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.
If you can dodge a class action lawsuit, you can dodge a ball.
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 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.
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.
WGA renamed for Vista and 7 as "The Windows Activation Technologies (TWAT)" Your Honor, I rest my case.
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.
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.