An upgrade is an upgrade. Apparently some people are easily confused.
Below is the first post. You can find the follow-up here: An upgrade is an upgrade. Apparently some people are easily confused – Part 2.
It seems that there are some people out there who don’t quite get the concept of an upgrade. These people are even writing articles fully articulating how little they know (and unfortunately, confusing many customers with these non-factual writings). Because of this, I am going to explain it again and even use pictures to try to make this very simple…
You can buy a software full license that gets you the rights to install and run the software. You can buy a software upgrade license that allows you to upgrade from the full license you have to the upgraded product you purchased the upgrade for.
For instance:
| General Example | Example with Product Names |
 |
 |
To qualify for an upgrade license, you MUST have a full license to upgrade from first. Without the full license, you have nothing to upgrade from and an upgrade from nothing gets you nothing:
| General Example | Example with Product Names |
 |
 |
So if you see any of these people writing that buying an upgrade by itself (Windows Vista Upgrade for instance) without having a full license first gets you the rights to run the software, just realize that what the person is actually stating is, “I clearly have no clue what I am talking about and so I am writing a bunch of gibberish that proves this hoping people will think I have a clue, even though I obviously don’t.”
If they continue to tell you that, “But I can get it to physically install, so it must be legal,” this further shows their complete lack of comprehension. Just because something will install does not make it legal. For example, a pirated piece of software will (usually) physically install; however, running pirated software is 100% illegal (and who knows what else it will install on or do to your computer). If you don’t believe me, try calling 888-NO-PIRACY and letting them know that you are running pirated software throughout your company. Explain to them that you feel it is legal to do so because you got it to physically install, so it must be legal and ask if they would mind auditing your company to verify the legality of this. Let me know how that turns out for you.
NOTE: For anyone who missed my complete tone of sarcasm there, I am in no way condoning the installation or use of pirated software. As mentioned above (in red), it is 100% illegal to do so, and if you choose to really be foolish enough to try the above actions, you and you alone are fully responsible for any and all legal actions taken against you. So I would advise you to use your one phone call to contact your legal counsel instead of telling me how this turned out, as I already have a pretty good idea of what the results will be for you.
While I really can’t believe I have to put that ridiculous note on my post, just the fact that there are people writing articles advising people to illegally install software that they are not licensed for “because they can get it to physically install” just shows how clueless some people are and how willing they are to try to confuse other with their articles. And just in case one of these writers happens to read this, I want to make sure they are not confused by the paragraph above. If you are one of those people, let me put it this way, “It is not ok to do so. It is BAD to do so.” There, no words bigger than three letters, so that should hopefully be easy enough to follow.
To answer some follow-up questions I have received since posting this: Yes, please feel free to forward the link to this post directly to the authors of those articles who are stating that the upgrade alone is legal to use without owning a full license first. Make sure to have them read the sentence with small words too so they don't give excuses like, "It's too hard to understand the legalese," etc.
FOOTNOTE: There have been questions as to who this post is targeted at and the concept of the "loophole" seems to be in question as well. I did address these in the comments below through my reply to one reader; however, I thought I would append it here to the post as well to avoid any ambiguity. Here is what I posted in the comments below, "Thank you for the feedback. My intention is not to be condescending to my readers. To be very clear, my comments above about the "clueless people" are not directed at the customers or my readers. They are directed at those trying to confuse the customers by telling them that it is OK to do this "just because it physically installs." (Which is why I went back and added the footer to please forward my post to the authors of those articles) As an example, I even conducted an interview early last year with one of the online publications writing about this now and explained in plain English that the physical ability to do this is not a "loophole," it provides a way for technology Partners to help clients who are legally licensed for Windows Vista (meaning they have the qualifying full license first) to perform a clean install vs. doing an in place upgrade. Yet here we are, over a year later, and the same "It's a loophole and must be legal to not own the full license," gibberish is being published by that same publication that only confuses customers with non-factual information. Considering I explained it very directly before and they still don't seem to get it, I thought I would publish it in REALLY simple terms this time for all to view. Yes, I agree whole heartedly that customers of all sizes should engage with their technology Partners for how to buy information vs. relying on publications, like the ones referred to above, that seem to rely on sensationalism and speculation."
