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?"
please fix url (Score:5, Informative)
What would be nice... (Score:5, Informative)
And half the hardware PPC or Alpha... (Score:2)
Intel does actually innovate, as well as monopolise. In this respect they're ahead of Microsoft.
Also, $1.1G is literally petty cash for Microsoft. If California suffered $3G-$9G, let's call it $3G and figure out the value per capita, then amortise that across the whole world, call that the spend, and make sure it gets spent worldwide too. (-:
Can anyone improve on the justice of this proposal? (-:
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."
Carnegie Libraries (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Carnegie Libraries (Score:2, Troll)
Some would do just that. - but I agree with you. Where do you draw the line? After all, the three you mentioned are the very same people who make the decision that MS should slip the k-y to everyone it can; an attitude that perpetuates down the hierarchy and into the rank-file. And as such, it's far more likely that Bill's "generosity" comes from a misguided attempt to make up for a lack of business ethics, and general moral compass. As top dogs these guys could be settings positive standards but choose otherwise. No shareholder would complain if profits were *only* 5 billion where the company was seen as a positive force in the industry vs the current EVIL EMPIRE attitude but making 6 billion..
Re:Carnegie Libraries (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you kidding? Microsoft's largest shareholders are the people running the company (Gates, Ballmer), or people who used to run the company (Allen). The other large shareholders are probably large financial houses and other major capitalists who would like nothing more than for Microsoft to grow rapidly BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY. If it means buying politicians, screwing consumers, or breaking the law, they'll support it 100%. They might even organize a shareholder lawsuit if they don't see enough of this.
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.
Re:RedHat's take (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft and RedHat will continue to play their little P.R. power games, using our schools as pawns. But each time I hear a story like this, I lose a little more respect for each of them.
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:i volunteer at a school (Score:2, Insightful)
re:Loudmouthed Clinton Basher know-it-all (Score:2, Insightful)
The first problem I have with this guy is that he tries to claim that doing a little volunteer work validates his pronouncements that computers promote avid reading habits by children. To what extent this is true I don't know but I do know that parents have the most influence on a child's educational habits - followed by teachers. If parents want their children to read they need to switch-off the TV AND the computer and get some books in the house. Parents need to set the example by reading books themselves!!! My wife tries to motivate her 4th graders by devoting classroom time to her reading out loud. She takes the time to find great books and tries to act-out the parts. The kids love it. But things like this can not help if the student's home life is not one where education - and reading - is valued.
As for the remark about the "Clinton computers"
Re:RedHat's take (Score:2, Insightful)
They're doing the best they can, don't knock it.
Re:RedHat's take (Score:2)
Those are all good, and all more necessary than computer, but computers are becomming more and more necessary as well. The thing is I can't really see Red Hat or Microsoft providing either. On the other hand, if a book publisher were to offer to provide books, I doubt someone would be screaming that they should be providing food, or if Kraft were offering food, would someone gripe that they should provide books? I doubt anyone would take any such complaint seriously.
Computers are important, and becomming more so. They obviously aren't in the same class as books, or food, but thery are important in any case. Let each provide what they can provide best.
Microsoft and RedHat will continue to play their little P.R. power games, using our schools as pawns. But each time I hear a story like this, I lose a little more respect for each of them.
Every time someone bitches about this, I am astounded that so few people get what red hat is actually saying. What does Red Hat really have to do to provide Linux to all of the schools that want it? An email with the URL ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/redhat-7.2-en/iso
Red Hat simply pointed out in an obscure manner that if someone else provides the hardware Linux is always available at little or no cost. Microsoft could do the same, and it would cost them nothing, but since they get to set the 'cost', they can claim to be donating far more than they are.
Microsoft is trying to use the judgment against them on to deepen their control over the market, and using the schools to do it. Red Hat is simply tryint to call attention to that fact.
Red Hat is far better to call attention to this fact than is slashdot. Why? just look at the tone of most of the posts on slashot. Most people here write like 15 year old kids who think they know everything there is to know. Such individuals are usually ignored by those who hold the purse strings.
The point is that although M$ is trying to use the schools as pawns, Red Hat is trying to prevent it.
Finally some more specific comments on the teachers. My knee jerk response is most teachers aren't even worth what we're paying them, but that's just bitterness talking. The truth though is that the problems with teachers isn't the just the pay. It's a portion of it, but really a small one.
I once thought that schools would magically improve if teachers were paid more, but then I entered a University, and witinessed first hand how education majors are taught and where they come from.
About 10-15% of the Education students actually care about becomming educatiors. Unfortunatly many of them are doing so so that they can be qualified for something other than the public education system.
Most of the rest kind of end up in education as a major. It requires very little math, and very little science. There is a small amount of computer exposure (only after a being forced to do so), and most of the rest is theory. Except for bit teaching, and student teaching, there is little practical expierence, and most of the professors have the attitude that theory is better than practice. In other words, future teachers are learning how to teach children from people who have never taught children.
Education becomes a dumping ground for people who can't handle the elementry algebra, and science classes. It seems to be the last stop before going to the trade school and taking cosmetology (hairdressing) or some such.
