Saving Works 6.0 To Floppy

[grandpaw7]

My computer came with MS Works 6.0 and the CD for it. But somehow I have lost the CD. If I should want to reformat my hard drive, or if I get another computer, can I somehow save the program to a floppy so that I can install/reinstall it? Or is it possible to email that sort of thing to myself for future use? Also, if I can save the program somehow, or if I find the CD, can I install in on two different computers? I've thought about buying another Works 6.0 CD and I see nothing on the box that limits its use to one computer, so I have a hard time seeing how I can be obligated to do that, any more than I would be bound by a statement in my car owner's manual that I am the only one who can drive the car. It looks to me like that is a limitation that would have to be agreed on at the time of purchase. I can understand its importance to MS, but if it is all that important, MS should make the limitation clear at the time of purchase. Thanks, grandpaw

 

[Max19]

You cannot copy MS Works to a floppy for later installation. If you had to format your drive and reinstall it, you would have to either find the CD or purchase another one.

The license for the product is inside the box. I'm sure it says (like all MS products) that you can only install it on ONE computer. You would have to purchase two copies if you wanted to install it on two different computers. The license is usually on the paper envelop that encases the CD. Once you open that envelop, you are agreeing to all the terms in the license.

If you purchase it, open the box, and disagree with the license, you still probably can't take it back since nearly all stores have a policy against returning opened merchandise, although you could try. You may have to fight with the manufacturer (Microsoft) for a refund.

Buying software is not like buying a car. Buying software is like buying license plates for your car. Those plates are only good on that one car. You can't put the plates on another car (unless you pay another licensing fee and transfer them to the other car). If you want to legally drive two cars, you have to purchase two separate licenses.

 

[grandpaw7]

Thanks, Max, for your reply. It answers my questions.

May I have a brief rejoinder? It won't change the conclusion, but it will make me feel better. License plates can be used at any one time on a single car. And when you buy them, you are supposed to know that the law provides that you must use them on the specific car you bought them for. The paperwork that comes with the license plate identifies that car. If there were no such law, and if you were advised of the limitation only after you paid for the license plate, I don't think the limitation would be enforceable. Or if I bought and paid for a computer, and then when I got home and unboxed it, I saw paperwork advising me that I was obligated to use only the manufacturer's software in it, that also would not be enforceable. Terms of a contract have to be agreed on at the time the contract is made. I doubt that MS has ever sought enforcement of this limitation in a court of law. Manufacturers often claim they have rights beyond what the courts will enforce, relying instead on the consumer's reluctance, and financial inability, to question those claimed rights. Beyond contract law, I would think the practice clearly violates the deceptive trade practices law of most states. See, for example, the case of grandpaw vs. MS, ___US___ (2005) in which the court ordered MS to turn over all its assets to grandpaw.

You've heard of the old maxim, let the seller be damned. grandpaw

 

[Max19]

Ignorance of the law is not a defense. Even if you didn't know what you were doing was illegal, you would still be held accountable.

 

[grandpaw7]

I agree with you, Max. The fact that MS might have been ignorant of the basic contract law that the only binding terms of a contract are those which a party has been made reasonably aware of at the time the contract is executed. But, of course, MS was not ignorant of that law but rather chose to ignore it, just as it did the antitrust laws, because it realized that few people would be in a position to contest it, or even know that they could. Violations of contract law by large corporations are quite common, and the deceptive trade practices laws are violated much more often than they are enforced. Fortunately, the laws which bind us even if we are ignorant of them are made by legislatures, not by MS. And also fortunately, ignorance of contract terms is a defense if the ignorance is the result of one party hiding them from the other. In practical terms, a person who has purchased a couple of computers for his family, along with Works 6.0, is likely to think that he could install the Works 6.0 on both computers since he was in no way apprised of any limitation. That is the rationale behind the contract law that if you want a certain term in a contract, you need to make the other party aware of it before the contract is carried out. And I can assure you that if the consumer can't use the product for the purpose for which he bought it, i.e., to install on two computers, and that use is reasonable and foreseeable and does not violate any contract terms of which he has been made aware, the retailer would be legally obligated to return the purchase price, and the retailer cannot change that law simply by putting up a sign. The retailer as well as the manufacturer must apprise the consumer in advance of contract execution of any limitations on the contract, not by a sign on the wall, but by putting the term in the contract. As in so many cases, the problem is not the law but the practicality and expense of enforcing it. Most davids don't come equipped with a powerful enough slingshot to slay goliath. I ask the court to enter judgement in favor of the consumer and against that big, bad corporate giant. And, by the way, could you also grant me attorney fees? grandpaw

 

[grandpaw7]

Oop, I left something out of my diatribe. The second sentence should read, in case anybody cares: The fact that MS might have been ignorant of the basic contract law that the only binding terms of a contract are those which a party has been made reasonably aware of at the time the contract is executed DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE LAW NO LONGER APPLIES TO MS.

 

[Max19]

What you fail to realize is that the "contract" is clearly spelled out on the packaging that you have to open to get to the software.

No one would have any defense for violating that contract. If you don't agree with the terms, don't open the envelop. Return it to the manufacturer.

 

[grandpaw7]

"Clearly spelled out"? Ever try reading the inside of an unopened package? The terms of a contract have to be clear at the time the contract, that is, the sale, is executed, that is, the product is handed to the customer and the customer pays for it. Hiding contract terms inside the package is a no-no. For example, if MS put a note in the box saying that you have to pay an additional fifty dollars before you are authorized to use the product, or that the software can only be used on Compaq computers, I wouldn't stay up nights worrying about MS being able to enforce such terms, even though they are just as "clearly visible" as the user restriction. Or if you buy a computer and find out when you get home that there is a sticker on it saying that you are the only one authorized to use it, don't pay any attention to it, even though the sticker is "clearly visible" once you open the open the box and take out the computer. The terms that count are the terms that the seller makes you aware of at the time the sale is completed. Thankfully, the law does occasionally use common sense. grandpaw