Microsoft Sued Over ‘Baseless’ Piracy Threats

[Sakkura]

12 minutes ago, GoodBytes said:

Yes you do. You keep proof of purchase of licensed software for at least the time you stop using it. What if, say for example, Activation server of Microsoft screws up, or some gen key was made and a or some keys are used by others and now you have system that got deactivated. You have the bill to use as proof of purchase to get a new key from MS. And this applies to ALL software companies that sales software.

 

And how do you know it is over 10 years. No where it says what version of Windows they use. You are assuming what they use. Considering that usually companies takes ~3 years before upgrading to a new version of Windows, and assuming that they are using Windows 7, it means that it has been 5-6 years. Not "more than 10 years".

The new key thing only applies for newer versions of Office.

 

How do I know it is over 10 years? It says so in the article, it says so in the complaint, and the facts of the case support it (Microsoft Office 2007 was released over 10 years ago).

[GoodBytes]

33 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

The new key thing only applies for newer versions of Office.

 

How do I know it is over 10 years? It says so in the article, it says so in the complaint, and the facts of the case support it (Microsoft Office 2007 was released over 10 years ago).

From what i can see, the company claims to have sent "all hey got" for the past 10 years. So in other words, the company is not organized and throwing everything they have to the BSA and go "you figure it out", or the BSA is super vague and not disclosing versions.

 

Quote from the article:

Quote

Hanna wasn’t planning to pay and pointed out that they sent in as much proof as they could find, documenting legal purchases of Microsoft Office licenses for a period covering more than ten years

It doesn't say that the software is 10 years old. It could Windows 10 for all we know.

 

So far, we have only 1 side of the story only. And that is my point. For MS to know, most likely their activation server fired red flags like crazy, or someone at the company or used to work at the company, filled up the form and provided facts.. which may or may not be true.

 

[update]

Looking a second look at the legal document it states:

Quote

.... price quotes and photocopies of the Microsoft issued key cards for Microsoft Office 2016, 2013, 2011, 2010 and 2007 products (Exhibit F).

It is very unlikely that a company would have Office 2016 and 2007 running at the same time daily. This is highlights that they have no idea of the versions being accused, they are throwing everything they got. Or, BSA did disclose it, and they are just trowing everything to them to try and hide things.

 

In the companies defense, it could be that they got these card for over 100 computers from a seller that doesn't sell genuine software, and had been had. To me, that is more probably, as Microsoft have volume licenses for 100+ computers, which costs far less than buying licenses separately. So they must have gotten a "too good to be true" type of dealt to get all these cards. In other words, if that is the case, and might realize this in court, and go after the seller instead after.

 

 

It is all probably situations, is all I am saying. Again, let's wait for both side of the story and now we can judge.

[XenosTech]

1 hour ago, GoodBytes said:

[update]

Looking a second look at the legal document it states:

It is very unlikely that a company would have Office 2016 and 2007 running at the same time daily. This is highlights that they have no idea of the versions being accused, they are throwing everything they got. Or, BSA did disclose it, and they are just trowing everything to them to try and hide things.r.

And that's where you are wrong. Some companies still have legacy software for reasons i.e a law firm here still has 2 servers running server 2003, a couple systems running windows xp and several versions of office.

[GoodBytes]

3 minutes ago, XenosTech said:

And that's where you are wrong. Some companies still have legacy software for reasons i.e a law firm here still has 2 servers running server 2003, a couple systems running windows xp and several versions of office.

I don't know, it seems to be all their computers with well over 100 of them. Not that odd computer on the corner of the room. The document clearly state multiple version of Office. Office 2016 doesn't run on Windows XP.

[XenosTech]

1 minute ago, GoodBytes said:

I don't know, it seems to be all their computers with well over 100 of them. Not that odd computer on the corner of the room. The document clearly state multiple version of Office. Office 2016 doesn't run on Windows XP.

Still doesn't change the fact some businesses have several versions of windows and office products for their purposes. Same law firm I mentioned the latest os they have is windows 8 (all pcs they bought before I quit came with windows 10 and were downgraded to windows 8 or 7 depending on who was getting it or what it was going to be used for. Like 1 pc was left with windows 10 so their in house tech could get familiar with it.)

