Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Improves Its Licensing Terms
prostoalex writes "Microsoft offers to pick up the legal tab, in case anyone gets pulled to court for using its products. News dot com dot com has a rather informative outline of new policies: Microsoft will cover unlimited expenses on injury and infringement claims, the company quadrupled the warranty on its products to a 12-month length, and the companies audited for licensing compliance will now get a 30-day warning instead of 15-day one."
Where is coverage for security issues?
M.B.
Interesting that they waited until after the days of Windows 9x to do this. ;)
The coolest voice ever.
Now will M$, of all companies, pick up the tab if some one's caught "pirating" content via p2p on its platform?
The slashdot community will love this, until Microsoft cites it in the next legal battle theyre stuck in as a sign that they would like to protect consumers, at which point it will have been an evil ploy...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
With the SCO suit, there's been a shift of attention : non open source companies assume legal risks for you, while open source software do not, thus explaining the difference in costs between the 2 types of offering.
See also heated thread regarding Hibernate on www.theserverside.com.
Sneak teach kids Algebra using a game
Say I use windows to manage my internet connection & run KaZaa... and I got this nasty letter in the mail from the RIAA. Will they defend me?
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
Doesn't that just give the warm fuzzies all over!
For the sarcasm impaired, I'm being facetious.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
It's about damn time Microsoft did something with their licensing agreements. Now all we need is for them to make their software less expensive. Of course, that'll happen when hell freezes over.
From the article:
In older contracts, Microsoft agreed to pay all legal fees for volume license customers who got sued because of Microsoft, but only up to the value of the software they bought.
What if I'd pirated the damn thing??
-
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
What can I say? I'm overwhelmed. Microsoft must be taking this SCO business seriously. They already have a SCO license.
:)
Notice that Microsoft limits their liability to actual lawsuits. Not bugs, or security holes, or any type of damages that you may assess running their software. In that case, you are still stuck.
And I doubt even SCO is dumb enough to try to sue anyone because they are running MS software. That's to big of a opponent for them.
-Brent
SCO is going to sue the crap out of anyone using linux, and MSFT is floating a protection policy.
... hi bingo
How will anyone be able to prove infringement if it's close source?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Just to prove that MS is trying to undermine its competition by helping spread FUD against Linux, then promising that its customers won't be liable. This seems like an easy way to make money. Just act like SCO, threatening MS customers with lawsuits, then waiting for a MS buyout.
--
1-800-759-0700
...LAWYERS... "The new provision will also give the company another weapon to take on Linux." They are basically offering to shoulder legal burdens from challengers, unlike those insurgent bands of Linux developers. But we all know that Microsoft "legally" steals its code like its TCP/IP stack, and not "illegally" like SCO alleges. In any case though, if it and IBM's role were reversed, SCO would have been bought months ago.
1) You buy a M$ product.
2) I'll sue the heck out of you while you represent yourself and run up a huge legal bill.
3) Profit!!! (Then we split the money!)
=tkk
PS This is even better than the M$'s "instant cash rebate" on a product you could then instantly return.
Bill Gates - Creationist?!?
See? It's true! Linux does eqaul Kommunism!
In the article, MS says it hardly matters to them financially. We all know it's just playing further on customer fears (maybe). But I can't believe /. won't post the much more significant news story on CNet: Cracking Windows passwords in seconds. The weakness published in a research paper proving cracking Windows is far far easier than Unix, Linux, or Mac OS X is far more interesting to /. readers than this legal stuff.
Developers: We can use your help.
Is that the smell of my Karma burning? Possibly because I'm about to say that this is great news from Redmond? Any movement in the right direction should be rewarded folks :)
__________
Love conquers all... except CANCER
Who says competition doesn't work? :)
Microsoft buyout Linux like it could with smaller rivals.
Bah. Linux to Windows?
Try Linux to *BSD. *BSD is truly Free.
Is there precedent for this kind of thing? Have other companies done it in the past?
This is a pretty smart, although probably not overly significant, maneuver on MS's part. It won't cost them very much at all, but gives them an advantage in dealing with those parties who usually aren't central to the software purchasing process, but can get in the way (legal staff, procurement specialists, etc.).
I highly doubt this will impact their competitive stance against other systems, but what it could do is reduce the duration of the sales cycle, and thus help their overall performance as a company.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Microsoft Improves Its Licensing Terms
[DrEvil]Riiiiiight[/DrEvil]
How are you going to keep them down on the farm once they've seen Karl Hungus?
Notice that they will ONLY cover damages up to the purchase price of the software. With Linux, there is no purchase price, so thus no protection. I'm sure they could pay millions to a 3rd party company in exchange for giving the money back in the event of a lawsuit...
In addition, they'll now only use 10,000V tasers while questioning the CTO about discrepancies, instead of the 50,000V ones
The removal of liability caps was necessary because the courts generally will not allow them to cap their own liability anyway (except in the case where I used Windows to damage somebody else, then sued them for damages for supplying the tools). So, customers really gained nothing there.
>>>"Microsoft offers to pick up the legal tab, in case anyone gets pulled to court for using its products.
And you cannot hold or publish any bugs if they do this, eh?
>>>News dot com dot com has a rather informative outline of new policies: Microsoft will cover unlimited expenses on injury and infringement claims
If you use MS anything in the medical field (injury), they'd be sued anyways.
>>>the company quadrupled the warranty on its products to a 12-month length,
And will be EoL'ed 2 versions later.
>>>and the companies audited for licensing compliance will now get a 30-day warning instead of 15-day one."
Ohh. Do they still charge you for using Linux, Mac, HP-UX, telephone computers, and others under the site-like license?
If anything, same old, same old. They're still overpriced, still have the nasty lockin and still can invade wherever their software is installed.
Still crap.
Read the fine print folsk its more FUD..
they only pay costs that mount to full price of the software you bought..in other words you are stil screwed..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
With its new contract, Microsoft is effectively promising customers it will insulate them from those kind of messy legal problems.
