Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email firstname.lastname@example.org
Re: [Full-disclosure] Microsoft Volume Licensing infringement?
From: Robert Kim Wireless Internet Advisor (evdo.hsdpagmail.com)
Date: Mon Jan 30 2006 - 19:48:14 CST
Steve, good point. thx
On 1/30/06, Steve Friedl <steveunixwiz.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 06:15:23PM -0600, Randall M wrote:
> > Anyone on here get an email from MS volume licensing services stating that
> > all XP office and 2003 professional needs updated to remove the 3rd party
> > Patent infringement?
> Yes, its seems to be the real deal. I can't find the announcement on
> Microsoft's site, but this one is representative of the ones I've seen.
> Microsoft Office: Action Required
> (01-27-06) - Background and Summary
> A recent decision from a court case has determined that
> certain portions of code found in Microsoft Office Professional
> Edition 2003, Microsoft Office Access 2003, Microsoft Office
> XP Professional and Microsoft Office Access 2002 infringe a
> third-party patent. As a result, Microsoft must make available
> a revised version of these products with the allegedly infringing[*]
> code replaced.
> It references a KB article on the Microsoft site which talks about Office
> SP2 removing certain features:
> Because of legal issues, Microsoft has disabled the functionality in
> Access 2003 and in Access 2002 that let users change the data in linked
> tables that point to a range in an Excel workbook. However, when you
> make changes directly in the Excel workbook, the changes appear in
> the linked table in Access.
> Volume licensees are *required* to install Office SP2 with new deployments,
> but are only *requested* to do so for existing deployments. I'm not sure
> that they can require anybody else to do this, though bundling the "fix"
> in with other stuff which was released months ago means that lots of people
> probably have it by now.
> I think this undermines a lot of the perceived benefits of Microsoft's
> indemnification, which is one of their features over open source. It
> doesn't mean they'll go to the mat for the users, it just means that
> they'll quietly disable functionality and tell us about it we've installed
> the service pack containing the disablement.
> Anybody can do *that*.
> [*] Seen elsewhere: "allegedly infringing"? If a court ruled, it's not "alleged"
> any more.
> Stephen J Friedl | Security Consultant | UNIX Wizard | +1 714 544-6561
> www.unixwiz.net | Tustin, Calif. USA | Microsoft MVP | steveunixwiz.net
Robert Q Kim, Wireless Internet Advisor
2611 S. Pacific Coast Highway 101
Cardiff by the Sea, CA 92007
206 984 0880
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/