Security, Patents Occupy Legal Front

A newly filed class-action suit claims that Microsoft is not doing enough to protect users against security vulnerabilities. The suit is interesting because it challenges the company’s ability to protect itself against liability through licensing terms—the first such challenge since Microsoft was determined to have a monopoly in the desktop OS market.

In other legal news, the company has settled an antitrust claim brought by a class of consumers who purchased Windows through a Microsoft Web site, and patent skirmishes continue to take up much of the Microsoft legal team’s attention.

Security Suit Challenges Precedents

A California user has filed a class-action suit against Microsoft alleging that the company is not doing enough to stop viruses and worms from exploiting security holes in its products. Plaintiff Marcy Hamilton claims that Microsoft is liable for damages under the recently passed California Security Act (CSA), which mandates that companies inform California users when a security breach has caused personal information to be shared with unauthorized parties. In particular, Hamilton alleges that Microsoft’s security bulletins are too difficult to access and too hard for the general public to understand, and the company’s chosen method of fixing security holes—forcing users to download and install patches—is too complex. According to the suit, because Windows and Microsoft applications are on so many computers (a “virtual monopoly”), the bulletins actually increase the risk of attacks, as average end-users take no action while “hackers” learn about breaches in the OS that they can exploit.