how much I upgrade it.
>>
>> I don't WANT OR NEED to have MS tell me what is right and wrong with
>> my copy of software on my hardware! They have absolutely no right
>> to know what I do in the privacy of MY home!
>>
> Yabut, remember when MickeyMouse made you agree to a new EULA when you
> picked up a security patch? I don't imagine very many users read that
> sh*t everytime a new patch or SP comes out, but be warned. It has
> happened and will probably continue to happen. When MickeyMouse is
> finished with you, you will have signed away ALL PRIVACY on your
> system to them. If you've got your computer updated to the latest
> security patch, you've already given MickeyMouse admin privileges to
> your box.
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/06/30/ms_security_patch_eula_gives/

LOL! Like MS is gonna sue me! They've had thirteen years to sue an
individual over their One Computer EULA term, and have yet to prove that
term is enforceable over an individuals right to "fair use." MS is all
FUD, deception, smoke & mirrors, and outright lies, when it comes to
them backing up the bullsh*t by legal means when it comes to private
non-commercial use.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Kerry Brown
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ceb1444550aa5869896e1@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <uOTW1qbVFHA.2664@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, Woody@ByteMe.com
> says...
>> the latest from mike brannigan is that it's the oem that determines when
>> the
>> original computer is no longer the original computer . so who built the
>> computer , who bought the oem os and who installed the os on that
>> computer
>> determines the rules as far as i read it .
>
> Not that I want to get into this again, but if you go into the OEM site
> at MS, read around the documents, it seemed very clear to me that the
> OEM software is tied to the first computer it's installed on, and that
> the computer, by MS's documents on the OEM site, indicate that the
> Motherboard is the "computer".
>
> When I, as a personal choice, choose OEM, I limit the scope of the
> license to the motherboard.
>
> --
> --
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me

I was at recent MS OEM event and attended a session on licensing. The
speaker was very clear that Microsoft's position was that changing the
motherboard was not allowed as it defines the computer. She even said that
in the near future activations will reflect this. Changing a motherboard
will only be allowed under warranty and will always cause a phone in event.
Later on she was asked about selling OEM software with qualifying hardware
what qualified? She said anything that was essential to running a computer.
She elaborated that that meant anything within the case, even a ram chip,
and also a keyboard and mouse. Does anyone else see the inconsistency here?
If someone from the licensing dept. is inconsistent when trying to explain
to the mostly converted how is anyone supposed to make sense of it. My
interpretation of the EULA is OEM software stays with the computer. If it's
upgraded in any fashion over time it's within the EULA. If the computer is
sold, given away, or somehow still in use and a new one is purchased then
it's time for a new license.

Kerry

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
NoStop wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <#fbe6HcVFHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
>>> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>>>> And different MS employees tell a different story about at what
>>>> point does upgrading components constitute a new and different
>>>> computer.
>>>>
>>>> Leythos you really should just give it up! The OP actually talked
>>>> to a MS employee and couldn't get a straight answer out of him.
>>>> And why is that? Because MS rather keep the FUD surrounding when
>>>> upgrading a computer turns it into another computer by defining it
>>>> in the EULA. MS KNOWS if pressed their POST EULA FUD is in no way
>>>> enforceable.
>>>
>>> What part of "my personal" did you miss - Hell, I even stated your
>>> and Alias's positions of being able to do anything you want.
>>>
>>> I've not made a statement as to one or the other being fact in this
>>> thread.
>>
>> You still talk about the motherboard fantasy as it it is part of the
>> EULA.
>>
>> IT IS NOT A PART OF THE EULA! It is only binding on you in your
>> delusions!
>>
>> NOT ONE END USER EVER AGREED TO IT!
>>
>> MS'S MOTHERBOARD NONSENSE HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY
>> AGREEMENT!
>>
>
> You can play lawyer all you want, but the reality is that 'dems with
> the bucks make the rules.

LOL! The Republicans control two out of the 3 branches of gov't, and
the third is centrist.

> You want to take MickeyMouse on legally?
> Good luck!

I don't have to. It is up to them under both copyright law and contract
law to sue me. They don't sue me, my interpretation of the law is valid
for me.

> Even the DOJ couldn't sustain a real challenge to
> MickeyMouse's illegal activities. Gates has a war chest in the
> hundreds of millions of dollars to do whatever he wants in the legal
> arena. It's just like the RIAA, when they decide to slam a file
> sharer, most just cave in and settle out of court.

That's because the RIAA have been very smart to only go after those that
distribute music over the web. They haven't gone after one person that
has only downloaded.

Distributing copyrighted material to others is a violation of copyright
law.

>
> The reality is, MickeyMouse can determine what it considers
> significant enough hardware changes to prevent a re-activation of the
> OS and thus force the end-user to purchase a new license.

They can't yet. All PA tells them that enough hardware has changed to
required activation, not what exact hardware has changed. MS can not
figure out if XP is on a totally different PC unless the person tells
the PA phone rep that it is a totally different computer.

> So EULA at
> the end doesn't mean squat. If you want to continue to be a slave of
> MickeyMouse you are forced to play by MickeyMouse's rules.

LOL! You are totally fooling yourself if you think I'm playing by MS's
rules.

> That's
> always the way it's been with MS and always will be. Get over it!
> When you get fed up enough, you do have other options.

Yeah, disable some of my hardware, and neuter some others, and run
linux! Please! If I want to run a server I'll build a computer to run
linux, but right now I want my multimedia computer, run my games and not
castrate my system, so linux is not a realistic solution.

>
> Don't know whether you ever read chapter 7, but maybe you should ...
>
> http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS_7.html
>
> "Microsoft doesn't care where you want to go today. You'll go wherever
> Microsoft tells you to go, period."

LOL! FUD. An educated consumer knows how to protect themselves for the
tyranny of the corporate elites.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

NoStop
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
kurttrail wrote:

>>
>> Don't know whether you ever read chapter 7, but maybe you should ...
>>
>> http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS_7.html
>>
>> "Microsoft doesn't care where you want to go today. You'll go wherever
>> Microsoft tells you to go, period."
>
> LOL! FUD. An educated consumer knows how to protect themselves for the
> tyranny of the corporate elites.
>
I guess you're one of the few around here that advise others against getting
the latest updates? Each update to the OS that you accept to place on your
'puter means you're going where Microsoft tells you to go. When MS decided
to no longer support 95, or 98 or 2000 and eventually XP, to continue to
have a secure system you're either going to upgrade to what MS gives you OR
you're going to look for an alternative. It's as simple as that. And as
long as you continue on the MS upgrade path, you're marching to MS's drum
beat because if you're going to use their software, you have no other
option. So cut the crap about what an independent individual you are. You
have no independence with your computer as long as you're forced to take
the updates or face corruption or malfunctioning of your computer. Haven't
you ever considered that all these insecurity issues with Windoze is
exactly what MS needs to enable it to keep you purchasing their next
version? Again, there's a track record. I really think you should read that
article. Especially the history lesson. Then you'll see that the leopard
hasn't changed its spots.


--

`,,`,,`,,``,,`
Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
A brief overview of Windows' most serious design flaws
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS_A.html

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
Kerry Brown wrote:
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1ceb1444550aa5869896e1@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
>> In article <uOTW1qbVFHA.2664@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, Woody@ByteMe.com
>> says...
>>> the latest from mike brannigan is that it's the oem that determines
>>> when the
>>> original computer is no longer the original computer . so who built
>>> the computer , who bought the oem os and who installed the os on
>>> that computer
>>> determines the rules as far as i read it .
>>
>> Not that I want to get into this again, but if you go into the OEM
>> site at MS, read around the documents, it seemed very clear to me
>> that the OEM software is tied to the first computer it's installed
>> on, and that the computer, by MS's documents on the OEM site,
>> indicate that the Motherboard is the "computer".
>>
>> When I, as a personal choice, choose OEM, I limit the scope of the
>> license to the motherboard.
>>
>> --
>> --
>> spam999free@rrohio.com
>> remove 999 in order to email me
>
> I was at recent MS OEM event and attended a session on licensing. The
> speaker was very clear that Microsoft's position was that changing the
> motherboard was not allowed as it defines the computer. She even said
> that in the near future activations will reflect this. Changing a
> motherboard will only be allowed under warranty and will always cause
> a phone in event. Later on she was asked about selling OEM software
> with qualifying hardware what qualified? She said anything that was
> essential to running a computer. She elaborated that that meant
> anything within the case, even a ram chip, and also a keyboard and
> mouse. Does anyone else see the inconsistency here? If someone from
> the licensing dept. is inconsistent when trying to explain to the
> mostly converted how is anyone supposed to make sense of it. My
> interpretation of the EULA is OEM software stays with the computer.
> If it's upgraded in any fashion over time it's within the EULA. If
> the computer is sold, given away, or somehow still in use and a new
> one is purchased then it's time for a new license.
> Kerry

You can sell the computer with the OEM software. The EULA allows
tranfers with the computer it is licensed with.

As for the rest. MS seems schizo when it comes to when a computer
becomes a new computer through upgrades. I see it as a legal issue. If
MS defines it in its EULA, that is something that would be destined for
a class action suit, and MS really does NOT want to be put in a position
where it has to defend its rules when it comes to private non-commercial
use. Especially since MS uses the OEM EULA to totally absolve itself
any liability at all, and pawn it all off on the OEM.

Doesn't make it easier for you and others in business selling computers
preinstalled with OEM XP, or selling XP with hardware components to know
what to do to sell it within the rules. I'd suggest next time you get
licensing person explaning such things you cover your ass, and record
it.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Ron Martell
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
"beamish" <beamish@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:


>Hello, Had one experience with "activation". Purchased a unit from a company
>that builds individual units. Due to a shipping problem the video card was
>unseated. The card was replaced. Five months later had several problems
>related to damaged done by the video card. I removed the HD's and returned
>unit. The company decided to replace: motherboard, video card, memory, sound
>card, cpu, and modem. I asked about "activation" they asked me to wait until
>on-line to find out if it is needed. They had replace everything except the
>modem and memory with new warranty replacements" same make and model" have
>new boxes and registration numbers. The memory was same amount different size
>modules. When on-line was informed that activatation not needed only modem
>was listed as changed. The HD's (2), DVD burners(2) and power supply not
>changed. Must be graduations in "activation" concerning make and model of
>replaced items.
>Interesting conversation.
>Take Care.
>beamish.

The critical element here is the "5 months later...." bit. Microsoft
purges the activation data base after 120 days so the records of the
first activation would have been removed by the time the major
hardware replacement happened.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
NoStop wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Don't know whether you ever read chapter 7, but maybe you should ...
>>>
>>> http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS_7.html
>>>
>>> "Microsoft doesn't care where you want to go today. You'll go
>>> wherever Microsoft tells you to go, period."
>>
>> LOL! FUD. An educated consumer knows how to protect themselves for
>> the tyranny of the corporate elites.
>>
> I guess you're one of the few around here that advise others against
> getting the latest updates? Each update to the OS that you accept to
> place on your 'puter means you're going where Microsoft tells you to
> go. When MS decided to no longer support 95, or 98 or 2000 and
> eventually XP, to continue to have a secure system you're either
> going to upgrade to what MS gives you OR you're going to look for an
> alternative. It's as simple as that. And as long as you continue on
> the MS upgrade path, you're marching to MS's drum beat because if
> you're going to use their software, you have no other option. So cut
> the crap about what an independent individual you are. You have no
> independence with your computer as long as you're forced to take the
> updates or face corruption or malfunctioning of your computer.
> Haven't you ever considered that all these insecurity issues with
> Windoze is exactly what MS needs to enable it to keep you purchasing
> their next version? Again, there's a track record. I really think you
> should read that article. Especially the history lesson. Then you'll
> see that the leopard hasn't changed its spots.

I advise people to make up their own minds whether MS has the right to
tell them what the can and can't do in their homes with their copies of
software, and if they want to know how to protect themselves from MS's
unsubstantiated claims, I will help them out with that.

When I feel Linux is ready for the average user my tune will change, but
right now, Linux is a server OS and a OS for the hobbyist. Linux is a
not yet ready for prime time player.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Ron Martell
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
"Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.org> wrote:


>
>You are saying one cannot upgrade a computer if you have an OEM licence and
>that by upgrading it, you lose the licence to use the software you bought
>for this upgraded computer. Scam, no matter how you slice it.
>
>Example. Last year I got a MoBo with an AGP 4x slot and it can only handle
>266 RAM. I want an 8x slot and a motherboard that can handle 400 RAM and a
>faster 400 processor to go with it. With your theory, I would have to buy
>another copy of an OEM Windows XP to upgrade the same computer the first OEM
>was installed on and I say that is a scam if true, it is designed to make
>people buy software they already have and paid for. Now, I will buy the
>motherboard and new RAM and if I have to call MS, I will only give them the
>number, as is outlined in their FAQs and not feel like a thief or weasal but
>as a person who merely upgraded his computer and didn't want to be forced to
>buy something I already have again!
>
>Please explain how all of this relates to piracy, be it for profit or
>"casual". I am all ears.
>

Some additional points that might be at least partially relevant to
this discussion:

1. Surveys have shown that the vast majority of PCs go to the scrap
heap or dumpster with their original hardware configurations intact.
Upgraded systems are a small minority of the total.

2. OEM licenses are much less expensive than their retail
equivalents, and there is a reason for this. You get what you pay
for.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

Pelysma
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
"Michael C" <me@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:42813cae$0$79456$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
> [snip]
> I suspect that means that it can be installed on a completely new machine
> and will activate ok. Is that true?
Microsoft and the product activation process will not prevent this, although
it would be a violation of your EULA. In many cases the installation method
for Windows on a brand-name computer will have been doctored -- keyed to the
BIOS, for example -- so that it can't be installed on a different machine at
all. I certainly wouldn't count on transferring Windows from your Compaq to
a whole new system. As a user, I wouldn't expect this to be acceptable,
either.

Microsoft's rules are hazy, but so are mine. My hazy rules say that, if
it's reasonable and honest, nobody will be coming after me for it. My hazy
rules say that, if I replace my whole computer a piece or two at a time over
a couple of years while using it continuously for the same purposes, it's
still the same computer. (At fifty, I'm not using many of the same body
cells I had as a kid, either.) And anybody who knows the business knows
that upgrading the processor usually means upgrading motherboard and memory
as well. It seems pretty doubtful that this kind of upgrade will draw a
complaint.

Microsoft is very clear about retail boxed versions: you can install it on
another computer as long as you remove it from the first. It's much less
clear about OEM, and the clearest part is that Dell isn't in the business of
supporting software on a computer with no Dell parts left in it, while
Microsoft isn't interested in solving problems on a copy of Windows Dell
sold. You can probably activate it, but it will be an orphan.

And Windows Update will still run, no questions asked. Why? Because of the
recent assault of malware. A system not updated because the user was afraid
to call Microsoft is a festering place for bad things. Also, a customer
badgered or threatened is a former customer.

Remember the question from Jurassic Park? People spent all this time
finding out if they COULD, but never put a moment's thought into whether
they SHOULD. Well, you probably could install an OEM copy of Windows on
practically anything. Should you? I'm not too clear on that. Suppose you
bought a machine with OEM Windows XP Home on it, and bought a retail upgrade
to XP Pro. Is it now an OEM or a retail installation? Maybe you can then
use that upgrade to upgrade another machine from Home to Pro as long as you
revert the first one.

Common sense goes a long way, even with Microsoft.

--
P.

Michael C
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
"Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bp53811tk2sbc0h4cuhksi7cm7ab90550l@4ax.com...
> 2. OEM licenses are much less expensive than their retail
> equivalents, and there is a reason for this. You get what you pay
> for.

No, OEM you pay a fair price, retail you getting ripped.

Michael

Michael C
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
"Pelysma" <pelysma@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:bLgge.12238$U01.7624@trnddc07...
> Microsoft and the product activation process will not prevent this,
> although it would be a violation of your EULA. In many cases the
> installation method for Windows on a brand-name computer will have been
> doctored -- keyed to the BIOS, for example -- so that it can't be
> installed on a different machine at all. I certainly wouldn't count on
> transferring Windows from your Compaq to a whole new system. As a user, I
> wouldn't expect this to be acceptable, either.

Just another good reason to avoid name brands. Why anyone would buy from a
company that intentionally made things difficult for their customers is
beyong me, but that's another story.

> Microsoft's rules are hazy, but so are mine. My hazy rules say that, if
> it's reasonable and honest, nobody will be coming after me for it. My hazy
> rules say that, if I replace my whole computer a piece or two at a time
> over a couple of years while using it continuously for the same purposes,
> it's still the same computer. (At fifty, I'm not using many of the same
> body cells I had as a kid, either.) And anybody who knows the business
> knows that upgrading the processor usually means upgrading motherboard and
> memory as well. It seems pretty doubtful that this kind of upgrade will
> draw a complaint.

That's about how I work also. In this case the customer purchased XP and is
only using 1 copy so is doing the right thing, imo.

Michael

Kerry Brown
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:esGB1HeVFHA.2256@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Kerry Brown wrote:
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1ceb1444550aa5869896e1@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
>>> In article <uOTW1qbVFHA.2664@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>, Woody@ByteMe.com
>>> says...
>>>> the latest from mike brannigan is that it's the oem that determines
>>>> when the
>>>> original computer is no longer the original computer . so who built
>>>> the computer , who bought the oem os and who installed the os on
>>>> that computer
>>>> determines the rules as far as i read it .
>>>
>>> Not that I want to get into this again, but if you go into the OEM
>>> site at MS, read around the documents, it seemed very clear to me
>>> that the OEM software is tied to the first computer it's installed
>>> on, and that the computer, by MS's documents on the OEM site,
>>> indicate that the Motherboard is the "computer".
>>>
>>> When I, as a personal choice, choose OEM, I limit the scope of the
>>> license to the motherboard.
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> spam999free@rrohio.com
>>> remove 999 in order to email me
>>
>> I was at recent MS OEM event and attended a session on licensing. The
>> speaker was very clear that Microsoft's position was that changing the
>> motherboard was not allowed as it defines the computer. She even said
>> that in the near future activations will reflect this. Changing a
>> motherboard will only be allowed under warranty and will always cause
>> a phone in event. Later on she was asked about selling OEM software
>> with qualifying hardware what qualified? She said anything that was
>> essential to running a computer. She elaborated that that meant
>> anything within the case, even a ram chip, and also a keyboard and
>> mouse. Does anyone else see the inconsistency here? If someone from
>> the licensing dept. is inconsistent when trying to explain to the
>> mostly converted how is anyone supposed to make sense of it. My
>> interpretation of the EULA is OEM software stays with the computer.
>> If it's upgraded in any fashion over time it's within the EULA. If
>> the computer is sold, given away, or somehow still in use and a new
>> one is purchased then it's time for a new license.
>> Kerry
>
> You can sell the computer with the OEM software. The EULA allows tranfers
> with the computer it is licensed with.
>

That's what I meant. The OEM license stays with the computer. A lot ofpeople
seem to think it's ok to sell the computer with the OS installed but keep
the COA and use it with the new computer.

> As for the rest. MS seems schizo when it comes to when a computer becomes
> a new computer through upgrades. I see it as a legal issue. If MS
> defines it in its EULA, that is something that would be destined for a
> class action suit, and MS really does NOT want to be put in a position
> where it has to defend its rules when it comes to private non-commercial
> use. Especially since MS uses the OEM EULA to totally absolve itself any
> liability at all, and pawn it all off on the OEM.
>
> Doesn't make it easier for you and others in business selling computers
> preinstalled with OEM XP, or selling XP with hardware components to know
> what to do to sell it within the rules. I'd suggest next time you get
> licensing person explaning such things you cover your ass, and record it.
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt
> Self-anointed Moderator
> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>

kony
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
On Wed, 11 May 2005 04:27:49 GMT, NoStop
<nostop@stopspam.com> wrote:


>I guess you're one of the few around here that advise others against getting
>the latest updates? Each update to the OS that you accept to place on your
>'puter means you're going where Microsoft tells you to go. When MS decided
>to no longer support 95, or 98 or 2000 and eventually XP, to continue to
>have a secure system you're either going to upgrade to what MS gives you OR
>you're going to look for an alternative. It's as simple as that.

There is no reason a win98 system can't be secure today.
One is not required nor dependant on MS, and better off not
waiting on them to fix things. Security is about holes and
eliminating them does not require non-MS OS, though
admittedly it may be easier that way. The problem is the
defaults MS set up on their OS, but given the concern about
security one CAN still make changes. When the day comes
that this is no longer possible I too will avoid windows
like the plague.


>And as
>long as you continue on the MS upgrade path, you're marching to MS's drum
>beat because if you're going to use their software, you have no other
>option. So cut the crap about what an independent individual you are. You
>have no independence with your computer as long as you're forced to take
>the updates or face corruption or malfunctioning of your computer.

Independence is choosing one way or the other. There are
good arguments TO use MS OS, for example the huge software
base and hardware support. That's not an argument FOR MS,
per se, as it's a bit disgusting that they only have this
advantage due to their desktop monopoly, but rather it's a
recognition of reality, that the way things stand for many
uses a system would be crippled without a MS OS... not all
uses require it but the intelligent user will decide what
compromise to make if they only have one system.



>Haven't
>you ever considered that all these insecurity issues with Windoze is
>exactly what MS needs to enable it to keep you purchasing their next
>version? Again, there's a track record. I really think you should read that
>article. Especially the history lesson. Then you'll see that the leopard
>hasn't changed its spots.

I agree that MS seems not-so-eager to fix obvious flaws in
their OS, especially considering the resources they have
available to them. On the other hand their philosophy seems
to be to enable the most features possible (which is good)
but without fully securing those features yet (the bad).
One thing to remember is that although WIndows includes
browser and email client, you're not forced to use them.

Anyone who considers an alternative OS can also consider
similar if not same alternative browser and email client,
and suddenly "Windows" insecurity has dropped by an order of
magnitude. While it would still be the most popular target
for exploits among OS, the most popular apps are no longer
in use.

T. Waters
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
NoStop wrote:
> VWWall wrote:
>
>> T. Waters wrote:
>>> VWWall wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Woody wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> from what Mike Brannigan , an MS employee and frequent poster ,
>>>>>> has been saying of late is that it's up to the oem to determine
>>>>>> when the original machine is no longer the original machine .
>>>>>> definately a major retreat from
>>>>>> earlier interpretations of the ms oem eula .
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, that's no "retreat." That's what the official policy, as
>>>>> stated by Microsoft employees, has always been.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I buy a keyboard with my OEM WinXP Pro x64, as one purveyor has
>>>> been offering, can I change anything on the original computer on
>>>> which I installed the OS as long as I use the same keyboard?
>>>>
>>>> Even stranger is the fact that the keyboard is not even included in
>>>> the hash function used to indicate a change in OS installation.
>>>>
>>>> Am I missing something here?
>>>
>>>
>>> Virg, the keyboard has nothing to do with it.
>>> The consensus within this group leans towards the power cord as the
>>> irreducible essence of a "computer." (;-)
>>>
>>>
>> I did not find anyone offering WinXP Pro x64 with just a power cord.
>> I have so many of them it would be hard keeping track which was the
>> original one allowed by the EULA. Maybe attach the COA to it?
>>
> It's the power code that has a phone connection on the end of it, so
> that it can phone home whenever it's replugged in and get activated
> again.

LOL!
I like that!

T. Waters
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
Bruce Chambers wrote:
> T. Waters wrote:
>> Sorry, Bruce, for sounding insulting.
>
>
> Accepted.
>
>
>> In my mind, you sounded like some
>> orthodox practioners of religion I know.
>
>
> For my clarification then, and so as to avoid such a misunderstanding
> in the future, could you tell me just how I "sounded" hypocritical?
> Surely the desire for integrity in one's business partners and other -
> even social - associates isn't dependent upon superstition.
>
>
>> I guess it is just a question of priorities. For me, it is
>> infinitely more important that people wash their hands after using
>> the restroom than that they abide by the OEM rules in the MS EULA.,
>> and I mean this seriously.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Not to discount your perfectly valid concern for sanitation and
> personal hygiene, does this mean that you don't care when people lie
> to you or break their promises to you? Set aside the subject of a
> Microsoft EULA - this comes down to basic honesty, period. It doesn't
> matter to whom a promise is made, with whom an agreement or contract
> is made, or what specifics the promise, agreement , or contract
> concerns. A broken promise is a broken promise. I don't see how a
> person who reneges on an agreement to anyone else - even an
> "anonymous" corporate entity - can be trusted to keep one with me;
> the reneger (is that a word?) has clearly and irrefutably
> demonstrated his untrustworthiness.

Actually, the orthodox practitioners of religion I know are not hypocrites,
but they spend what amounts to excessive time (IMO) "making God happy" when
it seems to me he might not really care if, say, they turned on a light at
the wrong time.

As to the EULA, if I lend my car to a friend, and tell them not to park it
in the bad part of town because of the risk of breakins, and they do park my
car there while a gas attendant (Oregon) is filling the gas tank, I do not
feel that my trust has been violated. They respected the spirit of my
request, and that is what is important. On the other hand, if they parked my
car and left it in the safe part of town, but on a street with, say, junkies
hanging out on it, they would be abusing my generosity. Intent is
everything.

BNR
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
"I don't see how a person who reneges on an agreement to anyone else - even
an "anonymous" corporate entity - can be trusted to keep one with me;"

I can see how Waters interpreted Chambers as "religious". Chambers writes
radical views.

Trust involves information. Anonymity involves misinformation. The word
"renege" is medieval latin. It is a poor choice of words. Bounce a check,
void the OS?!? Microsoft is obviously a monopolizing conglomerate above
regulation. Its asexual. To compare it with a human action is wrong.
Especially when it refers to humans as end users... End of what?
Humanitiy I say.

T. Waters
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
NoStop wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <#fbe6HcVFHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
>>> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>>>> And different MS employees tell a different story about at what
>>>> point does upgrading components constitute a new and different
>>>> computer.
>>>>
>>>> Leythos you really should just give it up! The OP actually talked
>>>> to a MS employee and couldn't get a straight answer out of him.
>>>> And why is that? Because MS rather keep the FUD surrounding when
>>>> upgrading a computer turns it into another computer by defining it
>>>> in the EULA. MS KNOWS if pressed their POST EULA FUD is in no way
>>>> enforceable.
>>>
>>> What part of "my personal" did you miss - Hell, I even stated your
>>> and Alias's positions of being able to do anything you want.
>>>
>>> I've not made a statement as to one or the other being fact in this
>>> thread.
>>
>> You still talk about the motherboard fantasy as it it is part of the
>> EULA.
>>
>> IT IS NOT A PART OF THE EULA! It is only binding on you in your
>> delusions!
>>
>> NOT ONE END USER EVER AGREED TO IT!
>>
>> MS'S MOTHERBOARD NONSENSE HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY
>> AGREEMENT!
>>
>
> You can play lawyer all you want, but the reality is that 'dems with
> the bucks make the rules. You want to take MickeyMouse on legally?
> Good luck! Even the DOJ couldn't sustain a real challenge to
> MickeyMouse's illegal activities. Gates has a war chest in the
> hundreds of millions of dollars to do whatever he wants in the legal
> arena. It's just like the RIAA, when they decide to slam a file
> sharer, most just cave in and settle out of court.
>
> The reality is, MickeyMouse can determine what it considers
> significant enough hardware changes to prevent a re-activation of the
> OS and thus force the end-user to purchase a new license. So EULA at
> the end doesn't mean squat. If you want to continue to be a slave of
> MickeyMouse you are forced to play by MickeyMouse's rules. That's
> always the way it's been with MS and always will be. Get over it!
> When you get fed up enough, you do have other options.
>
> Don't know whether you ever read chapter 7, but maybe you should ...
>
> http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS_7.html
>
> "Microsoft doesn't care where you want to go today. You'll go wherever
> Microsoft tells you to go, period."

NoStop, thanks for the link to Frank's article. He has amassed so much
information on the workings of MS, and presented it in a well-written and
organized fashion. I learned more than I wanted to, that's for sure.

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
In article <gcs281p0jvkl9jkq98ht72u5j5cgiabar1@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
says...
> You cannot
> have MS (nor youself) further elaborate them in scope or
> terms after that contract is made.

Actually, I can ask MS to clarify it in order to see what / where they
are going or wanted to go, but it only matters to me as a means to
understand what they wanted to do, not what I'm (or anyone) is bound to.

