Slashdot Mirror
MS Wants Laws To Block Products Made By Software Pirates
kaptink writes with this quote from Groklaw:
"Microsoft seems to be trying to get its own personal unfair competition laws passed state by state, so it can sue US companies who get parts from overseas companies who used pirated Microsoft software anywhere in their business. The laws allow Microsoft to block the US company from selling the finished product in the state and compel them to pay damages for what the overseas supplier did. So if a company overseas uses a pirated version of Excel, let's say, keeping track of how many parts it has shipped or whatever, and then sends some parts to General Motors or any large company to incorporate into the finished product, Microsoft can sue not the overseas supplier but General Motors, for unfair competition. So can the state's Attorney General. I kid you not. For piracy that was done by someone else, overseas. The product could be T shirts. It doesn't matter what it is, so long as it's manufactured with contributions from an overseas supplier, like in China, who didn't pay Microsoft for software that it uses somewhere in the business. It's the US company that has to pay damages, not the overseas supplier."
Huh, unfair competition laws? Don't you think it's only fair if companies can't buy from companies using pirated software who sell at lower price because frankly they don't need to pay as much costs as lawful companies?
If something this prevents even more work force and money going out of the country to cheap countries like China and puts US companies to a better position again.
I understand that some of you people want to allow piracy for personal use, but this is business. You're making money off pirated products. If such activity wasn't punished then companies could just set up sister companies or even pure proxy companies in countries like China and ignore all and any copyright. Now that US businesses can't just do that, they might even start hiring US work force again and get the economy better. Microsoft and other companies are right in doing this.
I'm cool with that. Let's add a law that says that if your company steals the source code from a partner's product that as punitive restitution they get a perpetual, non-exclusive right to your entire source control for the product which bundled the stolen goods.
Fair is fair, Microsoft.
If Microsoft China employs engineers who wear pirated Nike t-shirts, can Nike sue Microsoft?
Microsoft buys new laws to make it criminal to import parts from most of Asia, news at 11.
...and it's not as insane as it seems. Regulation is usually to protect the small guy while the big guys have the lawyer power to avoid it. By phrasing regulation in terms on unfair competition laws, you end up with big businesses paying to enforce regulation. Which do you prefer:
(i) One big business forcing another business to abide by some law;
(ii) That same big business also ignoring the law.
Perhaps the underlying law is unjust. But then you tackle the underlying law - you don't tackle some principle which makes it harder to enforce a law. Let us have more rule of law and less rule of men, yes?
...then U.S. companies should also be prohibited from selling goods manufactured or obtained from companies overseas who don't follow all the other U.S. laws, not just copyright laws. This would include all U.S. laws regarding the environment, labor, accounting, etc. Why pick and choose?
What could go wrong?
...Microsoft SUES ITSELF and bites its own tail CLEAN OFF.
I'm sure Sound Forge authors are just waiting for this law to pass.
Seeing as under this law they could sue Microsoft for big bucks!
Perhaps this should be a model for how to get at companies that are otherwise out of US jurisdiction. It would only be reasonable to discourage them from conducting business with those entities.
How about expanding this a bit more to include other practices, such that it makes a de facto offshoring ban?
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
How are they going to prove that the foreign company used Excel instead of Open Office? Or is the idea to force the entire world have to purchase Microsoft licenses just to do business in America?
"On the Internet, nobody can hear you being subtle." -Linus Torvalds
This is a good way for companies with large law departments to cudgel smaller businesses. Just like how the endangered species act is misused sometimes, find some product, no matter how esoteric, that a company used that might be called into question, then threaten to sue that company out of existence unless they take an offer to be bought out.
This would be a field day for law departments. If one thought the patent lawsuits flying back and fourth with the phone company makers is insane, wait until the lawsuits because a bolt made from an offshore company just might be considered being made with a bogus copy of XP Embedded on the CNC mill.
For those not of the bar association, it means higher prices for everything (since companies have to pay bucks to CYA, and create additional internal auditing divisions, or fight these claims.) It also raises the barrier for entry for small businesses.
It will be interesting to see who will end up the lawmakers' master on this one. Companies who don't want the trouble of additional IP regulation, versus the usual people who keep fighting for more Draconian IP laws to protect their tired old stuff. This might get interesting because it may pit well-heeled lobbyists against other lobbyists of companies who just don't want the legal liability if this law passes.
Since I pay taxes for my properties (house, car, ...) would be nice if copyright owners pay taxes for they intelectual 'properties' every single year. ;)
Then I'll just order my stuff from a company who run's Linux. At least then my order wont crash from a blue screen.
This is what these giant corporations want. No laws or gov't regulation. Ooops, wait sorry my bad. I guess that only applies when it helps them specifically.
