Solved Win8 OEM System Builder License

[Brink]

Well, I searched and put a lot of opinons supporting mine in my post #12. I could have linked a lot more. I can prove my point beyond doubt. But, if one reads the key sentence I have referred to and applies appropriate logic, then I think my point is readily available.

Sorry mate, but every single one of the links you posted in your post #12 all support what we've been trying to tell you.

You have the right to install and activate a Windows 8 System Builder on either one of the options below as per the EULA.


......we grant you the right to install....on a computer that you build....or as an additional operating system running on a local virtual machine, or a separate partition.....

 

[znod]

But a computer you build is a DIY machine right? Where does it say you can put it on a non-diy machine unless as an additional operating system on a local VM or a separate partition?

That's the part that says it.

You're just getting hung up on "System Builder" as meaning a system you built (DIY) yourself. While that's true, you can also install it on any computer you like whether you built the computer or not. After all, if you have the right to transfer a system builder copy to another computer, then you certainly have the right to install it where you like as well to begin with.

It's just that most people don't need to since a prebuilt (factory OEM) computer already comes with a OS they use instead.

I think the transfer thing is strange and can't be used to conclude anything about the key sentence conclusively. The EULA is debatably unclear about how the system has to be installed after transfer. Let's don't go there; doing so would be very unproductive, I think. What I am hung up on, if you like, is where MS says:

"We grant you the right to install and run that one copy on one computer (the licensed computer) as the operating system on a computer that you build for your personal use, or ...."

From here the EULA implies logically only that you have the right to install and run that one copy on one computer (the licensed computer) you didn't build--provided it is installed as an additional operating system running on a local virtual machine or as an additional operating system running on a separate partition. The EULA never implies logically that you have the right to install and run one copy on one computer (the licensed computer) you didn't build--without the VM or partition qualification. Of course you can install, etc., on a computer you build as an additional operating system running on a local virtual machine or as an additional operating system running on a separate partition

Well, at least we have reduced the disagreement to the logical interpretation of what MS says. At least I think we have, logically.

 

[znod]

Well, I searched and put a lot of opinons supporting mine in my post #12. I could have linked a lot more. I can prove my point beyond doubt. But, if one reads the key sentence I have referred to and applies appropriate logic, then I think my point is readily available.

Sorry mate, but every single one of the links you posted in your post #12 all support what we've been trying to tell you.

You have the right to install and activate a Windows 8 System Builder on either one of the options below as per the EULA.


......we grant you the right to install....on a computer that you build....or as an additional operating system running on a local virtual machine, or a separate partition.....

Can't agree, of course. I think they all support my interpretation of what MS says logically. None said you can install on a non-DIY machine without the VM or partition qualification. I think we'll have to go to a logic expert.

Happy (almost) New Year to All. And, to All a Good Night.

 

[Brink]

znod,

I don't know what else to say to convince you that you are misunderstanding it.

To me and everyone else, it's pretty much clear.

 

[znod]

znod,

I don't know what else to say to convince you that you are misunderstanding it.

To me and everyone else, it's pretty much clear.

I am good with dropping it though I am unconvinced about the logic of the key sentence. I just want to make absolutely sure that you know I am talking about the logic of the key sentence and not the way some, including you as I recall, say things have always been (i.e., no change in what is allowed). Last point: note, FWIW, that quite a few of those linked in my post #12 think that things have changed. Admittedly, the computer press often is deluded.

I enjoyed the debate. See you soon on board.

 

[Mystere]

znod, I think the problem you have is with the idea of "build yourself" or "diy".

Think about it like this. Suppose you bought a computer that came with everything except a hard disk and an OS. (like those Shuttle kits). You may not have "built it yourself" per se, just adding a hard disk, but it's still perfectly fine to add a system builder license to it. The very act of installing your own OS on a clean hard disk is part of the "build it yourself" process.

Here's the logical reason why all this is true.

Microsoft does not sell a retail copy of Windows 8 anymore. They only sell retail upgrades, and the system builder license. There is no other way to get Windows on a computer. Why would Microsoft change the versions to remove a retail copy of the OS if they didn't intend for the system builder to replace the retail copy?

The license is intended to make it clear that there is a difference between a computer you build for yourself, and one you build for others (ie you become your own OEM). It is not intended to say you can't install it on a computer that you did not build completely from scratch. The idea is that if you are installing the OS for your own use, it's considered a computer that you have built.

 

[Brink]

I am good with dropping it though I am unconvinced about the logic of the key sentence. I just want to make absolutely sure that you know I am talking about the logic of the key sentence and not the way some, including you as I recall, say things have always been (i.e., no change in what is allowed). Last point: note, FWIW, that quite a few of those linked in my post #12 think that things have changed. Admittedly, the computer press often is deluded.

I enjoyed the debate. See you soon on board.

Don't know where you got that either. I never said that there wasn't a change. In fact, the biggest change is the "Personal usage rights" that now allows you to install the System Builder on another computer after uninstalling from any other computer first. Theog pointed this out as well here.

Previous OEM Windows are permanently tied to the motherboard that it was first activated on, and cannot be installed or activated on any other computer ever.