What's funny, is that to be an OEM you are bound to more than just the
EULA, and the OEM site is setup for OEM's and to allow people to become
OEM's, and the site contains specifics about what they consider. At the
same time, you (in the US) are not an OEM just by getting an OEM disk
from an OEM, you are an OEM if you have an OEM agreement with MS,
otherwise you're just an end-user of OEM software.

So, one could reason that if you've read the OEM documents, signed on to
be an OEM so that you could order directly from the MS OEM program (and
not another OEM), that you would already know what MS has defined for
it's definitions. You do realize that purchasing OEM software from an
OEM does not make you an OEM, it only makes you a purchaser of OEM
software.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
In article <e2ZFP1dVFHA.3432@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-
tems.c*a*m says...
> I was at recent MS OEM event and attended a session on licensing. The
> speaker was very clear that Microsoft's position was that changing the
> motherboard was not allowed as it defines the computer. She even said that
> in the near future activations will reflect this. Changing a motherboard
> will only be allowed under warranty and will always cause a phone in event.
> Later on she was asked about selling OEM software with qualifying hardware
> what qualified? She said anything that was essential to running a computer.
> She elaborated that that meant anything within the case, even a ram chip,
> and also a keyboard and mouse. Does anyone else see the inconsistency here?

The motherboard is what they describe on the OEM site too.

As for what you can sell OEM software with, I don't see where the
purchase has anything to do with it as long as you understand the
license is tied to the motherboard as defined above.

They are making it easy to purchase, which has nothing to do with a
license for use.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Serial # 19781010
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
On Tue, 10 May 2005 20:37:14 -0600, Bruce Chambers
<bchambers@h0tmail.c0m> wrote:

this comes down to basic honesty, period. It doesn't
>matter to whom a promise is made, with whom an agreement or contract is
>made, or what specifics the promise, agreement , or contract concerns.
>A broken promise is a broken promise. I don't see how a person who
>reneges on an agreement to anyone else - even an "anonymous" corporate
>entity - can be trusted to keep one with me; the reneger (is that a
>word?) has clearly and irrefutably demonstrated his untrustworthiness.

You are being over simple-minded....

The fact that a person has or has not lied and/or broken an agreement
says very little about that person's trustworthiness. Trustworthiness
is also a matter of context and not only one of mere fact.

During the Second World War there were Germans who put their lives on
the line to disobey and/or circumvent direct orders that would have
resulted in the death of innocent people. They accepted orders that
they told authorities were carried out when in fact they had not been.
They lied. They were being by your definition "dishonest".

Are you seriously saying that if such a person was now, say, my
neighbor that because of his "dishonesty" 60 years ago, under
conditions of life or death, that such a person is not now deserving
of my trust?

Beowulf

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
"T. Waters" <@$%$%#^@jdjgkl.com> wrote in message
news:eFGjU5cVFHA.2984@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> VWWall wrote:
>> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>>> Woody wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> from what Mike Brannigan , an MS employee and frequent poster , has
>>>> been saying of late is that it's up to the oem to determine when
>>>> the original machine is no longer the original machine . definately
>>>> a major retreat from
>>>> earlier interpretations of the ms oem eula .
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, that's no "retreat." That's what the official policy, as
>>> stated by Microsoft employees, has always been.
>>>
>>>
>> If I buy a keyboard with my OEM WinXP Pro x64, as one purveyor has
>> been offering, can I change anything on the original computer on
>> which I installed the OS as long as I use the same keyboard?
>>
>> Even stranger is the fact that the keyboard is not even included in
>> the hash function used to indicate a change in OS installation.
>>
>> Am I missing something here?
>
> Virg, the keyboard has nothing to do with it.
> The consensus within this group leans towards the power cord as the
> irreducible essence of a "computer." (;-)

You are incorrectly assuming that one has to buy hardware to buy a copy of
Windows XP OEM. I have three installed that I bought without hardware. In
the *USA*, one has to buy hardware. In Europe, one does not and in Spain,
where I live, you will be very hard pressed to even be able to *find* a full
retail copy. It would seem to me that instead of saying that an OEM can only
be installed on one computer -- without defining what "one computer" is --
they should say it should not be installed on two computers simultaneously,
although for private use, it's monopolistic and a rip off to expect that a
family should have to buy a diffeent OEM for each computer.

Alias

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
"Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bp53811tk2sbc0h4cuhksi7cm7ab90550l@4ax.com...
> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.org> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>You are saying one cannot upgrade a computer if you have an OEM licence
>>and
>>that by upgrading it, you lose the licence to use the software you bought
>>for this upgraded computer. Scam, no matter how you slice it.
>>
>>Example. Last year I got a MoBo with an AGP 4x slot and it can only handle
>>266 RAM. I want an 8x slot and a motherboard that can handle 400 RAM and a
>>faster 400 processor to go with it. With your theory, I would have to buy
>>another copy of an OEM Windows XP to upgrade the same computer the first
>>OEM
>>was installed on and I say that is a scam if true, it is designed to make
>>people buy software they already have and paid for. Now, I will buy the
>>motherboard and new RAM and if I have to call MS, I will only give them
>>the
>>number, as is outlined in their FAQs and not feel like a thief or weasal
>>but
>>as a person who merely upgraded his computer and didn't want to be forced
>>to
>>buy something I already have again!
>>
>>Please explain how all of this relates to piracy, be it for profit or
>>"casual". I am all ears.
>>
>
> Some additional points that might be at least partially relevant to
> this discussion:
>
> 1. Surveys have shown that the vast majority of PCs go to the scrap
> heap or dumpster with their original hardware configurations intact.
> Upgraded systems are a small minority of the total.

So the theory of the tyrannical majority applies and no one can upgrade
their computers?
>
> 2. OEM licenses are much less expensive than their retail
> equivalents, and there is a reason for this. You get what you pay
> for.

I haven't been able to find a retail copy of WinXP in Spain, only upgrades
and OEMs.

Alias
>
>
> Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
> --
> Microsoft MVP
> On-Line Help Computer Service
> http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
>
> In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
> http://aumha.org/alex.htm

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
In article <u8h3811m67oj8m9h5jonkgiptgj24dhssa@4ax.com>, none@none.net
says...
> They accepted orders that
> they told authorities were carried out when in fact they had not been.
> They lied. They were being by your definition "dishonest".

So, what you're stating is that honesty and integrity are relative to
the personal views of the specific individual and not in relation to
society?

Either they lied or not, and either they are good to their word or not,
and any other interpretation is a subjective measure of their integrity.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <gcs281p0jvkl9jkq98ht72u5j5cgiabar1@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
> says...
>> You cannot
>> have MS (nor youself) further elaborate them in scope or
>> terms after that contract is made.
>
> Actually, I can ask MS to clarify it in order to see what / where they
> are going or wanted to go, but it only matters to me as a means to
> understand what they wanted to do, not what I'm (or anyone) is bound
> to.
>
> What's funny, is that to be an OEM you are bound to more than just the
> EULA, and the OEM site is setup for OEM's and to allow people to
> become OEM's, and the site contains specifics about what they
> consider. At the same time, you (in the US) are not an OEM just by
> getting an OEM disk from an OEM, you are an OEM if you have an OEM
> agreement with MS, otherwise you're just an end-user of OEM software.
>
> So, one could reason that if you've read the OEM documents, signed on
> to be an OEM so that you could order directly from the MS OEM program
> (and not another OEM), that you would already know what MS has
> defined for it's definitions. You do realize that purchasing OEM
> software from an OEM does not make you an OEM, it only makes you a
> purchaser of OEM software.


And more than likely the same can be said of the business that sold you
the software.

Walmart is just a seller of OEM Software, not a true OEM.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
Ron Martell wrote:
> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.org> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> You are saying one cannot upgrade a computer if you have an OEM
>> licence and that by upgrading it, you lose the licence to use the
>> software you bought for this upgraded computer. Scam, no matter how
>> you slice it.
>>
>> Example. Last year I got a MoBo with an AGP 4x slot and it can only
>> handle 266 RAM. I want an 8x slot and a motherboard that can handle
>> 400 RAM and a faster 400 processor to go with it. With your theory,
>> I would have to buy another copy of an OEM Windows XP to upgrade the
>> same computer the first OEM was installed on and I say that is a
>> scam if true, it is designed to make people buy software they
>> already have and paid for. Now, I will buy the motherboard and new
>> RAM and if I have to call MS, I will only give them the number, as
>> is outlined in their FAQs and not feel like a thief or weasal but as
>> a person who merely upgraded his computer and didn't want to be
>> forced to buy something I already have again!
>>
>> Please explain how all of this relates to piracy, be it for profit or
>> "casual". I am all ears.
>>
>
> Some additional points that might be at least partially relevant to
> this discussion:
>
> 1. Surveys have shown that the vast majority of PCs go to the scrap
> heap or dumpster with their original hardware configurations intact.
> Upgraded systems are a small minority of the total.
>
> 2. OEM licenses are much less expensive than their retail
> equivalents, and there is a reason for this. You get what you pay
> for.

Yeah, you forced to pay over $100 for 2 outsourced to India techsupport
phone calls!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <e2ZFP1dVFHA.3432@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>,
> kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys- tems.c*a*m says...
>> I was at recent MS OEM event and attended a session on licensing. The
>> speaker was very clear that Microsoft's position was that changing
>> the motherboard was not allowed as it defines the computer. She even
>> said that in the near future activations will reflect this. Changing
>> a motherboard will only be allowed under warranty and will always
>> cause a phone in event. Later on she was asked about selling OEM
>> software with qualifying hardware what qualified? She said anything
>> that was essential to running a computer. She elaborated that that
>> meant anything within the case, even a ram chip, and also a keyboard
>> and mouse. Does anyone else see the inconsistency here?
>
> The motherboard is what they describe on the OEM site too.
>
> As for what you can sell OEM software with, I don't see where the
> purchase has anything to do with it as long as you understand the
> license is tied to the motherboard as defined above.
>
> They are making it easy to purchase, which has nothing to do with a
> license for use.

It matters because logically the software is really tied to the hardware
it is sold with. That is the terms at the time of sale. After you get
home and read the EULA it pulls a bait and switch and ties the "license"
to the computer the software is first installed on instead of the
hardware it was sold with. The EULA, in effect, is rewriting the Terms
of Sale! And this is only a fairly recent development. Get you hands
on a OEM XP Gold EULA and you'll see that it reflected the terms of sale
and stated the the software was licensed with the HARDWARE, and WinXPSP1
and later ties the license to the COMPUTER.

"The SOFTWARE is licensed with the HARDWARE as a single integrated
product and may only be used with the HARDWARE." - WinXP OEM RTM EULA

"The SOFTWARE is licensed with the COMPUTER as a single integrated
product and may only be used with the COMPUTER." - WinXP OEM SP1 & later
EULA

See, the previous version actually mirrors the conditions at the time of
sale, if the hardware was a component XP is license with the component,
and if it was sold with an entire computer then it is tied to that
computer.

However, after SP1, if you buy XP with a hardware component, MS uses
their post-sale shrinkwrap license to tie XP to a computer to be named
later, instead of the hardware it was sold with, which is a denial of
the conditions at the time of sale, at a time after that sale.

On the face of it, this denial of the conditions of the sale after the
fact of the sale, would seem to be unconscionable, and not likely to be
upheld in court, and is just another example of MS writing something in
there EULA it has no real intention of enforcing by legal means, because
they are more than likely to lose.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <u8h3811m67oj8m9h5jonkgiptgj24dhssa@4ax.com>, none@none.net
> says...
>> They accepted orders that
>> they told authorities were carried out when in fact they had not
>> been. They lied. They were being by your definition "dishonest".
>
> So, what you're stating is that honesty and integrity are relative to
> the personal views of the specific individual and not in relation to
> society?
>
> Either they lied or not, and either they are good to their word or
> not, and any other interpretation is a subjective measure of their
> integrity.
>
> --

Is it immoral to lie to a criminal, a conman, or to someone or something
that lie to you first? While two wrongs don't equal a right, sometimes
one needs to think outside of the box to protect themselves from being
abused by disreputable devices of others.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:21 PM
Kerry Brown wrote:
> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:esGB1HeVFHA.2256@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Kerry Brown wrote:
>>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>>> news:MPG.1ceb1444550aa5869896e1@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
>>>> In article <uOTW1qbVFHA.2664@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
>>>> Woody@ByteMe.com says...
>>>>> the latest from mike brannigan is that it's the oem that
>>>>> determines when the
>>>>> original computer is no longer the original computer . so who
>>>>> built the computer , who bought the oem os and who installed the
>>>>> os on that computer
>>>>> determines the rules as far as i read it .
>>>>
>>>> Not that I want to get into this again, but if you go into the OEM
>>>> site at MS, read around the documents, it seemed very clear to me
>>>> that the OEM software is tied to the first computer it's installed
>>>> on, and that the computer, by MS's documents on the OEM site,
>>>> indicate that the Motherboard is the "computer".
>>>>
>>>> When I, as a personal choice, choose OEM, I limit the scope of the
>>>> license to the motherboard.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>> spam999free@rrohio.com
>>>> remove 999 in order to email me
>>>
>>> I was at recent MS OEM event and attended a session on licensing.
>>> The speaker was very clear that Microsoft's position was that
>>> changing the motherboard was not allowed as it defines the
>>> computer. She even said that in the near future activations will
>>> reflect this. Changing a motherboard will only be allowed under
>>> warranty and will always cause a phone in event. Later on she was
>>> asked about selling OEM software with qualifying hardware what
>>> qualified? She said anything that was essential to running a
>>> computer. She elaborated that that meant anything within the case,
>>> even a ram chip, and also a keyboard and mouse. Does anyone else
>>> see the inconsistency here? If someone from the licensing dept. is
>>> inconsistent when trying to explain to the mostly converted how is
>>> anyone supposed to make sense of it. My interpretation of the EULA
>>> is OEM software stays with the computer. If it's upgraded in any
>>> fashion over time it's within the EULA. If the computer is sold,
>>> given away, or somehow still in use and a new one is purchased then
>>> it's time for a new license. Kerry
>>
>> You can sell the computer with the OEM software. The EULA allows
>> tranfers with the computer it is licensed with.
>>
>
> That's what I meant. The OEM license stays with the computer. A lot
> ofpeople seem to think it's ok to sell the computer with the OS
> installed but keep the COA and use it with the new computer.

I kinda new that's what you meant, but I just wanted to clear it up for
anyone lurking and reading this thread.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Kerry Brown
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ceb9a50c9de0d469896ee@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <gcs281p0jvkl9jkq98ht72u5j5cgiabar1@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
> says...
>> You cannot
>> have MS (nor youself) further elaborate them in scope or
>> terms after that contract is made.
>
> Actually, I can ask MS to clarify it in order to see what / where they
> are going or wanted to go, but it only matters to me as a means to
> understand what they wanted to do, not what I'm (or anyone) is bound to.
>
> What's funny, is that to be an OEM you are bound to more than just the
> EULA, and the OEM site is setup for OEM's and to allow people to become
> OEM's, and the site contains specifics about what they consider. At the
> same time, you (in the US) are not an OEM just by getting an OEM disk
> from an OEM, you are an OEM if you have an OEM agreement with MS,
> otherwise you're just an end-user of OEM software.
>
> So, one could reason that if you've read the OEM documents, signed on to
> be an OEM so that you could order directly from the MS OEM program (and
> not another OEM), that you would already know what MS has defined for
> it's definitions. You do realize that purchasing OEM software from an
> OEM does not make you an OEM, it only makes you a purchaser of OEM
> software.
>

Read your OEM agreement. You are allowed to sell/purchase OEM software
to/from other OEM's. The onus is on you at all times to make sure the
software is legitimate. Other than that they recommend you get it from
certain distributors that they have approved.

Kerry


> --
> --
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me

Kerry Brown
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ceb9b973dd40bb09896ef@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <e2ZFP1dVFHA.3432@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-
> tems.c*a*m says...
>> I was at recent MS OEM event and attended a session on licensing. The
>> speaker was very clear that Microsoft's position was that changing the
>> motherboard was not allowed as it defines the computer. She even said
>> that
>> in the near future activations will reflect this. Changing a motherboard
>> will only be allowed under warranty and will always cause a phone in
>> event.
>> Later on she was asked about selling OEM software with qualifying
>> hardware
>> what qualified? She said anything that was essential to running a
>> computer.
>> She elaborated that that meant anything within the case, even a ram chip,
>> and also a keyboard and mouse. Does anyone else see the inconsistency
>> here?
>
> The motherboard is what they describe on the OEM site too.
>
> As for what you can sell OEM software with, I don't see where the
> purchase has anything to do with it as long as you understand the
> license is tied to the motherboard as defined above.
>
> They are making it easy to purchase, which has nothing to do with a
> license for use.
>
> --
> --
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me

I agree that that is how MS wants it to go and reading the EULA that is
reasonably obvious. How many people buying a copy of XP with a mouse read
the EULA and make the connection? For that matter how many end users have
ever read the EULA for any software? Probably very few. I'm not saying these
people are in the right. I don't think they are. People should read
contracts. If they don't they should take responsibility for their inaction.
Sooner or later someone will challenge the whole EULA scenario which
includes clicking a button online, etc. It will probably be to do with
credit card charges rather than software but once a precedent is set it will
probably apply across the board. Until then I do what I feel is ethical, one
license for each computer. Upgrading a m/b is a normal thing to do with a
computer therefore it is the same computer. If the MS rep is right and they
are changing activations to stop m/b upgrades then the s**t will hit the
fan. If nothing else it will be fun to watch the flame wars here.

Kerry

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
Kerry Brown wrote:
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1ceb9b973dd40bb09896ef@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
>> In article <e2ZFP1dVFHA.3432@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>,
>> kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys- tems.c*a*m says...
>>> I was at recent MS OEM event and attended a session on licensing.
>>> The speaker was very clear that Microsoft's position was that
>>> changing the motherboard was not allowed as it defines the
>>> computer. She even said that
>>> in the near future activations will reflect this. Changing a
>>> motherboard will only be allowed under warranty and will always
>>> cause a phone in event.
>>> Later on she was asked about selling OEM software with qualifying
>>> hardware
>>> what qualified? She said anything that was essential to running a
>>> computer.
>>> She elaborated that that meant anything within the case, even a ram
>>> chip, and also a keyboard and mouse. Does anyone else see the
>>> inconsistency here?
>>
>> The motherboard is what they describe on the OEM site too.
>>
>> As for what you can sell OEM software with, I don't see where the
>> purchase has anything to do with it as long as you understand the
>> license is tied to the motherboard as defined above.
>>
>> They are making it easy to purchase, which has nothing to do with a
>> license for use.
>>
>> --
>> --
>> spam999free@rrohio.com
>> remove 999 in order to email me
>
> I agree that that is how MS wants it to go and reading the EULA that
> is reasonably obvious. How many people buying a copy of XP with a
> mouse read the EULA and make the connection? For that matter how many
> end users have ever read the EULA for any software? Probably very
> few. I'm not saying these people are in the right. I don't think they
> are. People should read contracts. If they don't they should take
> responsibility for their inaction. Sooner or later someone will
> challenge the whole EULA scenario which includes clicking a button
> online, etc. It will probably be to do with credit card charges
> rather than software but once a precedent is set it will probably
> apply across the board. Until then I do what I feel is ethical, one
> license for each computer. Upgrading a m/b is a normal thing to do
> with a computer therefore it is the same computer. If the MS rep is
> right and they are changing activations to stop m/b upgrades then the
> s**t will hit the fan. If nothing else it will be fun to watch the
> flame wars here.
> Kerry

You are wrong that it would apply across the board. Copyright Law, when
it comes to the right of first sale and "fair use" make software, and
other copyright material much different.

Circuit Judge EASTERBROOK for the United States Court of Appeals For the
Seventh Circuit wrote:

"Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are
objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for
example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are
unconscionable)." -
http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html

Now that case didn't invovle sofware, but repackaging and selling
ProCD's database, it wasn't about shrinkwrap license over the right of
the individuals for private non-commercial use.

Judge Easterbrook went on to say, "Following the district court, we
treat the licenses as ordinary contracts accompanying the sale of
products, and therefore as governed by the common law of contracts and
the Uniform Commercial Code. Whether there are legal differences between
"contracts" and "licenses" (which may matter under the copyright
doctrine of first sale) is a subject for another day."

The UCC, (Uniform Commercial Code) has a proposed change called UCITA
that would make shrinkwrap licenses actual contracts under the law,
unfortunately UCITA is practically dead in the water, and it was this
portion of the law that was among the most controvertial aspects of it.

Do copyright owners have a right to control their copyright in public
and/or commercial realm. You bet ya'! But when it comes to the PRIVATE
and NON-COMMERCIAL USE by individuals in their homes, that is where NO
COPYRIGHT OWNER should NEVER have the right to tread! Any other way of
looking at it is a usurpation of the rights of PEOPLE to their PRIVACY
in their OWN HOMES!

"Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." -
part of the Supreme Courts reasoning behind the Sony Betamax case -
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html

Copyright owners do not possess the right to limit my "fair use!"

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

NoStop
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
kurttrail wrote:

> You can sell the computer with the OEM software. The EULA allows
> tranfers with the computer it is licensed with.
>
I haven't read the OEM EULA, but the XP Home EULA specifically states 1
transfer of ownership of the computer. After that, if that purchaser
resells the computer to another person, the third purchaser must purchase a
new license.



--

`,,`,,`,,``,,`
Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
A brief overview of Windows' most serious design flaws
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS_A.html

Kerry Brown
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:uun5IrjVFHA.3944@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Kerry Brown wrote:
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1ceb9b973dd40bb09896ef@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
>>> In article <e2ZFP1dVFHA.3432@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>,
>>> kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys- tems.c*a*m says...
>>>> I was at recent MS OEM event and attended a session on licensing.
>>>> The speaker was very clear that Microsoft's position was that
>>>> changing the motherboard was not allowed as it defines the
>>>> computer. She even said that
>>>> in the near future activations will reflect this. Changing a
>>>> motherboard will only be allowed under warranty and will always
>>>> cause a phone in event.
>>>> Later on she was asked about selling OEM software with qualifying
>>>> hardware
>>>> what qualified? She said anything that was essential to running a
>>>> computer.
>>>> She elaborated that that meant anything within the case, even a ram
>>>> chip, and also a keyboard and mouse. Does anyone else see the
>>>> inconsistency here?
>>>
>>> The motherboard is what they describe on the OEM site too.
>>>
>>> As for what you can sell OEM software with, I don't see where the
>>> purchase has anything to do with it as long as you understand the
>>> license is tied to the motherboard as defined above.
>>>
>>> They are making it easy to purchase, which has nothing to do with a
>>> license for use.
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> spam999free@rrohio.com
>>> remove 999 in order to email me
>>
>> I agree that that is how MS wants it to go and reading the EULA that
>> is reasonably obvious. How many people buying a copy of XP with a
>> mouse read the EULA and make the connection? For that matter how many
>> end users have ever read the EULA for any software? Probably very
>> few. I'm not saying these people are in the right. I don't think they
>> are. People should read contracts. If they don't they should take
>> responsibility for their inaction. Sooner or later someone will
>> challenge the whole EULA scenario which includes clicking a button
>> online, etc. It will probably be to do with credit card charges
>> rather than software but once a precedent is set it will probably
>> apply across the board. Until then I do what I feel is ethical, one
>> license for each computer. Upgrading a m/b is a normal thing to do
>> with a computer therefore it is the same computer. If the MS rep is
>> right and they are changing activations to stop m/b upgrades then the
>> s**t will hit the fan. If nothing else it will be fun to watch the
>> flame wars here.
>> Kerry
>
> You are wrong that it would apply across the board. Copyright Law, when
> it comes to the right of first sale and "fair use" make software, and
> other copyright material much different.
>
> Circuit Judge EASTERBROOK for the United States Court of Appeals For the
> Seventh Circuit wrote:
>
> "Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable
> on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they
> violate a rule of positive law, or if they are unconscionable)." -
> http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html
>
> Now that case didn't invovle sofware, but repackaging and selling ProCD's
> database, it wasn't about shrinkwrap license over the right of the
> individuals for private non-commercial use.
>
> Judge Easterbrook went on to say, "Following the district court, we treat
> the licenses as ordinary contracts accompanying the sale of products, and
> therefore as governed by the common law of contracts and the Uniform
> Commercial Code. Whether there are legal differences between "contracts"
> and "licenses" (which may matter under the copyright doctrine of first
> sale) is a subject for another day."
>
> The UCC, (Uniform Commercial Code) has a proposed change called UCITA that
> would make shrinkwrap licenses actual contracts under the law,
> unfortunately UCITA is practically dead in the water, and it was this
> portion of the law that was among the most controvertial aspects of it.
>
> Do copyright owners have a right to control their copyright in public
> and/or commercial realm. You bet ya'! But when it comes to the PRIVATE
> and NON-COMMERCIAL USE by individuals in their homes, that is where NO
> COPYRIGHT OWNER should NEVER have the right to tread! Any other way of
> looking at it is a usurpation of the rights of PEOPLE to their PRIVACY in
> their OWN HOMES!
>
> "Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use"; the
> copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a use." -
> part of the Supreme Courts reasoning behind the Sony Betamax case -
> http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html
>
> Copyright owners do not possess the right to limit my "fair use!"
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt
> Self-anointed Moderator
> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>

I think this may be changed when someone challenges the legality of online
subscriptions and proving who clicked on the button. Some porn sites/online
chat sites will bill your credit card monthly based on an initial sign up.
They then make it very hard to opt out. The credit card companies wring
their hands of responsibility and make you prove you have tried to cancel.
It can take several months to do this. Another case is eBay and Paypal.
Paypal basically always takes the buyers side and refunds the money. If
there was a genuine contract why would they do this? Then there is spyware.
Does clicking on a hard to read and interpret online EULA give them the
right to cause problems with your computer and/or collect private data?
There are many other inconsistencies with online transactions. Sooner or
later someone will challenge this in court. When it happens it may apply to
the broader question of EULA's in general. I'm not a lawyer so I may be way
off base.

Kerry

Bob I
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
As long as you are the end consumer, that is NOT "illegal". So much for
living dangerously! :-)

T. Waters wrote:


> I am one of those who believe that honoring the spirit of a rule is more
> sensible than blindly honoring the word of a rule. I have been known to cut
> the label from a pillow!

T. Waters
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
"At the same time, you (in the US) are not an OEM just by getting an OEM
disk
from an OEM, you are an OEM if you have an OEM agreement with MS,
otherwise you're *just an end-user of OEM software*."
While there may seem to be no OEM in this arrangement, the end-user is the
OEM by default, and responsible for their own support. Since the end-user
and the OEM are the same entity in this case, all the complicated rules
governing their relationship are not only irrevant, but null and void. One
cannot sue oneself for breach of contract, after all.