Perhaps there are better education schools out there, but I've seen programs on just this problem. I tend to think that without a serious overhaul of who is becomming teachers, many of the problems with teachers will persist.
Now if requirments were similar to what is required for a university professorship...
Re:RedHat's take (Score:2)
But it's an improper settlement, anyway (Score:2)
Look, it's pretty much standard to settle class actions by paying the plaintiff's lawyers and paying the class close to nothing (thought that's more than they should get in many cases). Here, the class gets nothing. Zilch. Their attorney's hve *no* authority to do this, and are violating their ethical duties in doing so. The attorneys in states with stronger laws are objecting. There's no basis for microsoft handing things to schools instead of the plaintiffs. It's an even farther stretch for them to send the schools a check. . .
hawk
Re:RedHat's take (Score:2)
Tell ya what, lets just fire all the teachers and see where this country is in 20 years. Bad scene? Hell yah.
You are such a shortsighted dipshit. I'd certainly rather my damn taxes (And I paid over $40,000 in taxes last year, will pay/have paid even more this year) go to teachers than all the fucking bullshit it gets spent on. Shitheaded politicians blowing it on crap all the time. All this multi-lingual literature. Give me a break - live in the US, speak the language. Live in Germany, speak German. I'm sure they didn't do this bullshit in ancient Mesopotamia. (I'm way off target on this rant. Spend it on good shit, not on wacko liberal bullshit)
I'm sorry you only live on $12,000. I'm happy you enjoy it. I hated it. Living in a small trailer, eating ramen noodles. Fuck that shit. People make so much money off what I do, they should pay me even more.
tenure (Score:2)
hawk
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.
Micros~1: only first 'hit' of software is free (Score:2)
Everyone knows that poor schools have no money for software purchases.
Everyone knows that Apple used to rule the education market.
Everyone knows that Linux deployment in schools and 3rd world countries is the only alternative to flat out software piracy.
So, Microsoft gives away current versions of software that costs them nothing. They display Apple. The keep Linux at a distance. They get the kids hooked into an OS that provides no development environment, is not as manageable, is harder to administer, is a petri dish for viruses, and requires that the schools eventually bow down to Micros~1, and sign up for SOFTWARE ASSURANCE support.
That's the real agenda -- Microsoft is semi-secretly moving towards a subscription software model.
No more upgrades, just by a year's support contract. Heck, they can give away the software for FREE! Just pay them support every year, and you'll get the newest software. If you don't join Software Assurance, they're not going to fix your bugs in old versions, so you'd better upgrade! If Microsoft doesn't make enough money, they can just threaten a site audit for license compliance, and that's enough to scare organizations into lock-step with Microsoft's subscription software model.
Giving Windows software to a poor school is going to end up costing the US taxpayers money.
Catch-22 - Microsoft wins either way.
A New Plan (Score:2)
In Other News.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In Other News.. (Score:2)
--Blair
"Technical support will be charged at the usual rate."
I'm doing it for honey! (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it hard to believe that donating a bunch of windows software and hardware to communities on a limited basis is going to resurrect the BeOS, put Sun back on the line as the company of the internet or put money into developing better products for less money for billions of people. This think of the children ploy is as transparent as those "feed the children in 3rd world country" foundations. Most of the money goes to to the Not for profit administrator and a scant few cents actually makes it past the us border.
what a joke
Re:I'm doing it for honey! (Score:2)
I never said I trusted Sun either.
Dave
Userfriendly (Score:5, Funny)
"sir, we're a monopoly, we get to set the price"
Not to mention that education is the last Mac stronghold. I just wonder what'll happen in five years when the 'free stuff' runs out. Will MS continue to provide low cost solutions? Didn't think so.
Drug dealers always like to give out free samples
Re:Userfriendly - OT (Score:2)
Disclaimer: I don't read UF. I have no opinion on its humor either way. However, I know that PvP and PA's creators hate Illiad with a frothing passion and thus, like sheep, PvP and PA fans tend to hate UF with the same frothing passion.
You know, I haven't seen Illiad attach either of these two authors. Says a little something about his maturity.
And you know, I see a lot more UF links posted on Slashdot than PA or PvP links. Obviously it has a fairly large following of people who think it's funny enough to share with others. But, I guess they're all wrong. You no doubt are the authority on humor and thankfully have come along and schooled the lot of us. God forbid we might make the terrible mistake of breaking from the herd.
If you find something else to be funnier and more relevant, submit that. Don't insult what other people submit. It just shows you to be petty and immature. You like the Katz bashers who are too stupid to block his articles if you find him that offensive.
Good or bad? Not the issue. (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case I see their attempted settlement as something that is good for PR(what is less loveable than donating computers to be used by kids in schools?), that is less expensive than some other alternatives, and which will cause the least damage to their reputation and ability to turn a profit in the future. If they thought that forking over $9 billion was the only way they could continue to make a profit they would do that. However, they will exhaust all alternatives before resorting to that and hope to find one which is preferable(like donating to schools). It's a simple, logical fact.
