Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
  1.    11 Jul 2015 #31
    Join Date : Oct 2014
    Posts : 1,552
    W7 32 bit, Linux Mint Xfce 18 64 bit

    Quote Originally Posted by Delicieuxz View Post
    Very simple to say, but not true.

    When people defend the notion of them having a full lack of ownership and rights regarding their licenses, I wonder this: Why is your interest to claim all natural rights as belonging to Microsoft? Are you working for their legal department? If you are a individual consumer, then there is no benefit to expressing this line of reasoning, just as there is no legal substantiation for it.

    Very funny that you think I work for Microsoft Legal department. First if that was the case, I would be violating their NDA and I wouldn't be posting articles that criticize or disagrees or conflicts with Microsoft. Plus, I wouldn't be posting much I would be working. I listened to the local and national news over the year about contracts not just Microsoft, that where I got my information from. I also don't know what you mean by natural rights but I am from the U.S.
      My ComputerSystem Spec
  2.    11 Jul 2015 #32
    Join Date : Jan 2015
    Posts : 167
    Windows 7 Ultimate 64
    Thread Starter

    Quote Originally Posted by groze View Post
    Very funny that you think I work for Microsoft Legal department. First if that was the case, I would be violating their NDA and I wouldn't be posting articles that criticize or disagrees or conflicts with Microsoft. Plus, I wouldn't be posting much I would be working. I listened to the local and national news over the year about contracts not just Microsoft, that where I got my information from. I also don't know what you mean by natural rights but I am from the U.S.
    I meant it a bit rhetorically - as in who, apart from someone of such a disposition, would be motivated to argue a stance that is to the detriment of the user, while over-bearing in favour of the business?

    My saying "claim all natural rights" refers to the dispersion of all naturally-existing considerations that unavoidably need to be allocated someplace, with some party, when conceptualizing ownership.

    Business and consumer law do this, which is how there is a matter of "what is being purchased and received when a license is bought?" An exchange cannot be for nothing, it has to be for something. What is that something's definition?

    If a license is rented, then it is not bought. If it is bought, then it is not rented. A license is not the software which the license is for. A person who buys a license does not buy the software it points to, but buys a license to use it. The right to use a software is not established in the software, but in the license which is bought to be able to use it - and that's exactly what a license is: A right to use a software.

    The license in this case is not a rental, therefore it is an owned property. If limited-time use is a part of the license's definition, then the license is still a personal property, which grants a limited use. If a license is instead for permanent access to a software, then that is what the license grants - but in both cases, the license is a personal property, subject to all personal property rights.
      My ComputerSystem Spec
  3.    11 Jul 2015 #33
    Join Date : Sep 2014
    Posts : 92
    64-bit 10240 10 Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Delicieuxz View Post
    I'm not, but I am understanding of consumer law rationale, consumer rights, and the identity of a purchased license as a property.
    When I worked for AT&T all of our software came with a RTU in the EULA which is a Right To Use. Windows 10 is a brand new method of release for MS and until they release an official announcement and not a tweet, I will wait for that and not speculate what may or may not be in it.
      My ComputerSystem Spec
  4.    11 Jul 2015 #34
    Join Date : Oct 2014
    Posts : 1,552
    W7 32 bit, Linux Mint Xfce 18 64 bit

    Quote Originally Posted by Delicieuxz View Post
    I meant it a bit rhetorically - as in who, apart from someone of such a disposition, would be motivated to argue a stance that is to the detriment of the user, while over-bearing in favour of the business?

    My saying "claim all natural rights" refers to the dispersion of all naturally-existing considerations that unavoidably need to be allocated someplace, with some party, when conceptualizing ownership.

    Business and consumer law do this, which is how there is a matter of "what is being purchased and received when a license is bought?" An exchange cannot be for nothing, it has to be for something. What is that something's definition?

    If a license is rented, then it is not bought. If it is bought, then it is not rented. A license is not the software which the license is for. A person who buys a license does not buy the software it points to, but buys a license to use it. The right to use a software is not established in the software, but in the license which is bought to be able to use it - and that's exactly what a license is: A right to use a software.

    The license in this case is not a rental, therefore it is an owned property. If limited-time use is a part of the license's definition, then the license is still a personal property, which grants a limited use. If a license is instead for permanent access to a software, then that is what the license grants - but in both cases, the license is a personal property, subject to all personal property rights.

    First, I am not arguing that against forum rules. I am just disagreeing with you for what I learned over the years about contracts. I almost forgot there are some credit card board forums that give links to contracts laws by state. I am not a lawyer and some of those state laws I don't even understand.