Leythos wrote:
> In article <gcs281p0jvkl9jkq98ht72u5j5cgiabar1@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
> says...
>> You cannot
>> have MS (nor youself) further elaborate them in scope or
>> terms after that contract is made.
>
> Actually, I can ask MS to clarify it in order to see what / where they
> are going or wanted to go, but it only matters to me as a means to
> understand what they wanted to do, not what I'm (or anyone) is bound
> to.
>
> What's funny, is that to be an OEM you are bound to more than just the
> EULA, and the OEM site is setup for OEM's and to allow people to
> become OEM's, and the site contains specifics about what they
> consider. At the same time, you (in the US) are not an OEM just by
> getting an OEM disk from an OEM, you are an OEM if you have an OEM
> agreement with MS, otherwise you're just an end-user of OEM software.
>
> So, one could reason that if you've read the OEM documents, signed on
> to be an OEM so that you could order directly from the MS OEM program
> (and not another OEM), that you would already know what MS has
> defined for it's definitions. You do realize that purchasing OEM
> software from an OEM does not make you an OEM, it only makes you a
> purchaser of OEM software.
>
> --

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
Kerry Brown wrote:
> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:uun5IrjVFHA.3944@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> Kerry Brown wrote:
>>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>>> news:MPG.1ceb9b973dd40bb09896ef@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
>>>> In article <e2ZFP1dVFHA.3432@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>,
>>>> kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys- tems.c*a*m says...
>>>>> I was at recent MS OEM event and attended a session on licensing.
>>>>> The speaker was very clear that Microsoft's position was that
>>>>> changing the motherboard was not allowed as it defines the
>>>>> computer. She even said that
>>>>> in the near future activations will reflect this. Changing a
>>>>> motherboard will only be allowed under warranty and will always
>>>>> cause a phone in event.
>>>>> Later on she was asked about selling OEM software with qualifying
>>>>> hardware
>>>>> what qualified? She said anything that was essential to running a
>>>>> computer.
>>>>> She elaborated that that meant anything within the case, even a
>>>>> ram chip, and also a keyboard and mouse. Does anyone else see the
>>>>> inconsistency here?
>>>>
>>>> The motherboard is what they describe on the OEM site too.
>>>>
>>>> As for what you can sell OEM software with, I don't see where the
>>>> purchase has anything to do with it as long as you understand the
>>>> license is tied to the motherboard as defined above.
>>>>
>>>> They are making it easy to purchase, which has nothing to do with a
>>>> license for use.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> --
>>>> spam999free@rrohio.com
>>>> remove 999 in order to email me
>>>
>>> I agree that that is how MS wants it to go and reading the EULA that
>>> is reasonably obvious. How many people buying a copy of XP with a
>>> mouse read the EULA and make the connection? For that matter how
>>> many end users have ever read the EULA for any software? Probably
>>> very few. I'm not saying these people are in the right. I don't
>>> think they are. People should read contracts. If they don't they
>>> should take responsibility for their inaction. Sooner or later
>>> someone will challenge the whole EULA scenario which includes
>>> clicking a button online, etc. It will probably be to do with
>>> credit card charges rather than software but once a precedent is
>>> set it will probably apply across the board. Until then I do what I
>>> feel is ethical, one license for each computer. Upgrading a m/b is
>>> a normal thing to do with a computer therefore it is the same
>>> computer. If the MS rep is right and they are changing activations
>>> to stop m/b upgrades then the s**t will hit the fan. If nothing
>>> else it will be fun to watch the flame wars here.
>>> Kerry
>>
>> You are wrong that it would apply across the board. Copyright Law,
>> when it comes to the right of first sale and "fair use" make
>> software, and other copyright material much different.
>>
>> Circuit Judge EASTERBROOK for the United States Court of Appeals For
>> the Seventh Circuit wrote:
>>
>> "Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are
>> objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for
>> example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are
>> unconscionable)." -
>> http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html Now that case
>> didn't invovle sofware, but repackaging and selling
>> ProCD's database, it wasn't about shrinkwrap license over the right
>> of the individuals for private non-commercial use.
>>
>> Judge Easterbrook went on to say, "Following the district court, we
>> treat the licenses as ordinary contracts accompanying the sale of
>> products, and therefore as governed by the common law of contracts
>> and the Uniform Commercial Code. Whether there are legal differences
>> between "contracts" and "licenses" (which may matter under the
>> copyright doctrine of first sale) is a subject for another day."
>>
>> The UCC, (Uniform Commercial Code) has a proposed change called
>> UCITA that would make shrinkwrap licenses actual contracts under the
>> law, unfortunately UCITA is practically dead in the water, and it
>> was this portion of the law that was among the most controvertial
>> aspects of it. Do copyright owners have a right to control their
>> copyright in public
>> and/or commercial realm. You bet ya'! But when it comes to the
>> PRIVATE and NON-COMMERCIAL USE by individuals in their homes, that
>> is where NO COPYRIGHT OWNER should NEVER have the right to tread! Any
>> other way of looking at it is a usurpation of the rights of
>> PEOPLE to their PRIVACY in their OWN HOMES!
>>
>> "Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use";
>> the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a
>> use." - part of the Supreme Courts reasoning behind the Sony Betamax
>> case - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html
>>
>> Copyright owners do not possess the right to limit my "fair use!"
>>
>
> I think this may be changed when someone challenges the legality of
> online subscriptions and proving who clicked on the button. Some porn
> sites/online chat sites will bill your credit card monthly based on
> an initial sign up. They then make it very hard to opt out. The
> credit card companies wring their hands of responsibility and make
> you prove you have tried to cancel. It can take several months to do
> this. Another case is eBay and Paypal. Paypal basically always takes
> the buyers side and refunds the money. If there was a genuine
> contract why would they do this? Then there is spyware. Does clicking
> on a hard to read and interpret online EULA give them the right to
> cause problems with your computer and/or collect private data? There
> are many other inconsistencies with online transactions. Sooner or
> later someone will challenge this in court. When it happens it may
> apply to the broader question of EULA's in general. I'm not a lawyer
> so I may be way off base.
> Kerry

Only in that you are comparing services with copyrighted material. They
are different under the law.

I agree that is a huge mess right now, and smart folks stay away from
payfor services on the net. Like I would NEVER buy music over the net,
with every service having different rules about what you can and can't
with it. Plus the pricing is nearly the same as buying a CD, and you
get all the arcane rules on top of it all.

I almost thank God for Apple iTunes! It's seeming popularity compared
to other online services is gonna eventually force an industry player to
start selling cheap unrestricted songs to make a major dent into Apple's
share of the online music pie.

See I really think, as long as Congress keeps the hell out of it, that
the marketplace will decide. Just because you can make a technology
that can restrict use, doesn't mean that people will put up with it and
its inherent problems for long. The more experience that consumers have
with copy-protection technologies, the more they figure out they don't
like it, and will start jumping ship to competitors that don't use such
restricting technology. PA and Validation and whatever is next in the
pipeline WILL end up biting MS in the ass when it has viable
competition. And that day is getting closer, and closer.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
NoStop wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>
>> You can sell the computer with the OEM software. The EULA allows
>> tranfers with the computer it is licensed with.
>>
> I haven't read the OEM EULA, but the XP Home EULA specifically states
> 1 transfer of ownership of the computer. After that, if that purchaser
> resells the computer to another person, the third purchaser must
> purchase a new license.

Like you said you haven't read the OEM EULA. And I notice you didn't
quote any part of any EULA to back up, your 1 transfer nonsense.

"Software as a Component of the Computer - Transfer. THIS
LICENSE MAY NOT BE SHARED, TRANSFERRED TO OR
USED CONCURRENTLY ON DIFFERENT COMPUTERS.
The SOFTWARE is licensed with the COMPUTER as a single
integrated product and may only be used with the COMPUTER. If
the SOFTWARE is not accompanied by HARDWARE, you may not use
the SOFTWARE. You may permanently transfer all of your rights
under this EULA only as part of a permanent sale or transfer
of the COMPUTER, provided you retain no copies, if you
transfer the SOFTWARE (including all component parts, the
media, any upgrades, this EULA and the Certificate of
Authenticity), and the recipient agrees to the terms of this
EULA. If the SOFTWARE is an upgrade, any transfer must also
include all prior versions of the SOFTWARE." - WinXPSP1 OEM EULA

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

NoStop
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
kurttrail wrote:

> NoStop wrote:
>> kurttrail wrote:
>>
>>> You can sell the computer with the OEM software. The EULA allows
>>> tranfers with the computer it is licensed with.
>>>
>> I haven't read the OEM EULA, but the XP Home EULA specifically states
>> 1 transfer of ownership of the computer. After that, if that purchaser
>> resells the computer to another person, the third purchaser must
>> purchase a new license.
>
> Like you said you haven't read the OEM EULA. And I notice you didn't
> quote any part of any EULA to back up, your 1 transfer nonsense.
>
The EULA I've read
( http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/eula.mspx )stated:

"13. SOFTWARE TRANSFER. Internal. You may move the Software to a different
Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must completely remove the
Software from the former Workstation Computer. Transfer to Third Party. The
initial user of the Software may make a one-time permanent transfer of this
EULA and Software to another end user, provided the initial user retains no
copies of the Software. This transfer must include all of the Software
(including all component parts, the media and printed materials, any
upgrades, 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 Software must agree to all the
EULA terms."

The relevant part is "Transfer to Third Party." and specifically defines a
"one-time permanent transfer" as being from the "initial user".

I'm no lawyer, but that seems to be saying to me what I've stated.


--

`,,`,,`,,``,,`
Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
A brief overview of Windows' most serious design flaws
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS_A.html

T. Waters
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
"NoStop" <nostop@stopspam.com> wrote in message
news:dirge.1317073$Xk.543203@pd7tw3no...
> kurttrail wrote:
>
> > NoStop wrote:
> >> kurttrail wrote:
> >>
> >>> You can sell the computer with the OEM software. The EULA allows
> >>> tranfers with the computer it is licensed with.
> >>>
> >> I haven't read the OEM EULA, but the XP Home EULA specifically states
> >> 1 transfer of ownership of the computer. After that, if that purchaser
> >> resells the computer to another person, the third purchaser must
> >> purchase a new license.
> >
> > Like you said you haven't read the OEM EULA. And I notice you didn't
> > quote any part of any EULA to back up, your 1 transfer nonsense.
> >
> The EULA I've read
> ( http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/eula.mspx )stated:
>
> "13. SOFTWARE TRANSFER. Internal. You may move the Software to a different
> Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must completely remove the
> Software from the former Workstation Computer. Transfer to Third Party.
The
> initial user of the Software may make a one-time permanent transfer of
this
> EULA and Software to another end user, provided the initial user retains
no
> copies of the Software. This transfer must include all of the Software
> (including all component parts, the media and printed materials, any
> upgrades, 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 Software must agree to all the
> EULA terms."
>
> The relevant part is "Transfer to Third Party." and specifically defines a
> "one-time permanent transfer" as being from the "initial user".
>
> I'm no lawyer, but that seems to be saying to me what I've stated.
>
>
> --
>
> `,,`,,`,,``,,`
> Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
> A brief overview of Windows' most serious design flaws
> http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS_A.html
>

T. Waters
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
NoStop wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>
>> NoStop wrote:
>>> kurttrail wrote:
>>>
>>>> You can sell the computer with the OEM software. The EULA allows
>>>> tranfers with the computer it is licensed with.
>>>>
>>> I haven't read the OEM EULA, but the XP Home EULA specifically
>>> states 1 transfer of ownership of the computer. After that, if that
>>> purchaser resells the computer to another person, the third
>>> purchaser must purchase a new license.
>>
>> Like you said you haven't read the OEM EULA. And I notice you didn't
>> quote any part of any EULA to back up, your 1 transfer nonsense.
>>
> The EULA I've read
> ( http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/eula.mspx )stated:
>
> "13. SOFTWARE TRANSFER. Internal. You may move the Software to a
> different Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must
> completely remove the Software from the former Workstation Computer.
> Transfer to Third Party.

>The initial user of the Software may make a one-time permanent transfer of
this >EULA and Software to another end user, provided the initial user
retains no copies >of the Software.
>

NoStop, you tried, but your legal mind needs honing.
What MS is stating is that you cannot transfer the one license you bought to
*more than one* person. So obvious, you misinterpreted it. Nothing is said
about the second user being able to transfer to a third user. Nothing at
all. You are over-reading the EULA.

> This transfer must include all of the Software (including all
> component parts, the media and printed materials, any upgrades, 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 Software must agree
> to all the EULA terms."
>
> The relevant part is "Transfer to Third Party." and specifically
> defines a "one-time permanent transfer" as being from the "initial
> user".
>
> I'm no lawyer, but that seems to be saying to me what I've stated.

T. Waters
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
kurttrail wrote:
> Kerry Brown wrote:
>> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
>> message news:uun5IrjVFHA.3944@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>> Kerry Brown wrote:
>>>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>>>> news:MPG.1ceb9b973dd40bb09896ef@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
>>>>> In article <e2ZFP1dVFHA.3432@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>,
>>>>> kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys- tems.c*a*m says...
>>>>>> I was at recent MS OEM event and attended a session on licensing.
>>>>>> The speaker was very clear that Microsoft's position was that
>>>>>> changing the motherboard was not allowed as it defines the
>>>>>> computer. She even said that
>>>>>> in the near future activations will reflect this. Changing a
>>>>>> motherboard will only be allowed under warranty and will always
>>>>>> cause a phone in event.
>>>>>> Later on she was asked about selling OEM software with qualifying
>>>>>> hardware
>>>>>> what qualified? She said anything that was essential to running a
>>>>>> computer.
>>>>>> She elaborated that that meant anything within the case, even a
>>>>>> ram chip, and also a keyboard and mouse. Does anyone else see the
>>>>>> inconsistency here?
>>>>>
>>>>> The motherboard is what they describe on the OEM site too.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for what you can sell OEM software with, I don't see where the
>>>>> purchase has anything to do with it as long as you understand the
>>>>> license is tied to the motherboard as defined above.
>>>>>
>>>>> They are making it easy to purchase, which has nothing to do with
>>>>> a license for use.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> --
>>>>> spam999free@rrohio.com
>>>>> remove 999 in order to email me
>>>>
>>>> I agree that that is how MS wants it to go and reading the EULA
>>>> that is reasonably obvious. How many people buying a copy of XP
>>>> with a mouse read the EULA and make the connection? For that
>>>> matter how many end users have ever read the EULA for any
>>>> software? Probably very few. I'm not saying these people are in
>>>> the right. I don't think they are. People should read contracts.
>>>> If they don't they should take responsibility for their inaction.
>>>> Sooner or later someone will challenge the whole EULA scenario
>>>> which includes clicking a button online, etc. It will probably be
>>>> to do with credit card charges rather than software but once a
>>>> precedent is set it will probably apply across the board. Until
>>>> then I do what I feel is ethical, one license for each computer.
>>>> Upgrading a m/b is a normal thing to do with a computer therefore
>>>> it is the same computer. If the MS rep is right and they are
>>>> changing activations to stop m/b upgrades then the s**t will hit
>>>> the fan. If nothing else it will be fun to watch the flame wars
>>>> here.
>>>> Kerry
>>>
>>> You are wrong that it would apply across the board. Copyright Law,
>>> when it comes to the right of first sale and "fair use" make
>>> software, and other copyright material much different.
>>>
>>> Circuit Judge EASTERBROOK for the United States Court of Appeals For
>>> the Seventh Circuit wrote:
>>>
>>> "Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are
>>> objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for
>>> example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are
>>> unconscionable)." -
>>> http://www.law.emory.edu/7circuit/june96/96-1139.html Now that case
>>> didn't invovle sofware, but repackaging and selling
>>> ProCD's database, it wasn't about shrinkwrap license over the right
>>> of the individuals for private non-commercial use.
>>>
>>> Judge Easterbrook went on to say, "Following the district court, we
>>> treat the licenses as ordinary contracts accompanying the sale of
>>> products, and therefore as governed by the common law of contracts
>>> and the Uniform Commercial Code. Whether there are legal differences
>>> between "contracts" and "licenses" (which may matter under the
>>> copyright doctrine of first sale) is a subject for another day."
>>>
>>> The UCC, (Uniform Commercial Code) has a proposed change called
>>> UCITA that would make shrinkwrap licenses actual contracts under the
>>> law, unfortunately UCITA is practically dead in the water, and it
>>> was this portion of the law that was among the most controvertial
>>> aspects of it. Do copyright owners have a right to control their
>>> copyright in public
>>> and/or commercial realm. You bet ya'! But when it comes to the
>>> PRIVATE and NON-COMMERCIAL USE by individuals in their homes, that
>>> is where NO COPYRIGHT OWNER should NEVER have the right to tread!
>>> Any other way of looking at it is a usurpation of the rights of
>>> PEOPLE to their PRIVACY in their OWN HOMES!
>>>
>>> "Any individual may reproduce a copyrighted work for a "fair use";
>>> the copyright owner does not possess the exclusive right to such a
>>> use." - part of the Supreme Courts reasoning behind the Sony Betamax
>>> case - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/464/417.html
>>>
>>> Copyright owners do not possess the right to limit my "fair use!"
>>>
>>
>> I think this may be changed when someone challenges the legality of
>> online subscriptions and proving who clicked on the button. Some porn
>> sites/online chat sites will bill your credit card monthly based on
>> an initial sign up. They then make it very hard to opt out. The
>> credit card companies wring their hands of responsibility and make
>> you prove you have tried to cancel. It can take several months to do
>> this. Another case is eBay and Paypal. Paypal basically always takes
>> the buyers side and refunds the money. If there was a genuine
>> contract why would they do this? Then there is spyware. Does clicking
>> on a hard to read and interpret online EULA give them the right to
>> cause problems with your computer and/or collect private data? There
>> are many other inconsistencies with online transactions. Sooner or
>> later someone will challenge this in court. When it happens it may
>> apply to the broader question of EULA's in general. I'm not a lawyer
>> so I may be way off base.
>> Kerry
>
> Only in that you are comparing services with copyrighted material.
> They are different under the law.
>
> I agree that is a huge mess right now, and smart folks stay away from
> payfor services on the net. Like I would NEVER buy music over the
> net, with every service having different rules about what you can and
> can't with it. Plus the pricing is nearly the same as buying a CD,
> and you get all the arcane rules on top of it all.
>
> I almost thank God for Apple iTunes! It's seeming popularity compared
> to other online services is gonna eventually force an industry player
> to start selling cheap unrestricted songs to make a major dent into
> Apple's share of the online music pie.
>
> See I really think, as long as Congress keeps the hell out of it, that
> the marketplace will decide. Just because you can make a technology
> that can restrict use, doesn't mean that people will put up with it
> and its inherent problems for long. The more experience that
> consumers have with copy-protection technologies, the more they
> figure out they don't like it, and will start jumping ship to
> competitors that don't use such restricting technology. PA and
> Validation and whatever is next in the pipeline WILL end up biting MS
> in the ass when it has viable competition. And that day is getting
> closer, and closer.

Between the OEM OS crapola and the validation hoops, I sure hope you are
right that MS is digging its own grave.

T. Waters
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
Oh, I know! (I find other ways to live dangerously.)
But there are those who actually treat the pillow label as sacrosanct, even
after all the jokes.
It is the same mindset as treating the wording of the EULA as a religion.

Bob I wrote:
> As long as you are the end consumer, that is NOT "illegal". So much
> for living dangerously! :-)
>
> T. Waters wrote:
>
>
>> I am one of those who believe that honoring the spirit of a rule is
>> more sensible than blindly honoring the word of a rule. I have been
>> known to cut the label from a pillow!

NoStop
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
T. Waters wrote:

> NoStop wrote:
>> kurttrail wrote:
>>
>>> NoStop wrote:
>>>> kurttrail wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You can sell the computer with the OEM software. The EULA allows
>>>>> tranfers with the computer it is licensed with.
>>>>>
>>>> I haven't read the OEM EULA, but the XP Home EULA specifically
>>>> states 1 transfer of ownership of the computer. After that, if that
>>>> purchaser resells the computer to another person, the third
>>>> purchaser must purchase a new license.
>>>
>>> Like you said you haven't read the OEM EULA. And I notice you didn't
>>> quote any part of any EULA to back up, your 1 transfer nonsense.
>>>
>> The EULA I've read
>> ( http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/eula.mspx )stated:
>>
>> "13. SOFTWARE TRANSFER. Internal. You may move the Software to a
>> different Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must
>> completely remove the Software from the former Workstation Computer.
>> Transfer to Third Party.
>
>>The initial user of the Software may make a one-time permanent transfer of
> this >EULA and Software to another end user, provided the initial user
> retains no copies >of the Software.
>>
>
> NoStop, you tried, but your legal mind needs honing.

I won't argue with that. :-) But why they would stipulate "one-time
permanent transfer" and only by the "inital user", sure makes me think they
are saying something like I suggest. If someone has been successful in
going beyond the one-time license transfer, I'd like to hear it. Until
then, I'll play at being a dumb lawyer. <haha>


--

`,,`,,`,,``,,`
Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
A brief overview of Windows' most serious design flaws
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS_A.html

NoStop
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
T. Waters wrote:

> Between the OEM OS crapola and the validation hoops, I sure hope you are
> right that MS is digging its own grave.

The grave was dug a while ago. Now they're just slowing filling it in. :-)

--

`,,`,,`,,``,,`
Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
A brief overview of Windows' most serious design flaws
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS_A.html

Ron Martell
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
"Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.org> wrote:

>

>> 1. Surveys have shown that the vast majority of PCs go to the scrap
>> heap or dumpster with their original hardware configurations intact.
>> Upgraded systems are a small minority of the total.
>
>So the theory of the tyrannical majority applies and no one can upgrade
>their computers?

No. I was just trying to put the issue into perspective.


>>
>> 2. OEM licenses are much less expensive than their retail
>> equivalents, and there is a reason for this. You get what you pay
>> for.
>
>I haven't been able to find a retail copy of WinXP in Spain, only upgrades
>and OEMs.
>

It may have to be special ordered. It certainly is produced by
Microsoft but not all stores would stock it because the demand is low.



Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
NoStop wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>
>> NoStop wrote:
>>> kurttrail wrote:
>>>
>>>> You can sell the computer with the OEM software. The EULA allows
>>>> tranfers with the computer it is licensed with.
>>>>
>>> I haven't read the OEM EULA, but the XP Home EULA specifically
>>> states 1 transfer of ownership of the computer. After that, if that
>>> purchaser resells the computer to another person, the third
>>> purchaser must purchase a new license.
>>
>> Like you said you haven't read the OEM EULA. And I notice you didn't
>> quote any part of any EULA to back up, your 1 transfer nonsense.
>>
> The EULA I've read
> ( http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/eula.mspx )stated:
>
> "13. SOFTWARE TRANSFER. Internal. You may move the Software to a
> different Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must
> completely remove the Software from the former Workstation Computer.
> Transfer to Third Party. The initial user of the Software may make a
> one-time permanent transfer of this EULA and Software to another end
> user, provided the initial user retains no copies of the Software.
> This transfer must include all of the Software (including all
> component parts, the media and printed materials, any upgrades, 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 Software must agree
> to all the EULA terms."
>
> The relevant part is "Transfer to Third Party." and specifically
> defines a "one-time permanent transfer" as being from the "initial
> user".
>
> I'm no lawyer, but that seems to be saying to me what I've stated.



--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
NoStop wrote:
> T. Waters wrote:
>
>> NoStop wrote:
>>> kurttrail wrote:
>>>
>>>> NoStop wrote:
>>>>> kurttrail wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You can sell the computer with the OEM software. The EULA allows
>>>>>> tranfers with the computer it is licensed with.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't read the OEM EULA, but the XP Home EULA specifically
>>>>> states 1 transfer of ownership of the computer. After that, if
>>>>> that purchaser resells the computer to another person, the third
>>>>> purchaser must purchase a new license.
>>>>
>>>> Like you said you haven't read the OEM EULA. And I notice you
>>>> didn't quote any part of any EULA to back up, your 1 transfer
>>>> nonsense.
>>>>
>>> The EULA I've read
>>> ( http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/eula.mspx )stated:
>>>
>>> "13. SOFTWARE TRANSFER. Internal. You may move the Software to a
>>> different Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must
>>> completely remove the Software from the former Workstation Computer.
>>> Transfer to Third Party.
>>
>>> The initial user of the Software may make a one-time permanent
>>> transfer of
>> this >EULA and Software to another end user, provided the initial
>> user retains no copies >of the Software.
>>>
>>
>> NoStop, you tried, but your legal mind needs honing.
>
> I won't argue with that. :-) But why they would stipulate "one-time
> permanent transfer" and only by the "inital user", sure makes me
> think they are saying something like I suggest.

Cause they are trying to make sure you don't make a thousand copies from
the one you bought and sell those thousand copies on eBay. What it
means is that you can only sell the copy of software and any backups of
it you've made ONE TIME.

> If someone has been
> successful in going beyond the one-time license transfer, I'd like to
> hear it. Until then, I'll play at being a dumb lawyer. <haha>

LOL! You don't have to play at it!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
"Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:56l481pb4kdpcksqrl4upkg0oqltbmsq5i@4ax.com...
> "Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.org> wrote:
>
>>
>
>>> 1. Surveys have shown that the vast majority of PCs go to the scrap
>>> heap or dumpster with their original hardware configurations intact.
>>> Upgraded systems are a small minority of the total.
>>
>>So the theory of the tyrannical majority applies and no one can upgrade
>>their computers?
>
> No. I was just trying to put the issue into perspective.
>
>
>>>
>>> 2. OEM licenses are much less expensive than their retail
>>> equivalents, and there is a reason for this. You get what you pay
>>> for.
>>
>>I haven't been able to find a retail copy of WinXP in Spain, only upgrades
>>and OEMs.
>>
>
> It may have to be special ordered. It certainly is produced by
> Microsoft but not all stores would stock it because the demand is low.
>
>
>
> Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
> --
> Microsoft MVP

At the largest department store in Spain, retail Home upgrade is on sale for
$US 395.41. The only other Windows OS offered is a Windows 2000 Professional
upgrade for Windows NT at $US 245.33. OEM Home goes for US 96.75 so it's
pretty obvious why retail isn't very popular here.
--
Alias

Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me.
Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail.

kony
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
On Wed, 11 May 2005 10:41:47 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
wrote:

>In article <u8h3811m67oj8m9h5jonkgiptgj24dhssa@4ax.com>, none@none.net
>says...
>> They accepted orders that
>> they told authorities were carried out when in fact they had not been.
>> They lied. They were being by your definition "dishonest".
>
>So, what you're stating is that honesty and integrity are relative to
>the personal views of the specific individual and not in relation to
>society?


Isn't that a bit of an irony, since a large portion of
society (particularly the 3rd worlds) do pirate windows?


>
>Either they lied or not, and either they are good to their word or not,
>and any other interpretation is a subjective measure of their integrity.

There are mitigating factors. You must live an easy life
(or wear blinders) if you can't envision any scenarios where
a moral person might lie.

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
kony wrote:

<snip>

> There are mitigating factors. You must live an easy life
> (or wear blinders) if you can't envision any scenarios where
> a moral person might lie.

He wears the blinders supplied to all Microsoft partners.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Steve N.
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
kurttrail wrote:

> Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote:
>
>>Bruce has "character" and is 100% honest!
>
>
> This is like having OJ say that Tony Blake is "100% not guilty" too!
>

That's a bit extreme, Kurt, even if true to form for you.

Steve

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
Steve N. wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>
>> Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote:
>>
>>> Bruce has "character" and is 100% honest!
>>
>>
>> This is like having OJ say that Tony Blake is "100% not guilty" too!
>>
>
> That's a bit extreme, Kurt, even if true to form for you.

LOL! Most satire is reality taken to an extreme.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

BNR
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
> >>I haven't been able to find a retail copy of WinXP in Spain, only
upgrades
> >>and OEMs.
> >>
> >
> > It may have to be special ordered. It certainly is produced by
> > Microsoft but not all stores would stock it because the demand is low.

> At the largest department store in Spain, retail Home upgrade is on sale
for
> $US 395.41

On sale you say?!? I can see why the demand is so low. Nothing else, just
WinXP Home Upgrade for about 400USD. How does MS justify that cost; maybe
takes a quarter to make for them? Man now I know how they are running the
Call Center to authenticate peeps 24/7 by robbing the International
customers blind. I'd love to see a cost analysis breakdown. Maybe I'll buy
some stock for a free prospectus.

Can you get it cheaper in France or Italy? Or is that prohibited by the
Spanish Government?

Carey Frisch [MVP]
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
Q. "How does MS justify that cost; maybe takes a quarter to make for them?"

A. Microsoft spent billions of $$$ to develop Windows XP. The cost to
manufacturer the CDs is irrelevant since they expect a return on their
massive investment. Also, ongoing improvements to Windows XP,
in the form of "Service Packs" and "hotfixes", are absorbed by Microsoft
and are offered free to the consumer.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"BNR" wrote:

| On sale you say?!? I can see why the demand is so low. Nothing else, just
| WinXP Home Upgrade for about 400USD. How does MS justify that cost; maybe
| takes a quarter to make for them? Man now I know how they are running the
| Call Center to authenticate peeps 24/7 by robbing the International
| customers blind. I'd love to see a cost analysis breakdown. Maybe I'll buy
| some stock for a free prospectus.
|
| Can you get it cheaper in France or Italy? Or is that prohibited by the
| Spanish Government?