We all knew that Microsoft considered Linux a threat, but this is the first positive "captilalistic competitiveness" move I've seen on Microsoft's part. It seems that Linux is pushing Microsoft to improve its standards in order to compete more. That's one positive thing through this whole mess, Microsoft is actually forced to compete for our business now.
--Clint
Seems like Microshaft's way of trying to prove that they're more proven from a legal stand point and trying to prey upon all the SCO FUD lately and gain more marketshare on Linux.
One of the arguments regarding the SCO case has been that Linux users are at risk, but that's not any different than users of any other OS. To say that Linux is some kind of special exception, is just dishonest.
Or rather, it was dishonest. But now MS is setting itself apart. Microsoft has found a way to use their most important asset (not technology, not their employees, not their products -- just their big fat wad of cash) to differentiate themselves from all the others.
Also, this does something else. This is the first time I have ever heard of something in Microsoft EULAs that is actually for the user. Instead of take, take, take, the agreement would actually be something-for-something. To date, only a tiny fraction of their users actually bother to license their software. Most just buy it. But this could change that.
The big question becomes: is this all bullshit? Are software users really liable for the behavior of third parties? When you put it that way, it seems ridiculous. But software has function -- it does stuff. If your computer does something in violation of some patent, it's your agent that is doing it, at your direction, on your behalf. Is it relevant that someone else gave the instructions on how to do it? I can look up a patent in a database and quote it to you, but if you then follow those directions that I gave you, you're the one who is violating the patent, not me.
If this type of thinking were legitimized, it would be disasterous for the software industry. This is the first step toward making software something that can only be sold by megacorps, or bonded programmers, or something. Gates himself probably never would have been able to even get started, in an environment like that.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
>I still don't know anyone who is planning on .NET.
.NET, because it's a good product. And I *do* know people who are planning on using it. Within the next quarter, I will have some .NET resources in a production environment, as a matter of fact.
>using
Just out of curiosity, do you work in a production environment with heavy DCOM development? Or with a complex J2EE deployment? Are you currently dealing with anything like clusters of BEA servers? What sort of distributed computing do the people you know plan on using?
I'm a Microsoft hater, dyed in the wool, and I have been for as long as it has been possible to hate them. But it's their politics I hate, not their products.
The current crop of visual studio offerings are very good, and a joy to use. I cannot muster contempt for
That would be good. I could demand that they pay for a licence if it turns out I'm using unlicenced software. Bet the small print covers this one though.
So Microsoft will protect VOLUME licensees. That helps Joe Blow how?
They upped their warranty to 12 months? Why is it only 12 months? Why shouldn't I be able to trust that the software will run correctly on the intended setup five years down the road? It's not like my car, where it degrades over time.
Even the analyst News.com.com interviewed had questions on whether this event is monumental.
Plus, MS is just using this to spread FUD over Linux. "If you get sued for our products, we'll protect you. Linux can't do that."
.NET? As in the .NET framework? It is free, genius. The developers ide isn't, just like Sun's isn't (besides the limited Comunity Edition) and so on. And there are lots of companies using .NET. It's actually a really nice framework to develop for. And if all you are doing is ASP.NET, there actually is a free ide from Microsoft, ASP.NET Web Matrix. There are also some nice free ide's out there, although you can even develop without them for free if you have some weird love for notepad.
.NET. Big names, too. It's really powerful and fun to develop for. Much easier than linuz development in any language, so far.
Again, there are defintely companies out there using
It's scary what a little competition can do to a monolithic company, isn't it?
Linux and OSS. Like it or hate it, it's making Microsoft do more of its job. They can't buy it, they can't squash it, they're having trouble taking legal action against it and their FUD efforts aren't doing much good and are backfiring in their faces.
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
Looks like SCO has got momentum now, and will Microsoft steering from the back seat, Linux might be in a wee bit of trouble in the hunt for marketshare.
It's only going to get more interesting as the battle continues.
Previously posted on /.. html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/53/29419
Now, assume SCO tells us:
Hey, we claim that Windoze contains SCOde, so you gotta pay us $1,500 per license to avoid litigation...
Now, reading this:
In older contracts, Microsoft agreed to pay all legal fees for volume license customers who got sued because of Microsoft, but only up to the value of the software they bought.
But, my Corporate license was offered at a price of $120 per seat. So there's still a loss of $1,300 per seat, even if MS foots the bill!! Very clever, typical MS.
-
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
There is no way MS would do anything at all in a non grasping manner.
There has to be a hook.
It's Christmas everyday with BitTorrent.
This sure as heck makes SCO seem like some little buttboy oMicrosoft. SCO twists linux arm and MS pops up and assure that bad things like SCO dont happen to MS users.
Strange indeed huh?
HTTP/1.1 400
This agreement says nothing new at all. Why the fuck doesn't anyone here realize that? Since you still can't sue over security holes, why else would you be sued for using MS products? The only reason that I can see is that they'll protect you if someone sues you for not using Linux, for example, the US Government. Many people have talked of suing governments for not using Open Source s/w because it's free as in speech, and everything the government has should be free (beer & speech). This is definately way oversimplified, but you get the idea...
Webmaster Wanted - Entropic Reactions
I haven't read the article yet (I know), but it sounds like MS is just offering a standard third-party indemnity. If that is the case, I would hardly reward them for doing what (a) is no actual skin off their back, and (b) is industry standard.
Like Doc Searls said in the previous article, in the U.S. large successful corporations are God (or at worst they share the God-spot with money). So what have they to fear from the legal system? It exists to serve them.
I was going to say how do we know that the advanced SMP code from Linux didn't slip into *BSD and result in you guys being next in the lawsuit. Then I realized SMP support for *BSD is either horrible or non-existent so you must not have borrowed anything from Linux.
Um, this is supposed to happen in the future if Microsoft doesn't get its act together? Shoot, bubba, it's already happening. Once again, MS is being reactive & not proactive.
Microsoft gained its market dominance through marketing, unethical business practices, shrewd evangelical work in the education area, bundling applications with the OS, buying out the competition & (oh yes) pure dumb luck. Customer service & attention to the needs of end users has never been their strong suit.
