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."

31 of 256 comments (clear)

  1. Thats fine by me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Thats fine by me... by wall0159 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While switching to Linux is a punishment for MS - pirating their software is not - it merely entrenches their position.

    2. Re:Thats fine by me... by qazwart · · Score: 5, Informative

      You actually have a point.

      Back in the 1990s with the Microsoft antitrust case, many emails and discussions came out. One of the most interesting ones was Microsoft taking about their market position in China at that time. They talked about market share and how many people there were using Windows and Office and what they could do to improve this. The funny thing is they weren't talking about sales, but the number of people pirating their software. Microsoft wanted to encourage people in China to pirate more copies of Windows and Office.

      Microsoft new the number of people who could actually afford their software in China at that time was low, but they also believed that one day China would crack down on the pirating and become a legitimate market. Microsoft thought their best position was to make sure everyone was using Microsoft products -- even if they were pirated -- because people would be use to them. Then once the government cracked down on pirating, Microsoft's sales would go through the roof.

      Microsoft's biggest fear is that if people were discouraged from using pirated copies of Microsoft products, these people would turn to "open source alternatives" and would never become Microsoft customers.

    3. Re:Thats fine by me... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As a person who lived through dos and 3.1, it felt like microsoft cared very little about piracy back then.

      However, when I did some googling, it looks like microsoft has put a lot of money and effort into stopping piracy all the way back to at least 1990. Microsoft anti-piracy articles dominate the search results and I wasn't able to easily find any good examples of them tolerating piracy (tho I remember talk of them tolerating it in china and i remember talk of them tolerating it with windows 3.1/3.11).

      Perhaps we were rationalizing, or perhaps microsoft had variable enforcement depending on market penetration.

      While typing this, I realized my piracy toleration attitude came from windows 3.1 so I did some searches on tolerating windows 3.1 piracy and got some hits.

      http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:Cs-TDEi65mkJ:blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/index.php%3Fp%3D709+microsoft+tolerated+windows+3.1+piracy&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
      for example.

      "than failing to put anti-copy protection on MS-DOS in 1983 or encouraging easy copying of its "enterprise" virtualization software today. Similarly making it easy for users to "illegally" copy and install Office 4.0 for Windows 3.1X while straight facedly working with both WordPerfect Corporation and Lotus Development to help these companies prevent illegal copying, was a simple tactical extension of a long term strategy based on using piracy as a way of gaining market share. "

      This matches the Microsoft I grew up with and know well. Strongly saying one thing, and selectively doing other things. Saying you had to follow the legitimate API's to be Windows 95 certified, but using backdoor API's for Word95 and then still certifying it. Saying you want a partnership with a smaller company, learning their technology, dropping the patnership, and then bringing out a similar product (and being sued for it and losing a few times).

      I'm sure that Microsoft is strongly against piracy wherever it has high market penetration. I'm sure it says that it is strongly against piracy everywhere but some areas are very low on the enforcement list.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    4. Re:Thats fine by me... by Undead+Waffle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or they can settle on this small case and make the problem go away without setting a precedent.

  2. Hundreds of millions by Spad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...the ruling means Redmond has managed to avoid hundreds of millions in potential damages

    All of which would have gone to the lawyers.

  3. If you can dodge a class action lawsuit... by Barefoot+Monkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you can dodge a class action lawsuit, you can dodge a ball.

    1. Re:If you can dodge a class action lawsuit... by Spazztastic · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you can dodge a class action lawsuit, you can dodge a chair.

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
  4. Who cares whether it's class action? by SirGarlon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  5. Mod parent way the hell up, plz. by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
    1. Re:Mod parent way the hell up, plz. by rhook · · Score: 4, Informative

      It still ends up hurting the company and may make them think twice about using similar practices in the future.

    2. Re:Mod parent way the hell up, plz. by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Informative

      In a lawsuit with 10,000,000 plaintiffs which pays out $1,000,000,000 dollars, how do you expect the distribution of the money to work out? Do you expect the lawyers to work for free? Or are you suggesting that the defendant should be fined 1 million-bliion-quazillion dollars so that EVERY plaintiff can go out and buy a yacht?

      What happens usually is the damaged parties get a $10 coupon off their next copy of Windows, and the lawyers walk away (using your numbers) with $900M cash. Knowing full well that said coupon will probably expire, and most probably won't even use it or even bother to collect it after having to give Microsoft their full personal history for it.

      (I'm sure the lawyers could get Microsoft to make them $20 or $50 coupons off Windows, but it reduces their share).

  6. Re:good by adolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. Meaningless penalties by toby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 #!
  8. "In closing, your Honor..." by the+roAm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "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
    1. Re:"In closing, your Honor..." by the+roAm · · Score: 3, Funny

      I've been modded funny? I'm dead serious. This is how the American legal system works. Been to court in the last 10 years? Obviously not.

