choirbass
Distinguished
assuming: he cheated, that he read all 100+ pages to microsofts TOS, and knowingly 'broke the rules'.. he should then be considered at fault.
reality check: probably noone (except someone with 'nothing but' time on their hands), would even know and understand the complete TOS. (there was a ruling before in a case, that made TOS unreasonable and unrealistic, simply because noone actually reads them). i know thats not verbatum how things went, but thats the jest.
Without knowing 'much' more, i would simply hold microsoft liable for allowing this even to happen to begin with (and 'any' other organization). and for them to withdraw their punishments as a result. they really need to spend some time and profits to rework 'all' of their TOS, etc. to more meaningful levels.
reality check: probably noone (except someone with 'nothing but' time on their hands), would even know and understand the complete TOS. (there was a ruling before in a case, that made TOS unreasonable and unrealistic, simply because noone actually reads them). i know thats not verbatum how things went, but thats the jest.
Without knowing 'much' more, i would simply hold microsoft liable for allowing this even to happen to begin with (and 'any' other organization). and for them to withdraw their punishments as a result. they really need to spend some time and profits to rework 'all' of their TOS, etc. to more meaningful levels.