Microsoft Drags Feet with Settlement Claims 133
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft is holding up compensation claims from a quarter of million Californians in order to punish Lindows.com, and to coerce the class action plaintiffs 'into siding with Microsoft against its Lindows competitor,' according to a court filing seen by The Register. The document, filed on 21st November by Townsend and Townsend and Crew, lead counsel for the Californian class action consumers, points out that none of the claims being held up was actually filed via Lindows.com, yet Microsoft has held them 'hostage' for over two months."
Hmmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
'nuff said
Townsend and Crew? (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:2)
Argh (Score:5, Funny)
*eagerly awaiting his ill-gotten gains*
A move for the books? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A move for the books? (Score:5, Insightful)
Only to have it as a charge on next quarter's earnings report? What would they gain from that? I know modern execs have an extreme short-term outlook, but that would really be extreme. Unless some guy is getting ready to retire and his retirement bonus is based on this year's stock performance.
Re:A move for the books? (Score:3, Insightful)
Tax breaks?
Re:A move for the books? (Score:4, Interesting)
S
Re:A move for the books? (Score:1)
S
That article might be a little out of date (Score:2)
"A significant portion of the wages Microsoft pays to its employees comes in the form of stock options rather than in cash. Compared to the rest of the industry, the amount of cash Microsoft pays its programmers is at best mediocre. It attracts and retains employees via stock options..."
"So there you have it. $3.1 billion from a tax loophole [the "Stock option income tax benefit
Re:That article might be a little out of date (Score:2)
It also seems that MS is trying to get rid of options all together, now.. according to Wired [wired.com].
S
Re:A move for the books? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A move for the books? (Score:3, Interesting)
My guess is they will factor in the 1 billion when doing guestimates on profits next year.
Or they are doing another dejavue from the DOJ vs MS case. They will refuse to pay and keep putting it off and getting the case appealed until a judge sides with Microsoft.
Re:A move for the books? (Score:2)
Re:A move for the books? (Score:1, Interesting)
Remember that fiasco with AOL's accounting practices near the start of the year? That's basically what they'd wound up doing to look profitable. They took the money they were loosing and kept finding new ways to defer it until the next quarter. So they kept loosing money, but it didn't show up on any accounting reports.
Re:A move for the books? (Score:5, Interesting)
Side note - this allows companies to control earnings by overestimating, for allowances for unpaid debts. Say you overestimate by 1 billion dollars (in a period where earnings are great) - you can discover your error in a period where earnings are poor, magically adding back earnings removed earlier.
Gee, what a suprise! (Score:5, Funny)
In other news...
Water is wet!
The Sky is blue!
Ice is cold!
and so on ad nauseum.
Re:Gee, what a suprise! (Score:1, Funny)
In other news...
Water is wet!
The Sky is blue!
Ice is cold!
and so on ad nauseum.
And in news just to hand... (Score:1, Funny)
Now in news just to hand:
Sun rises in the east.
Sheesh
Non-Microsoft-based VPS Hosting [rimuhosting.com]
Battle of resources, not facts (Score:5, Informative)
It doesn't matter whether we're talking about SCO, Microsoft, the DMCA, RIAA, or Michael Jackson. The new get-rich-quick or save-your-ass business model is now based on seeing who can legally travel the farthest on the gas they have in their tank.
Re:Battle of resources, not facts (Score:5, Funny)
Well the RIAA and Michael Jackson have been going after little kids, but Microsoft?
Re:Battle of resources, not facts (Score:1, Informative)
BZZZZT!
It has been alleged that Michael Jackson has been going after little kids. I don't know whether he has or not.
This could just be another attempt by his accusers to grab a chunk of money by making up some juicy dirt. It happens all the time.
Re:Battle of resources, not facts (Score:1, Informative)
Now I don't know about you, but even if I were Micheal Jackson and had that sort of cash just lying around, I wouldn't prove my innocence by buying off the complaint and not going to court.
So, how well do you think little old Micheal will fair in the nonce wing?
Re:Battle of resources, not facts (Score:1)
It's pretty much a losing situation for Michael either way, after all it is just circumstantial evidence and the verdict will be decided based on testimony and not "evidence".
I think Michael is just a weird guy but I don't think he "molested" any child. He's just strange and probably hugged and treated the kids like he wanted to be treated as a child. Of course that's a bit weird if you aren't relat
Re:Battle of resources, not facts (Score:2)
Who's the main target demographic for the XBox?
