Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Dodges Class Action In WGA Lawsuit
An anonymous reader writes "A lawsuit that accused Microsoft of misleading consumers to download and install an update for Windows Genuine Advantage under the guise that it was critical security update will go forward, but not as a class action. A federal judge has refused to certify the lawsuit as a class action, which would have meant that anyone who owned a Windows XP PC in mid-2006 could join the case without having to hire an attorney. As Windows XP was easily the most popular operating system at the time, the ruling means Redmond has managed to avoid hundreds of millions in potential damages."
I never planned on using the corporate justice system anyway.
I used the consumer justice system... I pirated some of their software and then switched to Linux.
...the ruling means Redmond has managed to avoid hundreds of millions in potential damages
All of which would have gone to the lawyers.
By the time the settlement or judgment is made -- assuming Microsoft doesn't go to trial and win -- the damages would probably amount to a few bucks per end-user anyway. It's the injunctive relief that matters IMHO. Microsoft should be forced to comply with anti-spyware laws. That can potentially happen whether the suit is class action or not.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Seriously - we all know this. Every class-action against a tech company usually results in (at absolute best) a hundred bucks or so to each class-action participant, while the lawyer(s) leading the charge get to go buy a new yacht/house/jaguar/whatever with their take.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
WGA enables other updates to be installed, it pretty much is a security update.
Yeah, sure. It "enables" other updates to be installed, just like DRM protection "enables" movies to be watched.
The converse, however, seems far more true: WGA restricts other updates from being installed, just like DRM restricts movies from being watched.
There is no technical or security reason for WGA's existence. The "other updates" that it "enables" would work just fine without it, were they not arbitrarily designed to require WGA.
Kid-proof tablet..
As in the patent infringement case - even "several hundred million" is only a couple of days' revenue, assuming the crooked bastards lost.
Penalties against Microsoft do not change their behaviour.
you had me at #!
"This was indeed a critical security update. An update to secure the legitimacy of the software which we support."
Then the judge rules in favor of Microsoft.
The end.
~The roAm
How many of the people that were to join the class action suit would have had legitimate copies of XP flagged as illegitimate? I know very few people that had this happen. A few corporations had their volume keys flagged as such, but if the admin was doing things properly, they would have denied the update through group policy (or some other patch management).
For all the individual users - I remember coming across a few who decided to let their beliefs be known at a few functions I attended. They were up in arms over this, how it removed their background, and had a nuisance box pop up on the system tray. I asked if they bought the copy - they said no. So, WTF is the problem? You steal something, then get upset, when you get caught? Be happy, nothing really happens when you get caught. MS is basically saying "we know you pirated this, but no worries, just buy a copy now, we won't tell, we won't take you to court, we won't send Jimmy to break your legs."
Now, we can all be pro-linux, pro-mac, pro-whatever, but the bottom line is, Windows costs money, and like any other company, MS has to make money to continue making Windows, etc. Now, they may be charging TOO MUCH, but this is a case for a monopoly. Just because all the oil makers are in cahoots, doesn't mean we can steal gas because we feel because it is a monopoly their prices are too high. And to jab the Apply fanboys - Apple releases OS updates YEARLY for $130. MS fanboys have had the pleasure of paying $200 retail (or $140 OEM w/ a mouse or stick of ram, or anything else cheap), for 5 years. I bet if MS released OS updates every year for $130, everyone would be up in arms, but when Apple adds a program like Notepad to it's OS, they repackage it, and call it something cute. I'm waiting for Apple Liger (it comes with a new theme!!!!!!!!!).
So, back to reality, if you stole Windows, expect the genuine advantage to show up. And I love it, you know why? Because I'm a legitimate sysadmin, and when I load on Windows XP, Server, or even Linux (Redhat, or another one with support) I purchase the program, and make sure my clients are fully licenced. I have to compete with people who steal software and sell computers with pirated versions. The client usually does not know the difference, until the genuine advantage shows up - and I love this, because it weeds out the PC makers that are cutting corners and pocketing the extra money. The client gets pissed, then the PC maker ends up getting in trouble.
