Microsoft Settlement For Private Suits Rejected 382
Lumpish Scholar writes: "Reuters story here. The judge "could not endorse the settlement ... Microsoft will have to start from scratch in negotiating a new settlement or fight the scores of suits in court."" Reuters also has an article from yesterday that looks at the positions of the various parties prior to this news. You will recall that Microsoft was proposing to settle the civil suits brought against it by donating free Microsoft software and old computers to schools. And do remember - because this always seems to confuse people - that the case brought by the Department of Justice and state governments is distinct from these suits filed by individuals.
Just what they want.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Just what they want.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just what they want.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Just what they want.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Just what they want.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Just what they want.... (Score:2)
Phillips announces that they won't license copy-protected CDs and it's a marketing ploy. Microsoft's ridiculous settlement offer is rejected and it's a legal strategy. Now granted, corporations are out to make money, but is there really cause to be this cynical?
You can't please everyone all of the time, but all I see here is an inability for anyone to please anyone any of the time. It's discouraging for me to see...imagine how these corporations will react.
Re:Just what they want.... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is especially true on online forums. For any given story, it will seem like most people are complaining. In reality you are just seeing the subset of the Slashdot readership which dislikes the person/act/item being discussed. This subset shifts from story to story, but you can bet that no matter what the story is, you can find some group of readers who are angry. These are the readers most likely to post.
I just remind myself periodically that Slashdot is not a homogeneous community and therefore has no commonly held opinions.
One for the good guys ;) (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:One for the good guys ;) (Score:2)
Re:One for the good guys ;) (Score:3, Informative)
(It's getting retried because Judge Jackson's ruling got thrown out and he was removed from the case and MS got a new trial.)
no, no, no.
It is not getting retried. The judgement that Microsoft is a monopoly and abused it's position was upheld. The remedies were thrown out and the remedy phase of the trial is being redone.
Microsoft did not get a new trial. They're guilty. It's all about the punishment now.
Good! (Score:2, Insightful)
My faith-o-meter in this planet just rose a little. That would have busticated [pseudodictionary.com] me had MS been able to lock in the next generation of kids with their products as a 'punishment'.
w00t! (Score:4, Insightful)
A flat-out $1 billion cash sum should do it.
Re:w00t! (Score:2)
I was hoping (Score:3, Funny)
That the settlement and the Red Hat Modification (ie MS buys the computers and RH donates the free software) would be accepted
Re:I was hoping (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I was hoping (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, what about the $1 Billion penalty that some EU -leaked document proposed as a way to finish Microsoft trial in Europe?
I know that $35 Billion is a lot, but 41 Billion is still a lot... and will claim for the attention from some judge that pretended not to enfuriate a big corporation while we are at war... or so I understand form the
I mean, if I gt a ticket I must pay a fine. Why not Microsoft?
Sincerely puzzled,
O.
Re:I was hoping (Score:2, Interesting)
As for Bill Gates, it really doesn't matter. As much as you may hate him I don't see the courts "piercing the corporate veil" to get to him.
By the way, I am not disputing your point in anyway but just clarifying your made up numbers.
Re:I was hoping (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I was hoping (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I was hoping (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I was hoping (Score:2, Interesting)
That is one of the points I wanted to add to my other posts about Short Term investments and cash. You all want to see Microsoft pay $30B in penalties but you do realize that the effect on the market would be devastating. This is not just about Microsoft, that $30B in investments is in a lot of companies. While a lot of you kids out there might nor care, some of us have already seen enough of our 401(k) float away.
Re:I was hoping (Score:2, Interesting)
The snowball effect you are worried about is because one company has too much economic power as well as OS power. Gee... OS monopoly... enough finances to tip world markets... richest guy in the world... anybody seeing a pattern here?
Maybe "cash" was too specific a term. But "short term assets" is not a second line in the summary... it's a resource they can call upon on short notice. I call that "close enough."
Re:I was hoping (Score:2, Interesting)
Don't even get me started on the AT&T breakup. How phone service now sucks. How we had to deal with slamming and constant telemarkers. how our phone bills are not much lower, they are just spread out over more bills.
And if you read my posts in another group, Microsoft hardly has too much economic power. They are 79 in the country and 201 in the world in revenue. If any of those companies, or any person, divested that much money it would destroy the economy.
