Microsoft Dodges Class Action In WGA Lawsuit 256
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."
Thats fine by me... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Thats fine by me... (Score:5, Insightful)
While switching to Linux is a punishment for MS - pirating their software is not - it merely entrenches their position.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's the opposite of what you just said. [blinkenlights.com]
Re:Thats fine by me... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: I don't remember them giving away devo s/w (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It further legitimizes the use of microsoft formats and standards, it does not punish microsoft.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
::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::
Re:Thats fine by me... (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Hundreds of millions (Score:5, Insightful)
...the ruling means Redmond has managed to avoid hundreds of millions in potential damages
All of which would have gone to the lawyers.
Mod parent way the hell up, plz. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Mod parent way the hell up, plz. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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)
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)
Re:Mod parent way the hell up, plz. (Score:4, Informative)
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 $50 coupons off Windows, but it reduces their share).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, the coupon is what happened when micrsoft lost a court case that proved people were actually HARMED and incurred financial losses. What COST did WGA bring to you? (and system crashes don't count, those are already excluded from warranty in the EULA).
Re: (Score:2)
The cost of WGA is that I get something on my computer that slows down startup and doesn't provide me with any advantage whatsoever.
WGA is a genuine disadvantage - and the whole name of it is a lie. I don't want it, and I don't need it - except for the reason that M$ thinks it's necessary in order to provide OS updates.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
lol, that is a very good point. My own PCP is such a bastard. "You know, you should lose about 10 pounds, you're a bit overweight". Meanwhile, this dude has to huff and puff to get up a flight of steps.
When I can't see the belt you are wearing because your fat belly covers it, don't talk to me about my weight. So crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Actually in my experience most class action law firms tend to be small. It's the defense firms that are the big ones.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
I know it's flame-bait, but there's few alternatives to suing someone. Every alternative involves taking vigilante action (highly illegal) or letting someone take advantage of you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So naturally if my computer does something wrong it's Microsoft's fault and I should sue them...
If Microsoft's own software identifies what you are running on your computer as an illegal copy even if it was legitimately bought and paid for, then yes it is Microsoft's fault.
Come on. We're talking about software here. Not everything requires petty political bullshit. Save it for HuffPost or Drudge Report; don't bring that malarky in here.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Modded insightful? It's completely and utterly false, though. Ahh, slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
If you can dodge a class action lawsuit... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If you can dodge a class action lawsuit... (Score:5, Funny)
If you can dodge a class action lawsuit, you can dodge a chair.
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Bill. I'm trying to tell you that when you're ready, you won't have to dodge lawsuits.
Who cares whether it's class action? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The plaintiffs will probably get a LOT more payout since its not class action.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 $
Meaningless penalties (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
"In closing, your Honor..." (Score:5, Insightful)
"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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I've been modded funny? I'm dead serious. This is how the American legal system works. Been to court in the last 10 years? Obviously not.
Re:"In closing, your Honor..." (Score:4, Funny)
If said the right way, anything can be funny no matter how insightful. Your comment was modded up and thus visible, and unless you're a karma whore that's all that matters.
Re: (Score:2)
$5 million for how many users? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:$5 million for how many users? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You do the math and tell me if this is to benefit the lawyers or the end users.
I hate to tell you this, but lawyers use MS software too.
Re: (Score:2)
Just FYI:
The purpose of a class action is never to benefit or provide relief for the class. The purpose of such actions is to punish the corporation. Period. The beneficiary is irrelevant as long as the target suffers.
What's the issue? (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
And YOUR comment... (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's the issue? (Score:4, Informative)
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)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:What's the issue? (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes the rape victim is so traumatized they kill themselves. You'd be surprised how many Windows users the world has lost that way.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
ah, because 'necessary update for security' and 'necessary security update' mean such different things, and don't both boil down to "you need to install this to keep your computer secure"
TWAT (Score:5, Funny)
Re:TWAT (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Catholic priests and publicly homophobic senators?
Damn. Couldn't help myself.
Denial of class != ruling on merits (Score:5, Informative)
WGA was the final straw for me (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
What did it do to you that was so terrible?
This may have worked out in MS's favor. (Score:2)
Oblig userfriendly cartoon (Score:3, Funny)
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
WGA enables other updates to be installed, it pretty much is a security update.
Yeah, sure. It "enables" other updates to be installed, just like DRM protection "enables" movies to be watched.
The converse, however, seems far more true: WGA restricts other updates from being installed, just like DRM restricts movies from being watched.
There is no technical or security reason for WGA's existence. The "other updates" that it "enables" would work just fine without it, were they not arbitrarily designed to require WGA.
