Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Wins Windows XP WGA Lawsuit
Rish writes "A lawsuit that accused Microsoft of misleading consumers to download and install an update for Windows Genuine Advantage (WGA) under the guise that it was critical security update has been tossed out. Last month, a federal judge refused to certify the lawsuit as a class action, which would have meant anyone who owned a Windows XP PC in mid-2006 could join the case without having to hire an attorney, and on Friday the same judge dismissed the case completely."
I work in computer repair, and the worst part of WGA is that after doing a repair, sometimes a customer will get that update and the customer will get confused and click cancel or that they decline. This automatically tells them that their software is not genuine.
Microsoft knows how to carefully word their alert to make sure they understand that it could be caused by counterfeit software, but does not even suggest that this alert could be because they just haven't yet validated, or they need to activate.
I used to get angry calls because customers thought I was providing them stolen software. So then I decided I'd make their copies of windows genuine for my customers before they leave. But that's when the pirates come out of the wood work! What do you do when a copy won't validate? Well now you've got a customer who thinks you've stolen their software right off the bat due to the non-genuine alerts you just caused.
It's lose/lose for the pc repair industry- and it's win/win. How many frightened people have gone to staples and picked up a new copy to avoid getting in legal trouble? I know a few...
If you don't like the "we can do anything we want to you at any time" EULA, then the solution is to switch to and support a different OS, not to bitch and moan about the EULA that you chose to accept.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Imagine what the world would be without MAGGOTS (Microsoft, Apple, GooGle, Oracle, T-mobile, Sun).
Ah, I see. Microsoft has bribed the judges. That was probably a good idea. Seems affective.
@CmdrTaco That comment has nothing to do with this article.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1520814&cid=30859460
~The roAm
Yes. Because we all know that corporations should be able to put whatever egregious language they want in their contracts and mere citizens should just bend over and take it.
Fortunately, real contract law doesn't work that way.
Although I am sure that corporate boot-lickers such as yourself will do their best to erode what consumer rights and protections do exist.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Obviously you haven't heard of less legitimate OEM providers who use cracked versions of XP Retail, all installing the same key, and using the crack I listed above. (or a variant thereof)
Get your free Dropbox account with 2 GB Free storage!
Any decent PC tech knows which file to delete to remove the nag screen. Get rid of the nag and let them reinstall WGA next month.
You're there to fix the PC, not to enter into a legal battle.
No sig today...
I know how to do it on my own pc, but we do not provide cracking services to our customers. It might work for some fly by night company, but we don't suggest any such operation.
not to bitch and moan about the EULA that you chose to accept.
I didn't choose to accept the EULA and am not bound by it. Under UK law you
cannot impose terms or conditions after the point of sale.
....but they have lost this customer. WGA was the final straw for me and what ultimately forced my hand. I have migrated to Mac and will never look back. Thanks for the helping hand Microsoft, I'm much happier now.
"citizens should just bend over and take it."
No one is shoving the operating system down your throat, if you don't like the EULA, as mentioned above, switch to an alternative OS. The corporations can only put in "whatever egregious language they want" if you (and a bunch of others) fork over money to them. Stop giving them money, and you'll see how quickly their EULA changes...
As in "If you don't like the "we can do anything we want to you at any time" flight security/other anti-terrorist/anti-pedophile regulations, then the solution is to move and support a different government, not to bitch and moan about the laws that you chose to accept", right?
Sometimes evil should be clearly defined evil, for the real improvements to start. I use Linux myself, but I often see what pain in the rear some MS "solutions" can be. EULA or not, there's some common sense and human dignity left in "common users" after all, or not?
Absence of proof != proof of absence.
I haven't given MS money in ages. Their EULA hasn't changed yet. Perhaps it's because millions of people are too apathetic to care since the EULA is rarely enforced in a fashion most people would notice or would care about.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Something to consider with "legitimate" cds. I know a woman who bought what she thought a legitimate license for Office. It had the hologram and the key and everything. Anyway, after the Genuine advantage got slipped in, her Office software was flagged as being stolen. She calls MS, tells them that she has the CD, the key, and the hologram. MS tells her that it's a site license sold to some big corp and she has no business with it.
