OEM versions ARE legit while SANS a COA

I can't know if you are honest or not, but at least you demonstrate less dishonesty than the crowd of Microsoft people (no matter whether clearly staff, or "volunteers" of any other sort) authoritatively stating that "This is a pirated copy", that Google is dishonest (and probably, since such jokes never end, that Microsoft were honest ;-) !), etc.

I am running a perfectly legit copy of http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l.../bb457045.aspx Windows XP Pro 32bits Multilingual (US-installed), bought 126 EUR in Feb 2006, and that passes all tests like WGA Validation. I have all the holographed discs, original sleeves, and Microsoft regularly verifies it is legit. And this copy NEVER had a COA, neither on the PC nor on the discs nor anywhere else. It was delivered with my PC, pre-installed on the HD, with the series of CDs in sleeves (that I only opened years later when I needed). There have been such OEM versions for sale for years; I bought a number of them for W3.11WG, W95, W98, W98SE, WME, W2K (and Office, Visual Studio and other products. I was *forced by Microsoft* since they render impossible all other ways to buy an US version in France. I have worked with US versions since 1977 and won't retrograde to FR-ghettoized versions). Usually they are bundled with a piece of hardware due to license, but that piece is highly variable depending on the year, the reseller, the product, etc.; some vendors require buying a whole PC, others just a $10 cable; this, with *fake and open* discontent yet *real and hidden* agreement from Microsoft, who apparently hopes increasing its sales that way.

This "OEM" system by itself is one more demonstration of the deeply dishonest nature of Microsoft and all their accomplices (from official staff to "volunteers" to partner companies). Due to this universal lying you have no way to be sure one product is legit or no, but the price. And that ambiguity is most probably intentional, so to persuade people that anything Microsoft should be expensive, or if it is cheap, it is pirated.

Now, unfortunately using the only way that MS leaved open, the offer you mention is *probably* a pirated copy, but short of any civilized way to know, the only reason to think so is the price: $59.99 for Windows XP Pro *and* Office http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/su...674041033.aspx *Enterprise* 2007.

Versailles, Sat 11 Jul 2009 14:00:45 +0200


----- Parent Message -----
From: "espee2" <>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windowsupdate
message news:0af31d36-bb19-46f3-99f9-
Sent: Fri 10 Jul 2009 13:45:00 -0700 (20:45:00 GMT)
Subject: What does this mean?
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I found a cheap copy of XP Pro sp2 on the web but it has this...

....Attention:

By pressing this button you agree that you are purchasing the software that does NOT include any COA label or a sticker from the manufacturer & comes on a CD ,There is no technical support provided by the software manufacturer. You can still get automatic updates. You will receive the Full version on CD & a volume license key number only. All the software we offer in the English language only....

it's at this site: http://www.cdsfu.com/index.php?categoryID=87

look's honest enough, it is in the sponsored links at the very top of Google search for "Windows XP"

Michel Merlin wrote:

> I can't know if you are honest or not, but at least you demonstrate less
> dishonesty than the crowd of Microsoft people (no matter whether clearly
> staff, or "volunteers" of any other sort) authoritatively stating that "This
> is a pirated copy", [...]

Well, if you're going to by picky about it, it's the license key that's pirated.
Volume license keys are never sold individually and cannot be onsold. (For
that matter, OEM keys, once used, can only legally be onsold with the computer
they were originally used on.)

The OEM media itself may be legitimate, but it would be of no use to the buyer
without a legitimate license key, so I don't imagine anyone thought the
distinction worth making.

> I am running a perfectly legit copy of
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l.../bb457045.aspx Windows XP Pro
> 32bits Multilingual (US-installed), bought 126 EUR in Feb 2006, and that
> passes all tests like WGA Validation. I have all the holographed discs,
> original sleeves, and Microsoft regularly verifies it is legit. And this copy
> NEVER had a COA, neither on the PC nor on the discs nor anywhere else.

The license key was shipped on the system BIOS. (There should still have had a
COA, to the best of my understanding, but this may have simply been an oversight
on the part of the OEM and does not necessarily invalidate your license.)

> [...] Usually they are bundled with a piece
> of hardware due to license, but that piece is highly variable depending on
> the year, the reseller, the product, etc.; some vendors require buying a
> whole PC, others just a $10 cable; [...]

They still need to come with a license key, normally on a COA; otherwise, how is
the purchaser going to activate the software?

