License violation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill Antolec
  • Start date Start date
B

Bill Antolec

Recently a friend asked me to help her with her computer. It is an eMachine
with Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005. I determined that the
motherboard in the computer died and ordered a similar motherboard - one
where the same processor, memory, etc. would all work with it to minimize
the cost. Once everything was put back together, I started the machine up
and was not surprised to see the screen requiring that the version of
Windows be authenticated again. I followed the steps and had to call
Microsoft as the ethernet drivers for the new motherboard had not yet been
installed.

During the phone call first doing the automated update, I entered all the
sets of numbers on the screen but the process failed. Next step I requested
to speak to a live person. In doing so he asked me to click on the "Change
Key" button. The key values that came up did not match the values from the
tag on the machine, so I re-entered the Windows key into the machine. After
this we generated a new set of numbers from which he gave me the
cooresponding numbers. I entered then and regained access to the machine
and all appeared good.

However after installed all necessary drivers, I rebooted the machine. When
it came back up I was presented with a dialog window titled "License
violation". The text of the message reads: "The system has detected
tampering with your registered product type. This is a violation of your
license. Tampering with product type is not permitted."

Any ideas why this is coming up? All I did was change the motherboard.
More important than why is, How do I fix it?

Thanks in advance for any assistance with this problem!
Bill
 
Bill Antolec wrote:
> Recently a friend asked me to help her with her computer. It is an
> eMachine with Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005. I determined that
> the motherboard in the computer died and ordered a similar motherboard -
> one where the same processor, memory, etc. would all work with it to
> minimize the cost. Once everything was put back together, I started the
> machine up and was not surprised to see the screen requiring that the
> version of Windows be authenticated again. I followed the steps and had
> to call Microsoft as the ethernet drivers for the new motherboard had
> not yet been installed.
>
> During the phone call first doing the automated update, I entered all
> the sets of numbers on the screen but the process failed. Next step I
> requested to speak to a live person. In doing so he asked me to click
> on the "Change Key" button. The key values that came up did not match
> the values from the tag on the machine, so I re-entered the Windows key
> into the machine. After this we generated a new set of numbers from
> which he gave me the cooresponding numbers. I entered then and regained
> access to the machine and all appeared good.
>
> However after installed all necessary drivers, I rebooted the machine.
> When it came back up I was presented with a dialog window titled
> "License violation". The text of the message reads: "The system has
> detected tampering with your registered product type. This is a

The OEM XP MCE Product Key that came with your friend's eMachine was
tied to the original motherboard and *only* the original motherboard. In
order to use that Product Key, you would have needed to order the
identical (not "similar") motherboard from eMachines. It is unclear to
me whether you did a Repair Install (almost always necessary after a
motherboard change). If you didn't, then try that using a generic OEM
disk and the Product Key on the COA sticker, phoning in the activation.
If this doesn't work, your friend will need to purchase a retail copy of XP.

http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/XPrepairinstall.htm - Repair Install
How-To
http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/moving_xp.html - for changing motherboard


Malke
--
Elephant Boy Computers
www.elephantboycomputers.com
"Don't Panic!"
MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
 
