California Consumers Settle MS Antitrust Suit 274
lseltzer writes "According to AP, $1.1B in Microsoft products will go to California consumers to settle antitrust claims against the company. I bet the lawyers don't get paid in software." Actually, the article says that those who apply for some of the settlement will receive "vouchers redeemable for any manufacturer's computer-related products and software."
Sweet... (Score:3, Insightful)
Software cost (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Software cost (Score:5, Funny)
maybe the state of California can now afford that Oracle contract it signed... *ducks*
Re: Software cost (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Software cost (Score:2, Funny)
I burned my mod points earlier today... Someone else push this guy up a notch.
Re: Software cost (Score:2)
Last time I checked, MS offered very very very little that you could install linux on. Afaik the XBox is the only thing that's been hacked to run linux, maybe their PDA to?
So I don't see how this would actually work.
"Hi RedHat, I bought a Microsoft gamepad, would you install linux on it please?"
Re: Software cost (Score:3)
Re: Software cost (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Software cost (Score:5, Informative)
Replying to myself... (Score:5, Informative)
And a link to the article [bayarea.com]
Re:Software cost (Score:5, Insightful)
For example, consumers will receive a voucher for $29 for each copy of Microsoft Office purchased, $26 for each copy of Excel, $16 for each copy of the Windows operating system and $5 for each copy of the word-processing program Word, according to plaintiffs' lawyers
Since when have they been selling Windows for $48?
Re:Software cost (Score:2)
- A.P.
Re:Software cost (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are you assuming anyone who took advantage of this would choose software?
Think X-Boxes. Think mice, keyboards, and joysticks.
Re:Software cost (Score:2, Interesting)
Use vouchers to buy something which they lose money on?
But they'll make money from you buying games.
Buy X-Box with cash, use vouchers for X-Box games.
(That's X-Box as in "The Unknown minus its box")
Re:Software cost (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Software cost (Score:3, Insightful)
That doesn't mean that they don't lose money. If a business or individual that was actually going to pay for the software gets it for free, then Microsoft loses money. (Contrary to, say, an individual who steals it that was never going to purchase it in the first place.)
Re:Software cost (Score:2)
> going to pay for the software gets it for free,
> then Microsoft loses money.
They fail to _gain_ money. Not the same thing at all.
What about this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Software cost (Score:3)
imagine having a couple hundred Microsoft's CDs stuffed in your mailbox
either way it's seems the consumer is being punished and Microsoft is getting free marketing
Re:Software cost (Score:5, Insightful)
It is true that the cost to develop, package, ship, advertise, and support a product is signifcantly less than the retail price of the product itself.
However, you must realize that if you get something that you were going to buy without having to pay for it, they have lost revenue. It doesn't matter if they put 90% margins on their software. They have lost the money they would have made and used to subsidize other projects. Since really only the Windows and Office groups are even profitable, that does indeed affect their bottom line.
Now, it won't hurt like outlaying actual currency, but it will still hurt quite a bit.
Re:Software cost (Score:4, Interesting)
Were Microsoft to supply them with $1.1B in cash it would hurt a lot more. Most of these cases were about overpricing, it's odd that they have settled for vouchers for their overpriced software.
Re:Software cost (Score:3, Insightful)
It will be worth 1.1B if you find somebody who will buy it for this price. Just MS trying to sell it for this price doesn't make it worth this price. I think that's the point. Companies often construct funny values by using their retail prices. We had examples in discussions about copyrights.
sig? (Score:2)
what are you really trying to say with that one?
Re:Software cost (Score:2)
And this doesn't continue the monopoly? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet another.... (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm sure you meant (Score:2)
Microsoft gets persecuted all the time, right here on Slashdot.
actually (Score:5, Informative)
notice the word 'any'
Re:actually (Score:4, Interesting)
Since the 1800's paying workers in product/goods is illegal.
It is like prostitutes paying their police fines with 'services'.
Mucking around with PV and INTEREST, it sounds like a trick the British in Boston would do, except this time round California is royaly duped.
perhaps not (Score:4, Insightful)
It's common in these kinds of settlements for manufacturers to give vouchers for their own products. This is likely no different: you can probably use the vouchers to buy Microsoft software and hardware running Microsoft software. Non-redeemed vouchers will be given as 1/3 in Microsoft software and 1/3 in hardware (presumably, PCs running Microsoft software) to schools.