---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0519-0, 05/09/2005
Tested on: 5/11/2005 6:35:54 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
"BNR" <bradrhine1969@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Q9vge.1050$bm5.229@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> >>I haven't been able to find a retail copy of WinXP in Spain, only
> upgrades
>> >>and OEMs.
>> >>
>> >
>> > It may have to be special ordered. It certainly is produced by
>> > Microsoft but not all stores would stock it because the demand is low.
>
>> At the largest department store in Spain, retail Home upgrade is on sale
> for
>> $US 395.41
>
> On sale you say?!? I can see why the demand is so low. Nothing else,
> just
> WinXP Home Upgrade for about 400USD. How does MS justify that cost; maybe
> takes a quarter to make for them? Man now I know how they are running the
> Call Center to authenticate peeps 24/7 by robbing the International
> customers blind. I'd love to see a cost analysis breakdown. Maybe I'll
> buy
> some stock for a free prospectus.
>
> Can you get it cheaper in France or Italy? Or is that prohibited by the
> Spanish Government?

Not much demand for French and Italian language XPs in Spain ;-) People just
buy OEMs or a computer with Home already installed. I can give you the urls
for the major computer store chains in Spain and you will see that NONE of
them offer retail in any shape or form. ALL of them offer OEMs at a good
price.

Alias
>
>

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
"Carey Frisch [MVP]" <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote
> Q. "How does MS justify that cost; maybe takes a quarter to make for
> them?"
>
> A. Microsoft spent billions of $$$ to develop Windows XP. The cost to
> manufacturer the CDs is irrelevant since they expect a return on
> their
> massive investment. Also, ongoing improvements to Windows XP,
> in the form of "Service Packs" and "hotfixes", are absorbed by
> Microsoft
> and are offered free to the consumer.
>
> --
> Carey Frisch

I dare say that an upgrade for XP Home is far less than $US 395 in the
States which shoots your lame theory all to hell. MS is one of the most
successful highway robbers in the history of the world and they have a lot
of gall making paying customers prove their honesty through PA and charging
so much for their software.
--
Alias

Use the Reply to Sender feature of your news reader program to email me.
Utiliza Responder al Remitente para mandarme un mail.

Kerry Brown
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
"Carey Frisch [MVP]" <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23g7stIoVFHA.3760@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Q. "How does MS justify that cost; maybe takes a quarter to make for
> them?"
>
> A. Microsoft spent billions of $$$ to develop Windows XP. The cost to
> manufacturer the CDs is irrelevant since they expect a return on
> their
> massive investment. Also, ongoing improvements to Windows XP,
> in the form of "Service Packs" and "hotfixes", are absorbed by
> Microsoft
> and are offered free to the consumer.
>
> --
> Carey Frisch
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows XP - Shell/User
> Microsoft Newsgroups
>

I agree Microsoft has the right to a return on their investment but
"billions of $$$ to develop Windows XP" I could accept $10s of millions
possibly even 100s of millions. I guess they pay their employees really
well. XP must have made a few more MS millionaires. If they had 1,000
programmers working on XP that's over a million dollars each.

:-)

Kerry

> Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
> http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "BNR" wrote:
>
> | On sale you say?!? I can see why the demand is so low. Nothing else,
> just
> | WinXP Home Upgrade for about 400USD. How does MS justify that cost;
> maybe
> | takes a quarter to make for them? Man now I know how they are running
> the
> | Call Center to authenticate peeps 24/7 by robbing the International
> | customers blind. I'd love to see a cost analysis breakdown. Maybe I'll
> buy
> | some stock for a free prospectus.
> |
> | Can you get it cheaper in France or Italy? Or is that prohibited by the
> | Spanish Government?
>
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 0519-0, 05/09/2005
> Tested on: 5/11/2005 6:35:54 PM
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>

Woody
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
apple's latest os upgrade tiger $125 family plan upgrade for up to 5
puters $ 195

linux some free others very cheap .

bills kids should start thinking about sell some of their stock ;P

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote:
> Q. "How does MS justify that cost; maybe takes a quarter to make for
> them?"
>
> A. Microsoft spent billions of $$$ to develop Windows XP. The cost
> to manufacturer the CDs is irrelevant since they expect a return
> on their massive investment. Also, ongoing improvements to
> Windows XP, in the form of "Service Packs" and "hotfixes", are
> absorbed by Microsoft and are offered free to the consumer.
>
>
>> On sale you say?!? I can see why the demand is so low. Nothing
>> else, just WinXP Home Upgrade for about 400USD. How does MS justify
>> that cost; maybe takes a quarter to make for them? Man now I know
>> how they are running the Call Center to authenticate peeps 24/7 by
>> robbing the International customers blind. I'd love to see a cost
>> analysis breakdown. Maybe I'll buy some stock for a free prospectus.
>>
>> Can you get it cheaper in France or Italy? Or is that prohibited by
>> the Spanish Government?
>

http://www.ananova.com/business/story/sm_711827.html?menu

86% profit margin

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Michael C
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:eVSTWSoVFHA.2520@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> I agree Microsoft has the right to a return on their investment but
> "billions of $$$ to develop Windows XP" I could accept $10s of millions
> possibly even 100s of millions. I guess they pay their employees really
> well. XP must have made a few more MS millionaires. If they had 1,000
> programmers working on XP that's over a million dollars each.

Win2k had something like 240 managers each managing a number of employees,
not sure how many each.

Michael

Michael C
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
"Carey Frisch [MVP]" <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23g7stIoVFHA.3760@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Q. "How does MS justify that cost; maybe takes a quarter to make for
> them?"
>
> A. Microsoft spent billions of $$$ to develop Windows XP. The cost to
> manufacturer the CDs is irrelevant since they expect a return on
> their
> massive investment. Also, ongoing improvements to Windows XP,
> in the form of "Service Packs" and "hotfixes", are absorbed by
> Microsoft
> and are offered free to the consumer.

Did we ask them to spend billions rewriting an OS (win2k) that didn't need
it?

Michael

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
In article <eJvRCjiVFHA.2520@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> Is it immoral to lie to a criminal, a conman, or to someone or something
> that lie to you first? While two wrongs don't equal a right, sometimes
> one needs to think outside of the box to protect themselves from being
> abused by disreputable devices of others.

But, who is to say what is right and what is wrong - after all, the
majority determine right/wrong in any society and that could mean what
is right in one is wrong in another while being right in the other.....
Kind of a catch-22 issue.

I guess you could say that if you believe you are right then everyone
else is wrong if they don't agree with you, and you would be right.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
Didn't we all just do this thread about two months ago :-)

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <eJvRCjiVFHA.2520@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> Is it immoral to lie to a criminal, a conman, or to someone or
>> something that lie to you first? While two wrongs don't equal a
>> right, sometimes one needs to think outside of the box to protect
>> themselves from being abused by disreputable devices of others.
>
> But, who is to say what is right and what is wrong - after all, the
> majority determine right/wrong in any society and that could mean what
> is right in one is wrong in another while being right in the
> other..... Kind of a catch-22 issue.
>
> I guess you could say that if you believe you are right then everyone
> else is wrong if they don't agree with you, and you would be right.
>

"This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man."

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kony
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:35:54 -0500, "Carey Frisch [MVP]"
<cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote:

>Q. "How does MS justify that cost; maybe takes a quarter to make for them?"
>
>A. Microsoft spent billions of $$$ to develop Windows XP. The cost to
> manufacturer the CDs is irrelevant since they expect a return on their
> massive investment. Also, ongoing improvements to Windows XP,
> in the form of "Service Packs" and "hotfixes", are absorbed by Microsoft
> and are offered free to the consumer.


You must be joking.
Cost is relative.

kony
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
On Thu, 12 May 2005 10:26:29 +1000, "Michael C"
<me@nospam.com> wrote:

>"Carey Frisch [MVP]" <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote in message
>news:%23g7stIoVFHA.3760@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> Q. "How does MS justify that cost; maybe takes a quarter to make for
>> them?"
>>
>> A. Microsoft spent billions of $$$ to develop Windows XP. The cost to
>> manufacturer the CDs is irrelevant since they expect a return on
>> their
>> massive investment. Also, ongoing improvements to Windows XP,
>> in the form of "Service Packs" and "hotfixes", are absorbed by
>> Microsoft
>> and are offered free to the consumer.
>
>Did we ask them to spend billions rewriting an OS (win2k) that didn't need
>it?
>
>Michael
>

They didn't "rewrite" it for XP per se.
They tacked on a few new "features" and continued developing
the OS as planned.

The thing is that it WASN'T a "massive investment" to a
company making so much profit and it's quite possible for MS
to survive on their past profits without ever charging
another penny for software.

Bruce Chambers
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
kurttrail wrote:
>
>
>
> Is it immoral to lie to a criminal, a conman, or to someone or something
> that lie to you first?


I've said nothing about "morality." Please leave religion out of the
discussion, which was about trustworthiness and integrity.


> While two wrongs don't equal a right,


Correct. But you should have place a period where you used a comma.


> sometimes
> one needs to think outside of the box to protect themselves from being
> abused by disreputable devices of others.
>


So it's your contention that "thinking outside the box" requires one to
be dishonest? You must have a very limited imagination, if so.



--

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

Michael C
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cebab76bc7dab039896f0@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> Either they lied or not, and either they are good to their word or not,
> and any other interpretation is a subjective measure of their integrity.

Do you live in an imaginary world where everything is black and white? You
can have degrees of honesty.

Michael

Bruce Chambers
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
kony wrote:

>
>
> At this point you're making a giant leap.
> How many people do you know that reviewed and accepted the
> EULA before there was any penalty involved in declining it?
>


By clicking the <Agree> button, these people have claimed to have
they've read and understood the EULA, and agree to its terms. If they
didn't, and then run afoul of those terms, they've no to blame but
themselves. If they've lied about this, then no doubt they'll feel no
hesitation about voiding the agreement.


> Is that EULA even stated on the outside of the packing?


There is a statement on the outside packaging the use of the product is
governed by a license agreement. If people still purchase the license
without further investigation, they've obviously made their decision: to
abide by the license, sight unseen.


> Myself and many others are aware of the need to review these
> EULAs, but the average OEM system purchaser- I highly doubt
> they agree to anything ahead of purchase time, except to pay
> X amount for Y system.
>


Uniformed consumers have only themselves to blame. The information
necessary to make an informed purchased decision is readily available to
anyone with the initiative to seek it out.




>
>
>
>>This indicates quite clearly that this person's given word,
>>or signature on a contract, for that matter, cannot be trusted.
>
>
> When did they give their word or sign the EULA?


The very first time they either installed the OS or booted a computer
with it pre-installed.




--

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

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
In article <4282ae67$0$79464$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, me@nospam.com
says...
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1cebab76bc7dab039896f0@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> > Either they lied or not, and either they are good to their word or not,
> > and any other interpretation is a subjective measure of their integrity.
>
> Do you live in an imaginary world where everything is black and white? You
> can have degrees of honesty.

The response was directly applicable to the post that I was replying to.

I try never to enter the Gray areas, if you can't make a factual
statement without wavering, you should consider the statement more
carefully.

Good / Evil are subjective and can be the opposite depending on the
person and society.

Truth and lies are not subjective when you know the difference.


--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
In article <#dWAYDpVFHA.4056@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
bchambers@h0tmail.c0m says...
> Uniformed consumers have only themselves to blame. The information
> necessary to make an informed purchased decision is readily available to
> anyone with the initiative to seek it out.

My point exactly - ignorance is no excuse.


--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
Bruce Chambers wrote:
> kurttrail wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Is it immoral to lie to a criminal, a conman, or to someone or
>> something that lie to you first?
>
>
> I've said nothing about "morality." Please leave religion out of the
> discussion, which was about trustworthiness and integrity.

Morality and religion are too different things Bruce. One can be a
moral person without being religious.

>
>
>> While two wrongs don't equal a right,
>
>
> Correct. But you should have place a period where you used a comma.

Don't tell me what I should and shouldn't do. I wrote exacty what I
meant.

>
>
>> sometimes
>> one needs to think outside of the box to protect themselves from
>> being abused by disreputable devices of others.
>>
>
>
> So it's your contention that "thinking outside the box" requires one
> to be dishonest?

No, I said that one must do what is necessary to protect themselves from
the disreputable devices of others.

MS lies in their PA message that XP has been installed too many times,
and one must do what is necessary to make sure one can use the copy of
software THAT WAS SOLD TO THEM. Which bring us to MS's EARLIER LIE.
The copy of software was sold to the person by the OEM. The OEM was
sold the copy of software by a software distributor.

Lies on top of lies! MS is the one that started the lying! Lying that
they can limit an individuals 'fair use" in their home!

MS is a known and proven predatory monopolist, and patent and copyright
infringer! NOT ONE OF MS'S PRIVATE NON-COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS HAVE BEEN
CHARGED WITH LET ALONE PROVEN TO BE GUILTY OF ANY WRONG DOING FOR
FOLLOWING THEIR OWN DEFINITION OF "FAIR USE" OF THEIR COPY OF SOFTWARE
FOR THEIR OWN PRIVATE NON-COMMERCIAL USE!

> You must have a very limited imagination, if so.

LOL! Coming from a monolithic thinker like yourself, that is totally
laughable!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <#dWAYDpVFHA.4056@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
> bchambers@h0tmail.c0m says...
>> Uniformed consumers have only themselves to blame. The information
>> necessary to make an informed purchased decision is readily
>> available to anyone with the initiative to seek it out.
>
> My point exactly - ignorance is no excuse.

LOL! MS depends on ignorance. Anyone that knows the truth, knows that
MS has no business telling you what you can and can't do with your copy
of software for you private non-commercial use in YOUR HOME!

There is no legal precedent that gives MS that right! And any one that
accept MS's rules in their home is acting out of ignorance, not legal
fact!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Carey Frisch [MVP]
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
I suggest you also enroll in an Economics course after
completing your Contracts 101 course. It is quite obvious
you have a very limited education.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Alias" wrote:

| I dare say that an upgrade for XP Home is far less than $US 395 in the
| States which shoots your lame theory all to hell. MS is one of the most
| successful highway robbers in the history of the world and they have a lot
| of gall making paying customers prove their honesty through PA and charging
| so much for their software.
| --
| Alias



---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0519-0, 05/09/2005
Tested on: 5/11/2005 8:51:11 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:22 PM
Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote:
> I suggest you also enroll in an Economics course after
> completing your Contracts 101 course. It is quite obvious
> you have a very limited education.

This is all that is obvious:

http://microscum.com/carey/

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Ron Martell
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:

>
>
>I agree Microsoft has the right to a return on their investment but
>"billions of $$$ to develop Windows XP" I could accept $10s of millions
>possibly even 100s of millions. I guess they pay their employees really
>well. XP must have made a few more MS millionaires. If they had 1,000
>programmers working on XP that's over a million dollars each.
>

There were far more than 1,000 people working full time on the
development and testing of Windows XP.

I do not know the exact figure, but it could easily be 10,000


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

Ron Martell
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:35:54 -0500, "Carey Frisch [MVP]"
><cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Q. "How does MS justify that cost; maybe takes a quarter to make for them?"
>>
>>A. Microsoft spent billions of $$$ to develop Windows XP. The cost to
>> manufacturer the CDs is irrelevant since they expect a return on their
>> massive investment. Also, ongoing improvements to Windows XP,
>> in the form of "Service Packs" and "hotfixes", are absorbed by Microsoft
>> and are offered free to the consumer.
>
>
>You must be joking.
>Cost is relative.

Good. You can pay the bills then.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

Ron Martell
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote:


>
>Is it immoral to lie to a criminal, a conman, or to someone or something
>that lie to you first? While two wrongs don't equal a right, sometimes
>one needs to think outside of the box to protect themselves from being
>abused by disreputable devices of others.

The essential component for any agreement is that both parties must be
satisfied that the other person has both the ability and the intent to
fulfill whatever obligations and requirements they commit to as part
of the agreement.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

Ron Martell
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
Bruce Chambers <bchambers@h0tmail.c0m> wrote:


> Uniformed consumers have only themselves to blame. The information
^^^
>necessary to make an informed purchased decision is readily available to
>anyone with the initiative to seek it out.
>
>

And what about consumers who do not wear uniforms? :-)


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

Michael C
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cec7a9e4c1e8bf79896f3@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> I try never to enter the Gray areas, if you can't make a factual
> statement without wavering, you should consider the statement more
> carefully.

Life is full of grey if you think you can avoid it you live in an imaginary
land.

> Good / Evil are subjective and can be the opposite depending on the
> person and society.

True

> Truth and lies are not subjective when you know the difference.

Maybe less subjective but again it's a gray issue.

Michael

Kerry Brown
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
"Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ij581hnpbtedvkn7thsb2dk7piiqapf6m@4ax.com...
> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>I agree Microsoft has the right to a return on their investment but
>>"billions of $$$ to develop Windows XP" I could accept $10s of millions
>>possibly even 100s of millions. I guess they pay their employees really
>>well. XP must have made a few more MS millionaires. If they had 1,000
>>programmers working on XP that's over a million dollars each.
>>
>
> There were far more than 1,000 people working full time on the
> development and testing of Windows XP.
>
> I do not know the exact figure, but it could easily be 10,000
>
>
> Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
> --
> Microsoft MVP
> On-Line Help Computer Service
> http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
>
> In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP

This has peaked my interest. A quick google search doesn't come up with the
answer. Does anyone know how many programmers worked full time on Windows
XP?

Kerry

> http://aumha.org/alex.htm

Ron Martell
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:


>
>This has peaked my interest. A quick google search doesn't come up with the
>answer. Does anyone know how many programmers worked full time on Windows
>XP?
>
>Kerry
>

I found a bit of information at
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2001/aug01/08-24windowsxprtm.asp


"For 10 months, up to 85 Microsoft developers and program managers,
test teams, and leads representing thousands of their colleagues have
participated in daily "war team" meetings ...."

So the numbers were in the thousands but no indication of how many
thousands.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

kony
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
On Thu, 12 May 2005 03:34:13 GMT, Ron Martell
<ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote:

>kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:35:54 -0500, "Carey Frisch [MVP]"
>><cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Q. "How does MS justify that cost; maybe takes a quarter to make for them?"
>>>
>>>A. Microsoft spent billions of $$$ to develop Windows XP. The cost to
>>> manufacturer the CDs is irrelevant since they expect a return on their
>>> massive investment. Also, ongoing improvements to Windows XP,
>>> in the form of "Service Packs" and "hotfixes", are absorbed by Microsoft
>>> and are offered free to the consumer.
>>
>>
>>You must be joking.
>>Cost is relative.
>
>Good. You can pay the bills then.


What bills might those be?
MS essentially extorts money from anyone who builds a
full-featured PC. Their only bills are whatever they choose
to spend, most definitely NOT a necessary business expense
because they have no competitors in the commercial PC OS
market.

beamish
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
"Ron Martell" wrote:

> "beamish" <beamish@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Hello, Had one experience with "activation". Purchased a unit from a company
> >that builds individual units. Due to a shipping problem the video card was
> >unseated. The card was replaced. Five months later had several problems
> >related to damaged done by the video card. I removed the HD's and returned
> >unit. The company decided to replace: motherboard, video card, memory, sound
> >card, cpu, and modem. I asked about "activation" they asked me to wait until
> >on-line to find out if it is needed. They had replace everything except the
> >modem and memory with new warranty replacements" same make and model" have
> >new boxes and registration numbers. The memory was same amount different size
> >modules. When on-line was informed that activatation not needed only modem
> >was listed as changed. The HD's (2), DVD burners(2) and power supply not
> >changed. Must be graduations in "activation" concerning make and model of
> >replaced items.
> >Interesting conversation.
> >Take Care.
> >beamish.
>
> The critical element here is the "5 months later...." bit. Microsoft
> purges the activation data base after 120 days so the records of the
> first activation would have been removed by the time the major
> hardware replacement happened.
>
>
> Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
> --
> Microsoft MVP
> On-Line Help Computer Service
> http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
>
> In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
> http://aumha.org/alex.htm
>
Hello, The critical element would be that the activation site stated the
modem had been changed, having one changed item did not reqiure
reactiivation. Modem was a different make and model, while the rest of the
hardware was changed but same make and model and the memory was the same
amount same company different size modules yet not listed as changed for
activation purposes. I understand that there is a 120 day limitation, perhaps
time limit is not hard set as the modem was recognized. I am writing about
one actual occurrence. Courious about what in real terms creates a
reactivation?
Take Care.
beamish.

kony
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
On Wed, 11 May 2005 19:20:52 -0600, Bruce Chambers
<bchambers@h0tmail.c0m> wrote:

>kony wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> At this point you're making a giant leap.
>> How many people do you know that reviewed and accepted the
>> EULA before there was any penalty involved in declining it?
>>
>
>
> By clicking the <Agree> button, these people have claimed to have
>they've read and understood the EULA, and agree to its terms.

Nope. They have a choice of two buttons. Click one and the
PC won't work. Click the other and it will. All they
agreed to was to click a button, because thanks to the MS
monopoly, they can't use their PC if they dont' click it,
they don't have any choice in the matter. The argument that
they can go somewhere and find out something more is not
valid. Terms of a product must be available at the point of
sale. If customer didn't buy WIndows from a linked MS
webpage they didn't have any chance to decline any terms.
MS is trying to take advantage of customers because they
feel they can get away with it. Monopoly.

I concede that initally that seems far-fetched, but in
reality that IS what it boils down to. Go take a survey of
"average" PC users, see how many of them can tell you
exactly what is in that EULA. Then compare that to how many
of them enter into any other kind of contract without
knowing what they agreed to. Your argument is based upon
so many stretches that by the time it has reached it's
conclusion it wouldn't apply to the majority of WIndows
users.

kony
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
On Thu, 12 May 2005 01:26:25 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
wrote:

>In article <#dWAYDpVFHA.4056@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
>bchambers@h0tmail.c0m says...
>> Uniformed consumers have only themselves to blame. The information
>> necessary to make an informed purchased decision is readily available to
>> anyone with the initiative to seek it out.
>
>My point exactly - ignorance is no excuse.


So let me get this right-

You personally guarantee that any product we buy will be
bound by terms posted somewhere OTHER than the product
itself, terms that aren't available at the point of sale?
Do you not see what a GIANT, MASSIVE loophole and utter
chaos that would create in many, many markets? Sorry but
that's nonsense, the product is sold with the terms attached
to that specific product (item). A customer can't go
elsewhere than where the product is and rely on an alternate
source of information and assume it applied to the specific
thing they were going to buy.

Ron Martell
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:


>
>What bills might those be?
>MS essentially extorts money from anyone who builds a
>full-featured PC. Their only bills are whatever they choose
>to spend, most definitely NOT a necessary business expense
>because they have no competitors in the commercial PC OS
>market.
>

Right. Employees work for nothing. Electricity, telephones, water,
and other city services are provided free.

Wake up and face reality.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

Ron Martell
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
"beamish" <beamish@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>

>Hello, The critical element would be that the activation site stated the
>modem had been changed, having one changed item did not reqiure
>reactiivation. Modem was a different make and model, while the rest of the
>hardware was changed but same make and model and the memory was the same
>amount same company different size modules yet not listed as changed for
>activation purposes. I understand that there is a 120 day limitation, perhaps
>time limit is not hard set as the modem was recognized. I am writing about
>one actual occurrence. Courious about what in real terms creates a
>reactivation?
>Take Care.
>beamish.

The details as to what hardware items are monitored and how a
reactivation requirement is triggered are described in an article by
the late Alex Nichol MVP at http://aumha.org/win5/a/wpa.htm

Note that the modem is not one of the monitored components.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
Do you know what an ad hominem attack is? It's a very lame way of debating
but one that you use constantly.

Alias

"Carey Frisch [MVP]" <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote

>I suggest you also enroll in an Economics course after
> completing your Contracts 101 course. It is quite obvious
> you have a very limited education.
>
> --
> Carey Frisch
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows XP - Shell/User
> Microsoft Newsgroups
>
> Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
> http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Alias" wrote:
>
> | I dare say that an upgrade for XP Home is far less than $US 395 in the
> | States which shoots your lame theory all to hell. MS is one of the most
> | successful highway robbers in the history of the world and they have a
> lot
> | of gall making paying customers prove their honesty through PA and
> charging
> | so much for their software.
> | --
> | Alias
>
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 0519-0, 05/09/2005
> Tested on: 5/11/2005 8:51:11 PM
> avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
In article <4282d0ff$0$79464$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, me@nospam.com
says...
> Life is full of grey if you think you can avoid it you live in an imaginary
> land.

Life is only full of Gray to those that want it to be full of Gray. In
many cases, if you remove emotion and religion (which is emotion) it's
more B/W than you would think. Good business managers can see
through/around the gray and see the real color of things.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
In article <F08A0372-80B7-447A-9F3E-1D0C764D5D20@microsoft.com>,
beamish@discussions.microsoft.com says...
> Modem was a different make and model, while the rest of the
> hardware was changed but same make and model

Hard drives have serial numbers and rev's and do video cards and other
components - just because you use the same make/model doesn't mean you
can't tell the difference if you know where to look electronically.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
In article <fcr581h46l2feto51pshuva9roi6rdpfkq@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
says...
> You personally guarantee that any product we buy will be
> bound by terms posted somewhere OTHER than the product
> itself, terms that aren't available at the point of sale?

No, YOU are responsible for your own actions and agreements. Just
because you might be too ignorant to read/learn, it's not a valid excuse
for not knowing. The information is fully available, easy to find, and
the information you need to start the learning process is presented to
you BEFORE you purchase (if you can read).

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
Ron Martell wrote:
> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> This has peaked my interest. A quick google search doesn't come up
>> with the answer. Does anyone know how many programmers worked full
>> time on Windows XP?
>>
>> Kerry
>>
>
> I found a bit of information at
> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2001/aug01/08-24windowsxprtm.asp
>
>
> "For 10 months, up to 85 Microsoft developers and program managers,
> test teams, and leads representing thousands of their colleagues have
> participated in daily "war team" meetings ...."
>
> So the numbers were in the thousands but no indication of how many
> thousands.

But what we do know is the profit margin is around 85%. Far more than a
fair return for the creative labor of MS's employees!

"The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly, like
the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a
balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is
to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately
serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature,
music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is
to secure a fair return for an 'author's' creative labor. But the
ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for
the general public good. 'The sole interest of the United States and
the primary object in conferring the monopoly,' this Court has said,
'lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of
authors' . . . . When technological change has rendered its literal
terms ambiguous, the Copyright Act must be construed in light of this
basic purpose." - http://laws.findlaw.com/us/422/151.html

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
Ron Martell wrote:
> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:35:54 -0500, "Carey Frisch [MVP]"
>> <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Q. "How does MS justify that cost; maybe takes a quarter to make
>>> for them?"
>>>
>>> A. Microsoft spent billions of $$$ to develop Windows XP. The
>>> cost to manufacturer the CDs is irrelevant since they expect a
>>> return on their massive investment. Also, ongoing
>>> improvements to Windows XP, in the form of "Service Packs" and
>>> "hotfixes", are absorbed by Microsoft and are offered free to
>>> the consumer.
>>
>>
>> You must be joking.
>> Cost is relative.
>
> Good. You can pay the bills then.

I could even on only a 20% profit margin.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
Ron Martell wrote:
> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Is it immoral to lie to a criminal, a conman, or to someone or
>> something that lie to you first? While two wrongs don't equal a
>> right, sometimes one needs to think outside of the box to protect
>> themselves from being abused by disreputable devices of others.
>
> The essential component for any agreement is that both parties must be
> satisfied that the other person has both the ability and the intent to
> fulfill whatever obligations and requirements they commit to as part
> of the agreement.

LOL! Then get people to agree to it prior to the sale!

And with OEM software, MS has no real obligations, as support is left up
to the OEM.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <4282d0ff$0$79464$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>, me@nospam.com
> says...
>> Life is full of grey if you think you can avoid it you live in an
>> imaginary land.
>
> Life is only full of Gray to those that want it to be full of Gray. In
> many cases, if you remove emotion and religion (which is emotion) it's
> more B/W than you would think. Good business managers can see
> through/around the gray and see the real color of things.
>

Life is only Black and White to those who are fascists.

And Business Managers see only one color and only if they are goood a
what they do. Red.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <fcr581h46l2feto51pshuva9roi6rdpfkq@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
> says...
>> You personally guarantee that any product we buy will be
>> bound by terms posted somewhere OTHER than the product
>> itself, terms that aren't available at the point of sale?
>
> No, YOU are responsible for your own actions and agreements. Just
> because you might be too ignorant to read/learn, it's not a valid
> excuse for not knowing. The information is fully available, easy to
> find, and the information you need to start the learning process is
> presented to you BEFORE you purchase (if you can read).


