![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Two lawsuits filed against Microsoft over WGA
- Thread starter Gatticus
- Start date
MrWizard6600
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 5,791
psht. seems perfectly fine to me. I would have been suprised if microsoft wasnt doing something like this. as long as it doesnt take up system resources (or if it has to, minute ones), im down with it.
MrWizard6600
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 5,791
does anyone have a registry key/dll/file/process name i can look for? whats this thing called?
Zepher
[H]ipster Replacement
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2001
- Messages
- 20,927
flynlr said:spyware plain and simple. blocked it with my firewall. I have all Legal SW but do NOT! want a PC calling home without my permission. I bought the SOB and I WILL control what it does..
on the other hand I did to windows activation ///
Actually, you purchased a license to use/operate the software and are supposed to abide by the EULA when you installed it.
Take the tin foil hat off for a second. They aren't installing spyware. It's a simple check to see if you are legal or not. That's it. If you have legit software, why would anyone be so against this? If Microsoft wants to check if my version of XP is legal, they have every right to do so. It seems to me, that there are a lot of software pirates out there, quaking in their parents' basements over this WGA stuff.eeyrjmr said:
When can we drop this issue, and discuss REAL threats to the computing populus?
LstBrunnenG
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Messages
- 6,676
Ya rly. What's next, are the police going to check to make sure you have a driver's license the next time they pull you over for speeding?
-(Xyphox)-
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Messages
- 6,518
old news
they wont win the 2nd one, might the state lawsuite
they wont win the 2nd one, might the state lawsuite
What's funny is that the Apple users who are experiencing something similiar, pretty much don't care. If you read through the comments, it's quite easy to spot who has their head one straight and who has their head stuck up their arse.
http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=33959
http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=33959
The fact that Microsoft owns the operating system on your PC (if you're running Windows, of course) just keeps getting lost in the shuffle as it always does. It's their OS, and they can do pretty much whatever they want with it, especially actions that allow them to not only track and determine if the installation you or anyone else has flat out illegal and therefore protect their property rights, or just do something else - currently that's simply locking people out of Windows Update but they could easily disable an installation without breaking a sweat. It would be a big problem for them to do the total lockdown of a machine, but it is definitely possible and has been since even before XP was released.
It's a complicated blown out of proportion issue, but in the end, it's their OS, so get with the program.
If you don't like it, run some Linux distribution or do something else, but the majority of people should stop bitching about Microsoft's legal position for protecting themselves regardless of your personal opinions about it being right or wrong. You go spend a few hundred billion on research and development and hire programmers and other people to create an operating system and then you can do what you want with it - for now, Microsoft is just trying to cut back the piracy that does run rampant across a great number of installations.
bb
It's a complicated blown out of proportion issue, but in the end, it's their OS, so get with the program.
If you don't like it, run some Linux distribution or do something else, but the majority of people should stop bitching about Microsoft's legal position for protecting themselves regardless of your personal opinions about it being right or wrong. You go spend a few hundred billion on research and development and hire programmers and other people to create an operating system and then you can do what you want with it - for now, Microsoft is just trying to cut back the piracy that does run rampant across a great number of installations.
bb
Goggle "RemoveWGA". There are utilities that remove the WGA notification from your machine with no ill effects. I personally don't think it should be an issue. Not too long ago in order to get any additional updates, M$ validated your copy of the OS with their validation update. I think that if it passed the validation, you shouldn't need to download a "notification" utility to help you obtain a legitimate license once validated.
MrWizard6600
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 5,791
eeyrjmr said:
yea... that was the joke....
nice 1 They can't do whatever they want. There are laws about what you can and can't do. The Euro's have already taught Microsoft that fact but Microsoft just don't listen so they are going to teach them again and again until Microsoft gets it. And I already use Linux but I am forced to run XP for my games. That doesn't mean I have to do what Microsoft says. Anyone tested their EULA in a court yet? EULA's are not legally binding unless a court says so.
Actually that whole "I agree to all these terms" checkbox we all check makes it binding. If you didnt check that box, then you didn't receive windows in a legal fashion anyway, though you may not have broken the law. If you installed it yourself, you would have to check that during setup. If you bought a system with Windows pre-installed, upon its first boot you should have to check that box as part of the post-setup completion. If you bought a system that didn't require that upon first boot, the OEM is breaking the law by not setting that up before selling it.
Answer me this, what possible harm does it do to someone using windows legitly? None whatsoever. Everytime you go to windows update you give windows update information about your computer automatically as well. Big deal.