Even $1.1 billion in cash would be a slap on the wrist. This "settlement" is an insult: it's a marketing promotion for Microsoft and a means by which they can get more of their software into the education market.
Re:actually (Score:3, Interesting)
Some years ago, I attended the Windows Refund Day in Foster City, Ca. and all I got was a VA Software T-Shirt, and not a lick of cash from MS. I may actually end up (in the end) getting something out of that action.
M$ wrote the settlement again? (Score:3, Insightful)
How likely is it that enough businesses and consumers will actually make a claim to seriously impact M$? Sadly, not very.
cool (Score:2, Funny)
Re:cool (Score:3, Informative)
Re:cool (Score:2, Interesting)
What they should do... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What they should do... (Score:4, Insightful)
First you'll say Pay! Then it's no no... not pay, install linux. Then it's no no, I wouldn't trust you to install linux.
I WANT BILL TO COME AND CLEAN MY TOILET BOWL.
It's sad to see that you are completely on a viceral level of 'reasoning'. I pray to god you never get in some power situation... cause, hell, Bill maybe be 'evil', but he's cold and calculated.
You would probably have burned people in auto-da-fés if you roamed around during the inquisition...
Re:What they should do... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hardly. However we do live in different realities, several of 'em.
You will never satisfy all of us with any *one* thing. The flame wars of vi versus emacs, Linux versus BSD, Gnome versus KDE, etc. are primarily for entertainment value. They also serve as a reminder that no one solution can solve all problems.
In search of poetic justice. Those of us still using Microsoft products can still dream, can't we?
Wow (Score:5, Funny)
What's that... a few hundred boxes of MS Office?
Re:Wow (Score:4, Funny)
MS Office XP Professional - $536 [amazon.com]
1,100,000,000/536 = 205,228 copies of MS Office XP Professional. With 34,501,130 people in the state that comes to one copy for every
Of course this little exercise in math shows you just how profitable the Office XP business is for microsoft. They sell a quarter million copies of software and make a billion dollars. You don't really think that it cost MS anywhere close to 1 billion dollars to support/code Office XP do you? Now take the fact that MS sells around 1 million copies a year (granted some are cheaper due to OEM, Enterprise Agreements, Education Discounts, etc) and you see why MS is so paranoid about losing its lead in the office line.
Re:Wow (Score:2, Informative)
Consumers rejoice! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Consumers rejoice! (Score:4, Funny)
of course it's a rip-off (Score:3, Insightful)
MS always come up with SLAP in your face solution (Score:5, Interesting)
I am pretty sure that most of their money is made on their crappy OS which I was forced to pay when I purchased my hardware to run BeOS and Linux...
They have so much money so, $1.1 Billion dollar penalty is a drop in the bucket. Let say that parking ticket in the town was $30 per violation.
If illegal parking brings $110 profit because there were no other competitors which knows town officials well enough..and had money to pay off violation.. they still make $80 profit... as long as they make profit...they will ignore the rules and regulations which normal businesses are bound to...
This is really sad...
Well... now we have a tax cut for riches to worry about.
Re:MS always come up with SLAP in your face soluti (Score:2)
If somebody forced you to buy something, you should go to the police. That's assault and possibly battery. Because after all, somebody held a gun to your head and forced you to buy the particular computers you did, right?
give the vouchers to the state (Score:5, Interesting)
Today, we have this settlement, which allows consumers to claim a voucher. We also have a request [washingtonpost.com] by California Gov. Davis to cut funding to social services and education, as well as to increase state income taxes. Consumers should be allowed to settle their increased tax bill by handing over their settlement voucher to the California government, in exchange for a guarantee that the voucher would be used to purchase computer technology equipment and other educational resources for state schools. Perhaps also the California government should be awarded any unclaimed consumer vouchers after a certain (short) settlement period. This way, schools would be able to purchase whatever resources best fit their needs (instead of having free Microsoft products handed to them), and some of the sting of the increased taxes could be reduced.
Just a thought...
Re:give the vouchers to the state (Score:3, Informative)
First off...there is a better, more in depth News.com story [com.com] available which clears some things up.
