From: "Rich Gauszka" 

What if I don't desire Microsoft's protection when I build my computer? I
once had to argue on the phone to get reactivated when I re-flashed my BIOS
and didn't change the motherboard. I doubt very much that Microsoft worries
about the system builder.

http://weblog.infoworld.com/gripeline/archives/2007/05/motherboard_rep.html?sou
rce=NLC-GRIPE&cgd=2007-05-15
Fortunately, I was able to find a Microsoft official who was gracious
enough to look into the reader's questions for me. "The rule is in
place to protect the OEM, or in this specific case the System Builder, so
that as computers are upgraded, the System Builder is not obligated (per
the EULA) to support a version of Windows that may be on what is
essentially a new PC," wrote Tom Moran, director of customer and
partner experience for Microsoft Operations. "Generally, you may
upgrade or replace all of the hardware components on your customer's
computer and the end user may maintain the license for the original
Microsoft OEM operating system software, with the exception of an upgrade
or replacement of the motherboard. Upgrading the motherboard essentially
results in a new computer, to which the original operating system software
cannot be transferred. This is not the case if the motherboard is replaced
(same make/model) due to a defect."

Microsoft had to draw the line somewhere. "Understanding that end
users, over time, upgrade their PC with different components, Microsoft
needed to have one base component 'left standing' that would still define
that original PC - the motherboard, in essence, is the 'heart and soul' of
the PC," Moran wrote. "In the case with Dell that your reader
mentions, the situation was evidently caused by a defective motherboard,
and the replacements would have been just that - direct replacements vs.
upgrades. A replacement of a defective motherboard would not require a new
license, while an upgrade would."

Nonetheless, there are any number of contentious issues raised by this
policy. Just for example, if you replace a motherboard because it doesn't
have enough memory to run Vista beyond a slow crawl, is that a
discretionary motherboard replacement? How do you suppose Microsoft's
product activation, authentication, verification, and future copy
protection schemes are going to be able to tell if the old motherboard was
defective or not? And under what law does Microsoft have the right to
decide when your changing a component requires you to give them more money?
It's certainly not copyright law, and since there's nothing in their EULA
about it, it's not contract law either. If Microsoft can do this, why can't
the people who made your car stereo charge you for moving it to another
vehicle?



Yes, there is a lot to debate here, but on one point there should be no
argument. Customers have the right to know about any policy that might cost
them money before they purchase a computer with bundled Microsoft software.
Not only should Microsoft explicitly state their motherboard replacement
policy in their EULAs and on their website, but computer manufacturers
should warn customers of the potential consequences should they
"choose" Vista as their operating system. After all, we do have
choices, don't we?

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5