Re:Battle of resources, not facts (Score:2)
really really big adults.
Re:Battle of resources, not facts (Score:5, Interesting)
-
Is anyone surprised?
Well, yes and no. I'm not surprised because I know Microsoft tends to behave this way, but at the same time, I'm a tad surprised at how flagrantly they're thumbing their nose at all the governments (states and federal) that these settlements effect. As for federal, things aren't looking perfectly hunky-dory for MS on that front, as thre seems to be a fair chance the holdout state may manage to get tougher sanctions placed on MS.It doesn't matter whether we're talking about SCO, Microsoft, the DMCA, RIAA, or Michael Jackson. The new get-rich-quick or save-your-ass business model is now based on seeing who can legally travel the farthest on the gas they have in their tank.
Yes, I know we all think Microsoft is the Evil Empire (tm), but even evil empires/villians generally know when it's time to shut the hell up and at least pretend to play by the rules for a while. Hasn't MS learned by now that further antagonization very well may cause them to end up in bigger trouble? If they start ticking off enough business and individuals, they may find not only public sentiment totally against them, but some seriously powerful lobbying interests pulling out the big guns to launch attacks on them. That could hurt a lot more than any of the current judicial cases/settlements would, and definitely would be far worse than the miniscule amount of money they'll be out by playing by the rules of the game in this case.
Re:Battle of resources, not facts (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry for straying offtopic, but this is generally not true. Actually most empires in history fall just because they went for yet another "easy prey" and bitterly discovered that it wasn't that easy after all. Would the Soviets keep away from Afghanistan, they could pretty well still be in Kremlin. Would Napoleon keep away from Kremlin, he could pretty well keep Paris, Vienna, Berlin, Rome and Madrid till the end of his days. And still this lesson didn't keep Hitler from repeating exatcly the same mistake. The same goes with the villains - Al Capone could live his days in luxury if he wouldn't be too greedy.
DISCLAIMER - no, I am not saying that Bill Gates is like Hitler or Capone; I'm just saying that history proves, that saying "Okay, I have gained enough, now is the time for peaceful consumption of what I've got" is actually the MORE difficult part than saying "Let's build an empire from scratch".
Re:Battle of resources, not facts (Score:2)
I think M$ is NO different in that respect--they are already one of the biggest corporations in history, and they have a LOT of cash, but they want MORE! This is what really annoys me about that company--every thing they do seems to be about getting more money.
I know that that is the idea of any publicly traded company --to generate cash for the st
Re:Battle of resources, not facts (Score:1)
Re:Battle of resources, not facts (Score:2)
Response to disclaimer: I'll probably get lynched for saying this, but Gates is actually not a bad
Re:Battle of resources, not facts (Score:5, Insightful)
If you rob a bank, and give half your ill-gotten gains to charity, and on your deathbed give away what's left
... you're still a bank robber.
Re:Battle of resources, not facts (Score:2)
The point is that a thief is still a thief. No, Gates didn't rob a bank for his money; he stole it in subtler ways. Look, I'm glad he's giving money to charity, but it doesn't excuse what he did to get that
Re:Battle of resources, not facts (Score:2)
Look at the recent doj case as an example. This just confirms ms can do whatever they want.
My guess is MS will refuse to pay and wait for the next higher court to take its case and then will settle as soon as they find a favorable judge just like the doj case.
Re:Battle of resources, not facts (Score:5, Insightful)
No, because it hasn't landed them in bigger trouble. They continue to ignore the legal system and it continues to be very profitable for them. And they'll keep thwarting the legal system as for them it's been a working strategy.
Microsoft has learned that they can win most of their court cases and get slap-on-the-hand settlements for the rest and then see to it that the slap doesn't even actually happen.
Re:Battle of resources, not facts (Score:2)
get slap-on-the-hand settlements for the rest and then see to it that the slap doesn't even actually happen.
Or, even worse, get settlements that actually make their position stronger. Forcing a convicted monopolist to give away a certain amount of their own software makes no sense. The problem is that they've already got far too much market dominance. Giving them a way to get still more market dominance is not a punishment.
Of course, given that they won the antitrust case by paying off the Federal gov
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Battle of resources, not facts (Score:2)
Actually, you should get your facts straight. Bush campaigned repeatedly on the promise of ending the MS anti-trust trial as soon as possible via settlement.
