Court Rejects msfreepc.com Settlement Claims 226
mr_tommy writes "Neowin has posted a link to a court ruling (pdf) on the controversial MSfreepc.com website. The court ruled that claims in the Microsoft antitrust settlement made via the site were not legitimate, and as such all submissions made through it would be rejected. The website, operated by Lindows.com, attempted to use the Californian settlement against Microsoft to its own benefit by getting users to signup and make a claim. Lindows saw an opportunity to capitalise on the ruling by getting Microsoft to pay for users to have Lindows software and hardware; undoubtedly too bitter a pill for Microsoft to take. Microsoft filed suit against the website Michael Robertson, owner of Lindows and a strong anti-Microsoft voice, will undoubtedly be disappointed with the ruling. The 'legitimate' site for claims is still available."
microsoftcalsettlement.com runs Apache... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:microsoftcalsettlement.com runs Apache... (Score:5, Interesting)
Lindows doesn't care, they wanted publicity (Score:4, Interesting)
They accomplished a fair bit of each, and what they gave away were just copies of software that hardly cost them anything in the first place. This was another smart marketing move by their CEO, and inline with his other moves: not very classy, but shrewd nonetheless.
Basic money laundering 101 (Score:1, Interesting)
I really don't care for either of these two companies, but it seemed clear that the Lindows site was not collecting complete information required from users. MS should have been able to just ignore Lindows, but they were forced into a suit.
Lawyers 1 - Corperations 0
Re:Sounds like a terrible idea in the first place (Score:5, Interesting)
This is one of those who really cares moments.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft looks bad for shutting down a site to help consumers take advantage of the settlement, so they can be spun in the press to be trying to get out of their obligations.
To be honest you can't really blaim Robertson or Lindows.com for putting up the site becuase they win either way.
Now Microsoft... They eitehr Lose or have a Neutral outcome from shutting down this site. To be honest I don't know why they did it... unless they are still trying to claim that they won/were not found to have violated the law in the antitrust case.
But WHY? (Score:2, Interesting)
Fine, but "underhanded" isn't a legal term, so I'm curious by what reasoning the thing was disallowed. The linked ruling didn't give any reasons at all, merely saying that the website and process did not comply with the terms of the settlement, but not saying how or why they did not comply.
no, they got some of their own... (Score:2, Interesting)
How is this different than H&R Block? (Score:5, Interesting)
How do I give my share back to Microsoft? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Serves them right (Score:3, Interesting)
More like "Do you really want to hand it right back to them, or would you like to use it to get the hell away from their crappy products and use OUR crappy products INSTEAD!?"
I'm not talking about Linux here -- just Lindows.... which is, in fact, crap and despite being based on a Linux kernel is in many ways as bad as Windows when it comes to security, etc.
Not Michael Robertson's first legal smackdown... (Score:4, Interesting)
When he was at MP3.com his "strategy" was to confront the music industry head-on, effectively trying to take the banana from the 800 pound gorilla. It wasn't until he launched the infamous myMP3.com service and the copyright violation lawsuits started pouring in that he attempted any sort of amicable agreement with the industry. Surely we haven't forgotten the massive legal smackdown MP3.com incurred as a result.
Robertson's strategy with the Microsoft rebate smacks of the same confrontational and haphazard business decisions that doomed his earlier business.
Re:MSFreePC Still accepting applications (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:MSFreePC Still accepting applications (Score:4, Interesting)
The court ruling specifically orders that people who filed through MSFreePC.com be mailed an official claim form, so if MS tries anything like that I think they'll get slapped down. Besides, if they really wanted to screw people on this they would have waited until after the deadline had passed to challenge the claims.
Re:Lindows, not impressed (Score:2, Interesting)
Games, I can not dispute that. My kids love the Sim type games and various others. I have 2 other computers in the house that can run W2K for games, and they have a PS1, PS2 and a Dreamcast that they use for games. The Linux desktops are in thier rooms and heavily used, they play games elsewhere.
No usable software - I'll take that as a troll comment. Other then the lack of games, they have everything they need. Browsing the web, listening to mp3's or watching divx movies from my Samba server, an office package, GAIM and even plugging in their MP3 players and memory cards from the digital camera. It works and it works fine for this. I get the added benefit of not having to constantly remove spyware and adding software, updates and changing configurations from a remote SSH connection.
Unfamiliar interface - Compared to what? The change from 98 or W2K --> XP is not much different then moving over to a Linux desktop. I truely believe this is the biggest non issue when switching to something other then MS. They've used Knoppix, Fedora, Lindows, Lycoris, Mandrake, Win98, W2K and XP and have never had a problem finding out how any of them worked. I believe that whole "unfamiliar" concept is blown way out of proportion.
A Linux desktop is not Windows. I am not MS free and I don't plan to be, I use them both. I am not going to use or pay for MS on every machine when I do not need it on every machine.
Respect is due. (Score:3, Interesting)
I respect them for what they are trying to do , even if there are a number of things about the distro im not keen on.
Re:microsoftcalsettlement.com runs Apache... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:How do I give my share back to Microsoft? (Score:5, Interesting)
How do you come to this conclusion? Microsoft Windows costs $99, $30 cheaper than MacOS. The so-called law MS broke is so vague, they didn't even know they broke it until they were convicted. There are no strict definitions of what constitutes a monopoly in the Sherman antitrust act. Given the existence of products such as MacOS, Linux, various flavors of unix, OS/2, etc., why should MS be called a monopoly? Anti-trust laws are unfairly written and give the govt. too much power to destroy companies they don't like. Just look at Standard Oil as an example of a so-called harmful monopoly that managed to decrease the price of oil by 70% to consumers. There was no evidence of predatory pricing, which was the standard up until then to prosecute monopolies, but they were attacked anyway, because of other comapnies who couldn't compete, not through any goal to improve things for consumers.
Re:This is why Linux is not ready for the Desktop! (Score:2, Interesting)
The first version of DirectX did little more than help make a common interface to getting fast drawing in Windows, much like VESA did for DOS.
Re:Not Michael Robertson's first legal smackdown.. (Score:3, Interesting)