Not all U.S. companies are huge corporations that can do this. Non-profits can't afford this either.
I'm for ANY law which punishes unfair competition by liars, thieves and cheats overseas. As it were, the mainland Chinese in particular have shown themselves incapable of playing by the rules, and since the Chinese government are so hell bent on shielding their people from the consequences of their actions (under the aegis of "non interference" and "sovereignty"), I think it's completely reasonable to, as a second choice, to penalize businesses who benefit from unfair and dishonest Third World business practices.
I say, Microsoft, fire away, with our blessing.
Just wait till this logic gets applied to labor laws.
Lawyers already have enough work to keep them in practice for the next ten years even if no new cases are filed. Stop with this madness already.
This is absolutely brilliant, a stroke of genius. With a large part of everything being made in China, and piracy absolutely rampant in China this could an incredible effect on restoring jobs to this country. Microsoft has also just figured out how to resolve the outsourcing problem (that they greatly contributed to making) that has wrecked this countries economy and sold out it's future. This may be the best jobs program this country has ever seen, we should spread this idea around.
Just as many republicans contributed to Nader in 2000 to defeat Gore, we should contribute financially to seeing this law successfully implemented. Now we just need to get the AFL-CIO and similar organizations to back this.
So as more and more just comes down to arguments between lawyers we approach a singularity (and no, not the good one) where the only business will be the exchange of money through court cases. All innovation will just stop. I'm glad I'm probably more than half way through my life.
If Microsoft knows a company is using a pirate copy of their software, I have no responsability for A) tracking another entities software use or B) their licensing status. I find this not just rediculous. It is placing Microsoft's burden on companies that may not even be Microsoft's customers. But I can tell you this. Im a Global Architect at a huge US car company. If this passes, I will be making it known on a daily basis that my employer should explore alternative solutions to Microsoft products. Now the MSGM relationship really isn't an appropriate model for this dicussion since GM probably requires indemnification from any lawsuits from any vendor as part of their standard terms and conditions before allowing any product in as a standard. So even in MS did get this passed, GM probably wouldn't care because MS would indemnify GM from MS's suit. The rest of you are all phucked.
Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N
> this prevents even more work force and money going out of the country to cheap countries like China
I totally agree, in fact, I think the chilling effects might be so vast as to prevent US companies from even daring to do business with any foreign companies. This of course depends upon how the damages will be computed: will they be like the $75 trillion Livewire damages proposal, in the case where the foreign company actually shared Microsoft products via P2P?
> and puts US companies to a better position again
Well, if you think that a total mutual embargo (because, face it, the other countries of the world aren't idiots, when the US stops doing business with them, they will do the same) between the US and the rest of the world would be good for US companies, you would be right. I think that most people wouldn't agree with you.
OTOH, I would think this might give a big push for foreign companies to move to dropping Microsoft totally and using open-source instead. In fact, if I were a US company in the position where they had no choice but to deal with a foreign company, I'd be feeling much, much, more comfortable if the company were using open-source and not Microsoft. How on earth could I even audit that foreign company for compliance if it were using Microsoft products? OTOH, even if they would be using open-source, my company would still be opening itself to being sued in the case where some "mole" introduced illegal copyrighted code into the project, something which is trivial to do since computer code doesn't come magically labeled with indelible copyright notices.
So, if one of Microsoft's Optical media replicators shipping company(based in China) uses pirated software to ship the media from China to Microsoft, where Microsoft sells this media in US, who would MS sue?
So if whoever in asia that assembles Xboxes uses a pirated version of my naked-ladies calendar to know what day it is. I can sue microsoft in the US for unfair competition?
Makes perfect sense.
But importing Nike shoes made by 14 years old kid is perfectly fine, I guess. Or importing Uranium mined in Namibia or Nigeria, where workers are pretty much guaranteed to die. Or iPhones made by modern slaves in factories.
Good to see that America, the land of the free, has their priorities straight.
I'm not sure what the purpose of this law is other than to act as a rather larger stick to beat companies with.
Consider this: the legalese for most software licenses is borderline incomprehensible at the best of times. It's not simply a matter of "one license per PC", you've got Client Access Licenses, you've got products which are essentially the same but the difference lies in the licensing, you've got products which explicitly allow you to install them on more than one PC in certain circumstances (hello Adobe), you've got products which are straightforward enough in their own right but in order to use them you require some other product which is also licensed.
I don't believe it's physically possible to use commercial software in any but the smallest of organisations and at the same time be 100% correct in your licensing of it.
If you're prepared to accept this, then laws such as this start to sound dangerously close to legalised extortion : "Nice company you've got here. Be a shame if anything were to happen to it."
How far does this go? What if GM buys a bolt from a legitimate Chinese bolt manufacturer who bought the steel rod from a legitimate Chinese company who bought the raw steel from an Australian steel refinery that uses a cranky old PC with pirated Windows XP to run their invoicing software?
