Microsoft and AutoPatcher Follow-Up
I was able to contact a spokesperson at Microsoft and get a couple of answers. While they weren't exactly open... they at least gave an answer...
Why, considering how long AutoPatcher has been around, is Microsoft only following up on this now?
We try to contact companies that are in violation of our policy when we become aware of the activity, recognizing that we also need to prioritize issues and resources. In this instance, we were alerted to AutoPatcher’s activity and contacted them through our normal process.
Why, given that AutoPatcher is beneficial to the user, provided free of charge and promotes proper updates, is Microsoft choosing to pursue this at all?
It is Microsoft policy that the distribution of supplemental code such as hotfixes, security updates, and service packs is discouraged. This policy is in place due to concern for the safety and security of our customers, as we can only guarantee the download’s contents when it comes from a Microsoft Web site. Distribution of these materials without permission is also an infringement of our copyright
I do disagree with what they are doing... and feel they should have granted permission to AutoPatcher to make use of "their materials". They could have even authorized the AutoPatcher project.
Interestingly enough, I have an alternate reason for you. The *have* developed a similar way to get what you need – it’s called the Microsoft Update Catalog v1, and it went live earlier this month (Aug 2007).
I posted about it at http://www.dozleng.com/updates/index.php?showtopic=15482.
In short, you can now go to M$ site and search for the updates you need using keywords (see a small explanation of that in this post http://www.dozleng.com/updates/index.php?s=&showtopic=15500&view=findpost&p=66663) as well as search for specific KB numbers, etc.
It struck me as completely odd that AP was running for so long, and only now did I get the news of it being asked to close its door – I remember when it started out as a few people running it, manually creating the downloads and hosting them in places for people who wanted to create their own installation media, as I did for Win XP, and for M$ to say this was through normal channels, but to leave out completely that they added their own download service (complete with download basket) seems pretty shady.
Perhaps they are not being untruthful – they *did* contact AP through the normal channels – but only after they were sufficiently satisfied with the MUC product that they were developing to offer users an alternative before shutting AP down. In a way, that is, ironically, a good thing – they actually considered the users’ needs before just marching up and offering a Cease and Desist notice.
Your thoughts?
I actually wrote about the Windows Update Catalog a little bit back… it’s an interesting concept… I see reason for Microsoft to do what they did… I just don’t like it… I don’t think they should be hindering free products that are benefiting users… It’s not like they are distributing a cracked XP… the updates are free to users anyways and that’s why I dislike it… You’re right though, I think this has to do with their promotion of the Update Catalog.
I, too, don’t *like* the idea of them request a C&D from the folks at AutoPatcher – *however* it is a part of M$ policy that no one else is allowed to re-distribute content from M$ without their express written consent to do so.
Besides, let’s face it – most of the time the servers used to obtain M$ patches are loads faster than anyone else hosting the content, so….
But, I have to say I am pretty shocked that they waited until *after* MUC was live – that is probably the most sensible thing they have done in a long time – I would have expected them to issue a C&D notice, and then spend 6 months hastily developing an alternative after the public outcry forced them to reconsider the validity of having such a service in place.
Interestingly enough, I have an alternate reason for you. The *have* developed a similar way to get what you need – it's called the Microsoft Update Catalog v1, and it went live earlier this month (Aug 2007).
I posted about it at http://www.dozleng.com/updates/index.php?showtopic=15482.
In short, you can now go to M$ site and search for the updates you need using keywords (see a small explanation of that in this post http://www.dozleng.com/updates/index.php?s=&showtopic=15500&view=findpost&p=66663) as well as search for specific KB numbers, etc.
It struck me as completely odd that AP was running for so long, and only now did I get the news of it being asked to close its door – I remember when it started out as a few people running it, manually creating the downloads and hosting them in places for people who wanted to create their own installation media, as I did for Win XP, and for M$ to say this was through normal channels, but to leave out completely that they added their own download service (complete with download basket) seems pretty shady.
Perhaps they are not being untruthful – they *did* contact AP through the normal channels – but only after they were sufficiently satisfied with the MUC product that they were developing to offer users an alternative before shutting AP down. In a way, that is, ironically, a good thing – they actually considered the users' needs before just marching up and offering a Cease and Desist notice.
Your thoughts?
I, too, don't *like* the idea of them request a C&D from the folks at AutoPatcher – *however* it is a part of M$ policy that no one else is allowed to re-distribute content from M$ without their express written consent to do so.
Besides, let's face it – most of the time the servers used to obtain M$ patches are loads faster than anyone else hosting the content, so….
But, I have to say I am pretty shocked that they waited until *after* MUC was live – that is probably the most sensible thing they have done in a long time – I would have expected them to issue a C&D notice, and then spend 6 months hastily developing an alternative after the public outcry forced them to reconsider the validity of having such a service in place.