Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Government Linux Business The Courts Your Rights Online News

Microsoft Sends Takedown Notice To MSFreePC.com 358

Posted by simoniker from the misrepresentation-or-public-service? dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Sends Takedown Notice To MSFreePC.com More

Microsoft Sends Takedown Notice To MSFreePC.com

Comments Filter:

  • It's too bad you can't register domains with (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    $, else M$FreePC.com could've been his, and he would've avoided this mess. I mean, Microsoft wouldn't claim that M$ actually represents them, would they?

  • Huh? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by instanto ( 513362 )
    Do they have any legal rights to demand such a shutdown?

    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)

      by s20451 ( 410424 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @01:51PM (#7087170) Journal
      In the article, Microsoft objects to the site because it misrepresents the settlement and encourages people to submit claims that are invalid.

      It's just as likely that Lindows is being self-serving as it is that Microsoft is being malicious.
      • Hey, isn't that Microsoft's strategy with Lindows also?

        MS: Lindows misrepresents itself as an operating system, encouraging people to buy software that is invalid.

      • The FINE print (Score:5, Interesting)

        by pVoid ( 607584 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @02:07PM (#7087332)
        There are two ways to get your settlement:

        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: (Score:3, Funny)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
        Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Huh? (Score:4, Informative)

      by cK-Gunslinger ( 443452 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @01:53PM (#7087183) Journal
      It appears that MS's claims may be valid. MSFreePC.com offers a way to "click to join" the class-action lawsuit, but MS argues that all submittals must be signed, and such. The web-site is definitely in poor-taste, but it may very well be illegal as well.

      • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Cirkit ( 584149 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @02:04PM (#7087294)
        I thought the most interesting bit about this was Microsoft stating that 'so-called digital signitures' were not acceptable.

        Um, hello? This is Microsoft, that thinks its click-through EULA is as good as a contract?

      • Re:Huh? (Score:2)

        by avdp ( 22065 ) *
        Well, if MS claims are valid then all it means is that Lindows will loose a truck load of money (not the consumer who has received a free PC from Lindows). I don't how that constitute a problem for MS or the consumer. It may constitute a problem for Lindows though (not getting their money back from MS).

        • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by ceejayoz ( 567949 )
          I'd bet you large sums of money that the Lindows offer includes something that says "you agree to reimburse Lindows for the cost of your free merchandise if your claim is rejected" or something like that.
      • According to this website [cybersign.com], it's a violation of Federal Law for Microsoft to say that electronic signatures are invalid.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sixteenraisins ( 67316 )
      IANAL either, but maybe they have a legitimate (hehehe) beef under some kind of "pending lawsuit" clause.

      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:5, Informative)

      by B'Trey ( 111263 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @01:55PM (#7087208)
      Why not read the linked article? The site does more than inform consumers. It sets up a system that supposedly allows consumers to file for a claim through the website, and allows Lindows to accept their rebate for them and apply it to a purchase through Lindows. MS claims this violates the terms of the settlement. IANAL, and have only seens MS's side of the claim, so I have no idea if what MS says is correct. They seem to have a point, but it's relatively easy to spin legal jargoneese that sounds good but is completely bogus.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mr. Sketch ( 111112 ) * <mister.sketch@nOSPAM.gmail.com> on Monday September 29, 2003 @01:55PM (#7087214)
      The problem is that they are offering to file the claims for the user when the details of the settlement say the user must file the claim themselves. Also, the settlement says the user must also physically sign and mail in their claim, while the website is just collecting digital signitures which is not permitted by the settlement.

      This is just to name a few of the obvious ones. Here [newsforge.com] is the full text of the letter on Newsforge.
  • Robertson doesn't buckle to pressure from Microsoft.

    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.
    • They have figured it out.

      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...
    • Aww nurtz!

      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:5, Interesting)

      by Strudelkugel ( 594414 ) * on Monday September 29, 2003 @02:15PM (#7087419)

      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:

      1. Start cool music site
      2. Decide he needs more mainstream music to attract people
      3. Buy mainstream CDs and rip them to MP3.com drives
      4. Sell CDs back to used CD stores
      5. Get sued by RIAA and lose more than $150 million
      6. Leave company

      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

      • 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
        This time he distributes the risk among his customers and the internet community by selling a linux distribution that beats windows in being insecure for convenience reasons.

