![Microsoft Microsoft](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/microsoft_64100.png)
![Government Government](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/government_64.png)
![Linux Business Linux Business](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/linuxbusiness_64.png)
![The Courts The Courts](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/court_64.png)
![Your Rights Online Your Rights Online](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/yro_64.png)
![News News](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/news_64.png)
Microsoft Sends Takedown Notice To MSFreePC.com 358
DJFelix writes "Just to add some more drama in California this week, legal counsel for Microsoft issued a takedown notice to Lindows CEO Michael Robertson, demanding the immediate shutdown of the MSFreePC.com website. The MSFreePC.com website allows people who purchased certain Microsoft products in California, or used certain Microsoft products in California to submit a claim in the $1.1 billion class action suit Microsoft lost in California. The site is still up for now, but how long will it last?"
It's too bad you can't register domains with (Score:2, Funny)
Penny Arcade... (Score:3, Funny)
It's too bad you didn't read the article (Score:5, Informative)
Huh? (Score:2, Interesting)
Its just informing consumers, what could be wrong about that.
Hmm.. well, I'm not a Lawier, or Lawrence, so I have no idea. Anyone care to Enlighten?
Did you read the article? (Score:5, Informative)
It's just as likely that Lindows is being self-serving as it is that Microsoft is being malicious.
Re:Did you read the article? (Score:2)
MS: Lindows misrepresents itself as an operating system, encouraging people to buy software that is invalid.
The FINE print (Score:5, Interesting)
Use the manual form system where you fill out forms, mail back receipts, and wait for up to 6 months or more to receive your settlement.
Or...use MSfreePC.com to get your Instant Settlement* TODAY! [...]
*If you qualify, your "Instant Settlement" is the credit that Lindows.com will give to you to immediately purchase products using the MSfreePC program in exchange for the right to process your settlement claim on your behalf as described in more detail in Step 7 and Step 8 of the Instant Settlement Wizard.
Bash microsoft all you will, I find that very shrewd of Lindows. It's basically piggy backing on the settlement. Not cool.
Re:I see nothing wrong. (Score:3)
Read the terms. They are not "paying" anyone, except as follows:
*If you qualify, your "Instant Settlement" is the credit that Lindows.com will give to you to immediately purchase products using the MSfreePC program in exchange for the right to process your settlement claim on your behalf as described
Re:I see nothing wrong. (Score:2)
Does it make it any more kosher to you? evidently not. So I hold my opinion, just like you hold yours. It's not cool.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Um, hello? This is Microsoft, that thinks its click-through EULA is as good as a contract?
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES IN GLOBAL AND
NATIONAL COMMERCE ACT
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
14:52 Jul 05, 2000
Jkt 079139
PO 00229
Frm 00001
Fmt 6579
Sfmt 6579
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL229.106
APPS10
PsN: PUBL229
Page 2
114 STAT. 464
PUBLIC LAW 106-229--JUNE 30, 2000
Public Law 106-229
106th Congress
An Act
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ''Electronic Signatures in Global
and National Commerce Act''.
TITLE I--ELECTRONIC RECORDS AND
SIGNATURES IN COMMERCE
SEC. 101. GENERAL RULE OF VALIDITY.
(a) I
N
G
ENERAL
other rule of law (other than this title and title II), with respect
to any transaction in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce--
(1) a signature, contract, or other record relating to such
transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforce-
ability solely because it is in electronic form; and
(2) a contract relating to such transaction may not be
denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because
an electronic signature or electronic record was used in its
formation.
(b) P
RESERVATION OF
R
IGHTS AND
O
BLIGATIONS
not--
(1) limit, alter, or otherwise affect any requirement imposed
by a statute, regulation, or rule of law relating to the rights
and obligations of persons under such statute, regulation, or
rule of law other than a requirement that contracts or other
records be written, signed, or in nonelectronic form;..."
