A FRUSTRATED BUSINESSMAN has blown his top with Microsoft after he claimed that a critical security update for Windows 2000 made his PCs unuseable for weeks.
Randy Hubbard, of Raceware Engineering LLC, claimed that SP4 contained defective software, and after going through a lengthy correspondence with Microsoft technical staff, has concluded that he has no further alternative but to be "lead plaintiffs in a Class Action suit against Microsoft for consumer fraud".

The head of Windows 2000 online support wrote to Hubbard saying that during installation of the service pack, clicking the EULA (end user licence agreement) meant that users agreed to indemnify Microsoft against problems. However, he offered him a free Microsoft product "to benefit his work and life".

That prompted Hubbard to reply: "The EULA does not protect Microsoft... While Microsoft's legal department may disagree, state and federal laws prevent enforcement of EULA conditions that violate consumer laws. Based on conversations we've had with experts in the legal community, the EULA is about to be declared unconstitutional and Microsoft and all other software producers who knowingly sell defective software are now going to be held accountable for this consumer fraud".

Here's a sample supplemental EULA for Windows 2000 SP4. It explicitly excludes Microsoft from being held to account for just about anything, apart from the original amount for the software or five US dollars. Microsoft believes that when a user clicks on the EULA, she or he signs away most rights.

Hubbard told the INQUIRER: "Please feel free to write a story about our experience with Microsucks and how they refuse to be accountable for the losses they inflict on business and consumers thru defective 'critical security updates' they produce for Windoze".

He said that Microsoft had called him to see if they could help him recover from what he described as a disaster for his business. He said Microsoft had advised that "some times the updates don't work with older installed software, i.e. they corrupt it as happened in our case with Symantec-Norton AV and IE 5.X. They suggested everyone go buy the latest software and install it prior to installing all Microsucks security upgrades and patches".

He said Microsoft had asked him if it could do anything else to "make him happy". Hubbard told him to send a cheque for $6,000 to cover some of his company's losses. But the Microsoft representative said he didn't have the authority to do that. "I told him to call Dollar Bill and tell him the situation and have him send us a check. He declined," said Hubbard. "I said 'no problem, we're switching to Linux like every other business, have a nice day'".

Source: http://www.the-inquirer.com/?article=15001

haha, way to go, hubbard! That's how the world should deal with microsoft

And it worked for how many other people? Take care of your system properly and you shouldn't experience any problems.

Now thats just stupidity.. Its the guys fault for his pc screwing up.. Tired of seeing ppl blame microsoft for their problems. Just like every other thing in this world.. ppl sueing others for stupid crap.. :/

This one is a tough call for me becouse I am a technician I know that he should have had all his software and work backed up on a regular basis... MS even provides some rudimentery tools to do so... On the other hand I have had some updates go bad on me (having back done regular back ups I wasnt overly affected) I think this guy switching to Linux is like some one saying well damn it if Ford cant make a safe car im going to switch to flying a hellicopter to work.... lol If you cant drive safe in a car then a hellicopter isnt the way to go...

Even though this guy might be an isolate incident, he lawsuit does bring up a good point. What if in the future MS releases some patch that messes up the majority of the users and ends up hurting or ruining many businesses. But MS can just hide behind the EULA...And all businesses are screwed. As far fetched as it may sound now...But would it really surprise anyone if a patch released by MS really did what I just said? Or maybe...MS releases some sorta fix and accidentally it opens up some sorta security vulnerability...Similar idea...But MS can just hide behind the EULA...

Some of there patches had opened up new holes like you said (already happened) Its true that the EULA shouldnt guard against everything but also you cant expect mission critical software at the prices MS charges (cheap if you know what mission critical means....) I would have to say to sue under consumer law you need to prove that it was a manufacturing defect that coused the problem. Now this wouldnt be hard if the only software he was using was from MS but since he said he was using NAV and some other software that would probably be MS's defence. MS will probably argue successfully that when you download patches and install them there is this little window that pops up and says something like "Please close all programs and save all data before proceeding" in other words make sure NOTHING is running in the background especialy virus scanners.... and save all data I would think means backing up your shizit hehehehe

im begginning to get biased againt the inquirer. the articles are more gossip style than tech related....