And the Windows Media thing is a shame. So where is Adobe's lawsuit about Paint being bundled? Where is the lawsuit from Creative labs about Voice Recorder and other audio apps being preinstalled? How about Corel regarding WordPad and Notepad? How about Nero and Roxio regarding burning being built into the system now? Adobe again or Ulead regarding Moviemaker? WAIT A MINUTE! Doesn't Apple sell a fully capable OS out of the box that does everything as well! And I have even more limitations on that platform in terms of buying replacement software. But no, Apple's sh** doesn't stink. No monopoly or bandwagon to jump on there, move along.
MS is giving us what we (and think of the old or non-computer literate) want, a fully capable OS out of the box. We can easily choose to not use it. We are not being told to use it or being forced to use it. I guarantee you there are thousands of people in Europe that are going to be annoyed that they have to put Media Player back in because its their music player of choice.
If you can't innovate, sue. That's the message of the day. And I know several people where the WGA thing was the last straw and they are going to buy a legit OS. Mission accomplished.
Answer me this, what possible harm does it do to someone using windows legitly? None whatsoever. Everytime you go to windows update you give windows update information about your computer automatically as well. Big deal.
And the Windows Media thing is a shame. So where is Adobe's lawsuit about Paint being bundled? Where is the lawsuit from Creative labs about Voice Recorder and other audio apps being preinstalled? How about Corel regarding WordPad and Notepad? How about Nero and Roxio regarding burning being built into the system now? Adobe again or Ulead regarding Moviemaker? WAIT A MINUTE! Doesn't Apple sell a fully capable OS out of the box that does everything as well! And I have even more limitations on that platform in terms of buying replacement software. But no, Apple's sh** doesn't stink. No monopoly or bandwagon to jump on there, move along.
MS is giving us what we (and think of the old or non-computer literate) want, a fully capable OS out of the box. We can easily choose to not use it. We are not being told to use it or being forced to use it. I guarantee you there are thousands of people in Europe that are going to be annoyed that they have to put Media Player back in because its their music player of choice.
If you can't innovate, sue. That's the message of the day. And I know several people where the WGA thing was the last straw and they are going to buy a legit OS. Mission accomplished.
GJSNeptune
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 12,372
http://www.firewallleaktester.com/removewga.htmbarryware said:
With typing skills this poor, I'll pass. What happened to proofreading? This is posted and displayed to the world, only to embarrass themselves.
I dont have a problem with them making sure there software is legit. What I care about is the ill effects these "patches" make to my system. There are tons of posts on microsofts WGA forum about people who have had ill effects after installing WGA updates, including losing their raid array. Thats what I have a problem with.
Gatticus said:
"forced to run XP for my games"
That's the most ridiculously stupid thing you could have possibly said, so thanks. And it's not Microsoft's fault you have to use their OS to run those games: it's the fault of the developers that created them for not releasing them across multiple operating system platforms. "forced" my ass.
And in the US, the EULA is a legally binding document regardless of whether it's been tested in court. Just because it hasn't doesn't nullify your requirement to agree to it and be bound by it. Sooner or later it will be tested in court and I bet it'll stand up. For the money Microsoft spent on creating it, the legal team behind it was pretty damned thorough even with all the boilerplate text.
And I'm not interested in the Euros since I live in the US where the laws are different. What goes in one part of the world doesn't go for all of it.
bb
br0adband said:
Yes - if only because developers refuse to port games to Linux or another OS. Programmers are aware of MS' stranglehold on the market. It's the old chicken and the egg syndrome - money is finite, therefore developers won't spend time on getting games working in another OS. But how does another OS win customers, if their customers are forced to run a certain OS to be compatible. Unless MS opens up their APIs, it will be pretty near to impossible to get a app to be 100% supported in an alternative OS.
Look at it this way: MS is very good at creating the GUI and their implementation of a modular kernel is quite good. (It could be better in memory management, but hey, there are many improvements in Vista!) The GUI is extremely intuitive... their user interfaces are *the best*, bar none amongst all GUI contenders. Sad to say, but even my beloved Gnome is a horrible mess as compared to the XP shell.
Its not an assumption because there are probably more illegal installs then legal ones not taking businesses into account. By far.
And are you sure your RAID array didn't disappear with a windows update driver update to your Silicon image RAID driver?
And are you sure your RAID array didn't disappear with a windows update driver update to your Silicon image RAID driver?
br0adband said:
If a game I want is only on Windows then I have no choice but to use Windows. Can I make it any simpler for you?
