MS sues college student for selling legit software


Recommended Posts

If he was reselling retail software, I would have a problem with the lawsuit.  But he's selling academic software, which is usually substantially disounted.  I got Windows XP and Office 2003 for $35 through school.  Imagine if I was selling those to others for two or three hundred dollars! = "Illicit profit"

So a big **** YOU to all the Microsoft-hating losers here.

585593731[/snapback]

You got office AND xp for $35!!! thats like not even ?20!!! Office student teacher is ?100 here and xp is like ?30! thats 200 odd dollars

Why are things so expensive in the uk!?/i>

(ipod photo uk ?300, ipod photo us $300 (?170!))

(how microsoft can say its losing money when they made so much money in a year? all that when sony is 6trillion yen in dept lol)

RJ

Last time I checked eBay's Seller rules it was eBay themselves who have a strict rule against selling Academic editions of software whether you are or were a student and whether you are selling to a student or not. eBay does not allow any seller to sell academic software.

It is also my understanding that (whether sold on eBay or not) it would be the buyer's responsibility to ensure that they were a qualified User under the terms of the software license. My Student copy of Office 2000 stated that the User had to be a qualifying educational User or else use of the program is against the license, regardless of who bought it or who sold it.

Microsoft introduced this program to make their software more affordable for students... why do people have to try and abuse the system?

...C_Guy

you're funny, so when you go get a drivers license, it covers your whole family? i think not. maybe they should start selling family pack licenses, then you'll have everyone driving a car!

you're a blind hater.

585594858[/snapback]

Words can't describe how rediculous that analogy or you are.

No.  You can install Windows on a single computer and let as many people use it as you want.  Same as a car.

There really isn't a good analogy for this, because software licenses are very peculiar.  But why bitch about MS doing it when that's how SW companies have always done it?

585596498[/snapback]

Key phrase: one person can use it AT A TIME.

it is physically possible for 8 to sit in a car at a time. it is physically possible to install windows on 8 computers at a time.

however, they are limiting it and not allowing us to use their product to its full potential.

Key phrase: one person can use it AT A TIME.

it is physically possible for  8 to sit in a car at a time. it is physically possible to install windows on 8 computers at a time.

however, they are limiting it and not allowing us to use their product to its full potential.

585598617[/snapback]

obvioulsy you've never heard of SUVs, Vans, or other large passenger vehicles ... nor have you heard of this thing called a network where more than one computer exists and can communicate with the rest ...

... :whistle:

obvioulsy you've never heard of SUVs, Vans, or other large passenger vehicles ... nor have you heard of this thing called a network where more than one computer exists and can communicate with the rest ...

...  :whistle:

585598638[/snapback]

???

did you even read my first post?

make a better analogy then smart boy. or else, don't talk.

585599144[/snapback]

I don't need an analogy smartass, I already made my point. And just to humor you, a license is a form of identification for one person. It has absolutely nothing to do with software. A license states that you are capable to drive a motorized vehicle, nothing more. This is required because vehicles are basically weapons on wheels, just anybody isn't allowed to drive them or it could lead to deaths. A license also does not cost $300.

Software can be duplicated and installed an unlimited number of times at a cost of almost nothing yet MS puts a one computer limit on it and doesn't even allow you to sell it. You know why? Because it means more money for MS. Where do you think their billions came from? The sky?

By default a product's ownership transfers over to the person who bought the product at the specified price, that's how the capatalist system works. MS seems to think they still own the product, even though you payed them for it. Not only that but they implement rediculous activation bs just to make it that much more difficult for the purchasing customer, even though they know full well that it does nothing to deter pirates. It's called greed, look it up. While your at it why don't you look up mindless sheep as well.

I don't need an analogy smartass, I already made my point.  And just to humor you, a license is a form of identification for one person.  It has absolutely nothing to do with software.  A license states that you are capable to drive a motorized vehicle, nothing more.  This is required because vehicles are basically weapons on wheels, just anybody isn't allowed to drive them or it could lead to deaths.  A license also does not cost $300.

Software can be duplicated and installed an unlimited number of times at a cost of almost nothing yet MS puts a one computer limit on it and doesn't even allow you to sell it.  You know why?  Because it means more money for MS.  Where do you think their billions came from?  The sky?

By default a product's ownership transfers over to the person who bought the product at the specified price, that's how the capatalist system works.  MS seems to think they still own the product, even though you payed them for it.  Not only that but they implement rediculous activation bs just to make it that much more difficult for the purchasing customer, even though they know full well that it does nothing to deter pirates.  It's called greed, look it up.  While your at it why don't you look up mindless sheep as well.

585600713[/snapback]

ok smart boy, explain why i need to buy insurance for EACH car in my family. why don't i just duplicate my insurance too? that way it'll cover all the cars. but no, for my car alone, it is a 100 bucks a month. you don't call that greedy in part of the insurance companies? they could easily split 40 dollar insurance over 3 cars, but they don't. *hint hint*, they're greedy. aren't insurance companies rich too. and activation, ms isn't the only one who does it, so don't complain, cause a lot of other software companies do it too.