As the article pointed out, these licensing changes are really there to keep the procurement agents, customers' lawyers, corporate brass et al. happy. They will have minimal real-world impact.
If it would have significant real-world impact, you can bet your glutes that Microsoft wouldn't have done it. Microsoft is in the business of making money, not making software products. I'm not saying this is good (the "neo-conservative" point-of-view) or bad (the "Soviet Russia" point-of-view). I'm just saying that's the way it is.
"Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
they need to be overhauled. Let's face it: viral licensing is bad for everyone.
I wonder how this new policy effects certain SQL Server customer's liability to Timeline's patent coverage.
Is Microsoft now going to indemnify SQL Server users against these patents?
Maybe they figure that perpetuating the Linux FUD campaign is more important any Timeline/SQL Server associated risk?
Just wondering.
Why did this happen?
Because all the GNU software Microsoft is in direct competition with.
Thank you GNU! You're #2!
This quarter revenue: IBM - 21.8 billion, MSFT - 8.0
Year '03 projection: IBM - 88.6, MSFT - 34.5
Still, it would be insane to try to take on both at the same time.
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
They do. CLR runtime and compilers are available free for download. Visual Studio and .NET enabled business servers remain pay to play.
.NET is about?
Try here for example.
Seriously, I know that a lot of it is Microsoft's fault because of their whack-on-an-acronym marketing dept, but is it really so hard to figure out what
Henry
i don't do sigs. oops.
Is Microsoft becoming soft in its approach or is it already seeing its dooms day ahead and want to show its softer side to get pity?
Oh! And by the way, your home-page consists of an empty directory listing.
Keep beating those seals - you fucking jerk!
to destroy Linux...
/Dread
I see some people mention that MS is doing this in a response to the threats of SCO.
I think it is quite the contrary (or so my tinfoil hat told me).
This just seems too coincidental with the "Using Linux could mean legal fees" SCO campaign.
Now we have a *real* alternative if we worry about vague "legal fees", just use MS!
MS lost a lawsuit recently (last few months) involving SQL Server 7. Seems that they lisenced some of the technology for DTS but not for resale, so the company that actually created the technology sued MS.... legally, that would have put anyone using SQL Server 7 at risk of having to pay lisencing to the smaller company (whose name I forget) I was waiting for thm to petition to have the ruling extended to SQL Server2k as it likely shares some code in this area with SQL Server 7. It is quite likely a reaction to THAT lawsuit, not the SCO vs IBM lawsuit.
MS's purchase of a unix lisence from SCO also has little to do with the lawsuit. MS produces a cd full of utils for windows server to provide service for unix machine onthe network (including file serving, etc) which does use some unix technlogoy (obviously) so they are just staying in compliance with the law (or at the very least making sure that they are covered shoud SCO actually win)
I reject your reality
... via the simple built-in SMB, HTTP, and FTP protocols which look to me like they were exactly designed to facilitate copying of data and files, with no means whatsoever to guard against pirating of copyrighted materials, hence it could be then sucessfully argued that Windows is a tool designed to facilitate piracy.
Finally, the day has come! All it took was a bit of competition for Microsoft to make their products better! Long live market economy!
What's so bad about being lazy? What if there was a war and nobody showed up?
Colour me impressed. Until they agree that they can be sued for damages caused by using their software, it's all just marketing hype. I'd like to see the auto companies put some of those MS-style EULA bits in their stuff, "not responsible for damages, injuries, or death caused by our crappy manufacturing or design." Riiiight.
Are software users really liable for the behavior of third parties?
Now, assume SCO alleges that HP put SCOde into Windows, and you, a Windows user has to pay $1,500 per UnixWare license to cover your arse. Now, what MS is saying is this:
Microsoft agreed to pay all legal fees for volume license customers who got sued because of Microsoft, but only up to the value of the software they bought.
In other words, even if MS pays you $200 per seat which is the cost of a Corporate license roughly, you're still facing a $1.300 liability from "litigious bastards" such as SCO!
Instead of suffering more virus attacks and Slammer worms and still being faced with litigation, why not switch over to Linux? Legal risk? Let SCO sue me first, then we'll see.
-
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
I can't think of a more heavy-handed marketing tactic than MS's licenses audit. I worked as an intern one summer, just before MS launched Office XP. They decided that it was a good idea to audit my company. They sent us a letter and ask us for the licenses. Being a bank, we had branches all over the place. Simply finding the licenses was time consuming, thus costly to the company. The interns usually had to drive out to the branches and examine each computer for Office and then hunt for the licenses at the branches. After it was all over, we came up short. We called MS to asked them how we could buy the missing Office 97 licenses. They tell us that it was no longer on sale and that we must buy the new Office XP licenses. Therefore, we shelled out the money for the new licenses. Now, seeing how we were running Office 97 not too long ago, you can imagine what kind of computer we had to run Office XP on. In other words, we pay for a new product, which we couldn't use, to cover for an old product, which we lost the licenses for. It was our fault for not keeping a better track of licenses to start with. However, these heavy-handed ways of pushing for a new product doesn't endearing any customer to MS. We briefly considered Linux and Star Office for a while. All of us in the tech department knew that was the way to go. Not only was it free but no future legal hassles. However, we knew that management would have refused and the bank workers like to complain about even the most minor change and blame everything on the tech. department.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
Before Foghorn-LeghornWB gets released.
I went to battle MC Escher, but drew a blank
I'm surprised noboday has pointed out the possibility of a conspiracy theory here. On the surface, the timing appears as if Microsoft is taking advantage of an opportunity to look like they have a better license, making them look like the wiser choice again linux to large organizations...
But what if the timing went something more like this:
---
6 months ago, in a large penthouse office someplace in Seattle...
Gates: "Hey... I have a great idea on how to combat linux!"
Lackey: "That's a great idea sir!"
Gates: "Wait... I haven't said anything yet..."
Lackey: "Oh. Sorry..."
Gates: "We can hit them with their openness... we find some company with a strong unix background, and we make them an offer they can't refuse..."
