Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Windows Microsoft Technology

Microsoft Dodges Class Action In WGA Lawsuit 256

Posted by kdawson
from the hire-your-own-lawyer dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A lawsuit that accused Microsoft of misleading consumers to download and install an update for Windows Genuine Advantage under the guise that it was critical security update will go forward, but not as a class action. A federal judge has refused to certify the lawsuit as a class action, which would have meant that anyone who owned a Windows XP PC in mid-2006 could join the case without having to hire an attorney. As Windows XP was easily the most popular operating system at the time, the ruling means Redmond has managed to avoid hundreds of millions in potential damages."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Dodges Class Action In WGA Lawsuit

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22, 2010 @10:47AM (#30859300)

    I never planned on using the corporate justice system anyway.

    I used the consumer justice system... I pirated some of their software and then switched to Linux.

    • by wall0159 (881759) on Friday January 22, 2010 @11:18AM (#30859670)

      While switching to Linux is a punishment for MS - pirating their software is not - it merely entrenches their position.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by PopeRatzo (965947) *

        While switching to Linux is a punishment for MS - pirating their software is not

        Of course it is.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          I don't think so. MS allowed rampant piracy for years. It wasn't until long after they were the king of the desktop that they suddenly became concerned with piracy. Allowing people to pirate their software, coupled with generous give-aways to developers via MSDN, is what gave them their control over more then 90% of user's computers.

          • by nomadic (141991)
            I don't think so. MS allowed rampant piracy for years.

            Actually, it's the opposite of what you just said. [blinkenlights.com]
            • by Maxo-Texas (864189) on Friday January 22, 2010 @01:21PM (#30861206)

              As a person who lived through dos and 3.1, it felt like microsoft cared very little about piracy back then.

              However, when I did some googling, it looks like microsoft has put a lot of money and effort into stopping piracy all the way back to at least 1990. Microsoft anti-piracy articles dominate the search results and I wasn't able to easily find any good examples of them tolerating piracy (tho I remember talk of them tolerating it in china and i remember talk of them tolerating it with windows 3.1/3.11).

              Perhaps we were rationalizing, or perhaps microsoft had variable enforcement depending on market penetration.

              While typing this, I realized my piracy toleration attitude came from windows 3.1 so I did some searches on tolerating windows 3.1 piracy and got some hits.

              http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:Cs-TDEi65mkJ:blogs.zdnet.com/Murphy/index.php%3Fp%3D709+microsoft+tolerated+windows+3.1+piracy&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us [74.125.93.132]
              for example.

              "than failing to put anti-copy protection on MS-DOS in 1983 or encouraging easy copying of its "enterprise" virtualization software today. Similarly making it easy for users to "illegally" copy and install Office 4.0 for Windows 3.1X while straight facedly working with both WordPerfect Corporation and Lotus Development to help these companies prevent illegal copying, was a simple tactical extension of a long term strategy based on using piracy as a way of gaining market share. "

              This matches the Microsoft I grew up with and know well. Strongly saying one thing, and selectively doing other things. Saying you had to follow the legitimate API's to be Windows 95 certified, but using backdoor API's for Word95 and then still certifying it. Saying you want a partnership with a smaller company, learning their technology, dropping the patnership, and then bringing out a similar product (and being sued for it and losing a few times).

              I'm sure that Microsoft is strongly against piracy wherever it has high market penetration. I'm sure it says that it is strongly against piracy everywhere but some areas are very low on the enforcement list.

          • Allowing people to pirate their software, coupled with generous give-aways to developers via MSDN, is what gave them their control over more then 90% of user's computers.

            Sorry, I have to disagree there. I think the reason they have 90% of the market is because Windows is what most companies develop software for.....as a result, if you want to run most software, you MUST run Windows. Hopefully this changes in the future, but I doubt it.

            • Well your comment isn't really exclusive of mine. There are definitely other reasons (e.g. Unix Wars!) but MS practically giving away developer software + the fact that said developer software was brain dead easy to use (didn't always create good software, but still) is why there are so many applications that only work on Windows.