"Malke" <notreally@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:O4PgI2oRIHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Bill Antolec wrote:
> > Recently a friend asked me to help her with her computer. It is an
> > eMachine with Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005. I determined that
> > the motherboard in the computer died and ordered a similar motherboard -
> > one where the same processor, memory, etc. would all work with it to
> > minimize the cost. Once everything was put back together, I started the
> > machine up and was not surprised to see the screen requiring that the
> > version of Windows be authenticated again. I followed the steps and had
> > to call Microsoft as the ethernet drivers for the new motherboard had
> > not yet been installed.
> >
> > During the phone call first doing the automated update, I entered all
> > the sets of numbers on the screen but the process failed. Next step I
> > requested to speak to a live person. In doing so he asked me to click
> > on the "Change Key" button. The key values that came up did not match
> > the values from the tag on the machine, so I re-entered the Windows key
> > into the machine. After this we generated a new set of numbers from
> > which he gave me the cooresponding numbers. I entered then and regained
> > access to the machine and all appeared good.
> >
> > However after installed all necessary drivers, I rebooted the machine.
> > When it came back up I was presented with a dialog window titled
> > "License violation". The text of the message reads: "The system has
> > detected tampering with your registered product type. This is a
>
> The OEM XP MCE Product Key that came with your friend's eMachine was
> tied to the original motherboard and *only* the original motherboard. In
> order to use that Product Key, you would have needed to order the
> identical (not "similar") motherboard from eMachines. It is unclear to
> me whether you did a Repair Install (almost always necessary after a
> motherboard change). If you didn't, then try that using a generic OEM
> disk and the Product Key on the COA sticker, phoning in the activation.
> If this doesn't work, your friend will need to purchase a retail copy of
XP.
>
> http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/XPrepairinstall.htm - Repair Install
> How-To
> http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/moving_xp.html - for changing
motherboard
>

And MS screws over yet another customer with their licensing scheme.

>
> Malke
> --
> Elephant Boy Computers
> www.elephantboycomputers.com
> "Don't Panic!"
> MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
 
"pjp" <pjpoirier_is_located_at_@_hotmail_._com> wrote in message
news:%234k2VepRIHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| >
|
| And MS screws over yet another customer with their licensing scheme.
|

And by far the worst part is the way Microsoft forces consumers at gunpoint
into WallyWorld to buy those ultra cheap computers and then seemingly
refuses to listen to them whine about it costing a few extra bucks on the
back end to get 'em repaired when they shockingly break.
 
> The OEM XP MCE Product Key that came with your friend's eMachine was tied
> to the original motherboard and *only* the original motherboard.

I'd appreciate if you could actually point to the source in which Microsoft
has actually stated that.

Thanks in advance.


"Malke" <notreally@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:O4PgI2oRIHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Bill Antolec wrote:
>> Recently a friend asked me to help her with her computer. It is an
>> eMachine with Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005. I determined that
>> the motherboard in the computer died and ordered a similar motherboard -
>> one where the same processor, memory, etc. would all work with it to
>> minimize the cost. Once everything was put back together, I started the
>> machine up and was not surprised to see the screen requiring that the
>> version of Windows be authenticated again. I followed the steps and had
>> to call Microsoft as the ethernet drivers for the new motherboard had not
>> yet been installed.
>>
>> During the phone call first doing the automated update, I entered all the
>> sets of numbers on the screen but the process failed. Next step I
>> requested to speak to a live person. In doing so he asked me to click on
>> the "Change Key" button. The key values that came up did not match the
>> values from the tag on the machine, so I re-entered the Windows key into
>> the machine. After this we generated a new set of numbers from which he
>> gave me the cooresponding numbers. I entered then and regained access to
>> the machine and all appeared good.
>>
>> However after installed all necessary drivers, I rebooted the machine.
>> When it came back up I was presented with a dialog window titled "License
>> violation". The text of the message reads: "The system has detected
>> tampering with your registered product type. This is a
>
> The OEM XP MCE Product Key that came with your friend's eMachine was tied
> to the original motherboard and *only* the original motherboard. In order
> to use that Product Key, you would have needed to order the identical (not
> "similar") motherboard from eMachines. It is unclear to me whether you did
> a Repair Install (almost always necessary after a motherboard change). If
> you didn't, then try that using a generic OEM disk and the Product Key on
> the COA sticker, phoning in the activation. If this doesn't work, your
> friend will need to purchase a retail copy of XP.
>
> http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/XPrepairinstall.htm - Repair Install
> How-To
> http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/moving_xp.html - for changing
> motherboard
>
>
> Malke
> --
> Elephant Boy Computers
> www.elephantboycomputers.com
> "Don't Panic!"
> MS-MVP Windows - Shell/User
 
I would suggest you to make another call and verify the instance.

Make sure to tell the agent that you have only changed the motherboard.


