«

Remember, you don’t buy a Windows OEM licence for your own use. From
<http://oem.microsoft.com/script/contentpage.aspx?pageid=563841>:

Microsoft retail software licenses are the appropriate licenses for
the do-it-yourself market. OEM System Builder software is not
intended for this use, unless the PC that is assembled is being
resold to another party.

Microsoft has spoken.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> Remember, you don’t buy a Windows OEM licence for your own use. From
> <http://oem.microsoft.com/script/contentpage.aspx?pageid=563841>:
>
> Microsoft retail software licenses are the appropriate licenses for
> the do-it-yourself market. OEM System Builder software is not
> intended for this use, unless the PC that is assembled is being
> resold to another party.
>
> Microsoft has spoken.

Ok, so I can assemble and sell to the business, or vice versa - no big
deal IMO.

IN message <hr3pts$1nh$>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

> Remember, you don’t buy a Windows OEM licence for your own use. From
> <http://oem.microsoft.com/script/contentpage.aspx?pageid=563841>:
>
> Microsoft retail software licenses are the appropriate licenses for
> the do-it-yourself market. OEM System Builder software is not
> intended for this use, unless the PC that is assembled is being
> resold to another party.
>
> Microsoft has spoken.


This post will really & truly convince the do-it-yourself Windows user
to switch to Linux.

On 26/04/10 22:29, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> Remember, you don’t buy a Windows OEM licence for your own use. From
> <http://oem.microsoft.com/script/contentpage.aspx?pageid=563841>:
>
> Microsoft retail software licenses are the appropriate licenses for
> the do-it-yourself market. OEM System Builder software is not
> intended for this use, unless the PC that is assembled is being
> resold to another party.
>
> Microsoft has spoken.

Yet another Microsoft corporate shill reposts his masters twaddle.

On 26/04/10 23:21, Richard wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> Remember, you don’t buy a Windows OEM licence for your own use. From
>> <http://oem.microsoft.com/script/contentpage.aspx?pageid=563841>:
>>
>> Microsoft retail software licenses are the appropriate licenses for
>> the do-it-yourself market. OEM System Builder software is not
>> intended for this use, unless the PC that is assembled is being
>> resold to another party.
>>
>> Microsoft has spoken.
>
> Ok, so I can assemble and sell to the business, or vice versa - no big
> deal IMO.

And its got a COA so its not pirated according to Microsoft.

On 27/04/10 00:50, Lawrence D'Oublespeak wrote:
> IN message<hr3pts$1nh$>, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> Remember, you don’t buy a Windows OEM licence for your own use. From
>> <http://oem.microsoft.com/script/contentpage.aspx?pageid=563841>:
>>
>> Microsoft retail software licenses are the appropriate licenses for
>> the do-it-yourself market. OEM System Builder software is not
>> intended for this use, unless the PC that is assembled is being
>> resold to another party.
>>
>> Microsoft has spoken.
>
>
> This post will really& truly convince the do-it-yourself Windows user
> to switch to Linux.

Is there some obscure rule somewhere in Wintroll lore that says you
can't run both ?

In message <hr3t0l$f9g$>, Richard wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> Remember, you don’t buy a Windows OEM licence for your own use. From
>> <http://oem.microsoft.com/script/contentpage.aspx?pageid=563841>:
>>
>> Microsoft retail software licenses are the appropriate licenses for
>> the do-it-yourself market. OEM System Builder software is not
>> intended for this use, unless the PC that is assembled is being
>> resold to another party.
>>
>> Microsoft has spoken.
>
> Ok, so I can assemble and sell to the business, or vice versa - no big
> deal IMO.

It’s got to be an “unrelated� party.

In message <hr4tu4$858$>, victor wrote:

> And its got a COA so its not pirated according to Microsoft.

BSA audits don’t accept COAs as proof of purchase. They want an invoice
specifically itemizing the relevant software product(s), with your name as
the purchaser.

On 27/04/10 12:09, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> In message<hr4tu4$858$>, victor wrote:
>
>> And its got a COA so its not pirated according to Microsoft.
>
> BSA audits don’t accept COAs as proof of purchase. They want an invoice
> specifically itemizing the relevant software product(s), with your name as
> the purchaser.

It meets the standard of authenticity defined by Microsoft as not being
pirated software.
You will have to find another word in your lexicon of inflammatory rhetoric.

What would be the LEGAL consequences in NZ LAW for someone activating an
OEM pack they bought and installed ?

On 27/04/10 16:28, billsmith wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:33:12 +1200, victor<> wrote:
>
>> On 27/04/10 12:09, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> In message<hr4tu4$858$>, victor wrote:
>>>
>>>> And its got a COA so its not pirated according to Microsoft.
>>>
>>> BSA audits don’t accept COAs as proof of purchase. They want an invoice
>>> specifically itemizing the relevant software product(s), with your name as
>>> the purchaser.
>>
>> It meets the standard of authenticity defined by Microsoft as not being
>> pirated software.
>> You will have to find another word in your lexicon of inflammatory rhetoric.
>>
>> What would be the LEGAL consequences in NZ LAW for someone activating an
>> OEM pack they bought and installed ?
>
>
>
> There is No More NZ LAW as we are to be taken over by the Yanks and this
> Free Trade Thing..

Still looks like the NZ Police driving round to me.
They don't seem to be interested in OEM Windows 7 though.

People will believe anything.