Re:Good or bad? Not the issue. (Score:2)
Re:Good or bad? Not the issue. (Score:2)
One might say that the pursuing maximization of profit without regard for any other values is inherently evil (In fact, a guy named Paul once said pretty close to the exact same thing). It's obvious there are lots of ways to profit that tread on others. Objectivity in most circles does not mean giving up these kinds of judgements.
So I think your suspension of judgement regarding Microsoft's motives/behaviors/impacts is wrong. Especially in light of the fact that the courts have found microsoft guilty of treading on others in ways proscribed by law.
That said, your assesment of what their actual motives/behavior/impacts have been and will continue to be seems pretty good. The thing you left out is that they're not content with maximizing profit. They must also maximize control. It comes down to a similar thing in the end, but I think that their corporate culture even values control over profit. As long as there's an alternative to what they offer out there, Microsoft will try to destroy it in any way they can get away with. Which now appears to be just about anything short of physical attack.
Re:Good or bad? Not the issue. (Score:4, Insightful)
Complete nonsense. By this argument someone who makes his money by killing and robbing is not evil - he's just trying to make a living like everyone else. The notion that corporations should be outside ethics and moral considerations is ridiculous.
Everyone Wants To Do Good The Way They Want To (Score:2)
On the other hand, in his later years, he was a noted philanthropist. Or at least, he gave money to various causes he liked.
At its deepest level, this is a question about whether or not you're good if you're selective about which kinds of good you live up to. Carnegie could have gotten a good image by actually just treating his employees well. Microsoft could get a good image by just agreeing to only compete on the merits of their products (well....). But that wasn't their preference.
I wouldn't mitigate the fact that giving computers away or founding charitable organizations is a good thing. I just think that true goodness sometimes has to respond to demands outside its own interest.
And it's especially disenchanting, though, if the only good you choose to do is that which does you good, and you'd like to look noble for it.
Amazing (Score:4, Funny)
Can you think of any other company that would see flooding the market with their product as a good solution to a monopoly lawsuit? If AT&T had suggested adding free phone lines to schools in reponse to the goverment saying they already had too much control, they would have been laughed out of the court room.
IBM and typewriters (Score:2)
No worries, they said, we'll just double the price. And they did. And guess what? They sold more units than at half the price, because people figured that the more expensive product had to be better...
Microsoft haven't actually doubled the price of Windows here, but there proposed remedy reeks of similar or worse chutzpah, what with getting a full-price tax break on what they supply for peanuts, swamping the schools with their monopoly product, and proposing a ``penalty'' that amounts to a few weeks' interest on their cash holdings, and at the end of five years leaves the poverty-stricken schools dependent on paying licence fees in order to keep using their now-established software.
As another poster said, it's like tabacco companies handing out free cigarette in apology for luring people into using a product that kills them slowly and painfully.
Re:Amazing (Score:2)
You gotta love Microsoft (Score:3, Redundant)
That sounds exactly like a convicted arsonist who proposes to make up for his deeds by distributing matches in the schoolyard, then sets up an extinguisher manufacture. As much as I hate M$, I have to say I admire them and their attorneys for having the guts to even think about proposing a deal like that, that's classic Microsoft. If the DOJ goes for that, it sure won't be their finest hour ...
Re:You gotta love Microsoft (Score:2)
Yeah -- that's a big help. We had loads of Apple ][ computers lying about our school, and most every other school in the '80s (don't know what its like now) and look at what good it did them.
No its worse (Score:2)
Re:You gotta love Microsoft (Score:2, Insightful)
"worse, on machines destined to kids, which will naturally swear by M$ products later."
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:A vile strategy (Score:2)
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
Re:A vile strategy (Score:2)
(I bet you used them all up by now, didn't you! Don't worry, someone else will
Re:A vile strategy (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot is the home of the big-bad MS bashing, but worse than Big Tobacco? These guys deliberately withheld information that showed smoking was addictive and killed people. What's MS done? At worst played fairly dirty when competing, and trying to achieve a monopoly. Hardly a fair comparison here.
Now I agree the settlement is pretty silly, mainly because it doesn't cost MS very much at all. Personally I think even the Red Hat solution is poor. After all, they're saying that these poor schools just don't know how to spend the money, so we'll pick for them. Wouldn't a better solution be to just give the money directly to the schools in question so they can spend it where it's needed? There's not much point providing computers to schools if the literacy standards are too low, for instance.
Re:A vile strategy (Score:2)
What MS have done is sucessfully tax going to work. At least I have a choice about smoking. True, I guess I have a choice about working but my life sucks a lot more if I don't (and yes, I did try).
Dave
Re:A vile strategy (Score:2)
But they really don't know how. Look at all those Macs, clearly these people have misspent money in the past.
Re:A vile strategy (Score:2)
MS has a monopoly and that monopoly costs every single human being in the US more money. MS will one day control the internet and that will cost every single person on the planet.