Seriously, this is a great thing for Linux adoption. Tons of companies are going to switch to pure-(F)OSS environments to avoid the issue entirely, like that guitar accessory company that got reamed by the BSA (Ernie Ball). This will counter the "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" attitude nicely. Nobody ever got their ass sued off for running (F)OSS.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Well I vana toilet made out of solid gold, but it's just not in the cards now is it?
if the law was enacted it would take a whole 45 seconds for someone to find an instance in where Microsoft did something with pirated software and then sue them relentlessly.
in fact pretty much everyone could sue everyone, even i with the microscopic amounts of software i made could sue everyone that sells everything from apple products to jet fighters, so no this is a non issue, it will never pass and if it did the courts would trow every case out the window for being really unpractical.
there are pirated software on every computer and i think in a lot of those cases Microsoft put it there.
- "There is nothing quite like an ineffective solution to an nonexistant problem"
It seems like it would be difficult to determine whether a Chinese company is using pirated software, unless there is some term in the software's EULA which requires all corporate entities to register their products (which there very well could be). But even with that potential exception, it can't be assumed that the company is using a Microsoft product - there are a ton of various (some free) spreadsheet editors that the foreign company could be using. Furthermore, a Chinese company is outside of the US's jurisdiction and won't be subject to discovery proceedings and we can't subpoena any witnesses from the company itself. While I definitely think this law is a good thing - and that we shouldn't allow foreign companies to unfairly cut costs by stealing software - the practical implications of this law don't seem as massive as initially presumed.
So, if any of the MS programmers outside of US used a pirated version of any program to work on Windows (not as impossible as it seems. just look at SoundForge) MS should be open to lawsuits. In any case, anyone can sue MS now, and it's on them to prove that they haven't done anything wrong. I know that it's contrary to the notion of being presumed innocent, but it'd have no chance of working the other way round. How would you prove that, for example, a company in China used pirated software if you can't audit them and check? You can't even summon them to court. All they have to say is that they've checked and that there is no pirated software. You can't call their bluff. Bullish as they are, American government can't just send their investigators everywhere they want. It would piss too many people off...
Those companies willing to hire illegal aliens has the same cost advantage, even if those companies are just contractors for 'responsible' employers. Perhaps we should fine the companies (or jail the actionable people) who hire a 'temp agency' or 'cleaning service' in an effort to skirt employment laws? How it's not already considered a RICO violation, I have no idea. Oh, btw, I'm all for immigration reform, of nearly any sort.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
My best guess is, that this will trigger contracts that say: "supplier vows to abide by IP laws". The vendor that buys products from the supplier then just claims they didn't know about it (they really don't care). Then they testify (truthfully) that they did their due diligence and acted in good faith.
How do you want to sue someone when they act in good faith and have no knowings of what the supplier on the other half of the word is breaking the contract? Do you want to make supplier audits mandatory? Don't be ridiculous.
And if a law is passed that enables the suing of the companies when someone exposed the supplier, this opens a whole can of post factum liability worms.
The other thing is, that China is only vocal about IP laws, but the industry mostly depends on shallow enforcement. So I really doubt that it will be easy to expose suppliers if it has bad consequences for Chinese companies.
so, child labour's ok? but if they start playing minesweeper in their lunch 5 minutes there'll be trouble...
sag
I see this creating a precedent whereby any damaged party could sue a U.S. company for importing / selling any products made overseas by manufacturers who have broken laws in their home country, including environmental. Say good-bye to pretty much anything sold in the U.S.
Simple fact is Microsoft does have some outside software.
I would like to see some company buying a Microsoft product ask Microsoft to do a full audit of all their software for licenses under this requirement.
I want every desktop and corporate mobile device in Microsoft reported and individually inspected for what software is installed. Then I want information on the license status of all software on that device. Also as they continually buy Microsoft products Microsoft is going to have to repeat the audit every month.
Every business that buys Microsoft software should ask for a copy of that information. That would be pretty much every company in the world. It would be nice if they all asked for a different reporting format.
I'd like to propose a more equitable law. When a big company screws enough people with crap like this we take the corporate officers and the board of directors out into the street and bludgeon them.
Step right up Ballmer, you're first.
This is BS. Seriously. M$ is trying to go back to its 90's era dishonest business practices. Sounds like Steve Ballmer needs his behind kicked up between his shoulders. I don't blame M$ for wanting to catch people using illegal software. Not at all. However, why should I have to be sued for my supplier's BS and especially in another country. The problem these days is that we can all oppose this but it wouldn't make any difference to M$ and maybe not even in the federal government because so many officials are in bed with corporations. LOL M$ needs their behind whipped good for this one. I'd like to see M$ try to sue someone for this and win. It will waste time in the courts and waste taxpayer money on frivolous and egregious lawsuits due to companies having to protect themselves. And of course, small companies can't afford to pack the court room with an army of top notch attornies like M$ can.
