Judge OKs Class-Action Suit Against Microsoft

faqBastard writes: "This just in from CNBC. A California judge has OK'ed a class action lawsuit against MS. Has it's monopolistic practices harmed Calif consumers?" There really isn't much more to read here, but I'm sure we'll know more soon.

Comments

Hear this on the way in

[ackthpt]

Yes, if they win then Microsoft cuts checks to purchasers in California for a few bucks each. Not a major setback for Bill.

This still has to wait on the Federal Antitrust trial results.

Vote Naked 2000

Re:Hear this on the way in

[lalas]

Yes, if they win then Microsoft cuts checks to purchasers in California for a few bucks each. Not a major setback for Bill.

If they win, the floodgates will open up. Even Bill will feel the pinch of lawsuits like this in every state.

Re:Hear this on the way in

[danderson]

Even Bill will feel the pinch of lawsuits like this in every state.

True, _if_ lawsuits like this are allowed in every state. From the CNET article on the same story

Courts in Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island and Texas have dismissed similar class-action lawsuits on grounds that laws in those states don't allow them.

just one more way for people to whine

[phUnBalanced]

Why can't we just let the doj handle this?

Do people find it necessary to complain just for the sake of complaining? This is just an attempt not to punish Microsoft, but to get a few people money and a big name for some hot shot lawyers.

Re:just one more way for people to whine

[ackthpt]

Read it again, this is a violation of a State law being tested.

Vote Naked 2000

Re:just one more way for people to whine

[phUnBalanced]

That's not my point. I don't care state or federal. M$ is already getting beaten up over this. Like I said, the true points are all being missed here and now everyone's just trying to jump on the bandwagon.

Re:just one more way for people to whine

[Lord Kano]

Why can't we just let the doj handle this?

The DOJ is going after them for violation of antitrust laws, the class action lawsuit is about holding them accountable for the negative impact that their products have had on consumers.

Two cases with related issues behind them, but still separate and distinct.

LK

Re:just one more way for people to whine

[ackthpt]

On the contrary, these complaints were simmering before the Federal Antitrust trial got rolling. And when it's your choice being limited and your wallet being hit, I'm sure you'll feel the same.

The California case centers around monopolistic practices elimitating choice of other software, which may have brought prices down. The People of the State of California must demonstrate that costs were higher than would normally be if there were competition. This isn't an easy thing to prove, and still hinges to some degree upon the success of the antitrust trial.

If Microsoft Word were being given away free and drove Word Perfect and Displaywriter from store shelves, then they jacked up the prices, it would be open and shut. Most likely people wanted to settle on some standard for documents, spreadsheets, O/S behavior to simplify training, communication and exchange with other parties. The most damning thing really is lack of some storage standard which all vendors could agree on and then compete to make the best wordprocessor. Too many picked Word and the rest have pretty much faded. Without serious competition Microsoft sets prices where they want.

Vote Naked 2000

Re:just one more way for people to whine

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, that's English Common Law for you.

Well, if you don't want governmental regulation overseeing markets and businesses in MINUTE DETAIL, then you are voting for the old order of private parties keeping each other in line by suing in court. That means lawsuits galore, like in the good old days before governments took a hand in defending the common interest (beyond securing borders, cutting the hands off of thieves, branding adulterers and that sort of thing).

Re:just one more way for people to whine

[Lord Kano]

Given the appalling ignorance regarding computers the populace, I don't see how any of them are harmed.

Most of them probably don't know HOW they were harmed, but that doesn't mean that they weren't.

100 years ago people didn't "KNOW" that cigarettes were harming them, but they were.

LK

Re:just one more way for people to whine

[binarybits]

Well, if you don't want governmental regulation overseeing markets and businesses in MINUTE DETAIL, then you are voting for the old order of private parties keeping each other in line by suing in court.

This depends on how the court system is arranged. In an ideal legal system, all the courts do is enforce property rights-- if you firebomb my house I take you to court for damages.

What we have here is something entirely different-- a transaction that both sides voluntarily agreed to in the past is being retroactively declared "unfair" and Microsoft is being made to pay for damages. My question is: even granting that they deserve punishment for antitrust violations (which I don't) how was Microsoft supposed to know what the "correct" price for it's products was? *Every* business charges as much as it can for its products. To expect Microsoft to suddenly say "oh, we're a monopoly now. We're not allowed to make a profit any more" is absurd.

The software business is an extremely high-risk business. You pour a lot of money into a product at the front end, gambling that you'll be able to recoup a lot of money in the long run. If you bet well, you make your money back and then some. If not, you lose money.

If companies are ethically or legally prevented from making "excessive" profits on successful products, why should they take big risks on products that might flop? And how is a company to know how much profit is "too much?"

In practice, these decisions are made by economists with wildly varying assumptions, and therefore come to wildly varying conclusions. There is no objective way to determine what price a product "should" cost.

So if prices become subject to lawsuits, then yes, you'll clog up courts. But those who believe that companies should be retroactively punished for setting their prices "too high" have only themselves to blame for this congestion. If monopolistic behavior justifies government intervention (and I think it seldom does) it should be applied to future behavior and should lay out clear rules. I shouldn't try to second-guess past pricing decisions that are intrinsicly fuzzy and impossible to quantify perfectly.

Re:just one more way for people to whine

[binarybits]

And when it's your choice being limited and your wallet being hit, I'm sure you'll feel the same.

Who decides what counts as a "hit in the wallet," and by what standard? Every company charges as much as they can for their products. And every purchase is a "hit" to your wallet. At what point does a price go from fair profit to unfair "gouging?"

The People of the State of California must demonstrate that costs were higher than would normally be if there were competition.

How can they possibly know this? No one knows what's going to happen in the next 6 months in this industry. How could you possibly extrapolate these sorts of "what-if" scenarios several years into the past? And even if you could, what did you expect Microsoft to do? Even granting that they did some unethical things to their competitors, are they supposed to set their prices based on theoretical models of what prices "might have been?"

This isn't an easy thing to prove

That's a massive understatement. I'd make the much stronger statement that it's impossible to do so. No one can know what might have been. You can guess and make plausible arguments for your guess, but to expect Microsoft to be held responsible for the guesses of a bunch of economists is absurd.

The burden this sort of lawsuit would place on companies if it were taken seriously would be enourmous. Every company with a large market share would have to hire an economist to make economic models and figure out how much they are allowed to charge without getting sued. And like with antitrust itself, the rules would change every time they go before a new judge or a new administration.

The result is that most companies simply ignore antitrust law and pray that the DOJ doesn't decide to go after them. Trying to actually comply with such a vague and overreaching body of law would make it impossible for them to compete in the marketplace. Microsoft has rightly decided that it's more important to stay ahead in the marketplace and fight off legal challenges in court than to invest all their energies in complying with the whims of the DOJ.

that was short!

[ct.smith]

Wow, that article had enough details to let me know all about the case

Anyone have any real details as to what this case is? Links to a better article would be good.

Re:that was short!

[1alpha7]

Anyone have any real details

Here are some details from the WSJ

A judge allowed the first class-action suit to proceed against Microsoft Corp. on allegations that the software giant's monopoly harmed California consumers. Dozens of similar suits linger nationwide. In a 21-page opinion released late Tuesday, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Stuart R. Pollak said an untold number of California consumers could be represented in one trial to determine whether they were forced to pay unreasonably high costs for Microsoft products. He said denying the suit "could result in repetitious litigation." "This case involves a very large number of claimants with relatively small amounts at stake," Judge Pollak said. "Most consumers have little incentive to litigate independently since the costs of litigation undoubtedly would overwhelm their potential recovery." Microsoft spokesman James W. Cullinan said the Redmond, Wash., company is reviewing the ruling. "This is just one step in a long process in this case," Mr. Cullinan said. He declined further comment. Attorneys in the case are scheduled to meet with Mr. Pollak on Oct. 4 to prepare for a trial. No trial date has been set yet. The products at issue are Microsoft's Windows operating system, its MS-DOS operating system, Word programs and Excel software purchased on or after May 18, 1994. Microsoft urged Judge Pollak on Aug. 4 not to allow the case to proceed because it would be nearly impossible to determine damages. Microsoft attorney Charles B. Casper argued that the company markets its products to thousands of companies who resell them at different prices, adding that the judge would have to weigh each consumer's claim on a case-by-case basis. Lawyers seeking class-action status said that Microsoft was trying to shield itself behind its size. "Just make your business large enough that you can overcharge and get away with it," San Francisco attorney Daniel J. Furniss argued. Mr. Pollak's decision came three weeks after Microsoft asked a federal judge in Baltimore to dismiss or at least consolidate 62 pending federal and state class-action suits. That action is pending and, so far, none have been able to proceed. Courts in Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island and Texas have dismissed similar class-action lawsuits on grounds that laws in those states don't allow them. The majority of the cases nationwide were filed after U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson in Washington, D.C., ruled that the company violated federal antitrust laws. Microsoft is appealing Mr. Jackson's ruling and his order to split the software giant into two companies. Three weeks ago, Mr. Pollak suggested that it would be a Herculean task for attorneys to demonstrate how consumers were wronged. "If they can't do it, they'll lose the case," Mr. Pollak said. Microsoft has argued that, even if it was a monopoly, consumers in many instances benefited and were not harmed. For instance, Microsoft says Netscape, now a division of America Online Inc., dropped its roughly $50 charge for a Web browser after Microsoft began giving its browser away for free.

Re:that was short!

[1alpha7]

And here is the article at The Reg

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/1/12905.html

Has this actually happened to anyone here?

[Rurik]

They mention that MS overcharged California residents. Why only CA, rather than other states?

Was this Microsoft's way of getting back at California residents for ripping them off earlier this year? :)

Re:Has this actually happened to anyone here?

[Score 0]

There's an excellent defense for MS right there.

"Okay, we admit that we overcharged you by $40 for Windows. We'll just subtract that from the $400 you pilfered from us."

Re:Has this actually happened to anyone here?

[cpt kangarooski]

I suspect that you're not an American.

While MS is already being attacked (pretty successfully) by the federal government, the individual states all have their own laws as well. If MS wishes to do business in any of those states, they have to conform to state laws, except where the state law is overridden by federal law.

In CA, MS's proven monopolistic practices are illegal under state law. And so there's a bunch of people who claim to have been directly harmed (by having to buy Windows at a high, non-competitive price) by MS. Many other states, however, don't permit suits like this because of their laws. But that hasn't stopped people from trying.

Fortunately CA is significant; I don't think MS would be as worried if Rhode Island or Wyoming had active class-action suits too.

Question

[cybercuzco]

1. How can I join
2. what needs to be shown to join the class action, use of MS products, or do you need to show that you have been harmed by ms products?
3.how will this affect alternative OS's?

Re:Question

[Misch]

1 & 2: You have to live in the state of California, and, presumably, purchased Micro$oft Producs that you have registered. Remember, the lawsuit is over monopolistic practices which have led to OVERLY INFLATED prices for consumers in California.

3: This shouldn't have any effect on alternative OS's because most alternative OS's are free (as in beer).

I'm guessing, from experience with previous class action lawsuits, if the state wins, any person who has purchased certain MS products in the state of California will be entitled to a rebate in the mail. You'll probably have to do the footwork on this yourself, as in, it won't be mailed to you, you need to go out and find this for yourself, mail it in, along with proof of purchase, etc...

at least that's my $0.02 on it.

Re:Question

[cpt kangarooski]

Presumably you have to have been a CA resident and bought a copy of Windows. If the findings in the federal antitrust case are any indication you'd probably get a refund of $50 minus lawyer's fees (which are probably about 30% of the TOTAL amount refunded, setting them up for life)

Re:Question

[jafac]

What about overly inflated MSCE test and class prices?

If MS weren't THE thing in the computer industry, I wouldn't have had to waste so much money and time learing about the menus in the network control panel, so I could have a piece of paper - similar to the money and time I wasted on my NOvell piece of paper back in 1994. (at least when I do the Solaris certification thing this fall, it won't be a complete waste of time - yes I will technically become a marketing tool of Sun, but at least the skills I will learn will be applicable).

if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!

Re:Question

[TheReverand]

SO how much money did you make off those pieces of paper? Are you going to bitch and moan when Sun is no longer everywhere? Don't think it will happen? They thought the same thing about Novell.

Quit your crying and go back to your over paying "certified" tech job.

Re:Question

[um... Lucas]

1 - I don't know.
2 - That you've purchased Microsoft Windows, most likely.
3 - It doesn't affect other OS's. Not everything revolves around Linux.

Re:Question

[cybercuzco]

I think ill change it to
This is an awful, awful sig. Please change it!
or not

More Info

[interiot]

More info at CBS MarketWatch.

An excerpt:

• Courts in Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island and Texas have dismissed similar class-action lawsuits on grounds that laws in those states don't allow them.

Re:More Info

[interiot]

More explanation on why previous ones were thrown out (since I don't recall this being covered on /. before)...

The Boston Globe says:

• Microsoft has successfully pointed to a 1977 Supreme Court decision outlawing antitrust claims by indirect purchasers to persuade state judges in Oregon, Hawaii, Nevada, and Iowa to dismiss similar suits.

The CBS article explained that a bit more:

• Microsoft attorney Charles B. Casper argued that the company markets its products to thousands of companies who resell them at different prices, adding that the judge would have to weigh each consumer's claim on a case-by-case basis.

The Illinois Supreme Court decision is here. These are the problems with indirect purchases:

• It was really the initial purchaser who was screwed by the man, so in this case, Dell should be suing Microsoft for reimbursement.
• The indirect purchaser was indirectly screwed by the man. Dell probably passed on the additional cost to Betty Q. Grandmother.
• Indirect purchasers were screwed to varying degrees. Some direct purchasers were overcharged but others were not. The direct purchasers that were overcharged had to compete with the ones that weren't, so they had to absorb some of the overcharge instead of passing it on.

They've proved that Microsoft screwed people and that Microsoft should repay some people X dollars, but they don't how to split up the money. So they need to waste the time of many judges to figure out who gets paid what.

Apparently, this is the sort of defense that Microsoft will try to use.

Re:More Info

[markt4]

And good old Guv'ner George 'Dubya' Bush was the man in charge when the case was thrown out in Texas. Expect similar treatment of consumers ("Let the market decide what's good and bad business practices, not the courts.") when he becomes President.

Re:More Info

[Shadarr]

So they need to waste the time of many judges to figure out who gets paid what.

Actually, they need to putz around for awhile so the lawyers get all of it.

California? Harmed?

[B00yah]

Some how I have a problem seeing California being harmed by much of anything, aside from falling in the ocean...

The sad thing is...

[Ground0]

How can we ever measure the damage that M$ has done? How can we ever say how farther computing would be if M$ did not stifle competition? While making Billy pay us money might help, there is no way to recover the time lost due to M$.

Re:The sad thing is...

[_J_]

For all the bad things and good things Microsoft has done they are not necessary to explain the state of computers today. All their tactics have been tactics employed by their competitors. Gates, like McNealy, Ellison and Jobs are driven by their thirst to win and their religiously fanatical belief in their own infallibility. If you compare any of these characters I think you'll find they have more in common than not. Read "My 500 Days at Apple" or Ellison's Ellegy to himself(I forget the name) and you'll see what I mean.

If M$ didn't exist we'd be bitching about iMac$ dominating the market or $un's closed standards. Or perhaps we'd be bowing down to $GI or -who knows- Am$trad.:)

Bill Gates was just quickest out of the gate.

