[allajfjwbwkwja]

This shouldn't be legal. The software was clearly marketed as a classic fixed-in-time release, like the old CD releases, that would not be updated but would work indefinitely. Now they're going to boldly revoke the licenses???

[itopaloglu83]

It’s more malicious than that, they’re simply not renewing their code signing license hence making the software non-functional.

[londons_explore]

Which probably allows them to skirt legal liability...

After all, a computer with the date set to 2021 will still function...

[cyphar]

Until they shut down the server, which will almost certainly be soon after the certificate expires.

[allajfjwbwkwja]

Yep. Scummy, even for Microsoft. Too bad their EULA blocks class action.

They were selling it until October 2021, so it's not some ancient system. By building a time bomb into it, they misrepresented what was effectively a $50/year subscription as if it were a $229 purchase. Should be a slam dunk case, but it won't be.

[tjpnz]

Their EULA is meaningless in countries with strong consumer protection laws.

[dansquizsoft]

I didn't know you could block class actions just by stating it in the TOS for a product - thanks for the tip!

[im3w1l]

I don't think this can be the case given that the program will keep working in reduced functionality mode. This wouldn't be possible in the situation you describe.

[xingped]

Legality has long since lost literally any meaning to megacorps and the ultra-wealthy pretty much everywhere. Doesn't matter what country they're breaking the laws in. The only penalty will be a paltry slap on the wrist fine (if even) and they will continue doing whatever they want. I mean, it's just the cost of doing business, isn't it?

[broknbottle]

Penalties should scale based on net worth.

[xerox13ster]

And at a certain net worth the the scale becomes so large, the penalty for fucking up should be an hour/day in prison with no bail or parole for every person negatively affected.

[TZubiri]

I don't know if illegal, but it can be breach of contract, microsoft can say "oopsie, sorry, our bad" or fight it in court.

They sold a perpetual product that broke in sync for every user, and the reason it is breaking is because of a license checking feature.

Not an easy case, but it could be argued they advertised a product as perpetual while it's effectively an X years license.

The fact that the breakage is related to the license might be relevant, you can stop supporting license checks, but do it to the benefit of users, not conveniently to their detriment as an upsale mechanism

[zik]

It's definitely not legal in my country (Australia)