Text 17900, 56 rader
Skriven 2007-05-15 14:02:12 av Rich Gauszka (1:379/45)
Ärende: Microsoft claims it only wants to protect me?
=====================================================
From: "Rich Gauszka" <gauszka@dontspamhotmail.com>

What if I don't desire Microsoft's protection when I build my computer? I once
had to argue on the phone to get reactivated when I re-flashed my BIOS and
didn't change the motherboard. I doubt very much that Microsoft worries about
the system builder.

http://weblog.infoworld.com/gripeline/archives/2007/05/motherboard_rep.html?sou
rce=NLC-GRIPE&cgd=2007-05-15
Fortunately, I was able to find a Microsoft official who was gracious enough to
look into the reader's questions for me. "The rule is in place to protect the
OEM, or in this specific case the System Builder, so that as computers are
upgraded, the System Builder is not obligated (per the EULA) to support a
version of Windows that may be on what is essentially a new PC," wrote Tom
Moran, director of customer and partner experience for Microsoft Operations.
"Generally, you may upgrade or replace all of the hardware components on your
customer's computer and the end user may maintain the license for the original
Microsoft OEM operating system software, with the exception of an upgrade or
replacement of the motherboard. Upgrading the motherboard essentially results
in a new computer, to which the original operating system software cannot be
transferred. This is not the case if the motherboard is replaced (same
make/model) due to a defect."

Microsoft had to draw the line somewhere. "Understanding that end users, over
time, upgrade their PC with different components, Microsoft needed to have one
base component 'left standing' that would still define that original PC - the
motherboard, in essence, is the 'heart and soul' of the PC," Moran wrote. "In
the case with Dell that your reader mentions, the situation was evidently
caused by a defective motherboard, and the replacements would have been just
that - direct replacements vs. upgrades. A replacement of a defective
motherboard would not require a new license, while an upgrade would."

Nonetheless, there are any number of contentious issues raised by this policy.
Just for example, if you replace a motherboard because it doesn't have enough
memory to run Vista beyond a slow crawl, is that a discretionary motherboard
replacement? How do you suppose Microsoft's product activation, authentication,
verification, and future copy protection schemes are going to be able to tell
if the old motherboard was defective or not? And under what law does Microsoft
have the right to decide when your changing a component requires you to give
them more money? It's certainly not copyright law, and since there's nothing in
their EULA about it, it's not contract law either. If Microsoft can do this,
why can't the people who made your car stereo charge you for moving it to
another vehicle?



Yes, there is a lot to debate here, but on one point there should be no
argument. Customers have the right to know about any policy that might cost
them money before they purchase a computer with bundled Microsoft software. Not
only should Microsoft explicitly state their motherboard replacement policy in
their EULAs and on their website, but computer manufacturers should warn
customers of the potential consequences should they "choose" Vista as their
operating system. After all, we do have choices, don't we?

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
 * Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/45)