Lackey: "go on..."
Gates: "We tell them to throw up a nonsenical lawsuit, casting all kinds of doubt on the intellectual property in linux... They won't even have to prove that, and they won't ever actually say what it is... we can lend them our expertise in manipulating the legal system. They can sue someone, oh, like... IBM... I don't like them much anyway."
Lackey: "But how does that help us?"
Gates: "Well, we will come out and acknowledge that they may have some merit by 'buying' a license for the intellectual property."
Lackey: "uh huh..."
Gates: "And then we can blow smoke up a bunch of reporter's asses, and get them to build up this 'lawsuit' as a big threat to linux."
Lackey: "Great Idea, Sir!"
Gates: "Wait... I'm not done."
Lackey: "Sorry..."
Dates: "And then, just when every company is beginning to worry if the IP lawsuit will affect them, we change our license to make it look like we are the only safe choice! The press will eat that up!"
Lackey: "Great Idea, sir!"
Gates: "Now... which 'unix' company can we bribe with this plan? Sun? No... they still hate us over that whole 'Java' thing... Apple? No... they aren't new enough to unix yet, and we are going to screw them with the whole IE annoucement soon anyway..."
Lackey: "What about IBM, Sir?"
Gates: "You dolt... they are the TARGET of the plan! Besides, they have too much cash to be susceptable to my bribe... I know! SCO! Yes, SCO! They are down and out! they need my money! And they just might have the background in unix to pull this off!"
Lackey: "But sir, haven't they been SUPPORTING linux?"
Gates: "Ah, my dear lackey... you underestimate the power of the almighty dollar. Get me the CEO of SCO on the phone...."
Lackey: "Great Idea, sir!"
It's not "Microsoft Improves Its Licensing Terms"...it's "Microsoft Licenses Its Improvement Terms". Unless Slashdot purchased a license from Microsoft to report on this story, Slashdot has violated Microsoft's licensing agreement.
I don't think MS would see even their current license as a requirement to pay SCO right now, if SCO claimed that Windows were infringing.
Seems more likely that MS would say, "Wait till you are sued." Which seems to be the general consensus for Linux users regarding SCO.
This is a good way for M$ to get more (like they need it) free publicity and spread FUD at the same time.
In a normal business agreement there is often a clause that indemnifies the parties from lawsuits as a result of the other party's whatever. Only in software licenses where the user generally gets mugged on paper (you have no rights, they all belong to sw company) does this often get neglected. I've seen some licenses where the user agrees to hold the sw maker harmless and pay for ALL sw maker's legal costs in a lawsuit (example, you use product X from company M in a medical device, something goes wrong, patient dies, patient family sues you and company M due to supposed defect in device, you get pay M's legal bills in that case [M does not mean M$, just a letter for an example]).
M$ is just putting some of that standard language back. Most of all, it makes FUD arguments sound more legitimate. "Sure you save money up front on those open source programs, but what happens when SCO or the real authors of what's in that open source program comes knocking on your door demanding payment for your use of what was stolen from them? We are there for you. Our goal is to make you succeed. You don't have to worry about that problem with us, and in the unlikely event someone alleges impropriety and you end up in court with our product, you won't have to spend money on lawyers. We are here to protect you. Just sign right here."
Now here's one for you. It seems I recall that people have pointed out a few GPL code violations, running "strings" on a few M$ Windows DLL and EXEs revealed some amazing things. Now we know they used BSD code, but if they did use GPL or other code that they were not free to "incorporate" into their products, now that M$ is taking this step, maybe it is time to start seeking to proove the thefts and target M$ customers like SCO is targetting Linux customers.
. 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
1) pay SCO to make noises about suing Linux users
2) offer vacuous garantee against phantom threat of being sued over third party software
3) FUD managements into thinking Linux is unsafe and MS products are safe
4) PROFIT!
-- Marc A. Pelletier
A recent posting on the Groklaw blog (see "SCO Can't Go After Statutory Damages or Atty's Fees" heading in the 7/22/03 section) states the US Copyright Office claims that SCO cannot go after statutory damages or attorney fees for any copyright infringement based on the most recent filing. They can only go after actual damages, which are very hard to prove in court.
What are SCO's actual damages from someone using Linux who would never have bought any SCO product in the first place? I mean, if I downloaded my ISO and burned it myself to install on 5 machines, it seems hard to argue that had Linux not included SCO IP, I would have purchased 5 copies of SCO UnixWare. No, if there had been no Linux, I'd have gone for one of the *BSD's. So even if SCO is correct, what are the actual damanges.
Doing some more copyright law searching.
Found these points at Bromberg and Sunstein LLP [bromsun.com]
Benefits of Federal Copyright Registration
Required for Infringement Suit. Generally speaking, unless the copyrighted work has been registered (or the Copyright Office has refused registration although the required deposit, application and fee were properly filed), a court action for infringement of the copyright will be dismissed.
Required for Statutory Damages. If registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work or prior to infringement, certain damages and attorneys' fees provided by law will be available, in addition to actual damages and lost profits.
Now, you can go to the Library of Congress Copyright site (www.copyright.gov) and search for the newly awarded SCO copyright: TX-5-705-356.
Notice that the SCO copyright lists publication date as 27Jun91, but registration date of 30Jun03. Combine that with "If registration is made within three months after the first publication of the work or prior to infringement, certain damages and attorneys' fees provided by law will be available, in addition to actual damages and lost profits." from above and it does seem like SCO will have a tough case to make in any litigation relating to copyright.
Presumption of Validity. In any judicial proceeding, a certificate of registration issued within five years of the first publication of the work confers a legal presumption that the copyright is valid and that all facts stated in the copyright registration certificate are true.
Also note that the 5 year presumption of validity time limit has expired.
Protection Against Importation of Infringing Copies. A copyright owner can record the registration with the U.S. Customs Service for protection against the importation of infringing works.
Wonder how much of the alleged infringing work was done overseas? Wasn't some of it supposed to have been done by a German Caldera employee? Wonder if SCO has taken this step yet?