Local laws take precedence over any EULA, even Microsoft agrees with that fact. It's up to the court to interpret an EULA.
20. APPLICABLE LAW. If you acquired this Software in the United States, this EULA is governed by the laws of the State of Washington. If you acquired this Software in Canada, unless expressly prohibited by local law, this EULA is governed by the laws in force in the Province of Ontario, Canada; and, in respect of any dispute which may arise hereunder, you consent to the jurisdiction of the federal and provincial courts sitting in Toronto, Ontario. If you acquired this Software in the European Union, Iceland, Norway, or Switzerland, then local law applies. If you acquired this Software in any other country, then local law may apply.
21. ENTIRE AGREEMENT; SEVERABILITY. This EULA (including any addendum or amendment to this EULA which is included with the Software) is the entire agreement between you and Microsoft relating to the Software and the support services (if any) and they supersede all prior or contemporaneous oral or written communications, proposals and representations with respect to the Software or any other subject matter covered by this EULA. To the extent the terms of any Microsoft policies or programs for support services conflict with the terms of this EULA, the terms of this EULA shall control. If any provision of this EULA is held to be void, invalid, unenforceable or illegal, the other provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
The first-sale doctrine as it relates to computer software is an area of legal confusion. Software publishers claim the first-sale doctrine does not apply because software is licensed, not sold, under the terms of an End User License Agreement (EULA). The courts have issued contrary decisions regarding the first-sale rights of consumers. Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell and Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus are two US Supreme Court cases that deal with copyright holders trying to enforce terms beyond the scope of copyright and patent, but calling it a license. Many state courts have also ruled that a sale of software is indeed a sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) at the point where funds are exchanged for the physical copy of the software. The licensed and not sold argument is held mostly in the 8th and 7th Circuits while other circuits tend to support the opposite, thus leading to conflicting court opinions such as seen in the 3rd Circuit Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology and fifth circuit Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software as opposed to the 8th Circuit Blizzard v. BNETD (Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004)), which have not been resolved by the Supreme Court.
Federal district courts in California and Texas have issued decisions applying the doctrine of first sale for bundled computer software in Softman v. Adobe (2001) and Novell, Inc. v. CPU Distrib., Inc. (2000) even if the software contains a EULA prohibiting resale. In the Softman case, after purchasing bundled software (A box containing many programs that are also available individually) from Adobe Systems, Softman unbundled it and then resold the component programs. The court ruled that Softman could resell the bundled software, no matter what the EULA stipulates, because Softman had never assented to the EULA. Specifically, the ruling decreed that software purchases be treated as sales transactions, rather than explicit license agreements. In other words, the court ruling argued that California consumers should have the same rights they would enjoy under existing copyright legislation when buying a CD or a book.
In a more recent case involving software EULA's and first-sale rights [Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004)][3], the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri issued a ruling which appears to contradict the position of the district courts in California and Texas. The first sale reasoning of the Softman court was challenged, with the court ruling "The first sale doctrine is only triggered by an actual sale. Accordingly, a copyright owner does not forfeit his right of distribution by entering into a licensing agreement." In addition, the court found the plaintiff's EULA, which prohibited resale, was binding on the defendants because "The defendants .. expressly consented to the terms of the EULA and Terms of Use by clicking 'I Agree' and 'Agree.'" This runs counter to Softman v. Adobe. The difference in these rulings has yet to be resolved by a higher court.
Microsoft was countersued in Microsoft Corp v. Zamos (Case: 5:04-cv-02504) for violating the Clayton Act. In Microsoft v. Zamos, after unsuccessfully trying to return legally acquired unopened copies of Microsoft Software purchased at a student bookstore, as specified in the Microsoft EULA, Zamos sold the software on EBay for a profit of $140.00 . Microsoft investigators sent a message to Zamos, through eBay's website, asking whether the disk containing the software included the phrase "not for retail or OEM distribution." Zamos confirmed by return email the same day that the disk did include the phrase. Microsoft then sued Zamos claiming that "Microsoft has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial and irreparable damage to its business reputation and goodwill as well as losses in an amount not yet ascertained... Defendant's acts of copyright infringement have caused Microsoft irreparable injury." and sought legal fees and the profit from the sale.
