Illegal software user says Microsoft is evil?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| cjcox Nov 22, 2006 7:44 AM EDT |
I'm sorry... but I just had to laugh. I certainly don't like Microsoft, but getting fined because you chose to use software illegally isn't going to get you sympathy. Bad article... just more FUD. |
| bljilek Nov 22, 2006 9:18 AM EDT |
From what I gather it was just a case of software being transferred unwittingly to another department on a reused computer. That department didn't have licenses for the software and didn't use it. But it was still loaded, which was a violation. I think that there was a case of a shady IT employee that also caused them problems. Plus, it was not getting fined that was his problem. The problem was the draconian way they were raided and embarrassed publicly for something that was a mistake they would have fixed voluntarily. |
| tuxchick Nov 22, 2006 9:51 AM EDT |
By design, it is impossible to be in compliance with Microsoft licenses. |
| dinotrac Nov 22, 2006 10:04 AM EDT |
>By design, it is impossible to be in compliance with Microsoft licenses. Just goes to show why it's important to read those things carefully. You'd be amazed at how many people forget to do the Hokey Pokey and shake it all about, or to say "Simon says" when starting up a program. |
| rijelkentaurus Nov 22, 2006 10:29 AM EDT |
>By design, it is impossible to be in compliance with Microsoft licenses. Probably 10-15% (more in some cases) of IT time is spent trying to make sure you're in compliance with licenses of the various programs you use, if you use Windows. This includes having to be on the phone when you have to reinstall an app, or when you move it to another machine, or when something goofy "breaks" within the program and it tells you that it's not longer licensed, or if another user tries to use the software on the same machine in a different profile...it goes on and on. Then you have to keep track of what expires when...man, it's enough to make you puke. |
| jdixon Nov 22, 2006 10:33 AM EDT |
> This includes having to be on the phone when you have to reinstall an app Assuming the company even lets you reinstall it. In one case here, since the company didn't purchase a maintenance contract on the software, they said we couldn't reinstall the software on a new machine. Names withheld to protect the guilty. :( |
| tuxchick Nov 22, 2006 10:38 AM EDT |
My fave is when the CD key doesn't work on a new installation, and I have to call MS "support", and their CD key generator is "down", and my customer won't let me get a CD key off the Internet because of fear of the license police, and it takes 2-3 days to resolve. And that's just to install the dommed software. What they really want is for the customer to move to Volume Licensing and Software Assurance, which over the long-term costs more, is less flexible, and easier for them to track than purchasing full retail boxed sets. I finally figured out a hack, though- I have a friend with a deep intimidating voice. He pretends to be an attorney. We tried it twice, and both time the CD key generator was "fixed" in record time. |
| rijelkentaurus Nov 22, 2006 10:45 AM EDT |
>they said we couldn't reinstall the software on a new machine. Man, that's bad. You never know what a nice thing no license problems are until you have no license problems! |
| dcparris Nov 22, 2006 1:33 PM EDT |
cjocox: The Ernie Ball case was used in this article as an example of the kind of company (size/money) that MS might go after in a patent infringement case. The point is that MS is likely to go after a company similar to Ernie Ball - one that is visible, but doesn't have the funds to defend itself. How they will attempt to enforce their patents should prove interesting. |
| rijelkentaurus Nov 22, 2006 1:52 PM EDT |
>but doesn't have the funds to defend itself. Red Hat and Oracle have the funds, however. If MS goes after somebody, it will be interesting to see what the reaction from those companies is. Neither will sit on the sideline and have their business threatened. I would think it's possible that Oracle could make patent claims on SQL Server, given the ridiculous nature of software patents. If MS were to do it they could face a fight they couldn't hope to win. When they went after Ernie Ball, they effectively went after themselves, and drove Ball to the penguin. If they go after Red Hat, they go after a company with billions of dollars in cash, and Oracle, who has even more to play with. It's not the same scenario, and I think it's a bit unlikely -- highly unlikely -- that they'll do it. They're already getting bad press for threatening something like that. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!