Re:good (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What upsets me the most is that if I legally purchase windows for my computer I am limited on how much I can upgrade,
No, you're not. People who legally purchase Windows are allowed all updates, and you can upgrade your computer as you wish. You may have to reactivate it.
Re: (Score:2)
The XP license is restricted to (i think) 5 reactivations. OEM licenses are restricted to the original machine only and can't be moved. Hardware changes are permitted such that less than 3 of 5 registered devices are swapped out. If activation is required because say a motherboard with lots of onboard cvomponents was replaced, then a simple call to M$ solves the issue. They activate it anyway.
Vista was initially given 1 reactivation on new hardware, but that was later upped to 3 due to pressure. Howeve
Re: (Score:2)
I bought the OEM version retail (which you can do so long as you're buying hardware in the same transaction) and it reactivates fine. The limit is once every 6 weeks, apparently.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What upsets me the most is that if I legally purchase windows for my computer I am limited on how much I can upgrade
Sadly you didn't purchase windows, you licensed it. Welcome to the world: intellectual property gets all the protection that physical property gets, with none of the 'disadvantages' (ability to loan, etc).
Re:good (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What upsets me the most is that if I legally purchase windows for my computer I am limited on how much I can upgrade
Sadly you didn't purchase windows, you licensed it. Welcome to the world: intellectual property gets all the protection that physical property gets, with none of the 'disadvantages' (ability to loan, etc).
Well, I don't know whether you are trying to make a point, or you actually believe what you are saying, but "intellectual property" is not something that can be compared to actual property. The concept of property has its origins on scarcity. Intellectual works are not scarce, so the concept of property has no meaning regarding them. "Intellectual property" is about monopoly rights over immaterial works, in this case, copyright. The only thing copyright and property have in common is that confusing term. Th
Re: (Score:2)
You assume that these corporate whores give a rat's ass about their paying customers. In the old days, a business competed with other businesses for your dollar and had to care about you; new customers were valuable as there was a limited supply. These days of globalism there are seven billion prospective customers; there's more where you came from.
Re: (Score:2)
I've put dozens of hardware upgrades in my home PC. Until very recently when i installed Win7 on it through my renewed action pack subscription, I'd probably reactivated that single copy of XP Pro a dozen times. yea, it stopped auto-activating, but a phone call to an operator who picks up on the second ring (never been on hold for activations ever), got me another activation. All you ever need to tell them is that it's a hardware repair, and they activate immediately (and read you a long string of charac
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. I've seen dozens of people running pirated copies of XP, all with WGA installed and humming happily to itself. As usual, the ones most harmed by this measure are those who aren't doing anything wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I can think of one. Someone unwittingly buys a pirated copy of Windows (it does happen), and that copy has malware hidden all throughout. As soon as the person in question installs WGA, it will alert them to the fact that Windows is pirated, at which point they will hopefully stop using the infected copy of Windows, report whoever sold them the disk, and get a free copy from Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If Microsoft wants to claim and enforce a draconian EULA, they're effectively saying that by buying their software there's a contract between you and them, and as part of that contract they agree to provide any updates through the supported life of that product. In most businesses, the contracts are much more explicit.
By making a change like this which requires action on your part to continue receiving updates, they've made a substantial change to the contract, without renegotiating. Such unilateral changes
Re: (Score:2)
Re:good (Score:4, Interesting)
Because a insecure, compromised OS affects more people than just the owneruser of that OS. Unpatched pirated copies of Windows can be pwned and exploited to send spam, perform DDOS attacks, do distributed cracking of encryption keys, or whatever else the operator of a botnet chooses to do with it; actions that hurt all the users of the internet, including all the legitimate ones.
Patching pirated copies of Windows is in the public interest [networkworld.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It "enables" it, but only because Microsoft requires it, not because there's some underlying technology in WGA that adds any value to the update process. It becomes an artificial prerequisite, not a technical one.
That's the problem with WGA. It didn't fix any security problems with Windows at the time, it was introduced as a gatekeeper to make sure that only verified legitimate copies of Windows were allowed to get updates from that point forward. Though their verification system was pretty good, it was
Re: (Score:2)
No, but chances are (assuming your copy of Windows is legitimate) it will install fine and unlock access to real updates you really do need to have. Of course, there's always the chance WGA will "go off" accidentally, but that was relatively rare, and I think in the intervening years Microsoft has loosened their policies on WGA activations. I ran into it, and it was a pain, but that was back when it first came out and Microsoft hadn't expected the flood of support calls (even a small minority of people be