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

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?

E-mail Ed Foster at Foster@gripe2ed.com. Read and post comments about this story here.