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.
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
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) ...
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.
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.
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...