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."
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?
"Unfair competition laws" == Laws against unfair competition.
The problem here is that GM is not competing with 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?
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. ;)
Except, how is a business supposed to know if its suppliers are running pirated software?
This basically says that Microsoft now demands that anybody buying a widget from anywhere in the world effectively enforces a software audit on its suppliers. You know what happens if you tell your supplier they need to open up their stuff to you for scrutiny just in case they're doing something offensive to a 3rd party? They laugh at you, and cancel the deal.
If I'm buying foam packing peanuts from China, do you really think I have the clout to get them to prove to me they haven't pirated Excel? Because, that's what this bill is asking for. This is a stupid law, and one that tries to make enforcement of Microsoft's products the responsibility of people who might not even be in the computer industry.
It's just not practical or feasible.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Just wait till this logic gets applied to labor laws.
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.
In that case, Microsoft should no longer be able to blame business partners, contractors, customers, or whatever for their own problems, either.
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2011/01/20/244979/Microsoft-blames-third-party-for-excessive-Windows-Phone-7-data.htm
http://theregoesdave.com/2009/10/15/microsoft-goes-schizo-starts-blaming-danger-for-lost-data/
http://www.itnews.com.au/News/70560,microsoft-blames-vista-insecurity-on-third-party-applications.aspx
You can't have it both ways, Microsoft. You want GM liable for software piracy in China, then you should be liable for Windows 7 phone phantom data usage.
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
Their supplier is competing unfairly with US suppliers, though. I think we already have similar regulations for environmentally damaging suppliers? To my mind this is no different.
I am trolling
> 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?
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 am curious, how is it that people in US get worse treatment from call centers in India, than people living in India itself. Personally I have not really had any bad experience with Indian call centers(though for some reason calls to MS seem to be routed to a US based call center from India.. weird)
Also, if you are buying XYZ from China and selling it to MS, do they sue themselves?
This is what these giant corporations want.
Big corporations _LOVE_ regulation, because the costs keep smaller, smarter, more innovative competitors out of the market. Big business and big government are not enemies, they're symbiotic organisms.
IMHO it sounds good on paper but the plausibility of implementation falls apart pretty quickly when you consider the huge supply chain for each individual part in a complex piece of machinery. If a single resistor in my car is manufactured by a company that didn't pay for their software licenses now I'm supposed to not be able to sell the car? How far back does the chain of ownership go? Do I have to make sure every single company between the miners to the end parts manufacturer are in software compliance?
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
Its not stolen... Its infringed...
-no sig today-
there are limits. you have to be selling more than 50 million worth of stuff per year before the law kicks in.
funnily enough it completely exempts software.
If microsoft use pirated software to develop code for windows then they get off completely scot free.
Likewise if they use a pirated copy of photoshop to make their ads for windows then they're also in the clear.
open source violations are also excepted so if a company ignores an open source liscence they and their downstream customers also get off scot free.
isn't that convenient.
Try this hypothetical.
China wants to hamstring a US defense industry supplier like, say Lockheed Martin.
Chinese company A makes software.
Chinese company B is supplier to Lockheed Martin.
Chinese company B uses pirated copy of software from company A.
Chinese company A sues Lockheed Martin in the US.
Or try this: Airbus vs. Boeing.
${foreign car manufacturer} vs. GM or Ford
${foreign airline} vs ${US airline}
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Yeah, and the US govt should sue companies like msn that do business with China, since China doesn't allow freedom of speech.
I apologize profusely if I count myself as a human first and an American second, but it is the truth. Globalization may have put a serious dent into our standard of living, but considering how fat Americans are, we can afford to take the hit. Meanwhile, there are millions of people in Asia and South America who for the first time in history don't have to worry about their children starving. You don't really believe we could keep on consuming 2/3rds of the world's resources, did you?
A rising tide lifts all boats. A strong Indian middle class is almost as good for us as a strong American middle class. Those of us in the middle should bear in mind that CEOs do not see national borders, only markets. Perhaps we should emulate them. We have more in common with Chinese factory workers and Indian tech support than we think we do.
...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?
You really think that copyright law should be on the same level as basic human rights? Human rights should be universal on compassionate grounds. Even animals have compassion to an extent. Copyright law is something we as humans completely made up, and if some country chooses to not see "intellectual property" as US law proclaims it, it should not matter.
which is totally what she said
Democrats and Republicans are both populists.
An anarchist wants government out of everything. A populist wants government to control everything. An actual liberal wants government to control business but not morality. An actual conservative wants the opposite.
