spacedog: So is this a change in the language of the licensing agreement or has it actually integrated into the activation/registration modules within Office 2013? One thing is the language of the license and MS having the ability to enforce it as they so choose. It's another thing to institute software measures that truly block the user from uninstalling it and moving it to a new computer (without having to resort to illegal cracks/hacks).
If they truly tie it to each machine via the activation/registration modules and bar users from moving Office from their old laptop to their new laptop, I can see this going straight into a class-action lawsuit in the USA.
I can think of a whole bunch of scenarios where this is a problem for everyday users, such as:
-Joe Bloggs buys a new laptop, buys Office 2013 and three weeks later the motherboard fails and he sends it back to the supplier. Their solution is to give Joe a new computer (or the hardware repairs are significant enough that MS Office thinks Joe's repaired laptop is a 'new computer). Joe has to buy a new copy of Office?
-Joe's laptop is on it's last legs, but he needs Office now. He buys Office 2013 and 3 months later he's able to afford a new laptop. He has to buy Office again?
I don't know exactly how the laws work here in NZ, but I can guarantee you that won't fly in the USA. That'll get class-actioned in a heartbeat.
Nonsense. There will be no class action suit. PKC licenses and OEM before them had clauses that were exactly the same. No Lawsuit then. If you agree to it and it's not unlawful you can't easily file suit. Do you really think a company with as many lawyers employed as MS would make their largest revenue generating product unlawful so blatantly.
The best thing you can do, is find a local MS Rep and let them know how you feel and how it impacts them (as they will lose a sale) and if enough people do it, and they lose money, they MIGHT change their mind, though MS has been particularly belligerent lately so I wouldn't expect it to occur overnight.