You can find the follow-up here: An upgrade is an upgrade. Apparently some people are easily confused – Part 2.
Thank you and have a wonderful day,
Eric Ligman
Microsoft US Senior Manager
Small Business Community Engagement
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
Technorati Tags: Microsoft,licensing,Windows,Vista,upgrade,BSA,piracy
del.icio.us Tags: Microsoft,licensing,Windows,Vista,upgrade,BSA,piracy
Comments
Anonymous
April 11, 2008
PingBack from http://pirating.us/microsoft/an-upgrade-is-an-upgrade-apparently-some-people-are-easily-confused/Anonymous
April 11, 2008
I think that the above needs some clarification. Consider: two years ago you bought a new Dell with Windows XP Pro preinstalled. Yesterday, you bought a Vista Business upgrade for the same system. But: you would prefer to do a fresh install rather than upgrade. This is both 1) legitimate, and 2) permitted, isn't it? You did, after all, buy XP Pro and then the Vista Business upgrade, the latter giving you the right to run Vista Business on the system you previously ran XP Pro on, yes?Anonymous
April 11, 2008
Great Post Eric! Now if I can just explain Open Value 3 year, Open Business 2 year, Open Volume with the Professional, Enterprise and Workgroup edition twist as well :) (all relating to the purchasing of Dynamics CRM) Cheers The CRM Lady Anne StantonAnonymous
April 11, 2008
PingBack from http://blog.sbs-rocks.com/2008/04/11/a-class-in-de-confusion/Anonymous
April 14, 2008
@ Fredrik - Yes, if you have the full Windows XP Pro license and then purchase the Windows Vista Business Upgrade for that PC, you can choose to do a full install from the Vista disk vs. performing an in-place upgrade install. This is why we have this on the disk.Anonymous
April 14, 2008
One problem is, that many people I talk to are thinking, that when a Microsoft product pass it's genuine test, it's legal. Correct me, but the Upgrade way, which is indeed not correctly licensed, will pass it's genuine check - so here we have a big problem: Think about the pc stores in your street. What's when you buy new pc running Vista, which will pass it's genuine test, but the seller used an upgrade? You need to do something, or the genuine program will lose something, you just started to create... Note: It isn't a problem with the Genuine program itself, but the effect the genuine program has, created that problem. You understand what I tried to tell you?Anonymous
April 15, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 15, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 15, 2008
PingBack from http://www.thexblog.de/?p=3311Anonymous
April 15, 2008
What an amazingly condescending post from a "Senior Manager" of "Community Engagement." Eric, as part of your solution, why didn't you encourage Microsoft customers to "engage" the LAR "community" that works every day to support the accurate licensing of your company's products? We'd be happy to help any and all customers find the correct licensing solution - and we'd do it without condescension or sarcasm! What a concept! Thank you and have a wonderful day!Anonymous
April 15, 2008
@ Ed - Thank you for the feedback. My intention is not to be condescending to my readers. To be very clear, my comments above about the "clueless people" are not directed at the customers or my readers. They are directed at those trying to confuse the customers by telling them that it is OK to do this "just because it physically installs." (Which is why I went back and added the footer to please forward my post to the authors of those articles) As an example, I even conducted an interview early last year with one of the online publications writing about this now and explained in plain english that the physical ability to do this is not a "loophole," it provides a way for technology Partners to help clients who are legally licensed for Windows Vista (meaning they have the qualifying full license first) to perform a clean install vs. doing an in place upgrade. Yet here we are, over a year later, and the same "It's a loophole and must be legal to not own the full license," gibberish is being published by that same publication that only confuses customers with non-factual information. Considering I explained it very directly before and they still don't seem to get it, I thought I would publish it in REALLY simple terms this time for all to view. Yes, I agree whole heartedly that customers of all sizes should engage with their technology Parnters for how to buy information vs. relying on publications, like the ones referred to above, that seem to rely on sensationalism and speculation.Anonymous
April 16, 2008
Can something really be less than 100 % illegal, say, 90 % illegal, and if so, would this reflect on any prospective punishment? Would it not in that case be fair to say that; if you are 80 % illegal that you are also 20 % legal?Anonymous
