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

Did you read the agreement?
 
Of course you don't own it.... you pay for the license to use it.

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.

Most software is licensed not sold. And there is a very good reason. If software companies sold the program (which is usually a whole bunch of executable files, config files and data files) you could reverse engineer it and pretty much do what you like. By licensing the software, the software company ensures that end users cannot legally cut it apart and perhaps repackage it. Licensing also means that if the user abuses the legal use of software, say by uploading it to a public file share, they can revoke the user's rights to use the software. Some sample vendors even take it another step by watermarking their samples so it is possible to track shared files back to the original purchaser.
 
This is not a "Microsoft" thing. It is the norm. 

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? 

Whatever happened to "possession is 9/10ths of the law"? If it's in my possession is it not mine? If someone breaks into my house and steals it are they not stealing it from me? - Just Curious

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! 

soens
Whatever happened to "possession is 9/10ths of the law"? If it's in my possession is it not mine? If someone breaks into my house and steals it are they not stealing it from me? - Just Curious

If it is in your possession, it is in your possession--it has nothing to do with ownership. That is what the crime of possession of stolen property is all about. If someone breaks into your house and steals you Sonar installation disk, he has stolen your disc, but he has no claim on your license, just the same as if you give it to him. 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.

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.

If it is in your possession, it is in your possession--it has nothing to do with ownership. That is what the crime of possession of stolen property is all about. If someone breaks into your house and steals you Sonar installation disk, he has stolen your disc, but he has no claim on your license, just the same as if you give it to him. 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.
 
My question is simple!  Are all laws just?  My answer is a resounding "No"! Possession ...  Ownership ... Licensing ... Property Rights ... These are all terms used to help differentiate various elements of the law aren't they? The real issue lies in the methods and business model under which, in this case, Microsoft is selling its products. You said it in a previous post, Slartabartfast...  It just upholds an unconscionable way that software companies [Microsoft] have [has] decided to market their product, and the type of contract they use to do so. I don't know about you and other consumers, but I think the business model stinks. Microsoft has adopted it because they have a huge consumer base to exploit and can get away with it.  
 
According to a recent survey Windows occupied 91.53 percent of the overall worldwide OS market share. I am not an expert but from what I've learned, the various Linux based operating systems, such as Ubuntu, are far superior.  Hence, like it or not, if you are a common PC user and want to take advantage of most popular software programs, with few exceptions, you are stuck with a Microsoft OS.  That is an enviable market position and one that stockholders love. That's great for business. Meanwhile the consumer gets screwed