[Sakkura]

1 hour ago, GoodBytes said:

From what i can see, the company claims to have sent "all hey got" for the past 10 years. So in other words, the company is not organized and throwing everything they have to the BSA and go "you figure it out", or the BSA is super vague and not disclosing versions.

 

Quote from the article:

It doesn't say that the software is 10 years old. It could Windows 10 for all we know.

 

So far, we have only 1 side of the story only. And that is my point. For MS to know, most likely their activation server fired red flags like crazy, or someone at the company or used to work at the company, filled up the form and provided facts.. which may or may not be true.

 

[update]

Looking a second look at the legal document it states:

It is very unlikely that a company would have Office 2016 and 2007 running at the same time daily. This is highlights that they have no idea of the versions being accused, they are throwing everything they got. Or, BSA did disclose it, and they are just trowing everything to them to try and hide things.

 

In the companies defense, it could be that they got these card for over 100 computers from a seller that doesn't sell genuine software, and had been had. To me, that is more probably, as Microsoft have volume licenses for 100+ computers, which costs far less than buying licenses separately. So they must have gotten a "too good to be true" type of dealt to get all these cards. In other words, if that is the case, and might realize this in court, and go after the seller instead after.

 

 

It is all probably situations, is all I am saying. Again, let's wait for both side of the story and now we can judge.

You are really demonstrating your bias here.

 

They are not required to have ANY records for stuff 10+ years ago. In other words, they are not disorganized, they are being maliciously targeted and defending themselves with whatever scraps of evidence remains where there is no requirement for it to be kept.

 

The article as well as the complaint say some of the licenses are 10 years old. This is supported by the fact that some of the licenses are for a product that's nearly 11 years old.

 

The MS server did not "fire red flags like crazy" - and MS/BSA admitted that all the licenses for Office 2016 and 2013 were valid, dropping their threats regarding those. So this proves that MS and BSA are the ones who are disorganized here, despite being far bigger than this small business.

 

As for it being "unlikely" that they would run Office 2007, you apparently have not understood the concept of legacy software. This would be extremely common, not unlikely. And of course, the allegations from MS/BSA support this as well.

 

They did not get cards for the older versions of Office, FFS. Please at least read the article if you're going to comment. Those licenses were bought old-school. The company was buying software piecemeal, and they have less than 100 licenses of the newer Office versions, which is likely why they are not on a volume licensing scheme.

[Sauron]

3 hours ago, GoodBytes said:

I don't believe that the BSA has no evidence at all, and goes after companies mafia style. Else it would be a known things that they do, many times, in the past, and lawsuits would have happened already, that is why I think it is one of the 2 possibilities.

At the same time I wonder how they would have obtained such evidence - unless, as you suggested, someone from the inside leaked false information (I'm assuming it's false if they did purchase licenses). Even in that case, they would have no evidence to show, just a suspicion. If Office itself could detect cracks or dodgy activation methods and report home, it wouldn't let you pirate it in the first place.

 

My guess would be that the BSA is a little trigger happy on attacking any company that is slightly suspicious without worrying about ripercussions - even if they have to pay for a lawsuit every so often they'd still get more money out of the actual pirates they catch. It's likely that many companies end up having one or two "illegitimate" copies due to human error or carelessness, in which case they have no ground to stand on even if they purchased 10000 legal copies (which, in my opinion, is a flaw in copyright law). With this method, even if the original suspicion is baseless they still end up uncovering something dodgy in most companies and use that to "extort" money from them.

[GoodBytes]

27 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

You are really demonstrating your bias here.

 

They are not required to have ANY records for stuff 10+ years ago. In other words, they are not disorganized, they are being maliciously targeted and defending themselves with whatever scraps of evidence remains where there is no requirement for it to be kept.

 

The article as well as the complaint say some of the licenses are 10 years old. This is supported by the fact that some of the licenses are for a product that's nearly 11 years old.

 

The MS server did not "fire red flags like crazy" - and MS/BSA admitted that all the licenses for Office 2016 and 2013 were valid, dropping their threats regarding those. So this proves that MS and BSA are the ones who are disorganized here, despite being far bigger than this small business.