      • Re:Haven't they figured this out yet? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by MachineShedFred ( 621896 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @02:27PM (#7087531) Journal
        I didn't say that he hasn't done things that merit legal action, I just said he doesn't fold like an accordian.

        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)

    by markhb ( 11721 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @01:48PM (#7087122) Journal
    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.

    Remainder of my .sig: be the majority of voters.

    • Re:The letter text is on Newsforge (Score:5, Informative)

      by Roberto ( 1777 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @01:50PM (#7087145) Homepage
      Yup. If the claim has to be signed, a site saying that you don't need to sign one, yet promises to handle your claim seems either fraudulent, or at least useless and misleading.

    • Re:The letter text is on Newsforge (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tomhudson ( 43916 ) <barbara@hudson.barbara-hudson@com> on Monday September 29, 2003 @01:52PM (#7087171) Journal
      The reason Microsoft doesn't want consumers to claim is because then only a portion of the money unclaimed is allotted to schools, and you can be sure that most of that will be in products, not cash.

      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)

        by nuggz ( 69912 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @01:57PM (#7087232) Homepage
        This is probaly both.

        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.

      • 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

        • I have to wonder though. Now I can agree that Lindows is doing this to benifit themselves, but since Lindows is Linux based would this not be good for all people in the long run?

          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

          • The problem with Lindows is that:

            1. It's not REALLY Linux in the sense that we know it.
            2. It's run by as big of a sleazebag as the turds that run Microsoft.

            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)

        by C10H14N2 ( 640033 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @02:18PM (#7087440)
        The letter said nothing about Microsoft not wanting consumers to claim, in fact the argument was that consumers are being bilked into purchasing a competitor's product under the presumption that they will be credited back by the class action, which is not true. Running with your argument, the more people "claiming" through this marketing gimmick, the more valid class members Microsoft will not have to pay out, so it would be just as in Microsoft's interest to let all the snake-oil salesmen profit and take back the moral high ground.

        Score one for Microsoft in appearing reasonable and minus one for Linux as Lindows removes all ethical credibility.

        Sigh. What jerks.
        • If you had bothered to read the lindows site itself, you would see that, before actually claiming their $$$/free pc/whatever, they would have to submit physical proof. The web site just does a sort of "pre-approval"

          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

        • No surprise that Microsoft is being "jerks" too:

          The website incorrectly states that Microsoft was "found guilty of antitrust violations" in the Department of Justice case. The Department of Justice action was a civil proceeding, and the findings of liability in that action do not constitute criminal convictions or findings of "guilt."

          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)

        by ConceptJunkie ( 24823 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @02:35PM (#7087623) Homepage Journal
        Yeah, Microsoft has to give X hundred million dollars to schools, which they do by giving them Microsoft products. In other words, they can print money.

        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.

    • Informative? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MarkusQ ( 450076 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @02:25PM (#7087521) Journal

      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)

    by Ro'que ( 153060 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @01:48PM (#7087123)
    What? Someone is being deceptive to Microsoft customers? How dare they LIE to Microsoft's customers! MS customers DEMAND honesty and integrity from the companies they buy from, and Mr. Gates will be damned if he'll just sit by and let his unfortunate customers get swindled!

  • how long? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Beckman ( 136138 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @01:49PM (#7087133) Homepage
    The site is still up for now, but how long will it last?

    Until it's slashdotted out of existance...

  • I remember when they issued this bogus statement about their impending breakup. [lostbrain.com]

    Yes, it is a joke.
    tcd004

  • Needs a signature (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Read the link, all it says is that it will not work. The agreement states that people have to mail in a signature. You can't do that on their website... Now about shutting down a site, that stinks...

    • Re:Needs a signature (Score:4, Interesting)

      by PhoenixRising ( 36999 ) <ngroot+slashdot&lo-cal,org> on Monday September 29, 2003 @02:00PM (#7087258) Homepage
      Not really. If they're actually putting out fraudulent information (i.e., a signature is required to join the class action,) then why shouldn't they be enjoined from continuing to do so?

      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.
      • 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.

        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)

    by sl0ppy ( 454532 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @01:50PM (#7087156)
    reading the letter, it really sounds as if lindows is being sneaky, and trying desperately to capitalize on the class action suit by getting sales and customer information by any means possible.

    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)

    by jimson ( 516491 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @01:51PM (#7087159) Homepage
    Cause a court order may not be able to shut the site down, but I'm sure a slashdotting will do the job!

  • I know! (Score:2, Funny)

    by sw155kn1f3 ( 600118 )
    > The site is still up for now, but how long will it last?

