[ILUG] It's "illegal" to remove Windows from your PC !!

[Rick Moen]

Quoting ger (gerdono at eircom.net):

>> I don't believe it does.  If you think otherwise, please cite.
> 
> "This End-User License Agreement("EULA") is a legal agreement between you 
> (either an individual or a single entity) and the manufacturer("PC 
> Manufacturer") of the computer system("Computer") with which you acquired 
> the Microsoft software product(s) identified above" blah blah.

1.  You have completely failed to cite _any_ provision that asserts what
you claim is present.  Did you honestly fail to notice this?

To reacp, the assertion in question (yours) was:  "It is illegal to
sell/donate/transfer ownership of a PC without passing on any OEM
software which was originally supplied with it."

I said:  "Please cite the statute.  EU, Ireland, or other."
In glorious disregard of the fact that it is neither a statute nor
caselaw, you then replied, "EULA states it."  My reply was (in part):
"I don't believe it does.  If you think otherwise, please cite."

But you didn't.

You were challenged to cite where the EULA asserts that it's illegal to
sell/donate/transfer ownership of a PC without passing on any OEM
software which was originally supplied with it.  You didn't.

But instead of simply failing to cite what you claim is present, you
have now cited something else entirely.

What's the deal, Ger?  One of us is not quite getting it, and I don't
think I'm the one.

I conclude that you're saying, between the lines, that the Microsoft
EULA provision that you earlier asserted to exist, in fact does not.
You could have saved a lot of time by saying so.


2.   Just because a piece of paper from Microsoft asserts that it's an
agreement between you and parties that include the hardware OEM, doesn't
mean it is.  The obvious economic substance of the situation suggests 
the contrary:  It is a statement (purporting to be an "agreement") from
Microsoft Corporation concerning its proprietary software.


3.   HEY.  What, did my earlier point entirely elude you?  Even _if_
some judge were to support the dubious assertion of Microsoft's EULA
being partially or wholly enforceable, it could have no conceivable
effect on someone who, rather than even opening let alone consenting
to it, instead immediately cast it onto a nearby bonfire, first thing.


>> As a reminder, in the posted hypothetical, the user immediately cast
>> the mandatory bundled software on his bonfire.  Not even in
>> Microsoft Corporation's most avaricious dreams did anyone consent to
>> a EULA.
> 
> This is interesting. The correct way to do it in accordance with the EULA.
> "Termination. Without prejudice to any rights, Microsoft may terminate this 
> EULA if you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this EULA. In 
> such an event, you must destroy all copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and all 
> of its component parts."

HEY.  Listen carefully, Ger:  In the hypothetical under discussion, the
user did _not enter into_ this alleged "agreement" in the first place.
Therefore, anyone's view on "correct way to terminate" a non-existent
"agreement" is completely beside the point.

>> The EULA might, in the unlikely event of being found by some court to
>> be partiallyor wholly enforceable, limit what you may do with the
>> _software_, but there's zero chance it could limit what you could do
>> with the _hardware_.
> 
> As proved previously.

Not bloody hardly.

Do you believe _everything_ you read?

>> You didn't cite a statute.  If something is illegal, it is by
>> operation of statute (or caselaw), not some bullbleep Web page or
>> even a bullbleep piece of paper accompanying a throwaway piece of
>> bundled software.
> 
> Refer to point one. There is to the best of my knowledge to case law on 
> this matter in this juristriction Thus the use of the word "illegal" is 
> probably incorrect from a legal point of view.

No.  Listen:  The reason I wanted you to cite a _specific statute_ (or 
case ruling) is so you could see explitly, through application of that
statute or ruling to specific facts, that your notion of how this 
alleged "agreement" controls one's rights to the purchased hardware
simply lacks any legal foundation.

Since you have declined to cite such a statute (or case ruling), that
reality check is not possible.

> I certainly do not want to become a test case for such an action. So I
> personally treat the EULA as a legal and binding contract.

Binding on _whom_, in your view?  Someone who merely opens a box
containing that piece of paper?   I'm sorry, but key elements of
contract formation are entirely absent.