So, unless the settlment specificaly denies the use of a digital signature as described, it is legal. On to the terms of the settelment... Oh wait, the final terms of the settelment have not yet been written. It will be a simple matter of law, If MS can get the terms written in a manner that precludes electronic signatures, then they will be right. If they can't, then they will be wrong. Does anyone have the terms of the proposed settelment?
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Another illegal move for MS... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Either way, it seems pretty clear to me that Microsoft's aim is to keep the list of claimants as small as possible, and if they can dismantle this website they can possibly eliminate quite a few possible claimants from the suit.
William
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just to name a few of the obvious ones. Here [newsforge.com] is the full text of the letter on Newsforge.
Haven't they figured this out yet? (Score:2)
Send all the lawyers you want, he'll come up with something new to make you send more lawyers.
Oh, and he'll win because it makes MS look like the litigation-happy bastards they are.
Re:Haven't they figured this out yet? (Score:2)
Microsoft software runs the court systems and the EULA prohibits the software from being used in any way that is detrimental to Microsoft.
Ok, I'm only kidding, but one day, the above may be true...
Re:Haven't they figured this out yet? (Score:2)
It's SCO that are the litigation-happy bastards!
Which bastards are Microsoft again? Anti-competitive? I can't ever remember...
Re:Haven't they figured this out yet? (Score:2)
Re:Haven't they figured this out yet? (Score:5, Interesting)
Send all the lawyers you want, he'll come up with something new to make you send more lawyers
Problem is, Robertson's track record isn't very good in this regard. Look at his history at MP3.com:
At least Lindows isn't a public company this time, so his investors should understand the risk he is taking better than the public did with MP3.com
Re:Haven't they figured this out yet? (Score:2)
Re:Haven't they figured this out yet? (Score:4, Insightful)
The more Microsoft goes after this guy, the more he is going to want to make them go after him.
Then he can say "ohh OHH look at the big monopolistic tyrant holding me down with lawsuits and anti-competitive practicies!"
While MS is anti-competitive, and they are a monopolistic entity, most uninformed people won't know of Robertson's past side with him, especially as he is "fighting the good fight" for Linux.
It's all political posturing, and Microsoft is playing right into it.
The letter text is on Newsforge (Score:5, Insightful)
Remainder of my
Re:The letter text is on Newsforge (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The letter text is on Newsforge (Score:2)
Re:The letter text is on Newsforge (Score:2)
Bruce
Re:The letter text is on Newsforge (Score:2)
Re:The letter text is on Newsforge (Score:5, Insightful)
So, the more claimants, the more real money they have to spend (as opposed to in-kind donations to schools), and the less free lock-in they get with schools.
It has nothing to do with misrepresentation and everything to do with preserving cash and power.
Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
1. If MS is right, they won't get their money. They will probaly be upset at MS because someone said MS would pay for it.
2. If MS is wrong, they pay more.
Both are bad for MS.
Re:The letter text is on Newsforge (Score:2)
You're probably right about that, but on the other side of the fence, Lindows is effectively pulling a Microsoft inspired tactic to undermine another company at the cost of innocent consumers who really just want to get a good deal without worrying about a bunch of legal wrangling and buearocratic red tape.
I find it highly unlikely that Microsoft is "looking out for the little guy" here (why start now?), but I don't think Lindows et. al. are showering themselves in glory by rolling around in the same shall
Re:The letter text is on Newsforge (Score:2)
Microsoft has a stranglehold on the desktop world and people will not willingly change from windows to anything else since windows came pre-installed. So if they do get a free computer with Lindows on it then they will get to experience Linux (yes, not a true version) for themselves. This to me seems to be a plus for all people
Re:The letter text is on Newsforge (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with Lindows is that:
I don't think it's good for ANYONE in the long run. What good does it do to force people to look at Linux? I could just go fdisk my parents' hard drive and install SuSe or RH9 or something, but that's not choice. Not only that, Lindows' CEO appears to just be trying to capitalize off of the ignorance of the consumers - exactly the same way that Microso
Re:The letter text is on Newsforge (Score:5, Interesting)
Score one for Microsoft in appearing reasonable and minus one for Linux as Lindows removes all ethical credibility.