              And piracy works there as well. In the late 90's I worked for a company that had a single MSDN subscription that was shared with every developer in the company, including allowing

              • I remember clearly that Microsoft was the company that broke ranks first and destroyed the feeling of partnership that developers felt towards the previous system vendors. Before Microsoft, developers enjoyed the cooperation of vendors that knew that applications sold systems, whether their interest was hardware of software. The idea of paying to be in the developer program, the idea that Microsoft had as many SKUs for development products as user products changed the whole nature of the development game.
          • by Z00L00K (682162)

            Of course - at that stage they had gained market for the majority of the computers in the world and were able to change the playing field by getting harsher and raising the prices to gain even more money.

            And now they are pushing against possible competition at many fronts - all from patent lawsuits to covert operations masked as cooperation.

            Business as usual.

        • It further legitimizes the use of microsoft formats and standards, it does not punish microsoft.

           

          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by Pojut (1027544)

            ::begin shameless self plug::

            Just like people "stealing" my music only helps me get more exposure! Oops, looks like I left links to a few tracks off my album without any payment method enforced...oh well.

            http://www.livingwithanerd.com/music/ [livingwithanerd.com] ::end shameless self plug::

      • by qazwart (261667) on Friday January 22, 2010 @12:01PM (#30860196) Homepage

        You actually have a point.

        Back in the 1990s with the Microsoft antitrust case, many emails and discussions came out. One of the most interesting ones was Microsoft taking about their market position in China at that time. They talked about market share and how many people there were using Windows and Office and what they could do to improve this. The funny thing is they weren't talking about sales, but the number of people pirating their software. Microsoft wanted to encourage people in China to pirate more copies of Windows and Office.

        Microsoft new the number of people who could actually afford their software in China at that time was low, but they also believed that one day China would crack down on the pirating and become a legitimate market. Microsoft thought their best position was to make sure everyone was using Microsoft products -- even if they were pirated -- because people would be use to them. Then once the government cracked down on pirating, Microsoft's sales would go through the roof.

        Microsoft's biggest fear is that if people were discouraged from using pirated copies of Microsoft products, these people would turn to "open source alternatives" and would never become Microsoft customers.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        While switching to Linux is a punishment for MS - pirating their software is not - it merely entrenches their position.

        Yes, but switching to Linux is also a punishment for me.

        This is not intended to be flamebait. I prefer Linux on my servers, but I prefer Windows on my desktop. I know that around here that makes me deficient in some way, but it's true.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Pojut (1027544)

          I love having Linux on my Dell Mini 9, which stays in our living room. Watching TV/streaming Netflix and browsing the Internet on that little thing is awesome. Using Linux helps an underperforming device just feel snappier (plus I don't have to run anti-spyware, antivirus, etc which eat up precious CPU cycles)

          I love it for my browsing purposes, but yeah I agree...I don't think I would want to use it for regular daily tasks.

      • While switching to Linux is a punishment for MS - pirating their software is not - it merely entrenches their position.

        How does it entrench their position? First off, I use Windows, OS X, and Linux and find each one to have strengths and weaknesses. Secondly, I actually do find Windows 7 (which I've been using since the beta) to be worth paying for - I just find the price tag to be way too steep (especially given that they block features unless you pay more money). However, I don't understand how you can say pirating their software is good for them since I'm aware of the alternatives - if I get a free copy of Office, why

    • by Asphalt (529464)
      It also means that noone else is bound by the outcome, and is free to sue individually. If Microsoft loses the individual suit, you could potentially see 10,000,000 more individual suits using this case as a precedent for an easy win. That would cost MS significantly more money. Lack of class certification COULD be a disaster for Microsoft ... especially if they lose and the award is substantial.
  • by Spad (470073) <slashdot@NOsPam.spad.co.uk> on Friday January 22, 2010 @10:52AM (#30859344) Homepage

    ...the ruling means Redmond has managed to avoid hundreds of millions in potential damages

    All of which would have gone to the lawyers.

    • by Penguinisto (415985) on Friday January 22, 2010 @10:59AM (#30859414) Journal

      Seriously - we all know this. Every class-action against a tech company usually results in (at absolute best) a hundred bucks or so to each class-action participant, while the lawyer(s) leading the charge get to go buy a new yacht/house/jaguar/whatever with their take.

      • by rhook (943951) on Friday January 22, 2010 @11:15AM (#30859628)
        It still ends up hurting the company and may make them think twice about using similar practices in the future.
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Does it though?
          Even if a company gets fined 5 or 10 times what they made doing the bad deed will that really change anything?
          Thats only if there is enough evidence, only if the judge has a clue and only if the company cant bury it with
          all the usual tactics at the disposal of a company with hundreds of millions to spend on lawyers. Even if they
          lose they appeal for years, ask the government to help protect their industry/monopoly or they'll have to fire
          thousands of poor innocent employees.

