Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Government The Almighty Buck The Courts Your Rights Online News

Microsoft Settles Antitrust Suit with Vouchers 29

Posted by timothy from the now-with-extra-lock-in dept.
TedCheshireAcad writes "Microsoft has apparently settled its antitrust case with the state of Arizona by offering $104 million in product vouchers. Arizona consumers in the state from 1996 to 2002 will get $15 for their past operating system purchases and $9 for past application purchases. Public schools in Arizona will get 50% of unclaimed vouchers and 50% of vouchers that have been claimed but not redeemed for software products. I remember when lawsuits were settled with money, not monopoly propogation."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Settles Antitrust Suit with Vouchers More

Microsoft Settles Antitrust Suit with Vouchers

Comments Filter:

  • Aren't punishments supposed to punish? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @01:09AM (#9557719)
    So the punishment is... increasing their marketshare? Can my startup get that "punishment" too? Oh, wait, we're too small. We'd just get fined $36.2 billion.

    • Re:Aren't punishments supposed to punish? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Kethinov ( 636034 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @01:11AM (#9557727) Homepage Journal
      It's not a punishment, it's a settlement. MS has made an offer and they have accepted it. Case closed.

      • Re:Aren't punishments supposed to punish? (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Right. My mistake. Still seems like Microsoft got the better deal though. If I were Arizona's lawyers, I'd have held out for at least a few million in cash. It still wouldn't hurt Microsoft noticably, but it'd be a hell of a lot more useful than a bunch of vouchers for MS Office.

      • Re:Aren't punishments supposed to punish? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by silicon not in the v ( 669585 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @10:23AM (#9559802) Journal
        It's not a punishment, it's a settlement. MS has made an offer and they have accepted it. Case closed.
        That's the part that breaks my heart about this. I expect MS to make an offer like that. It's the best for them and gets them off the hook from a cash settlement. BUT, I expect it to be laughed at--not accepted! It's the prosecuting side that screwed this up. If they accept these kinds of settlement offers, that's when we lose. I wonder if MS is able to do this because of their threatening legal presence. Winning cases is very valuable for a lawyer's reputation. I wonder if that is swaying the decision on accepting these Mickey Mouse kinds of offers. The lawyer gets to look like he "beat Microsoft", which looks great on a resume. If he doesn't accept it, MS is going to bring the Hammer(TM) to try to squash them and get off scot free. The lawyer gets paid either way, but it looks better to "win" easily in a settlement than to potentially lose if it goes all the way through court.

      • MS has made an offer and they have accepted it. Case closed.

        Many state AG offices will deal with MS this way.

        New Mexico's AG settled their part of the anti-trust trial for US$100K plus legal expenses; somewhat less than what MS makes in the way of profits in the state. Maybe they were giving Bill a pass because he spent some time in NM before moving back to Washington.

        As far as most people are concerned, MS owns an essential facility [nyu.edu] for computers and the product vouchers are practically as good as cas

    • What ticks me off.....if they had paid in cash, people would be bitching that the fine isn't big enough because of they have such huge cash reserves. A penalty is a penalty; it sets legal precedent for the next time. Eventually they will go to the well one time to many and then they pay the piper. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but they do turn!

  • Paying out in Monopoly money? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Isomer ( 48061 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @01:10AM (#9557722) Homepage
    You know, this gives a whole new look on money you get with those monopoly games. Turns out that if you are a monopoly you can print your own currency and have people use it....

  • Vouchers just for M$ products? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by djcapelis ( 587616 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @01:12AM (#9557733) Homepage
    Can the vouchers be used for other things like with several other settlements? Or does it have to just be refunded for more M$ crap?
  • Can you imagine if this happened in other fields?
    In the news today: Ford has issued a recall affecting 36000 vehicles. Customers with the 2007 F150 are affeted, and can turn in their vehicles for a replacement vehicle and a free muffler.

    I don't think it'd go over so well. Or maybe book publishing - if your book is damaged we'll give you 15 pages of the next one in the series.

    • Re:other companies (Score:4, Interesting)

      by MachDelta ( 704883 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @01:45AM (#9557845)
      Except they're not even giving you anything of value on its own! Its like being given a fucking gift certificate to HMV after one of their CD racks fell on you and crushed your legs. That'd go over like a lead baloon, yet Microsoft can practically get away with murder? I don't get it. Something is seriously fucked with the system if this is what passes for "modern justice".
    • Actually, wouldn't it be more like receiving a coupon towards $1000 off your next Ford... and it would have to come with the "may not be used in conjunction with other offers" disclaimer.

