this post was submitted on 07 Nov 2024
570 points (98.1% liked)
Technology
59587 readers
2550 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Ah, but did you read the article?
MS didn't force it, Heimdal auto-updated it for their customers based on the assumption that Microsoft would label the update properly instead of it being labeled as a regular security patch. Microsoft however made a mistake (on purpose or not? Who knows...) in labeling it.
Then it's still on Microsoft for pushing that update through what is essentially a patch pipeline
MS will be sued over this and they will lose. This is not an ambiguous case. They fucked up. It’s essentially an unconsentual/unilateral alteration to a contract, which kinda violates the principle of, you know, a contract.
It is, but they never forced anyone to take the update, so that might save their asses, or it might not
This would be no different to you ordering food in a restaurant, them bringing you the wrong meal, you refusing because you didn't order it, then they tell you to go fuck yourself and charge you for it anyway.
If this argument is valid in your judicial system then you live in a clown world capitalist dictatorship.
Have you seen the state of the US? A "clown world capitalist dictatorship" is a pretty apt description
Why yes ... I am aware 1+1=2
I'm saying they might send people the bill and then these people (well, companies) are going to have to fight it in court, where they'll be right for sure, but Microsoft can make a lot of stupid arguments to prolong the whole thing, to the point where it's cheaper to pay the license fee. For one they could say that continued use of the operating system constitutes agreement to licenses and pricing.
Either way this is server 2025 not windows 12. We're talking about companies here, not people.
Yes, and I'm saying that the fact this could even be viewed by Microsoft as something that is worth going to trial, and being argued in court = hyper-capitalist dystopian dictatorship.
In a sane world not "by and for corporations", this tactic would not even be in the realm of plausibility.
M$'s mistake creates no obligation to pay, either way. They cannot sue anyone for the extra money.
But some customers (depending on their legislation) might sue M$ to make broken systems running again, for example if these systems have stopped now with a 'missing license' error message.