Slashdot Mirror
MS To Virginia Beach: Prove You Own Your Software
Corey Winesett writes: "Virginia Beach, the largest city in VA, has been ordered by Microsoft to audit its software and produce documentation. The city has 5900 employees, 3500 computers and is '99%' Microsoft dependent. The city says that this could cost thousands of dollars and called the letter 'jolting.' Here is a link to the story." From the article, one of the great arguments for software that doesn't need a file cabinet of certificates: "Microsoft, like most software companies, includes contracts with its merchandise explaining that the company reserves the right to ask consumers at any time for proof of purchase and an inventory of what is being used. The rule applies not only to governments and privately owned companies but to individuals." Aren't you glad you use Open Source?
On platforms where IE and netscape are both available, IE is preferred 3:1. Down in the ragged fringes of the outlyers you will find that 1% use Mozilla and 0.3% use BSD.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Well, needless to say, that being a Network Admin at my new job within this organization has been very stressful. We've had to inventory every machine and send the results back to our IT department so they can compile a list. We've also got to dig out old purchase orders and recipts to prove that we bought said software and how many licenses of it we actually own. After all is said and done, there's no telling what Microsoft will do to us if we don't match what they think we should have. We've got until November 27th to comply with Microsoft. So, until then, that's all that organization as a whole is focused on right now, making everybodies lives "so much fun." Thank you Microsoft.
I just thought that some of you would like to know what is going on from inside. There wasn't a lot of details in the newspaper article, so hopefully this will inform some of you guys. After all of the hell that I'm going through, I just hope someone else isn't this stupid to make a mistake like this.
Taz757
Small scale "piracy" is good for their buisness. If a 14 year old who wants to be a sysadmin when he grows up has to pay $500 for NT, it's not going to happen - he'll find Linux and learn that. If he can "pirate" NT, then he'll learn NT, and Microsoft will have other NT admin on the market in a few years.
It's similar with MS Office. Normal home users aren't going to pay $600 for an office licence, but they'll happilly "pirate" it to be using the same thing the people they know are. This helps Microsoft by giving them another Office user.
Small scale "piracy" helps even more, if Microsoft is known to crack down on large scale "piracy". If a company's employies are all experianced in NT/Office, the company will be forced to buy licences for these products. And licences to the yearly upgrades to these products. And licences to other MS products, because only MS products work well with MS products.
If Joey the 14 year old sysadmin-to-be pirates NT, learns it, and doesn't find out about alternitives, (Or absorbs the MS-Propaganda at 14, and dismisses the alternitives) think how many potential licenses for Microsoft products he will cause to be purchased once he gets his MSCE and a job.
If Joey can't "pirate" NT, or even has trouble "pirating" it because of copy protection, Microsoft may well get NO licences.
Small scale "piracy" acceptance, and no copy protection, is an obvious win for Microsoft. Suing buisness that "pirate" Microsoft software just reinforces the win condition.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
I know that if the company I work for ever got audited, all hell would break loose. The licenses for each copy of NT Workstation 4.0 were left with the individual workstations, where they, uh, tend to disappear for some reason. And that doesn't even count Office, which every workstation has, but I've never seen a license for.
The question of the day is, would it cost more to pay M$ for the unaccounted-for pieces of software, or to switch to Linux? You can bet your a$$ that somebody in Virginia Beach is thinking hard about that very question right now.
And Virginia Beach is not all that far from Research Triangle Park...
---
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
Hypothetical situation: If the City did absolutely nothing, and did not respond, wouldn't it be up to Microsoft to prove that the City held unlicensed copies of the software? Rather than the city having to cease all day to day operations in order to audit and discover a handful of "illegal" copies of Word, or whatever? But I suppose that MS would chase it to the death, rather than give up. I hate EULAs doing this kind of thing.
This kind of thing makes me grumpy. All the worse, because:
``It's the world we live in,'' Sullivan said. ``Microsoft has every right to ask us for the information.''
Ugh.
--Remove SPAM from my address to mail me
If you're going to use warez, use them exclusivly (so the vendor has no contract allowing him to ask you) ...
I wonder if they would accept simple receipts of the machines they purchased, if in fact those machines came preinstalled with the software they are currently using (Win98/NT/Office/etc).