Oh, under this new law, if your suppliers are violating open source copyright will be ok, you can't be sued because of that.
"Always learn from history. To be sure you make the same mistakes again." ~ Tiamat - Angel Holograms
Unfair competition laws apply to a monopoly? No, really?
I agree with what MS is doing. If you are dealing with a foreign company, you have to do your due diligence that people or minors weren't exploited. Same way you have to make sure all was legit on the IT front.
You can give the same excuse for possession of stolen goods, "how was I to know", but that doesn't make it right for you to possess stolen goods and you are still liable for persecution.
This is a GREAT idea! Now Microsoft can sue Walmart. Lets see, how many suppliers do they have? Let Walmart check all 20000-60000 suppliers for software violations, say, once a year. Yes!
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
This should also promote the use of Free Software... no worries about accusations of piracy, EVER.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Of course I didn't RTFA but we've had discussion about this kind of thing in Finland recently related to the new nuclear plant construction site and the worker benefit/paycheck violations made by sub-sub-sub-sub-subcontractors. AFAIK in Finland the buyer [of services] should already be responsible for that the contractor she grants a job to is playing by the law.
It's only reasonable that sub-contractors using pirated software would be regarded as the contractor using pirated software, as you can most likely assume that sub-contractor has lower operating costs because they use illegally obtained software, thus possibly lowering the costs of their job for the contractor.
Now, if someone would dare to pursue worker rights in the same fashion *ducks* :) And the other away around, this software/illegal activities by contractors should be reflected upon the buyer in all around fashion, at least to some reasonable extent of requiring the buyer to monitor and react to detected anomalies..
I mean in practice probably the ones that are big enough are the only ones who will be affected by this anyway (who has time to go after the small companies?)
Microsoft loves provider to add sticker on their products. They will create a certification process and any company will buy this certification, will put a sticker "microsoft genuine made" on the product or service ....
I've heard for some canadian government contract, in the service offer the provider must prove they are using legal software. So it is not new.
Since I pay taxes for my properties (house, car, ...)
What is the ...? As far as I can tell, the only property on which an individual is taxed is a house or a car. Copyright is taxed like personal possessions, not real estate, namely by taxing any income derived therefrom.
I recall they have threatened to sue OEMs who sold PCs sans-OS
Google naked pc and find this 2000 article.
by mere chance alone it's likely there's some patets infringed somewhere or some code which has ended up the same and which can't be proven to have been deved in a cleanroom environment for anything as large as linux and windows.
...to off-shore your business?
Maybe if the overseas businesses paid their fair share they wouldn't seem so dirt cheap compared to domestic businesses anymore, to include... fair wages and benefits, paying the same fees compliant businesses pay, buying their commercial software, and so on.
How ethical is it to send your business to a dirt cheap overseas company who then produces your product for you with unethical means and standards?
To defend itself from the lawsuit all GM has to do is prove that they too use pirated versions of Excel....case dismissed!
No sig today...
MS has been caught pirating software on at least three occasions that I know of. Have they thought this through?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Potential scenario:
1. This law passes
2. American companies (huge drivers of business in China) tell Chinese companies they cannot do business with them if they pirate Microsoft products
3. Chinese companies have mass migration to FOSS
4. Chinese companies want students with FOSS knowledge; Chinese colleges teach to use and improve FOSS; hacker culture develops in China in which millions of people spend time improving FOSS
5. FOSS software improves due to increased usage and developer base
6. American companies see cost savings by Chinese from using FOSS
7. American companies migrate to FOSS to save money, putting it on employee computers
8. Employees get used to FOSS and choose to use it at home because it is often free as in beer and because it is better
9. ???
10. Profit (= 2015 is the Year of the Linux Desktop)
If this passes, people relying on proprietary software will get a rude awakening.
If your suppliers are using Windows or Photoshop, how can you verify that they're all using licensed copies? Either you call the BSA in to kick their office's doors down and ransack it on your behalf, which is going to get you some "special" customer service once they find out you did it, or someone else will after you've bought from them in which case you'll be screwed when they get caught.
The only way you'll be safe under this regime is to require everyone in the supply chain uses FOSS.
(Admit: Did not fully RTFA)
TFA and TFS keep focusing it on MS, as if they are the only people who can sue, but from the excerpts quoted, it sounds like any closed software can. Here's the kicker that should have been in the summary:
Exceptions. A person may not sue under this cause of action when:
1. the end product sold or offered for sale in Washington is:
a. a copyrightable work under the United States Copyright Act;
b. merchandise manufactured by or on behalf of a copyright owner and that displays a component or copyrightable element of a copyrighted work;
c. merchandise manufactured by or on behalf of a copyright owner or trademark owner and that displays a component or copyrightable elements relating to a theme park or theme park attraction; or
d. packaging or promotional material for such copyrightable works or merchandise.
