Which means that MS has no reasonable guarantee that you are running original, licensed software. Whos on crack? Do you think because someone is using windows or mac micrososft is assured that the copy of office is legal? Hell whole nations have a street inducstries that sell illegal copies of windows and office.
If MS was just saying you have to register your product to get updates (much like RHN) that would be fine. it means you can license a product once by its serial number and that entitlement will allow you to get updates.
If you think a court is going to have a problem with this, you need a dose of reality.
Please read the clayton act...
Fact is MS is going after WINE and WINE only, its not going after apple, or windows users who pirate office, or anyone else just one product. This is not about hurting piracy this is about hurting a product that is just becoming mature enough to be useful.
If I have an old copy of Office 2000 that I bought but want to run on Linux am I a pirate?
Whos on crack? Do you think because someone is using windows or mac micrososft is assured that the copy of office is legal? Hell whole nations have a street inducstries that sell illegal copies of windows and office.
Note: I said
reasonable guarantee. All software can be hacked. But MS has a higher statistical probability that the user is running a valid copy of Windows/Office if the user is actually running the software and the license key is present. MS becomes aware of various piracy schemes -- and it's obviously adapting its Windows/OfficeUpdate services accordingly. I see nothing wrong with fighting piracy.
If MS was just saying you have to register your product to get updates (much like RHN) that would be fine. it means you can license a product once by its serial number and that entitlement will allow you to get updates.
I'm not going to quibble over how MS does its DRM. Point is, it has a right to do so -- and as you 'll see below with their EULA, they already informed you about it. End of story.
Please read the clayton act...
MS does not engage in price discrimination. Nor does it discriminate against customers. What it *IS* doing is verifying that the users of its product are *INDEED* customers. Personally, I would love to see you file a Clayton Act lawsuit against MS just to see you thrown out of court on your ear.
Fact is MS is going after WINE and WINE only, its not going after apple, or windows users who pirate office, or anyone else just one product. This is not about hurting piracy this is about hurting a product that is just becoming mature enough to be useful.
Read the
EULA:
Mandatory Activation. THERE ARE TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES IN THIS SOFTWARE THAT ARE DESIGNED TO PREVENT UNLICENSED USE OF THE SOFTWARE. You may not be able to exercise your rights to the Software under this EULA after a finite number of product launches unless you activate your copy of the Software in the manner described during the launch sequence. You may also need to reactivate the Software if you modify your computer hardware or alter the Software. Microsoft will use those measures to confirm you have a legally licensed copy of the Software. If you are not using a licensed copy of the Software, you are not allowed to install the Software or future Software updates. Microsoft will not collect any personally identifiable information from your device during this process.
The EULA is very clear and non-discriminatory. Microsoft needs to actually RUN the software through its primary ENVIRONMENT (Windows) in order to validate that you are a licensed user. If you're going to do emulation, a better plan would be to run Windows under a product such as VMWare.
If I have an old copy of Office 2000 that I bought but want to run on Linux am I a pirate?
No, you're SOL. You made that choice when you chose to move to Linux. Deal with it. Use OpenOffice and quit complaining.