I would disagree with what's mostly here. But, I'm guessing both of us aren't lawyers.
I do know what IS SOP these days. Buy the gear 3rd party then either the seller or buyer downloads and loads up some later software and/or different feature set. That, I know for sure, is illegal unless Cisco offers the code fix for a security issue. And, the people that are practicing this as SOP can't spell security. tv ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Daniel Hooper'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Jon Lewis'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 3:58 AM Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IOS pirating requests > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Asbjorn Hojmark - >> Lists >> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 1:23 PM >> To: 'Daniel Hooper'; 'Jon Lewis' >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IOS pirating requests >> >> >> > But if you send me the chassis as well as the IOS and no money >> > changes hand's it's technically not pirating. >> >> Well, that depends on who you ask... It's pretty clear from the >> license that the software does *not* follow the hardware to a 3rd >> party. If you sell the box, you have to buy a 'transfer license'. >> >> (Wether that'll be legal in other countries is another matter). >> > > That has never been tested in a court and a Cisco buyer is not > required to sign a contract that would obligate them to such an > act. In fact, if anything, the courts > have ruled in the few cases that have come up regarding used > software being sold, that it is illegal for a software vendor to > place a purchaser under such a restriction. In short, if you > go buy a copy of Windows and use it for a few years then sell it, > (assuming that you have not of course used the license as the > basis for an upgrade, and that it's not an OEM license) that > you and the buyer are perfectly legal. As for OEM software, > this travels with the device. As much as Microsoft and other > vendors would like to have the software license of Windows > 'untied' from the hardware post-purchase, if you sell a PC you > bought with Windows preloaded, the license for the preload goes > with the PC. > > This also works for cell phones, DVD players, automobiles, > microwave ovens, hybrid key phone systems, etc. all of which > have embedded computers with software running. The manufacturer > can only deny you new updates or cut you out of support if > you get the item from the secondary market - they cannot win > a suit against you for merely buying and owning the item that > has the software on it that was loaded on it when it came from > the factory. > > Cisco I am sure is perfectly aware of all of this. It is undoubtedly > why they put the oldest and archaic IOS on their products possible. > For example we just sold a recent 2800 to a customer - running an > OLDER version of IOS (12.4.1 I believe) than what was in it's ROM - > this was a brand-new, never-opened, direct from Ingram Micro router - > it was an IOS image that has been deferred years ago and long since > covered under Cisco's free "security upgrade replacement" > > Clearly, pulling such a stunt gives Cisco much leeway to argue in > a court that someone isn't entitled to a more current IOS version > because the "official OEM IOS version" that was shipped with the > router is going to be older than -anything- that was ever available > for download from the Cisco website. Thus Cisco could make the argument > in a court that while a buyer of a used 2800 might have a legal right > to posses the 2800 with IOS 12.4.1 loaded, (because that was what > was on it when the router shipped from the factory) that is as new > an IOS as they can have, simply by merely purchasing the box. > > You really need to be careful here. Keep in mind > that for the last decade software vendors have been scruplously > avoiding having shrinkwrap licenses tested in court, there's not been > a single court case of a software vendor (like Microsoft or Cisco) > suing anyone for violating a shrinkwrap license that they did not > explicitly sign and agree to abide by. Yet there's millions of > devices sold every year that have shrinkwrap licenses on them. > Most of what you read from the software vendors is FUD and > speculation in this area. And, I will also remind you, there is > no law that states that Cisco or any other software vendor MUST > tell the truth with regards to contracts or their interpretation. > > It is SOP for most companies to put illegal, rediculous, and > unenforceable terms in their contracts, then have their sales > guys claim those terms are legally binding. In writing even. > Naturally, contract law being what it is, if there is ever a > legal dispute, this will be held against them by the judge - > but they do this because they know the vast majority of people > automatically assume that just because it's written down in > the contract that it must be legal. > > Ted > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