Ability to communicate is what separates us from the animals. MS is now firmly in control of just about all electronic communication and will tighten this control even further. They will essentially control what makes us human. This is much worse then a couple of million killed by smoke especially since those people chose to smoke.
Re:A vile strategy (Score:2)
What is kiling someone except the removal of a person's remaining time in this world, removal of their productivity from society, and removal of their presence from friends and loved ones? Microsoft, by the shoddy quality of their software has taken up copious amounts of my limited time in this world, removed my productivity from society, and caused me to stay away from my friends and loved ones. I see no difference other than to degree. It is a perfect comparison.
Well, not quite perfect - if you believe in souls, Microsoft has not yet started driving them away from this world, yet. It likes to keep them around in case the corporate officers come up with some reason to steal them...
Re:A vile strategy (Score:2)
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.
Tell the judge. (Score:2)
Re:A vile strategy (Score:2, Informative)
Not much of a punishment if you ask me (Score:5, Insightful)
Typically(as I understand it) in a lawsuit the whole idea is restitution of damages. I love the idea of Microsoft giving technology to underprivilaged schools, and if they want to do it then full steam ahead. But... their donation of resources shouldn't have any bearing on the actual civil litigation going on.
Companies donate money and services to charity all the time. In marketing that's called PR. Make the rest of the world think that you're allright. I'm from Southern California and I remember that when the Indian Gaming tribes went under fire during Proposition 5, they were donating money to charities left and right. Still do as a matter of fact.
Does anyone *really* think that the poor school districts are the ones who were hurt by Microsoft's Monopolistic(tm) practices? No, of course not. They wouldn't have been buying computers either way, it's the hardware that's too expensive for them--not Microsoft's inflated prices and crappy software. So after years of bullshit the average consumer has put up with by dealing with Microsoft's business tactics, as a settlement we get a company donating to an unrelated charity. Well, sign me up Frank.
There isn't any need to debate whether this sort of thing is going to extend Microsoft's monopoly or not. They do that kind of stuff all the time. It's the fact that people are willing to accept it as a term of a lawsuit settlement that pisses me off. Give'm hell boys.
link (Score:2)
Good to see someone won't stand for it (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's make this clear: they are going to make money off of poor schools while coming off as altruistic at the same time. Can you imagine the M$ software audit nazis shutting down a school because it couldn't afford to upgrade the site license to their "free" software? I'm glad to see that the State of California, home of many good things, has the balls to stand up to this crap.
Which reminds me of another thing: how the hell is "giving away" software to poor schools going to help all of the victims of the M$ monopoly? How long have these lawyers been away from the outside world, that they would lose sight of their objectives? I guess since its all money to them, they don't really give two shits one way or the other...
Re:Good to see someone won't stand for it (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you should ask the PROSECUTION , as they set the terms of the settlement.
Simon
This isn't for the people anymore.. (Score:2)
What good is california going to do with making this decision? Do you think poor schools in california will get computers with software pre-loaded on it?
Do you think a kid will be more well off With Linux over Windows? Does that teach them anything else other then the philosphy of free software?
I personally want my kids to understand Word and Excell and possibly how to use Photoshop and applications like that for when they go to work. I would want linux to be an afterthought, as it has never occured to me to run it as a core os.
Somehow i don't see Redhat or california providing the means that Microsoft can. Monopoly or not, microsoft has the money and power to provide an education for our kids. Monopoly aside, California has no right deciding this fate.
Put the computer and the software at the kids choice, if RedHat has the means to do this then don't take a free ride off microfts problems, go out there and support our schools.
Re:This isn't for the people anymore.. (Score:2)
Yes, but the school should teach kids how to use Office on Windows and teach them how to use Photoshop on Macs. They should also be offering programming classes earlier, and be teaching them on Linux by the high school level, allowing them to use $300 built-from-scratch PCs and saving hundreds by not having to buy Windows licenses. Mac and Windows platforms should be available at all levels, Linux machines in high school and above, along with basic classes in using them. They should be running school servers on Linux at all levels.
The real issue (if you read the article) is whether you think a charitable donation is an acceptable remedy for an antitrust case.
Microsoft is up to no good. (Score:2)
I believe Microsoft is up to no good.
Suppose they decide to donate 1 billion dollars worth of equipment. Think of the advantages of donating computer equipment to schools:
Microsoft would choose the schools and then supply the cheapest computers available on the market. The cost of these computers would be deducted from the 1 billion dollars. Microsoft would then install their own software on these computers. This would definitely include one of their operating systems and a bunch of office productivity, educational, art applications and games. Microsoft would then deduct their suggested retail price of the software from the 1 billion dollars.
If each computer costs Microsoft $500.00, and then they deduct $2000.00 for software (the more software they install on these computers, the more they can deduct), Microsoft actually spends only one fifth of the 1 billion dollars. The rest is money they never spend. They would be giving away copies of their own software. This does not cost them anything, since software is not a tangible product, and they don't actually have to manufacture those copies (other than putting them on a CD, the cost of which is negligible at their high quantities). Microsoft ends up spending 200,000,000 instead of 1,000,000,000--a huge savings!
