California Takes Issue With Microsoft Settlement Idea 443
Deepfoo writes: "Note from CNet on the California challenge to Microsoft's attempt to settle the 100 civil cases on file against it by donating equipment. The dissenters will argue that those harmed in the lawsuit aren't getting compensated directly in this way, and that the ploy of donating equipment to schools is a transparent effort to further extend its monopoly. The dissenting California lawyers estimate the actual damages due to Californians alone could be on the order of 3 to 9 billion (wide range, but that's what they've said). Is Microsoft a do-gooder, or up to no good?"
Carnegie Libraries (Score:2, Interesting)
RedHat's take (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's quite interesting that under RedHat's proposal [redhat.com] (where Microsoft puts all that money to hardware, and RedHat gives all the software for free) that was mentioned here the other day [slashdot.org] things change the settlement from giving 200,000 computers to giving over a million.
That alone should make one pause at the "stink test". At the very least it should point out the valuation of Microsoft's software in their proposal.
A vile strategy (Score:5, Interesting)
However, this decision sets a new standard for abuse and irony. My wife's a worker's compensation attorney, so I get stories of liars and shenanigans in courts every day. It's never anything close to this, however.
The settlement is supposed to punish Microsoft for abusive practices, but actually rewards them greatly:
1. No real cash payment - they "charge themselves" for software, rather than paying penalties. win.
2. Cash from the US government - that same self-charge comes as a business expense and a loss against an MS business division, thus it is treated as a TAX WRITE-OFF. The write-off value is far greater than the charge, thus they MAKE money on balance.
3. The schools - Schools are one place alternatives still ahve penetration. (They used to be the bastion of Apple...)
4. The children - Lo', the children! In the silliest irony of all, the sacrifice one monopoly for bringing MS products to the schools. These guys make Big Tobacco look good.
5. Perception - The public will see this as an overture to help those same children, thus improving the MS image.
In the end, Microsoft wins at every turn. How could this settlement possibly have come about? There is literally no aspect of punishment at all. Microsoft even makes money on the deal.
This is a sad day for our courts.
Re:Carnegie Libraries (Score:4, Interesting)
There is at least one big difference here. Carnegie didn't build libraries to settle an anti-trust lawsuit. No judge compelled him to be a philanthropist. And it was Carnegie personally giving money for the libraries, not the steel trust.
No matter what you may think of Carnegie and they way he acquired his wealth, you must acknowledge that he gave away almost all his money before he died, and that he did it because he thought it was the right thing to do.
And I'm not saying Gates hasn't begun philanthropy on the same scale. It's a bit too early to judge that.
Let's just make sure we don't confuse Gates' (and Ballmer's and Allen's, etc.) own personal philanthropy with Microsoft Inc.'s brazen attempt to disguise a marketing ploy as a philanthropic endeavor.
Make them bleed (Score:1, Interesting)
Redhat's proposal (Score:1, Interesting)
Let's say Red Hat wins and we have a bunch of computers installed with Red Hat. We are attempting to breed children on linux. But why is this better than breeding children on Windows? Because a bunch of people that like linux and that own companies related to it said so. By doing this, we would only be starting a new monopoly, rather than defeating the one in place and promoting choice amongst people that use computers.
As for a better proposal: I think Microsoft should be forced to pay for several different kinds of computers in schools. Give these schools not only Red Hat Linux, but MacOS, and Windows even, but let the children choose, because in the end, that is what we are trying to protect. Make Microsoft pay for EVERYTHING and the suit will have screwed them a fair amount too.
I very much dislike Microsoft. But I don't want to fight fire with fire, and I think anybody that does so will get burned.
Just my two cents.
Re:I think... (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple and Sun weren't doing this as part of a supposed "punishment". Apple and Sun did this for a competitive advantage, but they were in a position where they should try to do that. Giving Microsoft an opportunity for a competitive advantage somehow just doesn't seem like punishment to me.
Re:RedHat's take (Score:2, Interesting)
Software is treated like a commodity, like cars or gold or anything of which there is a definable finite limit to the supply. (I'm trying to be simplistic and I'm not an economist so tell my if my logic is wrong) However, the actual cost of software itself, a specific version of a specific piece of software, would be defined as the total cost of development, research, and also marketing (to be fair to business.) For software, another factor in the cost is also the distribution method, usually CD's manuals and packaging.
The physical shipped product is mass produced. Therefore, every unit already costs the amount paid for manuals, boxes and CD's. But unlike cars or pigs or pencils, once software is put into distribution, production (for that SPECIFIC version) is essentially over (excluding debugging and maintenance). Because the shippable distribution is usually so large, The production cost is split over potientially millions of units. Per shipped unit, the production cost is likely to be fairly small.
The question is, what is the ACTUAL COST of making the software product? The question this leads to is, How is the VALUE of the software determined?
Since a true commodity has a physical limit as to the amount of the product in existience, software companies created EUA licenses and such, creating an artificial limit. Thus, the number of licenses available helps control the market value of the software product.
I think you know where I'm going with this...
From what I gather, Microsoft is donating hardware AND software VALUED at a billion dollars to the schools... but the actual COST of the software is MUCH lower than it's value. Microsoft should be donating hardware valued at cost and, if we ignore the "mind-share lock-in theory" for a minute, software the same way (or how about FOR FREE???)
