code red and MS's liability...

Nathan England wrote:
>
> Hmmm. Excellent point! I wonder if as a linux user and not having any
> windows here, I could get Microsoft to pay my Speakeasy bill this month
> since the internet is slow, and below par as for what Speakeasy
> conciders 'good enough' to keep up with their TOS...
> I don't want to pay the bill, it's not my problem their systems aren't
> secure, why should I foot the bill? Or any of us for that matter!
>
> ha ha.. maybe some lawyer will see this and jump on it. Come to think
> of it, maybe Microsoft could pay my gas bill for driving to work as
> well! If it wasn't for their shoddy software, I wouldn't have to go
> there everyday! I could work from home! I never signed anything
> agreeing to fix all of ms' problems while at work.
>
> Any other crazy ideas?? lol. I bet /. could get some *really* good
> ideas off this one! ha ha

don't know how crazy it is... Philips Moris (sp?) got sued for how many
billions for their dirty dealings? MS could well be sued for ignoring
all the security problems and making a policy for more glitz and don't
wory about the details.

There is not only the cost of the slowed connections, but the time of
the sysadmins cleaning out the files, the disk space rental (200MB's I
heard Techno Mage say in just 4 days) and whatever it costs in backups
(how many people out there do dailies?)...

I hate to encourage lawyers, but there must be an ambulance chaser out
there somewhere ;-)

> On 11 Aug 2001 01:17:43 -0700, John (EBo) David wrote:
> >
> > someone point out that MS cannot be held liable for their security
> > laxity because of their licensing clause...
> >
> > I wonder if CISCO, Linux, Solaris, etc. could bring forth a class action
> > suit for costs and damages since none of them ever had to sign MS's
> > licensing agreement. Wouldn't that put some starch in their britches
> > ;-)

EBo --