Dear Mr Pira... er vict... er whatever..
We would like inform you that you have been chosen to be bent over a table and raped repeatedly in, not 15, no sireee... but 30 days!
We realize this may be an inopportune time for you (cause we plan things that way), but Honey.. we needs the sugar!
Please be waiting with pants around ankles. Thank you.
Your sincerely,
B. Gates.
Until software companies are held to the same level of accountability as product manufacturers, warranty doesn't matter. I supose volume licensees don't read EULAs either.
Warranty on a car covers things that break inside the car during the period caused by manufacturer defect. Warranty on software is subject to "Microsoft is not liable for any damages."
Doing the Right Thing should not be preempted by making a buck.
MS will now say "Use Linux at the risk of patent infringement suits or let us take care of it for you." This strategy could be expensive in the long run though:
I feel certain that some large company will patent some [...] crucial technique. If we assume this company has no need of any of our patents then the have a 17-year right to take as much of our profits as they want. (Bill Gates, 1991)
Of course, we could just abolish software patents and make the question moot...
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
Microsoft already paid for it. You have nothing to worry about.
I want them held liable for their security issues.
M.B.
The article clearly states that was the old way, under the new licenses/contracts Microsoft covers all your legal costs regardless of what you paid them in the first place.
All I'm saying is we critisize microsoft on their draconian licensing, and when they change it for the better, they get criticized as well.
__________
Love conquers all... except CANCER
From the article:
n older contracts, Microsoft agreed to pay all legal fees for volume license customers who got sued because of Microsoft, but only up to the value of the software they bought.
Under the new provision, which took effect March 1, Microsoft removed the liability cap in intellectual property suits and altered other parts of the agreements that potentially expand its liability.
Microsoft has ALWAYS had this in their EULA, the only difference is that now the liability cap is no longer just up to the value of their software... It just can't be any more clear than that. Your not facing $1300 liability from SCO, the new provisions defend against that.
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
Microsoft is paying al legal expenses for all the users of his insecure OS, that we all know is easily rooted, and thus easily used for distributed DOS attacks and/or spam messaging.
Or Outlook, that being the insecure POS it is, has let lots of viruses spread, costing trillions(or so say analists) in bandwidth and damages.
So, i'm thinking that next time we get hit by any DDOS or our mail server gets clogged by so many viruses, instead of cursing our bad fortune, we should instead sue whoever was used to relay the attack!
No worries about them being just another victim like you, because is Microsoft who will get stuck with the bill, and with the load of money Microsoft has, I'm sure there will be hundreds of lawyers willing to take these cases "pro bono", for a cut of the (big) pie!
So you know what to do now! Sue early and often, you'll have at least a chance of getting money out of this, as well as helping Microsoft with all that monopoly money they have around!
This is a Microsoft problem how? Sounds more like a "piss-poor administration" problem to me. There are plenty of tools available to track licenses across your enterprise, and if you had to resort to going "...to the branches and examine each computer for Office" then your organization was doing something wrong. I also work for a bank, with ~20,000 wintel seats across North America, and I can tell management exactly how many copies of Office, Access, Publisher, etc. etc. etc. are installed right now and how that compares to the number of licenses we own. If your organization didn't have that capability, that's their f-up, not MS's. And the lack of that capability probably why they got audited in the first place.
Not to mention the fact that I think your entire story is fantasy. If you'd ever been audited by Microsoft, you'd know you don't need to provide the actual, physical copies of each license (at least it's never been necessary in my experiences w/MS audits). "hunt for the licenses at the branches"? Come on.
You can still find traces of *nix lying around in Windows. To find one bit of it try this.
.haeger
Start "cmd" (that's the old DOS-windows)
type: nslookup
type: help
Near the bottom of that page You can see something saying "view FILE - sort an 'ls' output file and view it with pg".
While it can be argued that the 'ls' that they refer to is nslookup's ls, (as shown in the help-file) there is no such tool for "pg", hence it must be Unix "pg" as nslookup was borrowed from *BSD.
Now, does this mean that Windows contain Unix-code and if so, does this mean that SCO owns Microsoft?
I imagine McBride going on TV shouting "I 0wn j00 B1lly. Ph33r m3!". Ok, not likely, but fun if it were to happen.
You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
Dang! And I was just about to file my lawsuits against the hundreds of companies whose servers are still infected by Code Red & Nimda, and attack mine on an hourly basis.
Guess now that they have infinite legal resources, I should become a lawyer instead.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
"Under the new provision, which took effect March 1" So this isn't the result of any of the SCO flap of the last few days, as it would appear. JAV
"Not only was it free but no future legal hassles" --You might want to revise this sentence.
The phaomnneil pweor of the hmuan mnid. Fcuknig amzanig eh!
...are they admitting that you may be infringing someone's product by using MS products, do they have something to hide? or am I reading too much into this
They must have seen my post.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
You are such a bitch( and a dickhead too) . I am going to kick your dirty ass and then kill YOUU
StarOffice is also available for Win32, so if Office licenses were all that you were short on, then that might have been a good alternative.
In fact, that's something I would recommend to a lot of people. StarOffice/OpenOffice on Windows works well for people who it would be difficult to set up Linux/*BSD for, particularly if they already have a Windows installation, license and some random Windows software that they are using.
The point is showing people that they have alternatives. If they have already chosen to install Windows, that doesn't matter; they still don't have to buy MS Office, they have the choice of using OpenOffice instead, if it is sufficient for their needs.
Of course when they buy the machine, they should be aware that they don't have to buy Windows, but given that they have already chosen to do that, it is not a good idea to tell them that they must get rid of it to have any alternatives.
Fortunately, free software is often portable, which makes it much more useful and universal than software targeted at a specific platform.
I mostly run Unix software, under various licensed Unix systems as well as Linux, FreeBSD and MacOS X. Even if I were forced to use Windows, much of that software would be available.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/53/29419.html
They may be using the SCO thing as cover, but I'll bet a good amount this policy is aimed at SQL Server developers.