Zamos responded on Jan 3, 2005 by countersuing Microsoft with Clayton Act charges and further charged that, "Microsoft purposely established and maintained a sales and distribution system whereby rightful rejection and return of merchandise that is substantially non-conforming is either impossible or practically impossible due to the ineptness of its employees, unconscionable policies, malicious intent and deceptive practices," thus engaging in fraud and violating the Consumer Sales Practice Act.
Microsoft offered to drop the case when local Ohio papers carried the story. Zamos however refused to drop the case until Microsoft apologized and paid for the cost of copies of legal documents at the local copy shop. In March 2005, Microsoft and Zamos agreed to a settlement, which included a non-disclosure agreement with regards to the settlement terms.
"What goes in one part of the world doesn't go for all of it."
Ding, ding, ding!
dagon11985
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 562
Gatticus said:
You're right. You don't have to use Windows, no one is holding a gun to your head. You don't like what Microsoft does or says, then don't use their OS. Plain and simple.
br0adband said:
Let me start by saying IANAL.
Aside from the incredibly shaky legal ground EULAs stand on, there are many restrictions on what is an acceptable and enforcable contract (let alone a EULA). Retroactively changing the contract is one of those things, which tends to happen a lot with EULAs. Attempting to enforce a contract that the signer has not actually read is another (again, quite common with EULAs). Finally, a contract can not subvert local law or policy.
I make a point of explicitly disagreeing with the EULA before I click the yes button, preferably with a witness present.
Software that automatically reports information back home, without the option to turn it off, that could potentially disable the computer, sounds an awful lot like spy/malware to me. Particularly since you can't turn it off.
And there are laws against that.
The EULA states that the EULA is legally binding. I didnt read that... I read "scroll down really really fast, then click this." no judge or jury is going to expect anyone on a personal computer to read every word of every eula before clicking ok. Any self respecting judge would throw the eula out based solely on that fact. Ever hear about the guy who signed a contract saying the other guy could shoot him? (it happend around here, some dumb ass wanted to know what it felt like to get shot) It was thrown out and the guy got murder. Its the same as beware of dog signs, if you have a beware of dog sign, and your dog bites someone, its just proof that you knew the dog would bite, making you neglegant.
EULA's are bs, intended to scare you.
EULA's are bs, intended to scare you.
Servant of Shodan
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 1,777
The sad reality is that M$ truly does not care if their EULA is legal or not. By virtue of you having selected [Yes] or [I agree] and using the operating system you are by default agreeing to the EULA. If they included a clause that allows Steve Ballmer to come over to your house and demand you perform oral sex on him
it wouldnt matter. At this moment M$ has over 30 billion dollars sitting in cash. That means that they can do anything they want. It doesnt matter if it is illegal. Dont you all remember the 5+ year-long antitrust lawsuit brought on by multiple govt bodies from a few years back? Microsoft laughed it off and just stalled the process, taking up millions upon millions of tax dollars. They could afford to keep paying their lawyers whatever it took, while the government didnt have an unlimited budget for legal fees. State after state dropped their cases due to continually rising costs, and in the end, Microsofts punishment was that they gave coupons out to people good towards their next purchase of Windows!!!
So the bottom line is, the EULA is total garbage, absolutely against fair use laws, gives every conceivable benefit to Microsoft, allows for total invasion of privacy. The EULA is bad for people - Microsoft knows it, the EU & US know it, Japan knows, Korea knows it, it everybody knows it, but it doesnt matter. Microsoft has the money and that is all that matters.
So the bottom line is, the EULA is total garbage, absolutely against fair use laws, gives every conceivable benefit to Microsoft, allows for total invasion of privacy. The EULA is bad for people - Microsoft knows it, the EU & US know it, Japan knows, Korea knows it, it everybody knows it, but it doesnt matter. Microsoft has the money and that is all that matters.
-=ABUSIVE-69=-
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2006
- Messages
- 412
i do not have a legit copy of windows, and i am proud! i will remove WGA the first chance i get. every1 sould all band together and just not use windows anymore, use linux. then all the developers will make their shit for linux, and we will all be happy
I have a lagit copy of XP on my laptop, because it came with it... I also have a lagit copy of win2k3 on my other rig because I got it from school. Truth be told, I wouldnt pay for more than 1 copy of windows. If I have any complaint, its that MS changed their license from per user to per machine... I personaly think MS does good work and deserves to get paid for it. I dont however appreciate re-buying the same product. I'll buy a copy of Vista. A single copy...