      --
      ~The roAm
    2. Re:"In closing, your Honor..." by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Funny

      If said the right way, anything can be funny no matter how insightful. Your comment was modded up and thus visible, and unless you're a karma whore that's all that matters.

  9. $5 million for how many users? by ThreeGigs · · Score: 4, Informative

    How about original linkage? : http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/09/04/microsoft.sued.over.wga
    The lawsuit is for $5 million for the whole class. You do the math and tell me if this is to benefit the lawyers or the end users. This isn't about MS, it's about lawyers making money. I have a feeling there will be a lot of misplaced outrage in these comments.

    Also, it was a high priority update, _not_ a critical security update. Inflammatory summaries again.

    1. Re:$5 million for how many users? by Nerdfest · · Score: 4, Funny

      Relax, we have plenty of rage for both Microsoft and lawyers. No one needs to go without.

  10. What's the issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:What's the issue? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 3, Informative

      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).

      Somewhat OT, but every time my Win7 computer wakes up from suspend, it tells me that it may be pirated (it's not) and blocks me from t downloading any optional updates. Mine was a simple upgrade from Win Vista (which came with the laptop) to Win 7 (upgrade disk provided by the manufacturer), and yet I'm still told that it's not legit. I have no trouble believing that legit XP installs have their fair share of this with WGA.

    2. Re:What's the issue? by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Rape isn't murder, it's rape. Copyright infringement is not stealing; it's copyright infringement.

      If you download a copy of XP, that infringes Microsoft's copyright. Microsoft has not been deprived of property any more than the rape victim has been deprived of life.

      If you walk out of Best Buy with a copy of XP without paying, you have indeed stolen it, and Best Buy is out the cost of the software they bought from Microsoft.

      Come on, guys, this is a technical forum. Lets be a little more precice, can we?

    3. Re:What's the issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Somewhat OT, but every time my Win7 computer wakes up from suspend, it tells me that it may be pirated (it's not) and blocks me from t downloading any optional updates.

      Funny, every time my Win7 computer wakes up from suspend, it doesn't tell me that it may be pirated (it is) and doesn't blocks me from downloading any optional updates. Maybe you should do what I did?

  11. TWAT by SpockLogic · · Score: 5, Funny

    WGA renamed for Vista and 7 as "The Windows Activation Technologies (TWAT)" Your Honor, I rest my case.

    1. Re:TWAT by Spazztastic · · Score: 4, Funny

      WGA renamed for Vista and 7 as "The Windows Activation Technologies (TWAT)"

      Your Honor, I rest my case.

      I made a guild in World of Warcraft called T W A T, The War Against Terrorism. Anybody who objected to the name was called a terrorist, including the GM who contacted me about it. It didn't end very well...

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
  12. Re:good by GiveBenADollar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What upsets me the most is that if I legally purchase windows for my computer I am limited on how much I can upgrade, but if I illegally pirate it I can actually treat it like I own a copy of the OS. The same is true with the excessive DRM on DVDs and Blu-ray. It doesn't stop people from pirating, it just punishes those of us who own legal copies.

  13. Denial of class != ruling on merits by xymog · · Score: 5, Informative

    The problem with the case is that plaintiff's' attorneys have failed to meet the legal requirements to certify the lawsuit as a class action. The initial pleading has been repeatedly amended to add and drop plaintiffs, while at the same time it is not able to advance coherent legal arguments backed by evidence. Courts will not certify a lawsuit as a class action based on wishful thinking. The courts require prima facie evidence that the issue is widespread, that many people are harmed, and that judicial economy will be best served by having a single lawsuit. This isn't a "win" for Microsoft or a "loss" for the common man; plaintiffs' attorneys haven't done their homework and met the burden of proof for certifying the class.

  14. Re:good by Karellen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why would pirates have free access to updates too?

    Because a insecure, compromised OS affects more people than just the owneruser of that OS. Unpatched pirated copies of Windows can be pwned and exploited to send spam, perform DDOS attacks, do distributed cracking of encryption keys, or whatever else the operator of a botnet chooses to do with it; actions that hurt all the users of the internet, including all the legitimate ones.

    Patching pirated copies of Windows is in the public interest

    --
    Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
  15. Re:good by uglyduckling · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  16. And YOUR comment... by Petersko · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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.

  17. WGA was the final straw for me by blankoboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have to say that WGA was really the final straw for me with Microsoft. I, being a paying customer, felt from day 1 of WGA that it was an absolute kick in the teeth from Microsoft. It is what turned me from a Microsoft fan over to using my Mac Mini. It was a sad thing for me but I'm much happier now and will never come back. Thanks for turning me away Microsoft!