Motherboard Replacements and Windows OEM EULAs

If you decide to replace the motherboard in your computer, should you have to pay Microsoft again for the OS that came with the system? Well, in Redmond they think so, and that probably doesn't come as much of a surprise. What I do find a bit surprising is that Microsoft has chosen not to inform end users, not even in the darkest depths of the Windows EULAs, of this policy. Instead, computer manufacturers hav

Another thing I found odd was that many participants in the system builder discussions continually asserted that the Vista OEM EULA mandates that a new license fee be charged for a replacement motherboard. But after studying all the versions of the Vista OEM EULA I could find, there seem to be no references to motherboards at all. Of course, similar to the XP OEM EULA, the Vista EULA says the copy is licensed permanently to one device and cannot be transferred to another computer. But it doesn't say anywhere that changing the motherboard makes it a new device. So what really is Microsoft's policy on motherboard replacement and Windows' licensing?

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."

Moran agrees that Microsoft needs to explain this policy on a webpage that is accessible to the general public, and he hopes to help make that happen in the near future. And certainly it's good to see that the reader's concern that his customers were being treated differently than those of Dell or HP is not the case, and that Microsoft acknowledges that replacing a defective motherboard should not require the OS to be re-licensed.