“Microsoft Corp. faces a proposed class-action lawsuit in California based on the claim that its market-dominant software is vulnerable to viruses capable of triggering ‘massive, cascading failures’ in global computer networks,” Kevin Krolicki and Reed Stevenson report for Reuters. “The lawsuit, filed on Tuesday in Los Angeles Superior Court, also claims that Microsoft’s security warnings are too complex to be understood by the general public and serve instead to tip off ‘fast-moving’ hackers on how to exploit flaws in its operating system.”
“The lawsuit claims unfair competition and the violation of two California consumer rights laws, one of which took effect earlier this year and is intended to protect the privacy of personal information in computer databases. Microsoft, which received and reviewed the complaint, said it would fight the attempt to certify the lawsuit as a class action,” Krolicki and Stevenson report. “‘Microsoft’s eclipsing dominance in desktop software has created a global security risk,’ the lawsuit said. ‘As a result of Microsoft’s concerted effort to strengthen and expand its monopolies by tightly integrating applications with its operating system … the world’s computer networks are now susceptible to massive, cascading failure.'”
“‘This represents the first salvo for consumers to say to software makers ‘Wait a second, if you are going to put out software that needs be patched three times a week, take responsibility for it,’ said Mark Rasch, a former head of the U.S. Department of Justice computer crime unit, now with security firm Solutionary,” Krolicki and Stevenson report.
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: More bad news and publicity for Microsoft. It’s about time Microsoft is held to some standard of responsibiity; if they can’t impose security on their own, perhaps it’ll take the law to force them to do so. All the while this rages on, Apple offers a secure, stable, elegant operating system in Mac OS X that simply just works.
I’m sure this will be settled in some way that will benefit Microsoft and California like discounts on Microcrap software or free upgrades. Microcrap sucks but the Califorina consumer group is just looking for a payday.
I hope the lawsuit gets thrown out. It’s ridiculous. Don’t buy a poor quality product and then sue the manufacturer as if they forced you to buy it. Take responsibility for your own actions!
Hmmmm. Not sure what the laws are in California. But my gut tells me it will be dismissed entirely. I REALLY REALLY hope I am wrong.
The problem with a class action is once it’s settled it covers the entire class so another lawsuit is not possible. It is a problem in this case, since Microsoft can themselves be orchestrating it in order to head off any other serious lawsuits.
i think it is time that commercial software makers are responsible for their products in some way.
(usually they include something like: whatever happens we are not responsible. sometimes they even state that the product may not be fit for any purpose /i can.t recall the wording/
I would love MS to lose a class action lawsuit. However, Unless MS’ EULA (End Use License Agreement) can be found to be draconic and declared unfair, the lawsuit would have difficulties.
By accepting the EULA you essentially pardon MS from any loss incurred by its software.
the EULA from Windows 98 (the EULA from XP is longer) states:
“LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL MICROSOFT OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, LOSS OF BUSINESS INFORMATION, OR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY LOSS) ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT OR THE PROVISION OF OR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUPPORT SERVICES, EVEN IF MICROSOFT HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. IN ANY CASE, MICROSOFT’S ENTIRE LIABILITY UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS EULA SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE GREATER OF THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID BY YOU FOR THE SOFTWARE PRODUCT OR U.S.$5.00; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, IF YOU HAVE ENTERED INTO A MICROSOFT SUPPORT SERVICES AGREEMENT, MICROSOFT’S ENTIRE LIABILITY REGARDING SUPPORT SERVICES SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE TERMS OF THAT AGREEMENT. BECAUSE SOME STATES AND JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OR LIMITATION OF LIABILITY, THE ABOVE LIMITATION MAY NOT APPLY TO YOU.”
The only hope is the last sentence and California does not allow the exclusion or limitation of liability.
The thing about these law suits is they are brought by a bunch of money grabbing jerks. This is not the answer. The answer is to stop acting like Microsoft is the only solution to business needs. The fact that the Internet is one catatrophy waiting to happen isn’t Microsoft’s fault. It is the fault of every IT manager, business person, and consumer that blindly adopts Microsoft products, just because. I say we sue IT managers that stipulate Microsoft only solutions, for contributing to the instability of the Internet.
The only good thing would be if Micros**t was forced by the court to change the EULA because “unfair to customers”.
I disagree with “it isn’t Micros**t fault”. It is not 100% their fault but it is not 0% either.
It is true though that so far IT managers chose Micros**t just because and because everybody else does. Remember the old adagio “No one has ever been fired for choosing a Micros**t solution”.
I’d say the winds are changing and some IT should – in the future – worried about having had their enterprises go to a 100% Micros**t solution with promises of security, savings, trouble-free software evolution.
In response to Larry’s post.
I don’t know if it is a good idea to get the lawsuit thrown out. I am with you regarding taking personal responsibility, but for some people, it is not a choice. It is forced on them. Even if one has a choice not to use a product, that does not give a company a free reign to do whatever it wants. For example, women have a choice not to get breast implants, smokers have a choice to stop smoking. But that does not mean companies can market their products freely, especially if they use deceptive marketing to portray their products as safe.
Taking an example of tobacco industry, maybe MS should be required to put a warning label on its software boxes such as Warning: This product may cause you to bang your head against the wall or Warning: This product may turn you into a PC fanboy and send your personal wealth to Microsoft.
Also, the sale of the said products could be limited, for exaple to people 21 years or older, or to people with IQ less than 100.
[Also, the sale of M$ products could be limited, for example to people with IQs less than 100.]
Already done
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />