
'Windows 10 destroyed our data' Microsoft taken to US court - rbanffy
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/24/microsoft_windows_10_update/
======
sqeaky
> Microsoft doesn't think much of the lawsuit. "The Windows 10 free upgrade
> program was a choice designed to help people take advantage of the most
> secure, and most productive Windows," a Microsoft spokesperson said in an
> email to The Register. "Customers had the option not to upgrade to Windows
> 10

Wow, that is some BS. There are plenty of people who had no choice and screen
shots in the article showing that some people had no choice.

If the OS didn't cost money it would be one thing to not guarantee data loss,
but these people paid for software that destroyed their data.

~~~
thomastjeffery
> the most secure, and most productive Windows

That's not much of a comparison.

~~~
SticksAndBreaks
Remembering XP and Windows 7 i challenge that. Also for whom productive. At
what time of measurement. If you deprecate a product and compare against that.

------
justboxing
How were these users able to file lawsuits without the arbitration they agreed
to?

The Windows 10 License Terms (Last updated July 2015 ) =>
[https://www.microsoft.com/en-
us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/10/U...](https://www.microsoft.com/en-
us/Useterms/Retail/Windows/10/UseTerms_Retail_Windows_10_English.htm)

..explicitly states the following agreement. So do these lawsuits have any
merit?

> 10\. Binding Arbitration and Class Action Waiver if You Live in (or if a
> Business Your Principal Place of Business is in) the United States.

> We hope we never have a dispute, but if we do, you and we agree to try for
> 60 days to resolve it informally. If we can’t, you and we agree to binding
> individual arbitration before the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”)
> under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), and not to sue in court in front
> of a judge or jury.

~~~
15charlimit
>They agreed to

If someone does not understand or read the entirety of a (double-digit-
pagecount-with-single-point-font) document that has been intentionally written
as obtuse as possible, is that document actually legally binding? Especially
when a single click is all it takes to keep using the (generally expensive)
software locked behind such a document?

No "normal" people read or care about these kinds of documents, nor should
they have to. Judges are starting to realize this, and react accordingly.
"Forced" EULAs and License Agreements have failed to stand up in court
numerous times before, and I expect this will happen more frequently as cases
keep popping up.

I, for one, am looking forward to seeing how big of a slap on the wrist
Microsoft will get from cases like this.

~~~
2bitencryption
So what would you say if a company violated the GPL?

(I'm not trying to antagonize, I just want to extend this thought experiment.)

I'm guessing the argument is "Well a big legal entity of a company has access
to lawyers and legal advice that would interpret the GPL and advise, whereas
the average individual simply does not have that knowledge or resources." I
think that makes sense? Not sure what happens in a court of law, obviously.

~~~
kakarot
I can read the GPL and know immediately the limitations of anything invoking
that license. I cannot do that with every single blackbox terms and services
agreement.

This is why I firmly believe the only way out of this mess is an international
standard of common "service / license guarantees" and "terms and services" and
hell, even "privacy policies" patterns that can be reused across software and
services to immediately illuminate freedoms, limitations, and guarantees.

~~~
derekp7
If I write a program, that launches (the GNU version of) /usr/bin/ls and uses
its output, did I just create a derivative work of "ls"?

What if I take the source code for "ls", turn it into a library, so that I
could do the same thing but more directly -- the library is obviously a
derivative work, but would my program that calls it also be a derivative?
(note, in this case the hypothetical library would be GPL, not LGPL).

And, if I want to link to a GPL (not LGPL) library, if I write a wrapper for
it that turns it into a stand-alone executable (sort of like how you can call
openssl functions, or you can run the openssl executable passing command line
arguments), does one form of calling create a derivative and the other form
not?

~~~
pdkl95
> did I just create a derivative work of "ls"?

No, output of a program isn't the program itself, so it doesn't fall under
copyright[1]. Why would you expect that it would be a derivative work? It
should be obvious that e.g. when gcc outputs a compiled program it doesn't
automatically become tied to the GPL.

The only exception - which is mentioned[2] in the GPL - is if the output of a
GPL licensed program _is_ part of the licensed program. (quines, other rare
utilities)

    
    
        2. Basic Permissions.
    
        [...] This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission
        to run the unmodified Program. The output from running
        a covered work is covered by this License only if the output,
        given its content, constitutes a covered work. [...]
    

> would my program that calls [a library derived from GPL licensed program]
> also be a derivative?

Probably[3], but see the FAQ[4] for answers to common situations and a real
lawyer for actual legal advice.

> does one form of calling create a derivative and the other form not?

Correct. They are different. The intent is that the GPL licensed code is still
open. Users that receive copies of the new stand-alone executable can exercise
their right to examine and modify that code. They can easily replace it with a
version they have modified without touching your other programs that merely
use the output.

[1] [https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.html#GPLOutput](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOutput)

[2]
[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html)

[3] [https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL)

[4] [https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.html](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html)

~~~
derekp7
I wasn't expecting the output of 'ls' to be covered, however by making my
program dependant on calling the 'ls' program, it could be that we now have a
combined work of the two. Arguably, this is no different than calling a
hypothetical "lib-ls" function, but if "lib-ls" is GPL (not LGPL), then that
is usually considered a combined work.

My point, however, wasn't these specific scenarios, I was using them as
examples as examples in response to the parent's comment inferring that you
know exactly what it means. "Consult a lawyer" kind of just reinforces the
point.

Of course, I do agree that most community licenses such as the GPL are
infinitely more readable than most proprietary software licenses.

------
username223
> "What we heard back most explicitly was that you want more control over when
> Windows 10 installs updates."

No, and fuck you. People want control over whether Windows 10 is installed at
all. "Install now"/"Remind me later" omits a key option: "leave now and never
come back."

I'm not a Windows person, but a non-techie friend of mine complained last year
about the constant GWX pestering, and I did my best to get rid of it for the
moment. I haven't asked him recently, but I can only assume that he's
unhappily dealing with Windows 10 on the cheap laptop he used for email and a
few web things.

~~~
ourmandave
Control over when they install updates is for people, like me, who are already
living the Windows 10 Experience.

I'd love a 'leave now and never come back' check box because _every day_ for
two months it tries to install a features update at a random time and always
fails. And the 'click here to fix' doesn't.

~~~
stagger87
I disabled the Windows update service, (literally "Windows Update" in the
services panel) and surprisingly it has never once tried any update or to
auto-enable the service again. Very clean fix, especially compared to group
policy settings and the like which never seemed to completely disable the
'required' security updates.

~~~
Mithaldu
> group policy settings and the like which never seemed to completely disable
> the 'required' security updates.

I'm on Pro, use group policy and it has in months never installed an update
without my explicit approval.

------
doctorwho
I have machines that were and are still running Windows 7 and Windows 8 (I
keep them around for testing). I was never forced to upgrade them to Windows
10 and it was never done "auto-magically" for me. I've also never seen a
Windows update destroy data without telling me it was going to destroy data,
usually by reformatting a partition or a drive. You'd probably have to just
blindly answer OK to every prompt you saw for that to happen. If you're one of
"those users" then I have zero sympathy for you. Anyone who takes their
computer to the Geek Squad definitely falls into that category, especially if
they believed they had to buy a new machine because on OS upgrade broke their
hardware. Not saying I like auto-update but this sounds like a serious case of
PEBKAC.

~~~
ourmandave
Yeah, no. The force upgrade is a dialog box with a countdown timer. In my case
I closed it by clicking the upper-right "X". It counted down off-camera and
then closed everything and auto updated.

When the 'accept' dialog comes up it'd already been grinding away for 1/2
hour. I've cancelled MS installs before and there's always sh*t left behind.

~~~
Buge
Hmm. I'm still running windows 8.1 and never saw that. I've had the annoying
countdown plenty of times for normal updates. But never for upgrading to 10. I
never customized anything such as disabling updates or anything.

------
makecheck
If there’s one organization that _should have known_ how difficult it is to
make software work right, it’s Microsoft. It is disturbing that Microsoft
either couldn’t see any of this coming, or just didn’t care what would happen
when a significant number of people have their lives turned upside down.

It is even worse when you consider how many billions of dollars they continue
to make by selling software. If you can take all that money, you should be
willing to spend some of that money to make experiences that are actually
worth all that money.

And this wasn’t even that hard to predict. It’s clear that caution is
advisable in any updating system simply because there are too many possible
combinations of hardware and user apps: there are too many things that can go
wrong. You need to assume that a particular user’s combination might _not_ be
something you anticipated so the user _should_ be in control of whether and
when to update. And yet, they didn’t keep users in control; they didn’t update
things carefully on a side copy; and Windows 10 even had the audacity to
outright delete things that it deemed unnecessary. On top of it all, instead
of taking baby steps, they changed just about _every damned thing that was
possible to change in Windows_! And if even that wasn’t enough, they basically
lied to the user using language like how it would always be possible to go
back, everything would be preserved, etc.

~~~
Arizhel
> It is disturbing that Microsoft either couldn’t see any of this coming, or
> just didn’t care what would happen when a significant number of people have
> their lives turned upside down.

>It is even worse when you consider how many billions of dollars they continue
to make by selling software. If you can take all that money, you should be
willing to spend some of that money to make experiences that are actually
worth all that money.

Why should they care? As you point out, they continue to make billions of
dollars selling software. Why should they spend one red cent to improve the
user experience? Is it going to improve their profits? No, of course not. So
it's wrong for them to worry about any problems their users might have. These
users are perfectly willing to throw money at MS no matter what, and aren't
going to leave MS no matter what, so MS is right to just take their money and
do the bare minimum.

>And if even that wasn’t enough, they basically lied to the user using
language like how it would always be possible to go back, everything would be
preserved, etc.

Yep, and despite all this stuff, the users keep coming back for more. It's
just like whining about an abusive boyfriend: "why won't he treat me better?
Waa!"

~~~
Arizhel
It's funny how I get down-modded for these comments, but no one ever has any
actually productive things to say or counter with. All people want to do is
whine and complain about MS's policies and actions lately, but suggest
something productive and all they do is come up with excuses for why it can't
ever work, and point out how these actions are perfectly sensible from MS's
point of view (and their interest in making profit) and people get mad, as if
somehow MS has some kind of responsibility to make them happy and act the way
_they_ think MS should. It's seriously dysfunctional behavior, at a societal
level.

------
SN76477
I have always used windows and still do to this day. I never had problems with
98, 2k, vista, xp, or windows 8.

When windows 10 was announced I was optimistic. New leadership, a new OS
Microsoft were really in a position to be an OS for the people.

Its not, it sucks, I have so many problems with 10 I cannot count them all.
Not to mention the forced updates, the privacy games and all of the other
things that make it into the media.

For the first time ever, I am seriously considering a new OS for my work.

------
simplehuman
Why do users hate updates so much? Is it because the quality of updates is
poor or the downtime it causes?

~~~
Mithaldu
Some parts paranoia: "an update once broke something, i am NEVER going to
update again" Some parts downtime: "ugh i have 50 programs running, closing
them all to make sure everything is saved and rebooting the machine is such a
hassle"

In the end both types just make their computers breeding pits of worms and
viruses, which is why windows strives to hobble both of them.

------
tedunangst
I'd like to know more about how Windows 10 caused so much damage she was
forced to buy a new computer.

~~~
Arizhel
And this shows my MS is right to do a shoddy job with the Windows 10 upgrades.
If it works out right, they get more money from spyware and adware. If it
doesn't work out, stupid users will trash the computer and go buy a new one,
so MS now gets yet another big license fee for the copy of Win10 on it, and
they still get money from spyware and adware.

What amazes me is how many people still don't understand why MS isn't "nicer"
and doesn't care about doing QA. Why should they? It's just going to cost more
money, and only hurt their profitability.

~~~
Arizhel
Whoops, that should read, "And this shows _why_ MS is right..."

------
mdekkers
_She hired Geek Squad to repair the machine_

And that is when it all started to go seriously wrong....

------
repples
Surprising as the Windows upgrade process may be to some, that's no excuse for
not having backups of your data. If the plaintiffs' data was indeed
"destroyed", that's on them, not Microsoft.

~~~
simion314
The problem is that most of the users are not techies(ex I know someone that
get scared by a fake warring windows window that was in face an image in a web
page so I had to spend a lot of time to convince him that there is no viruses
on the computer), this users that are not technical may not have backup disks
or cloud accounts to backup the files,they do not know how to recover a broken
boot or do not know where to undo the forced update, this less technical users
were the ones that did not knew the tricks to stop the Win10 annoying popups,
and they are the ones that suffered and in my opinion Microsoft disrespected
them by forcing them into an upgrade with a non-zero change of stuf not
working as before and 100% chance of UI changes

------
otempomores
I wonder if one has a automation tool that by accident consents to the eula is
it valid.

------
throw2016
Windows 10 update disrupting average users systems is now well known not only
to the general public but also technical folks. If updates were a seamless
process that do not interfere with people's work or bork their systems no one
would care.

You have an urgent meeting or concall at the specific time Windows decides to
update, you need to reboot and get back to urgent work and Windows decides to
update. It updates behind your back and things that were working now don't.
For a person who just needs their system to just work this kind of breakage
and time sink is simply not acceptable.

Technical people working around it without disruption is besides the point.
For supporters of automatic updates its important to first ensure it's
seamless, a technical problem that is your core skill set, before trying to
blame users.