Re:I was hoping (Score:2, Interesting)
Figure it this way - Case settled, Microsoft has to pay $20B. Stock market crashes and that $30B in short term investments is worthless wheras the $3.1B in cash is still good. This is why there is a distinction on the balance sheet with between Cash and Cash Equivalents and Short Term Investments.
A Cash equivalent by the way is more along what you are thinking is a short term investment. It is anything that can be immediately turned into a specific amount of cash.
Re:I was hoping (Score:2, Informative)
Of course not. Haven't you heard? [theregister.co.uk]
Man .. If worked the phones ... (Score:2)
made a haul!!! [slashdot.org]
Lawyers are the true victors (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Lawyers are the true victors (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Lawyers are the true victors (Score:2, Insightful)
How much would you pay for someone to slurp up thousands of pages of legal procedures, associate your offensive and defensive tactics with the appropriate laws and precedents from a gigantic pool of possibilities, and then, on the fly, respond to the same from two other sides of the courtroom (the opposing legal team and the Judge).
What could be a more damaging task for the human brain (besides perl programming)?
I am not an attorney. I don't ever want to be an attorney. I'll stick with the perl programming for now.
Big win for Red Hat! (Score:3, Informative)
This is a quote from this Yahoo article [yahoo.com].
I'm really happy to see that the judge didn't cave in!
299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!
Glad to see this (Score:5, Insightful)
It's at least a small victory.
Re:Glad to see this (Score:2)
Re:Glad to see this (Score:2)
Re:Glad to see this (Score:2)
Yeah, something tells me that they would show up with one CD and install software on all the machines.
One nice thing, if this went through, is that we may actually have another piece of evidence that they are either a monopoly or trying to be one.
here's hoping... (Score:3, Interesting)
(Don't mind me, but I've been burned before with false-relief that the truth will out.)
heh (Score:2)
Like the software costs them anything beyond the manufacturing cost (what is it, a small fraction of a penny for each CD pressed?)
Re:heh (Score:2)
You're making some really big jumps in logic here.
First of all, they were talking about giving software to schools that probably wouldn't be able to afford it on their own. You suggest that half the "people" being given the software would have otherwise bought it, which is patently ridiculous; if these schools could afford the software licenses, it's doubtful that they'd qualify for receiving it in the first place.
And that "hope you learned something" was entirely unnecessary, immature, and condescending. Why not simply debate the issue without resorting to that sort of thing?
Once you eliminate the fake losses that Microsoft would claim, many of the other costs start to disappear. Microsoft makes up for its R&D costs on the retail market; if giving away software to schools doesn't dilute that market, then the R&D costs just don't come into consideration. They conduct R&D for the retail market, and they cover their costs from products sold there.
As for the hardware costs, you'll note that in my post I didn't mention hardware at all. Yes, the costs could be quite substantial, and I have no objection to Microsoft doing so as part of the settlement. I simply reject entirely that they should be able to claim that their software donations cost involve anything other than logistics costs.
And that final line about "hoped you learned something" was condescending, immature, and unnecessary. Why not simply debate the issue without using those sort of cheap rhetorical devices?
Re:heh (Score:2)
The marginal cost to Microsoft is the cost of the CD - those other costs are already covered. But, let us continue...
Now, let's also assume that of those 1 million people, half of them would've purchased a new PC with Windows included (say, $50 for the OEM license). That's 500,000 * $50 = $25 million that Microsoft "lost".
Why? Did they, perchance, get a refund from the OEM licence? Seems unlikely. So if the did purchase a PC they would have paid _again_ for windows.
So that's Zero MS have lost. Let us continue some more (this is fun!)
Now, let's assume another 25% of those people would've purchased a Windows Upgrade version ($90). That's another 250,000 * $90 = $22.5 million lost.
What, exactly, are these people going to upgrade? MS have just given them the computer with windows on it. Sheesh. But I'll be generous - let's say 1% of people without computers will buy windows upgrades (strange impulse purchases).
And lastly, say 10% of those people would've bought a full version of Windows ($200).
More deranged impulse buyers? Surely not.
That's yet another 100,000 * $200 = $20 million lost. In total, that's $25 mil + $22.5 mil + $20 mil = $67.5 million.
Okay, so now let's knock the profit out of that and see what Microsoft actually lost. Assume Microsoft makes 50% profit on everything they sell (that's damn high, but they're a Monopoly, and I have to pander to the Slashdot crowd).