> This "OEM" system by itself is one more demonstration of the deeply dishonest
> nature of Microsoft [...]

I don't really see how OEM licenses can be considered dishonest -
anticompetitive, arguably, but not dishonest. What specifically about this
practice do you object to?

Harry.



and all their accomplices (from official staff to
> "volunteers" to partner companies). Due to this universal lying you have no
> way to be sure one product is legit or no, but the price. And that ambiguity
> is most probably intentional, so to persuade people that anything Microsoft
> should be expensive, or if it is cheap, it is pirated.
>
> Now, unfortunately using the only way that MS leaved open, the offer you
> mention is *probably* a pirated copy, but short of any civilized way to know,
> the only reason to think so is the price: $59.99 for Windows XP Pro *and*
> Office http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/su...674041033.aspx
> *Enterprise* 2007.
>
> Versailles, Sat 11 Jul 2009 14:00:45 +0200
>
>
> ----- Parent Message ----- From: "espee2" <> Newsgroups:
> microsoft.public.windowsupdate message
> news:0af31d36-bb19-46f3-99f9- Sent:
> Fri 10 Jul 2009 13:45:00 -0700 (20:45:00 GMT) Subject: What does this mean?
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> I found a cheap copy of XP Pro sp2 on the web but it has this...
>
> ...Attention:
>
> By pressing this button you agree that you are purchasing the software that
> does NOT include any COA label or a sticker from the manufacturer & comes on
> a CD ,There is no technical support provided by the software manufacturer.
> You can still get automatic updates. You will receive the Full version on CD
> & a volume license key number only. All the software we offer in the English
> language only....
>
> it's at this site: http://www.cdsfu.com/index.php?categoryID=87
>
> look's honest enough, it is in the sponsored links at the very top of Google
> search for "Windows XP"

"Harry Johnston [MVP]" <> wrote:

> Michel Merlin wrote:
>
>> I can't know if you are honest or not, but at least you demonstrate less
>> dishonesty than the crowd of Microsoft people (no matter whether clearly
>> staff, or "volunteers" of any other sort) authoritatively stating that "This
>> is a pirated copy", [...]
>
> Well, if you're going to by picky about it, it's the license key that's pirated.
> Volume license keys are never sold individually and cannot be onsold. (For
> that matter, OEM keys, once used, can only legally be onsold with the computer
> they were originally used on.)

There MIGHT be countries where this holds, but there ARE (or is at least one:
Germany) countries where the above restriction is ILLEGAL!

> The OEM media itself may be legitimate, but it would be of no use to the buyer
> without a legitimate license key, so I don't imagine anyone thought the
> distinction worth making.

MSFT provides perfectly legitimate license keys for XP Pro and Media Center
OEM media here: <http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457078.aspx>

>> I am running a perfectly legit copy of
>> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l.../bb457045.aspx Windows XP Pro
>> 32bits Multilingual (US-installed), bought 126 EUR in Feb 2006, and that
>> passes all tests like WGA Validation. I have all the holographed discs,
>> original sleeves, and Microsoft regularly verifies it is legit. And this copy
>> NEVER had a COA, neither on the PC nor on the discs nor anywhere else.
>
> The license key was shipped on the system BIOS.

ARGH! That's NONSENSE. There is no "license" in the BIOS.

The ACTIVATION (exactly: the "system locked preactivation") is bound to some
magic strings in the BIOS via the cryptographically signed 4 OEMBIOS.* files
on such SLP OEM media
(see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_Locked_Preinstallation>).
A valid "product key" is precondition for the activation and supplied on the
SLP OEM media too, for example in \i386\WINNT.SIF

> (There should still have had a
> COA, to the best of my understanding, but this may have simply been an oversight
> on the part of the OEM and does not necessarily invalidate your license.)

That's correct, although MSFT ALWAYS tells us that the COA is the ONLY
proof of license (see for example
<http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=d3f36ed2-b704-444a-9865-9e7fa360e9e4>)

>> [...] Usually they are bundled with a piece
>> of hardware due to license, but that piece is highly variable depending on
>> the year, the reseller, the product, etc.; some vendors require buying a
>> whole PC, others just a $10 cable; [...]
>
> They still need to come with a license key, normally on a COA; otherwise, how is
> the purchaser going to activate the software?

See above.

>> This "OEM" system by itself is one more demonstration of the deeply dishonest
>> nature of Microsoft [...]
>
> I don't really see how OEM licenses can be considered dishonest -
> anticompetitive, arguably, but not dishonest. What specifically about this
> practice do you object to?

