Peter H. Lemieux wrote:
Magnus Holmgren wrote:
I thought they did? At least the message from WU/WGA on one computer
with Windows XP I used recently was that unauthorised installations
only get critical updates, but they do get those. Is that going to
change with Vista?
Yes. See, for instance, http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/3665
Vista machines that Windows "Genuine Advantage" believes to be pirated
will operate with reduced functionality, including disabling the
"Windows Defender" software that protects against malware.
What's especially troubling is the large number of false positives
that WGA currently generates if the computer's hardware is
significantly altered. It also seems to me that this approach leaves
these machines ripe for a denial-of-service attack where a virus
somehow changes the WGA signature on the machine so it appears that
the Windows OS is pirated. Then the next time WGA phones home it
switches the infected computer to the reduced functionality state
(which generates lots of calls to the help desk!).
All that said, those of you who think a lawsuit is a good approach
should start by reading the Windows EULA. Like most EULA's it exempts
Microsoft from liability for just about anything it's software does.
I also suspect most judges wouldn't consider spamming to be a
sufficient threat to the public's health and welfare that it would
justify taking legal actions against Microsoft. But, if your
attorneys think this is a good idea, more power to you!
Peter
Lots of companies state that they are exempt from liability that they
aren't exempt from. Just because an agreement says "we aren't liable"
really means nothing. And it doesn't apply to third parties who are
affected.
