[Dominic Harr]

Dominic I think the problem here is with your definition of defect. A software bug and, let's keep in mind, an unexploited bug, is hard to call a defect.

Legally, a 'product defect' is significant if it would affect the decision to buy.

Bottom line -- do you think companies ought to be legally required to tell you of anything that they know would cause you not to buy the product?

Do you think companies can be allowed to hide known defects they know will hurt sales?

[tje]

Legally, a 'product defect' is significant if it would affect the decision to buy

I'm not a lawyer, are you? But you missed my point, I don't even think it qualifies as a 'defect'...

Legally, if you are a lawyer, who gets to define a software aberration as a defect? And lets go futher; Why is this unexploited susceptibility in the UPNP deemed a 'defect' and Outlook, probably the single most exploited virus transport mechanism yet in place, not?

I've yet to see an explaination as to why this even can be defined as a defect, much less one that MS should be held more accountable for than anything else they've ever shipped.

All in all, Microsoft's behaviour is very much because it is a monopoly. They have no real competition and, we as users, have no real choice.