Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Open To Class Action Suits, Judge Rules
Tron2 wrote to us with the word from
C|Net regarding a Minnesota judge's decision that Microsoft is open to class action lawsuits. The Feds had thrown out 38 other class action suits a while back, but under MN law (as well as CA, DC, WI, NM, SD, ND and ME) indirect sellers (like MS) can be sued. Basically - if you bought a computer with MS-DOS/Windows preintalled since 1994, you can join the suit. IMHO, this is how MS will die - not the Fed suit, but piles of private suits.
>That, and they want their "free" software because "information wants to be free," or something.
Some of us just want a halfway sane API, you know. Have you ever tried to use the Win32 API? It sure does not sound like it. Lots of good OS'es were put OUT OF BUISNESS by Microsoft, and some of us will never stop hating them because of that.
I'm going to rant first... then turn to MSFT
See, this is why we read the newspaper as well as Slashdot...
There are many valid arguments to say that the ultimate responcibility for choosing to start smoking lies with the consumer, not the industry. Literacy helps to debunk this claim.
Phillip Morris as well as dozens of other tobacco companies have done studies (circulated internaly) on the smoking habits of teens and pre-teens. They have utilized mass marketing techniques aimed directly at those too young to buy their products. Furthermore and most importantly, these companies have tauted over and over again that tobacco products are nonaddictive and harmless.
Now, you can say that the responcibility lies with the smoker, yes. But there's a reason we make it illegal to buy tobacco up until the same age that you are considered a legal adult. There's a reason that we try you as an adult for your crimes at the same age that you gain the legal right to purchase tobacco products. It's because before the age of 18 the United States government does not consider a person consistantly capable of making decisions reguarding their own wellfare and morality terribly well.
So look around you. See those 15 year olds smoking out in the highschool parking lot? See that 19 year old wearing the Camel leather jacket (he had to smoke probably thousands of packs to get that damn thing.... I'll be it wasn't in a year). Ever seen a 14 year old kid die of lung cancer? I have. It's not pretty.
While the ultimate responcibility may lie with the smoker who starts at 18, ultimate responcibility for every single one that started before that lies with the tobacco industry. We call that contributing to the delinquincy of a minor. Oh... and you're less than 15% likely to start smoking if you haven't started by age 18.
Now to the topic at hand.... Sueing MSFT could be tricky buisness. If it was possible to prove conclusively that it's impossible to buy a PC w/out MSFT products on it that would be a viable suit. I will admit that MSFTs total domination of the PC marketplace as OSs go is something a very good lawyer might be able to use, but on the whole the very presence of linux (on the horizon admittedly) and (God forbid) the Mac OS challanges that claim. Furthermore the ability to simply buy PARTS put them together and build my system w/out ever talking to MSFT does punch a hole in that claim as well. Fundamentaly, while MSFT does dominate the marketplace, there are other choices. I'm not sure how you can press a class action suit if that's the case.
Now on a related note, what about the idea of selling back licences. That I would like to see. Is there any legal way for someoen to force MSFT to buy back licences (depreciated of course) to their products if they are unwanted? Say I've got a Win2k install I don't want because I'm running a *nix. I'd like to be able to recoup some of my money on that licence.....
That is all....
moderationkill
Not quite. The ex post facto provision is only in criminal matters; it *is* possible (and occurs with some frequency) to make retroactive changes in civil law.
Nonetheless, there would be federal jurisdictional issues. The pendulum has swung back from the "anything affects interstate commerce" notion. Not to mention the sheer sillyness, ignorance, and political bigotry of the assumption that the republican party would do this just to protect microsft. (or the fact that it would be politically unfeasible, or . .
hawk, esq
Unfortunately, that is a false dichotomy. You can also give up the use of computers. :) (And probably other things that I've not thought of. ;))
:)
Enjoy!
"We have the right to believe at our own risk any hypothesis that is live enough to tempt our will."
http://gabrielcain.com/
Slight correction -
1. Under Sherman and Clayton acts, behaviors which are legal for a non-monopoly are illegal for a monopoly. MS has been determined to be a monopoly (Finding of Fact).
2. MS agreed under their original Consent Decree that they would stop this behavior.
3. Read the Finding of Fact - remember that originally, to be IBM Compatible, you had to have DOS (MS built it's monopoly on the demand for "IBM Compatible" systems). MS required you to buy nothing but DOS, or pay a steep price. At that time-frame, companies that didn't sell DOS based systems went out of Business. If they sold anything but DOS, they went out of business (because they couldn't compete in the DOS world due to the licensing costs for not being pure DOS). So far, of questionable legality, but definitely led to a monopoly. Then, they bundled Windows (Buy Windows + DOS for less than DOS alone). That's illegal under Clayton/Sherman for a monopoly.
So yes, the poster did use "illegal" and "fraudulent" with basis - what MS did has been found (Finding of Fact) to be true, and done by a monopoly.
The questions now that are under review are the Conclusions of Law and the Proposed Remedies - if what they did in fact violated the law (highly likely, from my reading, but IANAL, and definitely IANAJ), and what, if anything, to do about it.
Selective Libertarianism... well, no, but thanks for playing!
Read it again, Sparky: The "law" and the "market" are not the same. I did not say there should be no laws. I said that the "market" is not taking down MS, the "law" is. The original poster said that they were breaking the law, and thus the "market" was taking them down a peg.
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
hey, I'm pretty sure St. John didn't write that. First, Baylon had already fallen by the time John was born. Second, John wouldn't have used Linux (which I intuit from "distributions") -- John was a pure BSD guy. You can tell from the rest of Revelations.
This was most likely written by St. Hubbins, the Easily Amused. You're using a corrupted translation, you fool.
(Revelations 31:337... hee hee!)
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Only partly true. If you have a monopoly, you can force control of proprietary interfaces. For example, if you own the desktop market, you can integrate your browser into the OS. That gives you control of the client market. Once you own the clients, you've got a huge advantage in the server market (where all the big money is), since you are the only one who knows how to take advantage of all the nifty new (and constantly changing) features on the browsers, not to mention the fact that you own all the validation and "security" triggers that they make use of to conduct on-line transactions.
No, in this case, having a superior product is no guarantee of success. The only reason Linux and other Open Source products are having any success is that (1) Linux is better in many ways, (2) Linux and other OS products are less expensive, but most important, (3) MS has generated so much disgust and outright hatred on the part of their customers that people are looking for anything to use as an alternative.
--
Your Servant, B. Baggins
And... as long as MS is prevented from taking over the servers (and even more important, the Web server market), they cannot extend their strangle-hold on the browsers and clients. As long as they don't own the browsers, there is still hope that there will continue to be choices in the desktop market.
(BTW, in the not too distant future, the browser WILL BE the OS. I'm not preaching "thin clients", but the industry's dependence on Internet services will only increase as the distinction between individual "computers" becomes more and more anachronistic.)
--
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Hey, how many people get killed in car crashes nowadays? Should cars be outlawed then?
Drinking ten liters of water can kill you too, does water have to be outlawed then. No in two ways, water in itself is not addicting, it is just a bare necessity (hmm, spellchecking?), second reason, water is not addicting as nicotine is. (Yeah I know I do smoke too.)
What my point is? Well, people should do whatever they like to do, not whatever Joe Co (JCOR) or Joe Government (JGOR) (sorry Yahoo News's too funny) would like us to do. The other side of that is the fact that people have to accept the consequences of their deeds and not try to shove it of to some laywer trying to grab a few pennies or bucks to keep the customer satisfied. If you kill someone you go to jail, if you smoke you die of longuecancer.
(Hmm, I think I should have been posting to another topic)
We've been lied to by Dell salespeople too.
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
the good ol' 'marketplace' - lets see, that's where Msft gets a fee for every PC sold regardless of what OS is installed on it, is that the 'marketplace' your refering to? Wow, nice business!! You can strongarm vendors to pay you a fee even if they don't sell your stuff, woohoo!! Yeah, freedom and libertie is great - whoever's the biggest bully gets to do whatever he wants with other not so free loosers!!! Yeah, there's a market everyone loves.... bullies rule!!!
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
There's way too much blather about hate, evil, destroy, etc. The issues is USING A MONOPOLY IN ONE MARKET TO GAIN DOMINANCE IN ANOTHER MARKET. There, isn't that easy to understand in plain simpleton terms?
Say a railroad enjoyed a natural monopoly in a certain geographical area. Any industry the RR wants to go into the uses freight can be destroyed by the RR. In fact, instead of griping about people wanting to destroy Msft, how come your silent on all the companies Msft has, is and wants to destroy or consume, hmmm??? They've become like some of those species of life on Pacific islands that have no natural predators and grow to gigantic proportions.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
The "law" and the "market" are not one and the same.
So if I have a store, and the cops stop me from burning down a competitors store, isn't that also using the hammer of Govt? How about the govt. stopping me from printing money? Without SOME kind of laws and customs, such as agreement on weights, measures, penalties for cheating, etc. there IS no market. Hrumph. I'm afraid your guilty of 'selective libertarianism' - large monopolies are free to do as they please, but potential competitors have no protection from the monopolies , and are NOT free. Say I have a lucrative lemonade stand, and you try to setup one across the street - you're saying that in a 'free' market, my gang is free to come over and smash yours to bits - it's just a matter of who has the most bullies - it has nothing to do what customers freely choosing the best product.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Peterson rejected Microsoft's argument that its software pricing and distribution system was too complex to determine damages for a class.
Oh cool - if you damage someone in a complicated fashion your off the hook!
As we used to say, "IF you can dazzle them with brillance (which they obviously can't), blind them with bull$hit."
This is the double speak, in the ads, "We make computers easy to use!" while in the warroom, "Make it more complicated so they won't be able to figure out our monopolizing tie in tricks!".
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Yes, I vote to mod-down the parent to binarybit's post.. it is a shame for binarybits to lose karma when he was only replying to a troll bigger then he is :)
Now for something ontopic: I purchased a computer from Gateway who sold it out of SD and is currently in CA.. both states in that list. It is a shame I cannot resell the software, but I did use it for a short period of time; that shouldn't matter. I really do wish I could legally make some dough off of the software (although who wants to buy Win95 or WinNT these days?)
Excuse me, but how is my comment offtopic while his is not?
Allow me to cite his post in its entirety:
"Fuck you and your "points".
"Only a jackass would waste time trying to refute your juvenile ramblings. "
Now don't tell me there's anything ever remotely "on topic" about that.
I really hope you're trolling and not serious. Or maybe you're 15 and have nothing better to do than launch idle insults at random people for no good reason. I guess I shouldn't have expected a rational discussion on a slashdot forum anyway.
Good riddance.
That would eliminate only a few lawyers. Most legal offices prefer WordPerfect.
--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
If class action lawsuits were allowed against Microsoft for the lack of OS choice when purchasing a computer from Dell as you suggest, then companies and individuals could sue for the 3-4 hours of productivity lost to reloading that machine with the operating system of your choice.
If you make $20/hour, you can take them to small claims court for the $80 they owe you.
--
Ironically, I think the industry has solved the HTML DOM problem through a industry coalition. Yes, it took a few years before Netscape stopped treating the W3C as their bitch, but Netscape was a very hypocritcal, arrogant corporation in the old days.
Much the way IBM was in the late 80s. When they were doing nothing more than tweaking open standards ("open" used relatively here), folks were happy to let them lead the way. That ended instantly with MCA, which lead to the industry coalition open standard of EISA.
And sure, I'm overstating the case. The industry has never gotten past the IBM-mandated 1.44MB floppy drive as a base-line standard, for example. In the meanwhile, Intel has gobbled up 75% of the chipset market, which gives them great lattitude to set board-level specs (such as standard USB, for example, which would have never happened in a true open market).
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
The settlement will probably wind up being $5 off any Microsoft product. Or $400 when you join MSN for several decades.
That would work, except Congress is prohibited from creating ex post facto laws, so it would have no effect on already existing cases. Not to mention the lawsuits that we'd see if a federal law tried to abrogate state law in this regard.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Does the Slashdot Jihad hate Microsoft so much that they want them OUT OF BUSINESS? Jeezum crow, MS isn't the greatest software company in the world, nor are they cute and snuggly, but worthy of being DESTROYED?
Damn straight they need to be destroyed. This is a company that wants to outlaw freedom of speech. Have you forgotten Jim Allchin's comments already?
"The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson
A: The lawyers.
Think real hard about how many more companies you want the trial lawyers to destroy, and then think about which one will be next. It might be one that you actually like.
> and I smoke, so I'm not some bleeding heart liberal here
I suspect you're developing some kind of heart problems, regardless of your political views.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Ah, so you're one of those people who think Slashdot posters fit into two groups..."You" and "Not You", and within those groups opinions are homogenous. Guess what.