          Compare that to the

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by c6gunner (950153)

        Seriously - we all know this. Every class-action against a tech company usually results in (at absolute best) a hundred bucks or so to each class-action participant, while the lawyer(s) leading the charge get to go buy a new yacht/house/jaguar/whatever with their take.

        Yes. And?

        In a lawsuit with 10,000,000 plaintiffs which pays out $1,000,000,000 dollars, how do you expect the distribution of the money to work out? Do you expect the lawyers to work for free? Or are you suggesting that the defendant should be fined 1 million-bliion-quazillion dollars so that EVERY plaintiff can go out and buy a yacht?

        I'm not sure what point you were trying to make, or what your proposed solution is, so if you could clarify that for me I'd appreciate it.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          I don't mind the lawyers making money, but when they agree to give me coupons for products from a company that ripped me off, they shouldn't be paid.
        • by tlhIngan (30335) <slashdot AT worf DOT net> on Friday January 22, 2010 @12:59PM (#30860924)

          In a lawsuit with 10,000,000 plaintiffs which pays out $1,000,000,000 dollars, how do you expect the distribution of the money to work out? Do you expect the lawyers to work for free? Or are you suggesting that the defendant should be fined 1 million-bliion-quazillion dollars so that EVERY plaintiff can go out and buy a yacht?

          What happens usually is the damaged parties get a $10 coupon off their next copy of Windows, and the lawyers walk away (using your numbers) with $900M cash. Knowing full well that said coupon will probably expire, and most probably won't even use it or even bother to collect it after having to give Microsoft their full personal history for it.

          (I'm sure the lawyers could get Microsoft to make them $20 or $50 coupons off Windows, but it reduces their share).

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Sandbags (964742)

            No, the coupon is what happened when micrsoft lost a court case that proved people were actually HARMED and incurred financial losses. What COST did WGA bring to you? (and system crashes don't count, those are already excluded from warranty in the EULA).

            • by Z00L00K (682162)

              The cost of WGA is that I get something on my computer that slows down startup and doesn't provide me with any advantage whatsoever.

              WGA is a genuine disadvantage - and the whole name of it is a lie. I don't want it, and I don't need it - except for the reason that M$ thinks it's necessary in order to provide OS updates.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by sjames (1099)

            In other words, the plaintiffs get the 'opportunity' to provide more profits to the defendant and get more of exactly the thing they sued because of in the first place.

            That's like suing someone for causing your broken leg and they offer to break your other leg for 10% off of their regular price. Somehow it doesn't look like much of a win.

      • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

        by multisync (218450)

        Every class-action against a tech company usually results in (at absolute best) a hundred bucks or so to each class-action participant, while the lawyer(s) leading the charge get to go buy a new yacht/house/jaguar/whatever with their take

        They also take all of the risk, and do all of the work. If the suit is not successful, they lose. If they are successful, the participants get a token compensation, and - more importantly - the entity that was sued is punished, giving them an incentive to stop the behaviour

        • If someone is willing to pay them for their serviceIf someone is willing to pay them for their services
          But that isn't really what happens in a class action. Instead a group of lawyers and a couple of sample plaintiffs takes over the right to sue from a large class of people without asking most of them. Then rather than persuing the case to the end they make a settlement where the class get some token ammount that is often payed in vouchers.

          • by Darundal (891860)
            And people have the option of opting out of the class action, too, allowing them to sue on their own behalf and get however many hojillions from it themselves. The only people who lose the right to sue are those who don't opt out.
        • They also take all of the risk, and do all of the work. If the suit is not successful, they lose. If they are successful, the participants get a token compensation, and - more importantly - the entity that was sued is punished, giving them an incentive to stop the behaviour that landed them in court in the first place.

          It's called the cost of doing business son, and most corporations gladly pay this "tax" while gleefully pocketing their illegal profits. Once the spotlight is gone, the corporation goes back

      • by Sandbags (964742)

        Worse, the class action is merely a privacy issue, not anything that woul dhave actually been validatible by any real damages or bunsiness impact. WGA didn't COST anyone anything other than a few minutes of their time to implement the patch that added it. Even if the OS crashed or had issues because of it, or simply due to the reboot, is irrelevent due to the "no warranty extressed or implied" regarding the software as spelled out in the EULA.