IMHO, as per

J:)

Re:The sad thing is...

[xianzombie]

How can we ever say how farther computing would be if M$ did not stifle competition?

This may get flamed but....

While I do not agree with many of M$'s practices nor do I particularly like there products, without Microsoft, how far would personal computing have evolved?

M$ did bring PCs more into the mainstream. Unfortunatly they also brought more (l)users in as well, but in doing so, look at the price comparisons (for hardware and such). M$ did make it easy for people of average intelligence and far below to use computers, and thus increased the damand. They were useful in their innoveate and embrace attitude *(unfortunatly that was followed by 'Extinguish')*.

Do I like m$ products? no

Do I like their business ethics? no

Did they help in revolutionizing the computer industry? Yes

Do I still still think they're guilty? Yes

Re:The sad thing is...

[sql*kitten]

How can we ever say how farther computing would be if M$ did not stifle competition?

Oh, please. How far would the average open source application be without commercial software to clone? I cite GIMP as my example, but there are plenty of others, including rLab, Afterstep, FVWM-95 and many, many more.

Re:The sad thing is...

[cpt kangarooski]

No. I am a graphic designer - and we have been around since 'computer' was a job description.

MS has been responsible for absolutely no innovations in the realms of layout, photography, plate-making, lithographic printing and more recently computer DTP. (which I've done almost exclusively on Macs, with Quark, PageMaker, Illustrator, Freehand and Photoshop)

More recently I've been doing web design - which still doesn't require anything of Microsoft's; like all good designers, I write code that complies to the HTML spec. MS has been good about implementing most of the spec (but it's not as though they have traditionally done so) but there still hasn't been any real innovation here.

So now, why again do I owe my job to MS?

Re:The sad thing is...

[Znork]

Microsoft has not really done anything of those things; the other home computers were both cheaper, more innovative, more powerful and easier to use (Apple (well, not cheaper that one), Amiga, Atari).

Microsoft managed to keep useful graphics, a useful GUI, sound, multitasking and plug'n'play out of the hands of the mainstream, and even back things up for a long while. And a whole host of other things.

Re:The sad thing is...

[barracg8]

True, true, true.

In the early stages of the computer industry, someone was going to get a monopoly. But the market would have opened up, if M$ hadn't used illegal means to maintain monopoly power. Anti-trust law is designed to end the monopoly, and level back out the playing field, when people abuse this kind of power.

Microsoft are no worse than any other, but if Apple or Sun had gained a monopoly, and used illegal means to maintain it, we should be buggering them up the ass with a broomstick right now.

G

Re:The sad thing is...

[weinerdog]

Did Microsoft bring PCs more into the maintstream? Perhaps, but the reason that they were the ones to do so is because they were the only ones who were there. Why was no one else there? Because they had been scared away or driven from the market by Microsoft.

Did Microsoft make it easy for the average person to use a computer? Probably not. Computers today are hard to use, and it's only massive brainwashing efforts that convince people otherwise. Having watched lots of average people use MSware, I have to conclude that Microsoft products are not easy to use, at least not easy to use to accomplish anything halfway sophisticated.

Not everything that Microsoft has done is utter crap, but remember that one important reason why nobody has done anything better is that there is nobody else. It's easy to be the best when you're the only game in town. Who is to say that, had there been healthy competition over the past decade, there wouldn't be many more people using computers than there are today, and that these computers wouldn't be more powerful and easy to learn and use?

Microsoft didn't revolutionize the computer industry. They took what was probably going to happen anyway and monopolized it so that it looked like they were bringing technology to the masses. In reality, I suspect that they have hampered the development of real, consumer-friendly computers that work reliably and allow people to work effectively and efficiently. We'll never know for sure, of course. That's why it is important not to allow these sorts of situations to develop.

Re:The sad thing is...

[nhavar]

So tell me which widely available OS less expensive than MS's gave you all of these abilities on the PC - before MS?

Re:The sad thing is...

[jms]

While I do not agree with many of M$'s practices nor do I particularly like there products, without Microsoft, how far would personal computing have evolved?

Hard to tell. They left quite a trail of wrecked competitors.

One thing that Microsoft definitely influenced though ... Unlike the Apple II and most other hobby computers, DOS and Windows never came with an assembler, compiler, or interpreter. The result was an entire generation of people of programming-illerate users whose only idea of "using a computer" was running applications. I was able to "show my mom what programming is" on my Apple II, but I would be hard pressed to do the same on my PC. I spent a great deal of effort when I was a windows user in just keeping a working development environment on my PC. With Linux, the working development environment is right there, so if I need to write a quick & dirty program, I can do it in a few seconds, as opposed to a few hours using the Microsoft-based development tools.

M$ did bring PCs more into the mainstream.

One positive aspect of the Microsoft experience was that the dominance of the single Microsoft operating system led to the commodity PC -- and is the reason why you can go to a computer store, pick up a $400.00 PC, and install a real operating system on it. Without the Windows monopoly dictating hardware design, it is more than likely that hardware vendors would have continued to design and build incompatable hardware, which would be more expensive. The PC hardware model might suck, but at least it sucks consistantly and uniformly. Hardware compatability was the key point behind IBM's 40 year S/360 S/370 S/390 ESA mainframe hardware reign. (And I'd take the S370 architecture over the PC architecture in a heartbeat.)

Re:The sad thing is...

[tswinzig]

M$ did bring PCs more into the mainstream.

And they couldn't have done this while not gouging us on the price of the operating system? I think not. If anything, they would have brought PC's *MORE* into the mainstream by lowering the price of the OS.

They have had a monopoly. They have abused it. They should pay.

-thomas

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Re:The sad thing is...

[cyber-vandal]

The Amiga gave you a lot of the things that the PC has now for a fraction of the cost - games, a word processor, a file manager, a paint package, dos shell, web browser, email, yadayadayada, but because Commodore made a hash of things in the PC market, and Doom would only run on PCs, and the MS-vapour factory said that they would port Office (thus slowing sales of WordPerfect), the Amiga died an ignominious death. Doom was the major factor, and had Commodore made it easier to upgrade the CPU on the Amiga, perhaps things would have been different. Just an old hack who misses his favourite toy :-)

Re:The sad thing is...

[jms]

Well, that would be an incorrect restructuring of my argument. Linux is mostly architecture independent, unlike windows, so even had there been no windows, and no standardized PC hardware, that wouldn't preclude a standardized operating system like Linux.

My argument was that Microsoft was largely responsible for the existance of cheap, commodity hardware. Quite a different argument.

I'm not having trouble dealing with anything ...

Re:The sad thing is...

[tswinzig]

How was I harmed? Uhh, by paying too much for their product, both in bug fixes... I mean upgrades... and in computers bundled with the software.



"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Californication

[photozz]

So what the hell is up with California? They seem to be the Feel-good state. If there is anything hurting someone (smoking in bars..) or the enviorment (most restrictive polution laws in the world.., they wil be the first to jump on it. I agree MS needs a little slap now and then, but what are they starting and where is it going? Who else is going to inevetably drawn into this? The point of this ramble is this: Will this set a bad and permenant precedent for action on all future software production?

Re:Californication

[AbbyNormal]

No it won't. Now excuse me, I have to go pick up my Glaucoma medication.

Re:Californication

[Cannonball]

I really sincerely doubt it. I don't think you'll find anyone who would argue that cigarette smoking and carbon monoxide are both deadly toxins, and so I think it's totally appropriate that Cali passed those laws. I don't think a "feel good" label is appropriate here, their state government is just concerned with the well being of their citizens, as well they should be. Hey, maybe *that's* why their economy is so good. (isn't it in the top ten worldwide?)

Re:Californication

[ackthpt]

Smoking in bars: When they banned it I spent hundreds more per month in bars. I hated smoke filled bars when I lived in Michigan.

Most restrictive polution laws: And yet you can drive around a smoking pre-73 car and the damn things don't rust out.

Put 35 million people in one legal entity and see what happens.

If people don't stand up to M$ and other corporations then they will get screwed. If anything it should punish a monopolist and encourage the kind of open-source cooperation often discussed on /. I don't feel that M$ makes the worst products, but I think they need more competition to focus them on actually making better products. Competition stimulates the imagination.

Vote Naked 2000

Re:Californication

[photozz]

public high school and a lack of interest

Re:Californication

[ackthpt]

Hey, maybe *that's* why their economy is so good. (isn't it in the top ten worldwide?)

6th largest economy in the world. "Feel Good" is about as out of date as the 70's. This is one of the most cutthroat business centers of the world.

Vote Naked 2000

Re:Californication

[photozz]

"When they banned it I spent hundreds more per month in bars"
On what? did quitting smoking turn you into an alcoholic?
I'm not a smoker, but come on here people......

Re:Californication

[ackthpt]

Nope, never a smoker, hated coming home with all that stink on my clothes. Hard to enjoy a good Paulaner Heffeweizen or Pilsner Urquell in a stench of tobacco fumes. I often eat dinner along with a couple brews at a local pub (which offers 99 different kinds of beer, about 40 on tap, people who have been to Santa Cruz will know of this wonderful place)

The original point was that these laws aren't necessarily stupid things to make a tiny population of hippies joyful. As much as law can restrict the power of government it can also make us a more civil society (which is sorely needed in densely populated areas like California has). The Class Action, which isn't even a filing, yet, was merely a judge giving permissiont to pursue this avenue of punishing a business, again, to make this a more civil place to live (cheaper software!)

Vote Naked 2000

Re:Californication

[Karellen]

Never a smoker. Never bothered by smokers. It just doesn't affect me.

If I don't want to be in a smoky place, I just choose a pub or restaurant with a 'non-smoking' section, and eat/drink there.

I don't want other people to be forcibly "civilised" if they don't want to be for my benefit, or to be restricted from partaking in whatever they want provided no-one is forcibly harmed by their actions.

You don't like smokers & the bar you like doesn't _voluntarily_ have a non-smoking section? Don't go there. Encourage your friends not to go there.

Re:Californication

[photozz]

Mister sad face is having a bad day!

No case

[sunking7]

Not going to get into a flame war here but freak, there is a *FREE* OS option that allows a consumer to have just about everything they want and in fact there'd be even more when developers perceive a market opportunity of all those consurmers who recognise quality...

If a consumer is so dumb that they'll pay for their OS then how are they going to twist that into some case that they are being taken advantage of? Guess none of the people filing in the suit had to pay over $1000 for an OS before and don't realize how relatively cheap software has become in the last 20 years.

And don't bring in the hardware example... that new fangled hardware just makes the coding process more complicated. Ask the compiler developers...

Re:No case

[Kierthos]

What you have to realize is that a lot of End Users don't know about the existence of free OS's. Most of them can be classified as Clueless Newbies. They're on the Internet because their TV shows them commercials with .com in it every time they change a channel. Practically every single product, from cars to movies has it's own URL.

This, in turn, leads people to by computers they don't know how to use, and quite frankly, since MS has most of the OS share (at least for now), then that's the one they get with their computer.

And if it can be proved that MS overcharged for that self-same OS, then there IS a case.

Kierthos

Re:No case

[WileyC]

Duuuhhhhh, haven't you heard about the way M$ strongarmed OEMs to pay per computer they sold EVEN IF Windows wasn't on it? A free OS is a lot less free when your hardware has a 'Microsoft tax' added onto it.

Re:California? Harmed?

[ackthpt]

Some how I have a problem seeing California being harmed by much of anything, aside from falling in the ocean...

Consider how much the State Govt, alone, would recoup in something like this. Large businesses, schools, etc. The state isn't just some nebulous entity tied to a chunk of land.

BTW, we're waiting for that big one, when all the land to the east of the fault slides off into the Atlantic.

Vote Naked 2000

hmmm

[nomadic]

Federal anti-trust law states that victims of monopolistic practices can sue for three times what they've lost. Not sure if that holds true in state courts, but if it does they could be out some serious money; even if it's just that one state, California makes up a sizeable chunk of the US' population.
--

This suit is just hot air

[ektor]

The class action suit that has been accepted in California claims that Microsoft used its monopolistic position to harm customers by charging high prices.

Since the price of Microsoft software has gone down constantly during the last 15 years and competitors usually charge higher prices they don't have a chance of winning. If it has been accepted it's just because of the particularities of Californian Law.

Hell, even in the main case of the DOJ vs. Microsoft the prosecution admitted that Microsoft charges fair prices.

Re:This suit is just hot air

[jeffry_smith]

Since the price of Microsoft software has gone down constantly during the last 15 years and competitors usually charge higher prices they don't have a chance of winning. If it has been accepted it's just because of the particularities of Californian Law.

Are we talking about the same MS software (windows, for example, that has gone from retail $69 to retail $189)? If so, you need to learn some math. Down is towards zero. Up is away from zero.

In terms of competitors - Debian -$0. Red Hat - $39.

Office Suites - MS Office - $449. ApplixWare - $99. Corel Office $149 (linux version). Star Office $0.

Another lesson - more is greater than, less is smaller than.

Re:This suit is just hot air

[NetJunkie]

You can't even compare the office products. That's like asking why VW charges 15K for a car when Porsche charges $50K. They are both cars, right?!

I've used the Linux office suites..they just aren't as good as MS Office.

As for Linux to WIndows cost, that's different too. RedHat's cost is mostly, or almost all, in boxes and manuals. Microsoft has to pay a lot of people to write Windows. Totally different expenses there.

Re:This suit is just hot air

[locust]

Since the price of Microsoft software has gone down constantly during the last 15 years and competitors usually charge higher prices they don't have a chance of winning.

You are wrong. While the price of computer systems with MS software has gone down, the fraction of the cost of those systems that is software has gone up. Hardware is cheap.

--locust

Re:This suit is just hot air

[ektor]

Are we talking about the same MS software (windows, for example, that has gone from retail $69 to retail $189)? If so, you need to learn some math. Down is towards zero. Up is away from zero.

What versions of Windows are you speaking about? If I go to www.pricewatch.com I can get a retail Windows 98 SE for $80. I guess that $189 is for Windows 2000 Professional.

In terms of competitors - Debian -$0. Red Hat - $39.

How much is the version of Solaris you would use on a Workstation? I'm sure that more than $189 which after all is a recommended retail price. Prices for OEMs are much lower.

Office Suites - MS Office - $449. ApplixWare - $99. Corel Office $149 (linux version). Star Office $0.

If you are going to compare MS Office and "things" like Corel Office and ApplixWare as equals then there's not much to discuss. Microsoft spends billions of dollars developing this applications. You may like them or not but charging $495 for a full version of Office is by no means excesive. Again, that price is a recommended price. You can find it much cheaper by shopping around and corporate users have huge discounts.

Re:This suit is just hot air

[jeffry_smith]

To each his own - I consider them better than MS Office.

In terms of Windows vs Linux costs - doesn't matter. It's what they charge.

Also, any response to the first point - MS has steadily increased the cost of their products over the years?

Re:This suit is just hot air

[gfxguy]

As for Linux to WIndows cost, that's different too. RedHat's cost is mostly, or almost all, in boxes and manuals. Microsoft has to pay a lot of people to write Windows. Totally different expenses there.

But that's a moot point to consumers.

I have to argue against your first point, also. There's no functional difference between MS Office and Corel WP Suite for almost all home users. First, factor out what most people don't use (which, unfortunately, counts for most of the bloat), and second, factor out your personal preferences, such as default layout and styles and menu functions. It may be different UI, in some respects, but if that's what you learned on and were acustomed to, you'd be complaining about Office instead of WP.