I defy you to find one of my posts advocating self-righteous lawfulness. Although I do not agree with copyright law as it is currently structured, and I advocate changing those laws, I do not advocate breaking them.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
If you didn't smoke around people who didn't want to breathe smoke, no one would care!
I'd care. I'm sick of paying higher health insurance premiums because of smokers.
skribe
Blog
-jhp
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
Yikes!
.NET/Pasport space. So be sure to save all your Free Software stuff there! (just don't read the terms of service)
We need a new mod catagory: +1 Scarey.
Although it'll probably only be for a free month's rental of your
MS would argue that when you buy Windows, you get a manual and CD..
So, by comaprison, you'd have to compare it to (say) a retail box of RH - $49.00 last I checked..
(However the RH comes with 30 days of support, so you'd have to add a number of 'incident' charges to the cost of MS..)
Of course, you can continue this along the lines of comparing the price for NT/W2K to a 'server edition' of RH (doesn't it run for $120 or something?).. compared to the $1000+ for NT.. (again, plus 'incident' charges for support)
...they dont innovate, they dont help us, they just make things worse... Do you have any idea on how many papers MS Research publishes? At ACM SIGGRAPH alone they publish more then most universities, or is the only kind of innovation that counts the kind that will decode a DVD in 3 lines of perl.
Hey, I wouldn't joke about it - there was a class action suit against First USA for incorrect billing and late charges on their VISA cards... I guess it got settled because I noticed a $0.48 adjustment on this month's statement. That's almost 50 whole cents!!! That's probably in the millions of lira ;-)
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
I have not idea if that is part of the lawsuit. It is my bitch with the retail software industry's (not just Microsoft) EULA practices.
and the facts are as you relate them
Check any mail order catelogue. You will see no mention of contract or license.
At least one case was decided on the similar issue. (Too lazy to look up the actual cite right now. Email me if you are interested in reading it.) A judge ruled that the PO, not the EULA, was the contract. The EULA was not enforceable since it materially modified the terms of the contract.
But this is very different from the more general claim that you're "forced" to purchase Windows
I wasn't the original poster who claimed I was forced to buy windows. However, I took exception to the "bundled sound card" analogy.
But I agree with you
Damn, another perfecftly good flame war missed because of a reasonable poster. ;)
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
It is done all the time. It is perfectly legal to include a How-To video with a paint set. The store is under no obligation to remove the video and give you a discount for not taking the video.
Bundling, in and of itself, is not illegal. I have pointed out in a previous post why the "Windows included" is not the same as the video example I gave above.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
ya ya, Ayn Rand
There's never been a time that you couldn't buy a computer without Windows...
Yes it was. I bought a Toshiba Laptop.
I think _any_ laptop that you buy has the Microsoft Tax on it.
Maybe we should step back a bit and actually figure out what this is really accomplishing. What's the bigger picture here, you know?
It's one thing to have complaints against a product or service that has causes you loss, grief, pain, etc. It's another thing to have a vendetta against someone or something for no real reason except that you like hating them. And let's not even talk about the quest for money that drives most lawsuits. But, hey, it's a capitalist society, and so everything revolves around the individual and his quest for the moolah. What can you do?
--
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
"The tobacco industry might be a bunch of lying bastards, but they don't kill anyone."
If I make a candy bar that containes arsnic, and make it so that the candy is VERY addictive, then tell nobody about the arsnice - scratch that, LIE about the arsnic even being there, and continue to sell it even though it IS killing peope, am I am murderer?
Maybe not in the strictess sense, but I would be evil.
Yes, it is a personal choice to smoke - but it's not a choice to become addicted.
It was also a personal choice for the tobacco industry to engineer their smokes to be more addictive, to target kids so they would get hooked young, and lie the whole way through it all.
And, actually... they MIGHT have really killed people, or at least tried. Go watch "The Insider" and you will see what I mean. If even 1/10th of that actually happened, it will change your mind about the tobacco industry.
The users can't shoulder ALL the blame.
come on, nuclear war?
Exactly, what systems do.
But then, how many MS fans actually read the...
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
My point was twofold. First, you do have options, just not with the big OEMs.
Exactly, MS targets the big OEM's with reward/punishment tactics, because the OEM's are big and thus a powerful tool for the MS monopoly machine. I am about to buy a Dell Inspiron 8000 G1000U and I have no option on their web site to avoid MS.
Now before you say that this is excusable on Dells part due to the fact that they should not have to support loads of minority OSes as well as providing the Worlds most popular OS which they are better equiped to support, you should be made aware that I also have no option of avoiding an MS Office suite either via their online store.
I don't want an MS OS on this new notebook of mine and I will also not want any other MS software. It will be running Debian Linux and FreeBSD and I will stop at nothing to make sure I get the refund that I am entitled to.
Second, the reason for this is that 90%+ of consumers prefer Windows to the alternatives,
Most people that use MS software do so because they feel they have to. Argue this all you like, but the fact is that MS has been constantly stealing, cheating and moving goal posts to kill thier opposition and remain far on top, the consequence is that if you want your business to work well, you have to "play the game" by using what everyone else plays the game with, to remain compatible. "everyone else" are playing that game for the same reasons as you, and your addition to that tail chasing game just further adds to the disease that is Microsoft.
If you don't play by thier rules, and decide to work outside the MS wares, you better be prepared for MS to break your systems when they move the goal posts again. You systems may be stable, but what good will that be when Microsoft removes the interoperability from you? Will your business fold or will you cave in to joining the long list of people and businesses suffering with unstable, unsecure Microsoft systems in the name of "compatibility" and "efficiency"?
I hope that everyone on the anti-Microsoft is a stupid fuck like this idiot I'm responding to,
I've been using Linux and some of the free BSD's for almost 4 years now, in that time I have never ever experienced them crash, I've gotten plenty of stuff done with flexibility unheard of in the MS World and I've been watching them get more and more feature packed and easy, soon to be helping to cater for more than just the geeks. I go back to MS systems daily because I have to support them and constantly get frustrated by the lack of stability, flexibility and security in MS OSes and apps, so does this make me an idiot?
as that will make it easier for Microsoft to get a fair outcome.
Everyone deserves a fair trial, but what do you consider to be a fair outcome?
Does anyone know of any timelines of Microsofts shady business practices? Can anyone suggest a source that perhaps even keeps short documentation and/or links for each monopolistic event in the history of MS? No matter how small or large, stuff like the MS-DOS 6.0, 6.1, 6.2, 6.21, 6.22 debacles of theft? The Caldera lawsuit, etc, Kerberos prostitution, paid reviews, MS online FUD, etc.
I would like to make a graphical timeline highlighting Microsofts questionable business practices, thefts, goal post moves, "innovation", etc. With links to MS position and opposing positions, articles, reviews, etc. Assuming there is not already a good timeline like this?
For the people who have either bad memories or selective memories, for those that "hear only what they want to hear and know only what they've heard".
Alas, I fear that some of Microsoft's critics are a bit more intelligent and are capable of coming up with some semblance of a rational argument.
Do you actually think that a company that has become so hated, got there for no good reason?
War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
The case against Verizon may end that way as well. Its really a stupid punishment, since it locks the customers suing into buying products AGAIN from the very company they are upset about. Money off products or services should not be allowed as punishment from a class action suit. Cold hard cash, where the company DOES lose millions is the only way they will learn.
Not saying 'you can hand out coupons for discounted phones.' The company wins that way, since any money lost by the coupon is made up for in profits from the service.
Heck, all those lawsuits couldn't destroy the tobacco industry, and they kill people.
The tobacco company doesn't kill anyone. The people buying that shit and using it are killing themselves. The truth that cigs cause cancer has been known for years now; if you are still stupid enough to start smoking, you deserve whatever you get. Plus, no one forces you to buy cigs when you buy something else.
Did i really choose to run Windows? From what i remember, you not buy a computer without windows even if you didn't want it, right up until the feds launched their lawsuit however. And even if you did get windows not to be installed, you were still charged for the copy you don't have.
As far as the tobacco industry goes; there have been warnings on tabacco as long as i can remember. If they lied before then, yes they would be responsible. If they didn't know...i'd say its neglect, but i don't think anyone thought it was harmful until they reseached it. If anyone had a clue before, i don't think they would have become popular.
Ya. I have no sympathy for someone that chooses to hurt themselves like that. They chose it, now they must deal with the consequences.
So its ok to say if i by X i must buy Y, even if i don't want it? Thats very shaky to me. Maybe i did know that windows came with the computer, but i should be able to say remove it. Knowing that it comes with the computer isn't enough if i do not have the option to have it removed, AND NOT PAY FOR IT.
The illegal part would seem to be that when i attempt to buy a computer without windows, i'm still charged for it. Any thing else i can buy seperatly if i choose to do so. While they do not have to remove the tape, there are other paint sets sold without such a tape. I would hope that the law would not all stores to sell ONLY paintsets with howto tapes. I think the gov't would see something supsicious with that.
Plus, everything about the computer i can fully customize. I can choose any number of cases, motherboards, processors, etc, but i can't choose my own operating system? That seems very odd when your configuration of the computer is as unique as an individual.
Our taxes would kill them a lot faster than your lawsuits.
--
The shareholder is always right.
I'd always heard Bill Gates reads his enemy's websites... now I have proof... Nice try, Bill
Guns don't kill people... I do.
They don't just buy off the tech press (if they do that). They also buy off the political parties and presidents. Maybe MS has made donations since, but counter-offers aren't as bad as those who started it in the first place, and at least voters knew Dubya's views about the case, whereas 1996 voters didn't know about the anti-trust plans of the parties.
BTW, Gore hasn't seemed to have supported the suit. Was he happy to have his invention integrated into Windows?
Sun and Oracle charge monopoly prices, and used the anti-trust laws to try to regain their monopoly positions. If MS's ability to compete with Sun and Oracle is harmed, maybe it'd be worthwhile doing something about Sun and Oracle's price-fixing.
People may ask how much M$ is paying me to say this. Let me tell you: nothing.
I get options instead.
I'm wondering who actually pushed this case? Consumers that felt that they were truly hurt by MS or by lawyers who wanted to make a ton of money. I live in ND, so I could join a class action if there was one, but what would I gain from it? It's like the Windows Rebate days. The OEM's get Windows for dirt cheap and pass it (mostly) to you. What I would like to see is a class action suit that claims damage comes to the computer industry by hardware manufacturers that now only make Windows-only devices. Remember in the old days you could get video card drivers for OS/2? But now they only make Windows drivers.
Could we perhaps get Gateway to join the class action suit? That would be nice since I'm sure they have records of how many computers they've shipped in the timeframe.
I GOttA GeTTTTT MY WWInDowZZ MMMMMME! I'LLL tRADE mY $20,000 CAAr TO geT Itt!!!!
cool...i invoke something silly in a programming language i've only heard of. hella 1337! ;-)
The usual way it gets settled is that the lawyers get a butt-load of cash and the plaintiffs get coupons good for $20 off on their next Microsoft purchase.
The other class was the action against Capital One, also for gouging their customers in some way. I got a check for $2.09.
Edith Keeler Must Die
this roX0rz my s0X off...
:-)
I wanna join the suit -- they cost me a couple letter grades in school when their OS crashed on me... That's worth about 1.5mil to me
jdW
Yeah, I'd join that one. Start 'er up!
It really sucks. Y'know, we joke about this sort of thing, but really...having to spend the majority of your computer-using time in an OS that you strongly dislike using...it stinks! Eight hours of mental anguish every day.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Constitutionally Correct
I read the article a couple of times... it didn't say what specifically Microsoft was being sued for. Does anybody know?
It really doesn't matter. I want to join.
How do I join the suit?
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
I'm still waiting for my rebate from SyQuest :) Count yourself lucky!
Irony. Actually my mother thinks Windows is a great product. Compare with politics, Monica Lewinski hardly hurted the democratic party, lawsuit are unlikely going to kill Microsoft. I've seen some .NET stuff and I'm sure this is going to be widely accepted. In my opinion, only Open Source can kill Microsoft. But one cannot fight the power of public opinion - and MS is a marketing company, we all know that.
Bizar technology?
They didn't say that. Read it again. They're saying that it will happen LESS.
If you're gonna bash Microsoft, please do so using logical reasoning and a solid legal basis. That's akin to saying that you didn't like the preset stations that came with your car and you're suing for the five minutes it took to set them up again. Lost productivity cannot be recovered through legal means.
You're mixing two completely separate charges against Microsoft: 1) they illegally bundled IE with Windows and 2) Microsoft used monopoly power to force OEMs to selling its product.
