Excel Link - Can no longer update - Legal issues

[Peter]

Anybody know what this is about then?

'Because of legal issues, Microsoft has disabled the functionality in Access
2003 and in Access 2002 that let users change the data in linked tables that
point to a range in an Excel workbook. However, when you make changes
directly in the Excel workbook, the changes appear in the linked table in
Access.'

It's here:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;904953

Pete

[Trevor Best]

Peter wrote:

Anybody know what this is about then?

'Because of legal issues, Microsoft has disabled the functionality in Access
2003 and in Access 2002 that let users change the data in linked tables that
point to a range in an Excel workbook. However, when you make changes
directly in the Excel workbook, the changes appear in the linked table in
Access.'

It's here:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;904953

I did notice this fix come in from MS Update, I had assumed it was one
of those things that was broken, they didn't know how to fix, so
disabled it (rather like the clunky fix for messenger spam - disable the
messenger service).

I can't imagine what legal issue would bring about this.

[Douglas J. Steele]

http://news.com.com/Patent+ruling+co...3-5735432.html

--
Doug Steele, Microsoft Access MVP
http://I.Am/DougSteele
(no e-mails, please!)

"Peter" <ru***@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:CY********************@pipex.net...

Anybody know what this is about then?

'Because of legal issues, Microsoft has disabled the functionality in
Access 2003 and in Access 2002 that let users change the data in linked
tables that point to a range in an Excel workbook. However, when you make
changes directly in the Excel workbook, the changes appear in the linked
table in Access.'

It's here:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;904953

Pete

[Steve Jorgensen]

On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 08:22:33 -0400, "Douglas J. Steele"
<NOSPAM_djsteele@NOSPAM_canada.com> wrote:

http://news.com.com/Patent+ruling+co...3-5735432.html

I know it's not strange for the patent office to accept such things these
days, but to think that a patent for something like that would hold up in
court? Against MS' legal team?

[Trevor Best]

Peter wrote:

Anybody know what this is about then?

'Because of legal issues, Microsoft has disabled the functionality in Access
2003 and in Access 2002 that let users change the data in linked tables that
point to a range in an Excel workbook. However, when you make changes
directly in the Excel workbook, the changes appear in the linked table in
Access.'

It's here:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;904953

The strange thing is out of a number of machines in my office that have
had this update, some have updated the version number of msaccess.exe
and some have not.

[MLH]

I'd like to be the first to comment on this. If this kind-a-horseshit
is comin' down the pipe, then the US (and apparently some other
countries as well) has/have too many cock-suckin' laws! Their
greedy little fingers are too deep into our business and up our
collective asses. If a s'ware developer like Microsoft has to do
stupid ass stuff like this to satisfy some mickey-mouse legal issue,
then the relevant body of law is bad and should be repealed.
What with the threat of software patents and all, its a wonder
that any developer (big or small) can even stay in business. I'm
sorry that Microsoft has to worry about bullshit like that. Its only
because they have deep pockets that they're constantly being
circled by sharks.

The strange thing is out of a number of machines in my office that have
had this update, some have updated the version number of msaccess.exe
and some have not.

[lylefair]

I have wondered for a long time if you are, in fact, Don Mellon, in NTM
(New Troll Mode). This is because I find it hard to believe that anyone
can combine in his/her writings such copious measures of dullness,
misplaced self-confidence and naivety as appear in your myriad verbose
posts of consummate nonsense.
To sum it up, "Could anyone be this stupid?"
I expect Don would delight in playing such an obtuse and annoying role.
Certainly, he has the capability.

This post helps.

[MLH]

I think I read a post a few weeks ago in
which you told David Fenton he was stupid.
You must be really smart, huh. You certainly
have my admiration. Thanks for your comments.
Keep up the useful & informative posts.

[rkc]

MLH wrote:

I'd like to be the first to comment on this. If this kind-a-horseshit
is comin' down the pipe, then the US (and apparently some other
countries as well) has/have too many cock-suckin' laws! Their
greedy little fingers are too deep into our business and up our
collective asses. If a s'ware developer like Microsoft has to do
stupid ass stuff like this to satisfy some mickey-mouse legal issue,
then the relevant body of law is bad and should be repealed.
What with the threat of software patents and all, its a wonder
that any developer (big or small) can even stay in business. I'm
sorry that Microsoft has to worry about bullshit like that. Its only
because they have deep pockets that they're constantly being
circled by sharks.

