Microsoft doesn't make the laws. Microsoft can say all it likes "caveat emptor", but that's not the law.
That may get them off the hook, but again considering the scope of defects in their product and the need in society to not have a bunch of systems with insecure OSs, it may still be incumbent upon Microsoft to continue to provide support in some way. Fundamentally, Windows is a critical piece of software in the economy, and nominally we do not allow for critical products with critical flaws to continue to exist without some sort of push back by the government because the harm to society as a whole should be born by the source of that harm, the product maker. Functionally, this either comes in the form of regulatory laws or lawsuits. Of course, the US government is very pro business, so it's unlikely they'll actually do anything. The EU is a different story.
The critical word in the statement is "did". And again, I'm not sure if Windows 10 would qualify as sufficiently synonymous to cover Microsoft's obligation.
The courts have not so far found such, but that does not mean the courts if brought with a challenge to that effect would not agree. What I'm making is a legal argument (IANAL) based upon my limited understanding and experience upon what not only could be interpreted as legally true but certainly something that should be pushed to be true. It is entirely unreasonable to sell defective software for a decade, offer incomplete patches to fix it, and leave people to "upgrade" by possibly paying them yet more money. That they chose to offer a free upgrade path [for a limited time] shouldn't be optional or sufficient.
Anyways, that's my feelings on the situation.
Helping customers shift to a modern desktop