2. the allegation that the IT is stolen is based on a claim that the IT infringes on patents or trade secrets;
3. the allegation that the IT is stolen is based on a claim that the use of the IT violates the terms of an open source software license; or
4. the allegation that a person aided, facilitated, or otherwise assisted someone else to acquire or use stolen IT.
So, you can sue someone for infringing upon someone's rights, as long as you aren't violating an FOSS agreement?
There are some odd ideas in there (like the exclusion for theme park operators), but I'm surprised that one flew under the slashdot radar.
Everyone thinks cheap goods due to outsourcing is a great idea...till their own job is outsourced.
This "principle" breaks one of the foundations of modern law - that you should be held responsible for you own actions, and not actions of others which you neither had controller over, nor knowledge of
somebody please mod up @trims post! If the principle is accepted and applied elsewhere, we're all responsible for whatever Kevin Bacon does.
This alone would bankrupt US companies trying to purchase goods made overseas. It would be a disaster.
The good news is that it would drive US companies to require that all their suppliers use open-source software since the authors would not try destroy the US company. MS is insane.
Non profits should have under 50M revenue or do not compete so they couldn't be sued. They don't need to do anything.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
Their laws regarding lawsuits may be entirely different. And they may have a small company that you could not recover the damages. The idea is -insane-.
Dont seal me in!
In Soviet Russia, Supplier sue...er, Microsoft, um....purchasing company? Crap, my brain just exploded.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/13/1727218/Wells-Fargo-Bank-Sues-Itself
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Next time that infernal Windows "authenticity" WGA software screws up and flags a legal copy of Windows as counterfeit, there should be an opportunity for a serious high-dollar counter-suit for damages!
Don't think for a minute this doesn't really happen! Just a few weeks ago, I had a call from one of our salespeople asking for help, because "my screen suddenly turned black and these notices keep popping up telling me my copy of Windows isn't authentic". This is the same Windows XP Pro machine he's used for the last 4 years or so! (Our company had a lot of financial problems in the last couple years with the economic downturn, so a lot of PC upgrade plans got put on hold.) His PC still has the exact same OEM Windows XP copy installed on it that came with it when it was new, and if you check the CD key it says it's installed with? It matches the Microsoft sticker placed on the back of his machine. But for whatever reason, Microsoft suddenly decided he was running a pirated copy .....
I'm all for this law. I think the move to open source software would be dramatic and almost immediate. Who'd want to risk having their product built somewhere that was using copyright encumbered software, that could be challenged at any time? This law combined with patent trolls would make copyrighted software as terrifying as the plague.
What's 'unfair' about this scenario?
Competitor: Pirate copy of Office, value: $500
GM: Guaranteed government bailouts no matter how crappy their cars, billion dollar bonuses for CEOs that bring the company to ruin despite record income, value: Priceless
No sig today...
>>>He probably modded himself up with his 25 accts.
You can't do that. Slashdot tracks the *IP* not the account, so you can't post with one id, log in with another, and then boost your score.
Of course if you have more than one IP (like home and work), then you could get around that limitation but that's seems like too much effort for minimal return. No troll would bother.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Just as long as microsoft is not saying that a software that is properly created, but maybe made from using a pirated visual studio, does not fall in the category of being a pirated software, as I see this is where they tend to blur the lines. A software that is pirated, would be a software that is created on the 1 of march by x programmer, and then the 1 of august you have an exact duplicate of the same software being sold by y programmer calling it different name, but doing everything exactly the same as the first app, maybe even same GUI.
MS has this weird notion that if you used their VS200x to make a software, and that you did not pay your license or that it expired, then it is not a proper software and could be considered pirated, unless they stake claim to it themselves, as you used their product to code with....
I am blurry on how litigation interprets these lines, but with the amazing amounts of patent trolls out there, i would not put it past them that this is what they are trying to do with this one...
Wat?
Boredom is bliss.
Things getting too difficult to handle? Feel like you're being treated unfairly? Go sue someone!
Seriously, this is ridiculous. Perhaps they should pass laws to make businesses more productive instead of trying to make a quick buck by suing everyone else. It's no surprise that a nation filled with lawyers has difficulty competing with countries that actually produce things.
This is the trick that will nail the coffin for FOSS. Prepare the funeral please.
New Economic Perspectives
Well, you can try running to Mexico.
Windows CE/embedded/etc../ would all be candidates for the telematics market. That would make them, if successful, GM parts suppliers. If they aren't currently GM parts suppliers, that is due to their own shortcomings.