Second...two thirds of the unclaimed money will go directly to California schools (1/2 in cash, 1/2 in MS software and cash grants).
Your though sounds kind of interesting, but wouldn't it really boil down to a voluntary California tax via Microsoft? Of course, California residents never had to wait for a Microsoft settlement to be nice to the school system, they always could have donated cash, or their tax return monies to the Cali school system. I really doubt that many if any has ever done that. Yea it sounds like a novel thing for consumers to do, but I have a sneaking feeling the people who will actually try to cash in on the settlement will be companies and small businesses who may have bough tens to hundreds of Microsoft products during the suit time period. Most consumers will either 1) not be bothered to file a claim to get their $5-30 bux back, 2) never file a claim because they have no idea about the settlement.
Re:give the vouchers to the state (Score:2)
Microsoft had initially hoped to donate this amount in-kind to schools, right? In other words, Microsoft had wanted to donate this amount in software and other Microsoft products. Ostensibly, the schools were to receive the benefit. The problem from the perspective on many individuals and competitors (such as Apple) was that this would allow Microsoft to extend its monopoly into a market it didn't already have a monopoly in.
I think you're confusing the cases here and the penalties. This one is the result of a class action law suit. The remedy which microsoft proposed involving giving software to schools was in the antitrust case.
Understandable that you've confused them. They are violating so many laws and being found guilty again and again it's difficult to keep track.
Both outcomes (the class action and the antitrust) are lame though 'cept for the fact that they vindicate those of us who've been ranting on about microsoft's criminal behaviour...
I'm not an accountant (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm just trying to get a grasp on what the real financial impact is here (and whether if it is really a penalty)
Re:I'm not an accountant (Score:5, Interesting)
However, this is not the worst part of this settlement. Apple's big stake in the educational market could be jeopardized by Microsoft pouring in millions of dollars of free software. [com.com]. The sounds crazy, the settlement is doing exactly the thing that Micosoft was being sued for.
Where is justice?
first the RIAA, now Microsoft :-) (Score:2, Funny)
MS Press Release (Score:3, Informative)
Agreed about those who missed "any", but.... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Two-thirds of any unclaimed settlement proceeds will be donated to California's most needy public schools in the form of Microsoft educational and productivity software..."
Let's hope everyone who is entitled to really does make their claim. Any one know how likely that is?
Otherwise, the Monopoly will simply extend itself into the need public schools "in the form of Microsoft educational and productivity software", and we don't want that now, do we?
Re:Agreed about those who missed "any", but.... (Score:3, Insightful)
As long as 95 percent of the world's computers run MS, schools are not the place to fight this battle. Teaching students how to use Linux software won't do them much good when they graduate and enter a world essentially bereft of it.
Better to volunteer to help your local schools download and install (and support) Linux or another "free" OS for use a mail server, etc. Exposing the school board to the real world of Linux will do a lot more good than mere prosletyzing.
$10 will go a long way (Score:2)
Intangible goods (Score:4, Funny)
When will people learn? (Score:5, Insightful)
Only in America (Score:3, Insightful)
How can anyone let this happen? The resolution is to provide software to the retail value of $1.1B, but the cost to the convicted is that of producing the CDs and boxes that accompany the product. I thought the damages were meant to punish the convicted, as much as compensate the victims. A convicted monopolist is allowed to pay the damages by providing more of the software which has been deemed anti-competitive by the very same courts. Apart from vague 'because it's Microsoft' comments, can anyone please enlighten someone from outside the US as to why?
..k
Re:Only in America (Score:2, Insightful)
R-E-A-D The Story, OK? (Score:3, Informative)
Reaction to this little piece says something about the attention span of the average
How ineffective (Score:4, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmm...... (Score:2, Insightful)
Note the word ANY (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Note the word ANY (Score:2)
Just curious here ... (Score:4, Interesting)
How about if the entire microsoft headquarters was set ablaze and all the states attorney generals got to roast marshmallows on the remains? Of course not we all would think that was "unfair".
BUT MS having to give 1.2 billion dollars to the people of California, that's just not good enough.
So here's the question for all of you who think that this "isn't enough". What is enough? I'm meerly trying to spark discussion here, not put anyone down. I would really like to know what people think should be the punishment of microsoft.