Sigh. What jerks.
Re:The letter text is on Newsforge (Score:2)
People have the option to purchase whatever they want - Lindows is offering to advance them the credit they would otherwise receive. However, boefore doing so, they will be checking every application to make sure it conforms. And if it doesn't, and Lindows ships a free PC anyway - guess what - t
Re:The letter text is on Newsforge (Score:3, Informative)
No surprise that Microsoft is being "jerks" too:
So maybe the correct term is "liable" not "guilty" but when the government hauls someone into court and wins, "guilty" seems pretty appropriate to me.
The MS threat
Re:The letter text is on Newsforge (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sure they were begging to be punished this way. Punish the monopoly by forcing them to lock in another generation of customers.
Exactly what criteria do you need to meet to become a judge? Common sense and a plain reading of law certainly aren't any more.
Re:The letter text is on Newsforge (Score:2)
Re:The letter text is on Newsforge (Score:2)
Seems more like fining a drug dealer to pay the victims of their trade, and they give away more drugs as penance thereby actually building a bigger market down the road.
Informative? (Score:4, Insightful)
If the reality is as the letter says it is -- and I'm not in California so I haven't cared enough to look -- then it seems to me that MS's concerns are completely reasonable.
This is "informative"? In what sense?
The letter from MS is BS; as others here have noted, it mostly objects to procedural aspects of the claims process (e.g. digital signatures), mostly on hypocritical grounds (think MS's click-though EULA's) and throws in a few "think of the children!" sops (e.g., stating that even if the digitally signed claims were excepted, the real consequence would be that the schools wouldn't get to purchace MS products at 150% of retail with the unclaimed funds).
Even if you credit these objections, it would only be fraudulent if the Lindows people (after failing to get the settlement funds) tried to charge the people who had used the site. There's nothing wrong with me (for example) offering to pay out lottery winners or cash checks, etc. and then just burning the check or ticket. As long as Lindows.com acctually accepts the filling out of their form in leu of payment, there's no fraud involved.
-- MarkusQ
Microsoft Customers Deserve The Best (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Microsoft Customers Deserve The Best (Score:5, Insightful)
how long? (Score:5, Funny)
Until it's slashdotted out of existance...
MS, when will they learn? (Score:2)
Yes, it is a joke.
tcd004
Needs a signature (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Needs a signature (Score:4, Interesting)
Two things stand out as bizarre about the letter from MS's lawyers, though:
1) The letter claims that the site doesn't disclose that a person must have purchased the software for use in California. The site very prominently does so on the second page.
2) It seems to me that the group that would get burned by this if the "digital signatures" things isn't legitimate is Lindows itself, not the consumer. Lindows is trying to appropriate the right to join the class action in place of the people involved and giving them something for that right. If it turns out they can't, Lindows is left in the lurch, having given out the products.
Re:Needs a signature (Score:2)
In going through the "Instant Settlement Wizard" procedures, at the end, you must give your name, address, phone, etc.
Once this is found illegal, your info is there, ready to be acted upon.
I think I'll pass.
lindows is being sneaky (Score:3, Interesting)
in other words, it sounds like lindows is trying microsoft tricks, and microsoft doesn't like that.
should be interesting to see how this plays out.
Is Slashdot working for M$? (Score:4, Funny)
I know! (Score:2, Funny)
Not very long after the post.
Seems Valid (Score:2, Insightful)
Should have avoided saying "takedown notice" (Score:4, Interesting)
"Takedown notice" usually refers to a procedure defined in the DMCA that allows someone alleging copyright infringement to demand that an ISP take a site down. This is not what is happening in this case. Microsoft has no means of forcing Lindows to take the site down without a lengthy legal process.
