- Do you think Microsoft should be able to tell the licensees of its software that the software cannot be used to “disparage” Microsoft? What about its attempt to prevent its products from being used to “promote racism, hatred, or pornography”?
Business licensing is one of the ways that software companies like Microsoft use to discourage illegal use of the software. This is especially due to the fact that illegal licenses are distributed to the market and this can be used to spread hate speech and subsequently promote racism and other vices in the society. Microsoft, being one of the software companies that control most of the software market thus being regarded as monopolistic, is the main company that is faced with the issue of illegal distribution and use of its licenses by the local vendors. Therefore, Microsoft has the authority to tell the licensees that they should not use the company’s software in any way that disparages the company. This is a strategy that the company uses to protect its image while discouraging the users from using the product to ‘promote racism, photography or hatred is a form of social responsibility that the company uses to protect the moral and legal values of the society.
- If Microsoft brought a lawsuit against one of its licensees for in fact using one of its products to “disparage” Microsoft, or to “promote racism, hatred, or pornography,” what do you think the outcome would be?
If a licensee is using Microsoft FrontPage, then it means they had first read and accepted the terms and conditions of using the software, meaning that they have already entered into a legally binding contract with Microsoft Company. If the licensee violates one of the terms of the contract which indicate that the licensee cannot use one of the provided products to ‘disparage the company. Then it means that the licensee has breached the contract and is bound by the law to adhere to the contract laws of breach of contract (Rosen, 2005). This however will be possible if Microsoft Corporation is able to confirm that the licensee really violated the terms of agreement and therefore liable to payment of necessary damages.
References
Levy, L. & Bell, S. (1990).Software Product Liability: Understanding and Minimizing the Risks. Retrieved from http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol5/Levy.pdf.
Rosen, L. (2005).Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom And Intellectual Property Law. NJ: Prentice Hall.