Oh dear - lets work out the incremental cost of producing a CD when you have already produced 100,000,000 of them. Pennies.
That means of that $67.5 million they "lost", they only truly lost $33.75 million.
So, allowing 10cents per disk, that's $10,000 it costs them to donate the software. Or, in other words, a miniscule sum compared to the cost of the lawyer who drafted it.
Don't believe me? Two good reasons why you should. MS charges employees a pittance for software - that should give you some idea of it's intrinsic value. And when doing tax calculations on such things the value received for the purposes of tax in the incremental cost of making one extra, not the average cost.
That concludes the economics lesson for today.
That was economics?! Wow.
I hope you learned something.
Oh, yes. Just not what you were (supposedly) teaching.
I amazed MS wasn't held in contempt of court (Score:4, Flamebait)
Here's why I'm laughing inside: MS gets sued by individuals for unfair competition and illegal business practices, and then MS proposes a solution where they will appear to be doing a public good, but in fact they will be cementing their platform in the future computer world by brainwashing children. What a joke!
Like many others on here, I would love to see them donate all this hardware only for RedHat to volunteer and install Linux on it all, but I seriously doubt MS would let that happen. Given their attitude and actions in this case so far, I'm sure they'd write up some wordy contracts about proper use of the equipment they donated. I wouldn't be surprised if they even claimed everything produced by the computers and software would then become IP of MS. Anyhow, I really think the judge should have fined them for wasting the court's time.
Re:I amazed MS wasn't held in contempt of court (Score:5, Insightful)
Who the hell are we to say, "hey let's have them give hardware and have RH come in and put Linux on it" Talk about brainwashing.
Re:I amazed MS wasn't held in contempt of court (Score:2)
But be careful man
As someone else pointed out a while back, it does make sense to provide schools with the same OS their parents have at home. It's kind of a catch 22, if you ask me.
On a side note: Apple! It's *nix with a simple to use GUI, so you get the both of best worlds for the next generation of users. Then, they can take their pick once they have the money for a computer. I don't mind propriatary software all
The Enron fallout might really hurt Microsoft (Score:2, Interesting)
I amazed too, but for a different reason (Score:3, Insightful)
In my opinion, this is not much different than offering a bribe to the other side's lawyers to get their support in settling the case for peanuts. Would it be OK if the plaintiffs offered to pay M$ lawyers to persuade M$ to make a $5 billion cash settlement offer??? I think not.
M$ is not the only company that is allegedly trying to settle class action suits with charitable contributions & paying the plaintiff's attorneys. To me, this is a dubious practice that should be squashed.
Re:I amazed MS wasn't held in contempt of court (Score:2)
I seem to recall that these cases are based on the orgianl findings of the anti-trust trial. One of the findings was that MS is charging as much as twice what they would be if there was competition. Assuming that even with competition even 10% would be saved on each product, how much MS software does a person have? Windows, Office, and a few games are not too unlikely. And then figure that the person might have purchased one version and then upgraded the costs are even greater. It definately isn't a stretch to say one person might have spent $500 on MS products. Of course, some could have spent many thousands. So 10% isn't exactly nothing.
And while the lawyers will benifit the most, it should help MS figure out that they are doing something wrong. That is much better then giving them a whole new group of customers.
There doesn't need to be any final victory... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's already happening, and will continue. Have patience.
Re:There doesn't need to be any final victory... (Score:4, Flamebait)
It's already happening, and will continue. Have patience.
I think the tobacco industry might be a better metaphor. They had tons of money and could throw cash at lawyers for thirty or forty years until they just got tired of it. I'd have preferred the Redhat-style penalty; hit them and make them pay cash.
Re: Tobacco settlement (Score:2)
They had successfully defended every suit, basically arguing that either nobody knew smoking was dangerous, nobody had proved that smoking was dangerous to their satisfaction, or the "victim" was an idiot who ignored the warning labels on every package of cigarettes.
Then they lost a case. Too much evidence that they targeted teens unable to make an informed decision, that they deliberately made the product addictive, it doesn't matter.
Suddenly they were looking at hundreds of thousands of suits every year from people with lung disease. Their reputation as a "hard target" was in tatters. Many potential jurors were pissed off at their decades of foot dragging, at their use of cartoon characters - Joe Camel was recognized by something like 98% of 6th graders, comparable to Mickey Mouse and far more than any real figure. They were looking at potential liability in the billions of dollars.