Re:Should have avoided saying "takedown notice" (Score:5, Informative)
Factually incorrect, and do some research. Cease and Desist orders were available and used long before the DMCA was a twinkle in your RIAA chairwomans eye.
Party A says to Party B that Party B is doing something that is wrong. Party A gives Party B an opportunity to cease doing something before Party A proceeds with legal action that will be very costly for both parties, but probably more so for Party B.
Re:Should have avoided saying "takedown notice" (Score:2)
But he also said that a takedown notice is in response to DMCA, which is completely bullshit. A C&D letter is very effective.
I was just clarifying that what Microsoft sent has nothing to do with the DMCA, yet it is a takedown notice. It's a Takedown or We Sue the Shit out of You Notice.
Re:Should have avoided saying "takedown notice" (Score:2)
If anything, it's pointong out how quickly people look at two companies battling and the first thing that comes to mind is the DMCA. Takedown notices happened all the time before the DMCA. Ajax.org ring a bell?
It's just because the DMCA is so over-used is why people th
And Microsoft is angry why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Only frauds are hurt by this. I did read the article but am I missing anything important here? Microsoft is angry why?
It reminds me of the RIAA/MPAA (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft is saying that Lindows is urging fraudulent claims against Microsoft with incentives like "a free PC to the first 10,000 who purchase more than $100 of stuff," and discounts on Lindows software. I, myself, think that Lindows is being shady, but not illegal. There is a definite exchange of goods, one is the money gained from Microsoft, the other is the Lindows product.
The website put up by Lindows has to be acting on good faith that the claims against Microsoft are valid. If the consumers are submitting fraudulent claims, something which may be happening regardless of Lindows, then there is a problem. The present issue is "who's problem is it?" I think that Lindows should do some type of verification on all claims that it processes, making sure that they are all valid. It may cost a bit of money to do so, but I still think that Lindows will come out on top.
Another thing that Lindows could do is to post a warning about the penalties of committing fraud.
RTFA (Score:2, Informative)
Hip HipHop Hiphopicritical? (Score:5, Insightful)
From MS (in the letter)
Claim forms submitted through the www.msfreepc.com website will be invalid because they will not be signed. Instead, these claims will include only the claimant's typed name (called a "digital signature" by the website) which is invalid under the Settlement Agreement.
Please Click Below to show that you Accept the EULA before using Windows/Word/Excel
Re:Hip HipHop Hiphopicritical? (Score:2)
True, Also consider the
All in all though, i would say the other points they made about encouraging false claims, not informing the end user of all of their obligations to the class, and mis-representations of the result of the DOJ anti trus
Re:Hip HipHop Hiphopicritical? (Score:2, Interesting)
-Adam
Re:Hip HipHop Hiphopicritical? (Score:2)
A document such as this could say, "Must be signed in one's own blood" but the court may well choose to accept that the document is legally binding with an ink signature. In this case a digital signature which could be verified/authenticated/etc may well be legally binding.
I doubt the doc
Re:Hip HipHop Hiphopicritical? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hip HipHop Hiphopicritical? (Score:2)
Can Lindows theoretically put up a defense that attempts to verify the validity of digital "click-through" signatures?
DEAR CMDRTACO, (Score:2, Funny)
Thank you.
Sincerely,
All Subscribed Users
How long indeed (Score:3, Funny)
And to *help* the site you submitted it to Slashdot? I don't buy it. You're one of them, aren't you!
Won't someone please remeber The Children? (Score:2, Interesting)
Wow... Microsoft is so benevolent... two-thirds of unclaimed funds in vouchers! Weeeeee...
Quick summary (Score:5, Interesting)
The article is longwinded and legalistic, so I'll recap for the lazy:
Microsoft lost a class action case in California and owes a lot of people there money. msfreepc.com is offering people Lindows in return for their stake in the settlement. Microsoft's lawyers are complaining since the msfreepc.com form does not include things like signatures and certifications that filling out the legal forms firsthand would require, so they say claims from these people will be turned down. Microsoft's lawyers also portray Lindows as taking money away from schoolchildren, because leftover funds go to CA schools, and expiditing the claims means more of the money will be disbursed.