    Not very long after the post.

  • Seems Valid (Score:2, Insightful)

    by JiMbOb_ka ( 232846 ) *
    According to the article, it looks like the major beef is that submitting via the website does not output the claim in the determined format. While this seems to be a small issue, imagine if you were the guy that admins the email server getting the 1000s of email generated by MSFreePC.com. I would think that MSFreePC.com could change the procedure to output a more compatible format to send to MS and all should be fine. Whether or not MS is just playing a bully is yet to be determinined (in this case).

  • Should have avoided saying "takedown notice" (Score:4, Interesting)

    by JoeBuck ( 7947 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @01:52PM (#7087174) Homepage

    "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.

    • "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.

      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.

  • And Microsoft is angry why? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ZackSchil ( 560462 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @01:54PM (#7087200)
    The instant claim just sounds like an "instant rebate" deal. Sure, there are forms to fill out etc, and if one bounces or is denied for whatever reason, the person will be billed for the products or services they acquired under the instant approval option. I'd assume the person gets billed for the things they buy but once completed, the claim gets used as credit.

    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)

    by Slime-dogg ( 120473 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @01:54PM (#7087202) Journal

    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)

    by el_gordo101 ( 643167 )
    Before bashing MS, read the letter. Lindows (MSFreePC.com) is mis-leading the public into thinking that they can enter them into the class. MS is only saying that due to the nature of the settlement and to the agreed method of joining the class, the way that MSFreePC.com is going about it is invalid. Wake up and RTFA before you go screaming about how evil MS is.

  • Hip HipHop Hiphopicritical? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Doesn't_Comment_Code ( 692510 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @01:56PM (#7087220)

    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 ...

    • /me laughs

      True, Also consider the /. article a while back about Dell PCs shipping without a way to read the EULA before accepting it. It asked on first boot, and wouldnt allow you to read the license, or use your computer before clicking on the 'I have read everything and agree to it' button.

      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
    • Now if they had only used Passport, then MS would have been in the sticky position of saying, "Passport isn't legally binding in our case, but please continue to store your personal information and credit card info in it because it's legally binding everywhere else..."

      -Adam

    • Re:Hip HipHop Hiphopicritical? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Ogrez ( 546269 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @02:31PM (#7087580)
      Even though the terms of the settlement agreement do not allow digital sigatures, the site could still take the information and allow a digital signature for the power of attourney needed to submit the claim on that parties behalf. Since myfreepc.com was filing on behalf of the individual, myfreepc.com could sign the legit signature for them.
    • IANAL, but I do wonder if there is some way that this complaint can be turned around to test the validity of digital signatures and EULAs.

      Can Lindows theoretically put up a defense that attempts to verify the validity of digital "click-through" signatures?

  • DEAR CMDRTACO, (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Please add the following line to Slashdot's iptables firewall rules:
    /sbin/iptables -I INPUT -s *.aol.com -j DROP
    Thank you.

    Sincerely,
    All Subscribed Users

  • How long indeed (Score:3, Funny)

    by Gogl ( 125883 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @02:03PM (#7087286) Journal
    "The site is still up for now, but how long will it last?"

    And to *help* the site you submitted it to Slashdot? I don't buy it. You're one of them, aren't you!
  • "Such claims, if approved, will take settlement benefits away from legitimate class members and from California's public schools, which will receive vouchers worth two-thirds of any unclaimed settlement funds."

    Wow... Microsoft is so benevolent... two-thirds of unclaimed funds in vouchers! Weeeeee...

  • Quick summary (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Experiment 626 ( 698257 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @02:06PM (#7087326)

    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)

    by northwind ( 308027 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @02:07PM (#7087330) Homepage
    Don't kill me, but it seems there are valid points to M$ fax:

    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.
    • 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.

      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)

    by LittleGuy ( 267282 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @02:07PM (#7087337)
    The site is still up for now, but how long will it last?

    ... who read the above sentence and mentally added:

    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)

    by tbase ( 666607 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @02:12PM (#7087383)
    Notice I didn't use plural - it would only take one lawyer - any lawyer - to determine that they were asking for trouble with MSfreePC.com and the way they're going about it. I asked about this in the original story - how can they file claims for people when they aren't even giving people access to the documentation outlining the rules, qualifications and benefits of the class action? I'm sure they did it for the tons of free publicity, as well as the goodwill anyone would get for doing anything against MS, but I think this one may just cost them more than it's worth. I'm surprised it's MS that's contacting them and not the courts. If I were the Judge and I heard about a web site that's sole purpose was to circumnavigate my ruling and orders, I'd be gunnning for the people behind it. Seems to me they could be facing obstruction of justice charges, maybe even fraud.

