Who Among You Believed You Own a Version Microsoft Windows

Until last evening, I thought I did own software called Microsoft Wndows. I don't!  Is anyone else out there among the mis-informed? 

No different that Sonar. When you purchase the license you agree to install on only one computer and you can't sell "your" copy of it. When you own something you can do whatever you want with it.
 
Not saying that's a bad thing, just sayin.

In 2008 the licensed not sold question was decided by a court in Seattle in favor of the idea that a license that looked and acted pretty much like a sale was in fact a sale. The Ninth Circuit overturned that ruling in 2010. 
 
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/10/09-35969.pdf
 
This decision has nothing whatsoever to do with reverse engineering or protecting software developers from the theft of their intellectual property. That property is fully protected under copyright, and there is nothing to stop a pirate from buying a license and then reverse engineering the product. It just upholds an unconscionable way that software companies have decided to market their product, and the type of contract they use to do so. By doing so they ensure that no market in used software competes with their own sale of the same software. Cakewalk is one of the offenders in this regard. There is other music software that is licensed in such a way that used copies can be sold or given away via a transfer of the license to a new owner, and European courts have generally held that if you buy software it is like buying a book you can sell it, loan it from a library or bequeath it to your heirs. The principle extends to things like MP3 recordings that are licensed not sold, so that if you die they die with you. Taken to its logical conclusion any technological invention could be licensed including your cardiac pacemaker, and if licensed it could be rented contingent on an annual renewal fee, and subject to being shut off for nonpayment. The software vendor always has the option to treat their customers fairly, but why would they do so when they can find customers who will accept the EULA? 

slartabartfast
In 2008 the licensed not sold question was decided by a court in Seattle in favor of the idea that a license that looked and acted pretty much like a sale was in fact a sale. The Ninth Circuit overturned that ruling in 2010. 
 
This decision has nothing whatsoever to do with reverse engineering or protecting software developers from the theft of their intellectual property. 

I may be mis-guided in my thoughts; but there was a time when I first got somewhat computer savvy (in the early 1980's) that Operating Systems were  (I believe) sold (as floppies) and were capable of being installed on any compatible system.  Maybe I am mistaken and the product was actually licensed.  It was a time, however, when the licensing of most products was not even thought of as a marketing ploy that could offer huge profits.  Fortunately for Microsoft,  IBM helped propel the software supplier to a position of Market dominance,creating barriers that made it impossible for most others to enter.  That position of dominance allowed Microsoft to market their products at prices well above value.  
 
Maybe things haven't changed since my introduction to the digital computer world; however, I can't recall  when it was that I received installation discs with a PC I've purchased.  Instead, before doing anything useful with my brand new PC I get the opportunity to create a set of disks . For whatever reason most of us fail to do it because we have no idea what utility they afford us over the recovery disks that we can download off the MS Web site.  We have no idea what utility they provide over the thing called "Windows Operating System Image" section that is mounted in a reserved chunk of  the HDD.  One would think that the PC manufacturer includes, instead of one's having to create a set of disks, a diskimage so as to recover the OS when the it becomes corrupt.    
 
Unless a 30 year computer user has a hell of a lot more competence than I in understanding Microsoft's policies and what is termed as EULA  he may well find himself in deep deep yogurt. To Guitarhacker's comment ... Of course you don't own it .... you pay for the license to use it....  I've read the [link=hthttps://www.eff.org/wp/da...users-guide-eulastp://]EULA  but whether or not I understand[/link] its intent is really up for grabs. Breach of ones's use of their licensed fonts ??? Can that really land a guilty user in jail It's hard for me to get my head around what  there is about MS Windows that makes it necessary to rely on such threatening legal terminology to protect it.  Actually, in my opinion, MS  has as its objective the cashing in on the mistakes ... no not mistakes  ... but the misinterpretation of what is considered good and business practice.  I gotta go along with Slartabartfast's argument above. It is simple ... Microsoft has a business plan that protects its market dominance. Their EULA and policies are such that they can best exploit that market. QUite possibly, like Sears-Roebuck, they will fade into  the market's backwaters! 

