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."

"An offer you cannot refuse" gamut

[mlts]

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.

Re:haha moron

[Anonymous Coward]

OP is simply another of devxo's shill accounts :(. Check timestamp, history, name, uid, etc. He probably modded himself up with his 25 accts.

Re:Good for US economy

[somersault]

That's not really a big deal for him, considering he works (or at least contracts out) for Microsoft.

WTF

[sorak]

(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.