"Bill Antolec" <billa@acorncg.com> wrote in message
news:513A9C2C-1820-4E5C-A60D-69D0C696BA89@microsoft.com...
> Recently a friend asked me to help her with her computer. It is an
> eMachine with Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005. I determined that the
> motherboard in the computer died and ordered a similar motherboard - one
> where the same processor, memory, etc. would all work with it to minimize
> the cost. Once everything was put back together, I started the machine up
> and was not surprised to see the screen requiring that the version of
> Windows be authenticated again. I followed the steps and had to call
> Microsoft as the ethernet drivers for the new motherboard had not yet been
> installed.
>
> During the phone call first doing the automated update, I entered all the
> sets of numbers on the screen but the process failed. Next step I
> requested to speak to a live person. In doing so he asked me to click on
> the "Change Key" button. The key values that came up did not match the
> values from the tag on the machine, so I re-entered the Windows key into
> the machine. After this we generated a new set of numbers from which he
> gave me the cooresponding numbers. I entered then and regained access to
> the machine and all appeared good.
>
> However after installed all necessary drivers, I rebooted the machine.
> When it came back up I was presented with a dialog window titled "License
> violation". The text of the message reads: "The system has detected
> tampering with your registered product type. This is a violation of your
> license. Tampering with product type is not permitted."
>
> Any ideas why this is coming up? All I did was change the motherboard.
> More important than why is, How do I fix it?
>
> Thanks in advance for any assistance with this problem!
> Bill
 
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll do that! I know I've done this before
without a problem. However, it may have been with a different version of
Windows and a different license senario.

Thanks everyone for your help and comment!
Bill

PS: Merry Christmas everyone!

"xfile" <coucou@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ufAAXevRIHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I would suggest you to make another call and verify the instance.
>
> Make sure to tell the agent that you have only changed the motherboard.
>
>
> "Bill Antolec" <billa@acorncg.com> wrote in message
> news:513A9C2C-1820-4E5C-A60D-69D0C696BA89@microsoft.com...
>> Recently a friend asked me to help her with her computer. It is an
>> eMachine with Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005. I determined that
>> the motherboard in the computer died and ordered a similar motherboard -
>> one where the same processor, memory, etc. would all work with it to
>> minimize the cost. Once everything was put back together, I started the
>> machine up and was not surprised to see the screen requiring that the
>> version of Windows be authenticated again. I followed the steps and had
>> to call Microsoft as the ethernet drivers for the new motherboard had not
>> yet been installed.
>>
>> During the phone call first doing the automated update, I entered all the
>> sets of numbers on the screen but the process failed. Next step I
>> requested to speak to a live person. In doing so he asked me to click on
>> the "Change Key" button. The key values that came up did not match the
>> values from the tag on the machine, so I re-entered the Windows key into
>> the machine. After this we generated a new set of numbers from which he
>> gave me the cooresponding numbers. I entered then and regained access to
>> the machine and all appeared good.
>>
>> However after installed all necessary drivers, I rebooted the machine.
>> When it came back up I was presented with a dialog window titled "License
>> violation". The text of the message reads: "The system has detected
>> tampering with your registered product type. This is a violation of your
>> license. Tampering with product type is not permitted."
>>
>> Any ideas why this is coming up? All I did was change the motherboard.
>> More important than why is, How do I fix it?
>>
>> Thanks in advance for any assistance with this problem!
>> Bill
>
>
 
Malke wrote:
>> The OEM XP MCE Product Key that came with your friend's eMachine was
>> tied to the original motherboard and *only* the original motherboard.

xfile wrote:
> I'd appreciate if you could actually point to the source in which
> Microsoft has actually stated that.

That's not the issue.

The issue is how eMachines, as the OEM, has determined how Windows is
installed on its PCs. Microsoft doesn't enter this particular equation.