:)
For example, I'm not sure where my Win98 license is, but it came preinstalled on my laptop, purchased from HP. Because you CAN'T buy this particular HP laptop WITHOUT Win98, shouldn't that be enough proof?
Obviously we don't know where this city bought their systems from - presumably if they got Dell systems with MS stuff preinstalled, that should prove enough licensing. I'm also pretty sure that presumption would be wrong.
MS just seems insidious to me regarding licensing in general. If they were REALLY concerned about piracy, wouldn't they invest in some form of copy protection? I can remember copy protection back in the days of the Apple II and C64 - (Mr Nibble, anyone?). Making unauthorized copies back then, you at least had to make *some* effort!
creation science book
You are prsumed to own the chairs by virtue of possession. It would be up to anyone disputing such ownership to bear the burden of proof.
Unfortunately, it is a know fact that you do NOT own your MS software.
Like it or not, the two situations are entirely different.
Some years ago, I saw the CEO of a medium sized corporation blanch when the contractor told him to write a check to M$HAFT for $120K+...200+ users, 8 NT servers (fairly loaded).
This was a upgrade after about three years of the previous M$ stuff, which had cost them $80K.
Now, imagine what happens when M$ moves forward with their goals of application rentals and the elimination of CDs (the elimination of CDs means only channel resellers have OS cds, you only get an OS with a complete system, and a replacement requires the return of the HD).
Many companies/government orgs are not willing (or legally able) to connect their machines to the internet just to have them boot or run apps. Nor are they willing/able to send used hard drives to anyone (sensitive data).
This gives these end users two options : buy a new machine when the hard drive fails (keeping a inventory of spares) or use free software. Note also that the license starts to apply to the physical box, not the bits of the harddrive. For the truly anal, who keep software in libraries, that's quite a bit of shelf space!
I've seen EULAs before that allow the software company itself to enter and audit the suspect workplace. Wonder what the CIA or NSA would think of that scenario, particularly if a lot of M$ stock or management ends up moving overseas.
What would take precedence? A court order for M$ to enter a secure/secret facility, possibly with a crew of H1B/foreign nationals, or the secret facilities' mission to protect data? Well, since most of those facilities are authorized to use deadly force, the answer is obvious...unless M$ forms a 'leet commando team or something.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Truth is, Microsoft has every right to do such an audit. Even MS is painfully aware how much their software is pirated every day, and especially larger companies or organizations are prone to buy, say, a 1000-station license when they really have over 5000 stations. Microsoft is a business, they are out to make money, and if something is denying them legitimately of their money, then power to them for enforcing their own licenses!
The only reason such a big fuss is being made is because it's Microsoft. If it were any other company, like Corel or a smaller developer, this would never had made any news. People are going to try and use this as fuel to attack Microsoft because they're the "big bad evil empire out to enslave us all." They're just a business, simply one that is highly effective.
--
- Chris
- http://nighthawk.livejournal.com
- Chris
- http://nighthawk.livejournal.com
The problem here is that plaintiffs in Copyright cases have a lot of clout to demand something more than a fair settlement, particularly in clear-cut cases -- the plaintiff invariably is entitled to an award of attorney fees.
:-)
I wonder if it is ever useful or interesting to comply with these off-the-wall demands for audits. Microsoft/BSA is simply attempting to obtain non-trade-secret free discovery, which they will use before or during any litigation to follow. At the end of the day, even those companies that comply seem to get no better treatment than those that opt to defend. Indeed, they have given up quite a bit. It is much, much easier for a plaintiff to make litigation decisions when he knows the value of the case before even beginning discovery.
On the other hand, let's get this straight. If you are using ersatz software without permission, you are, and in my view should be, liable. It is a good idea to audit your own software use, and to stay compliant. Period. The best defense is no infringement at all. Let me say that again.
The best defense is not to infringe.
If you do infringe, you should expect to pay the price. The question is, at the end of the day, what price should be paid? Microsoft/BSA lawyers love to throw their weight around in clear infringement/unauthorized use cases, demanding more than a reasonable fee for the infringement, claiming that it will cost the defendant so much to get a "reasonable verdict" that they might as well pay the extortion fee. This is because a prevailing plaintiff in a Copyright action is often awarded not only the damages, but also the cost of attorney fees.