Frankly, I think RedHat had the right idea, though I think the donation should go a step further... Microsoft donates a full Billion dollars worth of hardware... and gives the schools their choice of operating systems at NO VALUE whatsoever.
Re:Go Microsoft! (Score:1, Interesting)
- An old law is bad law.
- A monopoly is the purpose of capitalism.
- The success of a monopoly is caused by other's mistakes.
- Monopolies are also the result of luck.
Some concepts you might want to explore:
- Anti-trust laws are designed to protect the consumer from abuse of power by companies that have a monopoly.
- Monopolies have the power to destroy competition.
- Capitalism promotes competition in the interest of the consumer.
- Monopolies can't do the same things as small companies, they have additional restrictions.
Just some thoughts
Re:A vile strategy (Score:5, Interesting)
In addition:
Microsoft said it would take a $550 million charge before taxes against earnings in the current fiscal quarter if the court approves the pact.
So the company also counts this as a loss from earnings, despite the fact that it is softmoney, resulting in stock holders getting less earnings per share for the quarter. I suspect in response the stockholders will file a class action suit against MS for earnings shortcomings in an ironic display of legal recursion.
-Rothfuss
i volunteer at a school (Score:5, Interesting)
Then I have seen other schools where the 'Clinton computers' just get stuck in a corner and get occasional use from teachers and teachers' aids only. That sure helps...
Ironically, the other schools in this area get more funding than this one because they have a higher percentage of low-income students (90% is the average, the one I am praising has 'only' 30-60%). However, the extra money doesn't seem to be well spent. Just throwing money at the problem doesn't even make a dent. All of the problems you listed will not be affected at all by putting more money in the system; it all depends on how the local government apportions it and handles it. For example, it doesn't matter if $X of extra money gets apportioned to schools if it takes > 6 months to get anything approved. 'Need a new boiler? No problem! You just have to call a long list of people and then wait another 6 months and hope for no additional delays. Yes, you will get that new boiler; it is guaranteed by law... just not when you get it.' This is the real trouble I have been dealing with.
So what we really need are local responsive governments (including school boards), sane teachers (You wont believe some of the oddities I have seen; Well, maybe you might. Your childhood memories probably weren't exaggerated...) and good school equipment that actually gets incorporated into the curriculum. Meet these three needs, and our schools will actually be pretty good despite other problems. As long as these needs aren't met, throwing money or books at the problem won't cause much change at all.
Re:What would be nice... (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, from their press release, it seemed more like they just wanted to put Microsoft in the hotseat and see what kind of response they would get when they actually offer to make the deal better for the children by making sure they get a LOT more computers, and the software to go with them. I wish Microsoft would respond to their offer. I suspect the response would either be that RedHat has nothing to do with the case and should butt out, or that the computers would be useless without Windows installed. BS either way. It's quite obvious that this deal is not really "for the children", but "for Microsoft."
Re:A vile strategy (Score:3, Interesting)
Are judges that stupid? or are they simply easily bought?
My confidence in the US legal system was shaken by the election fiasco. When the DOJ decided to reward MS instead of punishing them it sank further. When some judge actually gives them competitive advantage as punishment it's gone. As of today I have zero faith in the justice system of this govt. I pity every single soul who has the misfortune to stand before a judge or be represented by a charlatan attorney. Maybe one day I'll be dragged into that godforsaken pool or corruption I hope I have the presence of mind to skip the country if that ever happens.
What are they owed anyways? (Score:2, Interesting)
Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of these lawsuits are centered around the idea that MS "over-charged" them for their OS. Does this sound rediculous to anyone else?
But before I go any further, lets just get this out of the way. MS is BIG. MS IS a monopoly. And MS isn't innocent of the FEDERAL charges.
Whew, now that was tough, but back on task... Ok, so these people claim MS charged them too much. Whoop de doo. If this is true, they're entitled to what? A whole $40?!? (just a guessimate as to what they were over-charged by) To me, the facts do actually speak for themselves in this case. 1) The majority of the people in on the lawsuit purchased their PCs from an OEM. OEM's purchase MS's OS's at an extremely discounted price. So how is it that MS is the one that "over-charged"? Couldn't the OEM's be held liable instead? 2) This is an OS (quality is not an issue here) that is under $200 (and no, comparing price to linux is not an issue either). MS Office suite costs more than any of its "Home Edition" OS's. Photoshop costs more. I could name many other pieces of software that cost WAY more.
So again, I ask you... What are these people really entitled to? In my opinion... Nothing. They do not deserve any of the money (assuming MS loses) that would come from the lawsuit. All of them can easily be compared to ambulance chasers. If they do actually pull this off (which I really hope they don't), this will be the biggest con in history.
But aside from that, I'd wish that everyone would just take a step back and look at the issues objectively instead of fanatically. This industry was conceived by individuals who did not strictly adhere to the status quo, and since all these lawsuits have surfaced... a new status quo is blindly being followed.
Re:What are they owed anyways? (Score:3, Interesting)
Since MS forces OEMs to install Windows it's hard to see how the OEMs could then be held responsible for the cost of the OS.
TWW