Now if you're referring to OEM *licenses* in general and what
constitutes the original PC, that's another topic, but it's not what
Malke was talking about. He was merely letting the OP know that in order
for his eMachines XP MCE disk to be used to reinstall the OS, the
motherboard needs to be identical to the one it replaced. Malke was
speaking *logistics* only.
 
Bill Antolec wrote:
> Recently a friend asked me to help her with her computer. It is an
> eMachine with Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005. I determined
> that the motherboard in the computer died and ordered a similar
> motherboard - one where the same processor, memory, etc. would all
> work with it to minimize the cost. Once everything was put back
> together, I started the machine up and was not surprised to see the
> screen requiring that the version of Windows be authenticated again. I
> followed the steps and had to call Microsoft as the ethernet
> drivers for the new motherboard had not yet been installed.
>
> During the phone call first doing the automated update, I entered all
> the sets of numbers on the screen but the process failed. Next step
> I requested to speak to a live person. In doing so he asked me to
> click on the "Change Key" button. The key values that came up did
> not match the values from the tag on the machine, so I re-entered the
> Windows key into the machine. After this we generated a new set of
> numbers from which he gave me the cooresponding numbers. I entered
> then and regained access to the machine and all appeared good.
>
> However after installed all necessary drivers, I rebooted the
> machine. When it came back up I was presented with a dialog window
> titled "License violation". The text of the message reads: "The
> system has detected tampering with your registered product type. This is a
> violation of your license. Tampering with product type is
> not permitted."
> Any ideas why this is coming up? All I did was change the
> motherboard. More important than why is, How do I fix it?
>
> Thanks in advance for any assistance with this problem!
> Bill

It's a problem with the registry and seems to be left over from NT days
(evidently put in to check NT Server vs NT Workstation flipping). Google the
exact error message for several reports, one of which may have your
solution.
 
Thanks for the explanations.

But according to the OP, he was able to install the OS and the problem came
out after driver updates, I will assume this should not be a problem
associated with BIOS-locking or he wouldn't be able to install in the first
place?




"Daave" <dcwashNOSPAM@myrealboxXYZ.invalid> wrote in message
news:u0Nk%23pwRIHA.5524@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Malke wrote:
>>> The OEM XP MCE Product Key that came with your friend's eMachine was
>>> tied to the original motherboard and *only* the original motherboard.
>
> xfile wrote:
>> I'd appreciate if you could actually point to the source in which
>> Microsoft has actually stated that.
>
> That's not the issue.
>
> The issue is how eMachines, as the OEM, has determined how Windows is
> installed on its PCs. Microsoft doesn't enter this particular equation.
>
> Now if you're referring to OEM *licenses* in general and what
> constitutes the original PC, that's another topic, but it's not what
> Malke was talking about. He was merely letting the OP know that in order
> for his eMachines XP MCE disk to be used to reinstall the OS, the
> motherboard needs to be identical to the one it replaced. Malke was
> speaking *logistics* only.
>
>
>
 
Good luck and happy holidays!