For #1, my argument is that I consider the browser to be an important part of the modern operating system. Just like network drivers and multi-language fonts, which were once separate products that companies marketed, but are now seamlessly integrated into the OS and the world is a better place for it. Five years from now, I think it'll be much more clear how important the paradigm of the browser (whether to use the web or not) has been. Of course, you can say that you can still use an OS without a browser, but a consumer OS require a browser these days. Just like a computer can still be useful without a network and multi-language fonts, but why would you want to do that?
no, but windows boxes are sold all around the globe and even here in Argentina the situation is pretty much the same as in the US.
"Luck is my middle name," said Rincewind, indistinctly. "Mind you, my first name is Bad." -- Terry Pratchett
Dude, if people were going to stop buying windows because of its bad design, dont you think they would have done so allready? The problem is that you have a bunch of ediot morons out there that think the cdrom tray is a cupholder. They dont know the differance between a good and bad design because they think windows is the only thing out there. As for win xp, these people will have no choice but to buy it. Afterall, what happens when they go to upgrade to the latest version of aol or whatever, and it will only run on xp?
Live to be happy!! OR ELSE!!
That's about as close as MS will ever get to the word "Open"
even if MS starts to consistenly lose money, they could consevably stay bussness for a long time. The fact is that that company has more money as petty cash then some other companys total worth. Ya maybe this will make it better for people who want a chose in what OS they want pre-install. And there are so many OEM's that put such BS that it might help..
.5GB swap(yes I know that is too much)
Case in point, when I got my laptop from Dell they were not selling any with Linux pre-installed, so I asked if I could get it with out a OS on it, the sellman said that by federal law they had to put a OS on the computer before it shiped. I was not to happy with that, but I made the best of it, I figured if I am going to be forced to pay for windows, I might as well get star trek armada (a windows game). I played it before and love it so my laptop is setup in to following way
/dev/hda1 = 3.5 GB windows
/dev/hda2 = extended
/dev/hda5 =
/dev/hda6 = 16GB ext2
with lilo setup for
linux * (=/dev/hda6)
games (=/dev/hda1)
Is the name of the pilot a joke... Wang Wei? It is pronounced very similar to Wrong Way! I am a pilot and I have to agree with the guy above... there is not a chance in hell that P-3 swerved into the commi's jet.
----------
No army can withstand the strength of an idea whose time has come.
----------
No army can withstand the strength of an idea whose time has come.
- Victor Hugo
"Everyone else is doing it" is not a sound argument.
The tobacco litigation is a poor example, as the big bucks cases were brought by state attorney generals to recover state medical costs. One of the real numbers that went down as part of those settlements was cutting off class actions brought by victims, a questionable settlement provision that quashed an important right of parties who weren't involved in the lawsuits. Several state attorney generals deserve to be hauled up on disciplinary charges for that number.
On the other hand, I doubt if these consumer class actions are the right vehicle to completely destroy Microsoft. The plaintiffs' lawyers will have problems showing high damages and Microsoft undoubtedly has business insurance that will come into play.
But the insurance angle is important. Typically, in the process of sorting out claims against the insurers, deals get made to prevent future awards of the same type, so the insurance companies might, for example, extract conditions that Internet Exploder be unhitched from Windoze.
I'm not a fan of class actions myself. I worked on one once, and the experience convinced me that there's no way to do a class action lawsuit that protects all plaintiffs' rights, and that there's no way of doing one without violating my personal ethics. I'll never do another one.
Ok, that was over the top. But then, that's how most of the people here seem to actually think. So, which of us is really evil?
bad publicity from a public trumpeting of their misdeeds may influence people to make other OS choices.
Not a chance... people will buy what they can use. Why do you think Mac's are still around? People believe that they are easy to use.
Hardly, they're 2 different kettle of fish
The reason people are wanting to sue the tobacco companies is becasue they lied about it, they knew it was addictive, but said it wasn't. And because people clam that they add chemicals to there products for the soul intention of making it more addictive.
Thats totaly differnt to the legalization of taobacco.
I'm in favor of legal tobacco, but I'm against smoking. I think the people should be able to do what they want interms of drugs. Dosen't mean I support smoking though.
Please tell me how I'm a hypocrite.
If they want to make it a moral thing. then they'll force the tobbaco companies to payout to everyone they lied to, they'll admit that they lied to people about the heath issues with smoking, they'll admit that they add chemical to tobacco to make it more addictive, and they'll stop putting those chemicals in.
The defendant is usally punished by requiring them to send out dollar-off coupons to the plaintiffs, like what happened with GM.
:P
Exactly. The same thing happened with Nintendo when they had an antitrust suit against them (what the hell is it about Redmond?) in the late 80s-early 90s. They had to pay out several million dollars, but each customer (myself included) who had sent in a warranty card got a coupon good for $5 off of any game with the "Nintendo Seal of Approval" or whatever it was called. Of course, this was way back when I was about 13 (1991 or so), so I thought it was so cool
-SPD
--
Writhe your naked ass to the mindless groove.
Writhe your naked ass to the mindless groove.
http://www.jackiereaper.com
It doesn't work that way. You can always sue a company in the U.S. for violation of U.S. laws, even if they're based overseas. The only way they'd get an advantage by moving elsewhere is if they actually stopped doing business in the U.S.; otherwise the plaintiffs could always get their judgment from their local subsidiary or sezing their local assets, which they'd need to do business here. Since MS most definitely does want to do business in the U.S., they'll eventually have to fight these suits.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Microsoft has enough money to settle with all the class-action suits in the world. The feds don't really want to do anything either, because if Microsoft falls, the tech stock market will eat it. If there's anything that will bring Microsoft down, it will be across-the-board bad product design.
(And how many people are really going to pay money for a system as ugly as Windows XP, anyways?)
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right."
Can we sue a company solely for monopolistic tactics with shitty software?
Oh ok I'll install NetBSD for my dad and let him see live webcast, install his TD banking/trading software, and play nice games on it.
:)))) ) but today, call windows2000 a piece of crap, and you're way off... I've installed redhat 7 on a 1.3Gig hard drive, funny, when you want to install a server version, it won't even auto partition the god damn drive, NOT ENOUGH SPACE, and you people blasted MS's installations that would kill hard drive space? I can fit WIn2k installation on that same drive. And strangely enough, I have a buttload of supported hardware, stable system and yes, it's not PERFECT, but nothing is, nothing will ever be, PERFECTION is a SUBJECTIVE term, and there's what... 6 billion opinions on the surface of this planet?
:) ) that would cost them a lot, but wouldn't kill them, and the user would finally have something that works better than win95, assuming he's still running 95 :).
Oh wait... your best os in the world can't do that...
Geez, I remember when I lived religiously for my amiga and nothing else was better (well at least BACK THEN nothing else was better
I don't want this to sound like a troll, and I am fully aware that Redhat is a distribution and you can fit linux on a nice floppy (or anyways, a functionning linux on a 40 meg hard drive) just like you can strip some windows component (like win9xlite software for example, that kills about everything useless in win9x to fit in an embedded system for one application example).
Point is, hate microsoft, wish them death, but they've managed to pull out something NO OTHER OS DID, broad hardware support/drivers, broad gaming platform, broad buisness platform, broad professionnal platform (cad/3d/NLE video) *ALL IN THE SAME OS*. I think people that don't acknoledge that should go in a cult and commit mass suicide because you're seeing only what you want to see.
As for the bad buisness practice, well I think the nicest settlement for both sides would be dirt cheap (or free) windowsXP upgrades settlement (that, if XP is worth it
I don't say they should shoot and run free, but wishing them death, I'm sorry people but there's *NO* alternative platform that brings everything that M$ brings altogether. There independant platform for gaming, there's independant platform for NLE editing, and 3D animating, there's other platform for offcice work, but.... think about it seriously, think about no windows at all tomorrow morning...
They've managed to come a long way since windows 1.0, I hated 3.11, sold my pc and kept my Amiga 2000, but seeing Windows 2000 today, and actually use it a while, with good drivers and everything to eliminate the "stability" issues caused by 3rd parties, you get a great stable system, that isn't PERFECT (memory pig is one weakness) but DOES the job very well. It took them long, they copied over a lot of things that already existed, hate them for that, but at least I can enjoy the idea that would have probably ended somewhere and never surface anyways.
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
Win ME (upgrade): $82.09
Win 2000 (upgrade): $171.95
Debian GNU/Linux: Free for download (I bought it for ~$20 shrink-wrapped)
FreeBSD: Free for the download (or $49.49 shrink-wrapped)
Solaris: Free for the download, or $75 shrink-wrapped, under "Free Solaris Binary License", not sure about commercial users.
------
Not a typewriter
You have hit the nail on the head: I was not coerced by Microsoft. Rather, the result of their
monopoly position was such that I, and millions of
other consumers, were unfairly coerced *indirectly*
by their control over all of the manufacturers of
computers which were available to me to choose from.
Dell and Compaq acted as Microsoft's *enforcers*,
collecting extortion money from us. Dell and Compaq
should be punished, yes, but are far less culpable than the top mafioso, Don Gatesioni.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
Thank you. Got my FLA (four letter acronyms) mixed up there.
DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins anymore
Does the DCMA negate this or does this override the DCMA?
I thought that it was part of that law to protect the corporation from harm such as law suits and protect EULAs even if the end user cannot read it before (s)he is bound by it.
DanH
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins anymore
God I hate Microsoft! Let's DESTROY them!!!
No you dont hate them. If you did you will not be using hotmail.com.
--
If Microsoft is the solution, I want my problems back
You have a very vaild point. I do not any of MS's products. You can take a wild guess why :) But, for those few that do. They should not have to purchase the same damn program 8 times.
A few years back, when all computer makers where forcing people to buy Windows with a computer. I was working for a company that bought 40 new machines. Since we where running a Novell server and NT clients. We wasted our money buying it. Even if the they where selling NT with there machines, its worthless. You already own it.
So, in the end. They owned 80 copys of Windows for 40 machines. The extra CDs (all 79 of em) sat around collecting dust.
until (succeed) try { again(); }
until (succeed) try { again(); }
Class action lawsuits. Truly a big and quickly growing industry.
-m-
I would like to die like my grandfather did - sleeping. And not screaming in terror, like his passengers.
I wish I wound have kept a log of loss productivity due to windows crashes.. get good old Johnny Cochran to represent me, and bam, give me $10,000 per unlicensed blue screen
Forced? Really? That's bulshit. You could have paid someone to go buy the various parts and construct a PC from scratch, no? But that would have likely been more expensive and inconvenient.
So, you're just mad becasue you couldn't get exactly what you wanted, at the price, you wanted, and think force (which is what lawsuits ultimately depend on) is the best answer for this.
Java is the blue pill
Choose the red pill
They should be disbanded and all the people should go off and get other jobs, which wouldn't be too hard (especially for the marketroids- yiiii). This would produce a wild flurry of venture capital and startups, and IT would get interesting again,
It would be the equivalent of being bombed back to the stone age. What direction would the innovation go? Apple is too stupid to port their OS to the PC, so the only viable alternative OS's would be Linux/Be/QNX based. Would you want to inflict Ma & Pa internet surfer with that?
What exactly would these private class action lawsuits from users be? I don't think a lawsuit based an unbridled prejudice would hold up in court (although crazier things have happened, I guess...). It was the purchaser's choice to purchase the product (including the software bundle that accompanied it).
You should have seen them back in the 80's. No matter how big there are now and they are. They still can not seem to own the desk top OS no matter how much they may what to. They controlled it once MS may have owned DOS but IBM called the shots back then not now. Back then they seemed untouchable, not now. That is the point.
You forgot Be :)
You make a "choice" to smoke, but I don't really get a choice NOT to smoke, do I? No, I have to breathe what you spew no matter what.
If most smokers had even a MINIMUM of courtesy when they decided where to smoke, everyone wouldn't be trying to take away your ability to smoke. See?
Smokers have brought the prohibitions and regulations on themselves. If you didn't smoke around people who didn't want to breathe smoke, no one would care!
I don't know what world you live in, but in mine, that's likely to get you a blank stare, rude comments, or an invitation to fuckoff. Not an option.
NOTA: How to join one of these if there's one starting up in your area?
--- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
Sorry, but companies should be more responsible for their actions than individuals because they have much more power.
What is interesting here is that people are sueing MS on (as I understand it) the grounds that they were overcharged for the OS. The reason they think this is that MS is a monopoly, so under classic economic principles, it must be overcharging. But, it seems that MS wasn't obeying this principle... it seems probable they could have been charging far more for the OS. I doubt any court would consider $0 to be the fair price, and comparable products that are commercially developed and sold cost... what? I don't know. (I also doubt that the people sueing are the companies that bought NT etc. They are probably users that bought 3.1, 95, 98, etc.)
So my question is, were these people really damaged in the way they are alleging? I agree that they, you, I and several companies I have worked for were all damaged in other ways by MS, but is this case a case that can be won?