Actually contract law does make allowances for those that are incapable
of understanding a contract.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Serial # 19781010
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
On Wed, 11 May 2005 10:41:47 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>
>Either they lied or not, and either they are good to their word or not,
>and any other interpretation is a subjective measure of their integrity.

Precisely. Without any reference to motive, purpose or end result you
have reduced the question of honesty to one of mere mechanical
consistency of behavior. One could argue that Hitler was more
consistently honest then, say, Churchill, (I don't know one way or the
other) but so what? What significance does that have in telling us
anything about the character of the two men. My computer never lies to
me either (errors but never lies) but we attach no significance to
that fact. Only individual people are moral agents and posses the
ability to hold and assert ethical and moral values.

Perhaps one could apply strictly objective (without reference to
values, ethics or morals) measures to the question of honesty and
integrity but any conclusions from such measures would be largely
empty of meaning and significance within a human society.

It's not very neat and tidy but then neither is life.

On Thu, 12 May 2005 00:32:09 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>
>But, who is to say what is right and what is wrong - after all, the
>majority determine right/wrong in any society and that could mean what
>is right in one is wrong in another while being right in the other.....
>Kind of a catch-22 issue.

No. Societies determine social norms not what is right and wrong only
individuals can do that. 500 years ago some form of human slavery was
an accepted social norm in most societies. No one now would argue that
human slavery was ever right. A more trivial example.... in the United
States they drive on one side of the road in the UK on the other. No
one would argue that one society is right and the other not based on
what side of the road they drive on. It is just a mere arbitrary
social norm without any moral or ethical significance.

On Thu, 12 May 2005 01:25:35 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>
>Truth and lies are not subjective when you know the difference.

That's true. But the mere fact that someone has or has not lied
without reference to anything else results in trivial conclusions
about that person that tell us very little about that persons
trustworthiness.
>
>--

>
>
>--

Kerry Brown
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:%23BtmD8uVFHA.2124@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Ron Martell wrote:
>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:35:54 -0500, "Carey Frisch [MVP]"
>>> <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Q. "How does MS justify that cost; maybe takes a quarter to make
>>>> for them?"
>>>>
>>>> A. Microsoft spent billions of $$$ to develop Windows XP. The
>>>> cost to manufacturer the CDs is irrelevant since they expect a
>>>> return on their massive investment. Also, ongoing
>>>> improvements to Windows XP, in the form of "Service Packs" and
>>>> "hotfixes", are absorbed by Microsoft and are offered free to
>>>> the consumer.
>>>
>>>
>>> You must be joking.
>>> Cost is relative.
>>
>> Good. You can pay the bills then.
>
> I could even on only a 20% profit margin.
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt
> Self-anointed Moderator
> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>

I have run several different businesses over the last 30 years. The ones
that had a 20% gross profit margin eventually failed. It takes around 25% -
30% gross margin to break even for most businesses. You would have to be
incredibly efficient to survive on 20%. I can see where software development
may be different as there is less cost of sales, but a lot more salaries and
related expenses. This would skew the gross margins to look much greater
than what shows up on the bottom line. If you are talking 20% net profit
then that is after the bills are paid and would be every good return indeed
:-)

Kerry

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
In article <eQszG#uVFHA.3584@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> Ron Martell wrote:
> > "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Is it immoral to lie to a criminal, a conman, or to someone or
> >> something that lie to you first? While two wrongs don't equal a
> >> right, sometimes one needs to think outside of the box to protect
> >> themselves from being abused by disreputable devices of others.
> >
> > The essential component for any agreement is that both parties must be
> > satisfied that the other person has both the ability and the intent to
> > fulfill whatever obligations and requirements they commit to as part
> > of the agreement.
>
> LOL! Then get people to agree to it prior to the sale!

But 99% of the users still wouldn't read it, would not care, would still
be blissfully ignorant.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
In article <2jf681pi1j8341kgie18ni7kj0vahjfdor@4ax.com>, none@none.net
says...
> Perhaps one could apply strictly objective (without reference to
> values, ethics or morals) measures to the question of honesty and
> integrity but any conclusions from such measures would be largely
> empty of meaning and significance within a human society.

As was this thread - since it's entirely up to the individual as to what
they are willing to accept / do, nothing you or I say will change it or
make it right/wrong.

Even math is subjective in todays schools where a kid that scores a 99
on a test, with everyone else scoring a 20, causes a bell curve
situation that then increases the failing grade for the 20's to a C
which would be an 80+ score......

Then you've got the subjective laws where an Illegal Alien is given
legal coverage and rights, but when they mass in a protest they are not
arrested for being illegals - sort of subjective there too.

Everything is really black and white, Binary, but people tend to muddy
it up in order to "feel" better about things.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

beamish
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
"Leythos" wrote:

> In article <F08A0372-80B7-447A-9F3E-1D0C764D5D20@microsoft.com>,
> beamish@discussions.microsoft.com says...
> > Modem was a different make and model, while the rest of the
> > hardware was changed but same make and model
>
> Hard drives have serial numbers and rev's and do video cards and other
> components - just because you use the same make/model doesn't mean you
> can't tell the difference if you know where to look electronically.
>
> --
> --
> spam999free@rrohio.com
> remove 999 in order to email me
>
Hello, Thank You for the replies. Appreciate folks taking the time to read
the post and share their knowledge.
Take Care.
beamish.

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
Kerry Brown wrote:
> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
> message news:%23BtmD8uVFHA.2124@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Ron Martell wrote:
>>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:35:54 -0500, "Carey Frisch [MVP]"
>>>> <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Q. "How does MS justify that cost; maybe takes a quarter to make
>>>>> for them?"
>>>>>
>>>>> A. Microsoft spent billions of $$$ to develop Windows XP. The
>>>>> cost to manufacturer the CDs is irrelevant since they expect
>>>>> a return on their massive investment. Also, ongoing
>>>>> improvements to Windows XP, in the form of "Service Packs"
>>>>> and "hotfixes", are absorbed by Microsoft and are offered
>>>>> free to the consumer.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You must be joking.
>>>> Cost is relative.
>>>
>>> Good. You can pay the bills then.
>>
>> I could even on only a 20% profit margin.
>>
>> --
>> Peace!
>> Kurt
>> Self-anointed Moderator
>> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
>> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
>> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
>> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>>
>
> I have run several different businesses over the last 30 years. The
> ones that had a 20% gross profit margin eventually failed. It takes
> around 25% - 30% gross margin to break even for most businesses. You
> would have to be incredibly efficient to survive on 20%. I can see
> where software development may be different as there is less cost of
> sales, but a lot more salaries and related expenses. This would skew
> the gross margins to look much greater than what shows up on the
> bottom line. If you are talking 20% net profit then that is after the
> bills are paid and would be every good return indeed :-)
>
> Kerry

http://www.ananova.com/business/story/sm_711827.html?menu

"By comparison, German software giant SAP is forecasting an overall
profit margin of something over 21% for this year."

And the last time I looked SAP is doing just fine.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <2jf681pi1j8341kgie18ni7kj0vahjfdor@4ax.com>, none@none.net
> says...
>> Perhaps one could apply strictly objective (without reference to
>> values, ethics or morals) measures to the question of honesty and
>> integrity but any conclusions from such measures would be largely
>> empty of meaning and significance within a human society.
>
> As was this thread - since it's entirely up to the individual as to
> what they are willing to accept / do, nothing you or I say will
> change it or make it right/wrong.
>
> Even math is subjective in todays schools where a kid that scores a 99
> on a test, with everyone else scoring a 20, causes a bell curve
> situation that then increases the failing grade for the 20's to a C
> which would be an 80+ score......
>
> Then you've got the subjective laws where an Illegal Alien is given
> legal coverage and rights, but when they mass in a protest they are
> not arrested for being illegals - sort of subjective there too.
>
> Everything is really black and white, Binary, but people tend to muddy
> it up in order to "feel" better about things.
>
> --

Everything is black and white when you are program to think that way.

Ethics is not mathamatics.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <eQszG#uVFHA.3584@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> Ron Martell wrote:
>>> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Is it immoral to lie to a criminal, a conman, or to someone or
>>>> something that lie to you first? While two wrongs don't equal a
>>>> right, sometimes one needs to think outside of the box to protect
>>>> themselves from being abused by disreputable devices of others.
>>>
>>> The essential component for any agreement is that both parties must
>>> be satisfied that the other person has both the ability and the
>>> intent to fulfill whatever obligations and requirements they commit
>>> to as part of the agreement.
>>
>> LOL! Then get people to agree to it prior to the sale!
>
> But 99% of the users still wouldn't read it, would not care, would
> still be blissfully ignorant.

But then both parties get to agree or disagree before the sale.
Pressing a button to continue an installation only means that the person
is trying to use what was already SOLD to them.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
In article <unDisVwVFHA.2124@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> Everything is black and white when you are program to think that way.

Only if you are programmed to think that there are acceptable excuses
for actions that should not have been taken.

> Ethics is not mathamatics.

Sure they are - it's part of the cost/benefit model - if you have to
think about ethics then you are weighing what it will cost against what
you want to do, not what you should do.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Kerry Brown
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:e390KUwVFHA.2644@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Kerry Brown wrote:
>> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote in
>> message news:%23BtmD8uVFHA.2124@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>> Ron Martell wrote:
>>>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 11 May 2005 18:35:54 -0500, "Carey Frisch [MVP]"
>>>>> <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Q. "How does MS justify that cost; maybe takes a quarter to make
>>>>>> for them?"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A. Microsoft spent billions of $$$ to develop Windows XP. The
>>>>>> cost to manufacturer the CDs is irrelevant since they expect
>>>>>> a return on their massive investment. Also, ongoing
>>>>>> improvements to Windows XP, in the form of "Service Packs"
>>>>>> and "hotfixes", are absorbed by Microsoft and are offered
>>>>>> free to the consumer.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You must be joking.
>>>>> Cost is relative.
>>>>
>>>> Good. You can pay the bills then.
>>>
>>> I could even on only a 20% profit margin.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peace!
>>> Kurt
>>> Self-anointed Moderator
>>> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
>>> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
>>> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
>>> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>>>
>>
>> I have run several different businesses over the last 30 years. The
>> ones that had a 20% gross profit margin eventually failed. It takes
>> around 25% - 30% gross margin to break even for most businesses. You
>> would have to be incredibly efficient to survive on 20%. I can see
>> where software development may be different as there is less cost of
>> sales, but a lot more salaries and related expenses. This would skew
>> the gross margins to look much greater than what shows up on the
>> bottom line. If you are talking 20% net profit then that is after the
>> bills are paid and would be every good return indeed :-)
>>
>> Kerry
>
> http://www.ananova.com/business/story/sm_711827.html?menu
>
> "By comparison, German software giant SAP is forecasting an overall profit
> margin of something over 21% for this year."
>
> And the last time I looked SAP is doing just fine.
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt
> Self-anointed Moderator
> microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
> http://microscum.com/mscommunity
> "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
> "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
>

Thanks for the link. 86% operating profit is obscene (operating profit = net
profit before taxes). I had always assumed the high profit margins bandied
about for Microsoft was gross profits. I can't imagine running a business
with that high an operating profit. SAP's 21% operating profit is excellent
by most business standards. 21% is a very good return. Most business owners
are happy if they can meet or exceed the bank's prime rates or even make it
into the black. One problem with looking at operating profits with most
businesses is they may want to show a loss to avoid paying taxes. I guess
that isn't an option with businesses that profitable.

Kerry

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
In article <uCv#XXwVFHA.1148@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> > But 99% of the users still wouldn't read it, would not care, would
> > still be blissfully ignorant.
>
> But then both parties get to agree or disagree before the sale.
> Pressing a button to continue an installation only means that the person
> is trying to use what was already SOLD to them.

Wrong, pushing the button without reading the contents of the box it's
below is the same ignorant excuse, and it's not acceptable.

Answer me this - why does most of society look for ways to make excuses
for the ignorant/stupid? It's like the "Not guilty by reason of
insanity" defense - it should be "Guilty by reason of insanity".

If people are too ignorant/stupid to read a button click won't make any
difference. If you put up a 50' sign at Wallyworld with the licensing
details, 99% of all purchasers would never read it.

It's just ignorant people - ever read the ENTIRE financing agreement
when purchasing a car? I do, it's funny to watch the sales person get
flustered as you read EVERY word on both sides and all the other
documents too.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ced43d7e0799ec1989700@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <uCv#XXwVFHA.1148@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> > But 99% of the users still wouldn't read it, would not care, would
>> > still be blissfully ignorant.
>>
>> But then both parties get to agree or disagree before the sale.
>> Pressing a button to continue an installation only means that the person
>> is trying to use what was already SOLD to them.
>
> Wrong, pushing the button without reading the contents of the box it's
> below is the same ignorant excuse, and it's not acceptable.
>
> Answer me this - why does most of society look for ways to make excuses
> for the ignorant/stupid? It's like the "Not guilty by reason of
> insanity" defense - it should be "Guilty by reason of insanity".
>
> If people are too ignorant/stupid to read a button click won't make any
> difference. If you put up a 50' sign at Wallyworld with the licensing
> details, 99% of all purchasers would never read it.
>
> It's just ignorant people - ever read the ENTIRE financing agreement
> when purchasing a car? I do, it's funny to watch the sales person get
> flustered as you read EVERY word on both sides and all the other
> documents too.

I guess you're just highly informed and the rest of us peons are ignorant
fools. I never read the EULAs, agreements, etc. either. I click the button
to install the update or software and that's it.

Alias

NoStop
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
Leythos wrote:

> It's just ignorant people - ever read the ENTIRE financing agreement
> when purchasing a car? I do, it's funny to watch the sales person get
> flustered as you read EVERY word on both sides and all the other
> documents too.
>

Just read the Legal Notice in my sig and you'll be covered for all time with
any product. :-)

--

`,,`,,`,,``,,`
Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
Legal Notice And Disclaimer:
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/legal.html

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
In article <u1xA$pwVFHA.1152@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
aka@maskedandanonymous.org says...
>
> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1ced43d7e0799ec1989700@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> > In article <uCv#XXwVFHA.1148@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
> > dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> >> > But 99% of the users still wouldn't read it, would not care, would
> >> > still be blissfully ignorant.
> >>
> >> But then both parties get to agree or disagree before the sale.
> >> Pressing a button to continue an installation only means that the person
> >> is trying to use what was already SOLD to them.
> >
> > Wrong, pushing the button without reading the contents of the box it's
> > below is the same ignorant excuse, and it's not acceptable.
> >
> > Answer me this - why does most of society look for ways to make excuses
> > for the ignorant/stupid? It's like the "Not guilty by reason of
> > insanity" defense - it should be "Guilty by reason of insanity".
> >
> > If people are too ignorant/stupid to read a button click won't make any
> > difference. If you put up a 50' sign at Wallyworld with the licensing
> > details, 99% of all purchasers would never read it.
> >
> > It's just ignorant people - ever read the ENTIRE financing agreement
> > when purchasing a car? I do, it's funny to watch the sales person get
> > flustered as you read EVERY word on both sides and all the other
> > documents too.
>
> I guess you're just highly informed and the rest of us peons are ignorant
> fools. I never read the EULAs, agreements, etc. either. I click the button
> to install the update or software and that's it.

It's your choice - there is nothing wrong with being one of the ignorant
masses, if it doesn't bother you to be one that is.

I have no issues with anyone not being an Informed person, it's a choice
people make in lots of areas every day. I'm just not one of those types.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

BNR
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
Reality! HA! Don't forget to pay the guy on your board specializing in
Antitrust Compliance. Doubt he uses water. His telephone rings much?
He'll need a hefty income. City services? You exist on the web, what do
you need sanitation and expensive toilet paper for.

I tried to pull up a filing for Microsoft with the Federal Trade Commision.
Couldn't find one, I prolly need a staff the size of WinXP war team to
locate that. :o(

Where are these Freebies Carey mentioned?! I pay for tech calls, that's all
the aftermarket parts I need. If your product needs patched, that's faulty
manufacturing, manufacturing expenses shouldn't come out of my pocket,
should they?

"Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:em06819f9hs46jrl3gjhtebtemre2k8rl8@4ax.com...
> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >What bills might those be?
> >MS essentially extorts money from anyone who builds a
> >full-featured PC. Their only bills are whatever they choose
> >to spend, most definitely NOT a necessary business expense
> >because they have no competitors in the commercial PC OS
> >market.
> >
>
> Right. Employees work for nothing. Electricity, telephones, water,
> and other city services are provided free.
>
> Wake up and face reality.
>
>
> Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
> --
> Microsoft MVP
> On-Line Help Computer Service
> http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
>
> In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
> http://aumha.org/alex.htm

BNR
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
> I can give you the urls
> for the major computer store chains in Spain and you will see that NONE of
> them offer retail in any shape or form.

I'll take your word for it. Its prolly cheaper to learn English, than pay
that markup.

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ced4ae81d3f222b989701@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <u1xA$pwVFHA.1152@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
> aka@maskedandanonymous.org says...
>>
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1ced43d7e0799ec1989700@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
>> > In article <uCv#XXwVFHA.1148@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
>> > dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> >> > But 99% of the users still wouldn't read it, would not care, would
>> >> > still be blissfully ignorant.
>> >>
>> >> But then both parties get to agree or disagree before the sale.
>> >> Pressing a button to continue an installation only means that the
>> >> person
>> >> is trying to use what was already SOLD to them.
>> >
>> > Wrong, pushing the button without reading the contents of the box it's
>> > below is the same ignorant excuse, and it's not acceptable.
>> >
>> > Answer me this - why does most of society look for ways to make excuses
>> > for the ignorant/stupid? It's like the "Not guilty by reason of
>> > insanity" defense - it should be "Guilty by reason of insanity".
>> >
>> > If people are too ignorant/stupid to read a button click won't make any
>> > difference. If you put up a 50' sign at Wallyworld with the licensing
>> > details, 99% of all purchasers would never read it.
>> >
>> > It's just ignorant people - ever read the ENTIRE financing agreement
>> > when purchasing a car? I do, it's funny to watch the sales person get
>> > flustered as you read EVERY word on both sides and all the other
>> > documents too.
>>
>> I guess you're just highly informed and the rest of us peons are ignorant
>> fools. I never read the EULAs, agreements, etc. either. I click the
>> button
>> to install the update or software and that's it.
>
> It's your choice - there is nothing wrong with being one of the ignorant
> masses, if it doesn't bother you to be one that is.

My not reading the agreements doesn't bother me one bit. What I am concerned
about is the installation going well and, ahem, *using* the software.
>
> I have no issues with anyone not being an Informed person, it's a choice
> people make in lots of areas every day. I'm just not one of those types.

Yeah, we all know how supercilious you are.

Alias

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <unDisVwVFHA.2124@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> Everything is black and white when you are program to think that way.
>
> Only if you are programmed to think that there are acceptable excuses
> for actions that should not have been taken.
>
>> Ethics is not mathamatics.
>
> Sure they are - it's part of the cost/benefit model - if you have to
> think about ethics then you are weighing what it will cost against
> what you want to do, not what you should do.

What I think is ethical, and what a fundamentalist Christian thinks is
ethical are two different things!

I believe that the killing of any actual human being is wrong, though
there may be mitigating circumstances, such as in the immediacy of
self-defense.

A fundamentalist Christian thinks that killing some human beings is
right and necessary, but thinks that potential but not actual human
being must be protected, except as part of a treatment for infertility!

What is ethical depends on the point of view of the individual.

To me, lying to a woman that asks, does she look fat, is not only
ethical, but necessary for one's continuing well-being.

To me, lying to a conman is not only ethical, but necessary. And MS is
just a con-corporation.

Ethics are akin to philosophy, not mathematics, and only an automaton
wouldn't understand that.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
"BNR" <bradrhine1969@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tzLge.146$E_3.12@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> I can give you the urls
>> for the major computer store chains in Spain and you will see that NONE
>> of
>> them offer retail in any shape or form.
>
> I'll take your word for it. Its prolly cheaper to learn English, than pay
> that markup.

For an OEM Home XP in English, I can get it for 110 US Dollars and in
Spanish I can get it for 95 US Dollars.

Alias

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
"kurttrail" wrote
>
> Ethics are akin to philosophy, not mathematics, and only an automaton
> wouldn't understand that.
>
> --
> Peace!
> Kurt

You have to understand that "Leythos" thinks that 2 and 2 are 5.

Alias

BNR
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
Q. Whats an education good for?

A. Nothing. We buy intellectual property wholesale these days.

Ya know, back when I did pay for school, I learned to solve like this.

E: explicit fact
I: implicit fact
and U: unknown

Interesting, what school did you attend Carey?

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <uCv#XXwVFHA.1148@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>>> But 99% of the users still wouldn't read it, would not care, would
>>> still be blissfully ignorant.
>>
>> But then both parties get to agree or disagree before the sale.
>> Pressing a button to continue an installation only means that the
>> person is trying to use what was already SOLD to them.
>
> Wrong, pushing the button without reading the contents of the box it's
> below is the same ignorant excuse, and it's not acceptable.

To you, a total conformist to the whims of your business partner.

> Answer me this - why does most of society look for ways to make
> excuses for the ignorant/stupid? It's like the "Not guilty by reason
> of insanity" defense - it should be "Guilty by reason of insanity".

This shows exactly how deluded you are.

Not Guilty doesn't mean INNOCENT.

>
> If people are too ignorant/stupid to read a button click won't make
> any difference. If you put up a 50' sign at Wallyworld with the
> licensing details, 99% of all purchasers would never read it.

I though Wallyworld was a fictional place made up by National Lampoon.

> It's just ignorant people - ever read the ENTIRE financing agreement
> when purchasing a car? I do, it's funny to watch the sales person get
> flustered as you read EVERY word on both sides and all the other
> documents too.

1.) You have gotten an opportunity to accept, reject, and/or negotiate
the terms before you spend a dime.

2.) Both parties are known to each other, or in other waords neither
party is anonymous to the other.

3.) Both parties have a copy of the signed agreement.

4.) The car is a material object, not copyrighted material, and as
copyrighted material, an individual has the right to "fair use," which
no copyright owner has the right to limit.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

BNR
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
> I do not know the exact figure

Then you know nothing, except how to put MVP in your siggie. Just as I
suspected. You'd do better attaching a photo of yourself shrugging and
giving a dumbass deer-in-headlights look.

Yet your confident the price for WinXP Home Upgrade is set correct? That's
truely unreasuring.

Q. What's price for WinXP Home Upgrade based on, in a pie chart example?

A. Doh!

There's my money at work..

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
Alias wrote:
> "kurttrail" wrote
>>
>> Ethics are akin to philosophy, not mathematics, and only an automaton
>> wouldn't understand that.
>>
>> --
>> Peace!
>> Kurt
>
> You have to understand that "Leythos" thinks that 2 and 2 are 5.
>
> Alias

Yes. His programming is flawed.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Lou
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
On Thu, 12 May 2005 15:44:14 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>In article <uCv#XXwVFHA.1148@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
>dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> > But 99% of the users still wouldn't read it, would not care, would
>> > still be blissfully ignorant.
>>
>> But then both parties get to agree or disagree before the sale.
>> Pressing a button to continue an installation only means that the person
>> is trying to use what was already SOLD to them.
>
>Wrong, pushing the button without reading the contents of the box it's
>below is the same ignorant excuse, and it's not acceptable.
>
>Answer me this - why does most of society look for ways to make excuses
>for the ignorant/stupid? It's like the "Not guilty by reason of
>insanity" defense - it should be "Guilty by reason of insanity".

Good question. Answer: Because we have to contend with
ignorant/stupid people like you who dare make statements like the one
above.
>
>If people are too ignorant/stupid to read a button click won't make any
>difference. If you put up a 50' sign at Wallyworld with the licensing
>details, 99% of all purchasers would never read it.
>
>It's just ignorant people - ever read the ENTIRE financing agreement
>when purchasing a car? I do, it's funny to watch the sales person get
>flustered as you read EVERY word on both sides and all the other
>documents too.
>
>--

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
In article <eXJ1dOxVFHA.3760@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> > Answer me this - why does most of society look for ways to make
> > excuses for the ignorant/stupid? It's like the "Not guilty by reason
> > of insanity" defense - it should be "Guilty by reason of insanity".
>
> This shows exactly how deluded you are.
>
> Not Guilty doesn't mean INNOCENT.

While I understand the difference as the intent it, it would seem there
is no reason for an insanity defense except to lessen the impact of the
offense. I've read cases where the "innocent by reason of insanity"
individual only got medical treatment, not hard time in a regular
prison. It would seem that anyone that commits a crime is guilty, and
that admission of doing the crime while insane makes them just as
guilty, so the proper term should be "Guilty by reason of insanity",
which mean you treat them for insanity then incarcerate them for the
crime.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
In article <lc6781tvrv7cm3j9bjgqvculnca6r0fg2u@4ax.com>, Lou says...
> >Answer me this - why does most of society look for ways to make excuses
> >for the ignorant/stupid? It's like the "Not guilty by reason of
> >insanity" defense - it should be "Guilty by reason of insanity".
>
> Good question. Answer: Because we have to contend with
> ignorant/stupid people like you who dare make statements like the one
> above.

So, you're saying that since you can't explain why it reads that way
that you're one of the ignorant masses?

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Lou
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
On Thu, 12 May 2005 18:05:27 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>In article <eXJ1dOxVFHA.3760@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
>dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> > Answer me this - why does most of society look for ways to make
>> > excuses for the ignorant/stupid? It's like the "Not guilty by reason
>> > of insanity" defense - it should be "Guilty by reason of insanity".
>>
>> This shows exactly how deluded you are.
>>
>> Not Guilty doesn't mean INNOCENT.
>
>While I understand the difference as the intent it, it would seem there
>is no reason for an insanity defense except to lessen the impact of the
>offense. I've read cases where the "innocent by reason of insanity"
>individual only got medical treatment, not hard time in a regular
>prison. It would seem that anyone that commits a crime is guilty, and
>that admission of doing the crime while insane makes them just as
>guilty, so the proper term should be "Guilty by reason of insanity",
>which mean you treat them for insanity then incarcerate them for the
>crime.
>
It is obvious from this paragraph, Leythos is incapable of
participating in the human experience. He is so obviously a
super-human. Disgusting.

Lou

Lou
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
On Thu, 12 May 2005 18:11:43 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>In article <lc6781tvrv7cm3j9bjgqvculnca6r0fg2u@4ax.com>, Lou says...
>> >Answer me this - why does most of society look for ways to make excuses
>> >for the ignorant/stupid? It's like the "Not guilty by reason of
>> >insanity" defense - it should be "Guilty by reason of insanity".
>>
>> Good question. Answer: Because we have to contend with
>> ignorant/stupid people like you who dare make statements like the one
>> above.
>
>So, you're saying that since you can't explain why it reads that way
>that you're one of the ignorant masses?
>
I can read and understand very clearly why it reads that way. That is
why I repeat, you are an arrogant, unconcionable, ignorant/stupid
human being.
>--

Ron Martell
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
"BNR" <bradrhine1969@earthlink.net> wrote:

>> I do not know the exact figure
>
>Then you know nothing, except how to put MVP in your siggie. Just as I
>suspected. You'd do better attaching a photo of yourself shrugging and
>giving a dumbass deer-in-headlights look.
>
>Yet your confident the price for WinXP Home Upgrade is set correct? That's
>truely unreasuring.

I never said that.

Manufacturers of any product are free to set their prices at whatever
level they want. It is then up to the purchasers to decide if the
want to pay that price or not.

My comments were with respect to Kerry Brown's statement about the
number of people involved in the development and testing of Windows
XP. He said "If they had 1,000 programmers working....." implying
that he considered that to be more that what would be necessary. My
opinion is that there were away more than 1,000 people working on the
development of Windows XP, and I subsequently cited an item from
Microsoft's web site which supported my opinion.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

Ron Martell
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
"kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote:


>
>I could even on only a 20% profit margin.

Based on what costs? Just the incremental costs of manufacturing,
packaging, and shipping each copy of the finished product?

Or the total costs of developing the product to begin with, the
ongoing costs of product support and development, and all the other
overheads?