    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?

  • 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)

    by zymano ( 581466 )
    Cnet Article [com.com]

    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 that a company that is supposedly about increasing the adoption of new technology to help people would be against the use of the very same technology to assist people.

    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...
  • Microsoft's letter is interesting in that they seem to be warning Lindows about something they have no jurisdiction over. Robertson is taking a big risk with the site; he's covering the bill, and if he isn't being very careful with his language and procedures, the judge could throw out claims filed through the site and Lindows would be short a large chunk of cash.

  • Netcraft (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Nonillion ( 266505 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @02:28PM (#7087539)
    Well atleast they have the common sence to host it on a server running Linux and Apache :)

  • Only a Lawyer would say this. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Stephen Samuel ( 106962 ) <samuel AT bcgreen DOT com> on Monday September 29, 2003 @02:41PM (#7087697) Homepage Journal
    (and it's all in one sentence, too)
    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.

  • From TFA: "For the foregoing reasons, Lindows.com must correct or take down the www.msfreepc.com website to rectify the many serious defects we have identified above." They're demanding they fix it *or* take it down.
  • I strongly suspect Robertson really doesn't care if he gets any money from forwarding these claims to Microsoft. This is straightforward marketing - if Microsoft rejects the claims, all he's out is the cost of a bunch of CDs in the hands of people who *might* become Click-n-Run customers, and some computers, plus he gets the PR of Big Bad Microsoft slapping him down once again.

    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)

    by DunbarTheInept ( 764 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @02:50PM (#7087792) Homepage
    The request is reasonable. If it was a case of lindows merely offering information about how people can make their claims it would be legitimate. But their site makes the claim that you can file your claim agaisnt MS through the lindows site, and according to the terms of the settlement that is clearly not true (for one thing, the form has to be physically signed to be legitimate.) So the Lindows site is making false claims about their capacity to file on your behaf. Asking them to change that is perfectly reasonable.

    (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)

    by poptones ( 653660 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @03:06PM (#7087958) Journal
    I think many of you are missing the point. I jsut went to the website and took the "quiz." During that time I took part in the dot-bust, so I actually DID buy an assload of e-machines at office depot, which I reported in the "quiz" as five licenses to windows (in this case, win98). Filled out the other stuff, including name and address and the last four digits of my SSN. I would imagine Lindows will claim the "typed signature" combined with the SSN fragment would constitute a valid "signature" but that really doesn't matter anyway.

    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.

  • "We have never and do not engage in anti-competitive practices."

    HAHAHAHAHA.. Hahaha.. ha.. that was good.

  • Here's Your Conscience calling again... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by thelizman ( 304517 ) <hammerattackNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Monday September 29, 2003 @03:17PM (#7088068) Homepage
    Gimme a second to gird my loin - I'm about to be flamebaited by the Linux zealots who have surrendered all perspective on the meaning of "free" and "open" and "fair".

    *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.
  • So try this on for size:

    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)

    by bshroyer ( 21524 ) <bret AT bretshroyer DOT org> on Monday September 29, 2003 @03:31PM (#7088229)
    It seems that a large part of Microsoft's argument is the requirement on a wet-ink signature. The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) [uetaonline.com] passed by most states in 2000-2001 sought to, among other things, give electronic signatures much the same force and effect as wet-ink signatures.

    California's
    2001 SB97 [ca.gov] reads:

    1633.7. (a) A record or signature may not be denied legal effect
    or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.
    (b) A contract may not be denied legal effect or enforceability
    solely because an electronic record was used in its formation.
    (c) If a law requires a record to be in writing, an electronic
    record satisfies the law.
    (d) If a law requires a signature, an electronic signature
    satisfies the law.

    This seems pretty clear to me, but then, as they say, IANAL.
  • So, I filed online for the CD price-fixing class-action settlement, and everything looked fine, and I've been waiting for what seems like a long time for my check...

    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)

    by emkman ( 467368 ) on Monday September 29, 2003 @05:14PM (#7089221)
    The issue of an ink signature is not really valid, since as many people have already pointed out, electronic sigs hold equal legal weight now in most states, CA included.
    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa.

Close