Milo
I don't know, how does the cost of Windows compare with the cost of other OSs?
Milo
M$ can afford the lawyers. Bet on it.
Steve Magruder
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Why didn't you when they were still around ?
Sigh. In the real world, business concerns are more important than pseudo-religious, ill-informed idealogies. Microsoft has its share of problems - but so does the Linux camp. Pick the solution that solves the problem!
Surely you cannot be serious? Last I checked, the USA was a capitalistic, market-driven economy ...
Hint: log into unix.developer.ch and play around with Ctrl-H to see what happens.
Why do we all want M$ to die? We can embrace it just the same as they have embraced so many things.
Fight fire with fire.
I sometimes think that God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability. -- Oscar Wilde
This is obviously a hypothetical question to the extreme since with the new illegitimate administration, with its tongue probed so far up corporate ass that it is tickling tonsils, there is a snowball's chance in hell of ANY adverse action against M$. That and the botch-job Judge Jackson did by blabbing to the media the way he did, there is no chance whatsoever of a breakup.
The last best hope is a host of state initiated lawsuits, those already extant and any that can be brought up in the near term.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
No, no; that's how the U. S. Judicial system would die; not at the hand of a legitimate rebellion, but by being suffocated by thousands upon thousands of petty lawsuits against one company.
Do something worthwhile. If you hate Windows 9X, go for Windows 2000. If you hate Windows altogether, try out Linux. If you're just an average joe who wants to make an extra thousand dollars for no good reason, this lawsuit isn't for you.
Seriously, an operating system pre-installed by the OEM doesn't amount to any kind of abuse or negligence. Those people bought the system knowing full well what operating system was installed (and perhaps they even had a chance to try out a demo unit, or take a look at the complete list of applications installed). Do the judicial system a favor, and keep your petty differences out of the courts.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
OK, that's it! I am moving to MN and suing Mc Donald's for forcing me to have burgers with my fries, and not serving me Chalupas!!
____
Sometimes the voices in my head speak over each other. This is one of those times.
The tobacco industry does not kill people. People make the choice to smoke, and nowadays, no one can be a smoker and not know the harmful side effects. I smoke because I like to smoke, and I am tired of people trying to take something away from me that I like. It is the same as if the government made all open source software illegal for whatever reason or whatever it is that you like to do, video games, caffeinated(sp?) beverages, etc. I like to smoke. It is a great thing, and I am not a pack a day smoker. I smoke a pack in maybe a weeks time unless I have an active weekend or something. We've already tried prohibition in the US, it didn't work.
Tired of sitting at that karma cap? Start a flame war today! See just how low you can go!
I agree on the fact that computer users can thank MS, even my Mom knows how to operate a windows based computer now, but still i am not happy about it.
;D), USEnet, IRCnet and my Email would have worked over the internet without all the Home users. When home users got online it just got more and more commercial, and for some dull reasons i hate the commercial way this world is going to. I really dont need thousand new technology's that work only half, i need one that work.
Dont you feel scared that for example a whole country is affected if one company would die ? I am, i just try to point out that monopolistic company's are wrong, Computers is are my life, so MS is my Enemy, they dont make my life easier or better, and yes i am bitter about that. The facts are i cant ignore them, i can live without them though. But figure that if i loved cars prolly i had another Enemy.
Quote: "If most people didnt purchase home computers, the Internet and much more of the technology we have now would not have advanced as far as it has."
The internet maybe would have been faster for me, i dont need AOL users in my IRC channels (sorry not to offend AOL users, but most are a pain
But then the world keeps on turning with MS around or not, so deep inside i dont really care, but if i could give a hand in the killing of the company named Microsoft then i will help. And my best way is to keep telling people how i think they suck, and what other options you have.
I wonder why consumers dont know nothin about a computer and dont know nothin about the video card they OWN, cause some company made it possible for them not to understand, thats why I program there VCR, install there Windows and tell them how to breathe! Life isnt simpel, so why make it simpel ? Hasnt it showed that simple doesnt work, maybe your grandma understands, but what happends when it goes wrong she calls you too...yeah too fix it.
In comment to if MS would die now our Economy would cripple... I think not cause it will give loads of new job oppertuniy's, and yes it will cost loads of money to teach all those MCSE'ers to understand MacOS or Linux or the new hyped up OS that comes around..but then someone else makes money out of that... Company's only use MS OS's for desktops to email and to write documents...any other OS can do that in no time, even your old Amiga or Atari...i dont really see the problem.
In my time Schools used MSX computers and later DOS/Novell i know in Belgium they use Linux in schools. Banks,TV stations,Hospitals,Goverments or other big company's dont use MS OS's for mission critical situations.
MS doesnt make the world go round, we dont need them...they dont innovate, they dont help us, they just make things worse, and they keep telling us what wonderfull new idea they have found to make us all happier...by stealing other people's idea's and market them real good....thats one thing they or good at, let them market the new products that come in the future =)
I believe we should, because most of us delete the M$ OS that came pre-loaded, while non-geeks use the M$ crap that came on it. Therefore we have gotten screwed worse than the average user.... Lets Check Out My Situation: 2 Computers that came pre-loaded with '95 (one deleted for solaris, other eventually deleted for Linux) 2 Computers that came pre-loaded with '98 (deleted one for Linux, and one that I deleted for NT4 (MS got paid double for that)) 1 Computer that came pre-loaded with '00. Now, do I get 5 shares of the class action suit or just one? :-)
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
A href="http://www.tuxtops.com/"http://www.tuxtops.o rg
At the moment I travel very little, but when that changes I look forward to getting a Tuxtop of my own, from which M$ will profit not one damned cent.
give me a
We can't revert to IBM, they're sorta cool these days with all their support for Linux.
Who is evil enough to make a good replacement target for all of our venomous screed?
I am soooooooo confused.
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
Actually, YOU could buy compnents and put whatever OS you wanted on them. My mom and most of America can't.
This is one of the few nice things to come out of MN ... other then me of course. It's nice to see something good coming from the state that elected Jesse Ventura.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
After reading that CA was go for class action lawsuits, and thinking of Silicon Valley, and all the tech industry that would love to get their M$ blood-money back, I remembered the line from "Escape from L.A.":
You may have survived Clevland
You may have Escaped from New York
But you're in Los Angeles now
And this F**king town can kill anybody
I've never met a real corporate tool before; I'm fascinated. What's like when they program you to actually like SOMETHING THAT'S KILLING YOU AND THE PEOPLE AROUND YOU?
...
So obviously you don't drive a car....
Just about any product you buy in our society has negative effects for your health and often the health of those around you...
Not that this justifies secondhand smoke, but if you are against breathing shit for air, then at least don't be selective about it based on what is or is not currently PC
bye for now
One Bourbon
One Scotch
and One Beer
actually, there have been cases of people being addicted to water...
Seriously though, in my undergrad studies in psychology, I remember something about water addiction... basically, it is possible to be addicted to anything... even ellipses...
One Bourbon
One Scotch
and One Beer
I'm suing them because I was forced to buy dozens of computers with their operating system on them, despite the fact that I didn't want it. I want that money back.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
actually the tobacco industry does kill people. havent you ever seen that movie The Insider?
Information Technology White Papers and Research
Your completely correct. I heard about your brother on this really eleeet irc channel (#hack_the_world). do you think some day i can meet him? huh, can i? can i?
Information Technology White Papers and Research
This is ridiculous! Shit, don't you think any of the other major players ( linux distros, sun, mac, etc ... ) would have done exactly what Gates did with M$ had they had the same forsight and vision. Gates didn't "create" or "strong-arm" in the PC world of today, he predicted and CAPITALIZED on it!
Stop crying!
Quite satisfied? Good God, what users are you talking about? And I'm not talking about us geeks who actually read and post to /. I'm talking about "normal people." I know many many people who would be considered average to below average users, and the general feeling is one of disgust. When I worked in a large corporation, I realized that the only reason our sys admins had any job security was because of windoze. They spent 75 per cent of their time helping out normal users who were doing nothing but browsing the net and using office and still were having an aweful time with win98/ME. I'm no extremist who says that every desktop should be linux or anything, because I know that these people aren't ready for it. But windows is such crap that I've known people who had a hard time with email sit down and take the effort to learn linux just because they were one blue screen away from throwing the PC out the window, without prodding by me or any other linux enthusiast. I haven't met anyone who has had an overall enjoyable experience on any windows machine. IMHO, I think that windows is actually slowing down the "'Net Revolution" by making users frustrated and giving up (which I have seen too many times). How you can spend 2 days on a windows machine and call it a functional OS is beyond me.
$man microsoft
Crowded elevator smell different to midget. -Chinese Proverb
I never said that you pay full price, because I know OEMs get a discount for bulk. But the license is supposedly for a full copy of windows. I'm not sure who's fault that one is (OEM or M$), I was just saying that that practise is bullshit.
I don't know enough about Apple to say that they should go to hell or heaven. However, if that is the way their process is, then I think that is bullshit also. ...at least MS liscences their OS... The point of these class action suits isn't whether or not they get a license, it's whether or not you have a choice. And up until recently, the average consumer that lacked the know-how to build their own machine was without choice if they wanted to buy from a reliable OEM.
$man microsoft
Crowded elevator smell different to midget. -Chinese Proverb
$man microsoft
Crowded elevator smell different to midget. -Chinese Proverb
First of all, smoking is like drinking beer, but smellier. YOU, Mr. Smoker, say to yourself, I'll just have a few, and you like them. The diference between beer and cigarettes is that about the time that you realize that you are in need of backing away from them, YOU LITERALLY CAN'T STOP... BECAUSE OF THE ADDICTIVE PROPERTIES ARE MORE LIKE HEROIN. You have never been there. I have. It is pure evil, and intentional, because there is hard evidence that the cigarette companies actually increased the addicive properties. So in other words, when someone decides to put one in the neck tube to puff up, please don't laugh at them and say... "you deserve to die." Keep in mind that tobacco has been around for centuries, and NOW they make them so addictive that we have thousands dying per day. You're a troll.
My father was. I was for a while. I can't look at a cig without tearing my hair out... I smoked for about 3 years. IT NEVER GOES AWAY. If you think this free-will argument really works, look at the scientific data, better yet, look at the 70 year old man that smokes through the tube in his neck and speaks with a voice box. You think they didn't try to quit about a thousand times even after they made them mute and removed their throats? Yes, you're right. They chose to suicide themselves out because of a smoking habit. YEEEEEES, they chose to kill themselves, you're right. Look up the fucking words for chemical addiction.
but indeed they want them to be punished for their crimes against society and the marketplace.
What crimes against society? What crimes against the marketplace. You people are so fulla shit that your eyes are brown. MS has done so much for society and the tech industry (do you think the tech industry would be what it is without MS?).
Fanatical idiots like you are the reason we have shit like jonestown, heavens gate and those idiodic branch davidians. Come to think about it, if all the linux fanatics were to gather around some super duper beowolf cluster and commit sucide, the world would be filled with alot less whiners.
Yes I do think there are others that can manage the information highway (or computing for that matter). Yes, M$ did a lot to help the common person use a computer and access the internet. They did it by thinking for the user who didn't want to learn how the silly thing really works (in other words keep um dumb and raise the the prices once there hooked). Then they muscled every vendor (hardware and software) to build exclusively for them, and they stand there and preach about "others" stiffling innovation. MS' consumer product is only really good for playing game, surfing the net, or getting e-mail . Do banks use M$ software, not if they're smart - Gee i think it's called "Unix". When you need security don't bank on the ware from Redmond. Linux is there yet and NT/W2K took forever to get on the scene. And don't even get me started on W9x - a little more than a toy or a glorified typewriter and file cabinet. I say level the field and lets see what falls out. And by the way, at least I have the courage to post my identity instead of being anonymous - coward.
But you are correct about the 'consumer dissatisfaction' effect. Which is precisely why we don't need class-action lawsuits like this. Go purchase a copy of Linux. Oh wait, it's free, so why go buy it? This is precisely why M$ is not feeling the hurt of quality products like Linux or FreeBSD -- because consumers are not forced to decide between buying one OS or the other. Just buy M$ for certain things, and get a free copy of *BSD or Linux for everything else.
Having said that, I plan on purchasing more Linux games like Tribes2, in my own little effort to support quality software, as opposed to the crash prone Windows9x OS's.
The actual monetary cost of the suits will indded be minimal, but that is not the only cost. Microsoft's bad publicity from a public trumpeting of their misdeeds may influence people to make other OS choices. I'm sure that public opinion and all those warm fuzzy feelings will be much more of a concern to them.
This sig may be reproduced by anyone for any reason.
