Microsoft Says Only Legit Owners Get Fixes
from the and-so-it-goes... dept
While it's been rumored in the past and they've tried to imply it was required even when it wasn't, Microsoft is now going to start enforcing the rule that anyone downloading security updates must first prove they have a legit copy of Windows. The reasoning certainly makes some sense, and they have a legitimate claim in doing this. Why should Microsoft patch systems for those who haven't paid for it? However, the damage done by unpatched systems could outweigh the benefit of moving people to authorized copies. In fact, for people who are unlikely to buy Microsoft products at that time, this actually gives them even more incentive to investigate alternatives, rather than keeping them on the Microsoft platform, should they later be in a position to purchase. Also, it seems like this actually puts the wrong incentive on Microsoft. In this case, they should want to release buggy software with security holes to really screw over those who pirate it and can't patch it. The reality, of course, is that there will be unauthorized copies of patches as well -- so the folks who are really serious about getting illegal copies will continue to do so. However, those of us with legitimate copies that we paid for will need to prove ourselves every time Microsoft fixes one of its own problems. That doesn't seem particularly customer friendly. Update: As pointed out in the comments, this might be even stranger... unauthorized installations can still get the security patches if they turn on the "automatic update" feature -- at which point you have to wonder why this new policy matters at all?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not Quite
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not Quite
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Turning Off Software
I just did a quick Google and found that case was Revlon vs. Logisticon. Unfortunately, it was settled out of court and the settlement wasn't made public. (One more reason I think the results of lawsuits should have to be disclosed publicly. If the lawsuit is on the public record, any settlement should also be.)
UCITA would have allowed this practice, but I don't think it became law unless some states passed it. You can see InfoWorld for a discussion of that and a reference to the Logisticon suit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Turn off Windows
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I H8 C/R
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Microsoft is not generous
But if it bothers them enough they could use Automatic Updates later to quietly 'enhance' the update client itself along with some critical update, then months later start refusing updates when the client doesn't send a valid response.
Just blocking human visits to the web site (like for newer media players, DirectX, etc.) could have one larges desired effect: Alert people who have counterfeit installs of Windows and don't even know it. Supposedly this is rampant in less wealthy nations, and this move could pressure the crooked computer/software dealers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]