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

Lou
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
On Thu, 12 May 2005 18:05:27 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>In article <eXJ1dOxVFHA.3760@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
>dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> > Answer me this - why does most of society look for ways to make
>> > excuses for the ignorant/stupid? It's like the "Not guilty by reason
>> > of insanity" defense - it should be "Guilty by reason of insanity".
>>
>> This shows exactly how deluded you are.
>>
>> Not Guilty doesn't mean INNOCENT.
>
>While I understand the difference as the intent it, it would seem there
>is no reason for an insanity defense except to lessen the impact of the
>offense. I've read cases where the "innocent by reason of insanity"
>individual only got medical treatment, not hard time in a regular
>prison. It would seem that anyone that commits a crime is guilty, and
>that admission of doing the crime while insane makes them just as
>guilty, so the proper term should be "Guilty by reason of insanity",
>which mean you treat them for insanity then incarcerate them for the
>crime.
>

I can read and understand very clearly why it reads that way. That is
why I repeat, you are an arrogant, unconcionable, ignorant/stupid
human being.

Or you mis-spoke and are willing to apologize to those of us who have
close relatives who some label: mentally-challenged, retarded, insane.

Which is it?
>--

Ron Martell
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
"BNR" <bradrhine1969@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Where are these Freebies Carey mentioned?! I pay for tech calls, that's all
>the aftermarket parts I need. If your product needs patched, that's faulty
>manufacturing, manufacturing expenses shouldn't come out of my pocket,
>should they?
>

Paid tech support fees do not cover the full costs of providing that
support, according to every report I have ever seen (and not just from
Microsoft). The "rule of thumb" for providing services is that your
revenues should equal 2.5 times the wage rate of the front-line
worker. And while many paid support calls are handled in less than
an hour, others do take many hours or even days to resolve, and the
fee is still the same.

And if manufacturing expenses should not be recovered from the
purchaser's pocket, whose pocket should they come out of? Some magic
mystical money tree?


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
In article <b377811ohdn8kevfp3r0uo634ihiv318hb@4ax.com>, Lou says...
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 18:05:27 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>
> >In article <eXJ1dOxVFHA.3760@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
> >dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> >> > Answer me this - why does most of society look for ways to make
> >> > excuses for the ignorant/stupid? It's like the "Not guilty by reason
> >> > of insanity" defense - it should be "Guilty by reason of insanity".
> >>
> >> This shows exactly how deluded you are.
> >>
> >> Not Guilty doesn't mean INNOCENT.
> >
> >While I understand the difference as the intent it, it would seem there
> >is no reason for an insanity defense except to lessen the impact of the
> >offense. I've read cases where the "innocent by reason of insanity"
> >individual only got medical treatment, not hard time in a regular
> >prison. It would seem that anyone that commits a crime is guilty, and
> >that admission of doing the crime while insane makes them just as
> >guilty, so the proper term should be "Guilty by reason of insanity",
> >which mean you treat them for insanity then incarcerate them for the
> >crime.
> >
> It is obvious from this paragraph, Leythos is incapable of
> participating in the human experience. He is so obviously a
> super-human. Disgusting.

I'm not sure I follow your logic - you are suggesting that it's OK to
not hold people responsible for their actions because the purposely
forget to take their prescribed medications, while holding a non-insane
person accountable for the same actions?

Maybe you can explain why anyone would support "NOT GUILTY by reason of
insanity"?

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:23 PM
In article <8a7781tk560v5e0qfuhdbd1l4qac0tgjva@4ax.com>, Lou says...
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 18:11:43 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>
> >In article <lc6781tvrv7cm3j9bjgqvculnca6r0fg2u@4ax.com>, Lou says...
> >> >Answer me this - why does most of society look for ways to make excuses
> >> >for the ignorant/stupid? It's like the "Not guilty by reason of
> >> >insanity" defense - it should be "Guilty by reason of insanity".
> >>
> >> Good question. Answer: Because we have to contend with
> >> ignorant/stupid people like you who dare make statements like the one
> >> above.
> >
> >So, you're saying that since you can't explain why it reads that way
> >that you're one of the ignorant masses?
> >
> I can read and understand very clearly why it reads that way. That is
> why I repeat, you are an arrogant, unconcionable, ignorant/stupid
> human being.

Nice trolling, but it won't work.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Lou
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
On Thu, 12 May 2005 18:57:32 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>In article <b377811ohdn8kevfp3r0uo634ihiv318hb@4ax.com>, Lou says...
>> On Thu, 12 May 2005 18:05:27 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <eXJ1dOxVFHA.3760@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
>> >dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> >> > Answer me this - why does most of society look for ways to make
>> >> > excuses for the ignorant/stupid? It's like the "Not guilty by reason
>> >> > of insanity" defense - it should be "Guilty by reason of insanity".
>> >>
>> >> This shows exactly how deluded you are.
>> >>
>> >> Not Guilty doesn't mean INNOCENT.
>> >
>> >While I understand the difference as the intent it, it would seem there
>> >is no reason for an insanity defense except to lessen the impact of the
>> >offense. I've read cases where the "innocent by reason of insanity"
>> >individual only got medical treatment, not hard time in a regular
>> >prison. It would seem that anyone that commits a crime is guilty, and
>> >that admission of doing the crime while insane makes them just as
>> >guilty, so the proper term should be "Guilty by reason of insanity",
>> >which mean you treat them for insanity then incarcerate them for the
>> >crime.
>> >
>> It is obvious from this paragraph, Leythos is incapable of
>> participating in the human experience. He is so obviously a
>> super-human. Disgusting.
>
>I'm not sure I follow your logic - you are suggesting that it's OK to
>not hold people responsible for their actions because the purposely
>forget to take their prescribed medications, while holding a non-insane
>person accountable for the same actions?

What medication is a cure all for insanity?

>Maybe you can explain why anyone would support "NOT GUILTY by reason of
>insanity"?

That's easy. An insane person may very well be guilty of comminting a
grevious offense against others. That person may still be accurately
found "not guilty by reason of insanity" for that offense. Insanity:
such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from
having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular
relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal
or civil responsibility.
>
>--

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
Ron Martell wrote:
> "kurttrail" <dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I could even on only a 20% profit margin.
>
> Based on what costs? Just the incremental costs of manufacturing,
> packaging, and shipping each copy of the finished product?
>
> Or the total costs of developing the product to begin with, the
> ongoing costs of product support and development, and all the other
> overheads?


Based on that that is less than a quarter of MS rakes in after its
expenses minus taxes, and almost any company would be happy to have an
operating profit margin of 20%.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
In article <q9a7815qai8pfq9i3vgkrl5sd2ddcftfap@4ax.com>, Lou says...
> >Maybe you can explain why anyone would support "NOT GUILTY by reason of
> >insanity"?
>
> That's easy. An insane person may very well be guilty of comminting a
> grevious offense against others. That person may still be accurately
> found "not guilty by reason of insanity" for that offense. Insanity:
> such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from
> having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular
> relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal
> or civil responsibility.

So, you are asking me (and anyone else) to forgive someone that's insane
for grievous actions that may include the killing of innocents?

It's not so easy. If a person is insane, for any reason, they need to be
cured or locked-up if violent in nature. If they can't be cured, and if
they are violent (as with killing someone), and there is no absolute
guarantee of them being curable by medication, then they need the same
treatment as a mad-dog (dispatched quickly). Oh, and don't get me
started on how many self-medicating lunatics have stopped taking their
medications and then gone out an killed some little kid.

I can't see letting my kids play with a criminally insane person just
because they are taking medications currently - in fact, I can see any
reason to allow insanity as a defense. Lock them up as you never know
when they'll strike again!

What you're really telling me is that some people feel bad for killers
and want to blame some condition instead of the person for their action.
That being able to blame some 'condition' some how lessens the actions
impact on the families of victims, and that it's not proper to hold
people with 'conditions' FULLY RESPONSIBLE for their actions? If you
really believe that insanity is a valid defense for violent offenders
then you're either an Attorney or a John Kerry supporter.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <eXJ1dOxVFHA.3760@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>>> Answer me this - why does most of society look for ways to make
>>> excuses for the ignorant/stupid? It's like the "Not guilty by reason
>>> of insanity" defense - it should be "Guilty by reason of insanity".
>>
>> This shows exactly how deluded you are.
>>
>> Not Guilty doesn't mean INNOCENT.
>
> While I understand the difference as the intent it, it would seem
> there is no reason for an insanity defense except to lessen the
> impact of the offense. I've read cases where the "innocent by reason
> of insanity"

No such thing as "innocent by reason of insanity."

> individual only got medical treatment, not hard time in
> a regular prison. It would seem that anyone that commits a crime is
> guilty, and that admission of doing the crime while insane makes them
> just as guilty, so the proper term should be "Guilty by reason of
> insanity", which mean you treat them for insanity then incarcerate
> them for the crime.

The insanity defense is a defense that relies on stress mitigating
circumstances, such a not being able to understand the difference
between right or wrong. And it is one of the hardest mitigating
circumstance defenses to actually win. How many have you heard of?
Huh?

Are you trying to say that there are NEVER any mitigating circumstanse
defenses to crime?

Oh, and I loved how quickly you dropped your financing agreement for a
car analogy, after I blew it totally out of the water! I would runaway
from such a poor analogy myself, IF I was ever stupid enough to make one
as poor as that!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <8a7781tk560v5e0qfuhdbd1l4qac0tgjva@4ax.com>, Lou says...
>> On Thu, 12 May 2005 18:11:43 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <lc6781tvrv7cm3j9bjgqvculnca6r0fg2u@4ax.com>, Lou says...
>>>>> Answer me this - why does most of society look for ways to make
>>>>> excuses for the ignorant/stupid? It's like the "Not guilty by
>>>>> reason of insanity" defense - it should be "Guilty by reason of
>>>>> insanity".
>>>>
>>>> Good question. Answer: Because we have to contend with
>>>> ignorant/stupid people like you who dare make statements like the
>>>> one above.
>>>
>>> So, you're saying that since you can't explain why it reads that way
>>> that you're one of the ignorant masses?
>>>
>> I can read and understand very clearly why it reads that way. That
>> is why I repeat, you are an arrogant, unconcionable, ignorant/stupid
>> human being.
>
> Nice trolling, but it won't work.

Seems like he got your number to me.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

BNR
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
> "Guilty by reason of insanity"

Guilty or Innocent, it only matters what the arresting Officer said when he
reported in at triage. Doctors use a completely different care procedure
for caring for violent patients, regardless if they're insane or sane. Care
is all that matters. People in some jails live better than in real life.
Look at Martha Stewart, she made 8mil in prison. I never knew who she was
before her demise.

Here is a professional, a doctor, that swears an oath, treat all unbiased,
breaking it everyday there is a domestic squable. I highly doubt the casual
installer of an OS takes the time to read it, if these professionals don't
read and act on theirs, isn't it a kind of oath this EULA.

If accused or suspected of being accused, a person will prolly reread it
with a lawyer present, spending valuable time to do so if the accusation
involves recompensation. At which time they can come up with all kinds of
backwards and confusing alibies before a Judge and Jury for why they didn't
read it before the time of installation.

A jury with more females is more likely to aquit, on grounds of insanity
than males anyway. Just look at the trends and layout the best excuse.

Any agreement that reads longer than a resume, is too confusing to the
average Joe anyway. Just look at a nondisclosure agreement in your
employers application. Are they really gonna list every single item of code
in the program they sell there?!? If they don't, a mere coincidence excuse
works just fine. What's crazy is the employer expects employees to read it.
Hell its enough to make someone insane spending that much unpaid time
reading such dribble. That's slavery.

And on the topic of Federal courts. Why does the Jury get a LCD display at
these big trials, and not a pen and pencil? Jurors are expected to consume
all the facts and figures off an LCD nowadays, with out saving or agreeing
to an EULA... Who made them agree to it, before they took the seat? Uncle
Sam agreed to this EULA, I suppose. If he did, I have no choice really,
kinda dumb that they ask at installation.

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
In article <u5DuUnyVFHA.1200@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> Leythos wrote:
> > In article <eXJ1dOxVFHA.3760@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
> > dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> >>> Answer me this - why does most of society look for ways to make
> >>> excuses for the ignorant/stupid? It's like the "Not guilty by reason
> >>> of insanity" defense - it should be "Guilty by reason of insanity".
> >>
> >> This shows exactly how deluded you are.
> >>
> >> Not Guilty doesn't mean INNOCENT.
> >
> > While I understand the difference as the intent it, it would seem
> > there is no reason for an insanity defense except to lessen the
> > impact of the offense. I've read cases where the "innocent by reason
> > of insanity"
>
> No such thing as "innocent by reason of insanity."

"Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity" - if you are not guilty then you are
innocent. Yea, I messed up the proper term, but it means the same thing.

>
> > individual only got medical treatment, not hard time in
> > a regular prison. It would seem that anyone that commits a crime is
> > guilty, and that admission of doing the crime while insane makes them
> > just as guilty, so the proper term should be "Guilty by reason of
> > insanity", which mean you treat them for insanity then incarcerate
> > them for the crime.
>
> The insanity defense is a defense that relies on stress mitigating
> circumstances, such a not being able to understand the difference
> between right or wrong. And it is one of the hardest mitigating
> circumstance defenses to actually win. How many have you heard of?
> Huh?

I understand the reason/difficulty, but that's also why there are
different crime levels to charge people with. Not-Guilty and saying it
was actually committed but by an insane person is like saying I didn't
mean to do it because my eye's are blue.

> Are you trying to say that there are NEVER any mitigating circumstanse
> defenses to crime?

No, I'm saying that insanity should not be a factor - if the person is
insane enough to perform violent actions, and most that do have a
history before the second action, then they don't belong in society.

> Oh, and I loved how quickly you dropped your financing agreement for a
> car analogy, after I blew it totally out of the water! I would runaway
> from such a poor analogy myself, IF I was ever stupid enough to make one
> as poor as that!

I didn't drop anything, I just didn't see the point in trying to change
your opinion.

So, lets setting the "Not-Guilty by reason of insanity" stuff:

A chap that has no history of violence walks out his front door, walks
into the neighbors house, kills all the kids and the dog. He's caught,
he's rational, he's not got any history of mental defect and no
motive/reason for the action.

Another chap, that's on anti-psychotic medication stops taking his meds
because it was causing him to feel like a lump on a log and that foods
didn't taste as vibrant - he walks out his house, into the neighbors
house, kills all the kids and the dog. He's caught, he's irrational,
he's got any history of mental defect and no motive/reason for the
action.

Both were responsible for their actions, both made a choice that enabled
their action, both actions ended with the same results, but one gets the
chair while the other gets released from a medical center after two
years of "treatment" and then does the same thing the next year.

How can you possibly say that the person with the medical condition is
LESS responsible for their actions?

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
In article <ebX8UnyVFHA.1200@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> > Nice trolling, but it won't work.
>
> Seems like he got your number to me.

I thought you and I used "buttons" :)

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

BNR
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
"Business Managers see only one color and only if they are goood a what
they do. Red."

I gotta disagree, there is no Business without the color... Green.

BNR
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
> >> I do not know the exact figure
> I never said that.

Ron, ya did so.

That lie right there made me think of John Kerry's wife when she pompously
refered to ALL the people from my area as unpatriotic during a speech. She
then went on to lie before the News that aired it right there on national
TV, denying it all.

It wasn't so bad to hear the first time, but a coverup, that makes it
preposterous. It's okie to not have your facts straight, Ron.

I, disagree with Ron, when a company has no competition, it should let
someone else price fix for it. I know ATF doesn't price fix, but it does
regulate distribution and fine. Maybe it should take on a new name.. OSATF.
Its not like that'll hurt competition. There is none. MS will just have to
program more bugs into product to makeup for slump with Tech calls.

A PC is more dangerous and addicting than alcohol, tobaco and firearms. You
know there is a Railroad retirment agency in the government. I suppose
sometime we'll actually see an Operationg System retirement agency. I hope
its sooner than later.

Jupiter Jones [MVP]
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
If you call someone a liar, you should also post a reference to support your
claim or become guilty of slander yourself.
The unrelated political garbage you posted does not support any relevant
point you made.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol
http://www.dts-l.org


"BNR" <bradrhine1969@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:M4Pge.1627
> Ron, ya did so.
>
> That lie right there made me think of John Kerry's wife when she pompously
> refered to ALL the people from my area as unpatriotic during a speech.
> She
> then went on to lie before the News that aired it right there on national
> TV, denying it all.
>
> It wasn't so bad to hear the first time, but a coverup, that makes it
> preposterous. It's okie to not have your facts straight, Ron.
>
> I, disagree with Ron, when a company has no competition, it should let
> someone else price fix for it. I know ATF doesn't price fix, but it does
> regulate distribution and fine. Maybe it should take on a new name..
> OSATF.
> Its not like that'll hurt competition. There is none. MS will just have
> to
> program more bugs into product to makeup for slump with Tech calls.
>
> A PC is more dangerous and addicting than alcohol, tobaco and firearms.
> You
> know there is a Railroad retirment agency in the government. I suppose
> sometime we'll actually see an Operationg System retirement agency. I
> hope
> its sooner than later.

T. Waters
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <q9a7815qai8pfq9i3vgkrl5sd2ddcftfap@4ax.com>, Lou says...
>>> Maybe you can explain why anyone would support "NOT GUILTY by
>>> reason of insanity"?
>>
>> That's easy. An insane person may very well be guilty of comminting
>> a grevious offense against others. That person may still be
>> accurately found "not guilty by reason of insanity" for that
>> offense. Insanity: such unsoundness of mind or lack of
>> understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity
>> required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or
>> transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility.
>
> So, you are asking me (and anyone else) to forgive someone that's
> insane for grievous actions that may include the killing of innocents?
>
> It's not so easy. If a person is insane, for any reason, they need to
> be cured or locked-up if violent in nature. If they can't be cured,
> and if they are violent (as with killing someone), and there is no
> absolute guarantee of them being curable by medication, then they
> need the same treatment as a mad-dog (dispatched quickly). Oh, and
> don't get me started on how many self-medicating lunatics have
> stopped taking their medications and then gone out an killed some
> little kid.
>
> I can't see letting my kids play with a criminally insane person just
> because they are taking medications currently - in fact, I can see any
> reason to allow insanity as a defense. Lock them up as you never know
> when they'll strike again!
>
> What you're really telling me is that some people feel bad for killers
> and want to blame some condition instead of the person for their
> action. That being able to blame some 'condition' some how lessens
> the actions impact on the families of victims, and that it's not
> proper to hold people with 'conditions' FULLY RESPONSIBLE for their
> actions? If you really believe that insanity is a valid defense for
> violent offenders then you're either an Attorney or a John Kerry
> supporter.
>
> --

You may lead a protected existence, from what I read in your posts.
Do you have the slightest idea how many poor, black men with mental illnes
are dealt with soleley through the criminal justice system?
Also, many other people with mental illness do not qualify for the "legal
insanity" defense, which is used in only a small proportion of criminal
cases.
The problem scenario you describe is actually the opposite of reality.

BNR
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
> The "rule of thumb"

Point your thumb in the direction of a vector and the curve of the clenching
fist determines the field direction. Its particularly useful when dealing
with positive and negative fields when reading schematics. Rule of Thumb
has nothing to do with Microsoft's market controlled monopolies in the
Software Industry.

So another words, the price is based on those contract worker's on
Microsoft's front lines, the ones they hire through temp agencies? Like the
person who hung up on the OP. Well that should make it pretty cheap than,
since a part of that wage goes right back to the temp agency . Why's it not
cheap Ron, they doing some funny math?

I'm still having a hard time getting my teeth around the idea that Microsoft
is providing me a service w/o an ongoing membership fee. When can I expect
the Microsoft call girl to come over and give me some service, Ron? You see
where I'm coming from? If the OS is so bad, it needs followup service,
maybe their needs to be a warranty and not an EULA.

We don't make lemonaid out of lemons. We cut down the lemon tree and burn
it until it pays enough to compensate the victim. Atleast, close enough.
Anyway.

Lou
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
On Thu, 12 May 2005 19:33:37 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:

>In article <q9a7815qai8pfq9i3vgkrl5sd2ddcftfap@4ax.com>, Lou says...
>> >Maybe you can explain why anyone would support "NOT GUILTY by reason of
>> >insanity"?
>>
>> That's easy. An insane person may very well be guilty of comminting a
>> grevious offense against others. That person may still be accurately
>> found "not guilty by reason of insanity" for that offense. Insanity:
>> such unsoundness of mind or lack of understanding as prevents one from
>> having the mental capacity required by law to enter into a particular
>> relationship, status, or transaction or as removes one from criminal
>> or civil responsibility.
>
>So, you are asking me (and anyone else) to forgive someone that's insane
>for grievous actions that may include the killing of innocents?
>
>It's not so easy. If a person is insane, for any reason, they need to be
>cured or locked-up if violent in nature. If they can't be cured, and if
>they are violent (as with killing someone), and there is no absolute
>guarantee of them being curable by medication, then they need the same
>treatment as a mad-dog (dispatched quickly).

My sincere apologies. You are not arrogant, unconcionable, ignorant
or stupid. You are an adult who happens to have been misplaced in the
space time continuum.

You are indeed a super-being, seeing and understanding only black and
white, more than justifiably capable of being accuser, judge and juror
for the masses and would not hesitate to dispatch quickly (treat like
a mad-dog) any human being not up to your standards.

Does the phrase "Germany in the 1930s and 1940s" bring fond thoughts?

Heil to Leythos the fascist!

>Oh, and don't get me
>started on how many self-medicating lunatics have stopped taking their
>medications and then gone out an killed some little kid.
>
>I can't see letting my kids play with a criminally insane person just
>because they are taking medications currently - in fact, I can see any
>reason to allow insanity as a defense. Lock them up as you never know
>when they'll strike again!
>
>What you're really telling me is that some people feel bad for killers
>and want to blame some condition instead of the person for their action.
>That being able to blame some 'condition' some how lessens the actions
>impact on the families of victims, and that it's not proper to hold
>people with 'conditions' FULLY RESPONSIBLE for their actions? If you
>really believe that insanity is a valid defense for violent offenders
>then you're either an Attorney or a John Kerry supporter.
>
>--

BNR
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
> The insanity defense is a defense that relies on stress mitigating
> circumstances, such a not being able to understand the difference
> between right or wrong.

What if a fella went insane after a faulty Intellimouse with a dead battery
left him from clicking the "disagree" in the EULA with the little up finger
on the screen. Who's fault is that? His, for not changing battery? His, for
agreeing to agree before the reinstall, and following a poor technicians
advice. Theirs, for the actions right then and there in making him resign a
preagreed to contract? He was told to reinstall from a MS techit fix, due
to a virus.

Who is to blame in this ferinstance?

Carey Frisch [MVP]
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
University of Michigan

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

Get Windows XP Service Pack 2 with Advanced Security Technologies:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/protect/windowsxp/choose.mspx

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"BNR" wrote:
|
| Interesting, what school did you attend Carey?



---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0519-2, 05/12/2005
Tested on: 5/12/2005 4:26:58 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

BNR
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
Jupi, your blind and dumb, its the part you cut out. And I'll call anyone I
want a Liar, tyvm. Who the hell are you to critisize my political garbage,
anyway. I'm already guilty for volunteering conversation freely against my
will. When will your bill arrive. You don't speak to folks freely. I'm
here to interpret your convoluted EULA. And all I get in response from MVPs
is insults and threats.

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
Carey Frisch [MVP] wrote:
> University of Michigan


He was one of the tackling dummies.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
In article <u59fYWzVFHA.1152@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>, "T. Waters" <@$%$%
#^@jdjgkl.com> says...
> Leythos wrote:
> > In article <q9a7815qai8pfq9i3vgkrl5sd2ddcftfap@4ax.com>, Lou says...
> >>> Maybe you can explain why anyone would support "NOT GUILTY by
> >>> reason of insanity"?
> >>
> >> That's easy. An insane person may very well be guilty of comminting
> >> a grevious offense against others. That person may still be
> >> accurately found "not guilty by reason of insanity" for that
> >> offense. Insanity: such unsoundness of mind or lack of
> >> understanding as prevents one from having the mental capacity
> >> required by law to enter into a particular relationship, status, or
> >> transaction or as removes one from criminal or civil responsibility.
> >
> > So, you are asking me (and anyone else) to forgive someone that's
> > insane for grievous actions that may include the killing of innocents?
> >
> > It's not so easy. If a person is insane, for any reason, they need to
> > be cured or locked-up if violent in nature. If they can't be cured,
> > and if they are violent (as with killing someone), and there is no
> > absolute guarantee of them being curable by medication, then they
> > need the same treatment as a mad-dog (dispatched quickly). Oh, and
> > don't get me started on how many self-medicating lunatics have
> > stopped taking their medications and then gone out an killed some
> > little kid.
> >
> > I can't see letting my kids play with a criminally insane person just
> > because they are taking medications currently - in fact, I can see any
> > reason to allow insanity as a defense. Lock them up as you never know
> > when they'll strike again!
> >
> > What you're really telling me is that some people feel bad for killers
> > and want to blame some condition instead of the person for their
> > action. That being able to blame some 'condition' some how lessens
> > the actions impact on the families of victims, and that it's not
> > proper to hold people with 'conditions' FULLY RESPONSIBLE for their
> > actions? If you really believe that insanity is a valid defense for
> > violent offenders then you're either an Attorney or a John Kerry
> > supporter.
> >
> > --
>
> You may lead a protected existence, from what I read in your posts.
> Do you have the slightest idea how many poor, black men with mental illnes
> are dealt with soleley through the criminal justice system?
> Also, many other people with mental illness do not qualify for the "legal
> insanity" defense, which is used in only a small proportion of criminal
> cases.
> The problem scenario you describe is actually the opposite of reality.

We provide technical consulting to the local authorities from time to
time, but not in the area we've discussed here.

I don't care about poor/race or anything, including their mental state,
if they do the crime it doesn't matter unless they can afford a zillion
$ attorney to get off.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Michael C
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
"BNR" <bradrhine1969@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:itOge.1613$LO1.495@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "Business Managers see only one color and only if they are goood a what
> they do. Red."
>
> I gotta disagree, there is no Business without the color... Green.

Most countries have mutlicolored money.

Michael

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
In article <sog78151qdmugijttujuvhrb99t657cdue@4ax.com>, Lou says...
> Does the phrase "Germany in the 1930s and 1940s" bring fond thoughts?

Sure does, a crazy man with crazy followers, getting away with murder
and attacking anything that wasn't likewise crazy.

> Heil to Leythos the fascist!

Ah, I see, you really are a troll.

Although you won't understand this next part, it has meaning to at least
a couple in this group "Button" :)

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

NoStop
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
BNR wrote:

>> The "rule of thumb"
>
> Point your thumb in the direction of a vector and the curve of the
> clenching
> fist determines the field direction. Its particularly useful when dealing
> with positive and negative fields when reading schematics. Rule of Thumb
> has nothing to do with Microsoft's market controlled monopolies in the
> Software Industry.
>
> So another words, the price is based on those contract worker's on
> Microsoft's front lines, the ones they hire through temp agencies? Like
> the
> person who hung up on the OP. Well that should make it pretty cheap than,
> since a part of that wage goes right back to the temp agency . Why's it
> not cheap Ron, they doing some funny math?
>
> I'm still having a hard time getting my teeth around the idea that
> Microsoft
> is providing me a service w/o an ongoing membership fee. When can I
> expect
> the Microsoft call girl to come over and give me some service, Ron? You
> see
> where I'm coming from? If the OS is so bad, it needs followup service,
> maybe their needs to be a warranty and not an EULA.
>
> We don't make lemonaid out of lemons. We cut down the lemon tree and burn
> it until it pays enough to compensate the victim. Atleast, close enough.
> Anyway.

Following the logic I see in this thread, Windoze should be free. Michael
Moore, in one of his books, pointed out that Micro$oft was using prison
labor to package their products. Can't remember what M$ was paying for this
cheap labor, but I'm sure it wasn't much.

--

`,,`,,`,,``,,`
Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
Legal Notice And Disclaimer:
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/legal.html

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
Leythos wrote:

> "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity" - if you are not guilty then you
> are innocent. Yea, I messed up the proper term, but it means the same
> thing.

No. Is OJ innocent? There just was not enough evidence to convince his
jury that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That in no way means
his is innocent.

> I understand the reason/difficulty, but that's also why there are
> different crime levels to charge people with. Not-Guilty and saying it
> was actually committed but by an insane person is like saying I didn't
> mean to do it because my eye's are blue.

LOL! Not all insanity is genetic, much of it is nurture, not nature
caused. Are you eyes blue because you daddy knocked you upside your
head every 2 seconds?