Remember, this is about consumers, not big businesses. And even then I'd be willing to bet 90% of the functionality of either package is never used.

----------

Re:This suit is just hot air

[flatrock]

Are we talking about the same MS software (windows, for example, that has gone from retail $69 to retail $189)?

The $189 retail price for Win98 is for the full version. There has NEVER been a full version of Windos available for a retail price of $69. Before making childish comments like "If so, you need to learn some math. Down is towards zero. Up is away from zero." it would be nice if you were at least objective enough to compare apples to apples.

Your OS competitiors example is another apples to oranges comparison. Red Hat and Debian aren't selling you an OS. They can't, they don't own the copyright.

I think Solaris X86 is still around $600 for commercial use. If you want to see expensive, check what a development license for some of the more popular RTOSs cost.

Re:This suit is just hot air

[nhavar]

I have to disagree. I grew up using WP from the DOS 2/3 days and it never seemed as intuitive or functional as Word. I switched to Office 95 (Word) and continued to use WP(8), but eventually just took it off my system because Word seemed for functional and complete. Just because you start learning on one system doesn't mean that another system isn't better. I started out programming on a Radio Shack (Tandy) MC-10 that hooked up to a TV and stored data on cassette tapes, migrated to a Mac then a DOS based PC, refused Windows until 3.11 and eventually made it to using 98SE and RedHat Linux. Even though I learned everything on text based systems it doesn't mean that I prefer them to GUIs. Likewise just because you learn one layout doesn't mean that another might not be more functional for you.

Re:This suit is just hot air

[jeffry_smith]

Sigh. Yes, I know that's the full version. Guess what - Red Hat for $39.95 is full version. BTW- MS isn't selling you an OS, they're licensing it. If you bought it, you wouldn't be limited by their EULA, but by copywrite law. Red Hat is selling an OS, with a GPL contract. They can sell it because the GPL gives them the right.

To get serious, Windows 3.0 was around $69, plus $39 or so for DOS, total around $108 for a full version. (Windows may have been cheaper, I don't have receipts).

And, the reason for the full version is to compare apples to apples. Everyone's wonderful $98 for Windows 98 is for the UPGRADE - you have to have Windows already to buy it. The other cheap versions I find on Pricewatch are OEM versions. According to the EULA, they can only be bought with the hardware. Again, apples to apples - legal, full versions of the software.

Re:This suit is just hot air

[gfxguy]

There's a difference between natural progression like command line, radio shack (hey, I had an atari 400 with the membrane keyboard and the cassette storage, which I smashed to little pieces when it wouldn't retrieve something I spent the entire previous day working on) to DOS on PC to Windows and what we're talking about here.

Of course, if you compare an old Word Perfect with a new Word, having used neither, there's a natural conclusion you reach - Word is better. And that's exactly what happened to a lot of people. They bought a new computer, having an old one with WP or something else, and got "WordXX" for "free"! I had this argument with my sister, a CPA, who went straight from DOS/Lotus123 v2.x/WP 5.0 to Windows 98, Word, and Excel.

She went on and on about how much better Excel was than Lotus. I got pretty sick of it, so I asked if she compared Excel with any version of Lotus 123 for Windows - and the answer was no. Nor Word Perfect. "Did you even know they make it?" No.

What I'm saying, and you may be an exception, is that the vast majority of people who use Word have it because it came for their PC for "free", or because they stole it from work, or somewhere else. They won't even try to learn a new software package - it's not as good because it's not the same. An alternative might even be better (speaking generically), but if they know how to use one, then why should they bother with the other to get the same functionality (for most people word processors are fundamentally the same). Now someone asks their advice, and "I had difficulty with Word Perfect, so I just use Word", trying not to sound like an idiot, when they should say "I learned Word first, and WP was different, so I didn't want to spend the time learning it. I like Word."

I'm know for a fact, because I've seen it so many times, and I've had to help so many people, that MOST people are most comfortable with what they learn. MOST people don't even like computers, feel threatened by them, and feel stupid when trying to use one. All the others don't count - because the ones I'm talking about make up the vast majority of computer users. Don't even call them clueless newbies, because I can name several people who have been using computers since the IBM PC was released, and they use computers because they HAVE to, not because they WANT to.

My point is that you can sit someone who has never used a computer before down in front of a nice Linux environment, with Corel Word Perfect (or even Star Office), and you won't get jaded opinions like "but it doesn't open my Word files, so it must suck", without even giving the program a chance. People can be just as productive, if not more, on a Linux system running office software. Then sit them down in front of a Windows PC, and they might like a few things about it, but they won't feel comfortable with it (MOST people). Ask them to do something simple, like installing a program. Linux: double click on the rpm, for the most part, maybe you need root password. Windows? "Why do I have to reboot three times?" The answer? You don't, but how would they know they are actually installing eight different things that they never asked for? Including a bunch of internet access crap, and Acrobat Reader, even though it's already installed. Each one wants to reboot after it's installed. Oh, by the way, now when you doubleclick (some file) a completely different thing happens then what used to happen - because program X didn't bother to ask you wether you wanted the file typing changed, it just assumed you wanted it that way - all with Microsofts seal of aproval, right on the box!

Look, I'm NOT bashing MS here, my point is that, IN MY EXPERIENCE, people who claim Linux is not ready for the desktop are really saying "Linux isn't just like Windows, and that's what I'm used to". The same actually holds true for MOST (not ALL) Mac users. People who grew up on Macs mostly love them - sure, there have been a few converts, but for the most part, people who started using Macs still prefer Macs. They claim the interface is far better than Windows. Most people who've hardly (if ever) used Macs, but grew up on Windows (and the slow progression towards a more Mac like interface, if you can believe it), think the Windows UI is better. Personally, I have problems with all of them.

----------

Re:This suit is just hot air

[nhavar]

I'd have to disagree with you 3.11 is selling for 68.97 right now. Full retail version. :) (never say NEVER) BTW I purchased Win98SE/PlusPack98 OEM for $99 a month ago. Most people buying 98 off the shelf aren't going for the full version they're going for the UP for $79-$89. People who are going for a full version typically are building a PC and if they are doing that they know who to buy from to not pay $189.00.

Anyway, I have failed to see any conclusive evidence that MS is overcharging anyone. No one has put forth any data that would suggest to me that MS is doing anything other than selling a product at fair market value. Just because other competing products on the market are selling for greatly reduced prices does not necessarily mean that MS should drop their prices out of "fairness".

Please someone provide some raw physical data about MS's financial accounting or justification of the cost of Windows. That I feel would be fair. For instance did you know that in 1985 Windows 1.0 cost the consumer $99.00 but that depending on where you went and what the availability of the product was and what part of the country you were in you may have had to pay up to $129-139 for it. According to inflation information, that copy of Windows 1 selling for $99 then, if sold today, would cost you $158. So if we went strictly by inflation MS would be overcharging by $31 (assuming the original $99 price tag was not also inflated). Unfortunately there are other factors involved such as marketing costs, employee retention, employee training, rising legal costs, etc. Then there are issues about market demand, needing to be quicker to market, a larger code base, which results in needing more developers than may have been needed for the comparitively lite Win 1.0. As a company they have now created more products to support within the package than the original singularly marketed product (bundled IE, Media player, DirectX, system software, messaging software, online services, etc.).

Now with all of that taken into account an easy fix to bring down the cost of Win would be to cut out all the "stuff" and sell/market it seperately. This would create confusion and some displacement among users. Long time Win users would become angry over being charged for something that they once got for free with the OS (despite the fact that the OS was now cheaper). New users would be frustrated about having to purchase all the "stuff" seperately and complain about "why can't I just get everything in one package". Linux users would complain that MS was trying to flood the market with cheap software and again try to force Linux out of the market place.

Meanwhile MS would lose it's positioning and alliances with some of the bigger companies because of loss of distribution of some components. For example: a large media company would not partner with or may seek other partnerships with MS competitors because MS no longer bundled it's MediaPlayer with the OS. It would then need to increase it's marketing to the Mediaplayer product in order to gain market share and regain those alliances. This in turn raises prices and depending on how they want to cover the cost of this marketing they would either raise the price of all products or have to raise the price of the single Mediaplayer product.

Take your pick of how you want to view it. In the end the people who drive these stories always need an enemey. If MS went away tomorrow, it would be AOL, if not AOL, then SUN, ORACLE, the government, the RED's, Satan, whatever... take your pick. In the end the only enemies we really have are ourselves and our own prejudices and choices. MS didn't get to 90% market share by purchasing it's own products...

Re:This suit is just hot air

[Scott Wood]

How much is the version of Solaris you would use on a Workstation? I'm sure that more than $189 which after all is a recommended retail price. Prices for OEMs are much lower.

Actually, it's $75 for media, which you can install on as many machines as you like (as long as none of them have more than 8 processors, which is a reasonable assumption for a workstation).

--

Re:This suit is just hot air

[Ice Station Zebra]

What planet are you from? MS Word intuitive? MS Word functional? Are you sure you were using MS Word? Have you ever tried to do a large document in Word, what a PITA.

Re:This suit is just hot air

[Saint Stephen]

Hey dumbass.
In 1993 a copy of WordPerfect cost $500.
A copy of Lotus 1-2-3 cost $500.
Compiler licenses were in the thousand dollar ranges.

Re:This suit is just hot air

[nhavar]

I'm not sure who you're calling a dumb ass but the two products you sited, I assume as an example of products that have come down in price, are also products that lost large amounts of market share and were forced to bring down prices in order to compete. Compilers suffered a similar fate with the advent of the open source community creating free (as in beer) compilers, that's called competition. Until recently there were only a few major players in the compiler market which allowed them to keep high prices. A parallel is the Sun Solaris OS/Server market, companies are putting pressure on Sun for lower prices and better deals so Sun is having to bend in order to keep market share. Not that they are really suffering but they want to try to keep busting MS's chops so they have to do something.

Linus better watch out...

[Legolas-Greenleaf]

... because if Linux becomes too successful, people will claim that anything he does with Linux is a "monopolistic business practice" and he will be sued repeatedly. I mean, if you try to make an unofficial kernel, he will simply use the GPL to crush you and steal your ideas...

i'm sure glad *I'M* not sucessful! Apperently, it's a bad thing to aim for, because anybody who is seems to be torn apart on /.
-legolas

i've looked at love from both sides now. from win and lose, and still somehow...

Re:Linus better watch out...

[Salsaman]

Yes of course ! Linus is out to crush all other operating systems !

Re:Linus better watch out...

[Legolas-Greenleaf]

Linus is a person. Microsoft is a corporation.

see: sarcarm. Half of the attacks on Microsoft from people on Slashdot seem to be personal attacks on Bill Gates.

additionally, you seemed to miss my point (which was 'successful people/companies/etc. keep getting jabbed.. blah blah blah')

anywho, try not to take things so seriously. slashdot is only as real as irc.
-legolas

i've looked at love from both sides now. from win and lose, and still somehow...

Re:Linus better watch out...

[fsck]

well, at least you spelled sarcasm properly in your hyperlink..

Windows Refund Day

[JCCyC]

A consistent subject for this suit would be the OEM thing. I bought a PC => Windows came with it => I don't want Windows => They won't let me return it => MS screwed me on ~$100.

Weren't there Windows Refund Day events in California? These can be brought to the Judge's attention. I mean, tied sales are illegal, aren't they?

Re:Windows Refund Day

[JohnTheFisherman]

MS screwed me on ~$100.

No, the PC vendor screwed you. They will also continue to screw others until people start taking their business elsewhere. Why support them when you don't have to? There are plenty of computer vendors around that don't ram any particular OS down your throat. I'm not saying MS is an innocent bystander - they're a large corporation looking out for themselves, just like all the others....

Re:Windows Refund Day

[cooldev]

And you also didn't loose $100

This point gets missed quite frequently -- OEMs pay a lot less than retail for each copy of Windows.

I don't know the exact figures, but at best you would have only saved enough to buy a pizza and some beer. Personally I consider that a bargain.

Lastly, it is worth pointing out that MS never forced anyone to upgrade. All MS software that matters still runs fine on Win95 gold.

It is highly likely that most of the people here have spent more money on Linux than Windows. I even think I have -- I bought a slackware dist in a bookstore back around '94 and then Redhat (4.0 I think) a few years later to support my Matrox Millenium.

Re:Windows Refund Day

[flatrock]

I bought a PC => Windows came with it => I don't want Windows => They won't let me return it => MS screwed me on ~$100.

The OEM you bought the PC from signed an agreement with MS to pay for a copy of MS Window for every PC they sell of a certain configuration. This makes the record keeping simpler for the OEM and Microsoft, and the OEM gets a better price because of it. You buy one of those PCs, and the OEM doesn't want to refund you a portion of the purchase price because it's not cheaper for them to sell you a PC without Windows. It's still the OEM that's ripping you off, not Microsoft. Microsoft is giving the OEM a discount for a valid reason. Microsoft has had problems with OEMs paying them for the software they load in the past. Their problems with IBM which came to around $12 Million, and were used as the excuse for MS not giving IBM an OEM license for Win95 untill the last moment comes to mind as an example. It's much easier for Microsoft to audit the OEM if all they have to fin out is hom many of a particular type of PC were shipped.

The OEM agrees to this because it makes thier record keeping simpler/cheaper, and they get a better price for Windows. The OEM has the option of making a different configuration available which doesn't have Windows pre loaded. However, supporting multiple configurations adds to support and manufacturing costs. For most OEM's it's probably not worth it. This is especially true with laptops where most things are integrated, and they want to be able to sell all the different configurations they do offer with Windows.

So if you want to buy a computer without windows, buy it from an OEM that will sell it that way, build your own, or just accept that you're paying probably around $30 (what the OEM likely paid for Windows) for wanting your computer set up differently than most people want theirs. I think the original Windows Refund Day was based on the Windows license agreement saying you could return Windows if you didn't agree with the license. You can always return the OS to the OEM and try and get your money back. However, I think it's the OEM, not Microsoft that owes you the money.

As for you being screwed out of $100, that figures a bit high. The OEM version, which is only to be sold with a new computer goes for $89. The local place I buy hardware at when I'm putting together a new PC or upgrading will only sell it to you if you're buying parts that might go into a new PC, such as a hard drive or motherboard. They are also perfectly willing to build you a new PC with the parts you specify, and won't charge you for the OS if you don't want it installed.

If you don't like the package one vendor is putting together, don't buy it.

Re:Windows Refund Day

[JCCyC]

You have some very good points. Yes, I'm perfectly capable of assembling a computer myself. Not everybody is, though (even among those skilled enough to give a valid try at Linux or *BSD).

There's also the issue of desiring the higher hardware reliability a PC vendor provides (Like Dell or Compaq). These, and not the el cheapo clone or part vendors, are the ones bound by outrageous OEM deals.

I also agree with you it's not just "MS screws John Doe"; there's a subtle chain of screwing going from MS to John Doe through maybe more than one path.

I'm curious about whether it's possible to purchase a brand-name machine sans OS in the USA, and whether it's becoming more or less easy to find. Here in Brazil nearly all home purchases are self-assembled or from el cheapo assemblers. 3rd world income, you know. :-/ (Although top brands are starting to creep in slowly)

BTW, are there other proprietary software being bundled in brand-name machines than MS products? Like SmartSuite for instance? I used to work for a Brazilian OEM who bundled, along with Win95, Corel WordPerfect Office... still 16-bit apps! That was in 1997. Those were the days. ;-P

Re:Windows Refund Day

[fsck]

I'm sure you mean "lose" and not "loose"

Most computer geeks that know about Linux are skilled enough to build thier own custom pc and install whatever OS on it that they decide, or know that the local shops will be more than happy to make one for them without Windows, and its still cheaper than the retarded proprietary OEM systems you buy at your local discount store.