Weigh in the amount of damage they've done, business lost and lives lost. Information stifled to just being at the right place at the right time. Explotation of the weak, or creating a market where there was none. I really want to know what the slashdot community thinks.
Re:Just curious here ... (Score:2)
If capitalism is done away with then I don't really see any other way around it:
"Enough" will only be when the entire corporation is completely dissolved and the board of directors are banned for life from any further involvement in the technology industry. Of course, the companies vast reserves (including those of other business ventures run by Gates) will be siezed and distributed evenly between companies who have been burned by MS in the past, and benefactors of the Gates Foundation.
Re:Just curious here ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only requirement for a solution to be "enough", IMHO, is that it prevents Microsoft from continuing to practice anti-competitive monopolistic behavior. As we have seen, they won't stop on their own. The fact that they exist pretty much makes it inevitable that they will behave in an anti-competitive manner. The only real solution to the problem that I see is a split, but that has problems of its own.
This settlement is a joke. 1/40th of Microsoft's cash reserves? It may be a lot of money, but they've got money out the wazoo. The lawyers get rich, the consumer gets a $20 voucher, whoopee. Not to mention that most of the voucher money will probably go unclaimed, and the claimed part will largely be spent in a manner that only strengthens Windows's hold on the market (Office, Windows software, Windows itself, Windows PCs, Windows-specific hardware). And there is no mechanism to ensure they won't turn around and do the same anti-competitive things tomorrow. The settlement is the equivelant of a verbal warning. "Bad Microsoft! Don't do that again!"
What is enough (Score:4, Interesting)
2. Disgourge majority of company profits realized over the monopoly period. Disgourged profits used to fund public education (not computer specific education, but math and science education via books and teachers)
3. Open all MS undocumented APIs (both recent and historic), and open all MS file formats. Let the spin off companies keep thier *coughccough* great source code.
4. Rule that all MS spin off companies can not finance any political campaigns or lobby groups. In fact, let's just eliminate soft money in the US altogether from any company!
Those four are starter points of what I think "is enough" for the bit bully of our day.
Re:Just curious here ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Since most people may not want a computer game from Microsoft, and instead opt for using this as a discount for say Microsoft Office or Windows XP. Since the margins for these products are HUGE, Microsoft may actually end up earning money from this settlement.
It will certainly not cost Microsoft as much as a pure monetary settlement would. It will also end up INCREASING Microsofts market share.
This is peanuts for Microsoft, and may actually end up hurting their competitors more than them.
Re:Just curious here ... (Score:2)
You can't put a price on a life. If you can, you have other issues to deal with first.
If we're going to count 'lives lost' due to MS products (which isn't really possible due to magnitude of what's involved) then we might as well just hand MS over to the US Gov't for management.
Re:Just curious here ... (Score:2)
We would? You must be new here...
Re:Just curious here ... (Score:4, Interesting)
0) Microsoft admits no wrongdoing in the settlement.
1) Microsoft isn't paying a $1.1B fine. It is issuing vouchers for _up to_ $1.1B in products, whether hardware or software, whether Microsoft's or someone else's.
2) The redemption rate on vouchers and coupons and rebates is historically very low. Everyone knows this; it's why manufacturers will include $50 rebate coupons in their products rather than just knocking $50 off the price. The lower the rebate, the lower the redemption rate. With the vouchers in this settlement being $29 for Excel or Office, $16 for Windows, and $5 for Word, an awful lot of people won't bother, especially since they won't be getting a check, they'll be getting a discount which means "you gotta spend money to save money" at a time when the economy's tight. Let's say Microsoft ends up issuing half a billion dollars' worth of these vouchers (which I think is way optimistic). There are two immediate consequences of that.
3a) Of the $500M issued to private claimants, 80% or so will go to businesses (assuming equal breakdown of claims to sales; the SJMerc reports businesses were responsible for 80% of MS sales in California). Whether through preferring to go with the 'standard' or through an honest belief that One Microsoft Way is more than an address, these businesses have made the decision to use Microsoft software and the hardware than runs it -- including some sold by Microsoft. It is reasonable to expect these businesses to redeem their vouchers on More Of The Same. They'll be using these vouchers to expand the use of Microsoft products. So long as they choose software, the cost to Microsoft falls effectively to zero. The same applies to the $100M issued to private citizens, although their claim rate is likely to be higher because of disgruntled Microsoft-haters who make sure to buy a Logitech mouse with the voucher from their Windows tax.