Windoze works for most, although as you have said, it is indeed frustrating. Personally I use FreeBSD at work and Debian on a double boot system, WinMe on the other side for the family. To be honest with you I've done more tweaking because of and with Linux than I had ever done on any Windows system. I haven't had one single problem with BSD in fifteen years. My personal solution, because I am lazy and don't particularly like Linux will be to buy a Mac Titanium Power Book with OS X pre-installed. I don't particularly care if I can watch the latest version of Star Wars on a DVD drive, or use MS Messenger , or keep up with the very expensive "final offers" of M$ Corp. concerning "NET." I don't wanna big ol' pickle, I just wanna ride. If I was strapped for gelt, I'd stick with Debian as the only OS because of apt-get. I may be weird, but I like the OS X flavor of Un*X.. I like BSD because it smokes when dealing with BIG stuff, and I like Mac because it isn't in any way Microsoft-dependent, including hardware designed for Windows and the M$ way of occupying a hard drive as if it was territory won in a dirty war. I just that I really can't see ordinary people making the transition. It isn't easy for the average user of computers to install Linux on a laptop, or to get it to completly take over a hard disk, or to keep it up to date. As frustrating as Windows is, it still beats reading a demand for a Unix command on a blue screen when you never heard of it before. The only solution as far as I can see is education of the user population in general. Geeks should be placing ads in the papers offering their services (for renumeration, of course) to install Linux on computers that people wish to change. Until Linux becomes "possible" for all, without having to jump through technical hoops, Microsoft will remail tops, whether we like it or not.
Rien n'est plus beau que le creux du 0.
You've got the same tastes, I see. I too like watching people throw their boxes down the stairs. I once saw a ThinkPad hit the concrete after being tossed out of the fifth floor window of a lab at McGill University. It was a tragic site, and very amusing. Pathos was high. As far as educating people is concerned, I believe it's possible, especially now with Debian/GNU. Have you ever read the "Q" files on the M$ Tech Web site? That'a a labyrinth worthy of any game developer. The windows OS is quite simple really. It takes up only 50 MB of a hard disk, with all the patches and security updates, about 3 Gigs. But still, I've seen "minimalist" installations of Linux that run more quickly and efficiently than W2k. The only problem is Star Office that can't seem to get their Java trip right. So, who's gonna write the new newbie book? you or me? Frankly I don't know enough and I'm too BSD formed. Guess it'll have to be you. I'll buy a copy, so you're assured of one sale.
Rien n'est plus beau que le creux du 0.
I would humbly recommend the second for those who would sue Microsoft for being so unjustly inflicted with an functional OS with which they were quite satisfied until some geek with a code jones convinced them that they should try the Holy Grail of benevolent freebies better known as Linux. While we're at it, we should sue our ancestors for having passed down flawed genetic code which causes cancer, and the grandmothers of the world for having written cholesterol-ridden recipes which cause heart attacks.
Rien n'est plus beau que le creux du 0.
Yea. And the 2 million dollar check she got was a joke. Yea, she did a lot of work, but 2 million dollars when children suffered. I'd have given it to the families.
What is pirate software? Software for inventory of stolen treasure?
That's a good point. Laptops are much more difficult to buy from mom-and-pops type computer shops - I have seen them, but even they might have required an MS operating system. Certainly they would be much harder to find than desktops.
--
Assume that there are valid arguments against your position.
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
- Nietzsche
>> Actually, YOU could buy compnents and put whatever OS you wanted on them. My mom and most of America can't.
Well, your mom and most of america wouldn't care which OS they bought. And if they did, they could get one without Windows. It would be more difficult, but not impossible.
My point is, you shouldn't have a lawsuit because buying a computer with another OS is more difficult, only if it was impossible... which it wasn't (except perhaps in the case of laptops).
--
Assume that there are valid arguments against your position.
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
- Nietzsche
Yes, but the last time I checked, nobody was addicted to Windows ME.
.sig this!
the suit is anti-competitive!? I think having a monopoly on pre-installed deskop OS is anti-competitave. Normal people dont even know how to buy a new computer that doesn't have windows on it; I have never met a non-nerd who has purchased a computer without windows on it.
Supposedly it is this anti-competative facet of MS that they are fighting. (more likely they are just after some $)
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
Sure it can; legal teams always site lost productivity (in hugly exagerated figures) to smash hackers into the ground.
Granted they rarely get much $ that way(probably never more than the lawyers fees) but who says the satisfaction of legally crushing someone doesn't have value? :
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
First, divide all computer buyers into two mutually exclusive set: geeks and non-geeks.
Geeks: You must be able to buy all the hardware components and assemble them together. You must be able to install any OS by yourself.
Non-geeks: You must accept whatever OS that is pre-installed. Your must be glad that everything that is "wildly popular" has already been chosen.
(How did it become wildly popular for non-geeks in the first place, again?)
What? You want pre-assembled hardware without pre-installed software?! You are nobody! Which law says you are entitled to such rights?
Personal note: I was a nobody. When I bought my first computer I had used Unix for years and I wanted just Linux. Unfortunately I couldn't tell a parallel port from an Ethernet connection, let alone that sound need a card. So I had to pay the MS tax. I guess Windows deserve part of the price for testing the hardware.
While suing microsoft for all it's done to our industry is a good idea, nobody's immune to those kinds of law-suits. Concider, as an example, the ones filed recently against VA Linux and RedHat. It could be that microsoft, using its old tactics, is trying to engage their competitors in endless court battles, while not directly participating in the process.
Hell yes, it's very simple. I want Microsoft to die for all the pain they've caused me. Microsoft don't deserve to live.
Do a slashdot search on "windows refund". The most recent story is Here.
Summarized: Perhaps, but it will probably be a big pain in the ass. The story linked above was about a big protest. I'm not sure what the results were, but I'll make a prediction: jack squat.
The original statement was the tobacco industry kills people. This is a hard position to argue in the present tense. If the statement was that the tobacco industry has killed people, then this might be a valid response.
However, I have very little symphathy for the arguement that people didn't know because the tobacco industry told them differently. As a smoker, you are aware that you don't have to smoke all that heavily for all that long before you realize that you run out of breath easier, cough more often, and hack up brown/black shit. Even though you may not realize that until AFTER you start smoking, certainly people told other people about their experiences and non-smokers could easily notice smokers developing nasty coughs.
Really, there were plenty of people who knew or should have known that smoking was bad for your health well before there was a surgeon general's warning on the pack.
...Microsoft saw this coming. That's why they're moving the a beans subscription based model to increase pork cash flow. All of the extra cash will beans be funneled into legal battles while pork all of the other money they normally make will be used to keep the company in the beans red.
Well, that and Nathan Myrvold's viagra bill.
------ 1001001
The suit is based on ppl ordering their computers and getting the Microsoft OS whether they wanted it or not. What if you wanted to use DR DOS?? To bad, you get MS DOS. Microsoft got your money whether you wanted to purchase their product or not. When you purchased the computer the vendor was required to install MS's OS.
. .and XBox
--
Free Iran
CAAr?
man, washed up lisp hackers aren't a pretty site...
--
my other car is a cdr.
If you kill Microsoft, there will be nobody Miguel can admire for their innovations! If Miguel is not stimulated by Microsoft, he will not be able to innovate GNOME!
*PLEASE* be careful what you wish for. Without Microsoft we would not today have Bonobo, Gnumeric, GNOME Basic,...
I'd also be interested in the legal implications for software that has certain heavy restrictions in the EULA. For instance, software that keeps you from publishing benchmarks. Benchmarks are simply fair use, so it would be allowed in the absence of a EULA. If they (retail store and software producer) aren't willing to live up to the terms of the contract (which means refunding the money), it should be void, and you should be able to use it as though there were no contract.
I assume Oracle would actually give you the license agreement before it took your money (or would give your money back), but more retail-oriented products may not do this (SQL Server? Others?) Might be an interesting way to muck up their systems.
when Iomega didn't pay the rebates a few years ago, the settlement provided the full rebate, the "stuff", and an extra zip disk to each member. The attorney fees were on top of that. We came out ok
hawk
Maybe they will simply threaten to take over the world by exploiting a secret backdoor in the OS software.
Just imagine Bill Gates delivering this ultimatum to the US President, "Give us a 'Get out of Jail Free' card or all your base are belong to us."
Sorry, couldn't help it.
I received a notice not to long ago that a class action lawsuit had been filed against a Mortgage Insurance company on my behalf. The claim was they misrepresented something and overcharged me.
I have been paying this company $60/month for for the past 30 months.
But as a result of the class action lawsuit, I am now entitled to a check for $20.
Just think of all the things I can do with $20!? Why I could buy an entire case of beer!
WHOOOP DEEEE DOOOOO!!!!!
I'm not saying that the company might not have done something wrong. But was it really worth it?
Class action lawsuits are only a benefit for the lawyers. They will receive about $40 million in legal fees, and everybody else gets $1.98. Then the company has to raise their current product cost by $3 to cover the expenses.
So does this mean that every Gateway customer can take part in these lawsuits? Their computers are (or at least used to be) made in SD.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
if (glassHouse) { stone.throw = -1}
Your cute little wisecrack has nothing to do with my logic -- you just twist the meaning for your own purposes so you can use the (really, really old) Ray Charles joke, and thus do a little logic-chopping of your own.
I merely point out the hipocrasy of shouting "ENFORCE the LAW", then wailing about the enforcement of another law. (I'll grant you that I'm assuming the original poster doesn't like the DMCA, but that's a fairly safe assumption, due to the general attitude of the average Slashdot poster).
You cannot cherry-pick which laws you want enforced -- you have to take the good with the bad. If you love laws (and enforcement thereof) that beat up Microsoft which further your own personal ends, you have to take those laws (and enforcement thereof) that further another's ends.
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Ahh, Word 5.1... I have many, many good memories of it as well. Nimble enough to run pretty well on my antique Powerbook 180c...
I'm of two minds about a MS breakup. On one hand, what do you get? Something similar to AT&T and the RBOCs? Eww, no thank you. On the other hand, it seems a reasonable solution, and one that might have benefits (to MS as well as to the market).
But, to remain truthful to my beliefs, I hold that MS should be left alone. In time, MS will be fighting for its life because of some upstart, like Netscape could have been. (Remember Netscape? They made mighty MS tremble, and but for a few corporate blunders, Netscape might have knocked 'em over, too. But MS dropped a bunch of money to buy & develop IE, Netscape spent too much time contemplating its navel, and the dream was over...)
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Wow, you're all over the board, here...
First, I'm not for corporate welfare, but neither am I for drumming up charges against a competitor (which is what the original lawsuit against MS was all about), using the heavy hand of Government to gain an advantage.
Did I lobby to protect Apple? Yes, by encouraging people to buy Apple products (when there were good ones -- that was tough to do until about 1996 or so).
I'll even speak up in defense of an 800-pound gorilla. Withouth IBM as the 800-pound gorilla, there would not have been the tremendous growth in the PC market. IBM (by chance, it turned out, but still) used OTS components, with only the BIOS as a proprietary piece, and due to that, you can now buy a $500 computer.
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Afraid not -- I know you want it to be that way, but that's not reality. I applaud your enthusiasm, if not your common sense.
There is absolutely no way to please all of the population -- will you agree with that? You can only please a majority of the people at one point. The majority will change on different points. Thus, on a tax cut issue, you'll please all the people who pay a lot of taxes, but not the Marxists. On an environmental issue, you'll please the environmentalists, but not the polluters.
So, if you're a high tax-paying polluter, you'll have to take the environmental bill with the tax cut -- and consider it a fair trade off.
To "civily disobey" is an option, but not a realistic one. Look at all the peace marches during Vietnam -- it only took us some 7 years to get out of that one.
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Thanks for agreeing with me! (Even tho you say you don't, you prove my point)
"Mass agreement to do things their way", i.e. "IBM's an 800-lb gorilla, let's just follow what they do". You're filled with confidence that the industry would form a coalition to resolve the incompatabilities -- is this like how the industry solved the problem of incompatable HTML DOMs with an industry coalition?
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
Doesn't that shit just make you wanna puke? $2 mil for her as part of a 3-way split (split between the plaintiffs law firms) of over $140 million. (yes, I know the link is to the National Review, but I can't find the original WSJ article).
Yeah, Erin's a regular fucking working-class hero, alright. That's Hollywood history for you.
ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
these are two totally separate issues - nobody's out to destroy an industry, just one domineering a$$hole who's doing everything to make life difficult for those don't want their idiotic pablum.
Now, if RJR Tobacco had secretely placed incompatibility chemicals in the cigs that make you violently ill if you smoked another companies cigs, that would be an apt comparison. As a market, tobacco is in much healthier shape than the PC biz - if Phillip Morris screws up, you can switch to another brand, but when Msft screws up, you (actually, their field support bozo's) have to eat $hit and say it tastes good or seek employment elsewhere.