All software vendors should be responsible for IP claims on the software that they sell. Yes, that includes commercial Linux distros. Yes, that includes hobbyists selling shareware products. If you take money for it, you're saying that you have the rights to sell it. If you don't, then you're a thief and a liar.
Disclosure of interest: I work for a company that's pathological about keeping third party code out of our products. We sell to embedded device manufacturers and we simply cannot afford to get this wrong, because they will sue us until we glow, then hang us in the dark if we do.
There is absolutely no reason that vendors selling to Joe Public should be held to lower standards, other than that Joe lets them get away with it. While I still think that SCO is deranged, at least they're making it clear that you'd better be damn sure that you've got the rights - all of the rights - to whatever you're selling.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Note that this is only for I.P. related suits - big wow. MS holds 2nd most I.P. in the software world (only IBM is bigger).
Many would much rather do away with I.P. laws themselves.
I.P. is a largely a protection racket game, this just codifies that racket and establishes Microsoft as the #1 crime gang.
I know this sounds like a troll (but then again this this is slashdot) and, yes I am wearing my tin foil hat - however could this possibly have been planned by MS long ago? We know MS bought licenses from SCO, maybe that was just a down-payment for SCO to bring their suit against IBM and publicly threaten Linux users. SCO has got an exceptional amount of press which has more than likely got many companies considering the costs of legal action (win or lose) when using any given software. Now MS comes out with this, that's one hell of a coincidence, and for me, MS is certainly shrewd enough to have actually planned the whole thing all along.
like tears in rain - time to die. [Rutger Hauer]
Microsoft will cover unlimited expenses on injury and infringement claims,...
Does that inclde cervical spine injuries secondary to high velocity cranial impacts against an infamous blue screen??
You are right, but IBM is only the target in spirit. The point is to introduce all new forms of FUD into the minds of CIO's everywhere. Microsoft wants to get corporations to rethink any moves towards Linux. When the orders come down to report upstairs on the potential impact of a Linux migration, covering all these new potential issues, there will be more than a few CIO's who will say: "screw this, nobody gets fired for buying Windows". Game over.
But we all know that the real threat of lawsuits involving MS products are suits against MS, and suits by MS. I'm sure they won't be paying for your costs in either of the above situations.
Read the article again:
In older contracts, Microsoft agreed to pay all legal fees for volume license customers who got sued because of Microsoft, but only up to the value of the software they bought.
Under the new provision, which took effect March 1, Microsoft removed the liability cap in intellectual property suits and altered other parts of the agreements that potentially expand its liability.
The new terms remove the liability cap.
Mmmm.. Donuts
How is that fantasy? Because my experience doesn't match yours? The licenses we had to hunt for were the little certificates manuals or the jewel cases the CDs came with. I don't know what you guys showed MS but that's what we did. I've already admitted that it was poorly managed. Good for you that you guys had it better managed. Congratulations, feel good about yourself. Stopping the sale of Office 97 licenses simutaneously with the start of the audit along with the push of Office XP was simply a way of making us buy what we didn't need. We needed Office 97, not XP.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
"Under the new provision, which took effect March 1"
March 1? WTF... I'm really starting to think than Microsoft has masterminded this whole SCO attack. If it was implemented March 1 when was the idea thought of?
Let's see... Microsoft changes their license on March 1, Sco sues IBM a few days later. May 14 SCO sends out 1500 letters, a few days later Microsoft buys a license. Sco threatens to sue about a billion lowly users for copyright infringement, a few weeks later Cnet writes an article outlining the new Microsoft license.
Microsoft is too big to make these kinds of reactive decisions so quickly. They had to at least have inside knowledge of what SCO was up to in order to be so well prepared or be damned lucky.
No normal company would have the audacity to make the bizarre kinds of claims SCO is making. Microsoft who pretty much owns the US court system and can buy the verdict of their choice, has the power to at least have a chance of making a suit like this actually work.
Even if everything SCO has said is right... it's absurd to think they can sue little old me for buying a few copies of Slack and SuSE. Now if I distributed copies of those, then it might be possible. And what about the GPL?
If SCO is just taking a final potshot to raise some money so they can inflate their stock prices, those in charge will almost certainly get popped for insider trading if they dump that inflated stock. SCO isn't an Enron, they're a piss-ant little company. If they wanted to get bought out then they would have limited the scope of their lawsuit to IBM not the whole friggin Linux community. Almost no Linux users would ever do business with SCO or anyone who bought out SCO. If SCO were to win most of us would switch back to FreeBSD, in order to not do business with SCO.
The only logical conclusion is some company who has a competing product (to Linux) is behind this attack.
At the time this seem true, which was the summer of 2000 I believe.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
In older contracts, Microsoft agreed to pay all legal fees for volume license customers who got sued because of Microsoft, but only up to the value of the software they bought.
Under the new provision, which took effect March 1, Microsoft removed the liability cap in intellectual property suits and altered other parts of the agreements that potentially expand its liability.
How does uninformed crap like this get modded up to +4 Insightful? The correct mod score should be -1, Illiterate.
That Bill Gates really is Santa Claus. At what point will their incredible generosity meet its limit?
Do you have ESP?
In reality, this is quite simply another "barb" thrown at the Linux community.
The "change in policy" where companies getting software audits are notified 30 days in advance (rather than 15) sounds bogus to me too.
The real issue with software licensing audits is usually what happens *after* an audit begins. Whether you get 15 or 30 days' notice that they'd like to audit you, it probably matters zilch. If you're given even one week notice, it's enough warning to make the phone calls to buy your licenses for the stuff you know you don't legally own. If you *don't* know what's licensed and what's not, you may as well let the auditors do that work for you, and conduct "business as usual" until then. (They're typically going to give you a certain amount of time to "get legal" without penalties anyway, as long as they can see you made some effort to buy your licenses and didn't intentionally pirate everything.)
poor, 6/10
If I get hauled into court for unauthorized copying of MS software, they will pay my legal bills? "Right hand, this is Left hand, hello? HELLO???"
JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
Apparently Pionar has never actually *USED* windows 98-- if you leave it running longer than about a week at a time, I think you'll change your tune
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
We've upped our standards so up yours.