She explains that she bought it online from a retailer who by the way sold it at a HUGE discount from other retailers. The retailer is no longer in business. She has receipts and everything. MS just told her that it's her problem and she's outta luck.
Yeah, I tried to convince her to switch to OO, but according to her, it's incompatible with her employer (big publisher) and she must use MS Office.
That makes too much sense for US law.
I hate WGA as much as the next guy, but trying to file a class-action suit against Microsoft because they decided to push out an update for their OS that they deemed "critical" but some users didn't? It seems to me that Microsoft is the one who gets to choose which category they place their updates in, and a "Critical Update" like WGA authentication might seem a lot more critical to MS than to their customers....
As many people already posted here -- if you dislike the way their OS handles things, maybe it's time to consider alternatives? By now, I'm pretty sure the folks in Redmond are well aware of the complaints people have with their products. The fact they've progressively added MORE technology to verify you're a legal owner of their software instead of *removing* it makes it clear they don't care about that complaint!
Say what you will about Apple and OS X, but ever since I migrated over to it, I haven't had a single headache with "product activation" or invalid CD keys.....
all the terms and conditions that they are imposing were in the original EULA that you accepted when you purchased the product. nothing has changed since the time the product was sold to you.
The minor problems upgrading, or incorrectly triggering WGA are nothing compared to the harm done by Microsoft in denying security patches. Years of propagated malware and vast monetary damage to other Windows owners simply to force a few people to buy new copies of their products. For that reason alone I feel a class action suit is justified.
...make the rules. Do as I say, not as I do. It's the same in every authoritarian government, whether it be a superpower, a multinational corporation, or just the family next door.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
Ars Technica left out a whole bunch of information. The plaintiffs didn't agree to dismissal because the suit was bogus. Plaintiff's' attorneys had a poorly-drafted complaint to start with, spent four years adding and dropping plaintiffs trying to find ones that had actually been "injured", and four years amending the complaint with ever-more-vague claims against Microsoft. This is all part of the public record and anyone can take a look at it. Moral: If you're going to be all mad about something, do your homework first before charging off and filing a lawsuit.
You were so upset by WGA that you decided to do business with Super-Lockdown-Incorporated? Really?
Posts like these are what's great about Slashdot. You read the opinions here, and you get a really good understanding of how real people feel about things.
Reading the mainstream tech sites, you'd think that customers loved Apple's products. That people were lining up to buy Apple's crap, that its customers were loyal and highly satisfied, that Apple was making tons of money, and that its products Just Worked the way people wanted them to.
Here on Slashdot, we learn the ugly truth. Apple's products don't let you do anything. Its customers must be horribly dissatisfied, and nobody ever makes the mistake of doing business with Apple twice.
I agree, to a point. However, I don't believe all of the "we can change everything we want to" was in the original Windows XP EULA. It got added in with the various service packs, etc, that were included in the purchase price of the original software. So the only EULA I feel I "chose to accept" original one on my XP CD. I was coerced into agreeing to the others in order to get updates that I was told I already had the right to. I'd agree with you fully if I had had the opportunity to accept or deny the new EULA in return for something new.
Oblig. car analogy: "Now that you've had your car for 5 years and it's paid for, we've decided to reduce your 10-year warranty to a 5-year warranty, which has now just expired. If you want your 10-year warranty back, you have to allow us to install this box that monitors to make sure the car hasn't been loaned to anyone else without our consent, and if we think it has we can deny you warranty service, and the "Check Engine" light will light up every time you start the car and warn you that your car is no longer genuine."
But, you're right - Microsoft does business the way they do business, and it's pretty clear that they are unapologetic about these sorts of one-sided contract changes. They've got you by the short-and-curlies, and that's just the sort of behavior they are known for now.
I also agree with your solution. I switched to Linux Mint, largely in response to the underhanded tactics that crammed WGA on my computer without my knowledge or consent. It took a while to migrate everything I do over to Linux, but it's done now, and I can happily say that my household is now 100% Microsoft-free.