"Bill Antolec" <billa@acorncg.com> wrote in message
news:B219177E-327E-44AA-B1A1-AAF4DBDFF7D2@microsoft.com...
> Thanks for the suggestion. I'll do that! I know I've done this before
> without a problem. However, it may have been with a different version of
> Windows and a different license senario.
>
> Thanks everyone for your help and comment!
> Bill
>
> PS: Merry Christmas everyone!
>
> "xfile" <coucou@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:ufAAXevRIHA.3532@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>I would suggest you to make another call and verify the instance.
>>
>> Make sure to tell the agent that you have only changed the motherboard.
>>
>>
>> "Bill Antolec" <billa@acorncg.com> wrote in message
>> news:513A9C2C-1820-4E5C-A60D-69D0C696BA89@microsoft.com...
>>> Recently a friend asked me to help her with her computer. It is an
>>> eMachine with Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005. I determined that
>>> the motherboard in the computer died and ordered a similar motherboard -
>>> one where the same processor, memory, etc. would all work with it to
>>> minimize the cost. Once everything was put back together, I started the
>>> machine up and was not surprised to see the screen requiring that the
>>> version of Windows be authenticated again. I followed the steps and had
>>> to call Microsoft as the ethernet drivers for the new motherboard had
>>> not yet been installed.
>>>
>>> During the phone call first doing the automated update, I entered all
>>> the sets of numbers on the screen but the process failed. Next step I
>>> requested to speak to a live person. In doing so he asked me to click
>>> on the "Change Key" button. The key values that came up did not match
>>> the values from the tag on the machine, so I re-entered the Windows key
>>> into the machine. After this we generated a new set of numbers from
>>> which he gave me the cooresponding numbers. I entered then and regained
>>> access to the machine and all appeared good.
>>>
>>> However after installed all necessary drivers, I rebooted the machine.
>>> When it came back up I was presented with a dialog window titled
>>> "License violation". The text of the message reads: "The system has
>>> detected tampering with your registered product type. This is a
>>> violation of your license. Tampering with product type is not
>>> permitted."
>>>
>>> Any ideas why this is coming up? All I did was change the motherboard.
>>> More important than why is, How do I fix it?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance for any assistance with this problem!
>>> Bill
>>
>>
>
 
Daave wrote:

> Now if you're referring to OEM *licenses* in general and what
> constitutes the original PC, that's another topic, but it's not what
> Malke was talking about. He was merely letting the OP know [snip]

Oops! I meant "she." (Sorry, Malke!)
 
The way I read it, the problem occurred immediately after rebooting once
the new motherboard was in place. The "Change Key" method worked the one
time, then when the machine was rebooted again (after the correct
drivers were loaded), the problem returned.

If this were a built-to-order barebones PC with a generic OEM license
there wouldn't be the same problem. However, the eMachines PC is
instructed to work with a particular key only if the original
motherboard (or an exact replacement) is in the PC. I'm sure there's a
creative way around this, but I'm pretty sure it goes against the
eMachines OEM license. That's why the same exact motherboard should have
been used.


xfile wrote:
> Thanks for the explanations.
>
> But according to the OP, he was able to install the OS and the
> problem came out after driver updates, I will assume this should not
> be a problem associated with BIOS-locking or he wouldn't be able to
> install in the first place?
>
>
>
>
> "Daave" <dcwashNOSPAM@myrealboxXYZ.invalid> wrote in message
> news:u0Nk%23pwRIHA.5524@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Malke wrote:
>>>> The OEM XP MCE Product Key that came with your friend's eMachine
>>>> was tied to the original motherboard and *only* the original
>>>> motherboard.
>>
>> xfile wrote:
>>> I'd appreciate if you could actually point to the source in which
>>> Microsoft has actually stated that.
>>
>> That's not the issue.
>>
>> The issue is how eMachines, as the OEM, has determined how Windows is
>> installed on its PCs. Microsoft doesn't enter this particular
>> equation.
>>
>> Now if you're referring to OEM *licenses* in general and what
>> constitutes the original PC, that's another topic, but it's not what
>> Malke was talking about. He was merely letting the OP know that in
>> order for his eMachines XP MCE disk to be used to reinstall the OS,
>> the motherboard needs to be identical to the one it replaced. Malke
>> was speaking *logistics* only.
 
Hi,

I admit that I don't know anything about eMachines's license agreement, but
ultimately, MS is the license holder (i.e. that's why all activations,
verifications, prosecutions, etc. have been conducted by the company) and
branded system providers bundled OS, in this case, as a complete solution
for their customers.

From what I've learned, which of course may not be totally correct, even the
BIOS-locking used by a few system providers may not be for the so-called
license binding, and it could be very well for the reason of preventing the
OS has been "transferred to" another system which is within the guideline of
the license holder - MS, in this case. In other words, using BIOS is to
identify the system.

In any case, I suggested the OP to call MS for verification so we don't have
to speculate what may or may not be the case.

Finally, the licensor, MS, is always in the equation regardless of how its
products have been distributed.