So they made an informed decision - something they denied their customers - to settle with the government. One massive payment, and immunity from further civil suits. It was nothing more than a decision intended to minimize their costs.
MS knows that the judgement that they violated antitrust law makes them a far "softer" target than before. They tried to short-circuit the process with a similar settlement, but they got greedy.
Re:There doesn't need to be any final victory... (Score:2)
Unfortunate for all of us.
Re:There doesn't need to be any final victory... (Score:2)
Since the whole architecture of the PC was open, there was no way that IBM would be a monopoly in that area. Therefore it's possible to assume that they could have chosen to set themselves up as a OS monopoly. But Microsoft did it instead.
Overcharged? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is interesting. How does someone actually determine the worth or 'price' of software? Generally you want to take all your overhead, add some profit, and take a good estimate of what your sales will be. Then you'd determine a price. (I realize this is very OVER simplified) You would also compare your product against competitive products and see where you sit in comparison to them price/value wise.
Since Microsoft essentially had a monopoly on the PC market for sales of Operating Systems, their competition was none. They could charge any price to the OEMs and Consumers for the retail packages they felt like, which at least appeared to be a reasonable price to most customers.
But how would they determine if someone was overcharged by Microsoft? Is the very fact that when you buy a PC, you automatically have Windows installed on it and are also paying for the OEM version of Windows that was installed on that PC?
This could easily be argued as a 'value-added' feature of that PC. Where the customer ultimately benefits because the cost of an OEM Windows license is less than the Retail Windows license.
I personally loathe Windows, and don't use it. But I'm more curious on how they determined that Microsoft overcharged it's customers.
Re:Overcharged? (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, as far as Windows being pre-installed.. Who let it be pre-installed? The person selling the computer. They didn't have to have an OEM deal with MS, but they decided to.. You don't like it, buy a computer from somebody that doesn't have an OEM deal with MS.
Re:Overcharged? (Score:3, Informative)
let's see... red hat 7.2: $59.95
mac os x.1: $129.99
windows xp (home ed.): $199.99
os/2 warp 4: $284.00
ok, so admittedly, os/2 is more expensive than windows xp. but, every other os available is significantly less expensive.
Re:Overcharged? (Score:4, Interesting)
But the case is oddly about OEM sales for the most part. Since the lawyers(not consumers mind you) who have brought these cases wish to make them as all consuming as possible, the OEM market is a better client because it accounts for some 90% of Microsoft sales.
It'll be interesting to see what evidence they bring in the trial. I think they'll have a tough time proving their case, however.
This case has more to do with ambulance chasing lawyers, or in this case law firms with a "sue microsoft" business plan.
Re:Thanks, Sheldon, you proved the point. (Score:2)
I'm not certain if the retail prices amount to overcharging, because it is common practice in all industries for a vendor to give OEMs signifigant pricing discounts over what they charge Retail customers.
As far as corporate sales, I don't see someone who has made a choice as being a victim. You need to clarify that argument.
The goal of any business is to get billions in the bank. I don't see how you can make a comparison between Enron and Microsoft. Enron clearly had bad management and was not disclosing all of their liabilities and partnerships appropriately to investors.
Re:Overcharged? (Score:2)
It resulted in $6k damage to my car, and totalled her car worth only about $1k.
I felt she was clearly at fault, and told my insurance agent so. She didn't have insurance and so instead hired a $50 ambulance chaser to send a letter to my insurance company.
Long story short, my insurance company paid her $1500 to settle and not go to court.
The point being it would have cost a lot more than $1500 to take the case to court, so it was worth it.
Re:Overcharged? (Score:2)
These class-action lawsuits are on the behalf of people who went out and purchased a copy of Windows 98. They are on the basis of the findings of fact which stated that Microsoft could have charged $48, instead of $99 for Windows but was able to overcharge because it was a monopoly.
Re:Overcharged? (Score:2)
Of course, you and I differ on the solution. I believe that granting Microsoft dejure state-sponsored status as a monopolist, even with regulation would be a horrible disaster.
There must be numerous players, in my opinion. While there is a naturalness to the monopoly, other concerns override the benefit the people are getting from having a single dominate player. Or so I feel.
C//
Answer (Score:2, Funny)
And if that's not bad enough, consider the goon squad that will repo your underwear when you neglect your license fees...