One of these day's I'm going to sue Msft for liver damage.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Sorry people but I couldn't avoid it... It maybe due to last night's film (in Russia there is a wave of old cowboy films on TV).
While reading the article it came a vision. The judge sets the sentence, all good citizens rise with hopes to see the following trials, BG stays on his chair looking down... Suddenly an old bearded man comes up, rises a rope in his hands, and cries:
"And why the Hell we have to wait for another trial? Let's finish this business now!"
No you weren't. There are lots of companies that offer computers without MS's operating system on it. The fact that the particular system you wanted didn't come without Windows doesn't mean you were "forced" to purchase it. It just meant that you got a component you didn't want in with the components you did. If you didn't like the whole package, go elsewhere.
By this logic you should be able to demand any component of the computer removed-- you don't want any memory or a sound card-- and get a discount for it. Computers are package-deals. There are dozens of components, and different companies put different parts in. You are free to pick those you want.
If a lot of people wanted computers without Windows, more companies would offer that option. They don't because there isn't the demand. If they're wrong, smaller companies will gain market share by offering what their competitors can't.
So can you get a Dell or Compaq computer without Windows? Probably not. But who says you have a right to a Dell or Compaq computer in the first place. If you don't like the package, don't buy it.
Next time I go shopping I'm going to demand my cereal without the prize at the bottom. After all, all of the cereals I like "force" me to pay for little plastic toys I'll never play with. I'm being oppressed!
This is complete and utter bullshit. This would imply that computer companies have an obligation to install your system exactly the way you want it, and if it takes you any time at all to set things up yourself, that's grounds for a lawsuit.
What if a computer comes with IE and I want Netscape instead? Can I sue about that? What if it has both and I want to delete them to save space. Can I sue for that? How about if I don't use the web and don't want any browser. Is that justification for a lawsuit as well?
By that logic computer companies would have to spend hours on each computer installing and removing software as the user demanded. That's absurd. Dell has a right to put any software they like on its machines. If you don't like that, you are free to buy another machine that comes with a clean hard drive. That's your choice. But you have no right to dictate to Dell what OS's it puts on its machines.
Why do you think this is? Perhaps because the overwhelming majority of users prefer to have Windows on their machines? If there were really a huge outcry to offer alternative OS's, why wouldn't companies do so?
/.ers want a different OS on their machine doesn't give you the right to shove that decision down everyones' throat. If you think there's such a bid demand for this, I suggest you design your own laptop and offer whatever OS you want on it. But don't expect Dell and IBM to leap into action because you happen to dislike their offerings.
I would like a Ford car with a Chevy engine in it. I can't get it. Does that mean I'm paying a "Ford engine tax" if I go and swap out the engine myself. Am I paying a "prize tax" if I don't like the prize at the bottom of my box of cracker jacks?
Companies offer products that include things not everyone likes. That's life. They only offer what they think a large number of customers will buy. The fact that a few
No, but selling very dangerous *addictive* products that provide no benefit to the consumer is immoral. The "pleasure" people receive from smoking is an easing of the withdrawal symptoms.
This is how you see it. Many smokers would disagree with you. They would claim that indeed smoking is a pleasurable experience that enriches their lives. What right do you have to force your values on them?
It doesn't help that tobacco companies shamelesly target their maketing at these young people.
No, it doesn't. But this doesn't justify taking away the freedom of adults. Quitting smoking isn't easy, but it's possible. We should certainly try to prevent kids from smoking, but once someone is an adult, it's his choice whether to smoke or not. What business do you have telling him otherwise?
Cars provide a real benefit, fatty food is not addictive and probably not as lethal, and alcohol is nearly as bad as tobacco
"Benefit" is in the eye of the beholder. Many smokers think cigarettes provide a benefit as well. Fatty food is not as addictive, but so what? It definitely tastes good, and lots of people eat it when they know they shouldn't. Perhaps it's not *as* evil as cigarettes, but the issue is the same. Fatty food kills, and therefore McDonalds must be a company of murderers.
Furthermore, tobacco can be consumed in moderate quantities as well. Lots of people smoke an occasional cigar, and I have friends who will puff on a cigarette if offered but don't smoke the rest of the time.
Sure they are, but an addiction is a physical dependency, not a choice.
Bullshit. It's not a physical dependency like with heroin. It's a habit, and like any habit, it's difficult but not impossible to break. So it's still a choice. It's a difficult choice, but so what? There are lots of other bad habits that we have no trouble identifying as personal choices. Cigarettes are a harder habit to break than most, but it's still a habit and people do quit all of the time.
But if those were the tobacco comanpies only customers, they would be very small operations, I assure you.
So you're claiming that an adult who started smoking as a kid is not responsible for his actions once he reaches adulthood? I don't buy that. Tobacco isn't such a powerful substance that anyone who uses it is powerless to stop. Whether they started as a kid or not, adults have the ability and the right to choose to smoke or not smoke. With that right comes responsibility. If you choose to smoke, you suffer the consequences.
So we should look at ways to reduce teen smoking, but in the meantime we should stop funneling money to lawyers and politicians and stop driving up the prices of cigarettes for adults.
What I love about arguments like this on Slashdot is that one side usually takes a tone of moral superiority while simultaneously stooping to the crudest ad homs. Microsoft is so obviously evil that there's no point in having anything like rational argument on the subject. It's much more fun to use loaded words and denounce anyone who disagrees with you as a "stupid fuck" and an "idiot." Never mind the fact that I made a couple of (IMHO) valid points that need a response. If I'm so obviously wrong, you might want to at least *try* to respond to them, instead of just launching immediately into a tirade about how evil Microsoft is and how stupid I am.
My point was twofold. First, you do have options, just not with the big OEMs. Second, the reason for this is that 90%+ of consumers prefer Windows to the alternatives, and so that's what most companies offer. You didn't even try to respond to either of these points.
I hope that everyone on the anti-Microsoft is a stupid fuck like this idiot I'm responding to, as that will make it easier for Microsoft to get a fair outcome. Alas, I fear that some of Microsoft's critics are a bit more intelligent and are capable of coming up with some semblance of a rational argument.
Well, yeah, but how does that apply to the bundling issue. Are you saying that it's legal to bundle physical items, but software is different? What if your Windows liscence allowed to be transferred? Would that be legal? Do you honestly believe that would make a shred of difference in the court of law?
Next pc I get, it will be coming from Penguin Computing, VA Linux, or I'll just build it myself.
I think this is really the point-- the market is working. People don't like Windows, and so other companies are offering alternatives. The big manufacturers don't offer it, but that's because the big manufacturers mostly serve average comsumers. Not many average customers want Windows, and so they don't offer them.
I suspect I could find a car part that the Big Three car makers all use. In that case it would be exactly analogous-- I want a "big brand" car without component X, and I can't get it. I think it would be a disaster if the government sued every time this happened.
My point is that these laws and lawsuits are not necessary. Linux and Mac OS both would have done just fine without the DOJ or class action lawsuits. And companies like VA Linux and Penguin Computing have been able to offer machines with competing offerings without suffering for it. The market is working, leave it alone. I just don't see what everyone is getting so worked up about. Most consumers want Windows, and therefore that's what most companies offer. A few of us want alternatives, and there are competing companies to offer that. Perhaps there was a period of a couple of years when a lot of people wanted name-brand PC's without Windows and couldn't get them, but that period is over now. What is served by looting Microsoft over it?
So selling a dangerous product is immoral? Keep in mind that every smoker has known he was killing himself for 30 years, yet he chose to do it anyway. Why? Because he decided the pleasure he got from smoking a cigarette was worth it. My question is: who are the tobacco companies to say otherwise? Why should they attempt to impose a different set of values on their customers?
There are lots of other dangerous products that kill people-- cars, fatty food, alchohol, etc. Are all of those companies guilty as well? After all, McDonalds would probably save lives if it offered only vegetarian food. The auto industry would save lives if it made cars that only went 30 MPH. Does that make them morally culpable when someone dies of a heart attack or in a car crash?
This is an issue of individual liberty-- are individuals responsible for their own choices, or is it the job of corporations (or government) to decide that some risks are too great to allow you to take?
Let me put it this way: what do you think the tobacco companies should have done? Just close up shop? They didn't profit by killing people. They profited by selling customers a product they like and enjoy. It would be arrogant and paternalistic for them to decide to stop offering that product because they didn't believe their customers were bright enough to make the decision for themselves.
If this were just about children smoking, I might be more sympathetic, but it's not. Tobacco lawsuits are a massive wealth transfer from smokers (who are generally poor) to lawyers (who are generally rich.) It's terrible policy, by any standard. It is doing nothing to prevent children from smoking, and nothing to help those who are "addicted" to cigarettes. All it does is raise the price of cigarettes and use the money to line lawyers' pockets and produce assinine anti-smoking ads that don't fool anyone.
You have to wonder just how many of these will Microsoft have to defend. Even if they win all of them, how can their management seriously think that the general public perceives that they're the best thing going in the field of computers? (Like MS management thinks they do now.) Eventually someone's gotta wise up and begin thinking that this can't all be about deep pockets. It may not be the guys at the top who begin seeing this first. But they'll realize that their charmed position in the minds of the consumers is fading (fast) when it starts filtering up that they can't attract good programmers anymore and that many of the employees are leaving.
Or maybe not. But one can dream, eh?
--
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Ok, this is late in the thread, so I doubt anyone will even read this....
It's not even about getting linux, it's about having to pay for a Windows. As a University of Pittsburgh student I get just about every consumer Microsoft product for free legally, thanks to the school. If I want to buy a professionally built system, I'm still forced to buy Windows.
The problem is, I already have a legal license to run it. Why should I be forced to buy something I can get legally for free?
I shouldn't have to build my own system, or get a system from Joe Slapnuts at a local computer place to avoid paying for something I can legally get for free. I should be able to go to Dell, Gateway, Compaq, or whomever and get a professonally built computer system, and not have to pay for a Windows license.
That's just my two cents...if anyone actually read this post, reply. I'm courious to see how many people actually read posts this late in the thread.
One that doesn't (as the cliche' goes) "give them enough rope to hang themselves". A large proportion of windows support seems to be along the lines of "I was playing around and I clicked on this thing and now windows won't start any more"...
The point being simply that stable OS with a well-designed narrow configuration should stand up to 'clueless AOL newbies' (and their ilk) even better.
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
By the same token, nobody's really addicted to "cigarettes"...just to the act of smoking them to get the chemicals. (Semantics, I know, but that's the point - it's not specifically "Windows ME", it's "MS Products". You can't be addicted to "A cigarette"...just cigarettes in general.)
Similarly, I've seen the desperate dependence on MS products and inability to get off of the "upgrade treadmill" likened to addiction many times...
---
"They have strategic air commands, nuclear submarines, and John Wayne. We have this"
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
I take it you favor legalization
The core of the anti-smoking movement is completely hypocritical precisely because they favor legalization of tobacco.
They demonize the tobacco corporations (in California as part of a government-funded propaganda campaign even!) for doing something that even they accept should be a legal activity -- marketing and selling cigarettes as a consumer product.
The continual incremental hikes in the tobacco tax ("for the children!"), and the fact is the state is getting more profit out of a pack of smoke than the tobacco industry is, is just cyncial acceptance of this, with convienent Bad People political cover. I assume that you are in agreement with this.
My own feeling is that if this is a moral issue as it's made out to be, then the government should do the moral thing and make the shit illegal. This is a serious suggestion from a smoker that few anti-smoking types have the balls to break their addition to tobacco tax money and accept.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Don't forget that IBM co-owned all of Windows 3.0 and was getting Windows 3.1 for a very attractive price.
This all came out in the MS anti-trust trial. The cost per copy of Windows 3.1 to IBM was $11. At a time when their computers cost several hundred dollars more than their competitiors, this certainly wasn't a make-or-break amount.
(Not to say that per-CPU Windows licences and the high cost of OS/2 to other PC makers didn't significantly hurt it.)
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
I disagree. The business PC industry pre-IBM was mainly 8080/Z-80 machines with 98% hardware compatibile S-100 bus slots and 98% software compatibile CP/M software.
The main source of pain was that there was no common standard for disk drives which made the most common method of interoperating (sneakerware) impossible.
Things like this were an obvious enough problem at the time, when IBM came in, there was just a mass agreement to just do things their way because it was easy. But if IBM wasn't in the picture, I think there would have been some sort of industry colalition that would have resolved most of the incompatibilies.
It's been at least 14 years since IBM stopped dictating standards. And somehow in that time, despite the fact there's even more players, the things are still basically compatible with each other.
--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
The usefulness may be questionable. The outrageousness? How is it any more outrageous than an auto recall? I don't expect any positive results, but one shouldn't be forced to buy a new OS because the old one was defective when built.