You buy that crap, from an OEM that cuts every corner it can with shit hardware and built in peripherals(Acer and Compaq come to mind), and you buy thier Windows, and you get what you deserve. An underperforming unstable non-upgradable peice of shit that runs Windows.

Re:Windows Refund Day

[cyber-vandal]

All MS software that matters still runs fine on Win95 gold.

The upcoming Office 10 won't, so I won't be buying it (not that I would have anyway), and there are quite a few device drivers (HP comes to mind) that will only run on Win98. Still, no-one forces me to buy these, but the cost of an MSOS has been factored into each of the PCs (per CPU license) that I've bought, whether I wanted it or not. Why should I have to build my own PC just to avoid this.

Real informative

[Vassily Overveight]

Great. In six paragraphs they managed to not name the plaintiff.

Re:Real informative

[heymanslowdown]

It's CLASS ACTION you jackass. That means the plaintiff is every Microsoft product consumer in California. I know we're not lawyers here but don't you at least watch TV? Before you start criticizing what is admittedly a hastily put-together article based on breaking news, why don't you GET WISE SUCKER!

Re:Real informative

[Vassily Overveight]

Ah, another carefully reasoned and measured response by an informed slashdot reader. Must be a product of the California school system. Any legal action must be initiated by a plaintiff. In this case, it could be the state Attorney General, or an individual consumer or consumers on behalf of the entire class. Either way, there are named plaintiffs attached to the suit, not "Everyone Who Ever Bought Microsoft Products" vs Microsoft. Thus endeth the lesson, not that you'll likely derive any benefit, as evidenced by your not having learned anything so far in your ignorant existence. Have a lice day.

Re:Real informative

[John Jorsett]

I know we're not lawyers here but don't you at least watch TV?

That comment explains where you get your knowledge of the legal system. In class actions, someone is the plaintiff, whether it's 'The People of California' or individual persons. The story should have said who was bringing the suit, since that's an important factor. Maybe you should crack a book and learn something before making yourself an even greater self-embarrassment by posting a bunch of spleen-venting drivel.

About the McDonald's lawsuit...

[sheckard]

From what I've read, the million dollar settlement was a direct response of McD not playing nice. Here's the real story... that particular McD was warned many times about coffee *way* to hot (we're talking above the boiling point here) and refused to do anything about it, saying that people like coffee hot. People may like coffee hot, but I'm sure people don't like it boiling hot! So the lady spills her coffee, finds out about the history of complaints about way too hot coffee, and decides to talk to a lawyer. Initially, they wanted McD to pay *the cost of the medical bills only* and McD flat-out refused, so they took them to court. And they won $1M and the rest was history.

If a company treated me like an ass when I asked nice, you better believe I would do the same thing.

Re:About the McDonald's lawsuit...

[AbbyNormal]

Right, but my point is that its silly. Laws and lawsuits are meant to PROTECT the consumer. How is McD not playing nice by warming its coffee? ITS COFFEE FOR GODS SAKE! Its supposed to be hot and no it will not stay hot for hours. That is exactly my point. People find "finds out about a (the) history of complaints" and then sue so they can make money. Companies should not be punished for something that STUPID people do. No really, I want my product to never hurt me whatsoever. Thats just ludicrous. The tobacco case is admittedly different...the industry did lie about the research that they had privately done. My point was that as soon as the initial lawsuit brought down a major victory, others began looking at it and saying "oh yeah, my cancer came from cigarettes." Duh! Maybe that extreme coughing, bad and lack of breath may have had something to do with it as well. America has gotten to dependent on people babying them. ME ME ME...

Re:About the McDonald's lawsuit...

[The Famous Brett Wat]

...we're talking above the boiling point here...

It's not clear how coffee could be maintained at a point above boiling, assuming typical atmospheric pressure.

Re:About the McDonald's lawsuit...

[jwy]

It's not clear how coffee could be maintained at a point above boiling, assuming typical atmospheric pressure.

Umm... have you ever taken an intro chemistry class? Whenever you dissolve anything into water, you both raise the boiling point and lower the freezing point. It is thus possible to heat coffee well above the boiling point of water, which is what McDonalds was doing in this case.

Re:About the McDonald's lawsuit...

[TFloore]

Fair warning, numbers are from memory...

McDonalds has written rules for the temperature coffee should be when sold. Their own rules, made before the lawsuit, state that coffee should be sold at a temp between 140 and 160 degrees Farenheit. The coffee served was at a temp of about 180F. This had been happening for quite a while, and was, quite simply, due to improperly functioning equipment. They knew this before the accident, having received earlier complaints that the coffee was too hot, and hadn't fixed it. (Had they tried to fix it and been unsuccessful, or had they simply not bothered fixing it yet? Don't know.)

Tim

Re:About the McDonald's lawsuit...

[jejones]

Hello...we're talking about a woman who puts the styrofoam coffee cup between her legs and then takes off the lid to add cream and sugar, and then is surprised that she manages to mash the cup and drench her legs with hot coffee? Were it me, I think I'd be too embarrassed by my own stupidity to ask for money.

Re:About the McDonald's lawsuit...

[MinusOne]

You obviously didn't read the previous comment carefully. The coffee was not just hot - it was so hot that it would have been undrinkable at that temperature. The woman in question suffered second degree burns from the coffee she spilled on her lap - she suffered a pretty severe injury, and needed significant medical attention as a result. The McDonalds in question was serving a beverage that was on the face of it unsafe, despite complaints about it. That seems like a reasonable basis for a negligence suit to me. Finally, the initial jury award was reduced considerably on appeal.

Re:About the McDonald's lawsuit...

[phutureboy]

That's for wussies. The coffee they serve at the cafe down the street must be at least 300F. It's so hot that I have to buy it 24 hours in advance so it can cool to a drinkable temperature.

--

Re:Karma recipe for today

[BilldaCat]

Too true, too true. If there was ever an AC post to moderate up, this is it.

Isn't this a bit odd?

[Paladin128]

I don't quite understand what this is about from reading the article. Although I despise Microsoft and use Linux almost exclusively at home, I don't think Windows or Microsoft products are that expensive. Commercial UNIXes are (or used to be) much higher. Windows 98 retails for $99. Just a few years ago, Solaris x86 was like $1200, SCO was like $800. Word 2000 is $300. Adobe Acrobat is $249, FrameMaker is $799.

Please don't flame me... I'm comparing types of applications, not quality. I don't care what you like better... the things I listed are comparable in base feature sets;

"Evil beware: I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hampster!"

Re:Isn't this a bit odd?

[FortKnox]

(I'm not flaming)...
You get what you pay for. If I dish out an extra few hundred and get a Solaris operating system, then I'm getting more for my buck, right??
But then again... Linux is free and doesn't follow my previous logic...


-- "Almost everyone is an idiot. If you think I'm exaggerating, then you're one of them."

Re:Isn't this a bit odd?

[DevTopics]

If M$ has a monopol, its hard to compare prices to anything - if you have no competition, you can't be compared with your competition.

The evidence that M$ has a monopol is drawn by the following conclusion:

1. Software prices have gone down in the last 10 years constantly

2. The price of Windows 9x hasn't gone down, it has risen a little - it has moved in the opposite direction of the market

3. Even adding many new features to software didn't brought prices up

4. They haven't added many features to Windows 9x

5. Conclusion: only a monopolist can act this way

You can't compare Solaris with Windows - Solaris is a server OS, Windows 9x is a home OS. You can't use Windows 9x on a server, and you can't use Solaris on your home PC for the same services.

You can't compare Acrobat nor FrameMaker with Word: these are different leagues ("Porsche is a very cheap car compared to Rolls Royce").

Re:Isn't this a bit odd?

[technos]

Windows 98 is $189. You're pricing the braindamaged 'upgrade' version.

For comparison, I bought Windows 95 on release day for $149, and paid $89 for WfW six months after release. My copy of Office 95 cost me $189 on release, but copies of Office 97 are still running $239 today. I haven't bought, nor do I intend to buy, Win2K, ME, or Office2K, so I can't comment on their prices.

Re:Isn't this a bit odd?

[Lord Kano]

Windows 98 retails for $99.

Windows 98 upgrade retails for $99. Windows 98 sells for ~$179.

Re:Isn't this a bit odd?

[sheldon]

The cost of software has *NOT* gone down in the past 10 years. Just go out and look at pricing on any of a variety of products.

The only markets in which software prices have gone down are those which were influenced by competition from Microsoft. NOS, OS, Office productivity, development tools, etc. in other words, the prices went down because Microsoft provided lower cost alternatives!

The price of Windows 9x has remained consistent with the direction of the market.

You want to compare apples to apples... Go look at the prices for an upgrade to MacOS. $99... boom, same price, same market, same league.

You are seriously confused.

Re:Isn't this a bit odd?

[cpt kangarooski]

You can't compare Acrobat, FrameMaker and Word at all, really.

It's like saying that Porsches are very cheap cars compared to a hot-air balloon and a freight train. They're totally different.

Clarification for Canadians

[max99ted]

"GIVEN CALIFORNIA law, this ruling was not unexpected," Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan told Reuters after Superior Court Judge Stuart Pollack approved the suit. "This is just the first step in a very long process."

Anyone have some insight into this comment? Why is it easier in California to proceed with this litigation than other states where it's been denied?

"Courts in Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island and Texas have dismissed similar class-action lawsuits on grounds that laws in those states don't allow them. (see previous post by Interiot for URL)

Also, won't a ruling in California like this one affect the process in other states?

Thanks for any help...

Re:Clarification for Canadians

[max99ted]

In what way is the above post related to Canadians, eh? Is the poster Canadian, eh, or is the California case expected to affect a Canadian case, eh?

I am Canadian

http://www.adcritic.com/content/molson-c anadian-no-doot-aboot-it.html

Re:Clarification for Canadians

[flatrock]

What I read in the past was that in most States consumers that got Windows preloaded on systems couldn't sue Microsoft, because the law considered the OEM the customer, not the end consumer. That would mean that only people who purchased the upgrade or full retail version could sue Microsoft. There probably aren't enough of those to make the greedy lawyers drool enough to start a class action suit.

Oh please

[Rurik]

This has been discussed in other discussions. Now this is whining.

The deal with McDonalds was not just that some old lady spilled it in her lap, it was that McDonalds was heating coffee, and serving it, at temperatures that were far and above the line for being within safety standards. They fought it, saying that the extra heat kept the flavor in, but ultimately lost. When you serve food/drink to a customer, that customer shouldn't have to wait 2 hours before being able to drink it.

And as far as tobacco, the labels are the point of the lawsuits. The lawsuits are being based on victims of tobacco/nicotine that became addicted to the product before the safety labels were mandatory for package. At that time, smokers had no clue that cigarettes could kill them, but once they found out, most were too addicted to stop completely.

I don't see how this got moderated Insightful.

Re:Oh please

[bluGill]

I worked for a (different) McDonalds at that time. We turned the tempature down a little bit and got so many complaints that we ended up turnging it back up (Note, not up to boiling, but hotter then out compititors). People like coffee hot. Those that don't ask us to put ice in the cup, which we gladdly did free of charge, and always had.

You can read the court decision, what other restaruants were doing all you want. I personally heard several of the complaints about the coffee after that. We didn't change the tempature immeadially after the lawsuit, and didn't get complaints until after the change, which stoped when we brought the tempature back to where it was. Customers could tell the difference, and didn't like it.

Re:$$$

[paRcat]

And I suppose if you were given the chance to successfully sue a major corporation for millions of dollars... you wouldn't?

ya.

I can see the point..

[photozz]

Well, Linux is free, therefore if MS was charging for Windows, The consumer was getting ripped off.. but if you turn that around,.. Linux is free, so it must be a better deal.. wait I'm confused.....

High prices?

[British]

Okay, what's the international standard for pricing an operating system bundled with a PC? How can MS's price be considered "high"? Are they comparing it to Apple's bunlding of their OS software with their PC?

Need something to compare here.

The postage alone will be 20 billion

[John Jorsett]

With all of these suits going forward, just the process of notifying the class members is going to cost a fortune. I've bought at least 40-50 MSFT products/upgrades over the years. If they can't figure out that I'm one person, my mailbox is going to be flooded.

On another front, I wonder if this will turn out to be another one of those "my lawyers sued Microsoft and all I got was this lousy $10 voucher" deals. One guess.

Re:Karma recipe for today

[Alorelith]

Apparently the karma recipe for today is making stupid karma recipies.

MS being sued for over-priced junk?

[ascheuch]

Yeah ... I bet the general public is pissed.
Imagine your general CA consumer. I picture him/her getting home from the store with the latest copy of Windows XX. They are happy that they blew $150 ... because they can boast to all of their friends about how cutting edge they are. But no ... the consumer's friends just laugh and tell him there is this thing called "Linucks" ... The price tag for this: $0!!

Now, your average consumer would probably be pretty pissed. He'd shout and wave his fists in the air and cry out, "I got robbed! Micro$oft charged me $150 for something that should be free~!!"

Maybe this is the rationale behind the lawsuit. Who knows ...

Article Text (redundant)

[Sloppy]

Here's the article,

Microsoft VBScript runtime error '800a01f5'

Illegal assignment: 'MainSectionID'

/p/cnbc/453052.asp, line 1

Pretty uninformative, I have to say. How does this show that Microsoft has harme-- oh.
---

Is that any surprise from the lawsuit state?

[Vicegrip]

Do we have to endure a new slashdot post for every single Microsoft lawsuit that will be coming down the pipes in the coming years? Slashdot has ignored much more interesting events.

Microsoft is simply reaping the results that all bullies do at one point or another: everybody dislikes you.... If you really want to keep tabs, setup up a Microsoft lawsuit page to keep the count going. I'm sure that within the next few years, countless people and organizations around the world are going to be lining up for a chance to get a piece of those Microsoft billions.

Extermism in the works?

[sips]

I can get a copy of windows far cheaper where I live and there isn't all that extremism. People can whine about microsoft but they cannot change what they have no control over. Like it or not I think microsoft will last at least as long As Ford.

Class Action...

[Electric Angst]

I can see the settlement figured out now...

Windows 98 crashes an average of twice a workday. (or ten times a work week)
Re-booting takes an average of one minute and thirty seconds.
Five million (wild estimate) CA consumers use 98 at work.
The average salary of such a worker breaks down to $12/hr.
There are 52 weeks in a year.

So...

10 * 52 = 520
520 * 1.5 = 780
780 * 5000000 = 3900000000
3900000000 / 60 = 65000000
65000000 * 10 = 650000000

That ends up being about $65,000,000 in lost productivity per year for one simgle product. Of course, this isn't counting the travesty of Marco virii. This is what monopoly does...

Of course, saying this on Slashdot is like preaching to the snake-handeling, tounge-speaking, chior.
--

Re:Class Action...

[mattw2]

65000000 * 10 = 650000000

Try 65000000* $12.00 = 780000000

Re:Class Action...

[TummyX]

Sounds more like you need to sue your system adminstrator.

Re:Class Action...

[evangellydonut]

Didn't you just say average salary estimate to be $12/hr? shouldn't that be 65,000,000 * 12 instead of 10? and if I can count (hopefully, that's true), your resulted turned out to be $650 million, not 65 million...