"RIP one Microsoft Customer, starting with MS-DOS 3.0, ending with Windows XP+WGA".
I'm also only one customer, and I fully realize that Microsoft doesn't give a flying shit about my stance. It's OK, the feeling is now happily mutual.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Don't buy your computers in Tiajuana or from the grungy back room of some porno shop.
Yeah, I tried to convince her to switch to OO, but according to her, it's incompatible with her employer (big publisher) and she must use MS Office.
If she has a corporate e-mail address chances are good her employer participates in Microsoft's Home Use Program.
Microsoft® Office Enterprise 2007 is hers for ten bucks. Microsoft Home Use Program
Or from budget local shops, or from your local home assembler.
Get your free Dropbox account with 2 GB Free storage!
And hell, even if you buy a PC to install Linux on it you may end up with an OEM copy of Windows on it anyway.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
/. knows that they are guilty!
You're not cracking it, you're hiding the nag for a few weeks. Even Microsoft gives you 30 days grace period.
No sig today...
You must be confused. We're talking about the WGA nag screen, not the activation one. The WGA countdown that happens before you can log into your system? The only way I know to get rid of that is to use a bit of a registry hack (which is provided below), and there's a good reason MS has issued takedown notices to other sites that host that information.
Belief? Hope? Preference?The Existential Vortex
Maybe you know, I accidentally got caught clicking through the approval for update and the WGA started installing on an old XP machine. I cancel the update (when it asks to continue each frigging time I reboot). I would like to kill the update so That does not happen and I don't want to install WGA. Any thoughts on how or where to kill the in process installation?
Thanks,
in step 2
He was last seen driving away in a brand new Rolls-Royce.
I admit that I came to this thread just because it amazes me to see how much crap people are willing to put up with just to be part of the herd and/or avoid learning something new. The cesspool is full of flailing, complaining people, but you'll never get more than one or two to leave it no matter how pure and sparkling your little pond is.
"the EULA is rarely enforced in a fashion most people would notice or would care about."
If this is the case, is there really an issue? If they tried to enforce it, a bunch of people would probably realize they are doing silly things and stop giving them money...
Egregious EULAs remain a problem for society, even if some of us know enough to make better choices.
I stopped giving MS my money long ago, and I'm still waiting to "see how quickly their EULA changes". I don't think there is any brick-and-mortar store in my fairly large city that sells computers with anything other than Windows or OSX. Perhaps one out of a hundred people I encounter in real life is even aware that anything else is a possibility.
The corporations can put in "whatever egregious language they want" because they get money for it, _and_ because the courts allow it. Software publishers have been very aggressive in claiming "rights" that have never belonged to authors or publishers. The author of a book does not get to set terms on how many people can read it, or whether it can be checked out in a library, or whether you can sell it to someone else once you have read it.
MS and others dance around this mainly by saying that their software is licensed rather than purchased, so that all the normal rights of purchasers don't apply. I hope that one day our courts have the guts to say "BS - the buyer paid money for it, it has all the typical characteristics of a sale rather than a license (no signatures, notarization, etc.), so legally it is a sale and no different than the purchase of a book".
If millions of people dont seem to care, and you arent being affected by said EULA (since you arent accepting it), then why have you made it your job to care for them?
We all get it, MS's EULAs suck, I dont know about everyone else, but I got over the outrage a long time ago. When I use windows, I comply with the EULA, and if my customers have an issue, i just put the activation phone call on speaker so they can hear for themselves what I have to go through. Its not my problem, if activation doesnt work for a client they know whose fault it is, and if it doesnt work for me, I repartition my drive to some form of linux until I get over it.
If youre on some crusade to get MS to make their EULA into some form of the GPL, then I'm sorry, youre wasting your time. Most people just dont care about this and youre not going to change that on your own. If youre a tech, your job is to comply with whatever licensing you buy into, no matter what "Im changing the world with my piracy" bullshit you may want to buy into.
the manhunt cavalcade is after you Forest Gump, run, run for your life :-) ...
