On the one hand it would be an effective method. On the other is it putting too much of an onus on the defendent to do the prosecutions work for them? Is it also too effective at spreading bad publicity about Microsoft that could damage other aspects of their business that are unrelated to the lawsuit?
I think that it is alright for the prosecution to ask for it but think that it shouldn't be ordered by the courts, though Microsoft should be allowed to do so as a show of "good faith" to the court that they are doing their best and by implication were doing so with the "Vista Capable" program.
If the court should so order they should make the plaintiffs pay as apparently the cost and onus are normally on the plaintiffs plate to arrange notification to class members.
Link to full article Noting that Microsoft has repeatedly said it cannot identify the people who bought PCs under its Vista Capable marketing campaign in 2006 and early 2007, the plaintiffs' attorneys pitched Pechman on the idea of using Windows Update to reach them. "Although Microsoft cannot identify class members, it can communicate to them through its Windows Update program," the motion filed Thursday said.
Windows Update is the mechanism best known for delivering security patches to Windows users on the second Tuesday of each month. However, the service also is used by Microsoft to push non-security updates, and in some cases has been used to patch third-party products.
It has not, however, been used for legal messages such as the one proposed by the plaintiffs' lawyers.
The attorneys argued that Windows Update would be a "low-cost" and "efficient" way to reach potential class members. One of the plaintiffs' expert witnesses, independent IT consultant Ronald Aelpin, said that the Windows Update notification would "cost little more than the amount necessary to write, test, and implement the small piece of software code necessary to provide the notice."
Author
Logged