Re:Answer (Score:4, Funny)
Please keep in mind... (Score:4, Insightful)
These cases will now go to court.
But it's up to the claimants to prove that in a more competitive market the price would have actually declined. That was the allegation that Judge Jackson made in his court that spawned these lawsuits, but it was more of an assumption of the nature of monoply than really supported by facts.
It's highly unlikely that Microsoft will lose these cases, they simply tried to get a pre-trial settlement because it would have been cheaper than the legal costs of fighting in court, as well as derailing the negative publicity a court case causes.
That is why the proposed settlement cost seemed so low. It was a hedge, not a punishment.
Re:Please keep in mind... (Score:2)
Well, you may not think they were supported by the facts, but as far as any court in the USA, it is a legal fact that MS has a monopoly and overcharged customers. Judge Jackson's legal findings were upheld at appeal, and at this point only the US Supreme court can overturn them.
The suit really doesn't have to rpove much of anything, so long as the supreme court doesn't get involved. With the DOJ trial transcript and jackson's Finding of Facts, they've pretty much got everything they need, and MS has a pretty high hurdle if they want to disprove a fact that has already been upheld on appeal.
I for one am relieved (Score:2)
So Microsoft is sued by individuals for overcharging them for Windows (AFAIK)(?). Microsoft then says - "Hey, psst Judge, why don't we get rid of all these pesky little suits tying up your courts. And in return I'll do, oh, say, a little community service. On my own terms of course. Whadda say?"
I'm glad the Judge told them no - it would have been quite a travesty for the aggrieved to have gotten no compensation.
It's just one battle (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd like to believe that won't happen. But too many legislators have the techincal comprehension of a sea slug. Nothing substantive will ever happen to Microsoft at the behest of any branch of the US Government. Eventually the dissenting states will be forced to give up the fight because they simply can't afford the up-front cost of litigation.
Re:It's just one battle (Score:2)
You mean like all those palms greased by Oracle, Sun, AOL, etc. which caused the original DoJ case in the first place?
Re:It's just one battle (Score:2)
I suspect that it can hold out for a while.
Analogy (Score:4, Funny)
damage instead of going to jail, if they can put up a massive billboard
for their house maintainance business in your front yard for six
months...
Re:Analogy (Score:2, Funny)
damage instead of going to jail, and states that everything in your house now belongs to him, and if you want to add anything to your house, it will belong to him too.And you kids belong to him too.
donating? (Score:2, Interesting)
A Variety of Interesting Links on That Page... (Score:2, Informative)
Then there's the way MS wants to bar the public from the proceedings... while it's heartening to see that they can still lose (maybe -- the case isn't over yet!), it's also kind fo scary to see that they're actually starting to learn more about how to (try to) manipulate the process in Washington. Compared to their bumbling in the political arena a few years back, they've actually made giant strides. Which does not bode well.
We may have just one won battle (though actually, I'd prefer to think that *justice* just won a round), but we need to keep our eyes on MS. They're not about to roll over and play dead, and I think they're getting wilier.
fair punishments (Score:4, Flamebait)
But a public whipping would be pretty punishing no matter who you are (well maybe not to masochists)
So rather than come up with some arbitrarily large sum of money to punish Microsoft, maybe all the execs on the board should be publicly flogged.
Re:fair punishments (Score:2)
Isn't it one of the northern European countries that ties fines for things like speeding tickets to your total income for the year? I seem to recall something a year or two ago about someone who received a speeding ticket for tens of thousands of dollars, but whose stock holdings tanked before he could actually pay it. True or urban legend?
Flogging Balmy (Score:3, Funny)
"Developers! Developers! Developers!"
Please, spare us the spectacle...
Re:fair punishments (Score:2)
The perfect punishment would be public-humiliation. They are to be locked into stockades in a public place for 48 hours. people can throw non-harmful items at their faces,body,etc... and can give spankings. (not too hard and must be with your hand.)
hmmm, how about HIV and hepatitus testing so we can have a urinination line? maybe that is too far........ NAHHHHH!
Heres Hoping (Score:2)
Good, The damages should be paid to the damaged! (Score:2)
They should have to pay the people who lost money, not be allowed to give it to people not effected. If I run into your car and damage it, do I get to give my girlfriend a spare computer instead of paying to fix the harm I did to you?
Of course Microsoft says that the settlement would cost them lots of money, but it would be retail including retail price of software...not actual cost to them.
