Microsoft Wants To Make It Illegal To Buy From An Overseas Company That Uses Unauthorized Software
from the overreach-much dept
Microsoft's latest strategy against overseas infringement (something the company used to admit helped its bottom line in the long run) is to run around lobbying various state governments to pass ridiculous and likely unconstitutional laws that put liability on the buyers of any products from an overseas company that uses unauthorized software.The laws allow Microsoft to block the US company from selling the finished product in the state and compel them to pay damages for what the overseas supplier did.That seems like a pretty serious case of misplaced liability. However as Groklaw notes, Louisiana has already passed such a law, and it looks like Microsoft's home state (of course) of Washington is passing a similar law.
You heard me right. If a company overseas uses a pirated version of Excel, let's say, keeping track of how many parts it has shipped or whatever, and then sends some parts to General Motors or any large company to incorporate into the finished product, Microsoft can sue *not the overseas supplier* but General Motors, for unfair competition. So can the state's Attorney General. I kid you not. For piracy that was done by someone else, overseas. The product could be T shirts. It doesn't matter what it is, so long as it's manufactured with contributions from an overseas supplier, like in China, who didn't pay Microsoft for software that it uses somewhere in the business. It's the US company that has to pay damages, not the overseas supplier.
Thankfully, many businesses are realizing the incredible liability this could put on them, and are speaking out against the bill:
Regardless, piracy is Microsoft’s problem to solve as it has been trying to do for several years. It is a problem akin to what retailers call "shrink," or the loss of income from merchandise stolen either by outsiders or employees. Unfortunately, shrink is a painful cost of doing business. But retailers no more would seek Microsoft’s help with this problem than Microsoft should be asking retailers to help pay for solving its challenges with software piracy....This seems like a massive overreach by Microsoft, going even further than the entertainment industry's attempts to get ISPs to act as their copyright cops. In this case, Microsoft is trying to get any US company to be required to act as copyright cops for overseas suppliers, or face huge fines.
The bills under consideration are so sweeping in their scope they represent an invitation to a legal challenge on their constitutionality in light of federal copyright and trade authority. Even if this never became a U.S. constitutional debate, retailers are hardly capable of finding the means to assist Microsoft in becoming a worldwide police force to protect against software piracy.
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
Filed Under: copyright, piracy, secondary liability, state laws
Companies: microsoft
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is Microsoft going to block itself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is Microsoft going to block itself?
What's next? Is CHEVY going to have to pay my parking tickets because I used their product to break the law? Yeah.. that makes sense..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is Microsoft going to block itself?
My name is Anonymous Coward, and I support this advertisement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is Microsoft going to block itself?
Unfortunately, Microsoft is suing him for violating their patent on crashing Windows.
- Jimmy Fallon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
poor microsoft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: poor microsoft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They know they're trouble.
Microsoft hasn't been a growth company for a long while and I'm sure they know their cash cow is dying. They, themselves, can be a target of this law. It's stupid of them to think they wouldn't.
It's the next IP arms race. Get your products out there in the hands of your competitors as quickly as you can so you can "allege" they didn't pay for it and bar the sale of their product.
Just wait until this starts being enforced and you'll see how dumb this idea really is.
And I, for what its worth, would love it if someone claimed all of Microsoft's X-Box or boxed software cannot be sold because AutoCAD wasn't paid for by the molding companies that make the hardware or packaging.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They know they're trouble.
So they already do a lot of due vigilance when it comes to this. So its very unlikely that anything they sell will ever be stopped under this law. Even if you sued them they would just turn around and demand their their suppliers license the software that they were contractually required to buy in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.libreoffice.org/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
LibreOffice
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call ICE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well, don't overreact yet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: well, don't overreact yet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crazy?
They are involved in way too much overseas commerce to want something like this passed into law. It will be interesting to see how long it takes someone to sue them over this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crazy?
An example, some guy in India is hired to build a driver for Widget, uses a licensed copy of Windows 7 and a licensed copy of MS Driver Builder software. Those would be the programs used in the production of final good. The Driver for the Widget.
If the guy in India also had a pirated copy of PhotoShop on the computer it wouldn't come under the purview of this law. As it wasn't used in the production of widget.
IANAL but this is how I understand how its writen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Quote:
And it also point to where the law is and where you can find the others and the article form the Seatles Time that states in no uncertain terms the following:
Quote
Given all that I must assume you are an idiot or paid astroturfer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't see anything contradictory to the Groklaw report there.
This should be interesting, since it pits Microsoft, the BSA and the MPAA on one side versus Amazon, Dell, Intel, Motorola, IBM and Walmart among others on the opposite side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another reason
I'm glad I've been doing so for about 3 years now on a personal level. If I had the pull at work, I'd get rid of Windows there too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another reason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another reason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
your 20 years too late mike !!!