"Daave" <dcwashNOSPAM@myrealboxXYZ.invalid> wrote in message
news:OPf38A3RIHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> The way I read it, the problem occurred immediately after rebooting once
> the new motherboard was in place. The "Change Key" method worked the one
> time, then when the machine was rebooted again (after the correct
> drivers were loaded), the problem returned.
>
> If this were a built-to-order barebones PC with a generic OEM license
> there wouldn't be the same problem. However, the eMachines PC is
> instructed to work with a particular key only if the original
> motherboard (or an exact replacement) is in the PC. I'm sure there's a
> creative way around this, but I'm pretty sure it goes against the
> eMachines OEM license. That's why the same exact motherboard should have
> been used.
>
>
> xfile wrote:
>> Thanks for the explanations.
>>
>> But according to the OP, he was able to install the OS and the
>> problem came out after driver updates, I will assume this should not
>> be a problem associated with BIOS-locking or he wouldn't be able to
>> install in the first place?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Daave" <dcwashNOSPAM@myrealboxXYZ.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:u0Nk%23pwRIHA.5524@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> Malke wrote:
>>>>> The OEM XP MCE Product Key that came with your friend's eMachine
>>>>> was tied to the original motherboard and *only* the original
>>>>> motherboard.
>>>
>>> xfile wrote:
>>>> I'd appreciate if you could actually point to the source in which
>>>> Microsoft has actually stated that.
>>>
>>> That's not the issue.
>>>
>>> The issue is how eMachines, as the OEM, has determined how Windows is
>>> installed on its PCs. Microsoft doesn't enter this particular
>>> equation.
>>>
>>> Now if you're referring to OEM *licenses* in general and what
>>> constitutes the original PC, that's another topic, but it's not what
>>> Malke was talking about. He was merely letting the OP know that in
>>> order for his eMachines XP MCE disk to be used to reinstall the OS,
>>> the motherboard needs to be identical to the one it replaced. Malke
>>> was speaking *logistics* only.
>
>
>
 
Bill;
Was the motherboard also an Emachines motherboard?
If yes, contact them.
If no, that is probably the source of your problem.

Some OEMs such as Emachines tie their media to the motherboard BIOS
preventing use on a different motherboard.
This is one of several licensing options chosen by Emachines on behalf
of their customers.
The solution may be:
1. Purchase a motherboard from Emachines or at least an Emachines
motherboard.
Similar is not good enough.
2. Purchase Windows XP or operating system of your choice for
installation.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar



"Bill Antolec" <billa@acorncg.com> wrote in message
news:513A9C2C-1820-4E5C-A60D-69D0C696BA89@microsoft.com...
> Recently a friend asked me to help her with her computer. It is an
> eMachine with Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005. I determined
> that the motherboard in the computer died and ordered a similar
> motherboard - one where the same processor, memory, etc. would all
> work with it to minimize the cost. Once everything was put back
> together, I started the machine up and was not surprised to see the
> screen requiring that the version of Windows be authenticated again.
> I followed the steps and had to call Microsoft as the ethernet
> drivers for the new motherboard had not yet been installed.
>
> During the phone call first doing the automated update, I entered
> all the sets of numbers on the screen but the process failed. Next
> step I requested to speak to a live person. In doing so he asked me
> to click on the "Change Key" button. The key values that came up
> did not match the values from the tag on the machine, so I
> re-entered the Windows key into the machine. After this we
> generated a new set of numbers from which he gave me the
> cooresponding numbers. I entered then and regained access to the
> machine and all appeared good.
>
> However after installed all necessary drivers, I rebooted the
> machine. When it came back up I was presented with a dialog window
> titled "License violation". The text of the message reads: "The
> system has detected tampering with your registered product type.
> This is a violation of your license. Tampering with product type is
> not permitted."
>
> Any ideas why this is coming up? All I did was change the
> motherboard. More important than why is, How do I fix it?
>
> Thanks in advance for any assistance with this problem!
> Bill
 
There are several licensing options and this is the one chosen by
Emachines on behalf of their customers.
If there is blame, there is also blame for Emachines for choosing this
option.
There is also blame for the customer for not choosing a system with
the licensing option fitting their needs.