-=ABUSIVE-69=- said:i do not have a legit copy of windows, and i am proud! i will remove WGA the first chance i get. every1 sould all band together and just not use windows anymore, use linux. then all the developers will make their shit for linux, and we will all be happy
you do realize, that by pirating windows you are actually supporting the windows platform? Every computer out there that has a pirated copy of windows is another machine that is compatible with products made for lagitimate copies of windows. Thus making windows a much better platform for developers, because although you might not pay MS for windows, you'll pay Ubisoft for their games (most likely). And because you pay them, they will make more games for windows, wich will help sell windows to lagitimate buyers.
Excellent point. ^^^
Just one problem. I like windows. I also like MS. A lot. I agree with their vision. There are many like me that are not on the "I'm cool because I hate MS" bandwagon. Say what you will, no argument can ever beat the fact that more people simply like Windows then don't. The day it no longer is the most often used operating system will be the day that changes. Not before.
^^^-=ABUSIVE-69=- said:i do not have a legit copy of windows, and i am proud! i will remove WGA the first chance i get. every1 sould all band together and just not use windows anymore, use linux. then all the developers will make their shit for linux, and we will all be happy
Just one problem. I like windows. I also like MS. A lot. I agree with their vision. There are many like me that are not on the "I'm cool because I hate MS" bandwagon. Say what you will, no argument can ever beat the fact that more people simply like Windows then don't. The day it no longer is the most often used operating system will be the day that changes. Not before.
Josh_B said:
WGA is pretty much the same as a police man asking for insurance, or a background check when you get a new job. nothin wrong with it unless it starts borking legit installs of windows. The only OS i really have not used is mac OS, i've used linux,unix and i prefer windows and don't care about taking 5 seconds of my life to say "hey i bought and supported your product now let me have my updates" Face it, whatever you do this day in age peoples first assumption of you is that you are trying to rip them of something or trying to steal their identity thats the world we live in. When you offer someone something free what is the reaction you get most likely "ok whats the catch" or "why didn't i get this sooner or with my original item" (example HL2 deathmatch comes to mind)
Sad but its true
No, you are wrong. They were found guilty of practices that were monopolistic, fined, and forced to alter their business practices. So, regardless of the legal issues between MS and the guv'ment, OldPueblo is totally correct.general said:
As has been pointed out earlier, Apple has been doing this for far longer, and yet the Mac zealots in the original poster's article seem to ignore that little tidbit. If either lawsuit is successful, then Apple should get the same treatment. Of the three most popular-- Windows, OS X, and Linux-- only Linux doesn't have this problem only because they have a different licensing model (in other words: apples and oranges).
As has already been pointed out: if you are using the Windows OS, whether legit or not, you are supporting the Windows platform. Every Windows-based program you run, that has been developed for Windows by companies who benefit from running on Windows, is effectively supporting the Windows platform. The more you run programs on Windows, the more developers are going to give you stuff that runs on Windows.-=ABUSIVE-69=- said:i do not have a legit copy of windows, and i am proud! i will remove WGA the first chance i get. every1 sould all band together and just not use windows anymore, use linux. then all the developers will make their shit for linux, and we will all be happy
In other words, your own hypocrisy is pretty much making your little rant null and void.
Speaking of hypocrisy:
The most ironic part of this post is that I would bet money it was posted from a Windows machine. How does the hypocrisy taste?Servant of Shodan said:
Welcome to antipiracy, people. This is what happens when too many assholes pirate software. Start blaming the dicks who feel entitled to not pay for the software, which is what keeps it at the current prices instead of being more affordable. I don't like the prices of a lot of software out there, either, but as long as there are jerks who decide it's okay to disregard licenses that the software companies use as one of their excuses to keep "cost of distribution" so high, then things won't change.
For every software at home that I can't afford or cannot get a true free license (and MS has given me many free licenses), then I use open-source software. For some things at work (I am an IT Manager), open-source licensing allows my company to have technology features that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive with proprietary. At both work and home I still mainly use Windows, but there is no rule out there that states that one must be either/or with regard to open-source software. I support it where I can or where it is realistic and feasible, and I use proprietary software for everything else. Because I've approached my computing like that, I have not been burned by Microsoft yet, and have actually gotten free stuff from Microsoft, often for simply letting them give me a sales pitch.
Give it a try, people. Proprietary and open-source software works surprisingly well together, and is a good way to save all this money people are bitching about. Just spend the money on what you need, and for everyone it will be slightly different. You will be happy with the results, and for those of you bitching about Microsoft you get the opportunity to be less hypocritical with your whining.