These shrink wrap agreements aren't all that strong. Sure, you don't own the software, but you can certainly resell the license to another, as long as they agree to abide by it's terms. Mostly, the lawyers throw everything, including the kitchen sink, into the license's legalese merely to see what will stick in court. It's more of an economic barrier than an unwinnable situation concerning the oddball terms of of some licenses.

You opened this can of worms. Is it OK if I kick it over? LOL...
Surely you never thought that laws are just...?? Maybe long ago.. laws were about private property and justice. Then they evolved into being about money and power (not yours or mine). Now they are evolving into protecting the "feelings" of other people. Laws to insure tolerance of everything except intolerance (of certain people or groups, while other people and groups have their intolerance protected).
We don't really own anything, even our money/wealth is mostly just a piece of paper backed by the word of liars... unless you buy metals, you have no dependable wealth. Land or homes are not owned. You can lose them to eminent domain so the local guv'ment can increase it's tax revenue or they can tax you out of it. Our national forests were once privately owned land, farms etc. The guv'ment took advantage of the poverty of people created by IT's own policies and seized the land it wanted. That is one example. You could also ask the Native Americans if you own anything. One only owns what one can keep or seize by force. The way of the world.
No you don't own anything. Just stay in line and move along... nothing to see here.
 
IMO.
 

slartabartfast
Incidentally, your insurance policy also probably only insures against the loss of the actual media your software is recorded on. You pay $1000.00 for software, you lose the discs when the house burns down. You get what they judge to be the value of the CD (a couple of bucks), not the cost of the software that is recorded on it.

Makes sense if I can download the software again. But not so much if I have no way of recovering it. Though you could probably insure the contents as well.

jbow
We don't really own anything, even our money/wealth is mostly just a piece of paper backed by the word of liars... unless you buy metals, you have no dependable wealth. Land or homes are not owned. You can lose them to eminent domain so the local guv'ment can increase it's tax revenue or they can tax you out of it. Our national forests were once privately owned land, farms etc. The guv'ment took advantage of the poverty of people created by IT's own policies and seized the land it wanted. That is one example. You could also ask the Native Americans if you own anything. One only owns what one can keep or seize by force. The way of the world.
No you don't own anything. Just stay in line and move along... nothing to see here.
 
IMO.

The day is coming when we'll be giving everything we have back to the rightful owners.

cpkoch

jbow
You opened this can of worms. Is it OK if I kick it over? LOL... 

I understand, empathize and largely share your sentiments. I knew it wasn't a can of tuna fish that I opened as I opined!!!
Have you read "The Law" by Frederick Bastiat? Are you a student of the Austrian Economics school of thought?
.  

It is on my Kindle. I've read it and keep it handy. I read all the time.
 
Things never change. More and more people forget history though.

soens

cpkoch
Have you read "The Law" by Frederick Bastiat? Are you a student of the Austrian Economics school of thought?
.  

I'm a student of the Gates school of world domination monopoly. Steal an idea, alter it enough to patent it as mine and sell it to everyone with the disclaimer that if they don't buy it I'll sue them for all they're worth.
 
A lot of well known local businessmen here have enjoyed a high level of success using this method.

I have an idea for an invention, it is a flat plastic stick with bristles on one end. You use it to clean your teeth. I'm thinking of calling it an iToothbrush, everyone will buy one. I will be RICH... Rich I tell you!!! Bwahahaaaa....

Normally in the past I use my trusty hacked copy of windows Xp.. I "paid" for as many copies as I hacked. So no remorse. Windows 7 became a little tricky and I actually had to pay up front. Then Windows 8 makes it sooooo easy to hand over the $119 it made me ill. But there you go. I'm to old and lazy to fight it.. You win Bill. I hope you use my money to upgrade Wal Mart so I can use the washrooms.