Free Classifieds
Laws are for people with no friends.
Shouldn't have this story gotten the Monty Python "Foot" icon, instead of the "Gates as Borg" icon?
Another way of putting it: The fact that the neighborhood drunk driver is indemnifying me against lightning strikes doesn't mean much,.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
IBM, as I recall, routinely does this in their contracts.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I don't need protection from lawsuits. I didn't ask for this. In fact, the only thing I ever asked for from Microsoft they just won't give.
Microsoft offers:
1. FUD! and lots of it.
2. falsified reports that show their product to be cheaper (than free!), more secure (hah!) and more reliable (It's not about the bugs! It's not about the bugs!) than others when the exact opposite is always the case.
3. software audits meted out as punishment for even considering another OS or Office product.
4. to protect me from lawsuits dreamed up by litigious losers who might not have even made it to court if not sustained by Microsoft's money.
5. anything, anything, ANYTHING except providing a higher quality product that does what it was advertised to do at a reasonable price!
Thank you, Microsoft, NO! I will stick with Linux (or BSD, or OS X). Go ahead and fund some more shenanigans with SCO; I will risk getting sued. The far greater risk is to use your bug-ridden, security-unconscious, virus-friendly, hacker-attractant software!
Im not sure if they did this to improve there overall company image (which they majorly need to do) or if this was pressured by the court... This might open up a whole new can of worms for them though... It's a bold step... You have to give them credit... and im a linux advocate...
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
I have to say, whether this will cost Microsoft anything really depends on whether this change is retroactive.
Because when Word98 for Mac was new, they included customer support as part of the sales package, but when I was getting mass document corruption, they specifically denied anything was happening, and said that what I said was happening wasn't. Later, it turned out they knew all along that this corruption was happening, but didn't fix the problems till after Word2000, if at all.
If they had told me what was going on, I could have found a workaround. If they had accepted copies of the files for post-mortem examination, maybe we would have also found this out.
This cost us and our business over $17000 in direct costs for their intentional denial of contractually required support, and over $11000 in further lost contracts.
If this is retroactive, I will happily step up to the plate and request $38000. That, for one $100 piece of software+support that was negligently and inentionally not fulfilled.
You probably can guess: As far as I am concerned, until they do pay off on that, Microsoft is still a liability.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
I had to dig this up, thought I'd save you the trouble.
a d_id=20376&noise=show#89229
http://www.theserverside.com/home/thread.jsp?thre
It appears to be the CTO of THOUGHT accusing an open source software project of patent violations. Classic.
My amazing wife - Artist, Author, Philosopher - Laurie M
How likely is it, that someone sues customers of M$ products the way SCO promisses/tries to sue companies using Linux.
The FUD spread by SCO and the addition in the M$ Licensing Terms will make a good point for companies to stick/return to M$ products.
Now I'm just wondering: wasn't there something about M$ putting money into SCO sometime ago?
A blurd
Are you in a bind with the cost of your business software. Do you want a permanet end to endless upgrades and nagging license restriction. We can effetively train your staff to use simple office software, install and maintain your Intranet remotely. Our firm will guarantee your privacy, and effectively make your business software needs a thing of the past! Such is the power of open source software serviced by ..........
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
I love this.
The reason I love this is simple.
The new terms work like this: if you purchase a Microsoft product, and you are sued becaues of IP that Microsoft should have kept out of the code, Microsoft will pay for the lawsuit.
The old terms were identical except that if the price of the product was greater than the cost of the lawsuit (always) then they would only refund the purchase price of the product.
So. This seems to be a GOOD THING that Microsoft is doing. Are they doing this with the hope that companies will see this as an advantage for Windows? YES! Is this somehow immoral and evil? NO! Is there something inherently evil in Microsoft making Windows a more attractive product? NO!
Every time Microsoft does anything bad, people here jump all over them for being the evil empire.
Every time Microsoft does anything good, people here jump all over them for "spreading FUD" and being the evil empire.
Would you all equally cry foul should, say, Red Hat tomorrow decide to add similar terms to their license? I think not!
Oh, and one more thing. Why is it "evil" and "wrong" for SCO to sue over Linux IP violations, but somehow you will be the Champion of Justice by doing exactly the same thing to Windows users???
Are you saying that you don't use any third-party libraries at all? What's wrong with proper licensing? Does your company like paying it's programmers to reinvent the wheel?
They extended the notice period before their draconian audits by fifteen calendar days, and you consider THAT meaningful progress?
So, if I spit in your face every morning for ten years, and then stop one day, are you going to thank me?
Does this mean that chips and specs that are proprietary to a code base and then are made available to Linux coders are a violation of IP also? Don't forget the whole MS business foundation is based on what Compact did with tech code virgins, helped by Microsoft and IBM dirty people. If this is so then any pc can be considered to be illegally produced, and in reality IBM could sue the shit out of all of us. Is the concept of SMP patented. NO, is the idea of a digital word processor patented, I certainly hope not. Is the idea of a digital spread sheet patented NO because the inventors had the forsight to realise how important it was! Open source code is vital because great ideas will not get locked down, and those that are best will survive. The best coders and innovators will make money. Not like the situation now where any .NET code jockey can become protected from competition as long as they code for an MS based OS.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
"Capitalistic" involves the use of money to determine what should be funded.
... well, I guess I'm saying that Bill Gates, who so vocally accused others of being thieves, seems to do it himself -- but he does it more effectively. And our government is sypathetic to neoliberal capitalism in general.
This is using government fiat, that is, the lawsuit, to determine what should be funded.
As such, it isn't capitalistic competitiveness. This is called neoliberal capitalism, and the other word for it, using common language is brigandage, or [on the high seas] piracy.
I should note that there is a story that Alexander the Great caught a pirate, and before he had the pirate executed, he asked "why do you do this?". And the pirate replied "I do no more or less than you do, but only on a smaller scale." Which seemed to relate to this when I started typing it, but now...