      Yes, that seems more accurate. Then you can go to the dealer and get your $1000 off, or possibly take advantage of the $1500 cash back offer instead; making your coupon basically worthless.

  • Right... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by stienman ( 51024 ) <adavisNO@SPAMubasics.com> on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @01:42AM (#9557835) Homepage Journal
    I remember when lawsuits were settled with money, not monopoly propogation.

    I doubt it. Pithy comments are all well and good, but I'd like you to point out one such case against a monopolist that you remember where money (and nothing else) was paid in restitution.

    Perhaps I just missed the "I'm pretending I'm an old timer" or "sarcasm" tag...?

    -Adam

    • Re:Right... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by node 3 ( 115640 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @02:59AM (#9558048)
      I remember when lawsuits were settled with money, not monopoly propogation.

      I doubt it. Pithy comments are all well and good, but I'd like you to point out one such case against a monopolist that you remember where money (and nothing else) was paid in restitution.

      That's not what the guy said. He said that the punishments of the past worked against the monopoly, not propogating them, and that cash damages were paid in cash.

      While I can't speak for cash damages, I know that IBM was (is?) prohibited from pre-announcing new products (thus they couldn't really promote new versions of OS/2, for example, before they were out), and AT&T was prohibited from selling computer software (thus Unix was semi-free until the next monopoly fiasco of AT&T which broke it apart and allowed them to market Unix).

      This time it's absurd. It does a really poor job of punishing MS, and does nothing to stop them from further breaches. After all, what does MS have to fear? They'll have to give away some software which, btw, helps their marketshare?

      The point of punishing a monopoly is to keep them from either a.) remaining a monopoly, or at the very least b.) stop them from continuing to abuse their monopoly status. This isn't punishment, it's encouragement!
      • Judge: "And for remaining to be a monopoly, your reward is..."

      • Re:Right... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by polyp2000 ( 444682 )
        This time it's absurd. It does a really poor job of punishing MS, and does nothing to stop them from further breaches. After all, what does MS have to fear? They'll have to give away some software which, btw, helps their marketshare?

        Yeah, its like a drug dealer getting busted and as a punishment having to give some of his stash away for free.

    • Re:Right... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @08:03AM (#9558850) Homepage
      I'd like you to point out one such case against a monopolist that you remember where money (and nothing else) was paid in restitution.

      There is a very famous case, which supports the voucher "punishment," whereby for its rampant and flagrant price fixing Nintendo was ordered to send out $5 vouchers to its customers. The irony was that Nintendo at the time was making more than $5 per cartridge sold thanks to its flagrant price fixing, so even when being "punished" it was making a profit due to the activity it was being punished for.

  • Holy frigging rebates Batman, I'm gonna get me a software voucher!

    Let's see, it's only good for MS software, and I get $15 for Windows 98 and $9 for Office - $24 - SWEET! I can finally grab that copy of Microsoft Bob I've been itching to pick up. And with the $10 I've got left, I'll score a copy of "Return of Arcade" for Windows 3.1. This is gonna be AWESOME! Thanks, Bill - All is forgiven! Please send my vouchers soon!

  • Those lawyers... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jotaeleemeese ( 303437 ) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @05:12AM (#9558367) Homepage Journal
    .... obviously have no concept of natural justice.

    OK, it is a settlement (why should a company settle if they are innocent? Do they understand how valuable reputation is? Even for MS) but the overwhelming feeling is of injustice: MS was caught doing something improper (heck, they pretend they are apologizing for it with those vouchers) and their punshment is to facilitate for them to do more of the same.

    USians: what are you doing about this insanity?
  • Judge: You are ordered to pay 3 billion dollars to the people of Arizona.
    Microsoft Lawyer: Your honor, thats more than $1000 per citizen. (lie) We simply don't have that much cash around. (/lie) We have lots of these "Bill Bucks", though!
    Judge Okay, that'll do. (gavel bangs)

    • I doubt any attorney or law firm would take on a class action lawsuit like this without a real paycheck at the end. Was Plaintiff Attorney payed with Bill Bucks, or hard cash? Was he payed by the people of Arizona, or by Microsoft?
  • There is nothing in any of these articles that states the MS vouchers must be redeemed for MS products. The CA settlement permitted vouchers to be redeemed for any software and some hardware purchases. This entire article is a troll.

Slashdot Top Deals

"When it comes to humility, I'm the greatest." -- Bullwinkle Moose

Close