    Yes, I might be little more on the business side because a long time ago my mother ran a small business.


    The rest of what you wrote in what I quoted is beyond my understating and expertise. I advise you to get a attorney to answer your concerns.
      My ComputerSystem Spec
  5.    11 Jul 2015 #35
    Join Date : Dec 2014
    Posts : 413
    Windows 10 Pro x64

    Quote Originally Posted by Delicieuxz View Post
    Well Microsoft cannot unilaterally void your owned retail license. That license, according to its terms upon purchase, is your personal property. After upgrading, it will retain all its original definition - which means transferable but can only be used on one PC at a time.
    I don't see how that follows. The transferability is for Windows 7. Microsoft doesn't have to honor that for a Windows 10 upgrade. They can do anything they want with Windows 10., they can completely redefine how they license.
      My ComputerSystem Spec
  6.    11 Jul 2015 #36
    Join Date : Jan 2015
    Posts : 167
    Windows 7 Ultimate 64
    Thread Starter

    Quote Originally Posted by Gary View Post
    When I worked for AT&T all of our software came with a RTU in the EULA which is a Right To Use. Windows 10 is a brand new method of release for MS and until they release an official announcement and not a tweet, I will wait for that and not speculate what may or may not be in it.
    You will surely do according to your judgment, but this is not speculation, and the matter is not one Microsoft can unilaterally act upon.

    A sale of anything, including a software license, is something tangible, something that makes the exchange of equity real. What was sold is a license, a license itself means something, and that license contains something inside of it. What it contains, in the example of a retail license for a previous version of Windows, is a permanent transferable right to use the particular software on one machine.

    Upon completion of the sale, that instance of 'a permanent transferable right to use the particular software on one machine' is then the legal property of whom it was sold to. And a company, such as the one who makes the software the license grants access to, or the one who directly sold the license to the user, cannot anymore make claims over the terms of that license - because in selling that license they sold that particular instance of a permanent transferable right to use the particular software on one machine.

    In the hierarchy of things, An EULA is enforceable only to the extent which it does not come into conflict with the law. A software company writes the terms of their license, but they do not write what the definition of a sale is, or what property rights are, or what an exchange of goods legally represents. A software company cannot make claims over what they do not possess - such as a license that has been bought and is now owned by another person.

    A company cannot write into their EULA that they overrule a nation's government, and the laws established by that government, or the constitutional rights of a nation - and so an EULA cannot enable a company to take from another person's personal property from them, such as a permanent transferable right to use a particular software on one machine, which is held as a license they purchased.
      My ComputerSystem Spec
  7.    11 Jul 2015 #37
    Join Date : Sep 2014
    Posts : 92
    64-bit 10240 10 Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by Delicieuxz View Post
    You will surely do according to your judgment, but this is not speculation, and the matter is not one Microsoft can unilaterally act upon.

    A sale of anything, including a software license, is something tangible, something that makes the exchange of equity real. What was sold is a license, a license itself means something, and that license contains something inside of it. What it contains, in the example of a retail license for a previous version of Windows, is a permanent transferable right to use the particular software on one machine.

    Upon completion of the sale, that instance of 'a permanent transferable right to use the particular software on one machine' is then the legal property of whom it was sold to. And a company, such as the one who makes the software the license grants access to, or the one who directly sold the license to the user, cannot anymore make claims over the terms of that license - because in selling that license they sold that particular instance of a permanent transferable right to use the particular software on one machine.

    In the hierarchy of things, An EULA is enforceable only to the extent which it does not come into conflict with the law. A software company writes the terms of their license, but they do not write what the definition of a sale is, or what property rights are, or what an exchange of goods legally represents. A software company cannot make claims over what they do not possess - such as a license that has been bought and is now owned by another person.

    A company cannot write into their EULA that they overrule a nation's government, and the laws established by that government, or the constitutional rights of a nation - and so an EULA cannot enable a company to take from another person's personal property from them, such as a permanent transferable right to use a particular software on one machine, which is held as a license they purchased.
    Sorry but until you can come up with a source from MS it is pure speculation.
      My ComputerSystem Spec
  8.    11 Jul 2015 #38
    Join Date : Jan 2015
    Posts : 167
    Windows 7 Ultimate 64
    Thread Starter

    Quote Originally Posted by Geneo View Post
    I don't see how that follows. The transferability is for Windows 7. Microsoft doesn't have to honor that for a Windows 10 upgrade.
    The transferability is for the license. If Microsoft upgrades the license to Windows 10 status, then that doesn't affect the right to transfer the license, which would then have Windows 10 status.