April 16, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 16, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 16, 2008
The problem is Microsft's ridiculous variety of different packages and licensing for Vista, not the customers. This is clear to anyone and everyone in the world that doesn't work at Microsoft so wake up and get a clue.Anonymous
April 16, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 16, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 16, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 16, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 16, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 16, 2008
The latest Gartner poll reveals that illegal copies of Vista are still trailing illegal copies of XP at the same point in its lifecycle. It seems people just don't want it that bad, legal, illegal, or even free.Anonymous
April 16, 2008
Instead of ranting about people exploiting an upgrade, why not rant about your "clueless" programers that wrote the FLAWED upgrade in the first place! PS FIX VISTA then whine.Anonymous
April 17, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 17, 2008
For anyone at Microsoft to whine about anything having to do with Vista is an aberration and insult to the million or so paying customers stuck with this OS.Anonymous
April 18, 2008
Hey here is an idea Eric! Maybe if Microsoft offered Vista at a decent price and without all the confusing 'editions', more people would be inclined to pay for the full copy of the software. AS to people not knowing the difference between an upgrade and a full version, they know, they just don't care. You've priced the product in such a fashion that they do not see the 'value' in paying the higher price.Anonymous
April 18, 2008
You know, I have absolutely zero sympathy for any of this because you brought it on yourselves. There was time when a software purchase could be treated like any other copyrighted work. Then you guys decided that you needed tiers, licenses, and EULA's to confuse and monetize the heck out of customers with OEM, upgrade, student versions etc. Now you're annoyed because people are gaming the system right back at you. You are actively deceiving others when you call this 'illegal', implying that there are laws against it. Sure you can can sue your customers for not following 10 page abusive EULA's. Good luck with that. I'm done with your products, Eric.Anonymous
April 18, 2008
Dump Vista, get Linux. 100% Legal, give to your friends, install on ANY computer/device you want. Did I say free? I take from this post, Microsoft it against all "clueless" people and proves the consumers are smarter then deveoplers...wow! This comment is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.Anonymous
April 18, 2008
Now you will know not to release 10 different versions of the same OS and create confusion to end users.Anonymous
April 18, 2008
Yo, Eric... Please waste your time to your Microsoft engineers' colleagues to really go back to square one and start over with Windows 1.0 again. Vista is a scam and it is not worth it! We already quit Windows!Anonymous
April 18, 2008
These users are exploiting a flaw in the upgrade model so they can purchase a genuine copy of Vista at a more reasonable price. Microsoft should be thrilled; the fact that any sane person would even be willing to purchase the "upgrade" version is amazing.Anonymous
April 18, 2008
Wait ... what?! Microsoft OS's still are not open or free?!Anonymous
April 18, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 18, 2008
i agree, people really need to learn this stuff. an upgrade is an upgrade.Anonymous
April 18, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 18, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 18, 2008
PingBack from http://surfnewsmag.com/verifybusinesslicense.htmlAnonymous
April 18, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 18, 2008
This is quality. How about fixing this major loophole in your products, instead of throwing your toys out of the pram? Microsoft bigwigs seem to have serious problems with communication. Look at Ballmer's rants about the GPL being a 'cancer' a few years ago. You guys really, really need some courses on interacting with your customers. Not only would you come across as less pompous, you'd also hear what they want, and make better products accordingly. Yes, using this loophole is wrong. But you guys are hopelessly out of touch in communicating with your users.Anonymous
April 18, 2008
