Microsoft to Get Tough on License Dodgers

An anonymous reader writes "PC Advisor reports that Microsoft is going to start getting tough with certain small business customers. They are going to examine their small customer license database — any discrepancies and it will call you for an audit. If you refuse it will send in the BSA and the legal heavies. "

Comments

Summary is incorrect.

[Virak]

It plainly says in the first sentence of the article that they're going after medium sized companies, and later on that "Microsoft is targeting companies with around 250 PCs", which is a bit more than a small company would have.

Here we go again

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.osv.org.au/index.cgi?tid=91

One of the hoariest linux switch stories is about Ernie Ball, a company that makes guitar strings. The BSA treated them miserably and tried to make an example of them with a court case and huge publicity. Ball retaliated by switching to Linux and launched their own publicity campaign aimed right back at Microsoft.

Microsoft is between a rock and a hard place on this one. They could end up with a bunch more high profile switching-to-linux stories to contend with.

Re:But, can the BSA actually do anything?

[QuantumG]

Heh, the BSA goes to a judge and the judge gives them power to force entry and seize all hardware at your facilities. Depending on where you are, the local or federal police will even help them.

These things are pretty much handed out like candy.

Re:But, can the BSA actually do anything?

[Todd Knarr]

There's a clause in the EULA where you give Microsoft or it's agents the right to come in and audit you at any time, at your expense. Refuse to let them audit and you're automatically in breach of every Windows license you have in addition to any other violations. And they'll hold that you agreed to the EULA for any pirated versions as well, since you had (in their opinion) to click OK to the EULA to be able to install the pirated copy and that constitutes agreement to the EULA's terms.

The only way out is to not be running any of their software and be able to prove it in court. Do that and make sure to have provided them that proof when you refused the audit and, while you can't stop them from suing you and getting a court order allowing them to do the audit, you can probably counter-sue them for every penny of costs.

Re:So true

[jstomel]

Nope, read your EULA. Microsoft has the right to audit at your expense at any time.

For what it is worth...

[Savage-Rabbit]

They're starting with the small ones, because we all know what would happen if they started with the big ones. It has been my experience that the bigger a company gets and the more money there is floating around the less the PHBs care about workstation OS licenses. It's the little companies who are more likely to try to pinch pennies by cheating on Windows licenses and software licenses in general. When a company gets to a certain size the cost of Workstation OS licenses tend to take second place to the licenses they have to buy for much more complex production software products where the costs can rapidly spiral into huge sums of money that can dwarf what ever they are paying for Windows workstation OS licenses. Most of the larger companies I have worked for actually made regular efforts to check the licensing status of their various departments and paid up the Workstation OS licenses without giving it much thought. Most of the effort went into wringing the last bit of value out of the obscenely expensive production software.

Re:So true

[eric76]

Having disks, license keys, and boxes on site apparently isn't enough.

According to some reports, the BSA reportedly requires original invoices dated before notice of the audit and showing the company name exactly. Supposedly, if you change the name of the company, you have to buy a whole new set of licenses and have the original invoices to prove it.

That is one of the best reasons of all to ditch Microsoft for good.

Re:So true

[Uncle_Al]

Sorry, but that is bull.

While they do license per developer, you can change the licensed developer.
http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/lice nsing/qtlicensing

Re:So true

[eric76]

The question isn't what a jury is going to find. It is what the BSA considers acceptable to keep them from taking you to court for software piracy. They know that the enormous litigation costs means that few, if any, cases will ever see a jury.

From Proof of License in BSA Audits:

Not Considered Valid Proof

Copies of Checks to Software Vendors
Dated Purchase Orders
Undated Software Licenses
Credit Card Statements Evidencing Software Purchases
Certificates of Authenticity
Media, Manuals, or Key-Codes
Invoices Bearing and Entity Name Other than the Entity Named in the BSA's Initial Letter

Valid Proof of Purchase

Dated Invoices in the Name of the Audited Entity
Soft Records (online account statements) from Recognized Resellers
Signed and Dated License Agreements
Soft Records from BSA Member's such as Microsoft Licensing Statements
Cash Register Receipts for Retail Sales where Product, Version, Quantity and Price Paid are Included.