3a) The remaining fraction, $600M, is one-third kept by Microsoft (saving $200M off the top) and two-thirds (that's $400M, if you're bad at math) donated as vouchers to schools. They will likely do with those vouchers what private claimants do; namely, turn them into more Microsoft products. Again, much of that will be software, making Microsoft's effective price zero.
That means that of the Whopping, Staggering One Point One Billion Dollar Agreement, Microsoft will probably lose one-two hundred million in income due to the cash value of the vouchers. A company that size can afford that without a hitch, esp. since the income spike caused by voucher redemption (using your $16 coupon to buy a $200 XBox means another $184 for Microsoft plus future licensing fees on the games you'll buy) and the tax benefits of having to absorb a "$900M" court settlement will offset voucher value so it will almost certainly end up seeing a pretty sweet bump to its bottom line, plus the warm fuzzies many people will feel when they see Microsoft write a "$400M check" to those poor public schools.
In short, the agreement is going to help Microsoft immensely. It is going to do _very_ well if the court accepts the agreement.
So here's why I'd reject it: the purpose of the suit was to prove that Microsoft used its monopoly power to overcharge California customers. The purpose of a settlement or penalty is twofold: to make restitution to the overcharged and to dissuade the company from doing it again. I think the settlement would accomplish the first but it fails utterly in the second. The company walks away with increased revenue, improved PR, and no legal record of having broken the law. That is unacceptable to me. See you in court, Counselor.
You asked what _would_ be acceptable. Microsoft pays real money, not vouchers. It pays all the money to the state of California, to ensure that the company's penalty is real and not diminished by the large number of citizens who aren't worked up enough to claim their refunds. California can distribute the funds to claimants and distribute the rest to schools in whatever equitable manner the legislature decides (which would probably means giving $X to the schools, cutting the school budget allocation by $X, and increasing general fund spending by $X -- that's what the states with lotteries to benefit education do). Microsoft pays treble the estimated overcharge (let's call it $3.3B in the manner of the original settlement proposal). Microsoft admits willfully using its monopoly power to overcharge California customers. Microsoft pays all the undoubtedly soaring legal fees associated with the case. Microsoft pays California the cost of administering the refund program. The legal and administrative costs are in addition to the $3.3B penalty, not part of it. That, I could live with.
Re:Just curious here ... (Score:3, Insightful)
You ought to know, at the very moment as you were typing that sentence, that MS does NOT give money. They will give software which they evaluate to be worth 1.2 billion. Just keep in mind that there are no more costs in developing that software. Keep also in mind that MS is thecompany that has the highest total margin of all those registered on NASDAQ. And this margin (of 30%-31%) was calculated by including businesses such as MSN and Xbox which are losing money!
Basically, MS gets to give away boxes, manuals and CDs, all of which is very cheap to produce, and actually further EXPAND their market. They could very wel book it under "marketing".
Brilliant. I just don't understand who on the Californian side agreed to this ridicolous settlement.
qualifying for a claim (Score:4, Insightful)
And did anybody else catch that of the unclaimed refunds schools get 1/3, and of that amount half will be for vouchers of MS products only.
uhhhhmmmmmm....... (Score:2, Interesting)
they are going to force an expansion of there monopoly.
good work guys
Re:uhhhhmmmmmm....... (Score:2)
Since that would seem to come under : "any manufacturer's computer-related products and software."
Vouchers for Some-Little American Flags for Others (Score:3, Funny)
"Vouchers for some, little American flags for others."
Man, with one of these vouchers and my RIAA settlement check [slashdot.org], ya think I can buy one of those cool transdermal food patches [slashdot.org] from ThinkGeek [thinkgeek.com]?
One fortieth of cash on hand. (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft must be laughing their asses off. They've got a world economy nearly dependent upon them, and they will go on doing exactly as they please, admitting no wrongdoing.
If I were Grey Davis, I'd have told Bill "settle" Lockyer (CA state AG) to help balance the state budget by trying to get a few extra billion outta Microsoft's war chest.