    They can do anything they want with Windows 10., they can completely redefine how they license.
    Microsoft can handle the Windows 10 software how they wish, but they cannot legally redefine a user's license unilaterally. When you say "they can completely redefine how they license", that statement refers to the act of licensing, which is the issuing of further licenses. That doesn't mean anything to licenses already issued, which are the property of whoever own them through previous purchases.

    A company redefining a retail license you own is comparable to a company redefining your bank account as theirs, or your food as belonging to them.
      My ComputerSystem Spec
  9.    11 Jul 2015 #39
    Join Date : Jan 2015
    Posts : 167
    Windows 7 Ultimate 64
    Thread Starter

    Quote Originally Posted by Gary View Post
    Sorry but until you can come up with a source from MS it is pure speculation.
    It is simply not trusted by you.

    Asking for a source from Microsoft on the matter is like saying until the North Korean government supplies a source stating that Kim Jung-whatever is not a deity, and North Korea the most free place in the world, stating otherwise is pure speculation. These things are not determined by Microsoft, but by business and consumer law and rights, established by a nation's government and judiciary.

    There can be separation between what Microsoft attempts and what is legal and valid - but I see no reason why Microsoft would interfere with existing licenses. As MS have said, "for the life of the device", which surely is referring to OEM licenses. And retail licenses should likewise operate in line with their identities.
      My ComputerSystem Spec
  10.    11 Jul 2015 #40
    Join Date : Dec 2014
    Posts : 413
    Windows 10 Pro x64

    Quote Originally Posted by Delicieuxz View Post
    The transferability is for the license. If Microsoft upgrades the license to Windows 10 status, then that doesn't affect the right to transfer the license, which would then have Windows 10 status.


    Microsoft can handle the Windows 10 software how they wish, but they cannot legally redefine a user's license unilaterally. When you say "they can completely redefine how they license", that statement refers to the act of licensing, which is the issuing of further licenses. That doesn't mean anything to licenses already issued, which are the property of whoever own them through previous purchases.

    A company redefining a retail license you own is comparable to a company redefining your bank account as theirs, or your food as belonging to them.
    They wouldn't be redefining the license to use the Windows 7 software I own. This would be a new license for Windows 10 software - it isn't even the same software they are licensing! Don't you get that? I expect they may not be able to take away my licensed rights to Windows 7 - so I could revert and transfer that if I want. But I am confident they could set any terms for the Windows 10 software license.
      My ComputerSystem Spec

 
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast


Similar Threads
Thread Forum
Solved Which should I choose to upgrade to w10-W7 OEM-slp or W7 sp1 Retail?
Which should I choose to upgrade to w10-W7 OEM-slp or W7 sp1 Retail? Here was my setup when I was an insider Primary Partition 1 Windows 7 Retail Primary Partition 2 Windows 10 preview upgraded from windows 7 oem-slp.* Partition 5 Xubuntu...
Installation and Upgrade
Transferring a Win 10 to a new PC, with a free upgrade license
This may already have been answered, but I haven't seen it answered in a way that I thought captured the significant details. Scenario: I have a PC with a retail copy of Win 8.1 Pro installed and activated. I get the free Win 10 Pro upgrade by...
Installation and Upgrade
How to Migrate Windows 10 upgrade to new PC with Windows7 Retail disc?
Question 1: I own a windows 7 retail disc copy which i can use to reinstall and activate on a fresh new pc,migrating my license to that new pc. But if I free upgrade to windows 10 on my old PC running windows 7 once, then will I be able to migrate...
Installation and Upgrade
Solved Free upgrade license type requirements
Hello this is my first post so "Hi!". I've read on Wikipedia that the Windows 10 free upgrade will offered to all users of "consumer editions" of Windows 7 and 8.1. I'm currently at a stage where I need to do a fresh install of Windows 7 but do...
General Support
Free Windows 10 upgrade a permanent license?
Is it known whether the serial of an upgraded Windows 7 or 8 will become affiliated with MS as being a Windows 10 serial, so that the license owner may reinstall Windows 10 after a format or machine-license transfer, including beyond the 1-year...
General Support
Our Sites
Site Links
About Us
Windows 10 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 10" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

Designer Media Ltd
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 00:10.
Find Us
Twitter Facebook Google+ Ten Forums iOS App Ten Forums Android App



Windows 10 Forums