I don't know. Sounds to me like MS had an opportunity to deal with the
Guatemalan fellow in good faith and decided not to. It's not uncommon
for the big fellow to think they can push the little fellow around.
What is uncommon is not being able to get away with it.

[rkc]

lylefair wrote:

I have wondered for a long time if you are, in fact, Don Mellon, in NTM
(New Troll Mode). This is because I find it hard to believe that anyone
can combine in his/her writings such copious measures of dullness,
misplaced self-confidence and naivety as appear in your myriad verbose
posts of consummate nonsense.
To sum it up, "Could anyone be this stupid?"
I expect Don would delight in playing such an obtuse and annoying role.
Certainly, he has the capability.

This post helps.

I think MLH is what he is. A guy working with what he has. Hanging in there.

He ain't putting on no airs.

[MLH]

>

I don't know. Sounds to me like MS had an opportunity to deal with the
Guatemalan fellow in good faith and decided not to. It's not uncommon
for the big fellow to think they can push the little fellow around.
What is uncommon is not being able to get away with it.

Hadn't heard about that one. A quick search of "microsoft" #AND#
"guatamalan" has now enlightened me. I think my reply to the O.P.
was off the target. I was not familiar with the lawsuit and I missed
the point entirely. Thank-you for enlightening me.

[shifty shaker]

Have any of you read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged"?
If not, get it and read it! Then consider this:
The problem with our society is that there are too many people out there
that do not admire and uphold entrepreneurship, capitalism and pioneering
the way it should be honored. The grand fact is that without that tiny
little venture 30 years ago, started by a silly geek named Bill Gates, there
would not be the explosion and cascade of the developments, businesses and
spin-offs that we see today. So, you can damn them, hate them, resent them
or simply envy them but the fact is the people that have the guts and
where-with-all to risk everything to see a dream through, make money and
raise the standards of society, deserve our respect and blessing, not having
our government dig into their pockets. And the "thugs" that want to hamper
it, take it away, get a chunk of it, they don't deserve, they only serve one
objective: ruining that which has been shown and proven to be the only way
for society to operate: Capitalism Rules!!!!!!!!

"Trevor Best" <no****@localhost.invalid> wrote in message
news:43*********************@news.zen.co.uk...

Peter wrote:

Anybody know what this is about then?

[Lyle Fairfield]

shifty shaker wrote:

Have any of you read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged"? I have.
....
The problem with our society is that there are too many people out there
that do not admire and uphold entrepreneurship, capitalism and pioneering
the way it should be honored. The grand fact is that without that tiny
little venture 30 years ago, started by a silly geek named Bill Gates, there
would not be the explosion and cascade of the developments, businesses and
spin-offs that we see today.

Well, I guess that's it in a nutshell. Thanks for defining "The problem
with our society". Have you let the politicians know so that they can
cure the world and stamp out poverty, disease and war.

I suspect that you have pretty clear evidence against any notion that
"without that tiny little venture" there might have been a greater
explosion and cascade of developments and businesses than there actually
has been.

Did you test your certainty in a parallel universe or did God tell you?

--
Lyle Fairfield

[rkc]

Lyle Fairfield wrote:

Did you test your certainty in a parallel universe or did God tell you?

I test everything in a parallel universe.

Who doesn't?

[Trevor Best]

rkc wrote:

Lyle Fairfield wrote:

Did you test your certainty in a parallel universe or did God tell you?

I test everything in a parallel universe.

Who doesn't?

Damn, I tested everything right here, no wonder it's FUBAR :-)

[shifty shaker]

I have. Unfortunate, you missed the point. Well, I guess that's it in a nutshell. Thanks for defining "The problem
with our society". Have you let the politicians know so that they can cure
the world and stamp out poverty, disease and war.
That's just it...that point was in the book too. Not government's job to
stamp out poverty.
I suspect that you have pretty clear evidence against any notion that
"without that tiny little venture" there might have been a greater
explosion and cascade of developments and businesses than there actually
has been.
Isn't it obvious? Perhaps you should check with the Soviets.
Did you test your certainty in a parallel universe or did God tell you?

God has nothing to do with any of it. Well, except that mystical belief
leads to things like terrorism and righteous judgement. Sound familiar?

[lylefair]

> I think MLH is what he is. A guy working with what he has.

I was reminded of this as I looked at some recent posts, and revisited
it.

I now see that you are much more cruel than I.

[rkc]

lylefair wrote:

I think MLH is what he is. A guy working with what he has.

I was reminded of this as I looked at some recent posts, and revisited
it.

I now see that you are much more cruel than I.

Perhaps. But not as often.