        At best, micsorsoft might have been forced to remove this featu

    • by spikenerd (642677)

      All of which would have gone to the lawyers.

      Do you sue for the purpose of getting rich, or to make the world a better place? What's important here is that Microsoft should have been the one paying the lawyers. (For all I know, the lawyers probably get paid anyway by tax dollars through some legal loophole, and the judge gets a cut too.)

      • by natehoy (1608657)

        Law firms initiate class action suits, by and large, to make money. Some of them also happen to contribute to the public good by punishing companies for bad behavior, but the core reason most class action suits go forward is because large law firms have found the formula (forgive the ./ meme):

        1. Find an injustice or perceived injustice with enough victims to qualify as a "class".
        2. Get a judge to certify it as a class action.
        3. Win a judgment (or better yet convince the defendant company to settle)
        4. P

        • by nomadic (141991)
          large law firms

          Actually in my experience most class action law firms tend to be small. It's the defense firms that are the big ones.
          • by Pojut (1027544)

            Hey, out of curiosity, what kind of lawyer are you? One of our good friends is a contract lawyer...he doesn't help write up the contracts, he just goes over them to make sure they are legally proper. Based on what I've seen from him and people he knows, that seems like it is one of the less douchey lawyer jobs out there...

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by nomadic (141991)
              Believe it or not, I work in a plaintiff class action firm. How shady/obnoxious/arrogant a lawyer can be based on specialty (litigators are probably in general the worst), but a lot of it is also based on law firm culture, which is self-perpetuating to a degree. And obviously, law school itself tends to attract a lot of obnoxious type-A personalities with massive senses of entitlement (though fortunately a lot of that gets knocked out of them when they graduate and find out that a law degree is, in terms
    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      I wouldn't care who it went to so long as it caused them to rethink their way of doing business.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by nomadic (141991)
      All of which would have gone to the lawyers.

      Modded insightful? It's completely and utterly false, though. Ahh, slashdot.
    • by Mr_Silver (213637)

      All of which would have gone to the lawyers.

      Maybe so and yes it sucks. However I'd rather it went to lawyers than stay in the hands of Microsoft and validate their opinion that they did nothing wrong.

  • by Barefoot Monkey (1657313) on Friday January 22, 2010 @10:56AM (#30859386)
    If you can dodge a class action lawsuit, you can dodge a ball.
  • by SirGarlon (845873) on Friday January 22, 2010 @10:57AM (#30859396)
    By the time the settlement or judgment is made -- assuming Microsoft doesn't go to trial and win -- the damages would probably amount to a few bucks per end-user anyway. It's the injunctive relief that matters IMHO. Microsoft should be forced to comply with anti-spyware laws. That can potentially happen whether the suit is class action or not.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by dnoyeb (547705)

      The plaintiffs will probably get a LOT more payout since its not class action.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Asphalt (529464)
      By the time the settlement or judgment is made -- assuming Microsoft doesn't go to trial and win -- the damages would probably amount to a few bucks per end-user anyway.

      This is why large companies often preferclass action suits over individual suits.

      Class action suits mean that, if the company loses, they never have to litigate over the matter again.

      If they lose an individual suit, every consumer on the planet is free to chase the same reward the original litigant won, and they are not bound by any $

  • by toby (759) * on Friday January 22, 2010 @11:00AM (#30859440) Homepage Journal

    As in the patent infringement case - even "several hundred million" is only a couple of days' revenue, assuming the crooked bastards lost.

    Penalties against Microsoft do not change their behaviour.

  • by the roAm (827323) on Friday January 22, 2010 @11:02AM (#30859460)

    "This was indeed a critical security update. An update to secure the legitimacy of the software which we support."

    Then the judge rules in favor of Microsoft.
    The end.

  • by ThreeGigs (239452) on Friday January 22, 2010 @11:03AM (#30859478)

    How about original linkage? : http://www.electronista.com/articles/09/09/04/microsoft.sued.over.wga [electronista.com]
    The lawsuit is for $5 million for the whole class. You do the math and tell me if this is to benefit the lawyers or the end users. This isn't about MS, it's about lawyers making money. I have a feeling there will be a lot of misplaced outrage in these comments.

    Also, it was a high priority update, _not_ a critical security update. Inflammatory summaries again.

