• Maestro@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    83
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    14 days ago

    Since MS forced the upgrade, you should get 2025 for free. That would probably be really easy to argue in court

    • boonhet@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      78
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      14 days 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
        arrow-up
        93
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        14 days ago

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

        • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          14 days 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.

        • boonhet@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          33
          ·
          14 days ago

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

          • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            52
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            14 days 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@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              40
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              14 days ago

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

            • boonhet@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              14 days 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.

              • WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                14 days 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.

          • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            14 days 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.