 

[znod]

The idea is that if you are installing the OS for your own use, it's considered a computer that you have built.

That interpretation avoids the logical problem since anyone that intalls the system builder version under the personal-use license for own use is considered to have built his/her own computer. The concept that anyone that intalls the system builder version under the personal-use license for own use is considered to have built his/her own computer is a bizarre concept. I am not doubting you; I would never put this sort of presumably unintentional obfuscation beyond MS. Your thought obviously has reconciled everything for me. But, I am aghast that MS doesn't just say something like the OEM System Builder software can be installed, under the Personal-Use License, for your own use, however you want on one, and only one, computer you own at a time. I am ignoring all the stuff about transferring to another individual.

Assuming your interpretation of how one qualifies to be system builder is correct, and I am not really doubting it (just aghast), then I thank you very much for clearing everything up. It is not the first time I have seen a highly contentious issue laid to rest via a very simple insight. What a bizarre concept--one is a system builder simply because he/she installs a particular OS. I told you earlier that I think you are a careful reader. Way to go. And, :thumb:.

Highest regards,

znod

 

[znod]

I am good with dropping it though I am unconvinced about the logic of the key sentence. I just want to make absolutely sure that you know I am talking about the logic of the key sentence and not the way some, including you as I recall, say things have always been (i.e., no change in what is allowed). Last point: note, FWIW, that quite a few of those linked in my post #12 think that things have changed. Admittedly, the computer press often is deluded.

I enjoyed the debate. See you soon on board.

Don't know where you got that either. I never said that there wasn't a change. In fact, the biggest change is the "Personal usage rights" that now allows you to install the System Builder on another computer after uninstalling from any other computer first. Theog pointed this out as well here.

Previous OEM Windows are permanently tied to the motherboard that it was first activated on, and cannot be installed or activated on any other computer ever.

It doesn't matter. I can support what I said, but given what Mystere said, this topic is a done deal. Thanks much for all your replies. Eventually, the point that made everything clear to me came out. Please see above. You may have been getting at Mystere's point here: "You're just getting hung up on "System Builder" as meaning a system you built (DIY) yourself. While that's true, you can also install it on any computer you like whether you built the computer or not." I did not get from what you said that, in brief, anyone installing the OS is a system builder.

Each of us was arguing validly and valiantly on the basis on our unstated definitions of "system builder." But, then a definition of system builder came out that resolved the issue completely. It's certainly not the first time implicit definitions have stood in the way of reconciliation.

 

[Mystere]

The concept that anyone that intalls the system builder version under the personal-use license for own use is considered to have built his/her own computer is a bizarre concept.

It's not a bizarre concept because it's the assumed situation, so much so that you're the only person I've ever encountered who came to this other conclusion. It would be bizarre to think as you seemed to. That is why it's not explicit, because common sense simply tells that this would be the case.

 

[znod]

I can't agree with most of what you say. Thank you for your earlier clarification on the definition of a system builder in the context of the Windows 8 OEM System Builder Software/Personal-Use combination.

I think MS has an obligation to define key terms in its EULA's in such a way that a large majority is able to understand what it's EULA's allow and don't allow. I think that if one delves into MS EULA's and their discussions, then he/she will see that there has been a great deal of MS generated confusion about the MS system-builder type product(s) and what differing classes of users, sellers, builders, and etc. can and cannot do with them. I am posting no links, but evidence of what I say is not all that hard to find.

Edit: I decided to repy to what is below more specifically.

The concept that anyone that intalls the system builder version under the personal-use license for own use is considered to have built his/her own computer is a bizarre concept.

It's not a bizarre concept because it's the assumed situation, so much so that you're the only person I've ever encountered who came to this other conclusion. It would be bizarre to think as you seemed to. That is why it's not explicit, because common sense simply tells that this would be the case.

Im not saying that the ultimate result of the definition is bizarre. If that's what MS wants, then that is fine with me. The ultimate result is good news for those who want what amounts to a "Retail" version of Win8.

I say that the MS approach to writing the Personal-Use EULA is conceptually bizarre because it is based on a completely watered down version of what a system builder is without clarification. I think that a great many think that a system builder is something more than just an individual that installs the system builder software for own use on one, and only one, owned computer at a time. I see nothing bizarre about thinking this way. I personally wouldn't consider myself to be a system builder if, for example, all I did was install software, including the system builder software, on a machine that I buy ready to go in all respects from a computer manufacturer/seller. To me, building a system involves some hardware assembly. And, to me, just installing, for example, a hard drive along with software, including the system builder software, would not be enough to qualify one as a system builder. I choose not to be precise at this point in saying exactly what hardware assembly I would "insist on" in defining system builder.

Every individual has the right to define system builder however desired. Given this observation, I think it is quite important for MS to at least say, in the EULA, that an individual considering purchase can define system builder as one that installs the system builder software for own use on one, and only one, owned computer at a time. Under this view, it should be clear that a system builder could install the system builder software on a single partition, a partition related to a multi-boot, and via a local virtual machine.

 

[molebo]

You know, if only PC builders will actually build PC, you will not have to be confuse. I prefer be confuse a little bit than have no choice to build my PC like in the case of Apple. MS is making a favor to everyone with this Builder Edition, it cost the same as an OEM and it's transferable. Anyway it's only the continuity of what they already practice with 7 and XP, as they never on the phone refuse to activate an OEM that as been transfer even if it was against the EULA. As long as it was only on 1 PC.

 

[wetibbe]

I knew I should stay out of this debate. However, my sons immediate family have 5 computers. There is quite a difference between a $130 OEM builders license and 5 Windows 8 purchases in March 2013 at $199 each !

Here's some interesting information about the legalities:

End-user license agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When I worked for a major Fortune 500 manufacturer product liability laws were a hot topic.

I don't know what MS's lawyers have in mind but I do know that they will try to tilt it towards their client. From the referenced article it is also clear that the manner in which a law suit is handled varies from State to State. And from my own experience I can say that the outcome of a suit will also depend on which judge presides. They all have their own personal slant on things depending if they are a Liberal, Progressive or a Conservative. So it seems that the actual MS "Shrink wrap" and "click wrap" agreements can be interpreted in a number of ways. And so it goes to the court of appeals. And on up.

I would find it hard to imagine that a multi billion dollar corporation such as Microsoft would go after a little home owner who scattered a Windows 8 download among several computers. The world is full of unsavory, unscrupulous characters who lie, cheat, steal and game the system. I read here, and learned from E-mail, that Microsoft will not permit downloads to China. I don't know how many other countries are also on the banned list. But the lawyers are most probably trying to cover all imaginable contingencies to prevent pirating their software. Or to have one copy prolifically scattered all over the neighborhood, county, state, nation.

 

[molebo]

I knew I should stay out of this debate. However, my sons immediate family have 5 computers. There is quite a difference between a $130 OEM builders license and 5 Windows 8 purchases in March 2013 at $199 each !.

You come with this in about 5 post everyday, where are the facts that support it will be $ 199 in March ? NewEgg sell them at $ 139.99 , I bet you it will be at $ 130 all the 2013 years if not less. And this is the price of the Pro. regular users will use the $ 99.99 version. If MS make us pay $ 200 for an OEM, I will install Linux, that's for sure.

 

[caperjack]

I knew I should stay out of this debate. However, my sons immediate family have 5 computers. There is quite a difference between a $130 OEM builders license and 5 Windows 8 purchases in March 2013 at $199 each !.

You come with this in about 5 post everyday, where are the facts that support it will be $ 199 in March ? NewEgg sell them at $ 139.99 , I bet you it will be at $ 130 all the 2013 years if not less. And this is the price of the Pro. regular users will use the $ 99.99 version. If MS make us pay $ 200 for an OEM, I will install Linux, that's for sure.

Windows 8 pricing overview -

from the link above .
[h=3]Windows 8 Retail[/h]

• Microsoft Windows 8: available for $99.99 during the promotional period
• Microsoft Windows 8 Pro: available for $139.99 during the promotional period

You are probably also interested in how the pricing will change after the promotional period ends. Some offers won’t be available anymore after that period.
[h=3]Windows 8 Upgrades after January 31, 2013[/h]

• from old versions of Windows to Windows 8 Pro: the upgrade will cost $199.99 after the promotional period ends. That is roughly three times the price it costs during the promotion.
• from Windows 8 to Windows 8 Pro: this will retail for $99.99 after the promotional period.

[h=3]Windows 8 Retail after January 31, 2013[/h]

• Windows 8: available for $139.99 after January 31, 2013.
• Windows 8 Pro: available for $199.99 after the promotional period.

 

[znod]

And, the thread marches on. If anyone is interested, then here is a discussion, by a pretty highly regarded member of the "computer press," that deals with "System Builder licensing on Windows 8." It also gets into issues related to similar licensing WRT to Windows 7. Be sure and read the links in his discussion. The comments also are somewhat interesting. I think you will be able to relate Bott's talking points, and those in his links, to things discussed in the "main" part of this thread.

 

[wetibbe]

I drink this up like a sponge. Can't speak for others.

So long as you post I will read.

Happy New Year to you and yours !

 

[znod]

Thanks. Happy New Year 2U and 2 your family 2. Assuming the thread persists, I will discuss to some extent and will continue to post interesting things I bump into that are pertinent to the "main" part of the thread.

 

[caperjack]

i will wish a happy new to all ,
and i did enjoy reading this thread ,and im and always was confused by Microsoft and there terms of agreement ,and have to add i never really paid to much mind to al lthe techinal stuff in the EULA

just want to add this ,way-back when i was chosen to host a win7 coming out party and received a signed copy of win7 ultimate, 2 dvd set ,32bit and 64bit dvd,and i have installed it on as many as 4 different computers ,all my own ,and only ever 1 at a time ,had to call Microsoft twice for activation,,as it would not auto activate ,and had to say yes to the question is it installed on only 1 computer .


i will click on the link above and read some more with an open mind . !!

 

[znod]

Cool. And, a happy new year 2U2.