But, even so, it gets MS products infront of children -- advertising???
donation (Score:3, Insightful)
At least the judge seems to "get it". (Score:4, Insightful)
Judge Motz said he was not satisfied that there was enough value to the settlement and that the charitable institution would have been insufficiently funded.
Further, Judge Motz said the settlement "would raise antitrust concerns from the perspective of other software manufacturers" because the donation of free software could be construed as "court-approved predatory pricing."
Both these issues have been raised by many people and posted here on slashdot in the past.
Re:At least the judge seems to "get it". (Score:2)
[sarcastic reply involving Shakespeare and a very large quanitity of monkeys]
Re:At least the judge seems to "get it". (Score:2)
he deemed there was "insufficient value" in Seattlement (Private Edition)Version 1.0.
So who else thinks that by version 3 there will be an approved settlement?
Most tech and mainstream news sites have some article about the denied proposal on their main page but they are all pretty much the same. The Register always shines in their own way though.
Micorsoft-opoly (Score:3, Funny)
BillGates: [rolls dice] = 8
BillGates: sweet, doubles!
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8.
Chance: "Place token to nearest anti-trust judge. If he is unowned you may buy him from the bank, otherwise come up with new settlement plan."
BillGates: damn!
BillGates: [rolls dice] = 5...
now how much will this donated software (Score:2)
Finally... (Score:2)
...a judge that didn't get snowed by Microsoft legal sharpies and PR flaks. I'm surprised that MS's laywers didn't drag out a ``we're doing this for the children'' argument. Heck, donating to schools was only a step away from that. And the judge didn't fall for it. There may yet be hope...
I think I'm gonna have a few beers in celebration tonight.
Good idea, bad implementation (Score:3, Informative)
Company X illegally overcharges consumers, say one million consumers at $100 each. Class action lawyers file suit 'on behalf' of consumers. After many years, and many appeals, a settlement is reached and damages are awarded. Consumers are asked to fill out 20 pages of paperwork in order to receive a $25 off coupon the next time they make a purchase of $3000 or more from Company X. Offer good for next six months. And the class action attourneys split $25 million in fees.
Having Microsoft donate money to poor schools is a great idea -- iff it can be done in a way that that doesn't reduce competition.
Other Microsoft Law Articles (Score:2)
... but what about the DOJ settlement? (Score:3, Insightful)
The potential impact of Microsoft getting off virtually scot-free by the DOJ will overwhealm the positive impact of this settlement being struck down.
Should Microsoft be allowed to continue these exclusive arrangements with OEM's, the leveraging of Windows into other margets, gauging for Office, leaving out Java support in XP as well as plguins for IE, forcing users to ask for permission to upgrade their PCs on XP home edition, rigging ZD Net polls on
How many entrepreneurs have been dissuaded or discouraged from writing software because of Microsoft stiffling innovation? (hardly any commerical companies make consumer operating systems anymore) How many once dynamic and cutting-edge products have stagnated once Microsoft gained a 90% share? If they dominate more of the industry, we're going to see even more inferior products. The only good software M$ ever came up with was when they had to compete with another company.
Having the school settlement struck down is a small victory, one that pales in comparison to the potential losses that would occur if the colluded DOJ settlement is accepted.
Re:... but what about the DOJ settlement? (Score:3, Informative)
So in effect the civil cases have the potential for causing the greatest damage and the threat of further cases could be a better deterrent than anything the govt could come up with.
The Register: Seattlement terms nixed by Judge (Score:2)
A district court judge has rejected Microsoft's proposed settlement in the private law suits brought against the company.
Microsoft's $1.1 billion giveaway of computers software to US schools would constitute "court-approved predatory pricing," if approved, said Judge Motz. He didn't, and it's back to the drawing board for The Beast.
The cynical proposal was criticised on the grounds that would extend Microsoft's monopoly into the education market, which has been a loyal Mac stronghold. Over 40 per cent of US schools use Macintosh computers.
Motz gave a strong signal that Microsoft's revised proposal would have to be a lot more generous: he deemed there was "insufficient value" in Seattlement (Private Edition)Version 1.0.
A year ago Motz dismissed 38 suits from customers who had acquired Windows as part of an OEM bundle, even though state law allows such an 'indirect' acquisition to be treated as a direct relationship.
Bootnote:The term 'Seattlement' was contributed by a reader from the Lichtenstein.