 

As for it being "unlikely" that they would run Office 2007, you apparently have not understood the concept of legacy software. This would be extremely common, not unlikely. And of course, the allegations from MS/BSA support this as well.

 

They did not get cards for the older versions of Office, FFS. Please at least read the article if you're going to comment. Those licenses were bought old-school. The company was buying software piecemeal, and they have less than 100 licenses of the newer Office versions, which is likely why they are not on a volume licensing scheme.

I seem to have missed that part. My apologies.

I am curious to see who is all disorganized and screws up. I doubt MS is making a business model out of this. Based on the last lawsuits it was found that it was the BSA that acted like a mafia, and said that they will revise their policy (or so they say). Probably the BSA needs money, or a justification to exists, and they are sure doing a great job, if that is the case.

 

Anyway, I am curious to see Microsoft and BSA evidence. Is it a baseless report that filled online on Microsoft website, that got forwarded to the BSA, and they went to the attack, or it is something serious on new versions of software. Or Microsoft messed up badly, and the BSA is working based on those invalid facts.

[Zodiark1593]

3 hours ago, Sakkura said:

This is not correct. You do not need to keep records indefinitely. The longest period the IRS can demand you keep records is 7 years, and that period only applies in very specific circumstances. Here, Microsoft is demanding you hypothetically keep records forever, and in these actual instances over 10 years. They appear to have no basis in law for such a demand.

 

Of course you don't believe Microsoft did anything wrong, because you're a massive fanboy of theirs.

 

PS: Microsoft has been sued many times for using mafia-like methods.

Contractual obligations may require different than what the IRS demands.

[Sniperfox47]

31 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Contractual obligations may require different than what the IRS demands.

Also common sense. If you have an expensive product with a 10 year warranty for example, you keep the receipt for 10 years as proof of purchase for your warranty.

 

If you're using expensive business software licences, you keep the receipts for the duration of use, as proof of purchase and proof of licence.

[vorticalbox]

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

It does seem if you have 100 computers and only one is running an illegitimate copy of windows/office, they'll come after you.  It's a mad world out there.

 

 

If you apply that logic to people. 100 people haven't killed but one person has.

 

illegal is illegal whether its 1/100 or 1/1000 but in this case if Ms believe they can without a doubt prove that they have illegal versions then they are within their right to sue even if it 1/100.

 

Ms are right that "intent to buy" is not the same is buying. Though it would stupidly easy for Ms to check the key and see who brought it an when. 

 

so this does bring up the quest why Ms didn't ask for the keys so they could check but instead went for for hey prove they are real.

 

seems fishy to me. 

 

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, ravenshrike said:

Because even the tax man only wants 7 years on anything except company ownership records(As in, who owns the company in question).

 

That is not quite what I meant,   every company I know* (especially in the last 15 years since everything has been digital) keeps their records indefinitely.  You never know when someone is going to sue you these days.

 

*Meaning the Multi-million $ ones that I have personally worked in and seen first hand.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, vorticalbox said:

If you apply that logic to people. 100 people haven't killed but one person has.

 

illegal is illegal whether its 1/100 or 1/1000 but in this case if Ms believe they can without a doubt prove that they have illegal versions then they are within their right to sue even if it 1/100.

 

Ms are right that "intent to buy" is not the same is buying. Though it would stupidly easy for Ms to check the key and see who brought it an when. 

 

so this does bring up the quest why Ms didn't ask for the keys so they could check but instead went for for hey prove they are real.

 

seems fishy to me. 

 

My point is simply that making threats to shut down an entire company or pay up based on one machine out of 100 might be considered overboard.   Especially if you consider it may not be the intention of the company to do that but simply an irresponsible move by one disgruntled employee.  A better approach is to give the company a chance to self audit and find any discrepancies.  Alas the BSA apparently has not done that in the past.

[Tech_Dreamer]

damn never thought one would need to keep proof of purchase/bill on hand apart from activation . Anyways that's seriously a dick move from Microshaft. especially claiming something they can't back up to defend , literal criminal/black mailed leverage move to gain some profit.