| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
New Zealand complaint targets Microsoft | |
|
||
| Time: 00:19 EST/05:19 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
A New Zealand company has filed a complaint against Microsoft, alleging that a subscription-like software-licensing program violates that country's laws. The complaint claims that Microsoft's Software Assurance program allows the Redmond, Wash.-based software giant to take "advantage of its market power for prohibited purposes" by forcing customers to upgrade their software faster than they might desire, according to the complaint. The complaint was filed on behalf of Infraserv, an information technology company owned by Clendon Feeney, which is the law firm that filed the complaint. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 155 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:14:53 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 4/9/2002 1:20:43 AM |
|
I'm not a fan of software leasing. I think you should have a choice on how you wish to buy and utilize the product, just like how I have a choice whether to buy or lease a car.
|
| #2 By 61 (65.32.169.133) at 4/9/2002 8:08:28 AM |
|
soda, MS has stated that they will still offer boxed copies of their software.
The whole point of the software leasing is to generate a constant revenue, rather than just a one time purchase, and is an idea that came straight out of the tech slump. |
| #3 By 135 (209.46.107.141) at 4/9/2002 1:13:48 PM |
|
But you can't force people to comply with your desire to have a different business, that's the point. I agree that MS probably wants this, but they need to do it in a way that makes it look attractive.
|
| #4 By 61 (65.32.169.133) at 4/9/2002 3:35:33 PM |
|
#5, there was only two between XP and Win2k.
And why does it matter wheather it's "greatly" improved or not, most people would have still spent the extra money on the new OS. And btw, there is more to "great" OS updates than just changes to the UI, or obvious things, LOTS of updates are done "under the hood" but are not available for download. |
| #5 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/9/2002 5:16:45 PM |
|
"#5, there was only two between XP and Win2k.
And why does it matter wheather it's "greatly" improved or not, most people would have still spent the extra money on the new OS. And btw, there is more to "great" OS updates than just changes to the UI, or obvious things, LOTS of updates are done "under the hood" but are not available for download." So you are claiming a strong improvement from Win 2K to XP? For real? I would say it qualifies as exactly the cosmetic change you claim #5 finds so important. I think he has a better sense of what is a greatly improved system is and what is worth the upgrade. I've been running 2000 for a year--Even though I like its feature set, I find it much buggier than my old NT installation... so I can't imagine what things are like in XP. My office is about 500 people and we probably won't migrate our servers to 2000 (not XP0 until midyear, finishing the rollout at the start of this year. And that won't even be client upgrades. Do you really think subscriptions is something that would be a good thing for my company? Baloney, MS can argue that it might be a good option for some customers, some times--they can't come close to saying that this is the way to go for everybody. |
| #6 By 6253 (64.204.105.166) at 4/9/2002 5:29:07 PM |
|
#5, Software Assurance is a volume licensing option for corporate customers. You cannot even subscribe to Software Assurance as a home user if you called up Microsoft and begged them to let you. You must first be an Open License or Select (Enterprise Agreement) account before Software Assurance SKUs are available.
The enterprise software industry has done this type of licensing since before Microsoft existed. Mainframe software has traditionally always been licensed with an annual "maintenance fee" to cover upgrades. Depending on the vendor and software, you might only get minor upgrades. You might get some amount of support. Annual maintenance might be required, or it might be optional. In the vertical market, even low-end PC apps have always had maintenance plans. The only software which hasn't commonly offered maintenance plans has been mass market shrink-wrapped products like the sort that Microsoft became famous for. Microsoft didn't invent this type of licensing, and in fact Microsoft took a long time before it began matching what most of the software industry has always done. The only people who are surprised are the individuals and home users who grew up with commodity/consumer products. This suit is really ridiculous, because Software Assurance is purely an option. You can license the software on a one-time basis with no other obligations. The plaintiffs are simply mad that Microsoft has withdrawn the agonizingly long list of PUP, VUP, and CUP SKUs which they used to have for most products in the volume licensing plans like MOLP and Select. (PUP = Product Upgrade, VUP = Version Upgrade, CUP = Competitive Upgrade; each of these typically had a page of eligibility rules). Without the upgrade SKUs, if you don't have Software Assurance, then you simply have to buy the software again whenever you want an upgrade. The plaintiffs claim that there is "presumptive right of loyalty program discounts on upgrades." In other words, just because I bought your software before, there should be a way to upgrade cheaply. There have been books I've bought which came out with a revised edition, but Barnes and Noble never offered me an upgrade. Blockbuster never let me trade in my regular DVDs for the Special Edition versions when they came out later. When I traded in my old Chrysler, the Chrysler dealer offered me the same trade-in value that a Ford dealer offered me. Where's my special deal for being loyal to Chrysler?? Life's tough. If you don't like it, sue Microsoft. |
| #7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 4/9/2002 10:30:56 PM |
|
actually, hole, you get right to the heart of the matter--the presumption of user discounts for loyalty --but then you FUD it by giving bad examples -- you use examples where this is NEVERr the case when we all know that this was once the case for MS and is the case for most of the software industry, if not all of it. I think you can make a strong argument that in the software industry it is always the case (excepted only when changes are substantial enough to warrant being considered a "new" package, and hence no upgrade price). Do you know of any company that sells software at full cost for every single release however minor? If tomorrow, every single software company did away with upgrades, would you be seriously affected and would you want to sue someone if there was someone to sue? I don't know NZ law, but you did a good job of convincing me that this suit has merit. Thanks. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, April 10, 2002 at 01:58. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 155 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:14:53 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