> No, I'm saying that insanity should not be a factor - if the person is
> insane enough to perform violent actions, and most that do have a
> history before the second action, then they don't belong in society.

I believe Hitler tried to do that one. Sent the insane to concentration
camps.

Do you really want to fix society's problems in his image?

> I didn't drop anything, I just didn't see the point in trying to
> change your opinion.

LOL! You couldn't argue against my very valid points. Your analogy
only pointed out the inadequacies of MS's anonymous shrink-wrap license.

> So, lets setting the "Not-Guilty by reason of insanity" stuff:
> <snipped what I didn't bother to read, as I'm done with your off-topic
> bullsh*t>

No thanks, I already spent enough time on your diversionary tactics. If
you don't want to stay on topic - MS and it's waffling rules - then just
go off on your own and play with yourself!

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <ebX8UnyVFHA.1200@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>>> Nice trolling, but it won't work.
>>
>> Seems like he got your number to me.
>
> I thought you and I used "buttons" :)

He is neither me or you.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Jupiter Jones [MVP]
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
"its the part you cut out"
And what part would that be?
I left your drivel intact.
Or perhaps you are unaware of what you post.
You seem to need to insult others when you lack ability to make your point.
Leave it to those who are able.
In any case it is clear you are unable or unwilling to carry on civilly, so
I will leave you to your self created chaos.
Good bye.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
In memory of our dear friend, MVP Alex Nichol
http://www.dts-l.org


"BNR" <bradrhine1969@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%_Pge.1656$LO1.615@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Jupi, your blind and dumb, its the part you cut out. And I'll call anyone
> I
> want a Liar, tyvm. Who the hell are you to critisize my political
> garbage,
> anyway. I'm already guilty for volunteering conversation freely against
> my
> will. When will your bill arrive. You don't speak to folks freely. I'm
> here to interpret your convoluted EULA. And all I get in response from
> MVPs
> is insults and threats.

Ron Martell
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
"BNR" <bradrhine1969@earthlink.net> wrote:

>> >> I do not know the exact figure
>> I never said that.
>
>Ron, ya did so.
>

Would you please quote correctly?

In your previous post you made the statement:

"Yet your confident the price for WinXP Home Upgrade is set correct?
That's truely unreasuring."

and to that statement I replied:

"I never said that."

And I never did make any statement about my opinion as to the
*correctness* of the retail price of the WinXP Home Upgrade. I know
of no other way to set a correct price other than the open marketplace
where there is a willing buyer and a willing seller.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

kony
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
On Thu, 12 May 2005 07:17:42 GMT, Ron Martell
<ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote:

>kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>What bills might those be?
>>MS essentially extorts money from anyone who builds a
>>full-featured PC. Their only bills are whatever they choose
>>to spend, most definitely NOT a necessary business expense
>>because they have no competitors in the commercial PC OS
>>market.
>>
>
>Right. Employees work for nothing. Electricity, telephones, water,
>and other city services are provided free.
>
>Wake up and face reality.


Is it easier for you to avoid the truth?
We all know MS has cleaned up on WIndows and that the bills
are a trivial expense at this point.

kony
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
On Thu, 12 May 2005 07:28:03 -0700, "Kerry Brown"
<kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote:


>I have run several different businesses over the last 30 years. The ones
>that had a 20% gross profit margin eventually failed. It takes around 25% -
>30% gross margin to break even for most businesses. You would have to be
>incredibly efficient to survive on 20%. I can see where software development
>may be different as there is less cost of sales, but a lot more salaries and
>related expenses. This would skew the gross margins to look much greater
>than what shows up on the bottom line. If you are talking 20% net profit
>then that is after the bills are paid and would be every good return indeed
>:-)


As with anything else, 25% gross is more substantial when
dealing with extremely high volumes.

kony
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
On Thu, 12 May 2005 11:44:41 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
wrote:

>In article <fcr581h46l2feto51pshuva9roi6rdpfkq@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
>says...
>> You personally guarantee that any product we buy will be
>> bound by terms posted somewhere OTHER than the product
>> itself, terms that aren't available at the point of sale?
>
>No, YOU are responsible for your own actions and agreements. Just
>because you might be too ignorant to read/learn, it's not a valid excuse
>for not knowing.

Wrong in this context. I'm not responsible for agreements I
haven't made.
You are responsible when you are given fair ability to
determine the terms attached to the _SPECIFIC_ITEM_ being
purchased. There are multiple licenses and issued at
different times and terms. The only valid license is that
attached to the specific product, NOT something you "go
somewhere" and become informed about. You seem to ignore
this basic fact.


>The information is fully available,

No it's not.
"Some information" about "some product" is available.
That's not the same thing as a specific EULA attached to a
specific product. There is no grey area here.

>easy to find,

At the point of sale?
That's what is necessary, without substitute.


>and
>the information you need to start the learning process is presented to
>you

No, it most certainly is not "presented to you".


>BEFORE you purchase (if you can read).


Interesting how you seem to stoop to insults when you run
out of valid arguments.

kony
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
On Thu, 12 May 2005 08:44:01 -0400, "kurttrail"
<dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org> wrote:

>Leythos wrote:
>> In article <fcr581h46l2feto51pshuva9roi6rdpfkq@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
>> says...
>>> You personally guarantee that any product we buy will be
>>> bound by terms posted somewhere OTHER than the product
>>> itself, terms that aren't available at the point of sale?
>>
>> No, YOU are responsible for your own actions and agreements. Just
>> because you might be too ignorant to read/learn, it's not a valid
>> excuse for not knowing. The information is fully available, easy to
>> find, and the information you need to start the learning process is
>> presented to you BEFORE you purchase (if you can read).
>
>
>Actually contract law does make allowances for those that are incapable
>of understanding a contract.

It also makes (not allowances but clearly voids) contracts
one can't even review. Some seem to think we can go to MS
website or elsewhere and be guaranteed these are terms valid
on a product not sold there. That's incorrect. We'd need
it in writing, signed and specifying the exact item it
applied to and very specifically how to validate that item.
THEN we also need the seller of this item to likewise
validate it.

Instead what we have is akin to "just pay, you're ignorant
if you don't know what you're getting in a sealed box"...
when the truth is that there is no gurarantee that anything
read elsewhere is a guarantee (enough to be contractually
binding).

Ron Martell
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 12 May 2005 07:17:42 GMT, Ron Martell
><ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>What bills might those be?
>>>MS essentially extorts money from anyone who builds a
>>>full-featured PC. Their only bills are whatever they choose
>>>to spend, most definitely NOT a necessary business expense
>>>because they have no competitors in the commercial PC OS
>>>market.
>>>
>>
>>Right. Employees work for nothing. Electricity, telephones, water,
>>and other city services are provided free.
>>
>>Wake up and face reality.
>
>
>Is it easier for you to avoid the truth?
>We all know MS has cleaned up on WIndows and that the bills
>are a trivial expense at this point.

Even a "trivial" expense is an amount greater than zero. Your
original comment in this regard was "Their only bills are whatever
they choose to spend, most definitely NOT a necessary business
expense." which is blatantly wrong. Any business *must* incur some
expenses, even if it is only for their business registration and
business license, in order to stay in business. And if they are in
business then they *must* file reports with various government
agencies and regulatory bodies, which requires that someone be paid
money to prepare them, plus the costs of the pens, paper, envelopes,
and postage stamps necessary to do so. There are no choices with
these costs. Period.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

Alias
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ced712cee2d0aea989704@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
> In article <b377811ohdn8kevfp3r0uo634ihiv318hb@4ax.com>, Lou says...
>> On Thu, 12 May 2005 18:05:27 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <eXJ1dOxVFHA.3760@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl>,
>> >dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> >> > Answer me this - why does most of society look for ways to make
>> >> > excuses for the ignorant/stupid? It's like the "Not guilty by reason
>> >> > of insanity" defense - it should be "Guilty by reason of insanity".
>> >>
>> >> This shows exactly how deluded you are.
>> >>
>> >> Not Guilty doesn't mean INNOCENT.
>> >
>> >While I understand the difference as the intent it, it would seem there
>> >is no reason for an insanity defense except to lessen the impact of the
>> >offense. I've read cases where the "innocent by reason of insanity"
>> >individual only got medical treatment, not hard time in a regular
>> >prison. It would seem that anyone that commits a crime is guilty, and
>> >that admission of doing the crime while insane makes them just as
>> >guilty, so the proper term should be "Guilty by reason of insanity",
>> >which mean you treat them for insanity then incarcerate them for the
>> >crime.
>> >
>> It is obvious from this paragraph, Leythos is incapable of
>> participating in the human experience. He is so obviously a
>> super-human. Disgusting.
>
> I'm not sure I follow your logic - you are suggesting that it's OK to
> not hold people responsible for their actions because the purposely
> forget to take their prescribed medications, while holding a non-insane
> person accountable for the same actions?
>
> Maybe you can explain why anyone would support "NOT GUILTY by reason of
> insanity"?

That's easy. The legal definition is the person in question does not know
the difference between right and wrong. The theory is they didn't know what
they were doing, get it?

You, obviously, know little about mentally ill people and should stop
sticking your foot in your mouth while you can.

Alias

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
In article <0qo7815a2kmqk89shpl71lpcau1qvsmtbg@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
says...
> You are responsible when you are given fair ability to
> determine the terms attached to the _SPECIFIC_ITEM_ being
> purchased. There are multiple licenses and issued at
> different times and terms. The only valid license is that
> attached to the specific product, NOT something you "go
> somewhere" and become informed about. You seem to ignore
> this basic fact.

It would seem that you are also talking about medical products,
medications, hospital treatments, and many other things where you don't
get the full legal scope until you enter into the agreement or make the
purchase. If I purchase a box of condoms I can't read the entire details
about the product legal coverage until I open it, and I can certainly
use it without reading the legal mumbo-jumbo....

The fact that there is licensing information is available BEFORE anyone
purchases the product, if they choose to ignore it or not read it, it's
a personal choice to remain ignorant.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
In article <ua$zxu0VFHA.3188@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
aka@maskedandanonymous.org says...
> That's easy. The legal definition is the person in question does not know
> the difference between right and wrong. The theory is they didn't know what
> they were doing, get it?

And before the term "Not guilty by reason of insanity" was introduced,
it use to be Guilty or Not-Guilty and allowances were already in place
for those types of things based on what severity the prosecuter went
after. As it is now, the same person can go spend 2 years in a mental
institution, do no prison time, and be out on the street to do it again
without any real monitoring. Sounds like a liberal do gooder really
screwed the pooch on that one.

> You, obviously, know little about mentally ill people and should stop
> sticking your foot in your mouth while you can.

When it comes to something like a person using the excuse of "not
knowing any better" to keep from being GUILTY of killing someone, I'll
put my foot in anyone's mouth to reject the notion that it's acceptable.
Mentally ill or not, it's not acceptable to commit violent acts, and the
punishment should be the same.

I would have no problem if the ruling was "Guilty by reason of
insanity" as a means to identify those people that fit the description.
It would indicate they ARE guilty (as they really did commit the crime)
and that they are insane - so, they get treatment, then do time for the
crime (in any order)....

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

T. Waters
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <ua$zxu0VFHA.3188@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
> aka@maskedandanonymous.org says...
>> That's easy. The legal definition is the person in question does not
>> know the difference between right and wrong. The theory is they
>> didn't know what they were doing, get it?
>
> And before the term "Not guilty by reason of insanity" was introduced,
> it use to be Guilty or Not-Guilty and allowances were already in place
> for those types of things based on what severity the prosecuter went
> after. As it is now, the same person can go spend 2 years in a mental
> institution, do no prison time, and be out on the street to do it
> again without any real monitoring. Sounds like a liberal do gooder
> really screwed the pooch on that one.
>
>> You, obviously, know little about mentally ill people and should stop
>> sticking your foot in your mouth while you can.
>
> When it comes to something like a person using the excuse of "not
> knowing any better" to keep from being GUILTY of killing someone, I'll
> put my foot in anyone's mouth to reject the notion that it's
> acceptable. Mentally ill or not, it's not acceptable to commit
> violent acts, and the punishment should be the same.
>
> I would have no problem if the ruling was "Guilty by reason of
> insanity" as a means to identify those people that fit the
> description. It would indicate they ARE guilty (as they really did
> commit the crime) and that they are insane - so, they get treatment,
> then do time for the crime (in any order)....
>
> --

If you suffered from schizophrenia (like millions of Americans,
unfortunately), and had no support structure in the way of family, do you
think it fair that you would be forced to take meds and then "do time" in a
regular prison if, say, you assaulted someone you fully believed wanted to
kill you? The schizophrenic is a victim, too. Why should they be punished
when society won't take care of them?

BNR
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
> I never did make any statement about my opinion

Allow me to make a statement about your opinion.

Jupi your lawyer, Ron?

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
In article <OEuivF1VFHA.2124@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>, "T. Waters" <@$%$%
#^@jdjgkl.com> says...
>
> If you suffered from schizophrenia (like millions of Americans,
> unfortunately), and had no support structure in the way of family, do you
> think it fair that you would be forced to take meds and then "do time" in a
> regular prison if, say, you assaulted someone you fully believed wanted to
> kill you? The schizophrenic is a victim, too. Why should they be punished
> when society won't take care of them?

Does a condition that they almost certainly already know the mental
condition exists excuse them from taking responsibility for their
actions? NO, and it should not be considered if they were EVER made
aware of it.

If a person was a schiz, and society had some indication that they were
aware of it, and that person kills another person for any reason, I
would expect them to be tried/guilty as anyone without the mental
condition.

If a person were to be completely unaware of the mental condition, then
I would expect them to be treated, serve time, and charged with a lesser
offense, but still something that represents the outcome of their
action. I do not believe that mental illness excuses ANYONE from
responsibility for their actions. I certainly do not expect them to be
"Not-Guilty" at any point.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
"By the act of scrolling, printing and/or replying to this post, you
agree that I am your everlasting Lord & Saviour. Breach of this term
will result in you burning in hell for ever and ever! Amen!"


Leythos wrote:
> In article <ua$zxu0VFHA.3188@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
> aka@maskedandanonymous.org says...
>> That's easy. The legal definition is the person in question does not
>> know the difference between right and wrong. The theory is they
>> didn't know what they were doing, get it?
>
> And before the term "Not guilty by reason of insanity" was introduced,
> it use to be Guilty or Not-Guilty and allowances were already in place
> for those types of things based on what severity the prosecuter went
> after. As it is now, the same person can go spend 2 years in a mental
> institution, do no prison time, and be out on the street to do it
> again without any real monitoring. Sounds like a liberal do gooder
> really screwed the pooch on that one.
>
>> You, obviously, know little about mentally ill people and should stop
>> sticking your foot in your mouth while you can.
>
> When it comes to something like a person using the excuse of "not
> knowing any better" to keep from being GUILTY of killing someone, I'll
> put my foot in anyone's mouth to reject the notion that it's
> acceptable. Mentally ill or not, it's not acceptable to commit
> violent acts, and the punishment should be the same.
>
> I would have no problem if the ruling was "Guilty by reason of
> insanity" as a means to identify those people that fit the
> description. It would indicate they ARE guilty (as they really did
> commit the crime) and that they are insane - so, they get treatment,
> then do time for the crime (in any order)....
>
> --

Sounds like you are talking about the insanity defense as something that
is some new development. Recent History.

Do you think you are older than the insanity defense is?

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

T. Waters
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <OEuivF1VFHA.2124@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>, "T. Waters" <@$%$%
> #^@jdjgkl.com> says...
>>
>> If you suffered from schizophrenia (like millions of Americans,
>> unfortunately), and had no support structure in the way of family,
>> do you think it fair that you would be forced to take meds and then
>> "do time" in a regular prison if, say, you assaulted someone you
>> fully believed wanted to kill you? The schizophrenic is a victim,
>> too. Why should they be punished when society won't take care of
>> them?
>
> Does a condition that they almost certainly already know the mental
> condition exists excuse them from taking responsibility for their
> actions? NO, and it should not be considered if they were EVER made
> aware of it.
>
> If a person was a schiz, and society had some indication that they
> were aware of it, and that person kills another person for any
> reason, I would expect them to be tried/guilty as anyone without the
> mental condition.
>
> If a person were to be completely unaware of the mental condition,
> then I would expect them to be treated, serve time, and charged with
> a lesser offense, but still something that represents the outcome of
> their action. I do not believe that mental illness excuses ANYONE from
> responsibility for their actions. I certainly do not expect them to be
> "Not-Guilty" at any point.
>
> --

The ignorance level worldwide regarding mental illness is astounding. For
instance, in a very religious family, if mental illness manifests as
religiosity, visions, etc., the illness is not treated, but is encouraged to
persist!
Have you ever seen a schizophrenic off their meds (i.e., have you ever seen
a homeless person talking to themself? If so, then I fail to understand how
you can claim that, "I do not believe that mental illness excuses ANYONE
from
> responsibility for their actions."
Your world is narrow. What happens when you read a novel? Do you feel
*anything*?

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
In article <urIX8i1VFHA.1152@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> "By the act of scrolling, printing and/or replying to this post, you
> agree that I am your everlasting Lord & Saviour. Breach of this term
> will result in you burning in hell for ever and ever! Amen!"

I was already going there for agreeing to follow the terms of MS
licensing :)

> Leythos wrote:
> > In article <ua$zxu0VFHA.3188@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
> > aka@maskedandanonymous.org says...
> >> That's easy. The legal definition is the person in question does not
> >> know the difference between right and wrong. The theory is they
> >> didn't know what they were doing, get it?
> >
> > And before the term "Not guilty by reason of insanity" was introduced,
> > it use to be Guilty or Not-Guilty and allowances were already in place
> > for those types of things based on what severity the prosecuter went
> > after. As it is now, the same person can go spend 2 years in a mental
> > institution, do no prison time, and be out on the street to do it
> > again without any real monitoring. Sounds like a liberal do gooder
> > really screwed the pooch on that one.
> >
> >> You, obviously, know little about mentally ill people and should stop
> >> sticking your foot in your mouth while you can.
> >
> > When it comes to something like a person using the excuse of "not
> > knowing any better" to keep from being GUILTY of killing someone, I'll
> > put my foot in anyone's mouth to reject the notion that it's
> > acceptable. Mentally ill or not, it's not acceptable to commit
> > violent acts, and the punishment should be the same.
> >
> > I would have no problem if the ruling was "Guilty by reason of
> > insanity" as a means to identify those people that fit the
> > description. It would indicate they ARE guilty (as they really did
> > commit the crime) and that they are insane - so, they get treatment,
> > then do time for the crime (in any order)....
> >
> > --
>
> Sounds like you are talking about the insanity defense as something that
> is some new development. Recent History.
>
> Do you think you are older than the insanity defense is?

I think several things about it, it didn't use to be a legal defense,
then it was a strict definition, then it was watered down, then it was
tightened up, but not a lot. I like where it's going: "Guilty but
mentally ill". I would have no problem if all states/countries,
reasonable peoples adopted the following-

: GUILTY BUT MENTALLY ILL

The introduction of the "guilty but mentally ill" (GBMI) verdict in many
states is the biggest development in insanity defense law since the
post-Hinckley reforms. A sort of hybrid alternative to an acquittal by
reason of insanity, a defendant who receives a GBMI verdict is still
considered legally guilty of the crime in question, but since he is
mentally ill, he is entitled to receive mental health treatment while
institutionalized. If his symptoms remit, however, he is required to
serve out the remainder of his sentence in a regular correctional
facility, unlike a defendant who was acquitted by reason of insanity,
who must be released if it is determined he is no longer dangerous to
himself or others. In 2000, at least 20 states had instituted GBMI
provisions.

History of Insanity defense here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/history.html

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
In article <OzuZkp1VFHA.3596@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, "T. Waters" <@$%$%
#^@jdjgkl.com> says...
> Leythos wrote:
> > In article <OEuivF1VFHA.2124@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>, "T. Waters" <@$%$%
> > #^@jdjgkl.com> says...
> >>
> >> If you suffered from schizophrenia (like millions of Americans,
> >> unfortunately), and had no support structure in the way of family,
> >> do you think it fair that you would be forced to take meds and then
> >> "do time" in a regular prison if, say, you assaulted someone you
> >> fully believed wanted to kill you? The schizophrenic is a victim,
> >> too. Why should they be punished when society won't take care of
> >> them?
> >
> > Does a condition that they almost certainly already know the mental
> > condition exists excuse them from taking responsibility for their
> > actions? NO, and it should not be considered if they were EVER made
> > aware of it.
> >
> > If a person was a schiz, and society had some indication that they
> > were aware of it, and that person kills another person for any
> > reason, I would expect them to be tried/guilty as anyone without the
> > mental condition.
> >
> > If a person were to be completely unaware of the mental condition,
> > then I would expect them to be treated, serve time, and charged with
> > a lesser offense, but still something that represents the outcome of
> > their action. I do not believe that mental illness excuses ANYONE from
> > responsibility for their actions. I certainly do not expect them to be
> > "Not-Guilty" at any point.
> >
> > --
>
> The ignorance level worldwide regarding mental illness is astounding. For
> instance, in a very religious family, if mental illness manifests as
> religiosity, visions, etc., the illness is not treated, but is encouraged to
> persist!
> Have you ever seen a schizophrenic off their meds (i.e., have you ever seen
> a homeless person talking to themself?

Yes, many times, have you?

Now answer this - do you personally know anyone that's had a relative or
loved one that you were close to that was killed by a mentally ill
person? I bet you don't. I bet you've never seen mentally ill people
CHOOSE to stop taking their meds and then kill someone.

> If so, then I fail to understand how
> you can claim that, "I do not believe that mental illness excuses ANYONE
> from responsibility for their actions."

Because I don't make excuses for criminal actions, which it appears that
you want to absolve people of responsibility for their actions when the
mood strikes your fancy.

> Your world is narrow. What happens when you read a novel? Do you feel
> *anything*?

No, I've been in most of the civilized countries in the world and seen
many things. My view is strict, but not narrow or ignorant, it's one
that you can't change as I've seen what you ask and don't excuse those
peoples for their actions regardless of their current circumstances.

I understand the reason for your view, and I strongly disagree with it,
and while I'm very compassionate for peoples and their problems, I do
not tolerate certain "excuses" for peoples actions or not taking
responsibility for their actions - and I disapprove of people that want
to provide people with excuses more than the people that commit them.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <urIX8i1VFHA.1152@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> "By the act of scrolling, printing and/or replying to this post, you
>> agree that I am your everlasting Lord & Saviour. Breach of this term
>> will result in you burning in hell for ever and ever! Amen!"
>
> I was already going there for agreeing to follow the terms of MS
> licensing :)

So either I'm your Lord and Saviour, or you believe there are times when
you can ethically not follow the terms of a license you obviously agreed
to!

>
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <ua$zxu0VFHA.3188@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
>>> aka@maskedandanonymous.org says...
>>>> That's easy. The legal definition is the person in question does
>>>> not know the difference between right and wrong. The theory is they
>>>> didn't know what they were doing, get it?
>>>
>>> And before the term "Not guilty by reason of insanity" was
>>> introduced, it use to be Guilty or Not-Guilty and allowances were
>>> already in place for those types of things based on what severity
>>> the prosecuter went after. As it is now, the same person can go
>>> spend 2 years in a mental institution, do no prison time, and be
>>> out on the street to do it again without any real monitoring.
>>> Sounds like a liberal do gooder really screwed the pooch on that
>>> one.
>>>
>>>> You, obviously, know little about mentally ill people and should
>>>> stop sticking your foot in your mouth while you can.
>>>
>>> When it comes to something like a person using the excuse of "not
>>> knowing any better" to keep from being GUILTY of killing someone,
>>> I'll put my foot in anyone's mouth to reject the notion that it's
>>> acceptable. Mentally ill or not, it's not acceptable to commit
>>> violent acts, and the punishment should be the same.
>>>
>>> I would have no problem if the ruling was "Guilty by reason of
>>> insanity" as a means to identify those people that fit the
>>> description. It would indicate they ARE guilty (as they really did
>>> commit the crime) and that they are insane - so, they get treatment,
>>> then do time for the crime (in any order)....
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> Sounds like you are talking about the insanity defense as something
>> that is some new development. Recent History.
>>
>> Do you think you are older than the insanity defense is?
>
> I think several things about it, it didn't use to be a legal defense,
> then it was a strict definition, then it was watered down, then it was
> tightened up, but not a lot. I like where it's going: "Guilty but
> mentally ill". I would have no problem if all states/countries,
> reasonable peoples adopted the following-
>
>> GUILTY BUT MENTALLY ILL
>
> The introduction of the "guilty but mentally ill" (GBMI) verdict in
> many states is the biggest development in insanity defense law since
> the post-Hinckley reforms. A sort of hybrid alternative to an
> acquittal by reason of insanity, a defendant who receives a GBMI
> verdict is still considered legally guilty of the crime in question,
> but since he is mentally ill, he is entitled to receive mental health
> treatment while institutionalized. If his symptoms remit, however, he
> is required to serve out the remainder of his sentence in a regular
> correctional facility, unlike a defendant who was acquitted by reason
> of insanity, who must be released if it is determined he is no longer
> dangerous to himself or others. In 2000, at least 20 states had
> instituted GBMI provisions.
>
> History of Insanity defense here:
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/history.html
>
> --

You didn't answer my question. You did anything but answer my question.
That's one of the reason people don't like you. You are best at evading
any point than actually addressing it.

"Do you think you are older than the insanity defense is?"

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
In article <OoACR31VFHA.2520@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> Leythos wrote:
> > In article <urIX8i1VFHA.1152@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
> > dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> >> "By the act of scrolling, printing and/or replying to this post, you
> >> agree that I am your everlasting Lord & Saviour. Breach of this term
> >> will result in you burning in hell for ever and ever! Amen!"
> >
> > I was already going there for agreeing to follow the terms of MS
> > licensing :)
>
> So either I'm your Lord and Saviour, or you believe there are times when
> you can ethically not follow the terms of a license you obviously agreed
> to!
>
> >
> >> Leythos wrote:
> >>> In article <ua$zxu0VFHA.3188@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
> >>> aka@maskedandanonymous.org says...
> >>>> That's easy. The legal definition is the person in question does
> >>>> not know the difference between right and wrong. The theory is they
> >>>> didn't know what they were doing, get it?
> >>>
> >>> And before the term "Not guilty by reason of insanity" was
> >>> introduced, it use to be Guilty or Not-Guilty and allowances were
> >>> already in place for those types of things based on what severity
> >>> the prosecuter went after. As it is now, the same person can go
> >>> spend 2 years in a mental institution, do no prison time, and be
> >>> out on the street to do it again without any real monitoring.
> >>> Sounds like a liberal do gooder really screwed the pooch on that
> >>> one.
> >>>
> >>>> You, obviously, know little about mentally ill people and should
> >>>> stop sticking your foot in your mouth while you can.
> >>>
> >>> When it comes to something like a person using the excuse of "not
> >>> knowing any better" to keep from being GUILTY of killing someone,
> >>> I'll put my foot in anyone's mouth to reject the notion that it's
> >>> acceptable. Mentally ill or not, it's not acceptable to commit
> >>> violent acts, and the punishment should be the same.
> >>>
> >>> I would have no problem if the ruling was "Guilty by reason of
> >>> insanity" as a means to identify those people that fit the
> >>> description. It would indicate they ARE guilty (as they really did
> >>> commit the crime) and that they are insane - so, they get treatment,
> >>> then do time for the crime (in any order)....
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>
> >> Sounds like you are talking about the insanity defense as something
> >> that is some new development. Recent History.
> >>
> >> Do you think you are older than the insanity defense is?
> >
> > I think several things about it, it didn't use to be a legal defense,
> > then it was a strict definition, then it was watered down, then it was
> > tightened up, but not a lot. I like where it's going: "Guilty but
> > mentally ill". I would have no problem if all states/countries,
> > reasonable peoples adopted the following-
> >
> >> GUILTY BUT MENTALLY ILL
> >
> > The introduction of the "guilty but mentally ill" (GBMI) verdict in
> > many states is the biggest development in insanity defense law since
> > the post-Hinckley reforms. A sort of hybrid alternative to an
> > acquittal by reason of insanity, a defendant who receives a GBMI
> > verdict is still considered legally guilty of the crime in question,
> > but since he is mentally ill, he is entitled to receive mental health
> > treatment while institutionalized. If his symptoms remit, however, he
> > is required to serve out the remainder of his sentence in a regular
> > correctional facility, unlike a defendant who was acquitted by reason
> > of insanity, who must be released if it is determined he is no longer
> > dangerous to himself or others. In 2000, at least 20 states had
> > instituted GBMI provisions.
> >
> > History of Insanity defense here:
> > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/history.html
> >
> > --
>
> You didn't answer my question. You did anything but answer my question.
> That's one of the reason people don't like you. You are best at evading
> any point than actually addressing it.
>
> "Do you think you are older than the insanity defense is?"