At the very least one could hope that MS would be required to provide bug fixes for a decade on any OS that it sells, and if the fix requires installing a new version, then that version should also be provided for free. And if the time required to download the fix was too long, or if you don't have internet access, then mailed CD's of the fix should be required for substantially less than the actual handling costs.
Defects should be required to be repaired. They for *** sure shouldn't be grounds to sell a new version!
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
In the sense that one could buy an Apple instead, you are correct. However even most small dealers require that a version of MS be sold with any WinTel capable machine. I was quite chagrined the other day when I specifically purchased a computer with Linux pre-installed to discover that it came with a copy of Win98. I didn't discover that until AFTER I had opened the box. It wasn't installed, but it was there, and I doubt that it was a free gift, even though the cellophane is still around the CD. (If I wanted to use Win98 I already have a copy that isn't installed anywhere!)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I'd prefer that they were split into about 20 pieces, so nobody would loose anything, but if they can't be rendered harmless then destruction is probably the safest choice. Mind you, I don't think that there's much chance. But just splitting it into 3 or 4 pieces ... that won't do anything useful.
P.S.: I used to be a MS supporter, back when I used Apple equipment. And I still maintain that Word 5.1a for the Macintosh is the best word processor that I've ever used. But the recent garbage is something else! If they weren't a monopoly they'd have to be willing to sell it for Monopoly(tm) money.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
As corporations earn more and more rights which have traditionally been attributed to people, I submit that they should also be subject to harsher penalties.
If a person (in Texas, at least) murdered as many people as even the smallest tobacco company, there would be no hesitation in executing that person. The same standard should apply to corporations as to people. In the case of Microsoft, that might include some harsh fines (high enough to have an impact on their bottom line).
Only thing I can't figure out, is if the Death Penalty = Shutting down a business, and fines = (really big fines), then what is the corporate equivalent to prison?
Reality has a liberal bias
I've never met a real corporate tool before; I'm fascinated. What's like when they program you to actually like SOMETHING THAT'S KILLING YOU AND THE PEOPLE AROUND YOU?
mmmmmm...mentholicious....gasp....wheeze...cough.. .
I take it that you also think that Britney Aguleria or whomever is a musical genius. After all, a large corporation said she's great!
-jon
Remember Amalek.
Yeah, it must really blow to have $27 billion in USD on hand, and a 90% strangle-hold on the consumer OS market.
Not that I like Microsoft, but this is an extremely minor hiccup to them. The amount of $$$ and market-share they made by pre-installing the OS will more than compensate for this.
--Mid
Microsoft consciously and premeditatedly destroyed the market, and denied competition. Market forces BREAK when a monopoly is involved. The market (that is, the people who are tired of being forced to buy the same crap) woke up, and decided Microsoft needed to be taken down a peg.
The DMCA is a law, that should be enforced unless and until it is found to be unconstitutional (which it will). Just because I don't agree with it doesn't mean I'm free from the consequences of breaking it.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
You mean, they're not bad enough that we ought to actually ENFORCE the LAW on them? Come on. They've been manipulating the market to their advantage for 20 years. Now the market's mad. Time to pay the piper.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
I'm a Minnesota resident, and my last PC came with Win98 preinstalled. How do I let Bill know where to send the check?
--
--
E_NOSIG
That said, character is a valid factor in sentencing, as illustrated by several countries' legal systems. The repentant, apologetic offender receives a lighter charge and/or sentence than the willful, cold, repeat offender. They have been involved in the premeditated, unethical murder of many companies and good ideas that just happen to not put them at the top of the heap, and in any society with a serviceable ethical compass, the officers and board would have been jailed, the assets sold off, and the proceeds turned back to the purchasers of their clearly defective software.
-jhp
/. -- the Free Republic of technology.
I have one question: Why do the fanatic few of the /. community want MS to die? Think about it. What drives technology? Contrary to what many of you will no doubt say, it is the consumer. Why do you think that Intel and AMD put so much investment to make faster and faster chips? Not so that people can crack RC5 faster, no, it is to make business and consumers want Word to run faster. MS has done one thing, and we all benefit from it, it has taken the rather cryptic computer and has given it to our grandmothers.
.enough of my ranting. . .till will probably be moderated down to troll anyway.
If MS would "die," then who will take over? Linux? Perhaps, when 30,000 of the best software people in the industry form another company that because of good decisions dominates the market. I honestly and truely don't think the Bazzaar method will fly for the joe-bob consumer who wants to know for a fact that the new version of Deer Hunter will work on his new Gateway and who doesn't even know that there is a video card in his box.
Think about it. The majority of cosumers do not know ANYTHING about computers, much less the depth of knowledge that it takes to maintain a *nix box.
OS X is a start, but I don't think anyone will buy it, because then people couldn't use the DVDs that they already have.
The reason that you can buy a 7-800Mhz computer now for $800 is because of Microsoft. Sure you may have to pay for the OS, sure it crashes, but you have a 99% chance that it will install and run, for the most part, smoothy on any x86 computer.
If MS would die, I would venture to say that it would pretty much cripple the economy. Think of all of the money that companies would have to pay to retrain all of their personnell. Think of all of the investments in the schools. Think of the stock market.
If you look back, the "economic slowdown," started about the same time that the decision againist MS happened. That was when people realized that technology wasn't invincible, and now LOTS of "true geeks" are now worse off because all of their stock options in "true geek" companies are worthless (look at Akamai). Plus the "college geeks" will now find it VERY hard to find good internships.
Ok.
I hope that everyone on the anti-Microsoft is a stupid fuck like this idiot I'm responding to, as that will make it easier for Microsoft to get a fair outcome. Alas, I fear that some of Microsoft's critics are a bit more intelligent and are capable of coming up with some semblance of a rational argument.
I would hardly call a situation where someone wins because the people picked to represent the opposition were "idiots" fair.
A fair outcome happens when both parties are on equal footing. Unfortunately, Microsoft will likely be treated more than fairly no matter what, even if they lose.
How about this one? Mental anguish because you were forced to become a software pirate since you had to "borrow" your copy of Windows (and Word, and Excel, and whatever else) from work just to be compatible with the rest of the world? If only they haden't bullied everyone into being "MS-compatible".
--
--
Nicotene CAN be consumed in moderate quantities, but the people who can't control their addiction outnumber those who can. The same is true for heroin, although the percentage of people who can consume it in moderation may be higher. I take it you favor legalization?
I agree with you that people need to take more responsibility for their own actions, but you don't help matters by repeating untruths out of a tobacco company PR guide.
Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
how about those of us who would have loved to have a computing experience that didn't suck, and have been prevented by microsoft illegally extending their dominance to all corners of the computer market?
don't we have compensation for the nextstep-amiga-death machine running NetscapeOS 6.7 (actually, hmm, thank them for saving us from that....)
Juln
So true! And the defendant is hardly affected financially, but they are protected from any* future lawsuits from class members. Class action lawsuits are bunk!
.sig here.
*Any lawsuits on the same topic.
No
Surprise!
It's a coupon good for $25 off your next Windows upgrade...
Other companies have settled class-action lawsuits this way before, why not Microsoft?
A dingo ate my sig...
IIRC, Judge Jackson's definition of PC included Mac's. If that's true, then Apple can't be considered to be in a monopoly position because their OS is in competition with Winders.
If Apple isn't a monopolist, then the rules that govern monopolists don't apply to Apple. In other words the rules that Microsoft has to follow, becuase of their monopoly position, are very much different than the rules that everyone else has to follow.
Remember, being a monopoly isn't illegal. It's the attempt to maintain and extend the monopoly that's illegal. Thus, deals that preclude consumer choice in operating systems, done by a monopoly, are acts that maintain the monopoly power and are thus illegal. Those same deals, done by someone who is not a monopolist may or may not be good business practice, but they aren't illegal.
IANAL, so maybe I got this wrong. Someone who knows the law better care to comment?
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
They're now in CA. CA was listed as one of the states.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
IMHO, this is how MS will die
Hemos, how are you going to kill what's already dead?
mwuahahahahahaha!!!
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
Whoo hoo! Apparently there are suits pending in MI and AZ... I bought windows pre-installed in each of these states. So, how do I join one suit or the other? Didn't see any links in the c|net story; does anyone know?
Maybe I'm missing something, but what exactly are people going to sue MS for? When you buy a computer with Windows pre-installed, it's not like they tell you "This system will work perfectly, and will never crash."
I don't think you understand the concept of class action suits. Instead of having loads of little suits, all the lawyers get together and file a huge suit. That way the company getting sued does not go broke paying legal fees, the lawyers all collect millions of dollars each, and the consumers get checks for the ten cents left.
.net will never be as huge as Bill would like, because the ASP companies already have a ton of ground and people won't need MS to make that business work.
If there are class action suits, it will be a few, at most. The legal bills will be miniscule in the microsoft scheme of things. The payouts will be small, far less than the profits Microsoft made off of windows.
All this, of course, assumes that Microsoft is found guilty, which is probably not going to happen, given that many Americans still see Microsoft as just a bunch of enterprising guys who worked their butts off to enjoy the American dream.
Beyond that, people can bitch as much as they want, they will have a hard time proving that Microsoft hurt consumers. At best they can sue Microsoft for charging too much for the OS, which is unlikely, given how much software out there costs many more times than an OEM Windows license, and you need the OS just to run the software.
Nothing will ever get rid of Microsoft. They might lost their monopoly on the OS market. Their dominance in the office app market will liekly die out as they move to XML based file formats, which will be nigh-impossible to keep proprietary.
Just think of the state software, and hardware would be in for that matter if there were no monopolies. Microsoft has squashed more software and hardware companies than the number of security holes in Outlook. Monopolies are BAD. Competition is good. I wouldn't feel the least bit of loss if I had to use their competitors products.
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
I think you've got it the other way around. Sun's market cap is 50billion.
:)
MS has 28billion in _cash_
MS could buy Sun today, if they wanted to (and there wasn't a DOJ
MS could buy _yahoo_ with cash and not even notice (yahoo: 8billion)
Lets say every single man, woman, and child in america sues MS for 100 dollars. Whats the US population, 300 million ? 300 * 100 = 30000 million = 30 billion. MS could cover everything with 1 cash payment. Granted, they wouldn't do it this way, and it would suck for them, but there probably wont be a $100 award given to every man, woman, and child in the US either.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Apparently Hemos is trying to divert the fact that VA Linux (the parent of Slashdot) has its OWN pile of class action suits, alleging securities fraud. Of course, the difference is that Microsoft has billions of dollars of cash on hand, and makes a couple of billion dollars in _profit_ every year. VA Linux, on the other hand, is in debt hundreds of millions of dollars, and loses tens of millions of dollars per quarter. So who do you think will be sued out of existence first? How will be out on the streets first begging for a REAL job - Gates or Bates? My money is on VA Linux going bankrupt far sooner than Microsoft.
Yes you can and no you don't. Part of being in a democracy means that the people effect the laws an policy in place. So you can cherry pick the good laws and get rid of or civily disobey the dumb ones. In fact, it's a patriotic duty.
-no broken link
remember the other time when we sent back those cd-roms.. .. its better this year ..
claiming to send us back our $100 for the MSwindows they installed.
hell
we can have a "file a class action suit day"
now wouldn't that be great ?
i bet the lawyers are drooling right now
I hate to be the one to point this out, but if MS dies what other OS are the clueless AOL newbies going to use? They won't stop using computer of course.. they will be forced to migrate to another OS, perhaps Linux. Can you immagine the tech support nightmare that would cause?
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=
... you lost revenue!
----------
No army can withstand the strength of an idea whose time has come.
----------
No army can withstand the strength of an idea whose time has come.
- Victor Hugo
And what about us canadians? Can we jump into such a class action suit as well?
One reason why you don't hear people agitating for the lynching of Oracle, Cisco and Sun is that their stuff mostly works. And, for most of us geeks here, someone else picks up the outragous bills for their products. I've used or administered the products of all these comapanies and have encountered fewer problems and annoyances in all of them combined than I've found in MS Word! As for the cost? Heck my employer picks that up. What do I care?
On the other hand, til I finally got around to putting linux on my home system I was stuck with MS and all its attendent crap. As buggy and and stupid as that system is, I'm the one who had to pay for it. And, I had to pay a lot. In consumer terms that is. That's why there's such a jihad. Not to mention, the poor fools who have to administer and or maintain MS products. I liken them to the suicide bombers that come to mind when Americans picture the Middle East. Oh, and let's not get into their business practics.
Of course, the other companies shouldn't be throwing stones either. Still, they seem to know when to back off. Either that or they're more adept at buying off the tech press. I dunno which.
Sun will buy Microsoft after they file for bankruptcy and nothing will change except the name and the fact that having really white teeth will be touted in the media as the route to success.