Stefan

Stefan Kanthak wrote:

>> Volume license keys are never sold individually and cannot be onsold. (For
>> that matter, OEM keys, once used, can only legally be onsold with the computer
>> they were originally used on.)
>
> There MIGHT be countries where this holds, but there ARE (or is at least one:
> Germany) countries where the above restriction is ILLEGAL!

How very odd; that hardly seems fair. Which of the two restrictions do you
mean, the one regarding volume licenses or the one regarding OEM licenses?

>> The OEM media itself may be legitimate, but it would be of no use to the buyer
>> without a legitimate license key, so I don't imagine anyone thought the
>> distinction worth making.
>
> MSFT provides perfectly legitimate license keys for XP Pro and Media Center
> OEM media here: <http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457078.aspx>

Using these keys isn't legal if you don't actually own a license.

>> The license key was shipped on the system BIOS.
>
> ARGH! That's NONSENSE. There is no "license" in the BIOS.
>
> The ACTIVATION (exactly: the "system locked preactivation") is bound to some
> magic strings in the BIOS via the cryptographically signed 4 OEMBIOS.* files
> on such SLP OEM media
> (see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_Locked_Preinstallation>).
> A valid "product key" is precondition for the activation and supplied on the
> SLP OEM media too, for example in \i386\WINNT.SIF

I stand corrected.

Harry.

"Harry Johnston [MVP]" <> wrote:

> Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>
>>> Volume license keys are never sold individually and cannot be onsold. (For
>>> that matter, OEM keys, once used, can only legally be onsold with the computer
>>> they were originally used on.)
>>
>> There MIGHT be countries where this holds, but there ARE (or is at least one:
>> Germany) countries where the above restriction is ILLEGAL!
>
> How very odd; that hardly seems fair.

What do you reference? My remark, or the perceived ambiguity?

> Which of the two restrictions do you
> mean, the one regarding volume licenses or the one regarding OEM licenses?

The second of course, the OEM licenses. If I wanted to comment/reference the
first sentence I'd written directly beyond it...

>>> The OEM media itself may be legitimate, but it would be of no use to the buyer
>>> without a legitimate license key, so I don't imagine anyone thought the
>>> distinction worth making.
>>
>> MSFT provides perfectly legitimate license keys for XP Pro and Media Center
>> OEM media here: <http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457078.aspx>
>
> Using these keys isn't legal if you don't actually own a license.

Correct. Please notice the difference between "license key" (an artifact
created/provided by MSFT, and a technical necessity to install/activate
an XP syste,) and "license" (better: right to use the copy of the product).

Stefan

Stefan Kanthak wrote:

>>>> For
>>>> that matter, OEM keys, once used, can only legally be onsold with the computer
>>>> they were originally used on.

>>> There MIGHT be countries where this holds, but there ARE (or is at least one:
>>> Germany) countries where the above restriction is ILLEGAL!

>> How very odd; that hardly seems fair.

> What do you reference? My remark, or the perceived ambiguity?

The German law you refer to. Either Microsoft are selling what are in effect
full retail licenses at a fraction of the usual price, or consumers are having
to pay full retail price instead of the discounted OEM price. Neither seems
like a good outcome.

>>>> The OEM media itself may be legitimate, but it would be of no use to the buyer
>>>> without a legitimate license key, so I don't imagine anyone thought the
>>>> distinction worth making.
>>> MSFT provides perfectly legitimate license keys for XP Pro and Media Center
>>> OEM media here: <http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457078.aspx>
>> Using these keys isn't legal if you don't actually own a license.
>
> Correct. Please notice the difference between "license key" (an artifact
> created/provided by MSFT, and a technical necessity to install/activate
> an XP syste,) and "license" (better: right to use the copy of the product).

OK, OK; I wasn't expecting a Spanish Inquisition.

Harry.

"Harry Johnston [MVP]" <> wrote:

> Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>
>>>>> For
>>>>> that matter, OEM keys, once used, can only legally be onsold with the computer
>>>>> they were originally used on.
>>>> There MIGHT be countries where this holds, but there ARE (or is at least one:
>>>> Germany) countries where the above restriction is ILLEGAL!
>>> How very odd; that hardly seems fair.
>> What do you reference? My remark, or the perceived ambiguity?
>
> The German law you refer to. Either Microsoft are selling what are in effect
> full retail licenses at a fraction of the usual price, or consumers are having
> to pay full retail price instead of the discounted OEM price. Neither seems
> like a good outcome.

