BLOG-USA

"We, the blogger of the international cyber community do hereby ( ~DEDICATE~ ) this page for the spirit of Godspeed - toward the extending of knowledge & goodwill to all living creatures of this planet -- called Earth"

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

Did Microsoft void Privacy Agreements in Texas-spam lawsuit?

~
15-Jan-05 (blog-usa op_ed) title:

Microsoft: Voids user Privacy Agreements in
[THEIR] aiding/filing of an anti-spam lawsuit.

Class-Action Lawsuit now may be in-order.

Re: Windows -since at least the beginning of
Microsoft's entry into software programning,
as novices, their product has been based on a
series of questionable practices - defective(s).


And/or not excluding questionable, not just
non-traditional, methods of selling and/or
supporting of a "known" flawed product, et al.


This is not to say that the employees are
necessary claims, as more to say that the
Microsoft Corporation is as the sole-primary.


With the "M" foundation product never fully
vetted, and/or repaired, and as a result - each
and every "remake" or "addition" only adding
to this error problem. Hence, thousands -- if
not millions, of consumers have now (all) fell
victim(s) to the now many additional, as extra
"use" cost(s) "2005" --- related, to use of same.


And additional, and as a result to, has had
to pay "out-of-pocket" costs related to poor
product performance. Or computer program
damaged -- as a result of such same problem.


Adding to poor support planning, or the lack
thereof, and/or none. As the "M" corporation
has deeded "ended" or "not-related" & as such
"in-their policy-opinion" --no longer necesary
-- with claims being made by this same software
vendor -- as primary -- or as the "majority" of
comsumer computer users - both on or off the
internet. Not to exclude -- but include those
i-net brower issues, and/or as those, or other.


~

Jan. 15, 2005, 12:20AM "Microsoft joins AG in
suing UT student for spam" *Associated Press*


SEATTLE [-] A day after they were named in an
anti-spam lawsuit by the Texas attorney general,
Microsoft Corp. filed suit against a 22-year-old
college student and his business partner.
[?]

Microsoft today sued University of Texas student
Ryan Pitylak and Mark Trotter, claiming they sent
tens of millions of deceptive spam e-mails over
Microsoft networks.
[M_soft now own's the i-net?]

Trotter is Pitylak's 40-year-old business partner
from Encinitas, Calif.


Microsoft helped the Texas attorney general by
providing more than 20,000 e-mails that were
captured in their trap accounts, Microsoft
spokeswoman Erin McGhee said.


An attorney for Pitylak and Trotter has said
her clients worked to make sure the e-mails
were legal.


The Texas lawsuit, filed Thursday,
seeks millions of dollars for violations
of the federal Controlling Assault of Non-
Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act of
2003, known as the CAN-SPAM Act.


The act made it illegal to send uninvited
e-mails that could mislead recipients.
Aaron Kornblum, Microsoft's Internet
safety enforcement attorney, said
the company contends that Pitylak
and Trotter violated Washington state's
anti-spam and consumer protection laws
by misleading consumers.


The lawsuit filed in federal court in
Seattle is the company's 89th anti-spam
suit in the United States, he said.


"These actions are very important for
(Microsoft) in that we're trying to
change the economics of spam, trying
to impose real costs on spammers both
legally and financially," he said.


Spammers pay little but benefit greatly,
he said.


"The costs of this business are borne by
consumers because this mail is interfering
with their business day, and by Internet
service providers who are required to
transmit and deliver it," he said.


Microsoft must spend extra money on
equipment, people and technology to
handle spam. In addition, he said,
customers complain to the company
about it.


Microsoft did not specify damages
in its lawsuit, but Kornblum said
penalties under state law could be
$1,000 per e-mail.


--------------------------------------------
HoustonChronicle.com -- This article is:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/2993131

~
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/