Microsoft Will Pay If Its Bugs Damage Your Data
RMX writes "CNet is reporting on
a new Microsoft policy where
they will pay if their software damages your data
. There's a pretty low limit on what they will cover and "it also applies even if Microsoft knew or should have known about the possibility of the damages" but at least it's nice that they're specifying exactly to what length they'll go to cover their customers. Is this the "support" from proprietary vendors that corporations like so much?"
"Microsoft will reimburse direct damages up to $5 for problems associated with the new downloadable tool that wards off spyware, adware and any other "potentially unwanted software."
That is a very low price for data.
I don't think that corporations would care about this.
It could be worse, it could be Monday.
Five whole dollars???
Why would anyone migrate away from Microsoft products now?
P.S. On a serious note, doesn't this potentially open them up to being sued for damages? I know they're claiming otherwise in the EULA, but once the door is open...
I swear, if i had a buck for each time a Microsoft product damaged my dat...
Oh... wait...
"Microsoft offers $5 windfall for errant software"
Did anyone else find it extremely funny to see such flagrant sarcasm in this news.com.com headline?
I'm a big tall mofo.
$5 is nothing, probably doesn't even cover cost of applying for it. so why bother?
advertising scam about "financially backing" their software as opposed to OSS?
tax scam?
stock scam?
come on, it's got to be some sort of scam.
Please send in your request along with $4.99 for shipping/handling...
It's easy for all you Linux admins who cost so much to scoff at 5 bucks, but for the average windows professional, it's a lot of money!
According to the AntiSpyware Beta end-user license agreement (EULA), Microsoft will reimburse direct damages up to $5 for problems associated with the new downloadable tool that wards off spyware, adware and any other "potentially unwanted software."
/. post seems to make it look like it's MS software in general. Sorry, you only get money if the Anit-Spyware program screws up your stuff.
They are talking only about the Beta for the MS Anti-Spyware. Everything in this
Rather than Microsoft Will Pay If Its Bugs Damage Your Data, the headline should have read Microsoft Says Your Data Is Only Worth $5 .
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I've seen that $5 liability limit before in other Microsoft EULAs. It's nothing new -- been there for years. I wonder why CNet is only now mentioning it???
I can only pray that Monsanto doesn't prove you wrong some day.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Which I think is fair. However, Microsoft is now admitting responsibility for the bugs and that they can cause damage sufficient to warrant monetary compensation.
This is opposed to their previous stance of claiming that their software has no fitness for any purpose or merchantability. This new policy goes against that previous claim. That's why I think the door may have creaked open for the right lawsuit to succeed in claiming, "No, we suffered a loss that should be compensated by one million dollars, not five." And when Microsoft tries to get it tossed out on the basis of their claims in the EULA, this policy will be shoved in their face.
Just a thought.
I was going to mod you up, but I'm going to agree with you explicitly instead.
Settlement agreements are generally contracts that say "A gives B $X and B promises not to sue A for Y."
So if you accept the contract from Microsoft which says "Microsoft gives Joe $5 and Joe promises not to sue Microsoft for the loss of Joe's data," you can't sue them later for the loss of your data. But if you refuse the $5, you can.
The question is, however, whether the EULA includes a term saying that "If you lose your data, your only remedy is to accept a $5 settlement from Microsoft." And, if it does, would a court rule it unconscionable, meaning that it's so apalling and unfair that they will refuse to enforce that term of the agreement.
But yes, they are definitely apparently admitting some degree of responsibility for lost data, though, and that's step one.