Oh yeah, last I heard, average national salary is $13.75ish, so using that number, the result comes to...$893.75 million

Of course given that Bill Gates is worht around $60 billion, he can afford to pay all the companies in CA for their losses for a while...'til his dead anyway...unless he lives as long as Mr. Burns...

Re:Class Action...

[Electric Angst]

Didn't you just say average salary estimate to be $12/hr? shouldn't that be 65,000,000 * 12 instead of 10? and if I can count (hopefully, that's true), your resulted turned out to be $650 million, not 65 million...

See, this is what happens when you're putting a comment up after a night of coding, having no real figures and just pulling things out of your ass...

See, statistics can be invented...
--

Re:Class Action...

[cyber-vandal]

Perhaps in a large company, but most of them use NT on the desktop anyway, it's the small ones that have an NT server and Win95/98 desktops, probably adminned by someone who has bought Network Admin for Dummies or some such. Win9x is a very bad product and consumers should be compensated for not having a choice in that area of the market and no Apple were not in that market until the release of the iMac, they were mainly in the DTP and graphic designer market.

Re:Has this actually happened to anyone here? I...

[mcwop]

I once got a check for 14 CENTS (the other 32 cents went for the stamp - Damn!) from a Blue Cross class action suit in Maryland. The suit was for BC overcharging on premiums. That year my premiums went up over $300. Oh, and I never signed up for the suit. Who made money on that one? The lawyers.

I wonder. Can I sue the goverment for overpayment of taxes due to the surplus. I would love to have a class action against my garbage collectors who find it difficult to get the trash into the truck rather than on the ground - if they pick it up at all. Can I sue for the pshychological abuse administered by the D.C. Motor Vehicles Administration (similar to experiencing the Spanish Inquisition).

I wonder...

[mmmmbeer]

When I first started looking at this, I thought, "Oh, come on! This is just greed!" I mean, I'm all for kicking M$'s ass, but this sounds like some opportunists just trying to make a buck. Well, I thought about it some more, and decided I right. But now I wonder if maybe it's right, too. After all, isn't the ultimate reason why we have antitrust law to prevent harm to the consumer? When buying a new computer, didn't the vast majority of us have to pay a buttload (aprox. 12 square cubits) of money for Windoze, whether we wanted it or not? And if you bought a new computer, you had to pay again! And you didn't really have any choice, because the vendors didn't have much choice about selling it. Almost anywhere you went the computers came with Windoze preinstalled. Sure, some of us can build our own systems from scratch, but blah blah blah, ramble ramble ramble, anti-M$ anti-M$, anti-M$, and in conclusion, Bill Gates should be drawn and quartered and fed to dingos. (There, that should be good for a few karma points :)

Inflated prices and the like

[sips]

About your points for 1 and 2 aren't most prices in California usually massively overpriced anyway? Housing, food, cars, almost everything is more expensive same as living in New York.

3. Uhhh What about all those commercial unixes and other operating systems like QNX that are not free (yet) there are still a few.

I'm guessing, from experience with previous class action lawsuits, if the state wins, any person who has purchased certain MS products in the state of California will be
entitled to a rebate in the mail. You'll probably have to do the footwork on this yourself, as in, it won't be mailed to you, you need to go out and find this for yourself,
mail it in, along with proof of purchase, etc...

Yeah that will be a big savings. Wow gee you get $40 that might buy a candy bar.

Re:Inflated prices and the like

[Misch]

3. Uhhh What about all those commercial unixes and other operating systems like QNX that are not free (yet) there are still a few.

I did say "most alternative OS's are free (as in beer)." didn't I?

Hmm... well, how much does a single-user copy of Office cost? Buy.com has $396.95 for a copy of Office Standard... $40 bucks back would be about 10% of the price... not too bad of a return...

What does harm mean? How expensive is it?

[TicTacTux]

It's like when you order that big hairy steak over at the steakhouse, eat 95% of it, then get the waiter, show him/her that remaining bit of your dinner and complain the meat wasn't tender enough and claim a refund.

In most parts of this planet, people are expected to think or ponder before they act. This may or may not be true for CA.

Not that I'm one of Bill's Buddies nor do I get regularly invited at Windows Parties, but this is not about M$, it's about common sense. Or lack thereof.

I am under serious distress when I get my phone bill. Mom, can I sue the phone company, please?

Re:Has this actually happened to anyone here? I...

[sips]

I once got a check for 14 CENTS (the other 32 cents went for the stamp - Damn!) from a Blue Cross class action suit in Maryland. The suit was for BC overcharging
on premiums. That year my premiums went up over $300. Oh, and I never signed up for the suit. Who made money on that one? The lawyers.

Not entirely unusual by any means. Usually these suits just increase prices for everyone else. That is the part that sucks.

I wonder. Can I sue the goverment for overpayment of taxes due to the surplus. I would love to have a class action against my garbage collectors who find it difficult to
get the trash into the truck rather than on the ground - if they pick it up at all. Can I sue for the pshychological abuse administered by the D.C. Motor Vehicles
Administration (similar to experiencing the Spanish Inquisition).

You can sue for almost any reason under the sun. Usually if you have enought money you can sue.

I know exactly what you mean

[Rurik]

Seven trips total over 8 months to the Maryland DMV in G.B. to get my license transferred from another state. My wife was afraid to send me there alone, thinking that I'd show up on the 11 O'clock news :)

Re:Karma recipe for today

[MustardMan]

Does anyone remember 575? What's that, no? Try real hard... oh I see you kinda remember now. Yeah he was that guy was popular for about 30 seconds then faded away into the dust. Like hula hoops, pet rocks, and Novell, Enoch Root is a simple fad that will soon pass.

Re:hmmm - bugger that

[Masked Marauder]

Bugger that. California is one of the most litiganous (sp?) states in the union. Perhaps the best is yet to come. Here is a story at CBS about the California court allowing victims of LAPD corruption to use the federal anti-racketeering law against the LAPD. The story quotes a law prof that "It really could come close to bankrupting the city."

Imagine what whould happen if RICO could be applied to MS! Among other things RICO allows for the confiscation of land, buildings, money, etc. from the perpetrator.

[OT]Re:Has tftually happened to anyone here? I...

[AbbyNormal]

Got in at 9AM to get 1 State ID and 1 Driver's Permit. It took 5 hours at the Tysons Corner DMV! Talk about Psychological trauma. Anyone care for a class action?

FREE OS?!?!

[Evan-Xun]

Well most people still view various distributions of Linux and other "free os's" as costing anywhere from $50-$100 at stores. If they don't know that they can download the whole thing over a modem, they're going to pay the $$ for it. If Linux is trully *free*(as in free beer) why is it not distributed like those god damn AOL disks?

Jeff

Re:FREE OS?!?!

[GypC]

You could do it, if you can foot the bill and deal with the support calls from people who don't know what an OS is...

"Free your mind and your ass will follow"

Re:FREE OS?!?!

[John_Prophet]

If Linux is trully *free*(as in free beer) why is it not distributed like those god damn AOL disks?

My guess would be that it costs anywhere from 50 cents to a buck to duplicate just the CDrom itself, plus the expenses for packaging, shrink-wrapping and then finally bulk mailing them out to people...

AOL spends that money because they are offering a PAID SERVICE... so they get the money back, plus profit. Who are you going to find to spend thousands (millions) of dollars pressing free linux discs to give away?

And if you DO manage to find them, let them know I've got some other really nifty ideas that could use some financing.
-The Reverend

Re:FREE OS?!?!

[Icebox]

Actually, it is distributed pretty damn near free by places like Free Bytes. Essentially you are paying them for the cost of their disks and a very small fee for burning it. I think I bought Slack, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and a disk full of RPM files for less than $20. While all of that software could have been downloaded for $0 I wanted to have the CDs to copy and give to my friends. Had I gone to Best Buy and paid $50 I also would have gotten quite a large pile of documentation.

It isn't going to be as pervasive as AOL disks because there isn't a multibillion dollar corporation(s) behind it.

Re:FREE OS?!?!

[Zorikin]

I predict that a working linux distribution will be included on the AOL CDs by the end of 2005.
Or that someone else will adopt the tactic. Eazel comes to mind.

Take a good book

[sips]

Like War and Peace :). Usually it only took my an hour or so to get mine but I guess I live in another lower population density center than you.

Californians already had their chance...

[rotor]

People out there already got their chance... They were the ones who (for a day at least) were able to buy anything at Best Buy, get the $400 MSN rebate, and then cancel the MSN service with no penalty. And now they also get the class action suit?

Let's get real people...

[meckardt]

Yes, Microsoft has done some things that shouldn't have been done, and yes, they should be held responsible for them. But really! Who is going to benefit from one or more class action lawsuits against the PC software giant? Hint: It won't be the consumers. You can bet that the lawyers will pocket billions before you or I ever see a dollar.

Bill Gates may be despicable in some eyes, but he is a saint compaired to a lot of the folks working in the legal system.

Gonzo

Word Perfect is still in there

[sips]

I use it pretty much exclusively when I am not at my linux machine.

Personally I can't stand the stupid paperclip. And Word 2000 still has it :(

Re:Word Perfect is still in there

[stx23]

You could turn it off, choose a new agent, or replace the clippit.acs file with something else. Voila, no paperclip.

Who Wins? The Lawyers

[owillis]

Just like in the tobacco and firearms lawsuits, these cases come up looking like consumer advocacy but they're nothing more than a front for greedy lawyers who get a massive cut of the money from these settlements.
--
Chaosnetwork

This lawsuit is not about consumers....

[Riplakish]

it's but about law firms making money. These large-scale class-action suits net the plaintiffs little money on an individual basis, but the 30% the law firm gets is in the millions. There are firms whose sole practice is to file class-action lawsuits in the name of people who didn't even ask for it.

Basically you get a letter in the mail from the lawyers stating that you are now a plaintiff (one of thousands) in a class-action lawsuit, and if you don't want to participate you have to submit a written letter stating so. This is supposed to protect your right to sue the defendant on your own if you choose to do so, but also exempts you from any proceeds from a successful verdict for the class-action. The problem I have is that you have to write a letter to bow out from a lawsuit you didn't even ask for. The lawyers also have the right to settle out of court with no approval from the plaintiffs, which they usually do for a fraction of the lawsuit amount so that they can make an easy buck.

My wife and I went through this with Sears and Roebuck a couple of years ago. A law firm was suing them for a tens of thousands of plaintiffs in regards to there accounting practices for interest on their credit cards. I took the letter and threw it in the trash. Six months later a letter arrived stating that the suit was settled out of court and we were entitled to $15.00 before lawyer fees, processing etc. The check was for $3.50. I'm sure the law firm took home more than that.

Re:This lawsuit is not about consumers....

[real gumby]

It's actually worse than you think. Yes you're a party to a lawsuit even if you don't want to be.

The first time I got a letter like this (about a Sprint lawsuit) I did some investigation. By the time you get the letter telling you you're a party, the defendent has negotiated a settlement. So unfortunately you don't help the defendent by opting _not_ to be a party! The reason is that by agreeing (after the fact) you at least close the issue off. If you decide not to participate the company has to worry that you might sue them individually.

This doesn't seem like a big deal with a $3.50 refund, but in fact this is what screwed Dow Corning: they agreed to the fake science of the trial sharks just to get the issue behind them, and then some opportunists "opted out" and hit them up again.

delete class action_lawyers *all;

Re:This lawsuit is not about consumers....

[aphrael]

OK, granted, the reason class-action suits *happen* is that the lawyers get money.

But there's a good reason for them to happen *economically* --- and it's largely to benefit the entity being sued, and the state.

Going to court is expensive --- each individual case has costs associated with it: hiring a lawyer, docket fees, etc. Allowing *each individual consumer of a product* to sue leads to enormous court costs --- not only does every consumer have to hire their own lawyer, etc., but the defendant company has to hire one for each case, and the court system has to hold all of the cases ...

It is more efficient and cheaper, then, to have *one* case representing *all of the potential lawsuits*; if the goal of the system is economic efficiency, that's the way to go. (If the goal is justice, maybe not; but that's a different religious flame war ...)

Re:This lawsuit is not about consumers....

[skerner]

I understand that $3.50 may as well be nothing, and the idea that you are part of the suit unless you opt out is stupid. But I don't think the point of a class action law suit is to pay you money. It is to make the company at fault pay damages.

If the company did something realy bad to someone with the resorces to fight back in court, then they whould get sued. But if a company costs lots of people a small amount of money, then it's not worth any one person's time and resorces to sue them. If there were no class action law suits, then companies whould screw people constantly, but only in ways that whould not make a law suit worth it. Because of the posibility of a class action law suit, companies have to be more carefull. Yes, some lawers get ritch. That's better than the alternitive: every company in existance trying to rip me off for an amout of money just under the leage fees nessisary to sue that company.

Clarification by Canadians

[DebtAngel]

California allows you to sue for a lot of things other places won't let you sue for.

They also have different burden of proofs then other states and provinces.

Also, the laws regarding lawsuits won't magically change in Texas becausee somebody in California won a frivolous suit that would not be allowed in Texas.

Having studied civil law in Ontario (in high school no less, ph33r my l33t l4w sk1llZ!), I don't think we could pull off the same sort of lawsuit here.

Most of the time, I'd make a comment about Ontario being sane about frivolous civil suits, but having paid for at least two copies of Windows I never wanted, I'm going to keep my opinion in reserve this time.

Oh, IANAL, and IHCL (I Hate Civil Law).

Re:Clarification by Canadians

[max99ted]

Thanks for the reply.

Also, the laws regarding lawsuits won't magically change in Texas becausee somebody in California won a frivolous suit that would not be allowed in Texas.

Not exactly what I meant - more along the lines of previous rulings and how they would affect cases in other states.

Having studied civil law in Ontario...

Me too. And you're right, this sort of suit would have a difficult time here. Fortunately for me, I don't pay for copies of Windows (mind you now I'll miss out on my $22.32 refund from Bill)

Re:Clarification by Canadians

[DebtAngel]

Not exactly what I meant - more along the lines of previous rulings and how they would affect cases in other states.

Ah.

In this case, if Texas won't allow a lawsuit, then Texas still won't.

However, in a state that will, then should the case win in Cailfornia, it will definitely be used as evidence of precedent (I would sure as hell use it). Then, six people (the jury - again, this is Ontario, other jurisdictions may differ) will decide how much weight that precedent truly deserves in that jurisdiction. In the case of Ontario, I imagine it would not hold a heck of a lot of weight - we all know the wacky decisions that come out of California. :)

how can I abuse the courts to get money from

[ArchieBunker]

This is almost as bad as the old lady who spilled hot coffee on her lap or the asshole woman suing nike for shoelaces coming untied. Too bad the judge didn't call the lady a dumbass for putting hot coffee in her lap and throw the case out of court. That single case opened the door for all these stupid lawsuits. I should sue ford because for 100 years they never put a warning label on the gas pedal.

Re:how can I abuse the courts to get money from

[ShrikeDOA]

I'm pretty tired of seeing the McDonald's coffee lawsuit bandied around as an example of a frivolous suit. It was anything but. The woman received third degree burns, spent over a week in the hospital, and had to undergo several skin grafts.

Educate yourself

Re:how can I abuse the courts to get money from

[Phil Gregory]

This is almost as bad as the old lady who spilled hot coffee on her lap or the asshole woman suing nike for shoelaces coming untied.