So the fact that Microsoft helped buy the election of the administration that handed them the keys to the kingdom instead of buying them off after makes things better how, exactly?
Re:Battle of resources, not facts (Score:2)
Remember, Clinton was all for smacking them down. Then when Bush got into office, he told Ashcroft to let them off the hook. (well, presumably. The order technically just came from Ashcroft, but I can't imagine him doing that
Re:Battle of resources, not facts (Score:2)
I know it may not seem like this from a slashdot reader's perspective, but public sentiment is very much for Microsoft, not against it.
For every geek they piss off, there's 10 investors that love them.
Re:Battle of resources, not facts (Score:2)
MS has a point on this (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a nice idea to encourage people to claim their piece of the settlement, and as much as I like seeing it happen to Microsoft, it really can't be done in a fair and legal way.
Since the law doesn't apply to microsoft (Score:1, Interesting)
In both cases, my reaction is: "couldn't happen to a nicer fuck". And I dont' see any reason to feel bad about that.
Re:Mod this anti-MS zealot down.. (Score:2, Insightful)
The law only applies *in theory* to microsoft, but yet they have never had to deal with any signifigant penalties (sorry, to M$, 1.1 billion dollars is not signifigant), which means that they are *in practice* exempt from the law.
Re:I don't feel sorry for them (Score:3, Interesting)
Inventory control (Score:5, Insightful)
But how many small businesses are going to be that efficient? Especially when the guy who runs the systems is probably someone doing it part time along with his other duties, who may have been handed the job by the last guy who left, without a significant training period (after all, Windows is so easy to run, right?). A lot of small research labs (e.g., under one professor at a university) are run like this, usually by student volunteers.
And the point is, Microsoft accuses you of theft without any proof whatsoever. They have no way of tracking where that version came from, to know, for instance, if it was copied from some other disk). They have no witnesses to testify that they saw you make the copy illegally (unless they can find the guy you laid off last week and he has a grudge). But "innocent until proven guilty" means nothing. It's more like, "we have more lawyers than you and can grind you into the dust whenever we choose, so wouldn't you rather have a site license and end all these worries?"
Re:Inventory control (Score:2)
In the BSA cases I've read, the threshold was as low as 5%, not a "significant fraction."
At some point, it doesn't matter whether it was malicious or not, because of the epic scale of incompitence.
"Epic scale of incompitence [sic]"??? Over licenses costing a few hundred dollars?
First of all, most small-scale computer users may not even be aware there's an issue. They paid for their computer, right? Thanks to
Re:MS has a point on this (Score:1)
If it workes for Bill Gates [cmcnyls.edu], why can't it work for anyone?
You don't get it both ways, Microsoft. Either you let everyone lie to the courts, or you don't. Which one they prefer -- they've already made your own bed of nails on that one -- doesn't matter.
Re:MS has a point on this (Score:3, Insightful)
gimme a break (Score:3, Insightful)
The settlement is whatever the parties agree on. They could have agreed to give the money to chain smokers, or to donate to endangered ducks, or to burn a billion dollars to heat orphanages. It doesn't matter matter whether you consider the distribution fair, what matters is what they agreed to.
And what they agreed to is that th
MS has no point (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:MS has a point on this (Score:2)
How about, "Just reboot the machine, that will fix the problem"? Or, "It's the user's fault", or maybe "That's the fault of 3rd party vendors"? Etc. etc.
So what you're saying is... (Score:1)
Nothing unethical about it (Score:2, Interesting)
The items I claimed on the Lindows form represented only a fraction of the $$ MS has gotten from me over the years.
Because MS is paying with vouchers, and those vouchers will not cover the cost of any new software, they are betting most of it will come back to MS along with some cash.
I filed that claim through Lindows because
How was this going to work in the first place? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How was this going to work in the first place? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know what the hell you read, but the Microsoft standard claim form requires practically NOTHING. Name of product, where you got it, your own address, and signature... That's it. I have the form right in front of me as a matter of fact.
The same thing that stops you from filing two claims with Microsoft... When Microsoft recieves the information, they see that they've already paid one, and refuse the other.
That's how Lindows gets their money. If Microsoft doesn't pay Lindows for your claim, then Lindows doesn't pay you. Simple.
