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?
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!
IANAL, but as I see it basically Microsoft could sue ANYONE. I doubt that there is any business in the United States that doesn't have some part somewhere that was made by a Chinese company that didn't pirate something Microsoft along the way. If the burden is on the company to prove they didn't do anything wrong then you've got a great formula for putting small businesses into bankruptcy.
We don't only have a class war in the U.S., we have a war between big and small businesses.
Nail, head hit.
This proposed law would instantly make Microsoft billions. If done right, companies would have to prove their supplies didn't use pirated products in order to not get sued.
It also will force companies to buy Microsoft products for CYA reasons. This happened with Sarbanes-Oxley and the fact that operating systems on up had to have some sort of compliance (FIPS, Common Criteria) in order for IT departments to show due diligence. This caused wholesale migrations to Windows just for this reasons.
I can see companies not just moving to MS, but demanding their supplies be Microsoft based, so they can show that they are compliant.
Big win for MS, big win for businesses with lots of lawyers, small businesses now are easily destroyed should they show some innovation that can't be bought up easily.
Plus, if one of the copyright lawsuits for an insane amount does go through, a company can easily owe Microsoft trillions, especially with the precedents seen with LimeWire and other cases.
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.
Also, if you are buying XYZ from China and selling it to MS, do they sue themselves?
Normally, I'm pretty OK with a lot of EU regulatory concepts (their banking rules a notable exception). But, if this is a common idea of EU regulators, I'm going to have to rethink my support of them...
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 (which is one of the big reasons I hate the "felony murder" laws here in the US). The "principle" of which you speak isn't a good one, and I'm fine with being rabidly opposed to it. Just because it may be bad for Big Business, doesn't make it right, or even good for anyone else.
I'm not excessively worried, though. The laws don't fit the "consumer protection" mold, and pretty obviously overstep Constitutionally-set boundaries - they regulate interstate commerce (which is a federal area), and also likely are to be looked at as attempting to set Copyright and national import standards, neither which are allowable by states. That is, these type of laws most likely would have to be passed at the Federal level to be Constitutional. Given the potential enormous impact on large manufacturers, you can be sure that if they actually get passed, they'll be some Big Corp with Deep Pockets funding a challenge in US Federal courts.
There are always four sides to every story: your side, their side, the truth, and what really happened.
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.
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.'"
(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.