In Vista, you couldn't shoo the little bastard away for at least 15 seconds. In Windows 7, you can make it vanish immediately by telling it you'll activate later, and all you get is a second little box telling you how awesome activation is.

Also, it seems like you won't have to worry about a non-genuine copy blowing up on you, since Microsoft's Genuine Windows unit's Alex Kochis talked about the "effective balance" Microsoft has acheived in annoying pirates, but not annoying them too much—so that Windows kill switch probably isn't coming back.

They're even trying to wash the bad taste Windows Genuine Advantage left in people's mouths by renaming it Windows Activation Technologies. Yeah, that sounds a whole bunch friendlier. [Cnet]

Another man, who said he wasn't seeking damages, sued Microsoft in a Beijing district court for “violating the integrity of his computer.” He argued that “Microsoft has no right to judge whether the installed software is pirated or not” and demanded that the company remove the notice that he was software piracy victim from his software.

Just to refresh, the "illegal measure in question" is a nagware that turns the screen black on allegedly pirated copies of windows every hour. No data is lost, you're given a countdown for when your screen will return to normal... it's basically just a major annoyance (assuming that it is only pirated copies getting nagged). Is it just me, or does this seem a little brazen of people to sue for what's basically stealing? I think I'm actually starting to feel sorry for the big guy. [Shanghai Daily]

If the price of genuine software was lower than the fake one, who would buy the fake one?

Someone should tell Microsoft!

Another Reuters interviewee and noted villainous software thief kind of agreed:

If, when I'm programing, the computer screen goes black, that will probably cause some important information to be lost," he said. "Who will pay me for my loss then?

Microsoft, after considering the plan to pay software pirates for not knowing how long an hour is, (probably) decided to stick to their guns on this one. Not to mention the fact that the WGA scheme is just nagware — it won't cause any data loss.

Dong Zhengwei, a lawyer from Beijing, doesn't care about that minor detail. He offered a more sober opinion on the matter, but only after spending a short paragraph accusing Microsoft of being the "biggest hackers in China:"

I respect the right of Microsoft to protect its intellectual property, but it is taking on the wrong target with wrong measures. They should target producers and sellers of fake software, not users.

All this really means, though, is that we can probably expect a whole new breed of more effective WGA cracks in the next couple weeks.

NOTE: Reuters' story implies that this software will disable PCs. This is not true, as the new WGA program just prompts users to get a legitimate copy of Windows every 60 minutes. Pretty annoying, but not catostrophic. [Reuters]

So here's the deal: There's an initial check that okays software to run on a particular hardware platform. (Like OS X on your Mac.) Then there are periodic checks to make sure the software is still running on the kosher platform. If it's all shiksa, the software's execution string is stopped cold, killing the application. Vista pulls the same neat trick, keeling over if WGA says it's not the real deal (even when it sometimes is).

OS X is name-dropped in the patent app, so while it could be just about keeping it off non-Macs, this bit in the "background" section of the application's pretty illuminating, given the lack of copy protection on OS X currently:

The application owner may, of course, require the user to promise not to copy, distribute or use the application on another platform as part of the transaction by which the user obtains their copy. Such promises are, however, easy to make and easy to break.