I think it's clear that both Democrats and Republicans want business laws that promote their own agenda, and equally, they both want to say what you can or cannot do in your home. Neither party is the party for less government involvement in any aspect of life; they simply both wish to tell you how the government will control you.
Even if you believe in a difference between the parties and don't see it as an elaborate game conceived to convince the masses that there is someone representing your interests, you have to see that both parties want total control over your life.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Getting a fake name. This really bugs the hell out of me. Don't come on with a thick-as-fuck accent and then claim your name is "Jim" or "Bob" or "Susan." We know you're lying to us and as a customer, once you lie to me and I catch you in it, I'm going to assume you may be lying about anything else you say.
I may be wrong, but I assume the point is to give the costumer a name they can pronounce easily, which might not be case if you only speak English and are talking to someone called e.g. Adithya or Bhagavateeprasaad.
Dilbert RSS feed
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.
Uh, I think we've pretty clearly demonstrated we can't afford to take the hit, as our economy is in shambles.
But perhaps more importantly, the workers in other countries, despite what they tell you, are not doing any better. They are working for microscopic wages, in unsafe conditions, without any medical care or benefits or anything. Often they are slave labor.
You want to help those people, get a job paying $30,000 a year and donate $5,000 to a fucking charity dedicated to helping there. Don't let their companies put you out of work, and hire them for $100 a year and keep $29,900. Neither of you is better off, the only people who came out better from that deal are the superrich.
Although perhaps someday the money will 'trickle down' when they hire you to give them a foot massage...or, wait, they'll just get an illegal immigrant to do it. They're cheaper and can't complain to the police about abusive conditions or violations of labor laws.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Everyone thinks cheap goods due to outsourcing is a great idea...till their own job is outsourced.
A very good point that will be lost in the noise. Don't we have laws similar to this for child labor, sweat shops, harboring terrorists etc? If it forces the big boys to play by the same rules as everybody else, then it's a good thing.
And conversely, the government made illegal for companies to boycott Israel (don't know what that means for Israeli software pirates), so what the hell, go for it..
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
Nice troll, but it's the borders that protect the sweat shops and pirates, and make smuggling the multi billion dollar thriving enterprise that you see today. Tear them down and then you can apply your righteous law and order everywhere, and humans can enjoy their natural birthright to move and live where they damn well please..
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/07/13/1727218/Wells-Fargo-Bank-Sues-Itself
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
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...
Their supplier is competing unfairly with US suppliers, though. I think we already have similar regulations for environmentally damaging suppliers? To my mind this is no different.
Yes. It's similar to safety standards and workers rights. If a clothing manufacturer for example, can outsource production to a country where workers can be denied decent health and safety or normal workers' rights, whilst a company that uses workers in the US does not, then the former company is essentially doing an end-run around the US laws. Now (more thanks to public pressure than anything else), US companies selling products to people in the US, have to be more careful about adhering to standards abroad that are set at home. The principle behind this proposed law isn't unique to this law. It's the same principle that underlies sex tourism, employee health and safety and working hours and various security laws. It's the principle that if you're a US business or citizen, selling to US citizens or business, you can't get away with illegal behaviour by just shifting the illegal part of the process to another country.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Bullshit. I am a linux users and arguably fanboy, I dislike MS and their products. I do not allow their products in my home, outside of their mice. This seems like a good idea, American companies should not have to compete with people who pirate software to lower their costs. No reason those companies can't switch to FREE software if this were to become law.
In brain, Soviet union explodes YOU.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Umm, you realize that NAFTA was signed by George Bush 1 month prior to Clinton taking office, right? And that Clinton was just honoring the agreements and treaties already signed, right?
Don't let facts get in the way of your delusions, now.
If only "common" sense was actually that common...
Very true. But now please tell me how I should check whether $street_vendor or $big_warehouse has its licenses in check to avoid being sued. Because it is NOT the street vendor being sued, it's ME who buys from him.
How should any company check whether their $foreign_country supplier has its licenses in order? Oh, sure, they could put it in the contract. Yeah. Great idea. Try to sue a Chinese company over a licensing problem. If it was easy, MS would not try to shift the burden on someone else!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
GP and I discovered a new element yesterday and named it Adhomineum. Of course, I have no proof of this, as, while experimenting to determine of the stuff could get me high, I ingested all of it.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Uh, I think we've pretty clearly demonstrated we can't afford to take the hit, as our economy is in shambles.
Most of the world would kill to live in this "shambles economy". Our homeless are better fed than most of the world's middle class. With what I can pull out of a dumpster here in the US, I'd be upper class in some parts of the world.