--
Jupiter Jones [MVP]
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar


"pjp" <pjpoirier_is_located_at_@_hotmail_._com> wrote in message
news:%234k2VepRIHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> And MS screws over yet another customer with their licensing scheme.
 
Same old tone and it's ALL everyone else's fault.

What other options can you, as a genius, tell us when MS is an OEM to system
providers such as eMachines by providing an OS as part of the solution than
signing OEM contracts?

What other options can you, as a genius, tell us when a normal user
purchased a complete solution system from a finished product provider such
as eMachines other than using its integrated component, and in this case, OS
provided by its OEM - Microsoft?

The simplest solution is to call the licensor, MS, to verify if this
particular scenario still comply with the license agreement.

Instead, we have...

(1) rumors - says who that license is tied to a motherboard? As said, I am
willing to correct if anyone can point to any solid evidence other than
rumors about the OS license is tied to a motherboard either from a system
builder and/or MS,

(2) inadequate advise - why would a consumer/user/buyer need to buy another
license when (1) has never ever been provided?

(3) shifting blames and responsibilities - a blind defense for the company
for which I don't even think it would appreciate and blame all others for
their own faults.

The last time I check, these newsgroups are provided by Microsoft for
solving "user/customer" problems and MVPs are awarded based on helping
others with their "technical" skills and knowledge and not by how much they
can insult/blame users/customers, unless of course, the rules have been
changed.


"Jupiter Jones [MVP]" <jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote in message
news:eTpDPK4RIHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> There are several licensing options and this is the one chosen by
> Emachines on behalf of their customers.
> If there is blame, there is also blame for Emachines for choosing this
> option.
> There is also blame for the customer for not choosing a system with the
> licensing option fitting their needs.
>
> --
> Jupiter Jones [MVP]
> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar
>
>
> "pjp" <pjpoirier_is_located_at_@_hotmail_._com> wrote in message
> news:%234k2VepRIHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> And MS screws over yet another customer with their licensing scheme.
>
 
xfile wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I admit that I don't know anything about eMachines's license
> agreement, but ultimately, MS is the license holder (i.e. that's why
> all activations, verifications, prosecutions, etc. have been
> conducted by the company) and branded system providers bundled OS, in
> this case, as a complete solution for their customers.

I'm not a lawyer, but it's my understanding that the OEM's license
subsumes Microsoft's. Perhaps an attorney can clarify?

> From what I've learned, which of course may not be totally correct,
> even the BIOS-locking used by a few system providers may not be for
> the so-called license binding, and it could be very well for the
> reason of preventing the OS has been "transferred to" another system
> which is within the guideline of the license holder - MS, in this
> case. In other words, using BIOS is to identify the system.

That sounds right. However, I believe the "system builder" defines what
the system is, not the purchaser. If I were to build my own PC and
eventually replace the motherboard, processor, hard drive, memory, and
video card, I could still make the argument it's the same system. And no
BIOS-locked installation scheme would stop me. :-)

> In any case, I suggested the OP to call MS for verification so we
> don't have to speculate what may or may not be the case.
>
> Finally, the licensor, MS, is always in the equation regardless of
> how its products have been distributed.

Although by definition, Microsoft "is always in the equation," I'm still
not sure they are in *this* particular equation; that is, eMachines (the
OEM system builder) determines what the system is and decides how an
operating system is installed. I'm sympathetic to your charge, however,
that the average consumer doesn't know how this all works -- even if it
is in the fine print.
 
> I'm not a lawyer, but it's my understanding that the OEM's license
> subsumes Microsoft's. Perhaps an attorney can clarify?

Me neither and for the past few years, I (we) only purchased from Dell and I
don't remember receiving any Dell's "OS license", but it could be my
carelessness or incompetence.