Well, I'm not familiar with the shoelace lawsuit you reference, but the coffee lawsuit (Liebeck vs. McDonalds) was a lot more justified that many people seem to think. Tahe a look at what the Consumer Attorneys of California have to say about the case. Another good reference is at http://www.quellerfisher.com/liebeck.html.

Basically, the woman was awarded $200,000 to cover her medical bills (she suffered third-degree burns, acquired in three seconds), but that amount was reduced to $160,000 because she was deemed to be partially at fault. She was also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages, because McDonalds' statements showed that they knew they were putting people at risk for severe burns, but continued to serve the coffee at high temperatures. McDonalds was also able to get the punitive damages reduced to $480,000 in appeals court.

--Phil (I wish more people would research stories like this before spreading them.)

Re:how can I abuse the courts to get money from

[Flower]

Okay, so total damages were $3mil reduced to just over a half mil due to her being partly at fault. I guess I now have a dollar figure for how much it costs to be clueless.

Re:how can I abuse the courts to get money from

[hawk]

Exactly. There should be a warning label on the coffe:

"Only a low grade moron would put this between her legs and then remove the lid in a moving vehicle."

:)

hawk, esq., tired of people defending this frivolosu suit

Re:how can I abuse the courts to get money from

[Shadarr]

Does anyone have a link for the shoelace lawsuit? I'd be interested to know more (assuming ArchieBunker isn't just jerking chains).

Re:how can I abuse the courts to get money from

[Andrewkov]

It's called "natural selection". Darwin would be proud.

Re:how can I abuse the courts to get money from

[pheonix]

Actually, I both followed this story in rapt fascination when it was happening, and have a rather large library of literature at my disposal about the case.

In reality, it was a seriously frivilous lawsuite gone badly awry. McD's lawyer was inept, and this poor imbeciles ambulance chaser was on the ball.

She suffered 1 approximately DIME SIZED spot of 3rd degree burn, and there's absolutely no way to prove how long the hot coffee was on her to cause said DIME SIZED spot of burn. The remaining burn was scattered burns "akin to a sunburn" according to the observing doctor.

The statement that McD's "showed that they knew they were putting people at risk" is also taken slightly out of context. When one of the witnesses for McD's was asked "Where you aware that the coffee might have been hot enough to burn patrons", the employee respondes (exact quote)..."It's coffee...". When the lawyer demanded clarification, the employee said "Yes, coffee is hot, if it were cold, it would have been returned". Yes, McD's knew the coffee was hot, the same way us thinking folks know it's hot...that's the way it works. Nobody sues Dow Corning (the makers of my heating elements on my stove) for making something they KNOW could burn people. Both are hot by design.

The fact is, that lawsuit is a beautiful example of all that's wrong with out litigous society.

Yes

[josepha48]

It has forced me to watch my roommate reboot his Win95 machine every 20 minutes .

On a more serious note. I think it has to an extent. The price for windows has not gone down instead it has gone up, although they say that the ME edition will be $59 or so. The problem is that Windows is making the companies like Dell and Gateway, and all the thousand other little companies that install windows pay lots for the software. This causes the price in computers to go up. A 500 dollar computer could sell for probably 100 less if it was not for the cost of windows. Sure you can say that you could install Linux, but Linux has some hardware issues that makes this not as easy as you think.

I cannot count the hours of lost work productivity that resulted from rebooting my machine. In 1997 I was down for a WEEK cause my NT workstation (at work) gave me the BSOD. This was when it first was discovered and noone knew what to do, and M$ did not have a cure.

Although currently M$ is probably the best software on the market, as far as applications, ease of use, etc. I think that mere fact that they released Windows 95 which noone can deny was buggier than hell, they should be held accountable for. I also think that NT 4 is buggier than hell and if it were not for sp 5 or 6 this machine I am useing would be just as worthless. Granted M$ has come a long way and there Win 2000 product is probably a good product, but I no longer trust them. Maybe there penality should be to give free upgrades to 2000 to ANYONE that is still using Window 95, and to sell the upgrades for 98 and NT 4.0 for less than $50. This would allow them to stay together, still make money (not that Billy boy needs it) and make most consumers happier, IMHO!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I don't want a lot, I just want it all ;-)
Flame away, I have a hose!

My personal idea of so called progress

[sips]

Personally I have seen this idea of "progress" and all it means is just more expensive products for the end consumer. A bunch of incompatable and incomphrensible motherboard designs that change every 6 months and prevent easy upgrades, a lack of a standard for anything that lasts even 20 minutes. Yeah that's the kind of thing I like to see. Personally I want a computer that actually *works* that is inexpensive, that has lots of open source applications that are stable, lean, and work, etc. And personally I havn't seen any platform like that.

Ok there's something called judicial etiquete

[sips]

Maybe you watch too much Judge Judy and think that real judges act like reactionary fools who are going through PMS but the reality is that most judges if they acted that way would be removed. You have to have a measured competence and swearing at people and demeaning people isn't one of them. Oh and usually "hot" is a relative term. Ever look at the gauge on a water heater. That's why it's there. One person't hot is another person't scaulding burn.

Long Document Bug

[NVH Engr]

Has anyone else been bitten by this one?

MS Word, through 2 or 3 revisions up to and including Word 95 had a bug that destroyed multi-file documents after they reached a certain size.

I am patiently waiting for that class action law suit. Any lawyers reading this? I saved all of my receipts.

I used to like M$ before they ate my dissertation and then charged me extra to get it back. In the end, I spent an extra $300 in upgrades and M$ "support". In spite of that, I still had to re-type the darned thing anyway.

I now use Framemaker. And Linux.

Bill feeling the pinch

[ackthpt]

Well, yeah, that's the general idea. Punish them by making them give back a certain amount of revenue. It would also set precident. That done they'd have to review their pricing practices more carefully, lest they get hauled into another Class suit.

Vote Naked 2000

Then why the high prices/inflation

[sips]

Assuming ecconomic progress is going well then anyone should be able to afford housing and not have to sleep in homeless shelters huh?

Y MSFT gets sued up the butt, but they sue

[2quam4]

Here is a listing of pending federal suits involving Microsoft. 18 pages, 352 cases. This is pretty typical for corporations -- I think what is interesting are the number of cases filed by Microsoft. Browsing through the cases, Microsoft primarily files copyright infringement suits. Just thought this was interesting info to post considering that many responses here exclaim that Microsoft is sued too much. What goes around comes around. Not just $$$ for attorneys, but it keeps the attorneys at Microsoft employed. If they could just figure out how to operate windows and the damn VCR...

I'd like to argue...

[sterno]

Both carbon monoxide and the other byproducts of cigarette smoke are deadly IN SUFFICIENT QUANTITIES. If you smoke several cigarettes every day for several years, yes, it will cause damage to your lungs. If you are constantly being exposed to second hand smoke (like living in the house of a smoker), sure it will cause damage to your lungs. Show me one statistic that indicates that casual occasional exposure to cigarette smoke in public restraunts, bars, etc, are harmful to one's health. California, the People's Republic of Boulder, and all of the others are WAY overreacting.

The only fault I can see for the tobacco industry was their intentional hacking of cigarettes to make them more addictive. Otherwise, if you choose to use a product that is known to be hazardous to your health and addictive, you get what you deserve. You shouldn't be whining later about it so you can get a few million dollars.

---

Re:I'd like to argue...

[Cannonball]

Oh please. I find the smell of cigarette smoke detrimental to my dining experience (turns my stomach actually). Why should I have to deal with it in my dinner experience? It's not sanitary either. The carbon monoxide addressed as part of the auto pollution, not from cigarette smoke. If you go out to bars more than twice a week, even for just an hour or two, that can be hazardous if done on a regular basis. Please don't fight me on tobacco smoke. It's bad for you. Accept it.

Re:I'd like to argue...

[PurpleBob]

Sounds like you should find something else to do in the refrigerator. :)
--
No more e-mail address game - see my user info. Time for revenge.

Bzzt. Try again.

[Mr. Piccolo]

How much is the version of Solaris you would use on a Workstation? I'm sure that more than $189 which after all is a recommended retail price. Prices for OEMs are much lower.

Not anymore. Try $75 for a media kit and license to use on an UNLMITED number of workstations or servers, SPARC or Intel-based.

Well, as long as those machines have 8 or less processors in them... ;-)

Bill's Change of Heart

[jafac]

I bet Bill's happy now about all the people who PIRATED Windows products, because now he won't have to pay those people 3x the cost of a license. Those people are still an ASSET to Microsoft, because each of them uses IE, and reports as a statistic in MS's favor for World Domination of web standards.

(I've NEVER paid for Windows myself, even as a bundle with PC's I've bought, because when I've bought a PC with a bundled OS, it was either OS/2 (long time ago), or Mac OS, or no OS and I installed Linux - at work, it's always been a site-license).

But I like the idea of charging MS for lost productivity from crashes and Macro virus exploits. Kind of like when the first Mac was being built, and legend has it that Steve Jobs was bitching and moaning about how long it took to boot up, and suggested that if they could shave 5 seconds off the boot time, it would save every (projected) Mac owner 21 minutes per year, and if there were 2 million Mac owners, that was like 60 years, so for every 5 seconds of boot time they shaved off, they were saving one human life. Apparently they're thinking different now.

if it ain't broke, then fix it 'till it is!

Objectivists to the Rescue

[Threnody]

Check out MoralDefense.com for some excellent Objectivist rhetoric.

I run Linux at home. And my personal boycott against MSFT products has been active since Windows 95. There's no reason to reiterate how much MSFT sucks to the /. community.

But, I also feel that a boycott should be the extent of my ability to limit Microsoft's power. Only the individual can lash out against a corporation: by not buying a product. The government has no place in this matter.

If you don't like Windows, be a geek, go to Fry's, and build your own friggin' computer so that Bill never gets his greasy hands on your prized possession. What's the issue?

Don't invite the government to save "the public" on this one. If you bought a MSFT product, you only hurt yourself. I hardly think that "the public" needs protection from MSFT.

Even worse with the case of MSFT is that they've actually provided a decent product to fill a market niche (albeit an incredibly large niche). MSFT has been offering a superior consumer product for years at an excellent price. Windows has brought law and order to the consumer computer market and helped to make computers useful for grandma smith and uncle bob. Windows is an excellent product in that regard.

Even worse, it's obvious that MSFT has had competition through the entire battle. As I recall, AAPL's headquarters are smack-dab in the middle of Silicon Valley; and SUNW's headquarters aren't far down the road. And SGI's and even the now defunct SCO (Tarantella?). There were plenty of choices out there if you really wanted an alternate. But, again: MSFT was providing a product that better suited people's needs at a much better price. Even today one can argue that Windows ME/2000 provides most people with more functionality than they'll ever need.

If you want to destroy Microsoft, don't waste your time with the government. Hack Eazel, GNOME, KDE; or some other Linux component that threatens the power or Redmond.

Does it?

[dwlemon]

I use win98 for school stuff (Visual Basic, C++) and leave it running for weeks at a time.

It crashes sometimes.. which is a lot more than my main machine does (linux) but twice a day is an exaggeration.

Where did it all begin?

[rizzo242]

Perhaps I've just forgotten, but I can't seem to recall where this all began. I'm interested to know more about the "Kenneth Star" that first decided, "Hey, Bob, let's start an anti-trust casse against Microsoft...see what happens...".

Can anyone refresh my memory? Was it an original idea of the DOJ? Was there some kind of concerted effort on the part of their major competitors?

If we've never found out who the instigator actually was, then feel free to let the conspiracy theories fly.

Re:[OT]Re:Has tftually happened to anyone here? I.

[scottm]

Eek.... Did you go at the end of the month? I was going to go in before work one day to get my VA license and get my car registered...Now I'm scared

Re:Direct Harm

[gfxguy]

I have to disagree, though. You are taking a very narrow look at the market.

There is no other viable to the consumer, commercial OS available. I love linux as much as the next guy, but Linux does not compete in the same market as Windows. I'm *not* raising the 'is linux ready for the desktop?' argument again.

There are other alternatives besides Linux - some of them are arguably superior to windows. Now, if you limit it to "PC" market, you may have a point. However, I'll argue 'till my last breath that the statement "Linux is not ready for the desktop" is only made by people expecting the Windows interface when they sit down a computer. If that's your definition of what the "desktop" is supposed to be, then you are correct.

I also disagree with the lawsuit, though. If consumers were smarter and did their homework before making major investments (for me, a $1000.00, or even $500.00 computer is a major investment), then the market would truly dictate prices/features/quality.

Then again, people mostly buy PCs so they can pirate the software from work/friends/family/neighbors, and my opinion is that these are the same greedy people who would love to take advantage of this.
----------

common sense

[ArchieBunker]

Its called common sense. If you lay down in the middle of a highway and get run over, do you sue the person who ran you over? No because it was your decesion to do something dangerous. How about holding a firecracker in your hand? Do you sue the manufacturer because they made something dangerous? No because you know firecrackers explode and its YOUR fault for holding it in your hand.

Thanks to this woman every cup must have a warning label stating its contents are hot. No shit its hot its called coffee, did I think there would be ice cubes floating in it?

Re:common sense

[Phil Gregory]

Thanks to this woman every cup must have a warning label stating its contents are hot.

No; thanks to this woman, McDonalds now serves their coffee at a reasonable temperature. The coffee will still burn you if you accidentally spill it on yourself, but it will take about twenty seconds for it to do the damage it did to Liebeck in three seconds. The coffee is also no longer served at a temperature that will scald your mouth if you drink it immediately.

Firecrackers are not intended to be held in the hand when ignited. Coffee is intended to be ingested, and one ought to be able to reasonably assume that the coffee will not burn you severely enough to require skin grafts.

--Phil (Read my other post for some informative URLs.)

Re:[OT]Re:Has tftually happened to anyone here? I.

[AbbyNormal]

Nope...Beginning of August (first weekend). Funny thing is, my girlfriend got her NJ Titled car and license switched over in a matter of 15 minutes! For a stinking 10 minute computer based test for the Permit I had to wait 2 hours! Not very organized nor efficient down there..

Re:[OT]Re:Has tftually happened to anyone here? I.

[cpt kangarooski]

Wow. Took me five minutes when I lived in FL. And the driving test (no parallel) didn't even leave the parking lot.

Man, that was sweet.

Re:Karma recipe for today

[Enoch Root]

You're assuming I give a fuck about moderation. You're also assuming the intent of my posts are humor. Based on your invalid premise, I have no other choice but to disregard your conclusion. Too bad, I would have loved to tell you 'Fuck you too'.

Re:Karma recipe for today

[Enoch Root]

Remind me who you are, again?

Where did you learn to reason?

[brokeninside]

Laws and lawsuits are meant to PROTECT the consumer.

I completely agree, which is why the McDonald's coffee judgement was not unreasonable.

How is McD not playing nice by warming its coffee?

Well, had you followed the case instead of simply scanning the headlines, the coffee in question was hot enough to cause third degree burns. Sure, serving warm coffee is a nice thing to do, but when the coffee is 'warm' enough to make my flesh blister, its perhaps not so nice.

ITS COFFEE FOR GODS SAKE!

So in a case where a parent uses a teddy bear to suffocate a newborn, the parent should get off scott free because ITS A TEDDY BEAR FOR GOD'S SAKE!! ....

In this case, a restaurant was punished because, despite repeated warnings and complaints, they exhibited criminal negligence that threatened the general public with bodily harm. And if McDonald's had not been sued, that particular restaurant would probably still be serving coffee hot enough to kill a small child with.

So, in this particular case, it appears that justice was served and served well.