But then again, I'm not Grey Davis - I have ethics and accountability.
If you think this is bad... (Score:5, Funny)
-- Terry
What about GNU donations? (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmmm, let's see (Score:5, Funny)
$25/$0 =
Divide by zero error. Post terminated.
How many pennies does this actually cost M$? (Score:2)
Maximum Damage (Score:3, Interesting)
1. We MUST not let any of these funds go unclaimed. Don't forget to file your claim. Tell all your friends. Tell your friends to tell their friends.
2. Don't treat this voucher as a freebee. Only use it to purchase software that you would have purchased had you not received a voucher in the first place.
3. If you absolutely must purchase a Microsoft product, be sure and use it for something like an Xbox or something that has a high per unit production cost, not software licenses.
4. Use it to purchase software from direct Microsoft competitors.
5. If they are allowed to redeem it for cash, donate your voucher to an organization that creates free software, such as the FSF.
I hope others of you out there will have some suggestions as well.
what are the stipulations? (Score:2)
Good payment for the lawyers (Score:2, Funny)
Hopefully the lawyers will get paid with copies of Microsoft Bob.
Anti-trust and Xbox digital signing keys (Score:2, Interesting)
Xbox software key signing is part of the anti-piracy system. For a large part, that means that key signing is for the benefit of MicroSoft and possibly other game publishers, not the customers that purchase the console. MicroSoft may be able to show that other game publishers would be unwilling to produce games for the Xbox if the key signing anti-piracy system was not in place. However, history has shown that even when game publishers are aware of methods of piracy for game consoles they continue to publish games for that console anyways. Also, it has been shown that the key signing part of the anti-piracy system has not been effective in stopping the creation of mod-chips for the Xbox. So, it is even debate-able how effective a benefit key signing is to other publishers of Xbox content. Hence, the only thing that key signing has been effective against is artifically forcing software, a "'plug-in' component that 'powers' what the Xbox does," to be only available if it has been signed by a single source (MicroSoft). In several ways, I think the Xbox signed software mirrors the Anti-trust issues created by Kodak creating a camera that requires a special type of battery.
Californa courts have shown themselves willing to enforce anti-trust law, even against the US big giant. Rather than working on silly attempts to "crack" the 2048 bit key, why not get some lawyers to "ask" for the private key. Can MS prove that there is a benefit (directly or indirectly) to the consumer that every piece of software that loads on the Xbox is signed by MS?
hurting microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)
Governments and politicians have proven to be quite ineffective (what did the "Monopoly" status get us?), so we need to react as consumers, and we need to STOP BUYING MICROSOFT PRODUCTS!.
Microsoft has said that their bread and butter is Windows and Office, so above all else, those two products should be avoided. ... now I understand that they are difficult ones to avoid, but lets face it... the government can't do anything, so what are you going to do?
Re:hurting microsoft (Score:2)
> Governments and politicians have proven to be quite
> ineffective (what did the "Monopoly" status get us?), so
> we need to react as consumers, and we need to STOP
> BUYING MICROSOFT PRODUCTS!.
Don't just stop buying Microsoft products. Don't react, act! Support Microsoft's competitors! Switch to Apple, Linux, *BSD, whoever fills your needs. Grab an alternative office suite, an alternative browser.
Don't just "consume" (and don't mess with warez), be an active supporter. If it is a proprietary product, pay cold hard cash (and they would probably appreciate bug reports and some kind words if you have the time). If it is an open source project, support it as best you can, whether that is developing, volunteering for documentation of graphics work, donating a pizza, or sending in bug reports, suggestions, and honest positive feedback and encouragement. Don't forget to tell your friends if you found something you like.
Also, spread the word that alternatives exist. There are lots of companies on the fence now over Licensing 6. Help them find what they need to get the job done and get Microsoft off their backs.
Microsoft has been allowed to derail the future of the computer industry for far too long. It's high time to chuck them and their mad dreams of Millennium. The battle for the future has begun!
To Microsoft:
The crown is not yours.
Footsteps drum a dirge of doom
By nuclear rage!
The world's great hero,
Dreaded God and Monster King,
Millennium ends.
