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...
I has a similar situation.
The patriot act was the final straw for me and what ultimately forced my hand. I have migrated to North Korea and will never look back.
Their lockdown comes with a prettier UI and a bigger price tag, so you know it's a quality shafting you're getting!
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
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.
If you were talking about iPhone OS, you might have a rational argument, and would have earned your moderation.
But I thought we were talking about an operating system for a general-purpose computer. Contrasting Mac OS X with any post- W2K Microsoft OS:
- I've never had to enter an 'activation' key to install it.
- I've never had to worry if it's going to turn on me and accuse me of using a 'counterfeit' version of it.
- I've never had to call Apple and ask, "Pretty please, is it okay to have my computer back?"
I think you're a little bit confused as to "Super-Lockdown-Incorporated" really is.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, write technology blogs.
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."
You're missing the forest for the trees. Mac OS never asks for validation at any stage of installation. Just put your disc in, install, reboot. That's it. Change your hardware, no need to validate. Ever. Starting with Mac OS v.10.5, upgrade discs no longer checked to see if you had an older version already installed.
Lockdown!=Lockout
blog
Apple primarily makes money on the hardware sales, any money coming in from software is mostly gravy. Microsoft primarily makes money on software sales, so piracy means they get nothing.
If Apple did not have a monopoly on computers which can run OS-X then it's very likely you would be seeing license keys, activation and anti-counterfeiting measures in place.
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."