The British high street electrical retailer Comet is being sued by software giant Microsoft, for allegedly producing counterfeit CDs containing the Windows operating system.
However Comet has hit back and dismissed Redmond’s claims.
The Microsoft lawsuit alleges that Comet had made tens of thousands of unauthorised Windows CDs and sold them to customers.
It says that Comet created more than 94,000 counterfeit “recovery disks” for the Vista and Windows XP operating systems, which it then sold to customers buying new PCs and laptops that were preloaded with one of these operating systems.
The recovery disks allowed customers to rebuild the computer in the event of a catastrophic failure, such as a hard disk crash. Comet allegedly sold these recovery disks separately to customers from the PC between March 2008 and December 2009.
“Comet’s actions were unfair to customers. We expect better from retailers of Microsoft products – and our customers deserve better, too,” he added.
But Comet has refuted Microsoft’s allegations that by producing the recovery discs for customers it has infringed Microsoft’s intellectual property.
“We note that proceedings have been issued by Microsoft Corporation against Comet relating to the creation of recovery discs by Comet on behalf of its customers,” said the retailer, which is now owned by retail company Kesa Electricals.
“Comet has sought and received legal advice from leading counsel to support its view that the production of recovery discs did not infringe Microsoft’s intellectual property,” it said in a statement.
“Comet firmly believes that it acted in the very best interests of its customers,” Comet said. “It believes its customers had been adversely affected by the decision to stop supplying recovery discs with each new Microsoft Operating System based computer.”
“Accordingly Comet is satisfied that it has a good defence to the claim and will defend its position vigorously,” it added.
Microsoft tends to act robustly when it considers that its intellectual property has been infringed.
For example the software giant is actively pursuing a legal campaign against Android, leading Google to accuse Microsoft of ‘extortion’ after it reached cross licensing deals with Samsung and others last year.
But in December 2010 Microsoft quietly pulled the plug on its anti-piracy Office Genuine Advantage programme, and in November 2011 the software giant voiced its opposition to the US SOPA anti-piracy legislation in its current form.
Last April the Business Software Alliance (BSA) revealed that software piracy had jumped 14 percent worldwide, costing software companies about $59 billion (£36bn).
SK Hynix says Nvidia chief executive Jensen Huang asked if production of next-gen HBM4 memory…
Digital transformation is an ongoing journey, requiring continuous adaptation, strong leadership, and skilled talent to…
Australian computer scientist faces contempt-of-court claim after suing Jack Dorsey's Block and Bitcoin Core developers…
OpenAI's ChatGPT gets search features, putting it in direct competition with Microsoft and Google, amidst…
New Google Maps allows users to ask for detailed information on local spots, adds AI-summarised…
US-sanctioned Huawei sees sales surge in first three quarters of 2024 on domestic smartphone popularity,…
View Comments
Clearly if you have bought MS Windows, you are entitled to recover it if things go wrong. What is not stated in this article, and should be, is the cost charged by Comet for the recovery discs.
Actually, if Microsoft are restricting retailers from supplying Recovery Disks, and they themselves are also not supplying the said item bundled with the PC, then how does the consumer recover the system in the event of a crash?
If Micrsoft is expecting the customer to pay additional to receive the Recovery Media from them, then it would seem the retailer is in breach - IF this was clearly pointed out to the retailer & customers at the time? It's not clear from what has been stated so far.
I can't see this particular retailer bypassing Microsoft policy (if it existed), regarding supplying their inhouse produced disks, when Microsoft itself was willing to supply at a price?