No, I do not thing I'm older than the people that have attempted to use
Insanity as a defense. I am older than the US law has recognised it in
the majority of states as a defense specifically. I was born in the very
early 60's.

I don't avoid your questions, if I was avoiding them I would not answer
at all.

The length of use has nothing to do with my opinion of it, and I've
never suggested that it was either new or old, just that I disagree with
it - and it appears that many states are starting to see the correct way
to classify it.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

kony
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
On Thu, 12 May 2005 23:17:25 GMT, Ron Martell
<ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote:

>kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 12 May 2005 07:17:42 GMT, Ron Martell
>><ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>What bills might those be?
>>>>MS essentially extorts money from anyone who builds a
>>>>full-featured PC. Their only bills are whatever they choose
>>>>to spend, most definitely NOT a necessary business expense
>>>>because they have no competitors in the commercial PC OS
>>>>market.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Right. Employees work for nothing. Electricity, telephones, water,
>>>and other city services are provided free.
>>>
>>>Wake up and face reality.
>>
>>
>>Is it easier for you to avoid the truth?
>>We all know MS has cleaned up on WIndows and that the bills
>>are a trivial expense at this point.
>
>Even a "trivial" expense is an amount greater than zero. Your
>original comment in this regard was "Their only bills are whatever
>they choose to spend, most definitely NOT a necessary business
>expense." which is blatantly wrong. Any business *must* incur some
>expenses, even if it is only for their business registration and
>business license, in order to stay in business. And if they are in
>business then they *must* file reports with various government
>agencies and regulatory bodies, which requires that someone be paid
>money to prepare them, plus the costs of the pens, paper, envelopes,
>and postage stamps necessary to do so. There are no choices with
>these costs. Period.
>
>
>Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

T. Waters
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <OzuZkp1VFHA.3596@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>, "T. Waters" <@$%$%
> #^@jdjgkl.com> says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <OEuivF1VFHA.2124@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl>, "T. Waters"
>>> <@$%$% #^@jdjgkl.com> says...
>>>>
>>>> If you suffered from schizophrenia (like millions of Americans,
>>>> unfortunately), and had no support structure in the way of family,
>>>> do you think it fair that you would be forced to take meds and then
>>>> "do time" in a regular prison if, say, you assaulted someone you
>>>> fully believed wanted to kill you? The schizophrenic is a victim,
>>>> too. Why should they be punished when society won't take care of
>>>> them?
>>>
>>> Does a condition that they almost certainly already know the mental
>>> condition exists excuse them from taking responsibility for their
>>> actions? NO, and it should not be considered if they were EVER made
>>> aware of it.
>>>
>>> If a person was a schiz, and society had some indication that they
>>> were aware of it, and that person kills another person for any
>>> reason, I would expect them to be tried/guilty as anyone without the
>>> mental condition.
>>>
>>> If a person were to be completely unaware of the mental condition,
>>> then I would expect them to be treated, serve time, and charged with
>>> a lesser offense, but still something that represents the outcome of
>>> their action. I do not believe that mental illness excuses ANYONE
>>> from responsibility for their actions. I certainly do not expect
>>> them to be "Not-Guilty" at any point.
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> The ignorance level worldwide regarding mental illness is
>> astounding. For instance, in a very religious family, if mental
>> illness manifests as religiosity, visions, etc., the illness is not
>> treated, but is encouraged to persist!
>> Have you ever seen a schizophrenic off their meds (i.e., have you
>> ever seen a homeless person talking to themself?
>
> Yes, many times, have you?
>
> Now answer this - do you personally know anyone that's had a relative
> or loved one that you were close to that was killed by a mentally ill
> person? I bet you don't. I bet you've never seen mentally ill people
> CHOOSE to stop taking their meds and then kill someone.
>
>> If so, then I fail to understand how
>> you can claim that, "I do not believe that mental illness excuses
>> ANYONE from responsibility for their actions."
>
> Because I don't make excuses for criminal actions, which it appears
> that you want to absolve people of responsibility for their actions
> when the mood strikes your fancy.
>
>> Your world is narrow. What happens when you read a novel? Do you feel
>> *anything*?
>
> No, I've been in most of the civilized countries in the world and seen
> many things. My view is strict, but not narrow or ignorant, it's one
> that you can't change as I've seen what you ask and don't excuse those
> peoples for their actions regardless of their current circumstances.
>
> I understand the reason for your view, and I strongly disagree with
> it, and while I'm very compassionate for peoples and their problems,
> I do not tolerate certain "excuses" for peoples actions or not taking
> responsibility for their actions - and I disapprove of people that
> want to provide people with excuses more than the people that commit
> them.
>
> --

I guess my point is, the mentally ill cannot take care of themselves, and
society has largely given up any responsibility for them. Few families have
the resources to properly take care of the mentally ill. When I read about a
person getting AIDS because they were psychotic and had to live on the
street, I know that something is just not right.
It upsets me greatly when innocent folks suffer at the hands of the mentally
ill. Imprisonment is a poor way to deal with the problem, however, and far
from the only alternative. Society's abdication of responsibility should be
blamed, not people who are ill and exist in a living hell.

kony
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
On Thu, 12 May 2005 23:17:25 GMT, Ron Martell
<ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Is it easier for you to avoid the truth?
>>We all know MS has cleaned up on WIndows and that the bills
>>are a trivial expense at this point.
>
>Even a "trivial" expense is an amount greater than zero. Your
>original comment in this regard was "Their only bills are whatever
>they choose to spend, most definitely NOT a necessary business
>expense." which is blatantly wrong. Any business *must* incur some
>expenses, even if it is only for their business registration and
>business license, in order to stay in business.

No, your presumption is only valid in a free competitive
market. That market most definitely does not exist where
Windows is concerned. My statement was accurate, MS
could've simply tweaked the GUI and packaged the
already-scheduled patches to Win2K and sold it as XP.



>And if they are in
>business then they *must* file reports with various government
>agencies and regulatory bodies, which requires that someone be paid
>money to prepare them, plus the costs of the pens, paper, envelopes,
>and postage stamps necessary to do so. There are no choices with
>these costs. Period.

Why are you pointing out the obvious?
Hint- this isn't something even worth the time to type, is a
given. When a company has billons in reserve and a monopoly
they really DON'T have to be concered. If MS had to start
out with nothing but their monopoly tomorrow, how long do
you think it'd take them to generate a billion? Your
arguements are pointless as the expense must be considered
relative to the revenues.

kony
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
On Thu, 12 May 2005 23:52:59 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
wrote:

>In article <0qo7815a2kmqk89shpl71lpcau1qvsmtbg@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
>says...
>> You are responsible when you are given fair ability to
>> determine the terms attached to the _SPECIFIC_ITEM_ being
>> purchased. There are multiple licenses and issued at
>> different times and terms. The only valid license is that
>> attached to the specific product, NOT something you "go
>> somewhere" and become informed about. You seem to ignore
>> this basic fact.
>
>It would seem that you are also talking about medical products,
>medications, hospital treatments, and many other things where you don't
>get the full legal scope until you enter into the agreement or make the
>purchase.

Actually you're using a very poor example for your own
argument because these products and medications are not
solely a license. The buyer is not entering into ANY
agreement when purchasing them, except of course that after
they have paid, the product is their property. The "full
legal scope" may be a warranty but just like with the
software, what's inside the box doesn't supercede what' on
the outside of the box, what is available information at the
time and place of purchase, attached tot he goods themselves
as much as is possible.

>If I purchase a box of condoms I can't read the entire details
>about the product legal coverage until I open it, and I can certainly
>use it without reading the legal mumbo-jumbo....
>
>The fact that there is licensing information is available BEFORE anyone
>purchases the product, if they choose to ignore it or not read it, it's
>a personal choice to remain ignorant.


No, the fact is that there is information, but not any
guarantee that this information is valid and binding upon a
product the information is not directly attached to.
Those condoms you mentioned, are they licensed in different
ways or is it one single statement covering them? It's not
the same thing since we're not dealing with OEM distribution
of condoms with differing license.

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <OoACR31VFHA.2520@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>> Leythos wrote:
>>> In article <urIX8i1VFHA.1152@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
>>> dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
>>>> "By the act of scrolling, printing and/or replying to this post,
>>>> you agree that I am your everlasting Lord & Saviour. Breach of
>>>> this term will result in you burning in hell for ever and ever!
>>>> Amen!"
>>>
>>> I was already going there for agreeing to follow the terms of MS
>>> licensing :)
>>
>> So either I'm your Lord and Saviour, or you believe there are times
>> when you can ethically not follow the terms of a license you
>> obviously agreed to!

So as you Lord and Savior I command you to go blow yourself!


>>
>>>
>>>> Leythos wrote:
>>>>> In article <ua$zxu0VFHA.3188@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
>>>>> aka@maskedandanonymous.org says...
>>>>>> That's easy. The legal definition is the person in question does
>>>>>> not know the difference between right and wrong. The theory is
>>>>>> they didn't know what they were doing, get it?
>>>>>
>>>>> And before the term "Not guilty by reason of insanity" was
>>>>> introduced, it use to be Guilty or Not-Guilty and allowances were
>>>>> already in place for those types of things based on what severity
>>>>> the prosecuter went after. As it is now, the same person can go
>>>>> spend 2 years in a mental institution, do no prison time, and be
>>>>> out on the street to do it again without any real monitoring.
>>>>> Sounds like a liberal do gooder really screwed the pooch on that
>>>>> one.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You, obviously, know little about mentally ill people and should
>>>>>> stop sticking your foot in your mouth while you can.
>>>>>
>>>>> When it comes to something like a person using the excuse of "not
>>>>> knowing any better" to keep from being GUILTY of killing someone,
>>>>> I'll put my foot in anyone's mouth to reject the notion that it's
>>>>> acceptable. Mentally ill or not, it's not acceptable to commit
>>>>> violent acts, and the punishment should be the same.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would have no problem if the ruling was "Guilty by reason of
>>>>> insanity" as a means to identify those people that fit the
>>>>> description. It would indicate they ARE guilty (as they really did
>>>>> commit the crime) and that they are insane - so, they get
>>>>> treatment, then do time for the crime (in any order)....
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like you are talking about the insanity defense as something
>>>> that is some new development. Recent History.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think you are older than the insanity defense is?
>>>
>>> I think several things about it, it didn't use to be a legal
>>> defense, then it was a strict definition, then it was watered down,
>>> then it was tightened up, but not a lot. I like where it's going:
>>> "Guilty but mentally ill". I would have no problem if all
>>> states/countries, reasonable peoples adopted the following-
>>>
>>>> GUILTY BUT MENTALLY ILL
>>>
>>> The introduction of the "guilty but mentally ill" (GBMI) verdict in
>>> many states is the biggest development in insanity defense law since
>>> the post-Hinckley reforms. A sort of hybrid alternative to an
>>> acquittal by reason of insanity, a defendant who receives a GBMI
>>> verdict is still considered legally guilty of the crime in question,
>>> but since he is mentally ill, he is entitled to receive mental
>>> health treatment while institutionalized. If his symptoms remit,
>>> however, he is required to serve out the remainder of his sentence
>>> in a regular correctional facility, unlike a defendant who was
>>> acquitted by reason of insanity, who must be released if it is
>>> determined he is no longer dangerous to himself or others. In 2000,
>>> at least 20 states had instituted GBMI provisions.
>>>
>>> History of Insanity defense here:
>>> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/history.html
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> You didn't answer my question. You did anything but answer my
>> question. That's one of the reason people don't like you. You are
>> best at evading any point than actually addressing it.
>>
>> "Do you think you are older than the insanity defense is?"
>
> No, I do not thing I'm older than the people that have attempted to
> use Insanity as a defense. I am older than the US law has recognised
> it in the majority of states as a defense specifically. I was born in
> the very early 60's.
>
> I don't avoid your questions, if I was avoiding them I would not
> answer at all.
>
> The length of use has nothing to do with my opinion of it, and I've
> never suggested that it was either new or old, just that I disagree
> with it - and it appears that many states are starting to see the
> correct way to classify it.

And there are many states that are legislating homophobic marriage.

Governments don't have a very track record of getting things classified
correctly.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
In article <#3uuU$1VFHA.2520@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, "T. Waters" <@$%$%
#^@jdjgkl.com> says...
> I guess my point is, the mentally ill cannot take care of themselves, and
> society has largely given up any responsibility for them. Few families have
> the resources to properly take care of the mentally ill.

While I feel for them, I will not excuse them for their actions. I would
expect the same if I was in their place, and if not, if I were to become
rational I would resolve it against myself out of duty.

> When I read about a
> person getting AIDS because they were psychotic and had to live on the
> street, I know that something is just not right.

And at the same time there are people in this country earning a living
do many forms of unpleasant work and making it, taking their medications
as directed, etc.... Many people that are mentally ill and living on the
street have been treated/medicated at one time with my taxes paying for
it, and they have chosen to stop taking their meds in order to keep
living like they choose to.

> It upsets me greatly when innocent folks suffer at the hands of the mentally
> ill. Imprisonment is a poor way to deal with the problem, however, and far
> from the only alternative. Society's abdication of responsibility should be
> blamed, not people who are ill and exist in a living hell.

If a mentally ill person commits a violent crime/action, it's about 90%
likely that they have done something to raise attention to them before
that action - if they didn't get it fixed, then they need to be locked
up. Releasing them back into society with no assurance that they will
remain medicated or are cured is plain stupid and a threat to the
innocents around them.

Don't make excuses for their actions just so that you can feel better,
some day you may have a loved one or friend violently attacked by those
so called mentally ill individuals that made the choice to not take
their medications.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
In article <9838811suat2al410320hgncfdcj12qum1@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
says...
> When a company has billons in reserve and a monopoly
> they really DON'T have to be concered.

With all the Linux variants that can be installed and ready to use with
a simple GUI for non-technical users, and the Apple and other variants,
MS hardly has a monopoly any more.

I game RedHat Fedora Core 3 to my youngest son (14), he's not technical
yet, and asked him to install it on a blank system without any help - he
had it running in about 90 minutes, was on-line and editing his homework
in a word processor.....

While there are document compatibility issues between MS Office and Open
Office, most users won't see many issues and don't have to use Windows.

Servers are also a clear area where MS does not have a monopoly.

Tell us, where does MS have a monopoly any more?

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
In article <ik38819edm3j4fnmbuvl67jt50bjom3lq1@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
says...
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 23:52:59 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <0qo7815a2kmqk89shpl71lpcau1qvsmtbg@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
> >says...
> >> You are responsible when you are given fair ability to
> >> determine the terms attached to the _SPECIFIC_ITEM_ being
> >> purchased. There are multiple licenses and issued at
> >> different times and terms. The only valid license is that
> >> attached to the specific product, NOT something you "go
> >> somewhere" and become informed about. You seem to ignore
> >> this basic fact.
> >
> >It would seem that you are also talking about medical products,
> >medications, hospital treatments, and many other things where you don't
> >get the full legal scope until you enter into the agreement or make the
> >purchase.
>
> Actually you're using a very poor example for your own
> argument because these products and medications are not
> solely a license. The buyer is not entering into ANY
> agreement when purchasing them, except of course that after
> they have paid, the product is their property. The "full
> legal scope" may be a warranty but just like with the
> software, what's inside the box doesn't supercede what' on
> the outside of the box, what is available information at the
> time and place of purchase, attached tot he goods themselves
> as much as is possible.
>
> >If I purchase a box of condoms I can't read the entire details
> >about the product legal coverage until I open it, and I can certainly
> >use it without reading the legal mumbo-jumbo....
> >
> >The fact that there is licensing information is available BEFORE anyone
> >purchases the product, if they choose to ignore it or not read it, it's
> >a personal choice to remain ignorant.
>
>
> No, the fact is that there is information, but not any
> guarantee that this information is valid and binding upon a
> product the information is not directly attached to.
> Those condoms you mentioned, are they licensed in different
> ways or is it one single statement covering them? It's not
> the same thing since we're not dealing with OEM distribution
> of condoms with differing license.

I've put in more than 67 hours already this week, I didn't have enough
capacity to come up with a better example - but you get the idea - the
information is on the outside of the box, and people can either chose to
be ignorant or not - it's not something MS hides from them.

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <9838811suat2al410320hgncfdcj12qum1@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
> says...
>> When a company has billons in reserve and a monopoly
>> they really DON'T have to be concered.
>
> With all the Linux variants that can be installed and ready to use
> with a simple GUI for non-technical users, and the Apple and other
> variants, MS hardly has a monopoly any more.
>
> I game RedHat Fedora Core 3 to my youngest son (14), he's not
> technical yet, and asked him to install it on a blank system without
> any help - he had it running in about 90 minutes, was on-line and
> editing his homework in a word processor.....
>
> While there are document compatibility issues between MS Office and
> Open Office, most users won't see many issues and don't have to use
> Windows.
>
> Servers are also a clear area where MS does not have a monopoly.
>
> Tell us, where does MS have a monopoly any more?
>
> --

OEM preinstalled consumer-oriented PC.

Linux is not ready for all. No distro a Linux Live CD's will run on my
machine.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
In article <uHMzJQ2VFHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>,
dontemailme@anywhereintheknowuniverse.org says...
> Leythos wrote:
> > In article <9838811suat2al410320hgncfdcj12qum1@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
> > says...
> >> When a company has billons in reserve and a monopoly
> >> they really DON'T have to be concered.
> >
> > With all the Linux variants that can be installed and ready to use
> > with a simple GUI for non-technical users, and the Apple and other
> > variants, MS hardly has a monopoly any more.
> >
> > I game RedHat Fedora Core 3 to my youngest son (14), he's not
> > technical yet, and asked him to install it on a blank system without
> > any help - he had it running in about 90 minutes, was on-line and
> > editing his homework in a word processor.....
> >
> > While there are document compatibility issues between MS Office and
> > Open Office, most users won't see many issues and don't have to use
> > Windows.
> >
> > Servers are also a clear area where MS does not have a monopoly.
> >
> > Tell us, where does MS have a monopoly any more?
> >
> > --
>
> OEM preinstalled consumer-oriented PC.

How is that a monopoly? If the USER makes the choice to pick a Windows
based computer when other OS systems are in the same store?

> Linux is not ready for all. No distro a Linux Live CD's will run on my
> machine.

What type of machine? Have you tried Fedora Core 3?

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

T. Waters
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <#3uuU$1VFHA.2520@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl>, "T. Waters" <@$%$%
> #^@jdjgkl.com> says...
>> I guess my point is, the mentally ill cannot take care of
>> themselves, and society has largely given up any responsibility for
>> them. Few families have the resources to properly take care of the
>> mentally ill.
>
> While I feel for them, I will not excuse them for their actions. I
> would expect the same if I was in their place, and if not, if I were
> to become rational I would resolve it against myself out of duty.

The trouble is that, if you were schizophrenic, you would not be *you*.
Seeing the world from with the schizophrenic reality (even the medicated
schizophrenic reality) is not something you or I can do.
http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p030540.html
The problem is society's laziness and lack of imagination.
I am no more eager to be attacked by a psychotic person than you are.



>
>> When I read about a
>> person getting AIDS because they were psychotic and had to live on
>> the street, I know that something is just not right.
>
> And at the same time there are people in this country earning a living
> do many forms of unpleasant work and making it, taking their
> medications as directed, etc.... Many people that are mentally ill
> and living on the street have been treated/medicated at one time with
> my taxes paying for it, and they have chosen to stop taking their
> meds in order to keep living like they choose to.
>
>> It upsets me greatly when innocent folks suffer at the hands of the
>> mentally ill. Imprisonment is a poor way to deal with the problem,
>> however, and far from the only alternative. Society's abdication of
>> responsibility should be blamed, not people who are ill and exist in
>> a living hell.
>
> If a mentally ill person commits a violent crime/action, it's about
> 90% likely that they have done something to raise attention to them
> before that action - if they didn't get it fixed, then they need to
> be locked up. Releasing them back into society with no assurance that
> they will remain medicated or are cured is plain stupid and a threat
> to the innocents around them.
>
> Don't make excuses for their actions just so that you can feel better,
> some day you may have a loved one or friend violently attacked by
> those so called mentally ill individuals that made the choice to not
> take their medications.
>
> --

Leythos
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
In article <eDoooT2VFHA.1148@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>, "T. Waters" <@$%$%
#^@jdjgkl.com> says...
> The trouble is that, if you were schizophrenic, you would not be *you*.
> Seeing the world from with the schizophrenic reality (even the medicated
> schizophrenic reality) is not something you or I can do.
> http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p030540.html
> The problem is society's laziness and lack of imagination.
> I am no more eager to be attacked by a psychotic person than you are.

So, if they are not cured, not treated, not responsible for their
actions, what do you want to do with them?

Would you let you kids play in the home of a "Not-guilty" mentally ill
killer that was under self-treatment after getting away with a murder?

--
--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me

T. Waters
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
Leythos wrote:
> In article <eDoooT2VFHA.1148@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>, "T. Waters" <@$%$%
> #^@jdjgkl.com> says...
>> The trouble is that, if you were schizophrenic, you would not be
>> *you*. Seeing the world from with the schizophrenic reality (even
>> the medicated schizophrenic reality) is not something you or I can
>> do. http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p030540.html
>> The problem is society's laziness and lack of imagination.
>> I am no more eager to be attacked by a psychotic person than you are.
>
> So, if they are not cured, not treated, not responsible for their
> actions, what do you want to do with them?
>
> Would you let you kids play in the home of a "Not-guilty" mentally ill
> killer that was under self-treatment after getting away with a murder?
>
> --

Mental hospitals were emptied after the development of the major
tranquilizers. These drugs represented such an advance in treatment that it
was believed that mentally ill people could now live in the community. Well,
that brilliant plan failed. I am not a mental health professional, but I
know that only a minority of the mentally ill are dangerous. Indeed, most
schizophrenics are pretty timid and fearful people.

Violent people do need to be "put somewhere." The problem is, we do not at
this time have a place other than prisons for the criminally insane (which
have limited space) and regular prisons. I know psychosurgery has a bad rep
at this point, but I know enough about neurology as practiced today to say
that one option in the case of the violent would be surgical, if society
were to permit it. I won't hold my breath.

kony
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
On Fri, 13 May 2005 02:25:53 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
wrote:

>In article <9838811suat2al410320hgncfdcj12qum1@4ax.com>, spam@spam.com
>says...
>> When a company has billons in reserve and a monopoly
>> they really DON'T have to be concered.
>
>With all the Linux variants that can be installed and ready to use with
>a simple GUI for non-technical users, and the Apple and other variants,
>MS hardly has a monopoly any more.

Completely untrue.
Your idealistic notion is to be commended, but the fact
remains that it is a monopoly.


>
>I game RedHat Fedora Core 3 to my youngest son (14), he's not technical
>yet, and asked him to install it on a blank system without any help - he
>had it running in about 90 minutes, was on-line and editing his homework
>in a word processor.....

So?
I never argued that no other operating systems exist.
The question is that of COMMERCIAL OS the market and OEMs
support. Further it's one of the support of software and
hardware. Go to any typical retail store and tell us how
many full-featured PCs they have on their displays running
alternative OS. Give us a percentage of what you feel is
representative of all OEM systems sold for PC/desktop
running alternatives.


>
>While there are document compatibility issues between MS Office and Open
>Office, most users won't see many issues and don't have to use Windows.
>
>Servers are also a clear area where MS does not have a monopoly.
>
>Tell us, where does MS have a monopoly any more?

Do you not understand what "monopoly" is?
I never wrote that it's impossible to create a compatible
document, but your ideas about "won't see many issues" is an
aside and yet still evidence of the monopoly. If it weren't
the case, why would you feel "document compatibility issues
between MS Office" is relevant.

If it weren't for the monopoly, why would anyone be paying
hundreds for MS Office when there are other free
alternatives? It's about the $ to support the software, and
the need for more than mere "almost compatibility".

kony
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
On Fri, 13 May 2005 02:27:54 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.lan>
wrote:


>> >If I purchase a box of condoms I can't read the entire details
>> >about the product legal coverage until I open it, and I can certainly
>> >use it without reading the legal mumbo-jumbo....
>> >
>> >The fact that there is licensing information is available BEFORE anyone
>> >purchases the product, if they choose to ignore it or not read it, it's
>> >a personal choice to remain ignorant.
>>
>>
>> No, the fact is that there is information, but not any
>> guarantee that this information is valid and binding upon a
>> product the information is not directly attached to.
>> Those condoms you mentioned, are they licensed in different
>> ways or is it one single statement covering them? It's not
>> the same thing since we're not dealing with OEM distribution
>> of condoms with differing license.
>
>I've put in more than 67 hours already this week, I didn't have enough
>capacity to come up with a better example - but you get the idea - the
>information is on the outside of the box, and people can either chose to
>be ignorant or not - it's not something MS hides from them.

I concede that this thread will not be fruitfull and is a
waste of both our time.

The information is _N_O_T_ on the outside of the box.
It could be on the outside of the box. It should be on the
outside of the box, but isn't.

The funny part is the word "ignorance". You're ignorant for
thinking MS can't put it on the box. MS might be ignorant
for thinking it's a good idea not to fully disclose these
terms on the product. Your argument was not valid and you
sunk to derogatory comments about MS' paying customers.
They were making a good faith effort but MS can't be
bothered to be up front about things instead of obscuring
the information.

Just because someone can go to additional lengths to find
something, then either assume and/or guess whether it's
applicable, that doesn't make it reasonable to require nor
expect it. This comes back to my point about the monopoly...
if customers had a viable alternative they'd never put up
with this situation. No matter where you go to find this
"more info" you'd allude to, you do not have any assurance
that it applies specifically to the product you're
considereing, UNTIL you open that package. The terms inside
the package could be quite different, and in fact, depending
on who you contact at MS or where you're reading, the terms
and elaborations on them in fact ARE DIFFERENT.
That is not legal to do. I'm sorry you can't grasp this
basic fact.

kurttrail
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
Leythos wrote:

>> OEM preinstalled consumer-oriented PC.
>
> How is that a monopoly? If the USER makes the choice to pick a Windows
> based computer when other OS systems are in the same store?
>
>> Linux is not ready for all. No distro a Linux Live CD's will run on
>> my machine.
>
> What type of machine?

A Multimedia machine.

> Have you tried Fedora Core 3?

Does it have a Live CD? I ain't gonna try to install any distro on my
machine until a live CD distro will boot into a GUI desktop.

Linux is a very good server OS. As a multimedia OS, it is a child.

Most average users would be able to do as much with Linux as they can
with Windows, but that will change. MS's monopoly days are numbered,
but not over with yet.

--
Peace!
Kurt
Self-anointed Moderator
microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
http://microscum.com/mscommunity
"Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
"Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"

BNR
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
> Tell us, where does MS have a monopoly any more?

HA! Us? I knew Leythos had multiple personalities. I'll wager an answer,
when all your personalities show me just one keyboard with a "Linux" button?
Thanks for playing!

kony
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
On Fri, 13 May 2005 04:09:12 GMT, "BNR"
<bradrhine1969@earthlink.net> wrote:

>> Tell us, where does MS have a monopoly any more?
>
>HA! Us? I knew Leythos had multiple personalities. I'll wager an answer,
>when all your personalities show me just one keyboard with a "Linux" button?
>Thanks for playing!
>

Heh, good point.

NoStop
07-09-2005, 11:24 PM
kony wrote:

> No, your presumption is only valid in a free competitive
> market. That market most definitely does not exist where
> Windows is concerned. My statement was accurate, MS
> could've simply tweaked the GUI and packaged the
> already-scheduled patches to Win2K and sold it as XP.
>
HAHA ... that's essentially what they did! It's just part of the MickeyMouse
con job. Read a history here and you'll find that MickeyMouse has been
behaving like this for a long time!

http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html

--

`,,`,,`,,``,,`
Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
Legal Notice And Disclaimer:
http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/legal.html


XP OEM - Interesting conversation with MS employee