There is an answer, however. An Eleventh Circuit case not too long ago, Jordan v. Time, Inc. held that because of a technicality in the Copyright Act, a defendant who makes a timely, formal "offer of judgment" under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure can turn the attorney-fee tables when the plaintiff does not collect an award greater than the offer.
Making an offer in this fashion shifts the risk to the Plaintiff, since going to trial may result in a net award of attorney fees to the Defendant! One strategy to consider (the circumstances are different in EVERY case -- make these decisions only with advice of counsel) is to do your own due diligence with a lawyer, make an offer in writing, without agreeing to the audit. If it is rejected with a threat to sue, file your own declaratory judgment action with an offer of judgment attached. Now, they get to decide whether to risk paying YOUR legal fees prior to discovery.
Now, do not try this at home. A Copyright case is a tremendously complex cause of action, and zillions of subtle facts can swing results entirely. You should rely on the advice of counsel you have retained before taking any action in any case -- including a decision whether or not to comply with a demand for an audit.
But do make sure your lawyer knows about (and how to effectively use) the Jordan case to good advantage.
One of the constant battlecries coming out of Redmond is that the total cost of ownership (TCO) for Microsoft products is lower than with *nix. This little stunt by Microsoft really helps drive this point home. 5 tech staffers a full month to do all the basic research, plus new computer requests being delayed. All because Microsoft *THINKS* there *MIGHT* be an invalid license somewhere in the chain? Does this sound like lower TCO to you???? If Microsoft can demand you produce documentation to support your claim of proper licensing, it sounds like they are raising the TCO intentionally.
Ron Gage - Westland, MI
It has come to our attention that Slashdot has not registered licenses for any Microsoft products. We will be conducting an audit during December of your premises and equipment. No preparation is necessary, we will begin by reinstalling Windows 2000 on desktop machines and Windows NT on servers to ensure proper functioning of our audit tools.
Ah, the City, unlike we mere mortals, may well be immune from this claim. In a fascinating (to IP lawyers, anyway) case last year, the Supreme Court held that the Congress does not have the power to create a cause of action for patent-holders against the States (and their agencies), notwithstanding the provisions of Article I, Section 8.
States get to claim sovereign immunity. Since the Copyright Act is rooted in the same clause as the PAtent Act, perhaps the city can likewise claim sovereign immunity?
Well, the M$ hit squad has already sent my company a letter wanting to come in and check our computers. This letter was followed by a letter from microsoft. I work for a small consulting company and all the programming, almost always, is done at the client site. So out of the couple machines and the laptop my boss uses there are not that many machines.
/. since I'm very curious about what others people here think about it and what ideas you have. Maybe someone has some better leagal info on what can be done.
The thing that scares me most about this is that if we let them come in, which at the moment is the last option on the list. what else will they see? As far as windows goes the machines there were preloaded with winblows and are completely leagal, but what if they see the large mass of mp3's on the machines? Or what type of other info will they be looking for while they are there. I suspect they would look for employee and client information to make sure they don't miss anyone.
I guess all the leagal battles with the govt has cause bill to feel his profits are not as high as he wants and figures he can rake more money in this way.
Our options at this moment are:
1) have our lawyer send a "go screw yourself" letter to M$'s hit squad.
2) put linux on all the machines, and let them come in (this is my favorite)
3) see if we can find more companies in the area and start a class action suit against them.
I'm glad this hit
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people
Given that they have run this story, I doubt that /. will run a story that I submitted at about the same time. The University of Maryland at Diamondback is going to try and tax every student to have access to M$ products and updates. Read about it here This is an effort to make sure that there is compliance with M$ liscensing. No matter if you don't even have a computer, you are presumed guilty of infringement and must pay up. Linux or not, you gotta send money to unka Bill... Somehow I think that this is beyond the pale...
We tried having the NT-SysAdmins enter that somehow valid license key "010-0123456", but they just got confused and frustrated and wound up running away from the servers at this step into a dark corner where they'd typically be found scarfing down bananas at an unbelievable rate.
Since we switched to using 111-1111111 (which also works just as well), the NT admins have been much happier, need less counseling, and the cages need to be cleaned less often.