What other OS requires you download a program to tell if the OS is genuine?
You'll know the answer to that when there is another non-free operating system that is pirated as heavily as Windows.
Many pirated ISOs come with malware pre-installed. Maybe you don't think thats a problem.
I was coerced into agreeing to the others in order to get updates that I was told I already had the right to
Do you actually know what coercion is? Or are you just a big fan of hyperbole? This isnt how contracts work, you dont get to agree to 5 different contracts and then choose which one you want to comply with, but feel free to continue justifying it to yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGuhX5AmjuA
Who said I cared for them? Hundreds of millions don't care. Hundreds of thousands, include me, do care. We're such a minority, we have no traction to change things.
Yea, pragmatically, there's nothing that can be done. That's my point.
I'm not even remotely suggesting that, except to the point that MS's EULA should be optional; ie, if MS wants to grant me extra things in exchange for indemnifying them against defects in their software, I have no problem being given a choice on the matter (and I don't mean either agreeing to MS's EULA or not using Windows).
Exactly. I can't change the world, so it's bullshit every time someone says "you should vote with your dollars to change things". Clearly that won't work in this instance.
This has nothing to do with piracy, but thanks for throwing that in there as if that had anything to do with my complaints about MS's EULA.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
So, if it's not really an issue, why don't they change the EULA? Because it costs money to fix the EULA? Or because it gives them the ability to selectively enforce it? Clearly there's something evil about selective enforcement, and that itself is really an issue.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
The fact that North Korea is worse doesn't excuse the excesses of the Patriot Act.
If enough people take that attitude, you will find yourself in a police state soon enough.
The first contract was a voluntary agreement. One which I did not have the opportunity to review before I broke the shrinkwrap and rendered the product unreturnable, but still one that I feel I entered into reasonably freely.
The remainder were conditional to receiving a benefit I had already bought and paid for, and the consequences of not agreeing to the new contracts were that my product would not receive updates and therefore become increasingly insecure.
I can understand the "fine, then don't update it", and I can understand the argument that updates are "added value". But I see them as part of what I purchased in the first place. Maybe I'm wrong in that point of view, but I slowly grew more and more uncomfortable with the additional conditions foisted upon me in return for those updates. With WGA, it reached the point where I had had enough.
And, by the way, I have complied with every one of Microsoft's agreements I have "agreed" to. It's just reached the point where I'm tired of "agreeing" to changes to the EULA.
I'm not going to pirate their product, and I'm not espousing that others do so. I don't even want a refund of my purchase price for XP. I feel I've gotten fair value out of it.
I just don't want to spend any more money on software sold by a company that has changed the conditions under which I can use previous purchases with them. If I go out and buy Windows 7, what's the guarantee that Microsoft won't change the EULA again to their favor?
Maybe you don't care, and that's certainly your right.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
I completely agree to the idea that if the EULA sucks, don't use the software.
However, I can't help but keep giving Microsoft my money, because whenever I buy a laptop I also have to pay for a license for their OS, which I am not even going to use.
that's a good choice for defense :-) LOL. For a more complete arsenal - if the Colt goes cold, try this ones
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAo8ITfQi0k
What stores do you go to where they make you agree to the Eula before you buy a copy of windows or a computer with windows pre-installed? The Eula comes up the first time you run it, after you've already paid.
Don't use Windows. It's out to get you.
$ make available
Except that you don't 'accept' the EULA until it asks you to do so, which is usually at home after the purchase. So the OP was correct in saying that in the UK the EULA cannot be enforced - although this, to the best of my knowledge, has not been to court yet. The agreement with the seller is usually for a computer system. There is no requirement for you to formally accept the software that is installed. This applies not only to the OS, but also to all of the junk, er 'Value Added' items that are also stuffed on the hard drive.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
" WGA may serve the purpose of keeping unlicensed copies of MS Windows off the average machine. I question what use that is, since such unlicensed copies only increase perceived market share of MS, and directly increases their power."