I may be confused but...

How is reselling software that is clearly licensed only for students and teachers legal?  It's not like he was verifying that the winners of his auction(s) were indeed students, correct...?

Microsoft purposely sells their software at extremely discounted rates for academic users and this guy was taking advantage of that.  At least, that's what it seems like to me.

585593670[/snapback]

Correct, I being a student recently (up to December of 2003) had the great luck to attend a school where I was able to get a legit license for very cheap. Part of the license agreement (I had to sign paper BTW) was I could not resell the software.. Which makes sense.

LOL.  Each car must be insured seperately because if all those cars were to be totaled in a crash your insurance would only cover one of them.  Yes insurance companies are greedy.

585603663[/snapback]

ok so hows that different from seperate copies of xp..nothing. so hush. license and insurance, no difference, so theres nothing more to say. your wrong =)

ok so hows that different from seperate copies of xp..nothing. so hush. license and insurance, no difference, so theres nothing more to say. your wrong =)

585604593[/snapback]

Your analogy makes absolutely no sense at all. Read some books kid, open your mind.

Your analogy makes absolutely no sense at all.  Read some books kid, open your mind.

585605584[/snapback]

What in the world would be wrong with my analogy. Whatever, no point in getting anything through your thick head. Of course there is not PERFECT analogy, but I haven't seen you come up with anything close.

I don't need an analogy smartass, I already made my point.  And just to humor you, a license is a form of identification for one person.  It has absolutely nothing to do with software.  A license states that you are capable to drive a motorized vehicle, nothing more.  This is required because vehicles are basically weapons on wheels, just anybody isn't allowed to drive them or it could lead to deaths.  A license also does not cost $300.

Software can be duplicated and installed an unlimited number of times at a cost of almost nothing yet MS puts a one computer limit on it and doesn't even allow you to sell it.  You know why?  Because it means more money for MS.  Where do you think their billions came from?  The sky?

By default a product's ownership transfers over to the person who bought the product at the specified price, that's how the capatalist system works.  MS seems to think they still own the product, even though you payed them for it.  Not only that but they implement rediculous activation bs just to make it that much more difficult for the purchasing customer, even though they know full well that it does nothing to deter pirates.  It's called greed, look it up.  While your at it why don't you look up mindless sheep as well.

585600713[/snapback]

You never actually own the software, you own the right to use it. Sorta like leasing a car instead of buying it.

You never actually own the software, you own the right to use it. Sorta like leasing a car instead of buying it.

585607110[/snapback]

That is correct, but it seems like the Microsoft haters don't want to accept that. So much for not reading the EULA.

I don't need an analogy smartass, I already made my point.? And just to humor you, a license is a form of identification for one person.? It has absolutely nothing to do with software.? A license states that you are capable to drive a motorized vehicle, nothing more.? This is required because vehicles are basically weapons on wheels, just anybody isn't allowed to drive them or it could lead to deaths.? A license also does not cost $300.

Software can be duplicated and installed an unlimited number of times at a cost of almost nothing yet MS puts a one computer limit on it and doesn't even allow you to sell it.? You know why?? Because it means more money for MS.? Where do you think their billions came from?? The sky?

By default a product's ownership transfers over to the person who bought the product at the specified price, that's how the capatalist system works.? MS seems to think they still own the product, even though you payed them for it.? Not only that but they implement rediculous activation bs just to make it that much more difficult for the purchasing customer, even though they know full well that it does nothing to deter pirates.? It's called greed, look it up.? While your at it why don't you look up mindless sheep as well.

585600713[/snapback]

Actually, when you purchase the software, you agree to their EULA, which states the software cannot be resold. Your statement about the cost of reproducing software being virtually nothing is true, except the minor detail about the work put into it. The people who write this software need to be paid. When you buy a copy of Windows off the shelf, you are purchasing it for one computer.

And just for the record, a non Academic version of Windows can be resold as long as the software is uninstalled from the original owner(Y) computer (Y).

true, but not all people read this...especially noobs...not calling anyone a noob or anything....always...READ THE FINE PRINT!!!!

Actually, when you purchase the software, you agree to their EULA, which states the software cannot be resold. Your statement about the cost of reproducing software being virtually nothing is true, except the minor detail about the work put into it. The people who write this software need to be paid. When you buy a copy of Windows off the shelf, you are purchasing it for one computer.

585609420[/snapback]

The people who write the software get more then their share. That's not the issue, the issue is with MS putting rediculous limits on something you bought for the ultimate intent and purpose of making more money. I guess the 50 somewhat billion they already have isn't enough. Then they thank the very people who keep them alive by sueing anyone who tries to sell their software. Yeah, that's great business ethic. :rolleyes:

And just for the record, a non Academic version of Windows can be resold as long as the software is uninstalled from the original owner's computer (Y).

Tell that to my dad, MS threatened to sue him when he posted a laptop on ebay that came with windows preloaded on it.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!