• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    682 months ago

    Ah, but did you read the article?

    MS didn’t force it, Heimdal auto-updated it for their customers based on the assumption that Microsoft would label the update properly instead of it being labeled as a regular security patch. Microsoft however made a mistake (on purpose or not? Who knows…) in labeling it.

    • MaggiWuerze
      link
      fedilink
      English
      912 months ago

      Then it’s still on Microsoft for pushing that update through what is essentially a patch pipeline

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        91 month ago

        MS will be sued over this and they will lose. This is not an ambiguous case. They fucked up. It’s essentially an unconsentual/unilateral alteration to a contract, which kinda violates the principle of, you know, a contract.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -262 months ago

        It is, but they never forced anyone to take the update, so that might save their asses, or it might not

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          492 months ago

          This would be no different to you ordering food in a restaurant, them bringing you the wrong meal, you refusing because you didn’t order it, then they tell you to go fuck yourself and charge you for it anyway.

          If this argument is valid in your judicial system then you live in a clown world capitalist dictatorship.

          • Maestro
            link
            fedilink
            352 months ago

            Have you seen the state of the US? A “clown world capitalist dictatorship” is a pretty apt description

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            42 months ago

            I’m saying they might send people the bill and then these people (well, companies) are going to have to fight it in court, where they’ll be right for sure, but Microsoft can make a lot of stupid arguments to prolong the whole thing, to the point where it’s cheaper to pay the license fee. For one they could say that continued use of the operating system constitutes agreement to licenses and pricing.

            Either way this is server 2025 not windows 12. We’re talking about companies here, not people.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              0
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              Yes, and I’m saying that the fact this could even be viewed by Microsoft as something that is worth going to trial, and being argued in court = hyper-capitalist dystopian dictatorship.

              In a sane world not “by and for corporations”, this tactic would not even be in the realm of plausibility.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          10
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          M$'s mistake creates no obligation to pay, either way. They cannot sue anyone for the extra money.

          But some customers (depending on their legislation) might sue M$ to make broken systems running again, for example if these systems have stopped now with a ‘missing license’ error message.