What use that is? Killing unlicensed copies off?
if you go with closed source, having 100% marketshare
won't save your biz if 100% of the copies were not paid for.
ever hear the meme/adage about internet startups that goes something like
"we lose XX dollars on every sale- we make up for it with volume"
I'm not saying I agree with WGA methodology, but I do disagree with your specific argument against it's purposelessness
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
If you have an OEM version of Windows, then replacing the motherboard requires a new licence. This is explained in the OEM System Builder Licencing FAQ, which I quote below:
Generally, an end user can upgrade or replace all of the hardware components on a computer—except the motherboard—and still retain the license for the original Microsoft OEM operating system software. If the motherboard is upgraded or replaced for reasons other than a defect, then a new computer has been created. Microsoft OEM operating system software cannot be transferred to the new computer, and the license of new operating system software is required.
If the motherboard is replaced because it is defective, you do not need to acquire a new operating system license for the PC as long as the replacement motherboard is the same make/model or the same manufacturer's replacement/equivalent, as defined by the manufacturer's warranty.
Well, perhaps more people would care if they knew more about the issues involved, particularly the way in which software companies have aggressively claimed "rights" that have never belonged to authors or publishers.
I don't think anyone is expecting MS to drop their EULA and go to the GPL. Lots of folks oppose EULAs without endorsing "piracy". I think the hope of rational opponents of EULAs is that courts will rule that purchasers of software have the same rights as the purchasers of books and other copyrighted materials. In other words, if you buy it, it's yours and you can do whatever you want with it without having to sign a license, as long as you obey copyright law.
This would require two rulings, I think (IANAL).
1. A ruling that when you buy software, you really buy that copy of the program - none of this "you own the physical media but not the software contained on it" weasel-wording.
2. A ruling that installation and running of software is simply the ordinary use of the product, not copying as regulated under copyright law and thus only allowed with express permission of the copyright holder.
These are perfectly reasonable things to work toward (i.e. write your congressman or other public officials, write letters to the editor, etc.) Maybe it doesn't belong at the top of everyone's priority list, but it is still a worthy cause.
The "I use Linux, so I don't care" attitude is defeatist, IMHO.
Nope: I always check the MD5s with OpenBSD.org before installing.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
now write it 100 times:
DMCA not DCMA
So do you think we should increase spending on law enforcement so as to crack down on the pirates selling shrinkwrap hologrammed copies of Windows? Or should we reduce spending and allow the knockoffs to compete with the alternatives?
This was really just MS taking responsibility for part of the costs of enforcement. Good for them.
You either did not read or understand your parent.
If it's such a big deal, perhaps you should consider removing the EULA from the service pack before installing it. I don't know what it would mean legally though.
Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
Maybe you don't think thats a problem.
OTOH I think it's a problem that anti-piracy measures make worse by discouraging casual copying and encouraging large pirate networks who can deal with the anti-piracy measures.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
I work in Linux 99.2% approx of the time lol, if I need to drop into windows to print to my lexmark printer then do I really care about malware. Of course not, and there really is malware for Linux.
NOT malware for Linux, lol my bad, it's still early
Not exactly: one morning your trusty 10 year old car got "anti-theft" (a.k.a. anti-owner) system magically installed, and it just happens not to recognize your ignition key. Would you be mad? I know I would.
Genuine Car Advantage Auto-installed (!):
More like the manufacturer calls you in for a _recall_ to make your car safer. When you get it back, your dealership informs you that they lost your title and registration. Now your car acts like a diesel, with a 5 second wait to start before your ignition will even turn. While driving an annoying idiot light comes on reminding you that you're driving without a registration. The dealership also informs you that you will be ineligible for future recalls, because you can't prove that you bought your vehicle.
My point here is that if Microsoft wants to take a heavy handed business model that alienates customers and degrades their computing experiences it's their choice and their option. It is the consumer's option to continue doing business with them or find a more friendly alternative. Before you start talking about corporate customers, please keep in mind that Microsoft would sooner give up the Intel platform before they alienated customers with 1000+ seat site licenses.
Most ignorance is vincible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know. --Aldous Huxley