Anti-Microsoft group launches effort to block Windows Vista

The Committee to Fight Microsoft (“CTFM”), the first civil rights and consumer action organization in cyberspace, will held a San Francisco news conference yesterday to announce that it has begun a campaign to block Microsoft Corporation from releasing Windows Vista to the general public unless and until Microsoft offers a general and unconditional warranty to purchasers that the program does not include “bad code.”

The Washington, DC-based CTFM celebrates its tenth anniversary this year.

“Bill Gates sells the public defective products,” says CTFM Executive Director Andy Martin, “And then expects us to spend years being his guinea pigs, while he corrects the myriad of defects and vulnerabilities in his defective code. This is mass consumer fraud. It is unacceptable corporate behavior. Over four (4) years after Windows XP was released I still receive regular ‘updates’ and ‘bug fixes,’ which reflect a product that was originally scandalously defective.

“Windows 95 was a disaster; it took three years to correct the major deficiencies. But the 95 fix, Windows 98, only created new vulnerabilities, and required yet another round of fixes for Windows 98. On and on it goes. No other company in America gets away with selling defective products and then expecting its customers to wait years for proper product operability.

“When computers were a tool for techies, bad code may have been understandable. Today computers are a mass consumer product. The idea that hundreds of millions of people should have to have a similar ‘XP’ as users of Windows XP is unacceptable.

“Two other unacceptable scams that Microsoft has used over and over again are to encourage people to ‘upgrade’ unsuitable old computers, and to encourage manufacturers to sell underpowered computers. XP was authorized for 128 RAM, which was clearly inadequate. Who would buy an inadequate TV set? Or an inadequate stove, that didn’t get warm enough? Or an inadequate refrigerator that didn’t get cold enough? No one. Why should someone buy or ‘upgrade’ an inadequate computer on Bill Gates’ say-so? The Committee to Fight Microsoft is launching a legal action effort to bar such practice, in advance, for Windows Vista. Bill Gates, you are on notice.”

Adjunct professor of law Andy Martin created the legal theories that led to litigation by state attorneys general against Microsoft. He founded the CTFM during the second round of federal litigation against Microsoft, and was an opponent of the original 1994 settlement.

Andy Martin has served as founding Executive Director of the Committee to Fight Microsoft since 1995.

Contact info:
Andy Martin of The Committee to Fight Microsoft, 1-866-706-2639, AndyMart20@aol.com
Web site: http://www.andymartin.com/

42 Comments

  1. You have got to be kidding me. That has to be one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read. I’m surprised MDN is even publishing it. These guys are idiots. If MS is guilty, then Apple is guilty as well as any other software vendor who has ever built an app that crashed. Stupid, and MDN should be ashamed to stoop so low as to publish this crap out of pure misguided spite.

  2. I might like to kill MS just as much as the next guy but let’s put it this way: They can’t blame MS of shipping defective products and do nothing with any other peice of software (Tiger IS at 10.4.2 already; I know it’s far from being on the same level as Windows, heck, the same building, but still) A great plan with a great big flaw. The memory problem is not MS’s fault. It’s called ”Minimum Requirements” for a reason, people! Plus the computer makers are to blame for lack of memory in PCs. This CTFM should go ahead with their concept but with a different reason behind it. Oh, and change the name… we know you’re all Mac users so just call your selves Jobs for Microsoft CEO : JMSCEO

  3. This is what all software vendors do! Look at Apple: Every major release of the OS brings a new round of fixes that last the 1 – 1 1/2 that the OS is around and then mac users pony up another $129 to upgrade and they start the cycle over again.

    It isn’t just Apple – all software companies do that. This is simply plain stupid.

  4. the big difference is apple isnt upgrading because of major security issues or bad code… sure they have updates… but theyre free… look at 10.2.8 or 10.3.9.. you can run them now without problems and not have to upgrade to tiger… apple updates add more features and improve performance.. its all about evolution.. in windows case.. there are major security updates because of bad code and loop holes in the os.. their updates are crucial to the user because their comp is so vulnerable without them… this isnt so with apple… everyone has updates.. the differences lie in what they update! get a clue people!

  5. He’s right. Apple’s updates for the most part are optional vs. Windows updates are crucial. I’ve never had my Mac contract a virus after 12 minutes online because I didn’t update it. How many PC users could say that if they never did the SP updates!

  6. This is some dopey sh%t. Apple is not completely pure on these issues, though of course it’s much better. All this will achieve is clogging our courts and adding a de facto “lawyer fee” to the price of computers. Consumers should just stop buying a weak product. Eventually, they will.

  7. Heh, a Lemon Law for Windows ” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />

    But this would affect apple, too. There are serious bugs that ship with OS X that have people in an uproar until the fix is released. Tiger was released with a significant internet DNS flaw that had the discussion boards at Apple.com all lit up. Currently my printer can’t even work with an airport connection due to Tiger. My network connection requires a reboot just to get the network speed full again, even though all the settings are correct.

    Apple would be forced to hold off OS releases until they are fully baked, a long process indeed.

  8. My two cents:
    That part about computers being sold with just 128MB ram, meeting Microsoft’s recommended minimum spec…
    Well, I sort of agree that its stupid to have something that just about runs, but its also unfair to say that other consumer goods are not like that.
    Go to any of those home appliance stores, and you’ll see a diverse range of fridges, microwaves etc, all with different power usage and features etc. All depends on what you want to do. To use a car analogy, you can buy a mini cooper, and it’ll run.. just not as fast as a Ferrari, not will it store as much as a Humvee.

  9. BTW, I’m not saying that Microsoft’s coding is perfect – i also agree that there’s alot to be desired in it, made all the more glaringly obvious since switching to a mac mini – but sweeping statements need to be clarified and put into perspective first.

    Afterall, it wasn’t long ago that Apple only shipped computers with just 256MB ram, that was deemed to be “just enough to run with”, but ideally should be (and thankfully, now is) standardised at 512MB. I just hope that this kind campaign doesn’t start getting too extreme. Then again, maybe it will help raise standards across the board on all OS’s. I think I’ll sit on the fence and see how things pan out on this one…

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.