No, neither were the outcome.
The court case was MSFT vs. merchants who sold surplus OEM products without
hardware. The courts rule was: MSFT can't make the restriction "to be sold
with new hardware only" sticky, they can apply such a restriction only once,
for the initial sale to the public through the OEM.

Stefan

Stefan Kanthak wrote:

>>>>>> For
>>>>>> that matter, OEM keys, once used, can only legally be onsold with the computer
>>>>>> they were originally used on.

>>>>> There MIGHT be countries where this holds, but there ARE (or is at least one:
>>>>> Germany) countries where the above restriction is ILLEGAL!

>>>> How very odd; that hardly seems fair.

>>> What do you reference? My remark, or the perceived ambiguity?

>> The German law you refer to. Either Microsoft are selling what are in effect
>> full retail licenses at a fraction of the usual price, or consumers are having
>> to pay full retail price instead of the discounted OEM price. Neither seems
>> like a good outcome.

> No, neither were the outcome.
> The court case was MSFT vs. merchants who sold surplus OEM products without
> hardware. The courts rule was: MSFT can't make the restriction "to be sold
> with new hardware only" sticky, they can apply such a restriction only once,
> for the initial sale to the public through the OEM.

Ah. That doesn't directly relate to the restriction I was talking about (quoted
above) as in the case you mention the OEM licenses had not yet been used. Do
you know what happened to the hardware the OEM licenses in question had
originally been sold (to the merchants) with?

Harry.

"Harry Johnston [MVP]" <> wrote:

> Stefan Kanthak wrote:
>
>>>>>>> For
>>>>>>> that matter, OEM keys, once used, can only legally be onsold with the computer
>>>>>>> they were originally used on.
>
>>>>>> There MIGHT be countries where this holds, but there ARE (or is at least one:
>>>>>> Germany) countries where the above restriction is ILLEGAL!
>
>>>>> How very odd; that hardly seems fair.
>
>>>> What do you reference? My remark, or the perceived ambiguity?
>
>>> The German law you refer to. Either Microsoft are selling what are in effect
>>> full retail licenses at a fraction of the usual price, or consumers are having
>>> to pay full retail price instead of the discounted OEM price. Neither seems
>>> like a good outcome.
>
>> No, neither were the outcome.
>> The court case was MSFT vs. merchants who sold surplus OEM products without
>> hardware. The courts rule was: MSFT can't make the restriction "to be sold
>> with new hardware only" sticky, they can apply such a restriction only once,
>> for the initial sale to the public through the OEM.
>
> Ah. That doesn't directly relate to the restriction I was talking about (quoted
> above) as in the case you mention the OEM licenses had not yet been used.

I wouldn't bet on that: AFAIR there were both new and used OEM copies of
Windows sold.

> Do
> you know what happened to the hardware the OEM licenses in question had
> originally been sold (to the merchants) with?

No, not for sure. I suspect that they bought whole stocks of retired
and/or defective hardware and dumped the hardware, but sold the software.

Stefan

Stefan Kanthak wrote:

>>> The court case was MSFT vs. merchants who sold surplus OEM products without
>>> hardware. The courts rule was: MSFT can't make the restriction "to be sold
>>> with new hardware only" sticky, they can apply such a restriction only once,
>>> for the initial sale to the public through the OEM.

>> Ah. That doesn't directly relate to the restriction I was talking about (quoted
>> above) as in the case you mention the OEM licenses had not yet been used.

> I wouldn't bet on that: AFAIR there were both new and used OEM copies of
> Windows sold.

>> Do
>> you know what happened to the hardware the OEM licenses in question had
>> originally been sold (to the merchants) with?

> No, not for sure. I suspect that they bought whole stocks of retired
> and/or defective hardware and dumped the hardware, but sold the software.

If this is permitted, then the OEM license is no different from a retail
license. So Microsoft are selling (in effect) retail licenses at OEM costs.

Personally, if I had been in charge I'd have raised the prices accordingly. If
the law won't allow Microsoft to enforce the one-computer-only license terms,
why should people pay a one-computer-only price? I guess Microsoft preferred to
stay on good terms with the OEMs, and after all it wasn't their fault, but this
outcome still seems undesirable in terms of natural justice.

Harry.