[Nick Fury]

Actually, with every version of windows XP the user (not necessarily the end user) must accept a license agreement. I'm not talking about the "f8" one you get when you accept the one from a disc install of XP but rather the one that you get to click "I agree" to when you first turn on that new computer. That license essentially says that you are responsible and held accountable for all actions taken in regards to the software on that computer and that if you want to return it all for a full refund then you should go for it (most people don't but that's a different story).

The real catch is if the pirate is held accountable under that license? The pirate didn't technically pay for that license, so is the pirate held accountable under it?

As for D. Most new viri replicate themselves using polymorphic code and such. When MS fails to patch infected machines it means that those machines are going to sit unpatched thus causing viri to have a prolonged existance. So when new users plug their machine in, it means a greater chance of infection for the new machine. Once again, sucks for MS.

BTW, I'm playing devil's advocate here. I use gentoo 2004.0 (built from stage 1).

EDIT: I'm almost willing to bet that an MS EULA will hold up in court based on the fact that MS has a legal team that I wouldn't dare want to take on. MS also has a lot of money to make sure their EULA's are enforced. As for them not being tested in court, I would have to disagree. I'm too lazy to hit up Thomas, greplaw, or findlaw for results right now but I'm fairly certain that some EULAs have been held up in court.

EDIT #2: I highly suggest you people start reading what you click "I agree" to. You seem to think that a EULA does not transfer ownership but ownership isn't the problem. How many viruses get released each year? MS doesn't take responsibility for data lost based on these viruses. What makes you think they are going to take responsibility for you losing data, esspecially when you are running a copy of their software you didn't pay for? They aren't required to supply patches to anyone if they chose not to, it would be suicide for them not to but they still don't have to. I don't see where you people are coming from on this one.