Can a computer manufacturer or Microsoft legally deprive you of the right to upgrade your computer as you see fit? That's the central question readers debated in response to my recent "Piracy, Motherboards, and Microsoft" story.
As you'll recall, an E-Machines customer had discovered that neither Microsoft nor E-Machines/Gateway would grant him reactivation for his OEM copy of Windows XP after he had to replace the original motherboard. Several readers argued that, in accepting Microsoft's EULA and the discounted price of the OEM software, the customer had ceded Microsoft the right to require a new license for new hardware.
"The user purchased a computer with an OEM version of the operating system, at a deeply discounted price," wrote one reader. "The Operating System is no longer on that OEM piece of hardware. The End. Buy another license, either another OEM license from the motherboard or a full retail copy. We all read the EULA, right?"
But many other readers countered that getting a new motherboard is not like getting a new computer. "Which piece of hardware is the OEM license attached to?" wrote one. "The CPU? RAM? Motherboard? Hard drive? Power supply? Case? Keyboard? Power cord? Some random screw? They are all valid pieces of hardware in terms of qualifying for an OEM license. Where did E-Machines or Microsoft explicitly say, before or at the time of purchase, that the OEM license is tied to the motherboard? If they don't, then they have no right to make that determination at a later date and without informing the consumer."
If it is legal to deprive customers of what they paid for, that doesn't mean it's right. "We have a logical flaw in many of our discussions," wrote another reader. "In many cases we simply acquiesce to the assertion by a corporation that their bad business practices are actually legal. We then react by either advocating switching to a different product, which is an appropriate solution; or by living with the corporate definition of legal. We need to question (refute) the corporate imposed definition of 'legal' ... The customer should have a legal right to re-install the operating system. It is not pirating. We need to enhance the definition of legal to override abusive business practices."
And while some readers advocated lawsuits or political action, one reader reported success with a somewhat different legal approach. "I had this same issue with a friend of mine's Dell PC," the reader wrote. "Windows would not activate and Microsoft was being a pain and so was Dell. Real simple solution: I contacted the Attorney General of Texas, where Dell is, and filed a complaint. Two days later I received five fully licensed versions of Windows that would work just fine. I would suggest calling the Attorney General of the state that E-Machines is located in. When they purchased the machine, they purchased Windows XP and, as long as it is only installed on one machine, then they have the rights to do whatever they want with it."
Why should a computer be more restricted in what you can do with its components that any other product? "This is all an artificial problem created by Microsoft with their activation scheme," wrote another reader. "Violating the license terms is only bad because Microsoft says it is, and only to the extent that they and other can get the courts to reinterpret the doctrine of first sale to not apply to software. In the realm of physical objects, you own what you buy and you can do anything you want with it. If you want to disassemble it into component parts and reuse those parts, you are totally free to do so. You are not necessarily free to manufacture new parts due to patent and other restrictions, but when we are talking only about those parts that came directly from the object you disassembled, you have total freedom to do what you want."
What's your thinking on this subject? Add your comments to the discussion by posting them on my website or writing me directly at Foster@gripe2ed.com.
Read and post comments about this story here.
12:16:49 AM 
|