"
Yeah, Baby!! Feel the burn!! (Score:3, Informative)
But this case, like the antitrust case, is not yet over. While we can't do anything to influence the next flimsy settlement for price-gouging MS will probably try to come out with here, maybe we can make a difference in the antitrust case by writing the DoJ [usdoj.gov]. Public comment period ends January 28, 2002. Do write, but polite & reasoned letters only, please.
Re:I do believe... (Score:2, Interesting)
If it had been allowed, how much damage do you think would have been done to Apple? Apple bases a signifigant portion of their business in Education... Would Microsoft have been able to break Apple's tenuous hold on the market?
Microsoft vs Apple (Score:2, Interesting)
Apple's philosophy has always been about domination and control and they have never encouraged tinkering and hacking by individuals. At least Microsoft freely release GW-Basic in the early days and how many people first became interested in programming due to the availability of Basic. Microsoft has also supported the porting of Perl and Python (via Activestate) to the Windows environment. Also, Microsoft's software has been typically cheaper than Apple's
Also, Apple has shown to be very anti-competitive in other ways. Remember Apple 's sordid attempt to foster clones? As soon as the clone manufactures became a little too efficient and began competing a little too well and delivering products to consumers at lower cost; Apple put their foot down and revoked licensing.
I am glad tho that I do not have to pick between the lesser of two evils
Re:Microsoft vs Apple - probably troll feeding... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll agree with this piece.
[apple] never encouraged tinkering and hacking by individuals
The entire development environment and documentation library for Mac OS-X is both free and pretty darn spiffy. Visual Studio is something like $500 to $1000 depending who you are and how you get it. Heck, my first Apple came with schematics and ROM assembly listings.
At least Microsoft freely release GW-Basic in the early days...
Apple gave away Basic before Microsoft even existed. Never for Macintosh, but I believe that was more for strategic reasons. Apple needed to force the applications to a dramatically higher level of usability. This required the armys of evangelists and much arm twisting. "modern" mid '80s gui applications were not going to be thrown together in the Basic of the days.
Microsoft has also supported the porting of Perl and Python (via Activestate) to the Windows environment.
Yes, now we can see if that was the embrace before the extend.
Microsoft's software has been typically cheaper than Apple's
I have no idea in what universe this is true. Actually, there is very little in the way of good comparisons. Office $400, Appleworks $99. But Appleworks is feature poor compared to Office. It does everything I need, so its a good deal for me (well, $0, I buy low end Macs where it is included). If I needed the extras Office has this would be a worthless comparison. IE? No comparison. Apple is still forbidden from suggesting that there may be other browsers much less making one. iPhoto, iMovie, iDVD? No competition. Likewise there are loads of MS apps with no comparison. OS prices? Upgrades are similarly priced. Development tools? No contest.
Remember Apple 's sordid attempt to foster clones?
Yes. Apple gave them the hardware reference designs and OS in the delusion that the cloners would make a wider variety of machines and attack niches. The cloners just built the reference designs with minor tweaks and sold them in to apple's highest margin market (early adopters) because the cloners could start selling the newer faster processers while they were still in short supply and Apple with their larger market had to wait for production to ramp up. (I believe at one point Apple was buying all the initial production of higher speed processors at a premium and warehousing them so they could get the fast machines out first. When you have to pay a premium to keep faster processors away from your users in order to promote your platform something has gone wrong.) The media savaged Apple for offering slow machines. Apple lost sales. The platform didn't gain . Apple didn't revoke the cloners licenses (except one, they bought that back) they just raised the OS price so the cloners paid the same per machine for the OS as apple. Without the OS subsidy to pocket the cloners left the business.
I am glad tho that I do not have to pick between the lesser of two evils
Me too. I suspect any corporation with a 90%+ market share will be bad for the users. God knows what GPL v9 will look like when free software has 90% of the market.
Perl & Python: Embrace, extend, but not exting (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, now we can see if that was the embrace before the extend.
Sure, Microsoft will be able to embrace and extend Perl and Python, but because those programs are copylefted, Microsoft will have to release the source code to any modifications the company makes, preventing the third step (extinguish) from happening.
Re:Perl & Python: Embrace, extend, but not ext (Score:2)
Sound like J++ yet?
It won't be about owning the interpreters. Thats just code and anyone with $36B in the bank can have code written. It will be about owning the minds of the developers. They need the bulk of software developers to believe Windows is integral to computing.