  • What's the issue? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 22, 2010 @11:04AM (#30859488)

    How many of the people that were to join the class action suit would have had legitimate copies of XP flagged as illegitimate? I know very few people that had this happen. A few corporations had their volume keys flagged as such, but if the admin was doing things properly, they would have denied the update through group policy (or some other patch management).

    For all the individual users - I remember coming across a few who decided to let their beliefs be known at a few functions I attended. They were up in arms over this, how it removed their background, and had a nuisance box pop up on the system tray. I asked if they bought the copy - they said no. So, WTF is the problem? You steal something, then get upset, when you get caught? Be happy, nothing really happens when you get caught. MS is basically saying "we know you pirated this, but no worries, just buy a copy now, we won't tell, we won't take you to court, we won't send Jimmy to break your legs."

    Now, we can all be pro-linux, pro-mac, pro-whatever, but the bottom line is, Windows costs money, and like any other company, MS has to make money to continue making Windows, etc. Now, they may be charging TOO MUCH, but this is a case for a monopoly. Just because all the oil makers are in cahoots, doesn't mean we can steal gas because we feel because it is a monopoly their prices are too high. And to jab the Apply fanboys - Apple releases OS updates YEARLY for $130. MS fanboys have had the pleasure of paying $200 retail (or $140 OEM w/ a mouse or stick of ram, or anything else cheap), for 5 years. I bet if MS released OS updates every year for $130, everyone would be up in arms, but when Apple adds a program like Notepad to it's OS, they repackage it, and call it something cute. I'm waiting for Apple Liger (it comes with a new theme!!!!!!!!!).

    So, back to reality, if you stole Windows, expect the genuine advantage to show up. And I love it, you know why? Because I'm a legitimate sysadmin, and when I load on Windows XP, Server, or even Linux (Redhat, or another one with support) I purchase the program, and make sure my clients are fully licenced. I have to compete with people who steal software and sell computers with pirated versions. The client usually does not know the difference, until the genuine advantage shows up - and I love this, because it weeds out the PC makers that are cutting corners and pocketing the extra money. The client gets pissed, then the PC maker ends up getting in trouble.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by infinitelink (963279) *
      Your comment is a perfect example of being off-topic; as such, it functions as a diversion from the real matter at hand--the illegal installation of malware onto many computers, breaching privacy laws, and worse, under guise as an update, rather than something new altogether; this ain't no Mac vs. Lin vs. Win issue, and your mind's immediate jump to such things as those, and "piracy", is a perfect example of how unfortunately stupid people are these days--too quick to speak; I want to be fair, however, I'm
      • by Petersko (564140) on Friday January 22, 2010 @12:01PM (#30860198)
        "Your comment is a perfect example of being off-topic;"

        And your comment is a perfect example of being too exhausting to read. I'm sure you had a good point, but I saw that huge block of unbroken text and thought, "no thanks".

        Yes, I'm being pedantic, but the "enter" key can be a trusted ally and an aid to communication. Use it wisely.
    • Re:What's the issue? (Score:4, Informative)

      by thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) <marc...paradise@@@gmail...com> on Friday January 22, 2010 @11:48AM (#30860030) Homepage Journal

      How many of the people that were to join the class action suit would have had legitimate copies of XP flagged as illegitimate? I know very few people that had this happen. A few corporations had their volume keys flagged as such, but if the admin was doing things properly, they would have denied the update through group policy (or some other patch management).

      Somewhat OT, but every time my Win7 computer wakes up from suspend, it tells me that it may be pirated (it's not) and blocks me from t downloading any optional updates. Mine was a simple upgrade from Win Vista (which came with the laptop) to Win 7 (upgrade disk provided by the manufacturer), and yet I'm still told that it's not legit. I have no trouble believing that legit XP installs have their fair share of this with WGA.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Somewhat OT, but every time my Win7 computer wakes up from suspend, it tells me that it may be pirated (it's not) and blocks me from t downloading any optional updates.

        Funny, every time my Win7 computer wakes up from suspend, it doesn't tell me that it may be pirated (it is) and doesn't blocks me from downloading any optional updates. Maybe you should do what I did?

      • "Somewhat OT, but every time my Win7 computer wakes up from suspend, it tells me that it may be pirated ..."

        That is strange. When I bought my computer I left Vista on it and set up Dual Boot Linux/Vista just in case I needed a good laugh. The last time I tried to boot Vista, as far as I could tell, it never woke up.