Micro$oft the other way? (Score:3, Insightful)
1) M$ writes that under the settlement the claimants must sign under penalty of purjury. That is not possible using the website and thus may invalidate the claimants rights under the settlement.
2) On that background M$ fax doesn't seem unreasonable if the settlement stipulates that they must not impeede the claimants in getting their reward under the settlement. They are in that case just protecting themselves from (yet) another lawsuit from disgruntled claimants.
Re:Micro$oft the other way? (Score:3, Interesting)
Good point, however, when I electronically submit my taxes to the IRS, I have to agree to a statememt that is very similar to this, and am able to "digitally sign" my return. That's leagal, so why shouldn't the Lindows website be legal?
Am I the only one.... (Score:3, Funny)
How -- long -- will -- it -- last?!?
Someone get the Shatner Earworm [wordspy.com] out of my mind please....
Does Lindows even have a lawyer? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I hate MS as much as the next guy, but in this case, they are totally right. I think Lindows jumped the gun and didn't think this one out. It looks like they didn't even read the terms of the settlement.
Oh yeah, and what lawyer would ever let them say MS was "found guilty" when it's a civil proceeding?
How long will it last? (Score:2)
The site is still up for now, but how long will it last?
About five minutes after posting on Slashdot....
Here's the Cnet article (Score:2, Informative)
Microsoft has demanded that Linux seller Lindows.com take down a Web site that offers to process customer claims from the settlement of a California class-action suit against the software giant.
In a letter sent to the Linux seller on Friday and reprinted in a Lindows announcement Monday, attorney Robert Rosenfeld said Lindows' MSfreePC site includes false and misleading information and encourages filing of fraudulent claims. It demands that Lindows take down the site by noon Monday or face le
It seems ironic to me... (Score:2)
Companies are only forward looking [pressbox.co.uk] when it suits them to be. If it goes against them, then they can be just as much a luddite as they assume people who don't use MS products are.
Please mod down...
Isn't this up to the judge? (Score:2)
Netcraft (Score:3, Interesting)
Only a Lawyer would say this. (Score:3, Interesting)
Claims cannot be transferred at all and a transferee of vouchers may not redeem more than $10,000 in transferred vouchers.
It's enough to make your disk head spin.
It doesn't demand they take down the site (Score:2)
What Lindows is thinking (Score:2)
What he's *really* doing is once again suckering Microsoft to establish a pattern of apparent legal harassment towards his company.
request is reasonable (Score:3, Insightful)
(And you will note if you actually read the statement instead of trusting the slashdot summary that it is NOT are request to take the site down. It is a request to take it down OR fix the faulty claims it makes about what it can do for you.)
Lindows could just change the site so it doesn't do the filing on your behaf, but still does everything else, and it would be legitimate. If it resulted in a form you can download, print out, and sign and stuff in an envelope, then it would be removing the point of contention with the lawyer firm that sent this notice.
This isn't an example of MS trying to censor valuable information from the public. It's an example of them trying to get a site to stop making fradulent legal claims. The site can continue to exist as an informational site telling people what steps they need to take to get a refund, but right now it's giving incorrect information about what those steps are, and making the claim that it can file your claim on your behaf, which it can't.
Missing the point (Score:5, Informative)
What are they giving away? They are giving away the same thing MS is giving away - a "license" to use their software for a period of time. In my case I get 30 weeks of "free click-n-run" plus an OS install which I can use on all my home PCs (if I desire). Whether or not MS ever pays Lindows a penny really doesn't matter - what lindows has done is signed up another potential user.
MS is right about several things. I'm tempted to send many of my friends here and tell'em just to make up some shit so they get the "free click and run."
Once you fill out the form you can download lindows, install it, and use the "click and run" archive for a period of time. They lose nothing but some bandwidth, and in exchange they get the opportunity to show another person how linux can work for them. The user gets a lindows plus account, which is great because it gives them an excuse to give away "premium" software the user usually has to pay extra for.