Eric, I think the big thing about the upgrade edition and the fact that the community "promoted" the work around was that FUNCTIONALITY OF THE VISTA UPGRADE DISC compared to a Window's XP Upgrade disc was taken down a step. By FORCING an individual who wants to format and repartition his hard drive to FIRST INSTALL AN OLD OS is ridiculous. The "OLD OS CD CHECK" functionality should have been included in all Vista Upgrade installations and then we wouldn't have this problem. I own 2 copies of Vista Ultimate, the first one of which I purchased as an Upgrade. I can tell you this: after being FORCED to install my copy of XP first, after I had already formatted my computer not knowing that Vista required an OS to be installed, I WAS INFURIATED! I had very little time left that day due to grad school and was prepared to return my copy to the store I bought it at, and would have FOUGHT THEM UNTIL THEY TOOK IT BACK... else I would have canceled payment on my credit card. THE ONLY THING THAT SAVED MY PURCHASE WAS THE FACT THAT THE WORK AROUND EXISTS. AND EVEN STILL, I am not happy that you have to install it twice to do this. The community news post that I saw EXPLICITLY stated that it would be illegal to do this if you did not own a licensed copy of a previous OS (ie XP pro). So not all individuals that you are referring to reported it in an illegal fashion. THE SOLUTION to the problem therefore would be to correct the problem by selling upgrade discs that allow an install with a CD check.Anonymous
April 19, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 19, 2008
When you begin to produce an operating system of decent quality at a reasonable price, <i>then</i> you can complain.Anonymous
April 19, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 20, 2008
PingBack from http://wombatdiet.net/2008/04/19/vista-sp1-too-little-too-late/Anonymous
April 21, 2008
Sorry, I'm running Ubuntu. Can somebody explain this full product/upgrade stuff to me again?Anonymous
April 21, 2008
What an interesting week it has been. Since my original An upgrade is an upgrade. Apparently some peopleAnonymous
April 22, 2008
@ Jim S. - Jim, You mention we've confused people with licenses, EULAs, etc.; however, licenses and EULAs are the same thing. EULA = End User License Agreement. So are you saying that the different versions of the product are causing the confusion between an upgrade and full license? You might want to read through Part 2 of the post: http://blogs.msdn.com/mssmallbiz/archive/2008/04/21/8415385.aspxAnonymous
April 22, 2008
@ Josh - You mentioned you have a previous Windows O/S license that you are upgrading from. As such, using the upgrade to do your install is fine since you own a qualifying license to upgrade from. My comments on it not being legal are for those who do not own the previous version license first.Anonymous
April 22, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 22, 2008
our company switched over to ubuntu and never looked back your company too can do without windows and all the complexity in managing it. our desktop never looked so pretty with invisible windows and floating cubes. all on hardware that is 2 to 3 years old. if it the hardware works why upgrade. wait till it fails. just switch to ubuntu folks on the server and client and you will never go back to microsoft.Anonymous
April 22, 2008
Eric - I agree strongly with Ed who said, "what an amazingly condescending post from a "Senior Manager" of "Community Engagement."" As for your answer, "@ Ed - Thank you for the feedback. My intention is not to be condescending to my readers. To be very clear, my comments above about the "clueless people" are not directed at the customers or my readers", maybe you need someone to explain some things to you, with the same dripping sarcasm and usage of small enough words for you to understand. Just who do you think reads your remarks? Eric, that would be "your readers" so the clue in small, easily understood words that you seem to need - is that its a pretty ignorant argument to write such a drippingly sarcastic and condescending post, and then hide behind the stupid statement that it wasn't aimed at "your readers." Amazing, truly amazing.Anonymous
April 22, 2008
Um, since Vista is considered a DOWNGRADE by many, and an "upgrade" by few, how does that work? If I own a licensed copy of XP, and I choose to install Vista, how much will Micro$oft refund me for performing this downgrade on my machine?Anonymous
April 22, 2008
Yeah, its like saying if I can get into your house I can take whatever I want. <sarcasm> Well you didn't lock it securely right? I'm physically able to get into your house uninvited so it should be legal to do whatever I want in there right? </sarcasm> Obviously no. The same logic applies to all kinds of cheats.Anonymous
April 22, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 22, 2008
"how much will Micro$oft refund me for performing this downgrade on my machine?" I don't think the words "refund" & "Microsoft" can be used in the same sentence. I just don't think it's possible...Anonymous
April 22, 2008
@ Esteban - Thank you for the feedback, and rest assured, I am sharing all of the feedback I get with the various teams here.Anonymous