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
I recently pulled out the documentation on the IBM drive that I bought some years back. It contains a lot of similar things saying that IBM will cover the user if every sued over use of the product for any reason, they will handle all legal issues, and generally hold the user blameless. They also promised that, in the event that the product was found to be infringing on the IP rights of others, IBM would replace the device with a functional equivalent or allow the user to continue with the infrigment.
I imagine that a lot of the products from IBM are covered in the same manner!
Of course, when SCO goes after a Linux user in court, I suspect that the stampede to fund the victim's legal defense fund will be deafening. And there's likely to be no shortage of volunteers to act as expert witnesses. The transcripts of SCO's testimony may well hit Slashdot in realtime. And the analysis of every flaw in it is going to come back pretty quickly.
The bottom line is that anyone who attacks free software is making a very large number of very dedicated enemies. Ten years ago, we were small enough, and disorganized enough that legal threats might not have killed us off, but they would have quieted us and slowed the development of free software. Today, we have more resources of every kind than any single corporation can muster.
SCO had better be extremely careful how they play this game. If the truth that comes out is that SCO put GPL'ed code into their proprietary kernel, imagine the class action lawsuit on behalf of all of their customers and licenses to grant them full GPL rights over all of SCO's code. If SCO screws up, the historical Unix kernel can end up GPL'ed.
Alas, poor SCO, we knew them well.
the Spanish Inquisition is accepting liability for anyone mistakenly accused of heresy.
Spokesman Torqemada said in a statement "We realize that our methods to date have been somewhat extreme. Anyone who feels they have been erroneously accused of witchcraft and burned at the stake can now make a claim for damages".
Can people who are getting letters from the RIAA about fileswapping use their windows licenses to let MS handle the cost of the lawsuit? I mean, without the MS software they couldn't be running Kazaa right?
Oh, I forgot, Linus doesn't give you any. This "free" OSS keeps costing more and more, eh?
Great! Want me to sue you over your use of Windows? I'll split the settlement with you if I get one...
Microsoft guaranteeing they will shield their customers from IP infringement suits is nothing but hot air unless Microsoft ever decides to sue itself. Its like Cal Worthington saying in his television ads "I could sell you a car for a dollar if I wanted to."
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
"see, we can stand behind our software, its safe to do business with us"
This bad PR that the SCO case is giving OSS will take years to shake off..
But cant blame MS for capitalizing on our grief, no one ever said business is fair.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"While I still think that SCO is deranged, at least they're making it clear that you'd better be damn sure that you've got the rights - all of the rights - to whatever you're selling."
Doesn't seem to bother SCO that they don't have "the rights - all of the rights -" to the Linux Kernel before insisting that users pay them a licence fee for using it all.
It seems to me like this will get more companies brought into court for using MS products. I imagine huge armies of lawyers engaging MS on as many fronts as possible, and like leeches (or ticks maybe) slowly draining the 30 billion or so in cash that MS has around via an all-out war of attrition.
It would be harder to pin the blame on a company when it had to defend itself, but basically this way you're engaging MS legal directly with a lawsuit such as this. Clearly this is supposed to provide companies a warm fuzzy, one they won't get with that Linux product and its troubled IP roots. But I don't think it will work out for MS in the long run.
MS is again playing for keeps here. I'm surprised it took them so long to get started with this - I was beginning to think they'd lost their edge.
Things like this clearly illustrate why MS is such a problem for the industry. If every company went around suing customers for the crime of buying products, then there would be no industry.
Dare I suggest that Congressional action is needed to clarify this important commerce-promoting limitation of liability?
Microsoft has combined the strengths of its three most powerful operating systems:
- WindowsCE
- WindowsME
- WindowsNT
to create its next generation operating system!
Introducing WindowsCEMENT
Hard as a rock, and dumb as a brick!
Not sure if this would work, but this seems to mean that if I use M$'s software, (say its C programming software) to write a code which I then copyright (my I.P.) under the GPL, then MS will pay my legal fees if the GPL is challenged, right?
What was the name of the company that claimed that Microsoft was violating their licensing terms for developers who were using MS SQL?
They may be glad to hear this - if they press the issue, MS may have to cough up the dough! Plus, it would have the added benefit of showing that MS should get its own house in order before trying to destroy someone elses...
Can someone tell me of the sort of cases where someone could be sued for using Microsoft software? And would this include recommending a Windows solution to a client, and a bug in Windows contributed to the software not working properly, and hence you being sued?
This is one of the most fragmented, hackneyed, rambling, officious, superficial, obstreperous posts I've seen in quite some time here in virtual disnely world...if not the worst.
You've paid someone $5 to not beat up your friends? We should all have friends like you! Let's see, if I build up a "client list" of 500 people, at $5 a week (or is it per day?), that's a cool $2,500 a week - with no work (since by definition you only "work" when they don't pay you!).
A Joke For You:
Q. What's a "lively hood"?
A. Eminem after 10 cups of coffee :-D
I don't want no credit for stinking joke - Ugot* should get the credit, though he seems to not realize the profundity of his "grammer". Would someone please mod him, er, his post, "funny strange" :?)
Hmmm, Backfire on MS? Or am I reading this wrong?
Don't get me wrong, I think open source is a fine initiative. I'm just saying that relying on boilerplate licenses (rather than mutually negotiated contracts) that don't explicitely grant rights in perpetuity and non-revokably is a pretty risky way to pay your mortgage.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Some of us just want to rid the world of the cancer of Intellectual "property", which contravenes american Free Speech and european Freedom of Expression.
if you're not running much in the way of 3rd party apps then years of uptime are not unusual. i admin a few NT4 and 2k boxes and they stay up until you turn them off...
Forget cheaper, until they start making stable, secure products that work well with 3rd party applications, their market share is just going to keep dropping, despite illegal methods.
> No, it doesn't. It reveals that MS has used some BSD code...
Perhaps you could have pointed out the "strings" posters' possible confusion - that the BSD licence is more relaxed than the GPL. Hence it is OK for MS (or others) to incorperate it (and IIRC credit is give to BSD in MS licences).
Regards, Simon