Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Sues and Gets Sued
wubo writes, "Microsoft is apparently stepping up its anti-piracy measures by publishing the locations and specifics of their pending lawsuits. Check out the snazzy map — warms me heart and soul." And to even the scales of justice, one of the last remaining class-action antitrust lawsuits filed against Microsoft in a state court is set to go to trial in Iowa later this year. An anonymous reader writes, "Iowa consumers who purchased Microsoft products in the last 12 years are being represented in a class action anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft. The jury trial begins on November 13 and is expected to last 6 months." Bill Gates is on the witness list.
Microsoft is apparently stepping up its anti-piracy measures by publishing the locations and specifics of their pending lawsuits.
Wow, a whole 73 lawsuits. In a nation of 260 million people. That tremble in the force you feel is the pirates quaking in their boots.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
I am sure it will really have an effect on the many people selling pirated software around the world, especially since it is just a map of the US. The US already has the lowest software piracy rate in the world, but at what point is it impossible to reduce the numbers anymore? People will always pirate software, deal drugs, and commit other illegal activities as long as there is profit, and with the distributer being targetted rather than the purchaser, there will always be demand creating a vacuum of supply. Perhaps it would be more profitable to go to wealthy medium-piracy level countries and crack down there instead.
Warhammer forums
This is a good thing. A lot of people have no problems with downloading software or other copyrighted materials illegaly, as long as it is for free. But a lot of people are against selling such items, or making a profit off of it. Unfortunately, the copyright lobby views both groups as filthy stinking pirates, but the public don't really care about the first group, and only view the second group as the real pirates that actually ought to be punished for it.
What Microsoft is doing here, is targeting the second group only. And that is a good thing.
Personally, I don't care. They're not employing *AA tactics by suing individuals. So they're suing a bunch of low-rent compu-chop-shops...good riddance.
This being Slashdot, I know nobody bothered to read the article before bashing Microsoft, but if you'll look at the list of defendants, they're almost all small time computer sales or software sales companies. Microsoft isn't the RIAA; they don't waste lawsuits suing Grandma or Little Susie because they're running a copy of Windows without a valid product key. What they do care about is companies who sell pirated copies of Windows to consumers for a profit. Some of these consumers even PAY for a pirated copy of Windows and are told they're getting a licensed copy. I know some people will argue with me that this is a good thing, but if you are a consumer who's been sold a pirated copy of Windows without your knowledge, Microsoft will even help you get a free or discounted copy if you just let them know who sold it to you. A lot of people instantly think it's Microsoft's way of getting you to rat on your family friend who's loaned you his install CD and key, but again, that's not who MS is looking for. So before you start crying foul, this sort of site isn't meant to scare you, it's meant to scare the guy selling 1000's of copies of Windows to unsuspecting consumers for a profit.
Because pirating Microsoft products is actually easier than using them legitimately (to an extent)!
:)
To clarify this, I don't condone pirating software that you don't already own. While this statement sounds odd, anyone who has had to deal with Windows Product Activation or Office Product Activation should know just how painful Microsoft makes it to activate your software after you've passed some arbitrary threshold. I spent a half hour on the phone with one of their activation people a few days ago attempting to get the copy of Office I paid for activated on a computer that had a hdd failure and had to be reinstalled from scratch. After being told that it was my fault (yeah, I shoulda known better than to buy a WD hard drive) and told that I needed to call tech support I finally gave up and cracked it, which took a grand total of two minutes.
The same holds true for Windows. I own legitimate copies of XP (paid out of the nose for them), and it's worth noting that some of these copies have been around since XP was released (how many years ago was that?). During this time I have upgraded, had hardware failures, and then there are the infamous Windows failures that render the computer useless until you reformat and reinstall. Now every time I touch one of those licenses, I have to call Microsoft and report. This entails entering (or speaking) a lengthy activation number into the phone, then going through the same boring script with a person who doesn't speak English very well. Why bother when I can run two executables and be done with the entire affair?
