XP Service Pack 2 Bomb

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Nick Fury

And again, what makes you think MS is going to take responsibility for damage done to your drive when you didn't pay for a legal copy of windows? They aren't obligated and don't take responsibility for damage done by any viri currently to LEGAL copies. So what makes you think they have to provide you with service for an illegal copy?

The distinction is willful vs. accidental damage. Microsoft can disclaim liability for accidental damage (though the court may choose to not recognize it), but they cannot disclaim intentional damage. Proving it is/was intentional should be easy enough--so long as they can subpoena Microsoft to furnish the source code....

[Nick Fury]

I would love to see this case tried because the first thing is that MS isn't going to give up source without a very long and drawn out fight. I point to SCO case. SCO isn't nearly as powerful as MS and they haven't shown any code yet. Secondly you are still talking about a pirate Vs a capitalist company. Under the current circumstance and media hype surrounding piracy and the fact that it is constantly portrayed in a bad light, no court or judge is likely to take a case like this serious. Also, intentional damage isn't being caused by Microsoft because you can't update a product you didn't pay for. The only person causing damage is the virus writer (I'm not gonna say if that is intentional or not, it's irrelevant). The fact of the matter is that MS is discouraging piracy of their products. Also, updates and such are a service, not a part of the product. I already brought up the point that the pirate didn't pay for the license so is the pirate entitled to the service that the license provides? (although the WinXP EULA doesn't provide a service for updates).

As per the movie/record industry deleting files form a hard drive. This is a different matter altogether. These people don't have the right to create malicious code just as much as I don't have that right to. I don't care if you have a devine purpose or not, you don't have the right to destory data on my systems without my permission. MS isn't destorying data though, they aren't releasing viruses they are only denying access to updates, which is understandable in my opinion.

[Tristan Lall]

To preface this post, I think that it has to be restated that the article alleges that Microsoft is planning to issue code that would render a user's hard drive unusable, if certain licencing conditions are not met. (I consider that possibility to be remote.) The allegation is therefore one of willful damage, rather than a mere witholding of service (which is justified, if not necessarily prudent).

Originally Posted by Nick Fury

I would love to see this case tried because the first thing is that MS isn't going to give up source without a very long and drawn out fight. I point to SCO case. SCO isn't nearly as powerful as MS and they haven't shown any code yet.

Actually, you don't need to see the code from the start. Just have the court order a test of the software in question. A blacklisted CD key is used on a new XP installation, and SP2 installed. Repeat this test several times, (under the supervision of notaries public and computer experts) and analyze the results of the tests (to eliminate other causes of failure). If a predictable pattern of data damage results, it's a smoking gun--it would very possibly be enough to convince the court to subpoena it out of Microsoft (and/or to compel MS employees to testify about it).

Now it's not a perfect idea--the destructive code could have been written to make this difficult (e.g. randomize the damage). But it's a start.

Originally Posted by Nick Fury

Secondly you are still talking about a pirate Vs a capitalist company. Under the current circumstance and media hype surrounding piracy and the fact that it is constantly portrayed in a bad light, no court or judge is likely to take a case like this serious. Also, intentional damage isn't being caused by Microsoft because you can't update a product you didn't pay for. The only person causing damage is the virus writer (I'm not gonna say if that is intentional or not, it's irrelevant). The fact of the matter is that MS is discouraging piracy of their products. Also, updates and such are a service, not a part of the product. I already brought up the point that the pirate didn't pay for the license so is the pirate entitled to the service that the license provides? (although the WinXP EULA doesn't provide a service for updates).

You don't have to be a pirate to be affected--what if a corporate key was stolen (e.g. by ex-IT department personnel), and unbeknownst to the company, was distributed. Microsoft would have to ensure that it contacted the rightful owner of the software, issued them a new key, and ensured that traces of the old key had been removed (so that no hapless co-op student would use the wrong key on an upgrade, and destroy someone's workstation). All this, before even blacklisting the key. Failure to do that much could be considered negligence, if Microsoft had a duty to inform it's customer that it was about to do something drastic with that customer's key, which had the potential to do serious property damage as a result of normal use, and instruct them how to remedy the situation--irrespective of whether Microsoft were found culpable of sabotage for including the code in the first place.

Originally Posted by Nick Fury

As per the movie/record industry deleting files form a hard drive. This is a different matter altogether. These people don't have the right to create malicious code just as much as I don't have that right to. I don't care if you have a devine purpose or not, you don't have the right to destory data on my systems without my permission. MS isn't destorying data though, they aren't releasing viruses they are only denying access to updates, which is understandable in my opinion.

The original article accuses Microsoft of doing just this--intentionally putting destructive code in their product, for the express purpose of destroying data, and possibly hardware. (Yes, you really can do serious damage to hardware with code--it isn't at all easy, but malicious firmware updates immediately come to mind.)

They'd never get away with it. If you don't believe me, just look at the anti-Microsoft climate that prevails in the U.S. these days--a handful of insignificant government employees (from a redundant department, but that's another discussion) recommend that Internet Explorer be put out to pasture, and lo and behold, media outlets take the opportunity to pick on Microsoft's errors, real and fabricated. Whether Microsoft is in the right or the wrong they'll be massacred in the press if they pull a stunt like that.

I think you guys are taking this a bit too seriously. Every illegal install has to come from a LEGAL version in the beginning. Therefore, if anyone re-formatted his comp, wouldn't it become "unusable" when he tried to reinstall?

[Tom Bottiglieri]

EULAs are alot different than a contract.. A contract is signed and witnessed most of the time. Always singed by the person it is being given to tho. A EULA is a simple click of the mouse. There is no evidence to say who clicked the mouse. What if I bought my computer from small business, and they used a stolen key. Am I therefore resposible for the theft? Does my property need to be destroyed? Yes, a EULA is binding, but no, I do not think MS has the power to do this.

