[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.

[Dominic Harr]

Legally, if you are a lawyer, who gets to define a software aberration as a defect?

No, better than that -- I'm a software developer who has to obey these laws.

The law says, "A merchant is obligated under the law to disclose any fact, the disclosure of which may have influenced the buyer not to enter into the transaction to start with."

And common sense does, too.

If MS had informed it's customers that XP allowed outside people to take contol of their machine, it would have influenced their decision to buy.

Therefore they defrauded those customers to increase sales of XP.