From: Ben Myers on
Microsoft did not take its cloaking shield to Europe. No politicians to buy
over there... Ben Myers

On Tue, 6 May 2008 21:22:02 -0500, "S.Lewis" <Gossamer(a)interesting.com> wrote:

>
>"Ben Myers" <ben_myers_spam_me_not(a)charter.net> wrote in message
>news:jd0224lf31qlhvrnqmtqfcr7fppjdlrkk4(a)4ax.com...
>> That's a different woodshed. The anti-trust one, not the one where you
>> take
>> someone who has done damages... Ben Myers
>>
>
>
>True. Was just pointing out that MS isn't invincible in a courtroom.
>
From: S.Lewis on

"Tony Harding" <ToHard(a)nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:48203bfe$0$25063$607ed4bc(a)cv.net...
> Colin Wilson wrote:
>>> Or, better still, what if we're talking about a hospital install base
>>> and patients die?
>>
>> Hospitals shouldn't be so stupid as to use windows on critical systems.
>> Indeed, it's against their EULA IIRC to do so.
>>
>> So, after they've already broken who knows how many point of sale systems
>> with their last broken SP3 update for XP, and done the same for Vista,
>> your point was... ?
>
> Doesn't MS's EULA specifically exempt them from business losses, IIRC
> their limit is the cost of the software.



Even if true, a prepared corporate legal team would tear that disclaimer to
pieces - particularly in front of either a sympathetic judge or jury - in
the face of deaths and/or millions of dollars in losses by a
surreptitious/forced update imo.


From: Tony Harding on
WaIIy wrote:

<snip>

> I made these up, no forced updates for me. I use these and
> then go and manually choose from MS.
>
> AllowUpdates.bat
>
> NET START "Automatic Updates"
> SC CONFIG wuauserv start= auto
> NET START "Background Intelligent Transfer Service"
> SC CONFIG bits start= auto
> pause
> exit
>
> =======================================
>
> BlockUpdates.bat
>
> NET STOP "Automatic Updates"
> SC CONFIG wuauserv start= demand
> NET STOP "Background Intelligent Transfer Service"
> SC CONFIG bits start= demand
> pause
> exit

Thanks a bunch for posting these .bat files, WaIIy!
From: Tony Harding on
S.Lewis wrote:
> "Tony Harding" <ToHard(a)nowhere.org> wrote in message
> news:48203bfe$0$25063$607ed4bc(a)cv.net...
>> Colin Wilson wrote:
>>>> Or, better still, what if we're talking about a hospital install base
>>>> and patients die?
>>> Hospitals shouldn't be so stupid as to use windows on critical systems.
>>> Indeed, it's against their EULA IIRC to do so.
>>>
>>> So, after they've already broken who knows how many point of sale systems
>>> with their last broken SP3 update for XP, and done the same for Vista,
>>> your point was... ?
>> Doesn't MS's EULA specifically exempt them from business losses, IIRC
>> their limit is the cost of the software.
>
> Even if true, a prepared corporate legal team would tear that disclaimer to
> pieces - particularly in front of either a sympathetic judge or jury - in
> the face of deaths and/or millions of dollars in losses by a
> surreptitious/forced update imo.

IMHO you're overly optimistic on this point, Stew. Keep in mind that MS
has lots of high powered lawyers on staff or retainer as well.
From: Tony Harding on
Ben Myers wrote:
> True. One must keep in mind that a Microsoft EULA is tantamount to a gun at
> ones head. There is never an opportunity to negotiate the EULA with Microsoft.
> If you want whatever Microsoft has provided under its EULA, usually corrections
> and patches to its earlier screwups, you have no choice but to accept the EULA,
> whatever it may say. Given the perfect storm of software failures and
> consequent damages, just about any judge or jury would find against Microsoft.
> So far, whatever damages caused by failures of their software have not been
> serious enough for someone to sue... Ben Myers

I doubt that big IT customers sign the same EULA we do, I'd bet they're
negotiated individually, i.e., GM negotiates their EULA, Verizon
negotiates theirs, etc.