    • by mcgrew (92797) * on Friday January 22, 2010 @12:02PM (#30860214) Homepage Journal

      Rape isn't murder, it's rape. Copyright infringement is not stealing; it's copyright infringement.

      If you download a copy of XP, that infringes Microsoft's copyright. Microsoft has not been deprived of property any more than the rape victim has been deprived of life.

      If you walk out of Best Buy with a copy of XP without paying, you have indeed stolen it, and Best Buy is out the cost of the software they bought from Microsoft.

      Come on, guys, this is a technical forum. Lets be a little more precice, can we?

      • "If you download a copy of XP, that infringes Microsoft's copyright. Microsoft has not been deprived of property any more than the rape victim has been deprived of life.

        Sometimes the rape victim is so traumatized they kill themselves. You'd be surprised how many Windows users the world has lost that way.

    • by cdrguru (88047)

      Just because all the oil makers are in cahoots, doesn't mean we can steal gas because we feel because it is a monopoly their prices are too high.

      Huh? You mean you haven't been stealing gas in protest?

      I have to compete with people who steal software and sell computers with pirated versions.

      Yup. And the goal of piracy is to (a) obviously to get free stuff, but (b) destroying revenue from digital goods is even more important. The idea that popular idea (piracy) can bring large corporations to their knees is extremely attractive. So attractive, in fact, that there is almost no chance of any anti-piracy anything ever winning out.

      So sure, there are some selfish pirates out there that are just in it to get free stuff. But don't ignore the

  • TWAT (Score:5, Funny)

    by SpockLogic (1256972) on Friday January 22, 2010 @11:06AM (#30859518)
    WGA renamed for Vista and 7 as "The Windows Activation Technologies (TWAT)" Your Honor, I rest my case.
    • Re:TWAT (Score:5, Funny)

      by Spazztastic (814296) <spazztasticNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday January 22, 2010 @11:54AM (#30860120)

      WGA renamed for Vista and 7 as "The Windows Activation Technologies (TWAT)"

      Your Honor, I rest my case.

      I made a guild in World of Warcraft called T W A T, The War Against Terrorism. Anybody who objected to the name was called a terrorist, including the GM who contacted me about it. It didn't end very well...

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by Zero__Kelvin (151819)

        "I made a guild in World of Warcraft called T W A T, The War Against Terrorism."

        Well I've been an active Slashdotter for years, and this is the first I am hearing about TWAT, but the very idea of it is very intriguing to me. Can you tell me how I can get in?

  • by xymog (59935) on Friday January 22, 2010 @11:32AM (#30859826)
    The problem with the case is that plaintiff's' attorneys have failed to meet the legal requirements to certify the lawsuit as a class action. The initial pleading has been repeatedly amended to add and drop plaintiffs, while at the same time it is not able to advance coherent legal arguments backed by evidence. Courts will not certify a lawsuit as a class action based on wishful thinking. The courts require prima facie evidence that the issue is widespread, that many people are harmed, and that judicial economy will be best served by having a single lawsuit. This isn't a "win" for Microsoft or a "loss" for the common man; plaintiffs' attorneys haven't done their homework and met the burden of proof for certifying the class.
  • by blankoboy (719577) on Friday January 22, 2010 @12:09PM (#30860300)
    I have to say that WGA was really the final straw for me with Microsoft. I, being a paying customer, felt from day 1 of WGA that it was an absolute kick in the teeth from Microsoft. It is what turned me from a Microsoft fan over to using my Mac Mini. It was a sad thing for me but I'm much happier now and will never come back. Thanks for turning me away Microsoft!
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by natehoy (1608657)

      WGA was the beginning of the end with my relationship with Microsoft, and I've been using it pretty much exclusively since DOS 3.0.

      After the dust settled, I started looking into cross platform software that could do what I wanted to in Windows, with a goal of eventually replacing everything with an open source alternative. It really opened my eyes about open source software and what it can (and cannot) do.

      I can now say that, as of two weeks ago, my household became Redmond-free. All three computers in the

    • by jim_v2000 (818799)
      >I have to say that WGA was really the final straw for me with Microsoft.

      What did it do to you that was so terrible?
  • Whoever refuses to join the class action lawsuit has illegal copies on Windows!

The bogosity meter just pegged.

Working...