I think all of you are missing the point.

The installation of WGA Notification is the problem and is a spyware or at least has spyware signature profile written all over it. Please keep in mind that this program is different from WGA Activation which is a one time thing. WGA Notification always connects to MS on boot up and may connect periodically as well.

There are ways to get around this “Notification” installation but unless you are already in the know it wont happen, the first 3 installations required on windows updates is installer, notification and some other update. If you don’t do it then you can’t use windows update.

This is the reason for the lawsuit, MS is claiming it’s a critical update and without it you can’t do any further updates via windows update and if you flip over to the ms update the same thing happens again whether you’ve already installed “Notification” or not so there is no way to get around installing this “spyware” unless again you are in the know. Please keep in mind that somewhere around 90% of the windows users have no idea what they are installing nor do they care as long as the computer works, of course if you explained it to them I know they would be very concerned but might not do anything because they “trust” microsoft at least up to a point.

This is what the lawsuit is about, misleading people to believe that WGA Notification is a requirement, without informing people of what exactly it does and by not providing an uninstaller or a way to uninstall this program.

The closest comparison to this lawsuit is the sony rootkit installation. Which did all the same thing except did not tell you it was installing a program at least microsoft did tell you it was installing a program even if they didn’t tell you what it did.

ps: PET PEEVE MR GATES - can you give a better description of what the hell all those updates are about? I look thru it and it basically are all worded the same way “This patches an exploit in windows that someone can gain control over your computer” What a generic way of saying nothing. How do we know if this is legit or another way to disguise a rogue program, or maybe its a placebo, if you give us more information on each patch we might be smart enough to think ahead and secure our computers in a different manner or disable services/processes that we don’t need and is the reason why this exploit exists in the first place.

Take out this stupid WGA crap. I’ve actually seen totally legit systems get flagged as pirated, so it’s flawed. I don’t know how, nor do I care how, just remove it. I agree with others who say it should NOT be a “crital” update, last time I check my rig is just as well off w/o as it is with it.
Those calling auto updates a security issue should be slapped. Most of the people that I’ve seen post here are more tech-savvy than your average consumer. We understand the risks in not auto-updating and such, however your neighbor down the road using a computer on broadband for the first time may not. These auto-updates are enabled by default (And should remain that way) for THEM. They won’t run a spyware check or defrag once a week because they don’t know or care. So either we have a majority of these machines relatively secure or just leave them all open costing untolds amounts of money, data loss, and countless security risks. Would be kinda funny if your neighbor’s rig was used in a DOS attack on your machine cause he never knew how to update huh?

some of the responses in this discussion just further reiterate my belief that people are getting more and more stupid every day.

to anyone who was bashing jeff (#14), saying that it was his own fault for not registering his copy of windows….WHAT? are you retarded, stupid, or do you just choose not to understand the difference between REGISTRATION and ACTIVATION?

ACTIVATION is the method which MS employed originally to make sure that you have a valid & legal copy of windows. it was originally intended to insure that if the software was not activated within a certain timeframe, that it would be disabled from working properly (although it was speedily hacked/cracked). this has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not the software is REGISTERED. all REGISTRATION does is lets MS know WHO has the legal copy of their OS, which entitles the registree access to their software warranty…if you don’t register, you don’t get your warranty.

REGISTRATION has absolutely NOTHING to do with verifying whether or not a particular copy of windows is legal or not (although you’d be pretty stupid - or in some cases, ignorant - to try registering an illegal copy of any software). you have every right to not register any product you buy, be it hardware or software…just know that by doing so, you pretty much waive your right to a warranty.

i mean think about it….(and that’s the main problem here, there’s too much incessant babbling, and not enough actual, productive THINKING)….how many of you actually register EVERY product that you buy? washer/dryer? refrigerator? DVD player? TV? stereo system? MP3 player? that new copy of Battlefield 2 or Need For Speed or ? while there are many of you that do fill out those little cardboard registration cards and send them in, there are FAR, FAR more that do not…but that is their option, and in no way is it “illegal” to own a product just because it is not registered.

why would an operating system be any different? the answer is: IT’S NOT. there is absolutely no reason your operating system should be disabled for being “illegal” just because you didn’t register it, assuming of course that it is a legal, ACTIVATED copy of the OS.

if it is disabled because it is truly a non-activated, illegal copy of the software, that’s one thing, and justified. but even THAT is not the real issue at hand, here.

the issue is that people have found out (or at least they think) that the WGA tool is doing daily calls to MS, without MS having given advance notification that it would do so. had they known ahead of time that the software would make these daily “calls”, the user may have opted NOT to install it. if that is truly the case, it’s called THEFT OF SERVICE, since it uses bandwidth without the user’s knowledge or consent. i will reserve judgement to the actual ruling in the case, as i am not a lawyer, nor do i currently have access to the terms and conditions for the software