Is Microsoft just using its power

C

cliedo

In Vista when I chose to enable the msn it had an agreement to the
I agree button that I cannot use any other messenger that is in violation of the contract to the .net network how many others have read that contract?
 
how far is to far?
spam is to far.

i haven't read any of MS licences (like i have choice anyway)
besides i user *nix for over 2 years now
 
I should have made it more clearer, I am sorry lol, I was thinking about msn
live messenger, Ive used amsn in the past and use kopete from time to time
but when I read the terms of use license and agreement that was what was written
 
cliedo said:
I should have made it more clearer, I am sorry lol, I was thinking about msn
live messenger, Ive used amsn in the past and use kopete from time to time
but when I read the terms of use license and agreement that was what was written
Click to expand...

Very interesting indeed! That does sound like typical behaviour from M$, to try to lock-in the end user into their proprietary model. I've been windows free at home for several years now and happily use xchat on ##freebsd. :beergrin
 
The license only applies if you actually install their software. If you install an alternate program and have never seen their license, you never agreed to their license and therefore are not bound to its conditions. However, even if you agreed to their license and then broke the agreement by using a non-MS product, they would still have to enforce the license, and for that, they will have to drag you into court. I know not any courts who would waste their time with such a frivolous case, and the likelyhood of it being tossed out is great. This is typical Microsoft bully tactic that doesn't actually work in the real world, but the way they write it is adequate enough to scare the average Joe.
 
According to Andrew Tanenbaum's book "Modern operating systems 2nd edition" the GPL is longer than Windows 2000's license, so... :e
 
all those licenses are created by mad ppl.
you fell asleep as soon as you realize how long it is (after reading less than half page)
 
Be realistic about this. Microsoft can't even stop people from using pirated copies of Windows. They're not going to sue people for using WinAmp! Even if they wanted to, they know they would lose the first time they ran across someone not willing to back down.

Don't pretend Microsoft has more power than it has. You have a choice, you are in complete control of your own life. If you don't like Microsoft, don't use their software. It's that simple. Use FreeBSD. Or Linux. Or Mac OSX.
 
I usually had a Windows XP PC and a FreeBSD server around the house. Now there are two FreeBSD servers and a FreeBSD laptop. I don't hate Microsoft (i.e. I'm not a Linux user), it's just that it has no added value for me any longer. I still wake up every morning.
 
I have a wife who uses windows, so I have to know how to correct any mistakes which can creep up. I just went through a win98 computer just
to brush up lol I still eat and sleep fbsd lol though I still have to be in real life, I still had the original keycode was amazing just for chits an
grins
 
I have one Windows 7 laptop, if Microsoft hasn't regained it's sanity by Windows 9, then I'm done, and I won't likely be replacing it with another Windows machine. I don't play too many games anymore, guess I'm just getting old.

I noticed the terms of service for MSN stating that no third party clients were allowed, but nothing has ever happened except that Microsoft quietly updates the protocol to break compatibility. Skype has actually forced people to remove support from their clients, Microsoft now wants to move everyone to Skype and I don't plan on partaking in that.
 
It's their server network, funded by ads served by their client.

So, no, IMHO they are well within their rights to dictate no third party clients.

I doubt they'd sue - they'd just disconnect/disable your account at worst for violation of the EULA.
 
There are a number of countries where they can not do a damned thing about that.
These shrink-wrap licences, which you only can see after buying the product, are not enforcable here where I live. They simply are not part of the original contract and Microsoft would not want any court near a case where the chances are that they reveive an official "put this licence where...".

That said, it is often interesting to read their writings, and I still have the EULA for hotmail stored somewhere. They had it changed after some heat coming their way, so it may be a document of time.
 
throAU said:
It's their server network, funded by ads served by their client.

So, no, IMHO they are well within their rights to dictate no third party clients.

I doubt they'd sue - they'd just disconnect/disable your account at worst for violation of the EULA.
Click to expand...

And we're well within our rights to not use it, you see I have this little rule, no more proprietary communications clients, which is why I switched to RetroShare and brought over my important contacts. Special thanks to glocke for porting it to FreeBSD.
 
zspider said:
...I have this little rule, no more proprietary communications clients, which is why I switched to RetroShare and brought over my important contacts.
Click to expand...

That's kind of irrelevant as to what clients Microsoft allow to connect to Microsoft's network.

Crivens said:
There are a number of countries where they can not do a damned thing about that.
These shrink-wrap licences, which you only can see after buying the product, are not enforcable here where I live.
Click to expand...


1. You didn't buy windows live messenger, or an account for it
2. They don't need to enforce the EULA even. They can just disconnect clients from their network as they see fit. You have no entitlement to use their service what so ever.
 
throAU said:
1. You didn't buy windows live messenger, or an account for it
2. They don't need to enforce the EULA even. They can just disconnect clients from their network as they see fit. You have no entitlement to use their service what so ever.
Click to expand...

Well, this is going into legal space, where the rules of logic can be warped or suspended. <play x-files title music>

This depends on where I got the copy of said messenger from. When it comes as part of a legitimate Windows-CD, I can buy it. Even if it is only some add-on. I have bought it because it contains that messenger, and I want to use it. When they then, after the purchase, try to change the contract (I bought that thing without that restriction), that restriction is void. I did not see it before purchase, I cannot return that product since I already installed and launched it once. Trying to block me using my legally bought SW can bring them into breaking that first contract of purchase, which would entitle me to a refund and compensation for damages/time/efford. A landsh.. lawyer would now say that "this is going to be one interesting case", which is their lingo for "I'll order my new sports car, and you will be the one paying it."

This is not only for that messenger, but for almost any EULA pushed into your face while installing something. It has already been ruled that these are presented too late, and thus are not binding. Now imagine a Windows-DVD where the complete EULA is printed out and attached at the outside of the case so you can read it all before shelling out the money. And that would only protect them at these sales, not with the pre-installed systems where you would have to have the chance to read each&every EULA for all the added tools.

Bottom line, should this end in court, it would possibly take ages to decide and make some lawyers rich. Much easier to steer clear of them.
 
I don't think People Eating Tasty Animals has anything to do with this.
BTW, /me is vegetarian ;)

But here we have some other nugget concerning terms of service...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top