This is BS (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft gets to write of $1.1B in losses, but it only costs them about $1.5MILLION to do it. That's going to be great for shareholder value!
Plus, they'll probably book $50 per copy for support at one point or another.. So this is just another great money-making scheme that is good for M$ and BAD for consumers.
What Microsoft should be forced to do is buy each and every californian a nice retail packaged copy of RedHat with OpenOffice, along with 4 hours of RedHat phone support and a decent linux book for newbies (if there exists such a thing).
That would teach M$ a lesson. This settlement will actually turn out to be very profitable for them.
Re:This is BS (Score:2, Informative)
You'll notice that they have to distibute vouchers for ANY manufacturer's products, Your first three statements are incorrect, and the last one is potentially what could happen, so what you have said is completly off topic. Reading the Article next time would help when posting a response.
The same thing as... (Score:2, Insightful)
"We can't give you your money back sir. We can only give you in-store credit. [I understand we sold you a piece of shit. But our policy is to screw the customer. You can only receive credit to buy more shit.]"
I know it's happened to me at various stores.
There is no penalty here. Microsoft will get all the money back that they settled on.
Wait, the fix for monopoly is... more monopoly? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, Microsoft is found to have unfairly leveraged their monopoly, so the request is: "Um, hey, can we have some more of that software 'ya got there? It's just the best darn thing we could thing we could use."
Just imagine if this form of punishment were applied to other organizations acting in a criminal manner:
A mob being asked to offer it's "protection services" at no cost for one year.
Politicians found to have taken bribes being asked to serve without their official pay for the remainder of their term.
A drug cartel being asked to provide half it's crop to the state for free the next year.
A corporate polluter punished by being forced to create more product next year.
Ryan Fenton
What about OEM software? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a solution? (Score:2)
The problem is that THIS IS NOT A SOLUTION. Microsoft violates anti-trust laws as a matter of standard operating proceedure, and a slap on the wrist is all they get? Nothing is done to remedy the problem of their ill-gotten market position. A billion dollars is chump change to them when it is a one time "fine," Even if the "fine" were ten billion dollars, how long will it take them to recoup it due to their ill gotten market position?
This is just a bunch of sick bullshit that California has agreed to so they wouldn't go home completely empty handed.
Am I the only person who sees this?
peanuts -- evil peanuts (Score:4, Informative)
The kicker is, however, $1bn is about as much as Toshiba had to pay for shipping supposedly defective floppy disk drives on their laptops.
I think this is absolutely evil. Even if Microsoft had to pay everything in cash, it would be peanuts. Instead, they'll be able to further contaminate schools with their proprietary software, something they have already volunteered to do as a "donation"--a tax sheltered marketing ploy.
Moron. (Score:2)
That comment was moderated "redundant" because there's no way to mod something "retarded". (No, it wasn't me, but I can sure sympathize. Learn to read.)
- A.P.
Re:Take a Look Here. (Score:3, Funny)
MS Mice are themselves counterfeit (Score:3, Interesting)
but
This story is much better [chicagotribune.com]
A Seattle jury called it misappropriation of trade secrets and last month [Dec 2001] awarded a $16.5 million in damages to Fernando Falcon and Federico Gilligan.
The Argentine inventors Falcon and Gilligan invented a computer mouse that allowed concurrent pointing and scrolling. They showed their work in 1993 to KeyTronicEMS, a computer electronics manufacturer in Spokane, Wash., and helped the company build two prototypes. Together they planned to take the mouse to market.
At the time, KeyTronic was struggling to overcome an $8 million loss and hoping to land a lucrative contract making keyboards for Microsoft Corp.
KeyTronic's then-director of research and development, Charles Fauble, assured Falcon and Gilligan that he would show the mice to Microsoft developers at a December 1993 business meeting. That was the last time anyone remembers seeing the devices.
KeyTronic couldn't explain in court how it lost the devices, and Microsoft couldn't explain how the inventors' technology wound up in its Intellimouse, which hit store shelves in 1996.
Here's what was clear: KeyTronic scored a $160 million keyboard contract from Microsoft, and Microsoft raked in roughly $650 million from one of the best selling mouse products of all time.
Vickrey said there was no evidence that Microsoft knew it was getting Falcon and Gilligan's confidential technology.