[Joe Matt]

EULAs are alot different than a contract.. A contract is signed and witnessed most of the time. Always singed by the person it is being given to tho. A EULA is a simple click of the mouse. There is no evidence to say who clicked the mouse. What if I bought my computer from small business, and they used a stolen key. Am I therefore resposible for the theft? Does my property need to be destroyed? Yes, a EULA is binding, but no, I do not think MS has the power to do this.

You stole the words right out of my mouth. That's cliche #3 today.... ANYWAY....

I wonder if there has been any court upholdings on the EULAs when it pertains to a 'click' of a mouse onto a button (and sometimes a little check box). As for your question based on the small business, I think that the purchaser will be fine, since any checking of serial numbers to see if they are valid is hard enough as it is, let alone one to a program that you don't have the CDs or DVDs for.

[Bharat Nain]

If Microsoft does decide to be an &#($7(#& and disable XP or something, I can bet that there are tons of clever programmers out there who will make a crack thru that. Eventually, the efforts are not worth for Microsoft to do such a thing. Moreover, they know for a fact that people will start using other operating systems if they do something like that. I feel Microsoft will commit suicide by trying to hurt their users(including illegal ones). It might lead to the end of Windows.

[MikeDubreuil]

I call FUD on this article too...

There are many in the industry who are calling on Microsoft to allow illegal copies of Windows to be updated just as a legal copy would be. The thought being that Internet worms would be better controlled.

This article reminds me of the music industry and the fake copies of songs they put on the P2P networks. If you've never downloaded one, basicly it's the normal song for about 30 seconds and then they put in a series of very high pitched noises. The first time I heard it I was listening to the song with headphones turned up fairly high. When the screatching went off I nearly fell over and grasped my ears. I thought I had lost my hearing. I bet someday someone will injure their ears from the high pitched sounds. I hope that person starts a lawsuit with the people who are responsible for putting these ear damaging songs on the internet.

[Kyle Fenton]

Originally Posted by TeknoBramha

If Microsoft does decide to be an &#($7(#& and disable XP or something, I can bet that there are tons of clever programmers out there who will make a crack thru that. Eventually, the efforts are not worth for Microsoft to do such a thing. Moreover, they know for a fact that people will start using other operating systems if they do something like that. I feel Microsoft will commit suicide by trying to hurt their users(including illegal ones). It might lead to the end of Windows.

I wish, but nothing will lead to end of Windows. Even if they charge Windows for $1000 a copy, people will still pay it. The majority of Americans usually just accepts anything Microsoft does.

Microsoft is not dumb though. If they do this they risk angry hackers initiating DOS attacks at them, which will loose them even more money then just the pirated copies.

However in Longhorn they have put in new features that will make it harder for any pirated content to exist.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by ToMMan b182

EULAs are alot different than a contract.. A contract is signed and witnessed most of the time. Always singed by the person it is being given to tho. A EULA is a simple click of the mouse. There is no evidence to say who clicked the mouse. What if I bought my computer from small business, and they used a stolen key. Am I therefore resposible for the theft? Does my property need to be destroyed? Yes, a EULA is binding, but no, I do not think MS has the power to do this.

Ignorance of the law does not give one absolution from its governance.

If you unknowingly buy stolen property and the police later find out it's stolen property, they take it back. You don't get to keep it. Nobody cares that you were unaware or that you paid for it.

[Joe Matt]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

Ignorance of the law does not give one absolution from its governance.

If you unknowingly buy stolen property and the police later find out it's stolen property, they take it back. You don't get to keep it. Nobody cares that you were unaware or that you paid for it.

I think his question was based on will he get punnished for the theft.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by JosephM

I think his question was based on will he get punnished for the theft.

If it were true that Service Pack 2 was to destroy hardware with illegal copies of an operating system, you would be held accountable for the action of running such software. You'd have to be, really, as there's not exactly a practical way for the SP2 download to identify your illegal software and investigate where it came from, right?

However, if you cannot conclusively prove that the OS was installed illegally prior to your use of it -- which you can't, as there's no evidence or record thereof -- you're probably going to be considered responsible in the eyes of the law.

[MikeDubreuil]

It should be noted that the article claims that if you have an illegal copy of Windows your boot partition will be overwritten with garbage data. This is not the same as destroying hardware.

To the average consumer their computer is unusable, but to a skilled technician the data can be restored and a new operating system can be re-installed.

Isn't this sort of what the RIAA is doing? They would be making enemies with their own customers (as much a customer as an mp3 pirate is). I'm not saying M$ is the smartest company out there, but they at least are smart enough to know that if someone has windows on their computer (legal or no) they will not buy "Photoshop for apple." They will on the other hand, buy tons of Microsoft products, such as office, halo, and Flight Simulator. Microsoft knows how to keep a hold on a monopoly, and they won't let go any time soon.

[Tristan Lall]

Well, they changed the article--and now it makes a little more sense. To the average user, a damaged boot sector is a significant problem, but with a little experience, and the ability to load the drive up in another computer, it can easily be restored. (Heck, even a repair install of XP should be able to fix this....) Certainly, the hardware would remain functional.

So I can't be so sure that Microsoft won't try it, since there's no risk of data damage any longer. It could still cause downtime, though. That's not really grounds for a lawsuit (except in extreme circumstances), but it certainly is enough to annoy people significantly.

Actually, there is a Microsoft precedent for similar action--Office 2000, when installed with certain blacklisted keys, can't be properly updated to SR-1; the installation will proceed normally, but the programs themselves are set to quit immediately upon opening. Again, it's downtime, though not in such a drastic fashion.