But wait, there's more! These computers would simply serve as an advertisement for Microsoft. Furthermore, they'll probably put a different spin on the donation, making it appear as an act of good will, instead of a punishment for an abusive monopoly. Most folks would think Microsoft is very noble, as they don't follow the lawsuits. And I haven't even gotten started yet. Here's the best part! Microsoft would write off the entire 1 billion dollars as an expense, and end up not paying taxes on that money, even though four fifths of it never left Microsoft's bank account! (Microsoft has some genius accountants. They will somehow manage to do this, and the government won't be able to do a damn thing about it.) There are probably another ten or so huge benefits to Microsoft. They would essentially turn this "punishment" into a marketing ploy, and further expand their monopoly.
My suggestion for a real punishment follows: The government should decide which schools most need free computer equipment. Then, the government will decide on an amount of money to be spent on that school. Microsoft will be required to give the school a cash grant, which the school can use to purchase anything in the realm of computer equipment. The total amount of money spent by Microsoft on grants should be not less than 2 billion dollars.
Here's where my suggestion gets interesting: The schools have 100 percent choice as to which products to buy with the grant money. This could include scanners, printers, monitors, speakers, any computer hardware, etc. They could buy a PDP-11 or an SGI Onyx, or anything in between. Furthermore, they could get any software they want, whether it is IRIX, Windows 2000, Linux, or anything else out there. But here's the catch: If the school decides to use software products from Microsoft, Microsoft may NOT charge for them. They will be required to give the school a special, 100 percent free, totally unlimited, site-wide license for that product. (The license is special in that any faculty member or student of that school would be permitted to install that piece of software at any number of computers in their home at no cost. This prevents the grant from being used as an advertisement, which would benefit Microsoft instead of punishing them.) To close another loophole, if the school wants a software product made by another company, and Microsoft would somehow profit from this (through licensing fees, by owning shares of the company, or any other method), Microsoft is not allowed to make that profit. In other words, the ruling would prevent Microsoft from IN ANY WAY profiting from their products being given to the school. And finally, this requirement lasts forever. If Microsoft is still in business 200 years from now, and that school wants to use some software of theirs, Microsoft must still follow this rule.
In other words, the school may purchase (or obtain freely, if applicable) whatever computer related products they want, including Microsoft products, if they wish, but Microsoft may in no way profit from this punishment. If these were the terms of the punishment, I would agree to it 100 percent. Otherwise, I think Microsoft is playing games again.
Oh well.
Truth is stranger than comedy? (Score:2)
In other news... (Score:2, Funny)
According to lawyers and others briefed on the deal, Philip Morris would provide tobacco products valued at about $900 million over five years to schools where most students qualify for free federal lunch programs. Philip Morris also would be responsible for making available 200,000 reconditioned ashtrays and tobacco pipes during that period, $90 million in teacher training and $38 million in technical support. It would provide as much as $250 million to set up an independent foundation to meet project goals, and would seek an additional $200 million in matching funds.
If the settlement goes through, Philip Morris's brand name and products will gain even greater presence in the nation's schools. Some of the lawyers in the class-action cases were uncomfortable with this but concluded that Philip Morris's monopoly already is so pervasive that students would have to learn to use their products anyway.
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
or maybe "The IQ of the average Senior UNIX adminstrator is much higher than the IQ of the average 10 year old windows user." That sounds like a very truth.com-like spin.
Not that I have some love for tobacco companies mind you, my mother would probably be alive today if not for cigarettes, it's just that there's only so much we can blame on "big tobacco", which stores advertise their products and which ethnic groups are more susceptible to cancer really are beyond "big tobacco"'s control, but the public sure seems to believe it. And after all "MS has killed more computers than big tobacco has people!" hehe
I know this one! (Score:2, Troll)
Wait!
It's um . . . uh.
Crap!
Let me check my copy of "Slashdot Answers to Microsoft Questions For Dummys". Here it is!
What was the question?
Re:I know this one! (Score:2)
What was the question?
Does it matter? The answer to all of them is "Microsoft sucks!"
Really, the book has a good deal more pages then it needs to. The whole thing rates a -1, Redundant.
Re:I know this one! (Score:2, Funny)
O'Reilly's MS Bashing in a Nutshell (tm)
No self respecting slashdotter would stoop to the level of the Dummy's series.
Personally... (Score:2)
Re:Except that the Plaintiff's proposed it... (Score:2)
Microsoft bought SOMEONE off! (Score:2)
They've entrenched themselves in a monopoly.
Now the government's soloution is to further EXTEND that monopoly?
What do the THINK putting a bunch of Windows machines in school is GOING to do?
Yeah. MS takes a licensing loss.
BOO FRICKING HOO!
Like they don't lose at least that much to people who ALREADY install their products on multiple systems?
They still have primary imprint on kids at school.
Basically hooking them into the MS cycle of endless bugfixes re-dressed into expensive upgrades.
Getting off pretty cheap (Score:2, Insightful)
So, they lose (let's be generous) around $300 million (around $200 million in PCs, somewhere about $100 million in materials costs on the software and its packaging), to get themselves absolved of any wrongdoing. For a company that has supposedly billions of dollars in cash on-hand, that's chump change.