It looks like MS is restocking its FUD armoury.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=569
The different parts of Sony having conflicting interests..
A separate comment on that:
"Epic's* up in my face like, "Don't steal our songs Lars,"
While Sony sells the burners that are burning CD-R's "
-MC Lars, Download This Song
* Epic Records is one of the Sony Music sublabels
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Not all U.S. companies are huge corporations that can do this. Non-profits can't afford this either.
I'm sure Microsoft would be happy to do it for them. For a fair fee, of course. Better yet, for a low monthly fee Microsoft would be happy to indemnify you against threat of a lawsuit based on your suppliers using pirated Microsoft products.
I don't see Microsoft actually pushing to shut down anyone for violating this law. Bad for business. They probably just see it as a way to open up a new revenue stream to cover what they see as losses to piracy. They don't actually want to stop GM from shipping cars because some minor supplier was using a pirated copy of Powerpoint, they just want to threaten GM (and every other company) with that possibility and then extract a little "protection" money.
This would make the use of any MS product a huge possible legal liability. Why not minimize the risk and go opensource? Companies that strive to sell complete workflow & service packages or servers might use that argument in the future. Good for Redhat, Oracle, IBM.
If this law passes, I will convert my laptop over to an illegal copy of Windows just on principle (it came with OEM W7 Home Premium so I'm currently one of those who is running legal Windows). Civil disobedience and the like.
FC Closer
Non-profit doesnt mean 'no money'. Non-profits are run to enrich people too and are often as powerful and corrupt as regular companies. Being a non-profit doesnt mean its filled with altruistic people working for free.
Good-bye
M$ has been under scrutiny themselves for using other people's software without their permission. If I pirate something, I am using a chunk of code without the consent or sending money to that company. Microsoft has been under lawsuits and LOST multiple times for them using pirated software. Who the hell are they to up and try to stop everybody else when they do it themselves. Law is not a "Do as I say, not as I do" type thing.
The world is how you make it
...bad news about the chips in your computer, which were probably developed in Israel. Switch it off now and send it back.
This is a perfectly reasonable thing that mimics buying anything from thieves. It's purchasing stolen goods, taken to the next logical level. Microsoft can't possibly sue the overseas company -- different country, different laws, and different access. But more importantly, you should know what your suppliers are doing.
Besides, General Motors (in this example) doesn't have to be liable for the supplier's stolen software, the law just has that as the default. General Motors can easily include an indemnification clause into their contracts with their overseas supplier and simply pass the lawsuit along the chain should it ever arise.
But really, how else are you going to stop the illegal piracy from permeating every country around the world one by one? You need General Motors to insist that their suppliers do things properly. That's already required for electrical safety, and other import laws. Adding software to the list isn't the big deal.
As for the software not being a part of the t-shirt, I call zombie bullshit on that. They designed the logo on the t-shirt in microsoft word, we all know they did.
Look, microsoft isn't going to find the tiny t-shirt shop that used excel once as a calculator. That company can't supply enough to general motors to be worth anything anyway. And if microsoft does find them, that company will simply vanish into thin air.
We're talking about foreign companies in countries that don't prevent piracy, which can be fine for their country, feeding their products and services into our countries and ruining our economies. Why would that foreign company protect microsoft's interests? Microsoft may not have a single employee there. But here, in our countries, Microsoft provides jobs to thousands of employees and millions of jobs to the economy at large. You want to protect that.
Summary execution of CEOs that intimate Linux has stolen IP while never ever offering any fucking proof.
This is just the sort of case where you lawyer up first, THEN determine if you can sue and on what basis.
IANAL and I wouldn't care to give legal advice on that particular problem.
If they are trying to pass this state by state, they won't get much headway. While MS may be big, they are not the most influential corp in most states. Do you think most other big corporations would like this law? Almost every big corp in the US has some manufacturing in China, therefore, almost every big corp in the US could be sued by Microsoft. So do we really think that Michigan, home of GM, Ford and Chrysler will want this to pass? Who do you think has more pull in Michigan, the auto companies or MS? Sure MS might have pretty good pull in the state of Washington, and probably some good connections in California, but beyond that, there are companies in every state that have much more influence in the state government than MS that would be negatively affected by the law.
"It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
So if they use any foreign labor where someone where's a T-shirt that's got a pirated design, or such ... wouldn't that also apply?
If not, then can't the company supplier simply claim ignorance?
How are they going to handle "burden of proof" -- do US companies have to prove compliance of all their suppliers -- and their sub-suppliers as well? This sounds completely insane....
Any product made in China?