Re:Where did you learn to reason?

[AbbyNormal]

AHAAHAH! Pot calling the kettle black. Your logic astounds me.

A.) If the coffee is too hot. Don't bathe in it. Warming soup up in a microwave could also cause 3rd degree burns, but I don't sue the microwave company. I'm the idiot responsible for spilling on my own self and will suck it up and deal. I ate a Chili's last weekend...I ordered beef Fahitas that came still cooking in the pan. Oil was splattering everywhere. The waitress cautioned me that it was hot. I therefore did not purposely stick my face into it. IF...If they fell on my hand, why would I sue Chili's? They are providing the food to me. I pay and eat it.

B.) The teddy bear analogy is pointless and comparing Apples and Oranges. Your reasoning skills obviously need work as well so please do not criticize mine. First the baby did not accidently suffocate itself in that case, and thus the parent is liable for murder. This is not even close to spilling hot coffee on your self. If you spill it, it is an ACCIDENT. If you cut yourself with a knife while cooking dinner. It is an ACCIDENT. I don't immediately turn and sue the knife manufacturors for failing to tell me that the knife was sharp. That, I hope you will agree, is simple silly.

C.) You have an obsession with death: "kill a small child with" is very silly and has no place in your argument. Little overdramtic? Oh NO! What about the CHILDREN? Justice was not served.

Manufacturors should not be held liable for stupid things people do. You have heard about the lady that sued a microwave company because she thought she could dry her cat in it? Please.

This was expected?

[barracg8]

• "GIVEN CALIFORNIA law, this ruling was not unexpected," Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan told Reuters.

He covers up so much by just saying "this ruling".
Let's expand it for him, from the headline of the story:

• "GIVEN CALIFORNIA law, charges that [we] harmed consumers through [our] monopolistic practices was not unexpected," Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan told Reuters.

When a company's business model means that this kind of thing is expected, there is something very wrong with the way that company opperates.

My $0.02

G

Re:This was expected?

[Rainy]

First, a disclaimer: I hate f***** Microsoft. Now,
what he probably meant was that, given the FoF by
Jackson, which MS officially doesn't agree with,
this suit was to be expected, and officially they
probably are certain of winning it because they're
certain they will win the first one on appeal.

Of course, this is all official and might be bull,
but what he *said* does not in any way imply any-
thing bad.

Re:This was expected?

[barracg8]

• what he *said* does not in any way imply any-thing bad.

Well, yeah, but it depends on what context you read it in. In the closed context of 'we just lost an anti-trust trial', then yeah, in such a litigeous environment, it is not surprising that a class action law suit occurs.

But in a broarder context, the fact that a commpany is openly unsurprised about the fact that millions of their customers feel that they are being ripped off is a very sorry state of affairs.

• given the FoF by Jackson, which MS officially doesn't agree with

Microsoft:
You have a monopoly.
You abuse monopoly power to destroy competition.
You rip off your customers.
Sue me, bitches.

What is my point in that last rant? Judge Jackson has heard all the evidence and submitted a FoF. This is the findings of a US federal court, and is fact in the eyes of US law. The appeals court is not meant to hold a retrial: the appeal is only against his application of the law. The facts stand. The only circumstance in which the appeals courts can overturn his FoF is to label them as conclusions that no-one of sound mind could reach. I.e., they have to declare that Judge Jackson is actually totally insane. :-) Unlikely.

Who gives a damn if MS 'agree' with the FoF or not? Fuck 'em - it is now fact.

• its alleged monopolistic practices

In a similar vein, this is taken from the headline of the story. Surely, MSNBC, that should read "its monopolistic practices". Innocent until proven guilty. Once found guilty by a court of law, guilty untill proven innocent. MS has a monopoly, and has abused it. It is now up to them to demonstrate otherwise.

:-)
G

Re:Karma recipe for today

[Trespass]

I strongly suspect there is a Penis Bird hiding deep in your soul. ;^)

...well, as a recent transplant to CA...

[boinger]

I can tell you that there are volumes of laws on any single subject that could possibly be a law here in CA. I moved here from Chicago a few months ago. I am used to the idea that if you're not hurting anyone (including yourself) or anything and are not in danger of doing so, you're pretty much left alone. Not here. Good lord not here. There are laws about laws about laws and the police seem to enforce everything they can, regardless of the futility.

For instance: A pedestrian always has the right-of-way. I can jump in front of a car on a busy street and even if I'm some at fault, the car is more at fault. It's ridiculous.

My point being, that CA regularly ignore precedent and even their own laws.

But here in SF, you can park a motorcycle on the sidewalk. go figure.

lack of merit may not matter

[John Jorsett]

Merit frequently has nothing to do with these cases. The target will settle just to avoid the possibility of a runaway jury socking it with an enormous award, or to avoid a protracted, debilitating legal battle. Microsoft has the resources to fight, so maybe they won't cave in, but many do.

Overpayment?? Hah.

[edremy]

Can I sue the goverment for overpayment of taxes due to the surplus.

Why not? Of course, are you willing to cough up the cash you owe first? If you think you deserve money back now you must have paid your full share back when the country was running a deficit. Oh, you didn't? Your share is roughly $20,000. Pony up.

Side note. All of these suits stink. The lawyers get rich, businesses get hurt and the plainiffs get screwed. Don't cheer just because it's anti-MS. It still stinks.

Paying for it?

[joshua.aos]

I don't mean to sound silly here, but who out there actually pays for Microsoft software? I know that most people get the Windows license when they buy machines, so of course those are payed for and often machines come with Office lincenses as well, but as far as anything beyond that, I know few people who pay for upgrades, or anything else from Microsoft. Office must be more often bootlegged than any other piece of software. I mean, be honest, dear slashdotters. I know this is a moot point in the legal cases, but something to remember, eh?

Joshua

Re:Paying for it?

[0x0000]

don't mean to sound silly here, but who out there actually pays for Microsoft software?

Companies. Corporations. And M$ monitors to make sure that companies aren't using bootleg versions of the software.

0x0000

Re:Bzzt. Try again.

[flatrock]

Unless they changed it, you had to pay for the OS if you were using it for commercial purposes. Of course, maybe they did change it, after all they can still make their money off of the Sparc hardware. Isn't giving away IE and while charging for Windows what got MS in trouble?

Why doesn't MS just lower the prices?

[AFCArchvile]

I know, that's stating the improbable (if not impossible), but seriously, if Microsoft took out the axe to its retail prices (and to its marketing staff as well), they would look much better in the long run. Here's a sample of my recommended prices:

Windows 98/ME upgrade: $44.99

Windows 98/ME full: $99.99

Windows 2000 Professional: $229.99

Windows 2000 Server 5 Client: $249 upgrade, $499 full

WDM Driver SDK: $44.99

Given Microsoft's MONSTROUS profit margin, I think that this is more than fair.

Re:Karma recipe for today

[MustardMan]

The difference is, I am not a karma whore who is so starved for attention that he must constantyl recycle the one schtick that was able to get a couple mod points one time. See, I don't CARE that you don't know who I am. You obviously do care that people know of you, or you wouldnt be whoring. In a few weeks though you will be just like me, unknown to the masses. The only thing is, it will bother you, while I am perfectly happy where I am.

Did I miss something?

[-martee]

I thought one of the points of the whole anti-trust thing was that Microsoft was giving away software like IE (as opposed to selling it)...and now people are complaining that their prices are too high? Make up your minds, people.

Martee

Re: Did I miss something?

[Neil]

Yes. :-)

The point of the "anti-trust thing" was that Microsoft gave away IE in order to destroy Netscape Navigator. The reason for wanting to destroy Netscape Navigator was to eliminate the possiblity that Navigator might evolve into an OS neutral platform for providing applications to end users. This would undermine the Windows OS monopoly, depriving Microsoft of the many sales that they get not because people actually want Windows per se, but because they *must* have Windows in order to run the applications that they need for their work, run the latest cool game, or whatever (this effect is what Judge Jackson calls "the applications barrier to entry" to the OS market place).

The OS monopoly allows Microsoft to charge basically whatever they like for Windows - it is priced far higher than it would be if it had to compete on a level playing field with other operating systems software.

Re:Has this actually happened to anyone here? I...

[Rev Snow]

I wonder. Can I sue the goverment for overpayment of taxes due to the surplus

Can they sue you for underpayment during the decades we ran deficits?

I'm all for returning "the People's money" to the People, just as soon as we're done paying the People's debts!

Re:Karma recipe for today

[Enoch Root]

Interesting. Tell me about your mother.

here's how you measure... and why not to

[hakalugi]

According to this book that I'm currently reading, we just need a quantum computer to analyze what the outcome would have been if there was no MS in our world, by communicating (via spooky interaction) what's going-on in at least one of the realities where MS didn't exist.

ie: "costs to consumer" == opportunity costs (from our other world) - our world's percieved outcome.

Personally, i think you'd end up with a negative value... but that's not my reason for wanting to see this kind of test never performed...

Even if this were possible today, I'd say DON'T DO IT.

can you imagine, every company/individual being put to this test gee, according to our Quantum computer, if Bob would have been your kid's father, instead of you, Larry , they'd be XXX better off, ergo, you're a shitty dad and are orded to pay restition in the amount of XXXXX!

Seriously though, did some folks pay more? sure

Will it be too complex (due to the "indirect nature" of the end-users) for a single class action suit? yes

Should we tie up the court system for every party to get their $$ back? No.

A court ordered 'real version' of this attempt would be fine (with varying levels of refunditure based on your 'classification' c'mon, a little compartmentalization will do much to expedite!)

I've got one . . .

[mattwb2]

Inbred WASP!

Re:Karma recipe for today

[Enoch Root]

Aaah... Explains a lot.

Fascinating comments

[the_tsi]

I really think it's interesting how /.ers, always quick to bash on Microsoft given the opportunity, are suddenly "on MS's side" in this case. Given the choice between big business and big government, the line in the sand has been drawn and geeks have chosen their side.

God bless libertarianism. :) Vote Harry Browne in 2000!

-Chris

Re:Fascinating comments

[Stalcair]

actually the choice is not between big government and big business, but in personal freedom and liberty vs. control (by anyone)

I think it is silly how many will defend government and cast people as "conspiracy theorists" if they champion adding accountability to government, but yet if these same group of "conspirators" quit government, then made a large company, and did the VERY SAME things they did in government. Then the accusations would cease.

Common sense dictates that it is the granting of power and suppresion of accountability that gives businesses control. Eliminate the power base, you eliminate the control.

Not everyone is a thief, that's why

[gruntvald]

I use and pay for Microsoft and other commercial software. If I can't afford it, or there's a better choice in Free Software, I use that. If you can't afford a car, or don't want to pay for one, are you claiming you should be able to steal it? What kind of fucked up logic is that? On the down side, turds like you who continue to spread the use of Microsoft, albeit illegally, do more damage than any other group. If you're not part of the solution....

Re:Not everyone is a thief, that's why

[joshua.aos]

I'm not making any moral judgements on this, I'm simply stating observed fact. Certainly, many companies purchase licenses, but there are LOTS of indivisuals who DON'T. I just thought I would point this out.

regardless of how much the Mickey-soft gang sucks

[Stalcair]

...I think the original suits against them are pathetic and wrong. Wrong for 2 main reasons:

The wrong things are being addressed in court

this whole anti-trust crap is self-defeating and has been proven to be completely ineffective

I have always thought that many were screwed for the simple reason that they bought a product that was not what they paid for. If you buy something that obviously does not work, you should get your money back, and if that piece of crap caused you to loose revenue, then that crap's producer should pay you. Especially if it can be proven, the toughy here, that they had knowledge of the problems but refused to repair them, covered them up, etc. but yet would not refund money. (regardless of the 60 or 90 day crap... or whatever it is)

On the subject of accountability for macro virus damage, see the above paragraph. If they knew of the loopholes and didn't promptly warn and then fix them, that is one thing. However, saying that because M$ added some functionality that was later turned into a security vulnerability, and that this means they are responsible is very erroneous. Plus, that sounds a bit like the suit against Napster for "providing the means" for illegal distribution. Lets not be hypocrits, now.

As an example, lets take UPS:

Lets say that UPS ordered a fleet of Fords. Then found that after their modifications and integrating them into the existing UPS fleet, that they didn't work, UPS would be plenty pissed. Furthermore, they would be due not only the money back from the purchase, but any associated costs of integration, modification, and maybe, big maybe, even operation costs. This is important, because of companies that payed for the installation of the software, as well as the galacticly large amount of time (money) and maybe supplies (more money, duh!) that it took to continually rig it to loosely resemble a working product. Then we have the obvious loss of data, the time it takes to regenerate that, and any projected loss of revenue from things such as down-time, loosing customers who think you are incompetent (like my spelling).

However, back to the UPS analogy. If someone hotwires a bunch of the new trucks, then that is not Ford's fault. Unless of course, the area that is frequently hot-wired is not only very easily accessable and exploitable, but Ford KNEW about it and didn't report or fix it. (hard to prove negligence or even malice in this case though)

Re:Has this actually happened to anyone here? I...

[mcwop]

The Gov does not have to sue. They just raise taxes and fees to get their settlement. Then they turn around spend that and more. To be quite truthfull we don't really have much of a surplus as it is. The surplus is SS overpayment which actually adds to the debt. We have run a surplus the past few years, but since 1992 the Debt (different than deficit) has increased in each of those years.

The second class action suit I was part of, but never signed up for, was against Sprint spectrum. They were sued because they switched platforms, but did not offer to move Spectrum customers to Sprint PCS free of charge. Sprint lost the suit. Before I got the judgement in the mail I had got moved to Sprint PCS for free. How? I told them I would go to Bell Atlantic (Now Verizon) if they did not. They were giving away free phones.

"I'm feeling very litigous Jerry" - Kramer

Lawyer: That's not quite true

[hawk]

I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice on this or any other matter, see a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction.

First of all, class actuion suits usually do work out the way you describe. The only clear example I can come up with is the Iomega suit, in which the class members actually got what they were supposed to get in the first place (their rebate and accessories) plus an extra disk.

The usual outcome is that the attorneys get well paid, and the calss gets almost nothing. On the other hand, part of this is because the underlying claims tend to be close to worthless--but the defendants remain better off offering a coupon or a few bucks than paying for the litigation. This, however, *is* what drives the typical low payments from the class-action mills--it's not compensation, which really wasn't due, but rather go-away money.

The inability to collect if you opt out makes perfect sense--the law generally only lets you have one bite at the apple.

However, it is not quite true that the lawyers can settle without the consent of plaintiffs. Class members *are* entitled to object to the settlement, and often d. This is becoming more common due to partial reforms. It used to be that the first to file got to keep the suit. Today, larger class members are given substantial input in the choice of attorneys.

I seriously doubt that this will be a typical class action. The liability isn't *as* clear as Iomega's (there was no legitimate defense in that case; the behavior was either inept or deliberate fraud), because the damages *are* real and, within reason, quantifiable. However, in the case of windows, they're no more than $50 (judging by the figures in the Findings of Fact).

One last thing: lawyers in class actions do not get 30%. Rather, they petition the court to approve fees based on teh amount of work done. Frequently this is worked out ahead of tiime with the defendant in a settlments, but judges are getting better (but still have a long ways to go) at rejecting these (e.g., the tobacco settlements. Those fees were so clearly unreasonable that they should have been disbarred for accepting them).

hawk, esq.