Why Some States are Going Along (Score:4, Insightful)
IANAL, but . . .
In most states, only "direct consumers" can sue for anti-trust damages -- e.g. typically this means Dell or Compaq, not the end-user. The suits involving these states are going to get thrown out anyway, so they are willing to settle for anything .
In CA (and some other places), indirect consumers can sue. So these states don't want to give in. But, MS cleverly made the settlement contingent on all suits being settled.
The class-action lawyers for the consumers in states that can't really sue are trying to force this settlement down the throats of the other groups. What will the judge say? Who knows.
Re:Why Some States are Going Along (Score:2)
Since these laws don't exist in most states, Microsoft is in a great position on this one. They can't be sued because the computer purchasers get Windows from the OEMs, but the OEMs are forced by Microsoft to provide nothing but Windows with their systems... And the computer purchaser gets screwed six ways to Sunday.
Funny, in this case their EULA is effectively accurate. As far as state laws are concerned, they're not obliged to offer any warantee for anything, as there's no law that allows them to be sued.
Who's been harmed (Score:2, Flamebait)
I guess my point is that even though I don't agree with the business tactics that Microsoft has taken, even though I think that Windows XP is overpriced for what you get, I believe that there are alternatives out there.
Here's the hard part: to get what you really want takes a little work. So I built my own computers and installed my own operating systems. And I can honestly say that Microsoft hasn't harmed me, hasn't stifled my innovation and basically has had little to no impact on me.
My personal opinion is that much of the Microsoft bashing goes on for a few reasons:
1. You're jealous of Bill Gates because he made a lot of money.
2. Microsoft is a big (relatively speaking) company and big companies are easy to hate.
3. Microsoft aggressively protects its intellectual property interests.
It seems to me that only the third reason *might* be a position to argue from, except that, from a legal perspective, MUST protect their IP interests.
As far as the "innovation" issue, I'd say that's a red herring. Innovation, at least in the sense that most people bandy the word around, really doesn't exist. Very little work in any industry is innovative, regardless of what the marketing flacks might say. For the last several years almost every "new" product or idea has really been nothing more than an evolutionary improvement on existing work. Now that's not a bad thing...it really is how new products get introduced. But I don't think it's appropriate to say that Microsoft stifles innovation...the very complexity of many of the "things" that we use today really limits true innovation.
And just as a bonus...for everyone who rails at companies who (mis)use US patent laws to protect their patently obvious software developments, remember that the antitrust laws that Microsoft was accused of violating were put in place to combat the excesses of the railroad barons of the 19th century...just as poor an application of the law to the Microsoft situation as the application of patent law to software and "methods". Read your history!
And finally...the "Windows tax" isn't necessarily a Microsoft invention. Consider the economies of scale. I was part of management for a major computer manufacturer and one of the decisions that we had to make regarded the shipment of systems with no OS or a custom OS installed. From a cost perspective, it simply was too expensive to delete Windows from our configurations and create a special process for the small number of orders that required no OS. It wasn't a contract requirement, it wasn't Microsoft leaning on us to ship Windows, it was economics plain and simple. To knock $40 off the cost of a system and ship with no OS cost well over $40 to implement on such a small volume of computers. Want to blame somebody on the "Windows tax"? It's the corporate bottom line. Oh, and the company is still in business. And, in a sea of red ink, actually made a profit last quarter.
-h-
Re:Who's been harmed (Score:5, Funny)
We bash Microsoft because most of us are computing professionals. I'm sure a lot of McDonald's bashing goes on in kitchens, and a lot of KIA bashing goes on in garages.
Re:Who's been harmed (Score:2)
I guess my point is that even though I don't agree with the business tactics that Microsoft has taken, even though I think that Windows XP is overpriced for what you get, I believe that there are alternatives out there.
For now, but Microsoft has and does try to leverage that monopoly into closed standards that prevent interoperability. Even if laws allow reverse engineering, they prevent a speedy driver release. Linux then looks like it's going slower, fewer companies release drivers or specs for their hardware, and there is this downward spiral.
Microsoft aggressively protects its intellectual property interests.
I doubt anyone has a problem with this. After all the GPL does the same thing. What the problem is that Microsoft swallows other IP, takes credit for and tries to stomp out anything else.
Microsoft preaches a computer on every desk and a Microsoft OS on every computer. Their party line is that there can be no exception.
I really don't care if Microsoft exists. I just think that they have far too much power in the market.
Why am I harmed? I don't want to use a Microsoft OS. Don't by one you say? Even taking into account your microsoft tax argumet, I didn't say I didn't want one, I said I don't want to use one. Not at home, and not at work. I want at least the option to use a real OS in my place of employment, or at least a chance that my place of employment might not force everyone to use Microsoft softwar, but with their current control, your current choice is between the various flavors of excrement offered by Microsoft.