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Don't know about him, but I refuse to buy a single Intel chip since they were caught bribing OEMs and rigging their compiler in douchebag behavior that made MSFT at their worst look like Care Bears. And the fact you can be fined or even jailed for simply refusing to do business with those whose beliefs you don't support simply shows that the USA is dead and has been replaced by a corporatist state that lets groups like AIPAC have too God damned much power. The fact that both the repub and dem candidate went to suck up to AIPAC before the last presidential election makes me want to puke. Is it any wonder the militants come up with names like ZOG for the USA? What the hell do you call it when the head of AIPAC brags about how much he pulls the strings here and nobody does or says shit?
As for TFA allow me to say I'm 110% for this as we have been bending over for the misery exporters too damned long and anything that tips the balance back is a good thing, so I don't care if the devil himself came up with the idea. Hell the Chinese are having to put nets around their factories because the workers are so miserable but even THAT isn't enough for the misery exporters, now they are looking at Vietnam and Malaysia because the workers in China are starting to want to be able to breathe and have more than a few cents in their pocket at the end of the day, the greedy peasants.
The misery exporters are destroying this country, they make it so one that cares about the environment can't compete because they can simply set up factories where they belch toxins and dump waste out the back door, they then lobby for H1-Bs which have slaughtered our tech sector and pretty much wiped out tech as a career in the USA by forcing those with degrees that cost $50k+ to compete with somebody straight off the boat that paid less than 5K for their "degree" if their resume isn't just complete bullshit (which after having to deal with a couple of "expert" H1-Bs that were using a Java dummies book? Yeah the whole thing smells), so anything that can help to stop the bleeding I'm ALL for.
Personally I'm starting to think the militia types are right, we are headed for another revolution like what is happening in the middle east right now. You have millions out of work while our president with a straight face pushes our young people to go ever deeper in debt with education (what is it, Bachelors is the new HS diploma now?) which they can't even erase by bankruptcy while at the same time flooding the markets with H1-Bs and allowing offshoring with NO penalties or even giving them fricking tax breaks while they send the jobs away, WTF?
I know plenty of people right now that would be damned glad to follow a Joe Stalin or our own crazy Austrian because anything has to be better than what they have now because no matter how hard they work they simply fall further behind. I look out my window at boarded up stores and houses with for sale signs as far as the eye can see. I personally wish MSFT all the luck in the world with this, but personally I think it is too little too late. The system has been corrupted beyond redemption, the top 1% hold more than 60% of the wealth and climbing while the people simply no longer believe in democracy because they see the two parties are just too sides of the same coin.
Sooner or later we'll have the new "leader of the people" rise, all it takes right now is a spark to set this powderkeg off. You simply have too many that no longer believe in democracy and someone with no hope and no future has nothing to lose. The ONLY reason it hasn't happened yet is the dems cutting checks like there is no tomorrow but you can't keep the presses running forever. When gas hits $6 a gallon and most won't even be able to afford bread then you'll see the shit hit the fan, mark my words. good luck MSFT you'll need it.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Note I said when I can. This is not some "Oh noes teh jews, thing", this is me not wanting to support either side is what is a terrible conflict. Both sides are equally crappy and I will avoid supporting either one when I can. If I cannot then I will just try to do it to the minimum amount.
There's no way that a company the size of Microsoft does not have pirated software running somewhere. So pass the law, audit Microsoft, and stop them from selling Windows. The world would be a better place for it.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
So does this mean that any employee MS gets a work visa for, who trained on pirated software in a foreign country before coming here is also covered under the plan? Surely every MS employee born in India or China or Japan has a valid license when they learned computers, right? If not, well I guess MS is to be held liable and owes an amount equal to the person's salary, to be paid to a US jobs program.
Warning: Teh poster of this messaeg is lysdexic
It's ridiculous to claim that the use of pirated software is "the" market defining factor behind supply pricing competition, and you'd likely be very wrong in assuming that software piracy in business is limited to overseas suppliers, too. It might also have something to do with lower cost of living/lower wages/import and export tariffs.. in fact a whole slew of things. I'm sorry, but it's simply wrong to punish the party which didn't even infringe in the first place. It's like threatening one person with a gun and shooting the innocent bystander.
Microsoft seems to be taking a reversed approach to the RIAA and MPAA. The AAs are busy suing people and companies overseas who aren't under US jurisdiction. Microsoft, on the other hand, wants to sue Americans who do business with those overseas law breakers.
Microsoft made all kinds of promises about what DRM could and would do. Why haven't they been able to implement software licensing and security that actually achieves what they promised? Microsoft seems to have turned a blind eye to the overseas piracy, preferring to lick their wounds and console themselves that at least they have users.
