Sinner wrote:

> "Rainald Taesler" wrote: in message
>> I'm pretty sure that this is an offer conforming with the valid
>> legal patterns.

Sorry, a really bad typo ("not" missing).
Should read:
"I'm pretty sure that this is an offer NOT conforming
with the valid legal patterns."

>> IMO Newegg clearly violates the licence conditions and so does the
>> end-user who works with this software.

[...]
http://oem.microsoft.com/public/sbli...se_english.pdf
>>
>> MS never sold XP TabletPC edition separately. It was strictly
>> bound to the hardware manufacturers.
>
> Do you honestly believe that if MS had any legal way to prevent the
> sale of any OEM packages that they wouldn't exercise those ways?

Can't say if they would if they knew of this case of criminal behaviour
of Newegg. I have absolutely no idea on anything related to the policies
and practices MS is following in the prosecution of obvious violations
of their copyright and breach of licence agreements.

IMO its without any doubt that MS has a very strong legal position to
prevent an offer like the one from Newegg discussed here.

> MS doesn't worry about it because they've already been paid, they
> don't have to provide any form of support and once activated, that
> OEM package is tied to one specific piece of hardware.

That's just a mere assumption.
Fact is that the TabletPC OS never was sold to anybody except the
TabletPC manufacturers.

Well, that's what causes the problems of those folks who bought a
TabletPC second hand and not receiving the needed OS CD from the seller.
Still there is no way to go the way of "I'm in a need, so I don't care
for what the law allows or not". Breaking a bank because of being hungry
still is a crime <gbg>.

> Why should outfits like Newegg be stuck with software they can't
> sell just because MS no longer wants it put into new hardware?

Just because of the conditions the signed.
It's simply *their* risk if they buy software for retail limited to a
very small group of hardware manufacturers and cannot give it back ;-)

> If MS doesn't like it, they can always drop the OEM business
> model. Sell nothing but full retail packages, even to system builders.

Yes, they could. But I doubt that they ever would. AFAICS offering OEM
versions to system builders is the other side of contracts binding OEMs
to the exclusive usage of MS OSs.
In any case, however, this has nothing to do with the limits set forth
by the previous or current legal patterns.

> Force the builders to provide actual media instead of hidden
> partitions and backup utilities. While they're at it, eliminate
> the ****ed Upgrade packages.

Policy decisions and irrelevant for the subject of conditions and
obligations resulting from license agreements

> I used my Vista Ultimate Upgrade package illegally. I did a clean
> install on a blank HD without providing any proof of ownership of a
> valid OS before hand. I'm gonna burn in hell for sure.

LOL
But apparently you were having a spare XP licence, didn't you?

But keep it secrete. I will tell Mr. Balmer otherwise <gbg>.

Rainald