Re:Microsoft vs Apple (Score:5, Interesting)
And if Sun had 90+% market share, they would be just as bad as Microsoft, maybe worse.
And if Oracle had 90+% market share, they would be just as bad as Microsoft, maybe worse.
And if IBM had 90+% market share
The point is not how vicious other companies beside Microsoft may be (though I'll note that Apple has become considerably less closed in the OS X age than it used to be.) The point is that Microsoft has unique monopoly power right now, and that they are everyone's enemy. Let me make that clear: if you work for Apple or Sun or Oracle or IBM or any other computer company that is not Microsoft; if you prefer MacOS or Solaris or Linux or any operating system that is not Windows; if, in fact, you do not actually work for Microsoft or for some "company" that is really a marketing arm of Wintel, Inc. (e.g. Dell), Microsoft is your enemy.
If and when Microsoft is toppled from its throne (and I sincerely hope it happens soon) there will be another company waiting to take its place, no doubt -- and it's entirely possible that one of the companies I mentioned above will be it. (Probably not; it will probably be someone we either don't know about or aren't particularly afraid of
But right now, in 2002, that doesn't matter. What matters is that Microsoft is much too big and too powerful, that it is crushing innovation, that it is evil. Remember that Churchill and Roosevelt allied themselves with Stalin against Hitler, and they were right to do so.
Re:Microsoft vs Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably, but at least their stuff WORKS.
"And if Sun had 90+% market share, they would be just as bad as Microsoft, maybe worse."
I disagree. Sun's a hardware company. They sell hardware. Cheap software means selling more hardware. Plus, since they aren't turned off by Linux, they could avoid $$$ in development costs.
"And if Oracle had 90+% market share, they would be just as bad as Microsoft, maybe worse."
Yep.
"And if IBM had 90+% market share
Actually, if they had it again they might at least put out a little better product, because they got taken down once.
"The point is not how vicious other companies beside Microsoft may be (though I'll note that Apple has become considerably less closed in the OS X age than it used to be.) The point is that Microsoft has unique monopoly power right now, and that they are everyone's enemy. Let me make that clear: if you work for Apple or Sun or Oracle or IBM or any other computer company that is not Microsoft; if you prefer MacOS or Solaris or Linux or any operating system that is not Windows; if, in fact, you do not actually work for Microsoft or for some "company" that is really a marketing arm of Wintel, Inc. (e.g. Dell), Microsoft is your enemy."
Except if you're in the Bush administration, apparently...
"If and when Microsoft is toppled from its throne (and I sincerely hope it happens soon) there will be another company waiting to take its place, no doubt -- and it's entirely possible that one of the companies I mentioned above will be it. (Probably not; it will probably be someone we either don't know about or aren't particularly afraid of
If Linux takes over, it will NEVER be like it is with Microsoft. Thank you GPL.
"Whoever it is, they will try all the same monopolistic dirty tricks as Microsoft has, and that IBM did before it, no doubt. And we will have to be on our guard against them, and fight them every step of the way -- hopefully we can keep them from ever getting that powerful, but if not, expect yet another long anti-trust saga that leaves no one satisfied."
If Microsoft gets taken down, hopefully that will be a lesson to whoever follows. Probably not, though.
"But right now, in 2002, that doesn't matter. What matters is that Microsoft is much too big and too powerful, that it is crushing innovation, that it is evil. Remember that Churchill and Roosevelt allied themselves with Stalin against Hitler, and they were right to do so."
Um, bad comparison. Microsoft isn't THAT bad (very few are, fortunately.) Plus, we don't have to crush Microsoft to succeed. (Although it would give us that little warm feeling inside...) I'm operating this computer without using any Microsoft software. I'm getting work done (well, not right now, but still...) I'd call that a victory.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Where do I file amicus curia (friend of the cou (Score:2)
Step 2: Realize that step 1 took so long that [the trial is long over | MS.gov will have you put to death for that filing]
Step 3: There's no step 3!
Re:The settlement had a purpose (Score:2)
Re:The settlement had a purpose (Score:2)
Re:What else did you expect? (Score:2, Interesting)
Furthermore, I'm pretty sure that you can't write off civil damages (or criminal fines, of course), whether or not the case was settled out of court.
Somebody with a law degree correct me if I'm wrong.