April 22, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 22, 2008
I Really wish MS would do more to check for valid versions of xp/vista and totally disable "Dodgy" versions. Why ? I and my wife are not rich we don't have money to waste but I budgeted and paid for Vista home premium twice one for our two main pc's, our media and laptop also run valid single licence xp professionals. Its a kick in our teeth when we see these people trying to justify pirated versions. vista not worth it ? then don't use it, simple as that. Vista is not perfect but its tweakable and an improvement aslong as you have hardware to handle it. Up until a year ago one of my pc's still ran win98se, it cost me when I bought it about the same as vista, how many updates how much support over time ?? you don't get that many other places. Same with XP I invested and bought it many years ago and have had free support and fixes and updates since then. Same for vista. Please start protecting those of us that paid for it.Anonymous
April 22, 2008
@ Jason: I agree - protect those of us that paid for it... from further being subjected to inferior, sub-standard software. I'm not trying to jump on you specifically, but let's face facts - I bought Vista because it was supposed to be BETTER than the XP Professional I was using. It was the single biggest waste of money I have spent in years - and I'm not exactly brilliant with my financing. I BOUGHT and PAID for Vista, just like you - and I have to agree with everyone complaining about it. As a person who BOUGHT and PAID for it, I'm entitled to that right. Your post suggests otherwise, which prompted me to make this point.Anonymous
April 23, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 23, 2008
An important exception: Under clause 7 of their School Agreement, MS specifically allows installing an "upgrade" version of Windows on a Macintosh with no need to have ever purchased a full version. Student purchasers of new Macs get free Windows (running under Parallels or Boot Camp) and student purchasers of other new PCs have to pay for it. I don't get it...Anonymous
April 23, 2008
@ Peter - If you look at the Microsoft Product List (http://www.microsoftvolumelicensing.com/userights/PL.aspx) there is a chart showing what qualifies for the Windows Vista Upgrade. You will notice that Macintosh is listed as a qualifying O/S to upgrade from. So, you are not installing the upgrade without owning a qualifying license, you already have a qualifying license to upgrade from in the Mac O/S.Anonymous
April 23, 2008
@ Jim S. - Thank you for the clarification. The commercial software industry has been a "You are licensing this" not a "you own this" model for as long as I can remember. Software is about Intellectual Property and you license people to use your IP, you don't have them buy your IP. Awareness of this fact may have increased recently, but the fact it is that way has not changed.Anonymous
April 25, 2008
The comment has been removedAnonymous
April 25, 2008
I purchased Windows Vista Ultimate Upgrade. I do have a legitimate previous copy of Windows XP Pro which was also an upgrade from a full version of Windows 98 SE. I build my own computer and always buy retail. I was able to successfully install Vista Upgrade and did notice some performance loss. So I did some hardware upgrades and my performance improved. I did how ever run into one problem. Vista Ultimate allows me to encrypt my drive. Now being that I have to have XP installed to install Vista I was unable to use this feature that I clearly am licensed for as I have to encrypt the drive during setup and can't do that with an existing OS installed on that drive (needed for verification) so after talking with Microsoft I was given the clean install method and was able to encrypt my drive. The key here is that I had a legitimate copy of XP to upgrade from and that Microsoft Engineers had the forethought to give me a work around so I could use all the features I was licensed for. I like Vista works fine for me though the Ultimate edition doesn't seem worth the money after the fact. Keep plugging along MS you will get it.Anonymous
May 21, 2008
PingBack from http://www.lockergnome.com/blade/2008/04/21/microsoft-windows-vista-upgrade-vs-full-version-legal-or-not/Anonymous
May 27, 2008
PingBack from http://www.lockergnome.com/theoracle/2008/04/18/microsoft-and-the-law/Anonymous
May 28, 2008
Why did I "upgrade" to vista? I can't remember.Anonymous
September 17, 2008
PingBack from http://ctfblog.ctforumgroup.com/?p=1099Anonymous
December 13, 2008
PingBack from http://ctforum.oxyhost.com/ctfblog/?p=1099Anonymous
December 29, 2008
PingBack from http://nothing.golddave.com/?p=160Anonymous
May 26, 2009
PingBack from http://backyardshed.info/story.php?title=microsoft-smb-community-blog-an-upgrade-is-an-upgrade-apparently