What upsets me the most is that if I legally purchase windows for my computer I am limited on how much I can upgrade
Sadly you didn't purchase windows, you licensed it. Welcome to the world: intellectual property gets all the protection that physical property gets, with none of the 'disadvantages' (ability to loan, etc).
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
No... he purchased a copy of Windows, with a license to use it. That's where the sticking point is - just like when you purchase a book, the physical copy is your own, but that doesn't mean you have the right to read it out on the radio or adapt it as a screenplay.
"Your comment is a perfect example of being off-topic;"
And your comment is a perfect example of being too exhausting to read. I'm sure you had a good point, but I saw that huge block of unbroken text and thought, "no thanks".
Yes, I'm being pedantic, but the "enter" key can be a trusted ally and an aid to communication. Use it wisely.
What upsets me the most is that if I legally purchase windows for my computer I am limited on how much I can upgrade
Sadly you didn't purchase windows, you licensed it. Welcome to the world: intellectual property gets all the protection that physical property gets, with none of the 'disadvantages' (ability to loan, etc).
Well, I don't know whether you are trying to make a point, or you actually believe what you are saying, but "intellectual property" is not something that can be compared to actual property. The concept of property has its origins on scarcity. Intellectual works are not scarce, so the concept of property has no meaning regarding them. "Intellectual property" is about monopoly rights over immaterial works, in this case, copyright. The only thing copyright and property have in common is that confusing term. There is no analogy to be made between property and copyrights, and doing so brings confusion like the GP, who thought he bought something, when he only paid for the right to run certain software under certain conditions. Much more like game tickets, only you have to play yourself in addition to paying.
I remember clearly that semiconductor vendors as an example, were happy to provide technical information that helped designers understand the benefits of their products. Piles of handbooks were freely available from a variety of sources, often the sales reps directly, or the vendors support divisions.
Going back as far as CP/M-80, the operating system shipped with developer tools and programming documentation. Until Chuck Peddle stopped shipping the language tools and started charging separately for them. Vendors would put on free seminars to convince developers to support their platforms, and provide free technical support to serious developers needing help to complete products that would enhance the overall market impact of a vendors products.
I remember being shocked and disappointed when Microsoft started charging serious money to be in their developer program. They also priced the development tools rather high, and began an onslaught of versions that never ended, I remember at least half a dozen so called 6-month learning curves alleged to provide developers with the understandings they would need to succeed with their applications. With one hand they charged a lot for assembly and C support, while they talked out of the other side of their mouths about how Visual Basic was all anyone really needed to write applications for Windows. They said you didn't even need to know how to program :-)
Then Novell followed suit and priced up their developer program. Suddenly you had to be a member of several developer organizations at once to get critical mass on information required to create a non-trivial application, and it would not be competitive if you didn't use undocumented APIs like Microsoft did.
Because of Microsoft's marketing style, the other development software vendors fell by the wayside one by one. Microsoft licensed their headers and framework to other compiler vendors, but never the latest version. Eventually the only viable compilers came directly from Microsoft at any cost. And you couldn't write software just with the information contained in the massive pile of refuse called the MSDN Library. It was full of deprecated (or should I say defecated toolkits that were so downlevel that the sample code rarely compiled without massive changes. You also had to buy piles of books, many of which costs more than $70 each. That wasn't even enough, if you were serious, you probably had to attend specific training from Microsoft or approved trainers.
Because of the proliferation of operating system versions, API version, and general DLL Hell, it was rarely possible for small developers to test their products economically on all variations of the target platforms and versions. And Microsoft kept the target moving at all times, complete with misdirections and promises of features and future support that vanished quietly from time to time.
We waited years for a certain version of Visual Studio to come out of Beta, and instead of actually releasing a stable product, they issued what I called the "forgiveness license" that said it was OK after all to ship products using what were previously beta components. The windows of opportunity shrunk to nothing and began overlapping in such a way that linear development was no longer sufficient and cascaded teams were necessary to stay viable in the face of streams of conflicting information and toolkits from Microsoft.
Also if you could not afford the $25,000 support contract, they would just laugh in your face if you asked them a technical question only they could answer in order to complete a product that only operated under their operating system.