On Fri, April 25, 2008 12:56 pm, Karl Cunningham wrote: > On 4/25/2008 11:36 AM, John Oliver wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 10:29:52AM -0700, Gus Wirth wrote: >>> The authority for performing the audit is the End User License >>> Agreement >>> (EULA) for installed software. When you install a Microsoft product you >>> agree to be audited. The EULA is a business contract, so it has >>> different rules than if someone just shows up on your doorstep and says >>> "let me in", especially if you are a business. I haven't heard of any >>> cases where an individual has been pressed for an audit, only >>> businesses. >> >> A) How can they prove to a court that I have the software that is >> covered by their EULA before searching? And, if they claim I have >> "pirated" their software, how can they claim that I'm covered by the >> EULA? > > I don't think they have to prove anything. All they have to do is > convince the judge that there is a high enough probability that they > will find what they're looking for, and that what they're looking for is > illegal. > > One thing I wonder... A search warrant is related to criminal activity, > but the only BSA action I've heard about is civil. They're getting the > judge/police to prosecute a civil matter. > > Karl
Am I the only one who recognizes that this is a form of barratry? Selective audits to punish Linux using shops without regard to M$'s suspicion that they might actually be in violation? It's like suing someone (or the IRS auditing him) as a punishment because the poor sap have to defend himself at great expense. -- Lan Barnes SCM Analyst Linux Guy Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