Grammar

[KPU]

Look at the phrase "Has it's monopolistic practices harmed Calif consumers." Notice specifically "it's." "it's" is a contraction for it is, which makes no sense in the sentence. The correct word is "its" which is the possessive form of it. I'm not going to complain about "Calif", although I probably should.

shoelace lawsuit

[ArchieBunker]

http://www.nationalreview.com/outrage/041800out.ht ml

http://www.oreilly.com/people/staff/sierra/flum/ FLUM.txt

http://www.blackstocks.com/in_news/9298.c/page11 51.html

I really like the second link

Re: "Objectivists to the Rescue"

[Eck]

This is a very easy position for a computer geek, especially a Linux geek to take. If MS had served their market niche(s) in good faith, rather than exploiting their monopoly position in various ways (which have been detailed ad nausium all over), then maybe it would be reasonable to argue that they should be left alone. As it is, they're harming consumers on many levels (price gouging just getting serious, preventing innovation, etc.). That has to be stopped and remedied.

Re:Direct Harm

[uebernewby]

, I'll argue 'till my last breath that the statement "Linux is not ready for the desktop" is only made by people expecting the Windows interface when they sit down a computer.

I doubt it. Most people find Windows to be as arcane and confusing as Macs. The deeper system stuff doesn't interest them at all. Most Windows users have never seen the Control Panel in action.

Personally, I think BeOS is a good example of a desktop OS that gets most things right, but then I am very familiar with the Control panel (unfortunately) and happen to think that a good Unix-esque shell is a better environment for the types of endeavors you'd undertake there. I'm willing to bet, though, that most users like BeOS just as little as they like Windows.

On a side-note: why can't we just leave off the "make Linux ready for the desktop" drill and concentrate on what made it good/popular in the first place? A nice, stable OS for servers, databases, print- and file servers and all purpose Geekboxen and leave it at that? Thank you.

BTW, as a European, I find this American tendency to "sue everything that moves" rather laughable. In this case especially. It's like me sueing (sp?) our local greengrocer because he's too expensive, even though I could take my lazy ass to a cheaper supermarket on the edge of town with very little extra effort.

Court abuse and Micro$oft...

[MsGeek]

I'm pretty tired of seeing the McDonald's coffee lawsuit bandied around as an example of a frivolous suit. It was anything but. The woman received third degree burns, spent over a week in the hospital, and had to undergo several skin grafts.

Well, if the woman hadn't put the hot cup of coffee between her fsckn LEGS she wouldn't have been burnt, would she?

When did your momma teach you about hot things boiling on the stove? I suspect you were 2 years old or less. Steaming hot coffee, much like steaming hot grits, will BURN YOU if you drop it on your crotch.

Class action lawsuits have their place, but certainly they are being abused big time. I am still undecided about whether or not the M$ action is a good thing or overkill.

To give an example of where a class action suit is merited, however, look at Firestone. They dragged their feet when they had their SECOND, not first tire scandal (remember Firestone 500 tires?) a good, stiff, expensive class action suit is justice. People fsckn DIED because of their inaction.

Trying to see both sides as usual, Ms. Geek (not MS Geek, folks)

Re:hmmm - bugger that

[MsGeek]

Imagine what whould happen if RICO could be applied to MS! Among other things RICO allows for the confiscation of land, buildings, money, etc. from the perpetrator.

Well, I can think of some bitchen riverfront property in the Seattle area that would make Uncle Sam a very pretty penny if RICO was applied to a particular software tycoon...

Re:Can Bill Gates

[fsck]

He uses hdparm, as well as enabling some performance features in the kernel configuration. He may have to enable incomplete/experimental features in the kernel config first though, and some motherboard chipsets require you to tell them what the idebus is at the lilo prompt or it will eat your filesystem.

More poor reasoning...

[brokeninside]

If the coffee is too hot. Don't bathe in it.

Lets think about this, the coffee being served was hot enought to cause third degree burns with absolutely no warning. Further, people were complaining that the coffee was too hot. In a case like that, it is only a matter of time before someone gets seriously injured. And if you think my point about a small child dying is so incredible, think about it for a second. I can't imagine a 12 oz cup of coffee hot enough to cause third degree burns to an adult would have a very good effect if accidentally dropped on an infant. That scenario is entirely possible and given enough time and given the restaruants prediliction for ignoring complaints, the scenario even becomes probable if the practice is not stopped by means of a lawsuit.

The teddy bear analogy is pointless and comparing Apples and Oranges.

The teddy bear analogy was not pointless, nor was it comparing apples to oranges. The fact is that one of your points (not your only point) was that the lawsuit was ridiculous simply because it dealt with coffee. By taking your words and putting them in a different scenario, it shows the silliness of that line of reasoning.

You have an obsession with death:

Hmm. I've been accused of that before. But honestly, ad hominem attacks do not increase the esteem with which I hold your debating skills. What possible bearing could an alleged obsession with death of mine have on the discussion?

regards,

-l

Re:More poor reasoning...

[AbbyNormal]

*sigh*
"The fact is that one of your points (not your only point) was that the lawsuit was ridiculous simply because it dealt with coffee. By taking your words and putting them in a different scenario, it shows the silliness of that line of reasoning."

No. Not just coffee. See words in bold in my post "ACCIDENT".
I mentioned your obsession with death because your arguments all seemed to construe it someway or the other as pertinent to coffee.

You're obviously trying to get a rise out of me as is obvious from your lack of reading my replies. I'm tired of battling an unarmed man. Thank you. Its been fun.

Answer

[linuxgod]

I agree, about 3 years go when i acutally used M$.
I had about exactly $26,585.48 of software on a NT box that was not available online. I was using accel (whatever) one day, and the server just BSODed while fetching a file. It wouln't shutdown right, so i had to force it(pull the power cord) off. WHen i booted back up, it said some files were corrupted, and Nt wouln't boot. I din't have a cdrom on any of the machines so ALL of that data was lost. I just might sue for the hell of it. I use Linux now and it hasn't even hicuped at any load.

Re:Answer

[slashdot-me]

Maybe you should sue some tape manufacturers for not forcing you to make backups. Most data loss is due to temporary stupidity. If you experience repeated data loss your condition may not be temporary.

Ryan

Re:Answer

[linuxgod]

Thats hard to do when your tape backup gave out about 2 months b4.

Someone fill me in....

[linuxgod]

THen someone tell me, where the hell do i sign up to speak out against them? what do i do to help DOJ? I am more than willing to help the DOJ. Ive had losses because of that damned monopoly. Half the public services here run that BS, and thats probably the reason my IBM 45 minute UPS is drained. Because some damned M$ peice of shit crashed. Probably the reason only 1 damned city in this STATE has DSL. Bellsouth fucking sucks. (http://www.bellsouth.net). They run some gay NT4 server (ya, it is hackable. Take a shot at it.)
Ive messed with their peice of shit too much.

scale of theft

[gruntvald]

Yeah, there are "lots" of individuals who illegally copy M$ stuff, but it's a question of scale; in general, the larger the number of seats, the less "piracy" becomes an issue. I have friends who admin 1000 seat installs of 9x/office, and every copy is legit. I have other friends who are strictly forbidden from introducing any kind of s/w that has not been through the licensing co-ordination. In smaller companies there's less tendency to pay for all the copies. In the home, even less so. But how many homes and small businesses do you have to go through to equal a 1000 seat loss? It's small potatoes. However, though I read your initial statement incorrectly, I stand by my comment that those who illegally copy M$ software are causing more damage than good. Right now, the only commercial s/w I use is: Sound Forge, Visual Age for Java, Office 200, and AutoCAD. They're all paid for, and you know what? The most expensive, AutoCAD, is a true piece of buggy, flaky, messed up shit. Would I pirate it? hell no! I still get my moneys worth out of it (you have to be pretty damn good with AutoCAD to recover $2700).

Maybe it does not matter who gets the money.

[Malcontent]

If the purpose of the suit is to punish the company then it makes sense that the people who are able to inflict punishment actually get the money. I of course have no capabality to punish MS but if I get together with a million other people we can "hire" a lawyer who just may be able to punish them. It costs me nothing and requires no effort on my part, the lawyer does all the work and should get all the money. Like I said the object is not to get compensation it's to punish the offender by making them shell out big bucks.
Having said all this I would much prefer that the principles of the corporation get tried in both civil and criminal courts and if found guilty actually go to jail. A little personal responsibility would go a long way towards making more ethical corporations.

A Dick and a Bush .. You know somebody's gonna get screwed.

Strange

[renoX]

I'm reading the "consumer resource" article, they say that she "suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body".

IMHO 6% of the body is a lot more that a dime sized spot of 3rd degree burn, note that I'm not saying that you're wrong but your post and the article are not "compatible".

I think that the problem was really "how hot" a restaurant (here McD) could make its coffee..

No competition? Monopoly?

[lpontiac]

I don't think so. You don't needWindows, you could use Linux. Or *BSD. Or AtheOS.

Even if you decide that proprietary OSes are apples and free ones oranges, what about OS/2? Or x86 Solaris? Or x86 NeXTStep? Even the commercial Unix distributions...

For a nation that prides itself on capitalistic integrity, the US sure seems to lack an understanding of the basic economic concept of consumer sovereignty. If Microsoft can charge $189 for an OS it's because the consumer lets them. You know what you're buying, and how much it costs.. if you retrospectively decide you paid too much, then that's your mistake, and your problem.

Of course, I guess you could say that if you get lung cancer because you smoke it's your problem too.. at least the mindless masses are consistent in their ignorance of common sense...

Re:No competition? Monopoly?

[cyber-vandal]

Pay attention. MS has a per-CPU license with the OEMs, meaning that even if you can buy a PC without Windows on it (not so easy), you're still forking out whatever to MS. Does this harm consumers, paying for something they haven't even installed and don't even want - think about it.

Re:No competition? Monopoly?

[lpontiac]

MS has a per-CPU license with the OEMs

With every single one of them? I've never had trouble finding someone that will sell me a computer without Windows, and the price is the sum of all the bits plus the assembly cost.

Re:No competition? Monopoly?

[cyber-vandal]

Apologies - I should have said, with the big 5 OEMs that the clueless PHBs buy from.

MS the "bad-guy"...part 10

[libreazul]

can't we see that,in the heightened state of awareness we're all in, most of us have made a killing off of micro$oft's products. the revolution is irreversible. micro$oft must die. but what remains. oh, a cadre of open-source replacements. not yet. i can't wait to see the language of an GNU-based company press-release explaning why their product is over-priced, buggy, and their tech-support is uninformed at best. get to work,friends!

The trouble with finding good discussions...

[brokeninside]

me: "The fact is that one of your points (not your only point) was that the lawsuit was ridiculous simply because it dealt with coffee. By taking your words and putting them in a different scenario, it shows the silliness of that line of reasoning."

AbbyNormal: No. Not just coffee. See words in bold in my post "ACCIDENT".

Well, lets go back to the post where the flawed line of reasoning occurs.

Right, but my point is that its silly. Laws and lawsuits are meant to PROTECT the consumer. How is McD not playing nice by warming its coffee? ITS COFFEE FOR GODS SAKE! Its supposed to be hot and no it will not stay hot for hours. That is exactly my point.

What I have been attempting to illustrate is the use of a very poor line of reasoning. AbbyNormal implies that the incident in question could not have been at all serious in nature because, after all, its only about coffee. It doesn't matter that the coffee was hot enough to cause flesh to blister, its supposed to be hot. It doesn't matter if people have complained about the coffee being too hot, because after all, its just coffee.

We know that this is a poor line of reasoning, because if we take the reasoning and insert it into another scenario it seems ludicrous.

And to further illustrate his keen use of logic and reason, AbbyNormal goes back to tried and true ad hominem attacks.

You're obviously trying to get a rise out of me as is obvious from your lack of reading my replies. I'm tired of battling an unarmed man.

I wonder if AbbyNormal understand reasoning at all. AbbyNormal has yet to present one argument which uses logic. Every single one of his arguments is an appeal to emotion or a personal attack.

Re:hmmm - bugger that

[Masked Marauder]

I was thinking more along the lines of individual suits by the lumpen geekatriat that has been harmed by MS's rapacious practices.

I hear that Bill has a giant boat he never uses. We could claim that under a class action suit with enough money to keep it running. THen dedicate it to the noble purpose of rest, recuperation and rehabilitation for hackers suffering from carpal tunnel syndrome.

Preferably outside the 12 mile limit.

Re:Karma recipe for today

[MustardMan]

you must be proud

do you think I'd actually use my main email address at /. for silly trolls like you to go nuts?

Re:Karma recipe for today

[MustardMan]

Note to self: however amusing it may be, resist the temptation to allow yourself to be trolled.

I cant believe I just lost a valuable 20 seconds of my life that could have been better spent scratching my ass

500 days.....

[Shadowmist]

That was Gil Amelio, the man who in true Apple tradition brought in the man who would oust him, Steve Jobs, who started the tradition in the first place, by hiring John Sculley. :)

Just what do they teach kids in school these days?

[brokeninside]

Very clever! You have convinced me.

Hurrah! I've won the argument. Hmm. Perhaps not. I think I detect sarcasm.

Next time my coffee is not 98.6 degrees F, I will sue the restaurant. Because IF it is hotter than that I could possibly burn myself.

Well, we're not speaking of coffee that is merely warmer than 98.6 Farenheight. We're speaking of coffee that is hot enough to cause third degree burns. For comparrison, I keep my hot water heater at home around 120 Farenheight and the water is not hot enough to cause second degree burns. It might be hot enough to cause first degree burns if I soaked in it long enough.

Let's look at the hard facts of the case ( some of which were taken from here and some of which were taken from here ).

1. McDonald's policy at the time was to server coffee at between 160 and 180 degrees, 20 degrees higher than the industry standard
2. The coffee in question was likely to have been hotter than 180 degrees
3. The accident caused third-degree burns on more than 6 percent of the plaintiff's body
4. The burns were so extensive as to require skin grafs and a week long stay in the hospital
5. The plaitiff originally requested reimbursement for actual medical expenses of $11k and only spoke to a lawyer when McDonald's only counter-offered $800
6. McDonald's had already ignored more than 700 similar claims of coffee burns
7. McDonald's refused a third party mediator's reccomendation to settle out of court for $225k
8. McDonald's lied about the over 700 prior incidents in court
9. The Jury tied the 'extravagent' punitive damages to their profit on coffee. based on McDonald's annual profits of more than $1 billion annually, and more than $1.3 million gross daily coffee sales, the jury levied two days of coffee sales receipts as punitive damages for a punitive damage award of $2.7 million The plaitiff had never asked for that exhorbitant sum
10. The judge knocked the actual award down to somewhere around $400k

Here's an idea using my "keen sense (use) of logic and reason", next time you're faced with the horrendous beast of boiling coffee that is too hot to drink...go to the soda machine...hit the little ice button...put an ice cube in the drink.

Personally I don't think I should have to risk third degree burns to myself or the people around me when I go get a cup of joe. It would be different if (a) this were an isolated incident or (b) this were the first incident. As it stands, I don't think causing over 700 documented injuries (some of which were to children) due to burns is indicative of an eye to public safety. I think ignoring that number of injuries does border on being criminally negligent.

At no time have you proved your point

Considering that you have yet to offer an argument that is anything other than an appeal to emotion or an ad hominem attack, I'm not altogether concerned whether you agree with me or not.

Lose the attitude and grow up.

Coming from a person that has yet to offer anything even approaching a reasonable argument, I find the request that I grow up to be fairly amusing.

have a day.