Re:How was this going to work in the first place? (Score:1, Informative)
benna
Interesting Thought..... (Score:4, Interesting)
ONE
Re:Interesting Thought..... (Score:1)
Re:Interesting Thought..... (Score:2)
Seriously (Score:4, Insightful)
When I first read about this program on
As bad as it may be, I think Microsoft is well within its' right to not accept MSFreePC claims, or at least to challenge their validity in a court of law. That shouldn't stop them from processing claims submitted under THEIR terms, however.
Re:Seriously (Score:2)
Well, that's Lindows problem isn't it. They buy the right to your claim (with free stuff to you). If your claim is bullshit, well, they don't get the money for that claim from MS.
I
This isn't about MyFreePc folks!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
This is about Microsoft wanting its way and screwing over innocents to try and get it. They're just being whiney crybabies here about MyFreePC. Sure, they may have some legit complaints about MyFreePC, but that shouldn't stop them from processing legitimate claims that have nothing at all to do with MyFreePC! This is truly just pathetic behaivor on MS's part.
You must be new here (Score:2, Troll)
Yes of course you are absolutly right. The post and articles point out clearly that the claims being held back have nothing to do with the lindows. These claims have been made by ordinary citizens of California and should h
Re:You must be new here (Score:1)
I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees it that way. I had point
Re:This isn't about MyFreePc folks!!! (Score:1)
And the truly ironic thing is... (Score:3, Informative)
"Although plaintiffs expressed some initial concerns with the Lindows web site, we are now satisfied with Lindows' explanation of its procedures and believe that it fully comports with the express terms of the Settlement Agreement."
It's just an accounting maneuver (Score:5, Interesting)
Or maybe Microsoft just hate Michael Robertson so much they would rather find themselves in breach of the settlement than pay one red cent... Nah, can't be.
Re:Just speculation but (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting theory, but I'm not sure that businesses can work the ac
Re:Just speculation but (Score:2)
MS to OEMs: "You can't uninstall IE to put Netscape on the computers you sell anymore!"
OEMs: "But our customers ask for Netscape."
MS: "I don't care! I make Windows, and I say no more uninstalling my IE for Netscape!"
OEMs: "Well, our customers ask for it, so we're going to do it for them."
MS: "Well...well... If you uninstall IE from any more machines you sell, I'll take away your Windows licenses! Then you won't be able to sell any computers at all!"
OEMs: "um..."
MS: "And just t
Re:Just speculation but (Score:2)
err
In what way is Microsoft's iron grip on the desktop market unsuccessful?
Re:Just speculation but (Score:2)
-
This can't be true! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This can't be true! (Score:1, Funny)
Hey! Slashdot is my only source of daily news!
hmm, is this really that big of a shock? (Score:2, Interesting)
and seriously, has microsoft ever done things the legal way? no, but they have done some legal things.. but based off illegal actions.
they dont like following federal law, but they sure like using federal law against its own consumers.
when I first heard M$ was supposed to send out money.. I laughed, because I knew they wouldnt do it. Also, if they did pay the settlement, they'd lose a ma
Re:hmm, is this really that big of a shock? (Score:2, Troll)
That's what drives me batty about our current system. Ultimately, the Best Product pretty much cannot win. Whichever company has the slickest marketing and the most underhanded back-room tactics wins. And that's almost never the guy with the best product since h
Re:hmm, is this really that big of a shock? (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't pile on the torture, man. In 1994, I had OS/2 and early GNU/Linux running under OS/2 Boot Manager and, frankly, I was in non-MS-Windows heaven.(It was the install floppy reads that gave the game away. After about disk 5 on OS/2, it started multitasking and chomping data like Mr Creosote. Early Slack and terrific memory management di
Mail Merge (Score:5, Funny)
How future MS settlements should be handled (Score:5, Interesting)
It's time to stop letting these things get turned into PR circuses benefiting the the defendant who chooses to settle out of court (and apparently giving no benefit to the plaintiffs, so far).
Standard disclaimer: IANAL, use this advice at your own peril, yada-yada-yada.
A few pertinent facts here (Score:1, Insightful)
- MSfreePC requires the IDENTICAL information that the manual process does. In fact, it's the same form. They are just doing it electronically. To the extent that someone could defraud MSfreePC, the IDENTICAL opportunity exists with the paper process.
- Microsoft objecting to ONLINE settlement claims is dripping with irony given their "innovation" advertising campaigns.
- While 1.1B is the an
This comes under the heading of ... (Score:2)
Linux terrorists strike again (Score:2)