I want decent games under Linux, but I can't get them. Why? because very few of the games I want have been ported to Linux. Most of the ones that have are ones that don't particularly interest me, and I'm not about to lay down money for a game I don't want just so someone might think of porting other games to the platform. If Microsoft were a small player, there would be no choice but to port games to several platforms.
Microsoft's dominance has harmed me, and even if you don't know it, it has harmed you.
Re:Who's been harmed (Score:3, Insightful)
Every programmer in the world. We have all had the right to write programs for money removed from us. Basically, any programmer who comes up with a good, popular, program can have that program copied by MS and see it given away as part of Windows and there is nothing they can do about it because MS can run them through the courts until they're broke.
Microsoft is a big (relatively speaking)
Yes, relative to all other companies.
big companies are easy to hate.
This is a classic cop-out by MS apologists. Big companies are hated because they treat everyone like shit. It's not the bigness which people hate, it's the treatment.
Big companies can not, even if they want to, treat their customers well. The best they can do is treat the important customers well and everyone else has to lump it. In MS's case, they are so big that NO single customer is important and they can treat everyone like shit.
You're jealous of Bill Gates because he made a lot of money.
I am jealous of Gates because he has been given a lot of money while I'm stuck here having to earn it. I didn't have a million dollar gift from my granddad when I was born and IBM never gave me a licence to print money. The government has never said to me "the last version of your software failed and crashed, was late arriving and didn't do what you said it would; could we have another million copies, please?".
Gates has sponged of the rest of us while destroying other companies (Netscape being the best known) for years. Why should anyone innovate in the face of that? If you thought of a new way to browse the web, would you spend time working on it knowing that if it works it'll just appear in IE7?
And just as a bonus...for everyone who rails at companies who (mis)use US patent laws to protect their patently obvious software developments, remember that the antitrust laws that Microsoft was accused of violating were put in place to combat the excesses of the railroad barons of the 19th century...just as poor an application of the law to the Microsoft situation as the application of patent law to software and "methods". Read your history!
This didn't make sense. What are you talking about? Are you saying that only railway companies can be monoplies?
From a cost perspective, it simply was too expensive to delete Windows from our configurations and create a special process for the small number of orders that required no OS.
I think you're lying. It doesn't cost 40 dollars to not install Windows on every tenth computer. Uninstalling it would be stupid.
Anyway, the phrase "Windows Tax" disguises what it really is: blackmail and extortion. Your company may have not wanted to remove Windows from its machines but, if it had, it would have quickly found out that it didn't have the option. MS simply would have stopped providing you with Windows and there sure as hell ain't enough of a non-Windows market to support a large OEM with no OS to pre-install.
This is the biggest abuse of the monopoly position: forcing OEM's to pay protection money in order to stay "in the game".
TWW
Absolutely correct (Score:2)
Re:Absolutely correct (Score:2, Funny)
It is nothing but a transparent ploy to extend monopoly. I can't believe anyone would fail to see it, or ignore it.
-- >>
well, wouldn't we have all thought that of a case which the government won, twice? and yet still managed to lose...hmmm.
i'm not sure how to explain the way these guys can bamboozle just about anyone. a good friend from Apple days is convinced he is the anti-christ. perhaps if someone had mentioned that to Ashcroft things would have turned out differently.
Re:Absolutely correct (Score:2)
Or maybe he's the devil himself. That would make Balmer the anti-christ I guess.
But that would mean Linus must be Jesus. OK, that's just getting too corny for me.
:-)
Balmer qoute at the bottom... (Score:2)
So... Ballmer thinks that even if people were given the choice they would still install Microsoft software.
What is depressing is that he is probably right. Microsoft does have a monopoly on the desktop after all.
I think that Microsoft should just give the schools the money and let them do what ever they want with it. Buy desks or chairs. New basketball uniforms... What ever the schools wants.
It's ridiculous to pretend that giving a billion dollars worth of software to schools costs Microsoft anything. Probably it costs them 4 million dollars in packaging. But they can more than make that up from the advertising they get as a result... Microsoft has probably spent 500 million advertising XP and 2k already.
That isn't even a punishment. And they have been convicted, right?
And to think (Score:2)
Re:And to think (Score:2)
This case, however, is a different case. It's a proposed settlement of the class-action suits for private harm caused by MS abusing its monopoly. It's only tangentially related to the DOJ/state antitrust case, in that Judge Jackson's FoF was major ammo.
Can we all play? (Score:5, Funny)
"Dear IRS, Instead of a check, enclosed please find 800 copies of my latest shareware valued at $40.00 each. I'm sure you'll agree that the benefit to society of making my software available to hundreds of schools serving hundreds of thousands of children far outweighs some petty cash payment."
I could save a fortune this way. Go Microsoft!
You have 15 hours to Do Something about it (Score:3, Informative)
If we don't do it, then it won't get done. Even a one page letter ("This is a bad idea, don't do it!") will be helpful.