As it has allready been done with software for years and years and years......
again, i guess you dont like Microsoft do you Mike.
then again, you dont like anyone who is honest and operates within the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: your 20 years too late mike !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: your 20 years too late mike !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: your 20 years too late mike !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: your 20 years too late mike !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: your 20 years too late mike !!!
What has "allready" been with software?
What's it to you who mike likes or doesn't?
Turnabout is fair play: again, I guess you don't like Mike do you darryl?
Then again you don't like anyone who questions the fairness or constitutionality of a law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: your 20 years too late mike !!!
The your/you're confusion is a bit heavy-handed. It went out with version 3.17.5-6a, for sure. You should upgrade to the latest version of the 4.19.3-x series.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know what, I think they would be able to convince people of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Evidence collected overseas is not going to hold much credibility in a US court, especially since credible witnesses are going to be hard to find that will travel 1/2 way across the world.
And as a US company, I have absolutely no way of knowing if they do or don't. If I'm buying screws from China, do I really have the time to ask the original manufacturer if they're using pirated software, especially since there is often a middleman?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Lets say your Company A. Your a maker of visual effects for peoples wedding movies. You spent 10k on the latest copy of Video Toaster so that you can do professional work. Then along comes company B doing the same thing as you are, but charging only 1/10th of what you are and still using the same effects.
So you report it to the Video Toaster company and they find look it up and Company B isn't a customer of theirs. So they try to do an Audit. What they find out is that Company B contracts out to some firm in China to do the work and only resells the wedding movies.
Under current law there isn't anything they can do about it.
Under the new law they ask Company B to do due Vigilance and confirm that their overseas suppler is in compliance with Video Toasters License.
If Company B's suppler doesn't get back to them, or just tells them nope... we don't... Company B's choices get a lot more limited. One thing for sure is that they probable can't offer the service for 1/10th the cost of Company A.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
LOL! That's "due diligence".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> due Vigilance and confirm that their overseas
> suppler is in compliance with Video Toasters
> License.
All of this assumes that the overseas company is using Video Toaster. It's possible to do FX work without using that particular piece of software. What if they're using their own software that they wrote themselves?
And how do you port this system over to a other types of software, for which there are literally hundreds of options to do the same work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's worse than you think
The Washington version, at least, shows signs of being a joint purchase by Microsoft, MPAA, and some theme park or theme park supplier. Since Washington is not big in the theme park biz, this suggests that the WA law has some vestigial provisions from a LA, CA, TX, or FL draft.
Microsoft has protected itself — this law may not be used to protect against anyone who has a 'Code of Conduct'
in force. It was noted above that Microsoft meets that exemption.
Microsoft, being solely afraid of open-source software, has a provision that forbids use of this law to protect open-source software.
The law also has an MPAA provision — it does not apply if the offending goods are primarily protected by copyright, like a movie created by 'pirated' software.
Other issues are cleverly taken care of. Microsoft can buy good legislative drafting.
I don't have to prove it. This is an in rem action, where the jurisdiction comes from the item on sale. I can determine that the seller bought something from someone I want to attack — preferably a small someone. I file suit in WA for IT infringement. The defendant can't afford to show up and defend; I win by default; the default judgment means I WIN and can proceed against everyone in sight. Since I won in the original suit, I also win in the derivative actions.
See above — no evidence from overseas is needed.
You'd best make the time, if you want to sell your widgets containing these screws in WA, OR, or LA. If it's ok with you to restrict your market, you can sell them in UT and maybe some other states (at least until the next legislative session).
The best (only?) self-protection would be a recursive code of conduct on your suppliers (with a requirement to impose it on their suppliers), requiring that they provide certification of licensing (copies of license at first level; audit certification at lower levels) of all non-open-source software. They don't have to accept your code of conduct — you just have to make good-faith effort to have them accept it. At least, that's how I read the law, but IANAL.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Illegal?
It's the Microsoft Poll tax!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Certain to happen
Going to be nice though.
1. How on earth to check/prove?
2. Serious enforcement of this law will quickly get the entire country to run low on things like affordable clothes or cheap electronics.
I'll be watching from Europe, popcorn on standby, ready to laugh myself silly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Certain to happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Certain to happen
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We WILL see in our lifetimes innovation come to a grinding halt. No one will be able to invent anything without being sued out of existence. Yeah, that is what copyright was intended to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ripple effects?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course that's not how it really works.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
liability is for MS customers, not MS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sweet like saccharin, with the same bitter aftertaste
http://www.ipmall.org/hosted_resources/IDEA/pdf/9_IDEA_1965_43.pdf
That relates to patent law instead of copyright, but it covers exactly the same ground. It may be English case law but it's attracted some attention in Canada, and clearly must be an attractive lobbying prospect for US companies. If such a doctrine becomes part of copyright law it would be extremely damaging, given the apparently infinite duration of copyright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]