Microsoft Sends Takedown Notice To MSFreePC.com

DJFelix writes "Just to add some more drama in California this week, legal counsel for Microsoft issued a takedown notice to Lindows CEO Michael Robertson, demanding the immediate shutdown of the MSFreePC.com website. The MSFreePC.com website allows people who purchased certain Microsoft products in California, or used certain Microsoft products in California to submit a claim in the $1.1 billion class action suit Microsoft lost in California. The site is still up for now, but how long will it last?"

Comments

Microsoft Customers Deserve The Best

[Ro'que]

What? Someone is being deceptive to Microsoft customers? How dare they LIE to Microsoft's customers! MS customers DEMAND honesty and integrity from the companies they buy from, and Mr. Gates will be damned if he'll just sit by and let his unfortunate customers get swindled!

how long?

[Beckman]

The site is still up for now, but how long will it last?

Until it's slashdotted out of existance...

Hip HipHop Hiphopicritical?

[Doesn't_Comment_Code]

From MS (in the letter)

Claim forms submitted through the www.msfreepc.com website will be invalid because they will not be signed. Instead, these claims will include only the claimant's typed name (called a "digital signature" by the website) which is invalid under the Settlement Agreement.


Please Click Below to show that you Accept the EULA before using Windows/Word/Excel ...

Re:Huh?

[Cirkit]

I thought the most interesting bit about this was Microsoft stating that 'so-called digital signitures' were not acceptable.

Um, hello? This is Microsoft, that thinks its click-through EULA is as good as a contract?

UETA allows electronic signatures

[bshroyer]

It seems that a large part of Microsoft's argument is the requirement on a wet-ink signature. The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) passed by most states in 2000-2001 sought to, among other things, give electronic signatures much the same force and effect as wet-ink signatures.

California's
2001 SB97 reads:

1633.7. (a) A record or signature may not be denied legal effect
or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.
(b) A contract may not be denied legal effect or enforceability
solely because an electronic record was used in its formation.
(c) If a law requires a record to be in writing, an electronic
record satisfies the law.
(d) If a law requires a signature, an electronic signature
satisfies the law.

This seems pretty clear to me, but then, as they say, IANAL.