Some readers have reported that Windows installations that they have every reason to believe valid show up as illegitimate in Microsoft's validation process. "Imagine my surprise when I actually entered the Microsoft logo'ed key posted to the bottom of my laptop and was told that my Windows XP program, pre-loaded at the dealership that sold me the laptop, was not legitimate," one reader wrote. This computer was purchased from a reputable dealer, who advertises regularly in national magazines, and who charged what I believed at the time was an exorbitant price. I'm not a techie. I need the computer for my business. What do I do now, go out and buy another version of XP? I'd like for someone from Microsoft to advise me what they would recommend. Ed, why don't you contact them and ask them specifically what course of action they'd recommend? Should I have my attorney contact the company that sold the laptop to me? Should I have my attorney contact Microsoft? Should I sue both the vendor and Microsoft for fraudulent representation? It's going to get pretty interesting for someone when they 'turn me off.' First stop will be the Attorney General of the State of Washington."

Readers also had their doubts that fighting piracy was the real motivation behind Microsoft's program. "Microsoft hasn't been able to innovate for a long time now, and are thus unable to show sales and revenue growth based on the merits of their products and real customer demand," one reader wrote. "Customers have few if any reasons to purchase newer versions of either Windows or Office. I assert that Bill knows that a certain percentage of legitimately licensed copies will have re-activation issues in the coarse of normal everyday hardware and OS maintenance activities. This is really just an indirect license 'sunset' methodology -- many less-sophisticated users will take the easy way out, and have an excuse to go buy that new PC they had their eye on anyway. And, guess what, Bill sells another copy of Windows, and the new one has an even stronger tractor beam back to Redmond. I've never been a fan of Linux, but I'm about ready to give it a try."

Many readers saw the whole Windows Genuine Advantage anti-piracy effort as yet further justification for their decision to get out of the Microsoft licensing maze and into Open Source. "Even if everything else were equal -- and it is not even close -- just the licensing issues alone are sufficient," wrote one reader. "Absent the remote possibility of SCO actually winning, there is no way that a Linux Server can be illegal. But even if you have a properly licensed Microsoft server, in the event a disgruntled employee or evil competitor calls the BSA or SPA and you find a strike team breaking down your doors and confiscating all your equipment, you still are guilty until proven innocent. Can you find every single COA, CALC, receipt etc. across numerous upgrades? And this begs the question of if there even is such a thing as a legal Microsoft Server. With all the assorted limitations and myriads of additional licenses you need to be able to do anything useful I have never heard of anyone, even Microsoft, who is willing to certify that a client is actually properly licensed for what they intend. According to the EULAs, you are not actually allowed to do anything useful anyway. If Linux were half as fast, unreliable and twice as difficult to install, it would still be a better deal."

One reader made the astute point that all this verification nonsense would be unnecessary if Microsoft hadn't forced OEMs to go to OS recovery systems without a full-fledged Windows CD. "This whole problem has roots when Microsoft forced vendors to move to 'restore disks and then no disks, only software restores on hidden partitions," the reader wrote. "I always had good reason to believe I had purchased a legitimate copy when I received a legal CD and certificate in a sealed Microsoft package. I know these were copied also, put no small-time operator could do that easily. This is the root of much of this problem."

Other readers seconded that motion. "It's much easier to fake it when you don't have the media to prove your license," another reader wrote. "And those Certificates of Authenticity? Please. Perhaps businesses keep them, but do home users really pay any attention to those? And yes, a few years ago Microsoft stopped supplying original media to OEMs. Their policy at the time was that only recovery CDs were allowed for OEM installs. I don't know if this is still their policy, but I have to assume it is. I don't even use OEM installs anymore, but buy separate boxed copies instead. It's just smarter and more flexible in the long run -- especially since OEM Windows can only be used on the original machine. If you upgrade, too bad: no Windows."

In other words, many readers felt Windows Genuine Advantage is just another of the many licensing tricks Microsoft uses to get more money from customers instead of providing better products. "Another interesting thing to note is that Microsoft will not publish their license management API's," wrote one reader. "You can use Microsoft tools to display them on a per-domain basis, but they will not tell you how they are able to do that. There is no way to effectively count licenses across the enterprise. I believe this is by design. I am quite sure that they don't want you to be able to count licenses. They want you to keep disposing of perfectly valid licenses and buying new ones. This is their core business model -- selling unneeded licenses by generating licensing models that even they can't decipher. If, because I refuse to be audited or to buy a new copy of Windows every time I plug a new motherboard into my favorite case, Microsoft wishes to label me a pirate, I can only say this to them: It takes one to know one."