I think you miss the point about foreign workers. Yes, they have it a lot worse than we do. Yes, it is practically slave labor. But they are getting paid. They are no longer subsistence farmers. That is the beginnings of an economy, and that is what will eventually end grinding poverty. There are people in the world that cannot find a piece of cardboard to use as shelter; who literally are eating dirt. Working 14 hours days in a factory for little to no money sounds like a good deal in comparison. It is all about where you stand. How many people do you think should starve to death this year so you can maintain your standard of living?
Guess what will be MS's concern? The copyright infringement case with I4I, in which this new MS-pushed law can be used directly against them.
do not make this preference known too widely -- US banks are required by law not to do business with individuals, businesses or countries with known boycotts of israel
Browsing with classic discussion, noscript, at -1 and nested
no hidden comments and I only mod UP
In my experience both liberals and conservatives both want to control morality but disagree on what the morals should be.
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.
They can't imagine any problem that isn't on their fucking script, they have no idea what to do when the problem isn't on the script, and when you ask to speak to their supervisor they either lie and put the guy from the next folding-table over on the line "yes this is supervisor" or else they just fucking hang up on you.
To be fair, and speaking from experience, this is usually a matter of common policy when it comes to call center. And it's not a US-only problem, or a problem just with outsourced services. I have worked in call centers located in several countries, and I know for a fact that the people at the phone very strong guidelines about what they can and cannot do: this includes deviating from the script. As a matter of fact, deviating from the script can and WILL get you fired if anyone learns about it (and with random call screening, this is a constant possibility).
A very similar thing happens when you ask for a supervisor: they either ask their supervisor, who tells them to go away and not bother them with this kind of shit, or they actually risk being fired for not solving the "problem" of someone asking for a supervisor without actually talking to one.
And on top of it, other common issues mentioned like "can't transfer you" or "can't tell you my name" are ALSO policy that can get them fired if they don't do it. I've known plenty of people that would have loved to be able to help the customer more, but they're not allowed to, by company policy.
Customer support workers are some of the most overworked, stressed out and badly treated people in the service industry, and while there are incompetent and rude people amongst them, don't assign to incompetence what can be explained by pure corporation greed: Their job is not to solve your problem, but instead to answer as many calls as possible. That's what they're paid for. That's what the company wants them to do, and that's what they have to do to do their job.
So next time you find that someone won't help you outside their script, or won't tell you his/her name, or won't transfer you, complain to the company, not the worker. The worker is as powerless as you are.
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
Summary execution of CEOs that intimate Linux has stolen IP while never ever offering any fucking proof.
As long as you don't represent a company, no.
If you own a company though, you can face a $50,000 fine or 5 years in prison for refusing to do business with an Israeli company.
The law doesn't care what your reasons are. Refuse a business request from Israel, go to prison.
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
But instead of being poor people working 14 hours in unsafe factories, they could be poor people working 6 hours a day on land they own growing food.
See, I don't want to call you ignorant, because this is pretty typical for someone who grew up in a big city, and never left except for flying to a resort for a vacation. I would suggest that you do some research on the subject of farming, especially as it's generally practiced in low-tech agrarian societies. I can't discuss the subject with someone who honestly believes that farming is a 6-hour-a-day job.
Working in a factory is inherently more work
See above. There's a reason why these factory jobs are sought out by the locals.
so it's up to you to demonstrate factory workers are better off
Sure! It's quite simple: with the exception of forced labor, people generally choose the best work they can find ("best", of course, being a balance between money and effort that's different for each individual). If there are people working at these factories, and they aren't being forced to be there at gunpoint, then it means that the factory jobs are better than whatever other alternatives these people have. QED.
but apparently you cannot read the word 'slavery', and think I'm just making that up.
Oh, I know you're making it up. That's not even worth discussing. It's your other ideas that I'm curious about.
Says the person who snipped every single historic reference I made
Yep - none of your historical references were relevant to the discussion at hand. Moreover they're selective; you overemphasize the dangerous conditions in the factories, while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the workers were there willingly because their alternatives were worse, and ignoring the fact that one third of deaths during the "industrial revolution" were caused by disease. You have no grasp of what the situation was actually like at the time, because you can't fathom a society where malnutrition and the lack of awareness about basic hygiene are the norm. I mean, sure, maybe you've read about these things, but you clearly don't understand them if you're making these claims. To compare conditions during the industrial revolution to factories in China is so pigheaded that it's truly mind-boggling.