Windows 10 volume licensing questions
-
Simply show me where MS say you must buy any piece of hardware, whether broken or not, when getting an OEM edition of Windows.
-
@Breffni-Potter said in Windows 10 volume licensing questions:
Simply show me where MS say you must buy any piece of hardware, whether broken or not, when getting an OEM edition of Windows.
It's that you have to SELL it with hardware.
-
So buyers always get hardware with it. Because it can't be sold otherwise.
-
Buyers get this info from the sellers. Not from MS. You are looking for the wrong connection.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Windows 10 volume licensing questions:
@Breffni-Potter said in Windows 10 volume licensing questions:
Simply show me where MS say you must buy any piece of hardware, whether broken or not, when getting an OEM edition of Windows.
It's that you have to SELL it with hardware.
Incorrect. I can buy as many OEM copies from a distributor with no background checks or verification that I am a reseller or a system builder.
MS terms dictate what I do with the copies, but there are zero terms which say I must only buy the licenses with hardware at time of purchase. The terms govern how I may activate and for what purpose, not the purchase.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Windows 10 volume licensing questions:
@NDC said in Windows 10 volume licensing questions:
@Breffni-Potter said in Windows 10 volume licensing questions:
Where does MS say that it is legal to buy an OEM copy of Windows IF you buy a broken stick of Ram with it as well? Stop inventing nonsense about Europe being able to evade US contract law. It's basic knowledge that an OEM edition of Windows is not tied to anything except for the motherboard of the system in which it was supplied. So...how can you buy a faulty ram stick and be "legal" under their OEM agreement?
The whole thing was very shaky from the beginning when MS demanded that people only sell the license with hardware. They gave people a bunch of crap about selling licenses with broken stuff. They gave people crap about selling with a singe piece of working hardware. Mostly it was self enforced because MS are scary.
This comes down to they wanted their product supported. They weren't willing to provide the support at the OEM price point. Trying to tie a piece of hardware to the license(MS really wanted a full system here) gave them leverage to make someone else provide the end user support.
And since selling MS software required a license under contract, it is trivial for them to require it. I'm so lost as to how this is confusing. It's been common knowledge, even for bench and prosumers, for a very long time. At least since the XP era.
I'm not a lawyer and certainly not an IP or contract law specialist but I would bet that doesn't hold up.
MS may have made assertions in that direction but I suspect there are not any court decisions on the topic that would uphold such a claim. Requiring a contract from a product originator is not typically allowed in US law. I know that for physical items similar assertions have mostly failed. For software the situation is somewhat less clear but general opinion seems to lean toward the same. Software vendors sure wish it was easier to enforce things like this though.
-
Ultimately this is a pointless conversation because MS will never pursue you.
As Scott said, the requirement to ensure they are doing thing correctly is on the company selling the OEMs, as they are only suppose to sell the license with hardware. The original thinking that that hardware would be a full system, but I'm guessing the exact working said - hardware - therefore the resellers lawyered the shit out of it to the point were they are selling a broken piece of 'hardware' to the user for zero dollars and are therefore covered.
-
Here is CNET reporting on the "include with a piece of hardware" no longer being allowed, this was 2009.
https://www.cnet.com/forums/discussions/note-windows-oem-licensing-terms-have-changed-374252/
-
@Dashrender said in Windows 10 volume licensing questions:
Ultimately this is a pointless conversation because MS will never pursue you.
As Scott said, the requirement to ensure they are doing thing correctly is on the company selling the OEMs, as they are only suppose to sell the license with hardware. The original thinking that that hardware would be a full system, but I'm guessing the exact working said - hardware - therefore the resellers lawyered the shit out of it to the point were they are selling a broken piece of 'hardware' to the user for zero dollars and are therefore covered.
It was never meant to be a full system, only some hardware to which the license would be bound. Later when MS moved to binding it only to motherboards, things changed. And that's probably around 2009 when they did away with the "include with a piece of hardware" system and only system builders are supposed to qualify.
-
@NDC said in Windows 10 volume licensing questions:
@scottalanmiller said in Windows 10 volume licensing questions:
@NDC said in Windows 10 volume licensing questions:
@Breffni-Potter said in Windows 10 volume licensing questions:
Where does MS say that it is legal to buy an OEM copy of Windows IF you buy a broken stick of Ram with it as well? Stop inventing nonsense about Europe being able to evade US contract law. It's basic knowledge that an OEM edition of Windows is not tied to anything except for the motherboard of the system in which it was supplied. So...how can you buy a faulty ram stick and be "legal" under their OEM agreement?
The whole thing was very shaky from the beginning when MS demanded that people only sell the license with hardware. They gave people a bunch of crap about selling licenses with broken stuff. They gave people crap about selling with a singe piece of working hardware. Mostly it was self enforced because MS are scary.
This comes down to they wanted their product supported. They weren't willing to provide the support at the OEM price point. Trying to tie a piece of hardware to the license(MS really wanted a full system here) gave them leverage to make someone else provide the end user support.
And since selling MS software required a license under contract, it is trivial for them to require it. I'm so lost as to how this is confusing. It's been common knowledge, even for bench and prosumers, for a very long time. At least since the XP era.
I'm not a lawyer and certainly not an IP or contract law specialist but I would bet that doesn't hold up.
MS may have made assertions in that direction but I suspect there are not any court decisions on the topic that would uphold such a claim. Requiring a contract from a product originator is not typically allowed in US law. I know that for physical items similar assertions have mostly failed. For software the situation is somewhat less clear but general opinion seems to lean toward the same. Software vendors sure wish it was easier to enforce things like this though.
Where is that not allowed under US law? The entire automotive industry works that way. Most software works that way. Loads of hardware does. It's super common. I've never heard anyone suggest that it's not okay and as someone that's worked on the retailer side, it's so common as to be assumed in many cases. Even selling CDs required it.
-
@Breffni-Potter said in Windows 10 volume licensing questions:
@scottalanmiller said in Windows 10 volume licensing questions:
@Breffni-Potter said in Windows 10 volume licensing questions:
Simply show me where MS say you must buy any piece of hardware, whether broken or not, when getting an OEM edition of Windows.
It's that you have to SELL it with hardware.
Incorrect. I can buy as many OEM copies from a distributor with no background checks or verification that I am a reseller or a system builder.
And? I have no idea how this related to the discussion at hand and am not sure why you are mentioning it or why you led with "false" then said something disconnected. I'm lost as to what point you are trying to make or to what point you are responding.
-
wow, didn't except so many discussions!
I was suggested to buy the SKU FQC-09478. In spiceworks forum it was mentioned that SKU was a Get Genuine sku that is usually bought for non compliance after an audit. And the correct SKU is FQC-09525. But I could also find FQC-09131.
Could someone confirm the correct SKU I should go with? Sales rep is really not helpful, he keeps pushing me to buy the FQC-09478.
Have a doubt regarding one more scenario. For upgrading Win 8.1 pro under volume licensing to Win 10 pro, just purchasing the Win 10 upgrade licenses should be enough?
-
@Himura1 said in Windows 10 volume licensing questions:
wow, didn't except so many discussions!
That's how we role.