On the other hand, it doesn't take an attorney at law to figure out that if
that's the case, does MS still have the right to activate and authorize
copies from system builders (with or without changing motherboards)? It
would then have to be done by system builders, wouldn't it? Why? Because
system builders then would have to decide if each and every scenario would
violate their license or not, right? I don't know about you or others but
I've never done it with any system builders.

Furthermore, has it ever happened when MS granted a legal use while a system
builder objected to it? Maybe it happened but I personally haven't heard of
it. But again, if the above is true, this should have happened more than
once, right?


> Although by definition, Microsoft "is always in the equation," I'm still
> not sure they are in *this* particular equation; that is, eMachines (the
> OEM system builder) determines what the system is and decides how an
> operating system is installed.

That's the point. Determine HOW it can be installed does not mean if it
will voilate the license. I don't know about you, but it's two separate
issues for me. But I am too lazy to give additional examples, so please
figure it out for yourself.

The subject line reads: License violation. My first reply was about license
restriction myth, wasn't it?

I don't have the link around, but for Vista, MS says using a non-branded M/B
in a branded system (which is the same case as discussed here) will require
an activation (keyword: activation). Do you think this is something new for
Vista? I don't think so and I think it has never been a problem except MS
now clarifies it, but again, I could be wrong even unlikely in this case.

I have no interest in lengthy debates, and clearly, this is a decision can
only made by MS so I pointed the OP to it for verification. I explained
what I thought was necessary, and it should be the end for me.

Thanks.



"Daave" <dcwashNOSPAM@myrealboxXYZ.invalid> wrote in message
news:uQo8$s9RIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> xfile wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I admit that I don't know anything about eMachines's license
>> agreement, but ultimately, MS is the license holder (i.e. that's why
>> all activations, verifications, prosecutions, etc. have been
>> conducted by the company) and branded system providers bundled OS, in
>> this case, as a complete solution for their customers.
>
> I'm not a lawyer, but it's my understanding that the OEM's license
> subsumes Microsoft's. Perhaps an attorney can clarify?
>
>> From what I've learned, which of course may not be totally correct,
>> even the BIOS-locking used by a few system providers may not be for
>> the so-called license binding, and it could be very well for the
>> reason of preventing the OS has been "transferred to" another system
>> which is within the guideline of the license holder - MS, in this
>> case. In other words, using BIOS is to identify the system.
>
> That sounds right. However, I believe the "system builder" defines what
> the system is, not the purchaser. If I were to build my own PC and
> eventually replace the motherboard, processor, hard drive, memory, and
> video card, I could still make the argument it's the same system. And no
> BIOS-locked installation scheme would stop me. :-)
>
>> In any case, I suggested the OP to call MS for verification so we
>> don't have to speculate what may or may not be the case.
>>
>> Finally, the licensor, MS, is always in the equation regardless of
>> how its products have been distributed.
>
> Although by definition, Microsoft "is always in the equation," I'm still
> not sure they are in *this* particular equation; that is, eMachines (the
> OEM system builder) determines what the system is and decides how an
> operating system is installed. I'm sympathetic to your charge, however,
> that the average consumer doesn't know how this all works -- even if it
> is in the fine print.
>
>
 
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 01:06:35 -0800, "xfile" <coucou@nospam.com> wrote:

>(1) rumors - says who that license is tied to a motherboard? As said, I am
>willing to correct if anyone can point to any solid evidence other than
>rumors about the OS license is tied to a motherboard either from a system
>builder and/or MS,

Just take a look at the EULA posted on the Microsoft Web site. Or read the KB
article at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/824125/en-us

It seems pretty clear that the OEM type license (which is a lot cheaper than an
unrestricted retail purchase, is, in fact, tied to a particular motherboard.
"If the motherboard is replaced because of a defect, the user does not need to
acquire a new operating system license for the computer. The motherboard
replacement must be the same make and model, or the same manufacturer’s
replacement or equivalent, as defined by that manufacturer’s warranty."
--ron
 
Back
Top