It may be a bit shady, and MS may be right on many counts, but it doesn't matter - even if Lindows loses the ability to collect on all those "signatures" they still may drive a few more users from the arms of MS. If those new linux users stay with lindows, then they get a fresh revenue stream. And if they don't stay with lindows, maybe some of them will move onto redhat or debian or whatever. Maybe some of them will buy macs. What matters is just that people are encouraged to try something new because they have the promise of free shit. Lindows isn't normally free even to end users, so there's a greater perception of value here on the part of mom sixpack and, therefore, greater incentive to try it. and if they can't collect, so what? As much as I'd like to cost MS money, I honestly wasn't going to jump through the hoops required just to maybe get back a check for $80. At least this way there's a chance I'll cost MS some money and, hey, in the meantime I got something with some modest perceived value.
Statement from Microsoft (Score:2)
HAHAHAHAHA.. Hahaha.. ha.. that was good.
Here's Your Conscience calling again... (Score:5, Insightful)
*gird* *gird*
Okay, here's the deal. I've already [slashdot.org]
pointed out that Lindows sueing Microsoft is no better than SCO suing Linux users - in either case it is ultimately a tactic used to increase corporate profits at the expense of a competitor, using the legal system as a prybar.
Micro$oft makes several valid and salient points here about Lindow$'s predatory tactics. What Lindow$ is essentially doing is leveraging their anticipated income on the sale of current products. Moreover, if you look at the MSFreePC, it is quite deceptive. You are not getting a "free pc". You are purchasing a PC from Lindows with settlement rightfully due you for being forced to purchase MS Software in the past.
This whole thing stinks. Now, watch my score drop like a prom-dates panties.
Here's my pet theory (Score:2)
Perhaps Lindows knows that most, if not all, of the settlement submissions will be turned away as invalid -- but they also know that it can be a huge PR investment for them. Give away some free PCs and a whole boatload of LindowsOS software, and in return get a TON of publicity when Microsoft turns down their settlement submissions.
The funny thing is, in this case everyone would win except Microsoft, who about breaks even. To wit:
1. The schools win, because every legitimate claima
UETA allows electronic signatures (Score:5, Informative)
California's
2001 SB97 [ca.gov] reads:
This seems pretty clear to me, but then, as they say, IANAL.
(Not quite OT) Anyone get their CD settlement? (Score:2)
I went back to the site and it appears that "Notices of appeal have been filed by persons whose objections to the Settlement were denied by the District Court. Counsel for the State Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Settlement Class are contesting those appeals. Until the appeals are resolved or denied, payments for valid claims and distribution of CDs
Sleezy but not illegal ...Very similar to HR Block (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone ever get an instant tax refund from H & R Block? Its really the same thing as what Lindows is doing. You sign over your right to them, you get instant payout, they get to make the claim for you. H & R gets a cut, where as Lindows pushes their product in exchange for fronting you the settlement.
Also, Lindows isn't encouraging false claims. If you get away with a false claim, then your only screwing Lindows and not MS. They now own the rights to an invalid claim, and they won't get reimbursed, even though they already gave you software. MS shouldn't really care about this.
There was no problem with digital signature in the CD suit, and there shouldn't be here either. I don't see anything illegal about what Lindows is doing, but it is a sleezy piggy back manuever.
Re:MS: We're not anti-competitive... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What is wrong with this? (Score:2)
Re:*sigh* (Score:2)
I thought people would learn their lesson after Melissa. I thought they would learn after ILoveYou, and Blaster, and Bugbear, and Sobig, and Swen.
Re:Seem to have a point (Score:2, Interesting)
(That bill was probably pushed through by MS themselves, to give credit to their EULAs.)
Re:Does anyone know what kind of FREE PC ????? (Score:2)
Re:giving away software IS giving away money (Score:3, Insightful)