Now that they've ingrained a lifestyle of piracy in those nations, they have an issue with it. Too bad. Come up with an actual solution instead of trying to sue everyone else for their own fuckups.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
If you cant produce, just sue everyone else who does. It works so well for the RIAA. Eventually the entire system will break down and we can start over.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I foresee a problem here - that can be used to deadlock a lot of businesses since it's not always easy to prove what has been legal and illegal in a foreign country. Chain of evidence may be broken, evidence can be fabricated and bribes used to fake that a supplier for your competitor is running unlicensed software. Then you can get rid of a competitor on home ground on grey accusations.
And your competitors can do the same to you.
The only companies that can protect themselves to a reasonable extent against schemes like this are probably only the Fortune 500 companies. The rest are swept up and executed one way or another and the intellectual properties of the small companies are absorbed into the major corporations.
So the end result will be that it's going to get bad for the US economy because even more stagnation will occur.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
I'll double the price due to cost
Promise?
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
This is good news. This will do a lot to make trade much fairer. It also will be good for open source abroad.
See the clever thing for Europe to do in response to all this crap is pretty much to keep the cool. Let the Americans shoot themselves in the foot and then welcome the companies that decide to emigrate as a result. Heck we don't even have to do anything, you guys are doing a great job of stifling your ability to compete on your own. Sadly it seems the EC, while probably not quite as bad as the US congress, also gives in to short sighted business interests far too easily.
I don't believe it's physically possible to use commercial software in any but the smallest of organisations and at the same time be 100% correct in your licensing of it.
Except by over-licencing, buying more cover than you actually need.
If you're prepared to accept this, then laws such as this start to sound dangerously close to legalised extortion : "Nice company you've got here. Be a shame if anything were to happen to it."
Exactly.
You make the mistake of thinking you can educate the fundamental stupidity out of people. You can't.
full bastardry. so, they want to exempt open source licenses from copyright laws, but, their own licenses in.
then that means copyright law is invalid ?
Read radical news here
please dont sell bullshit to us, or go learn what you are wanting to sell.
this is not only unenforceable, but also explicitly excludes open source license and software from the law. preferential treatment is not allowed in any case in eu law. if a law is passed, no party can be excluded from enjoying the benefits. this law discriminates FOR a certain party. not even a certain industry.
who am i replying to - with uid over 2 mil, and an insane post, you are apparently that microsoft shill guy that uses multiple accs.
Read radical news here
I don't believe it's physically possible to use commercial software in any but the smallest of organisations and at the same time be 100% correct in your licensing of it.
Except by over-licencing, buying more cover than you actually need.
Well and good if it's something you want on every PC anyway. Niche software is the killer - as a rule of thumb, the tighter the niche, the more each license costs (and the less likely you'll find a viable F/OSS alternative) - and we could easily be talking thousands per license.
It only takes a single slip - maybe you're a small business without tight processes dictating that all PCs are wiped prior to reuse - and you're noncompliant. It was exactly this sort of thing that led to that old chestnut about Stirling Ball migrating everything to Linux.
The above headline indicates several facts. MS Office is being hurt by Open Office and LibreOffice, and b). People are not upgrading from their current Office product version to a later version. From what I receive as attachments, most of my documents were created with the office 2003 versions of software. I use office 2007, find it necessary because of the docx extensions, but otherwise find it takes much more of my time to write a document with Office 2007 then it does with Office 2003. Were I to be creating manuscripts, I would probably learn latex, and make use of a document/manuscript software, created specifically for that task.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Microsoft, Microsoft we thought we were done with these bad ideas after you started kicking ass with the Kinect and the X-Box 360.
I suspect the grandparent was merely being sarcastic... it's not like the open source industry has the lobbying power to push through insane laws like the one Microsoft did.
You don't even need to fabricate evidence - chances are that someone, somewhere in the company uses one small piece of unlicensed software, or that two employees share the software when it is licensed per user, or that a user has it installed on both his new and old computer when it is licensed per computer, or are breaking the license agreement in some other way - or that there is suspicion of it. That is enough to sue and cause the target company to incur huge legal costs.
And with this new law, you can sue all of a company's American customers instead, incurring that cost to each one of them. It has the potential to give a software company far more legal threat power than suing directly.
But it's practically impossible to be sure that none of your contractors is using some unlicensed software somewhere in their organisation. Even large companies who do everything they can to stay legal, usually fail to be 100% license compliant within their own organisation. This law will effectively give Microsoft the power to decide who's "competing unfairly" on the American market, since they can arbitrarily decide to give software amnesty to their friends' contractors.
Contractors in low-wage countries are unlikely to start buying Microsoft licenses in either case (they'll either switch to free software or keep pirating), so it doesn't cost Microsoft much to give amnesty.
Sometimes a large company wants to go after a small company which has an innovation which may pose a threat to their business model.
Unfortunately true, but there are also non-profit organisations with honest, hard-working people and just enough money to go around.
It HAS passed. In two states.