The letter should be FAXed to
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
Let's settle all the class action suits this way.. (Score:2)
The value of my proposal is hidden in the details. You see, all of these class action suits could be settled without giving anything to the plaintiffs. According to me, this entitles their lawyers to 40% of what the plaintiffs receive, which is NOTHING. Of course this means no meaningful relief to the plaintiffs and no punishment for the defendants, but that's a small price to pay if it means pulling the plug on litigation, which seldom provides anything other than a paycheck for the lawyers.
The bottom line is that this "settle by charitable contribution" trend will eliminate anyone's motivation to pursue a class action suit. Since there are only so many political patronage jobs to go around, putting the lawyers out of work would force them to pursue meaningful employment elsewhere, thus resulting in a benefit to the economy. Without the threat of those pesky class action suits, just imagine how many jobs these benevolent corporations would create! This could stop the recession!
Disclaimer: This article is for entertainment only; not to be taken seriously. I am not a lawyer. This not an offer to settle anything. Any copyrights/trademarks belong to their respective owners. The companies mentioned here may or may not be involved in a current or past class action suit. Use as directed. Your actual mileage may vary.
My Thanks to CA (Score:2)
For having the guts to take a stance against this particular settlement.
Apart from Californian resistance, much of the gist of this story has been covered by an earlier one [slashdot.org].
Likewise, my opinion [slashdot.org] has been expressed there, including why it takes a great deal of courage to stand up to this settlement.
Re:I think... (Score:2, Informative)
Anyway, with that in mind, is Microsoft doing anything that Apple and/or Sun haven't already done? Is this on such a large stage and with such hubris that no one can look at it against what other software and hardware vendors have done?
Example is as follows: Sun donates a whole pile of hardware to UC San Diego. UCSD agrees to switch to Java as their CS Departments core language over C/C++.
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:I think... (Score:2)
Usually settlements costs act as a deterrant to further violations, and in this specific case (since it can potentially benefit Microsoft) I fail to see how the settlement will prevent further violations.
An old ploy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Providing low-cost or free computing equipment to schools and universities - so a generation of graduates comes up pre-trained on your stuff - is an old hack.
IBM did it. DEC did it. Amdahl did it. Cray did it. Apple did it.
But to use such an anti-competitive activity as a SETTLEMENT of an anti-trust conviction... Now THAT takes GUTS!
If they get away with it, it will qualify as the legal hack of the century.
Re:Beating the proverbial horse... (Score:2)
Re:Go Microsoft! (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, so is the whole country... time to close up the tent everyone.
.
Re:Is Microsoft a do-gooder, or up to no good? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Make them bleed (Score:2)
Re:Make them bleed (Score:2)
Re:Everyone Gets a Cut but the Victims (Score:2)
At the same time, the fact that it was the idea of a prosecutor doesn't make it a logical remedy, which is the real issue here. The attorney's fees are irrelevant to MS if they can get the low settlement cost; an important issue the CA lawyers raise is that the $10 figure is based on a very conservative estimate of how much MS has overcharged consumers. As I am sure you read he alleges overcharges in CA to be $3-5 billion.
Re:There is no point (Score:2)
Windows has the widest driver support, because it has the largest need - it is a consumer desktop OS. The only third party driver on my Solaris boxes at work is from EMC, and it is 100% reliable. I could care less if I can hook a $39 webcam to my Sun server.
OTOH I can tolerate my home Linux box falling over when I insmod an experimental driver.
Win2k is far more stable than Win 3.1, but it has not yet reached the reliability of Linux, never mind Solaris. It still has the good old "unexplained BSOD", it's just rarer. This has now been relegated to being a minor nuisance for a consumer desktop - it's still a *big deal* for a production server. When did you last see Solaris or FreeBSD kernel panic due to an OS bug?
On the other hand, it isn't so long ago (Amiga, Win 3.x) that home machines had to be rebooted to get out of a game. System stability and scalability just isn't a big deal, and consumers now expect software to crash; the concept of software systems which don't routinely fail is a novelty to non-techies.
The kernel engineering of most Unix-like systems is on the whole superior to NT, a lot of which is based concept-wise on VMS and has a number of silly legacy hangovers like drive letters and expensive processes; operability is a bigger issue - the registry is a murky swamp, and it's hard to run a proper security policy when everything (including MS products) insists on blatting DLL's everywhere. Ever found a production MS shop where everything under the sun doesn't run as Administrator?
Most of that huge software library (like anything else) is worthless crap - if you actually look at what most home consumers *use* on their Windows machines, it's an email client (AOL or Outlook), a pirate copy of MS-Office, and one or two games.
Unix is far from being "dead end" technology - it's 30 year history speaks to (a) how well it was designed to begin with, (b) how mature it is, and (c) how well it has evolved. Do you still think NT will be around in 2015?
Yes, you could make a better consumer OS than Windows by putting more GUI candy on top of Unix - perhaps Apple will show us how. As to usability, in many ways, the newer X11 window managers (Gnome) have better HCI and are more powerful than Windows (cut and paste is the day-to-day obvious one for me), what lacks is the vendor packaging support and app-level integration. The average user could care less whether they click SETUP.EXE or foo.rpm as long as it works, but having to add MIME types to NS4.7 by hand is a drag.