Microsoft needs to stop treating every customer like criminals and then maybe more of them will feel inclined to start paying for the software.
The Plaintiffs claim that Microsoft harmed Class Members by illegally overcharging for its software, by denying Class Members free choice in software products and the benefits of software innovation, and by making computers increasingly susceptible to security breaches. This is crap right here. It realy sounds like a bunch of people who know *nothing* about computers are suing because their own ignorance angers them. First off, how the hell can it be illegal to overcharge for a product? Isnt the point of a free market that you can charge whatever the market will bare? Will they be suing disneyland next for selling three dollar sodas? Second, ive never had a problem installing any software onto my computer, whether im using Windows or Linux. At no point has windows ever actively prevented me from installing whatever software I wanted to. Anyone willing to shell out $40 at best buy or compusa can pick up a packaged linux distro and load it onto their machine no problem. I realy hope microsoft uses OpenOffice as an example of a FREE and open alternative to their software that anyone on the planet can use. Are these iowans going to force microsoft to bundle OOo with their own office suite? Finaly, isnt the fact that microsoft keeps on publishing patches a clear sign that, as crappy an OS as windows might be, they are trying to fix it? As paranoid as Vista is, to the point of annoying me, I strongly dissagree that microsoft is making computers less secure. Im reading through the list of complaints, and one of them is, in summary, that Windows is a crappy, bug-ladden, bloated cow of an OS. Clearly these people dont know what a Macintosh is, and have never heard of any *nix OS. Does this lawsuit have any ground at all? I never liked these suits against microsoft for the simple fact that no one has *ever* been forced to use microsoft windows. these people chose to buy a computer with windows on it, they chose to not use an alternative operating system, and they shouldnt win this suit. Caveat Emptor
I've gone through several Windows machines this decade, but the Mac I bought my wife in 2000 is still kicking, and still quite useful. The difference is in the software.
I'm not sure what kind of mac you're talking about, but if you bought it in 2000, it certainly can't be useful for anything more than email, considering that OS X ran miserably on existing hardware when officially released in 2001. (And if your wife is running OS 9, then your comparison is even more ridiculous and irrelevant.)
Push Button, Receive Bacon
Who are they going to push the alternatives to? They just pissed off their existing customer base by selling pirated software while claiming that it was legitimate. They've destroyed their reputation so that their word of mouth refferals are going to plummet. And there is also the distinct possibility that if they were selling pirated copies to inflate their margins then they were probably small enough or dependant enough on that extra margin that they will not survive a serious lawsuit.
Most likely, the customers will be looking for alternatives to that retailer and not for alternatives to Windows.
My God! It's full of eval()'s.
There is a tendancy (of which I have been guilty myself) to assume that WGA is bad just because microsoft are doing it. I'm not a great microsoft fan, but I am a software developer, and I see their point in a way.
If your product is software, how else but via software are you going to enforce legality? Go on, answer that one? Postcards? Hey man, shareware days are long gone, and they failed because of piracy, postal registration doesn't work. Nowadays it's electronic product monitoring or nothing, sorry.
And for that matter, what's wrong with wanting people to pay for it if it's non free software?
These are reasonable points if you remove references to microsoft. It wouldn't be fair to say I was trolling just because I think it's reasonable to expect to be paid.
I don't like a lot of what microsoft are doing, but you must point out when things they are doing are fair or reasonable, or you're just as bad.
There are also no ways to 'phone home' with any peice of software without sending some kind of identifying material, even if its just the originating IP. That's a lose lose situation, they can't do it at all without being accused of invading privacy, and yet if they don't then piracy of windows products will spiral even further out of control.
Everyone I know who's complained about WGA has a dodgy copy of windows, almost everyone with legal copies either hasn't even noticed unless I've pointed it out, or doesn't care.
I've only known one person with a legal windows copy who got screwed by WGA, and that was a corporate install in a university lab, so probably a mistake by the IT dept giving the wrong key.