Selling OEM software is a violation of the license to that software. Any court that decides otherwise is clearly biassed against the "big bad corporation" and therefore partial (and thus not capable of handing out judgment).

I, too, find this case kind of funny. It is refreshing to see someone take a company (any company, really), to task over their policies.

I agree with the "little guy"'s position and all, but I personally wouldn't have settled if I had the time. It would have been interesting to see just how far he would have to go to get a judgement against Microsoft from a jury. At the very least, I wouldn't have allowed signing an NDA to become part of my agreement, especially if I didn't do anything wrong...

My personal opinion is that MS Is Full of crap. If I buy a bottle of Coca-Cola, and someone says "hey man, I'll give you two bucks for that!". Isn't it mine to sell? I think it is. I bought it at a given rate, agreed upon between party A and B (myself). The deal between B and C has no relation to the deal between A and B. Plain and simple. To dig deeper, He didn't open the package... therefore, he couldn't have even read that "license agreement", moreless clicked "I accept". He never accepted the license agreement, and is therefore not bound to the confines of it. Had he installed it, well... that might be a different story.

Exactly, you are right Comatose, the agreement is not displayed until you install the software, that is a booboo on MS part, and it would not surprise me if that wont change on future boxes.

And this was not an oem box, it was an academic version and I think he was right in calling MS out on it - but after all that work and time spent, I think he dropped it too quickly; IMHO.

--Tone

The agreement states clearly that you can take the software back to the store for a refund if you don't agree with it.

He chose to not do so but instead sell it himself, which is NOT allowed with OEM software.
OEM software says clearly and on the packaging "for sale with a new PC only".

Microsoft should have dug deeper and they'd probably have found evidence of this guy selling more than he'd ever purchased...

Did you read it Jw? Microshaft made a pact with the college store to REFUSE returns of Microsoft Products! Thereby refusing him the return that he was entitled to. If the store would have accepted his return (which they refused...) then he would have been content. Also, he even told microshaft about it, and requested to return the product to them, they waited until time ran out for his "30 day return policy" before sending him a "oh, sorry, we don't take it back."
Frankly, Microsoft is up to shady tactics, and IMO downright wrong.

As I read it, it was an educational package and not OEM software. The operative word in the whole article was ¨unopened¨. The reason for any software not to be resold is if it has already been used. The vast majority of software licenses are for use on a single CPU. If the package was unopened, then he has the right to sell it for anything he can get for it. Theoretically, if he installed the software and removed it before reselling it, he is still in accord with the software license.

There is nothing in any law that forbids the sale of something that you own as an end user. If there is something in the software license agreement that says something else, then that statement is illegal and would not, as we have seen, hold up in court.

The Microsoft lawyers know all this; these are only tactics to make the majority of users out there think that Microsoft is watching...as the guy said, most people would just have ignored the whole thing.

Educational licenses can only be sold to qualified people.

AFAIK there is no company called "Microshaft" and even if there is any agreement they make with anyone won't have any impact on this case which involved a company called Microsoft.

If a store refuses to take back software sold there, that's no responsibility of the software manufacturer... The purchaser should have been made aware of that at time of purchase (usually via signs saying "no returns on software" or some such). If he wasn't he has a case against the store, but that doesn't give him the right to sell the product to parties who are not entitled to buy it.

Sorry you couldn't catch that pun. Regardless of our feelings about Microsoft, IF MS made a pact with the store (which the article clearly defines), to refuse returns of it's product.... then it is responsibility of the software manufacturer. (I'll give you an extra 2% if you don't accept returns of products with our name on it). Who's at fault there? I also don't see how if he owns something (which he bought it, so clearly he does), how he doesn't have the right to sell it. If I go to the store and by a DVD Player, and before even opening the package, realize that I can't use it with my TV, because it only accepts coax... I have every right in the world to sell it, at my price and my cost.