MS dies, and we all lose a fuckton of good software, those of us that use it. Yeah, that's worth the $20 I'll get from the class action. Right.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
But I don't want MS to die.
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
IANAL, but as I understand it, the fact that they would still be doing business in the US would provide at least some exposure to still being sued. I honestly have no clue, however, about how any actual international treaties would affect the situation. But, as a wild ass guess, I suspect such a move would, at least, provide some protection against the DOJ trying to directly manipulate and split the company itself -- but the US would still be free to interfere with the MS business that still would take place within the US borders. Of course, there's also the factor that MS is currently a publically traded company on a US-based stock exchange. I don't know what effect that would have on things.
Think about it - when DOS came out, it succeeded because IBM was required to bundle DOS with every machine they sold. Sounds like what's happening now with many other a company...
I can't be karma whoring - I've already hit 50!
SIG: HUP
Well the tobacco industry is now asking to have regulation put on them in order to have protection against more lawsuits. The lawsuits are working to kill the tobacco industry and it will soon in the next 20 years be only a fraction of what they once where. Also MS is in the same boat that IBM once was. People could not believe that IBM could ever be challenge in the computer world but it happened. They missed being split up by the government but they lost their place in the computer world, maybe forever. The same will happen with MS it may take time but it will happen and these lawsuits will help make it happen.
This decision most certainly isn't a coup for the common man. It's just an opportunity to get a discount on your next purchase of Windows.
;)
And even that won't matter much, since they'll just raise the price of Windows.
"And like that
Hello Folks,
Slashdot stories about Microsoft always generate plenty of friendly debate, and this post has been no exception. Allow me to pipe in with my two cents worth. The reason why Microsoft must die is that it is now an unnecessary evil. Yes, Microsoft almost singlehandedly created the PC software market. But just as patents eventually expire to make way for innovation, Microsoft must expire to unlock the personal computer's full potential.
Microsoft has always been arrogant and monopolistic, but when carving out a new industry that attitude is necessary, as well as real innovation and providing a useful product. So in effect I believe Microsoft in the past has been a necessary evil. But now Microsoft is using it's monopoly to not empower it's users, but to squeeze every last penny they can out of them and to also constrain their option not by what is possible, but what is in Microsoft's best interest.
The argument that better commercial software not made by Microsoft will prevail is false because Microsoft is a monopoly. So until Microsoft is either dead or severely weakened, Microsoft will, for most PC users, generally determine how useful your computer is, and about how much you will pay for that usefulness.
So, in summary, the only way to unlock the full potential of personal computers is to weaken or kill Microsoft. That is a viable option now only because that Linux is becoming usable to the general public.
James Bearden
http://james.nontrivial.org
Class action, fine. But really, these suits will not hold water. Personally, I don't have a warm place in my heart for MS, but the reality is that MS isn't truly at fault. Since 1994, as far as I can remember, you still had a choice on what computer to purchase. You could have either bought an Apple (with their own proprietery OS) or you could have bought an IBM clone with MS installed.
/. viewer, but, you still had a choice. I chose not to give to the Bill G. Foundation... What did you do?
To me, that's still a choice. I chose to use Apple's OS and bought a Machintosh.
Looking into the problem deeper. Microsoft didn't become popular becuase they were so good.... Apple wouldn't outsource their OS. Software companies started making much of their programs for MS, because they could. A lack of choices push more people and businesses to an IBM Clone computer with the MS OS.
Again I disdain MS as much as the next
LR
www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
Here in the Land of 10K Lakes, we've had pretty good success with such lawsuits.
Minnesota led the way in suing the tobbacco comapanies into the ground, we got a shitload of money.
Minnesota also sued successfully Nintendo for anticompetitive pricing schemes in the early around 1990. The claim was that Nintendo used nasty agreements of questionable legality to jack up prices. They won, but all I got as a class member was (IIRC) $15. Don't expect to get every dime MS has ever extracted out of you.
IANAL, but assuming that the lawsuit is made on the same legal grounds as the Nintendo lawsuit, that the laws haven't changed, and that the judges in Minnesota haven't changed, it seems like a pretty clear case. Microsoft's pricing schemes have to be far more anticompetitive than Nintendo's ever were - anybody remember "per-machine" (translation: exlusive), licensing for OEMs?
The key difference you're forgetting is that nobody has ever died because of buggy windows software - if they did then the federal govt. could force them to recall and fix all such systems out of their own pocket.
There are a thousand forms of subversion, but few can equal the convenience and immediacy of a cream pie -Noel Godin
The point is not to do with whether they forced consumers to use their software or not. The point is all about the fact that they have already been found guilty of anti-competetive practices by a court, and so it is a natural extension of this ruling that anybody who purchased a computer which was subject to this particular instance of anti-competetiveness ( ie an pre-installed OEM machine ) "suffered" from the lack of a fair and open marketplace and so they were "harmed".
This isn't about the morality involved, its about the natural extension of law.
There are a thousand forms of subversion, but few can equal the convenience and immediacy of a cream pie -Noel Godin
wonder if they were to move to Canada if they would be safe from private lawsuits by Americans.
...
Nope. We have this cool, nifty, ultrakeen thing called NAFTA that MSFT helped create.
Talk about payback
[caveat - I own MSFT shares]
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
OK,
- B
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
All they have to do is revoke the Windows licenses of any lawyers who join the lawsuit, and that way the lawyers won't be able to write their documents. They could also keep a sh*tlist of anyone that joins the lawsuit and lock them out of .net. :)
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
Disclaimer : I need caffiene or sleep, so if there is a gross error in this, please point it out.
If all B are a part of A, and all C are a part of B, then all C are a part of A. If all B are a part of A, and all D are a part of A, we cannot prove that all D are a part of B.
An example of correct logic would be the following: All Greeks (B) are mortals (A). Socrates (C) is a Greek (B). Socrates (C) is a mortal (A).
An example of faulty logic would be: Hemos (D) is a mortal (A). All Greeks (B) are mortals (A). Hemos (D) is a Greek (B).
Now the original point of the thread was that Microsoft may be breaking the law, but we don't consider all laws to be just (the DCMA). I believe the original poster was criticizing the knee-jerk reaction of "Oooh, Microsoft is a lawbreaker, Microsoft is bad." Most of us consider some laws to be unfair, and most of us break the occasional law we don't feel is right, without any sense of guilt. Therefore, I believe that it is fair to say that most of us believe that all lawbreakers are not bad. I have to agree with the original poster on this point, Microsoft is not bad because it broke the law. However, I do think Microsoft is bad (in the wrong) over the point of the OEM Window install. If I purchase a product (windows) and find that the included EULA is not to my liking, I should have a right to return said product.
Just my $.02
Actually, no, I live and work in Washington DC, where there aren't U-Build-It stores (even the shifty places out on Wisconsin Ave near Tenleytown sell name-brand).
The only way I could have built from parts was to cross state lines (in person or via mail).
Within my jurisdiction, the Microsoft Tax is absolute. My grievance is under DC law. The fact that I could go to some state and buy a motherboard is about as relevant to the case as the fact that I could buy something in Moldova would be to a Federal monopoly case.
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
Think of it this way: Car manufacturers (almost) always go with one tire company for their new cars. Honda goes with Michelin, Ford goes with Firestone, etc. etc. This is fine because if you don't like the tires that one manufacturer offers (this is, of course, if tires are a major bargaining point to you), then you can go to another manufacturer that "bundles" a different kind of tire with the car. That's where I see the problem with the OEMs and windows. Until relatively recently, you couldn't find an OEM who didn't bundle Windows with the machines, and consequently, charge you for the license. Back in 1997 I bought a machine from Gateway; I asked them to not bundle and charge me for windows, because I wasn't going to use it anyways. They said that they could go without bundling it, but I'd still be charged. This is exactly what I am talking about. There was no choice. Dell told me the same thing (in 1997). This to me is definitely grounds for a suit. Hardware is like the tires; if I don't like nVidia, then I'll buy from someone else. Next pc I get, it will be coming from Penguin Computing, VA Linux, or I'll just build it myself.
Considering Apple, again I don't know enough about them to say one way or the other. If it is the way you say it is, then I believe that they are in the wrong as well. There is no doubt that the lawyers are going after M$ first, when you're the biggest ass, everyone knows how much you stink. Another reason that Apple (probably) doesn't have these problems is because people who use Apple, love Apple. They have arguably a larger cult following then Linux.
I don't think that it's as simple as being punished for a product that some people don't like. I think it goes much further than that. The antitrust case is probably the more appropriate realm to argue against them in. Also, I can't truthfully say that there is no way that this isn't the OEMs fault either. However, I do believe that M$ has done harm to consumers. Not only in their unstable and upredictable products, but also in the manner in which their monopoly has lowered the bar for excellent software. I also believe that the law should be uniform. If it turns out that M$ really didn't break any laws, I'll be fine by that. I'd prefer that Linux take them down on their own terms anyways. But if these people have a case, they have proof that M$ broke the law, and they were harmed, then they should be fairly compensated. I feel a lot of this is going around in circles because the article didn't have much detail.
Fortunately though, this now a non-issue. With companies like VA Linux and Penguin Computing, you can now buy good hardware that has a different OS preloaded. And the villagers rejoiced
$man microsoft
Crowded elevator smell different to midget. -Chinese Proverb
The basic problem the plaintifs have is that the entire concept of copyright law is to grant a limited term monopoly for the commercial exploitation of copyright material. The conflicts between anti-trust and copyright law are discussed for many pages in the federal trial briefs.
A more immediate problem however is that the cases were all filled in the hope that Judge Jackson's 'findings of fact' could be used as evidence. Unfortunately for the plaintifs Jackson has been shooting off his mouth in most unjudicial terms since. Folk can argue over whether he has met the legal standard for demonstrating 'actual bias' but even the DoJ has been forced to agree that he has come very close. Calling the appeals court judges 'supercillious' and 'lacking trial experience' however seems to me to guarantee some sort of ascerbic response.
Given the incompetence of Jackson I think the appeals court is certain to reverse at least part of the rulling. One of the judges has already described the 'findings of fact' as 'conclusatory' and stated that 'just because the district court describes them as a fact does not make them so'. The idea that the Bush administration will persue the case further is laughable so the appeals court has a free hand. My guess is that the Appeals court will make a rulling that excortiates Jackson and pins the entire blame for the fiasco on him. Reprimands of judges may be rare but Jackson has pretty well made it impossible for the Appeals court to ignore his behavior.
The chances of Jackson's findings of fact surviving the process are slim. At which point the cost of making the case would suddenly jump by $20 million or so. The parasites will then settle with Microsoft for a low tens of millions in lawyers fees and the 'consumers' will get a handfull of vouchers giving them $10 to $20 off their next copy of Windows XP.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
And of course this is just a can of worms, but regarding the statement "this is how MS will die..." Only if the lawsuits succeed. Anyone have more info on the track record of who's representing the class-action suit? What's the basis of the complaint? It says buyers were charged too much. Too much compared to what? I don't have much of an opinion. Just curious to hear from those who do. Have an opinion. On this subject. An INFORMED opinion. An informed opinion on this subject... Oh well.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Notebooks, though, are damn difficult to buy without a pre-installed OS.
I can remember a few years ago buying a stack of notebooks (about 25) from a manufacturer that sent the notebook reformatted along with the CD for the OS I had requested (95 or 98).
Only just now I've gone up on the name. They're second-tier, maybe third, probably just a re-plate of a Taiwanese make... En-something... I'm reasonably sure I saw it a few weeks ago on new merchandise... Enpower! that's it.
http://www.enpower.com
--Blair
Microsoft had once considered moving their HQ to BC to escape the US government prosecution. I wonder if they were to move to Canada if they would be safe from private lawsuits by Americans. Worst case scenario, there are way less Canadians to sue them then there are Americans.
You must sue...
It's true that you have always been able to buy a Windows-less computer, but that's not the whole picture.
One of the defining points of the monopoly issue is that any computer company that wished to ship Windows on any of its systems was, at one time, told that they could pay a very high price (much higher than their competitors), or they could pay a "per computer shipped" fee that was much lower. The second option meant that they paid for Windows whether it was on the computer or not!
This was one of the (many) factors that killed OS/2. IBM realized that they were paying for Windows whether they shipped it or not, but if they didn't use that license, they either had to price their computers so much higher than competitors that it would badly hurt sales, or they'd have to stop offering Windows at all, which would have just about killed their PC business.
The suit, therefore, isn't about saying, "you had to buy Windows." It's about saying, "you had to pay for Windows whether you bought it or not."
The cost per copy of Windows 3.1 to IBM was $11.
What was the cost per copy of Windows 9x? Actually, cost per computer sold whether it had Windows 9x on it or not?
I would also tend to argue that if MS were to go down on the law suits no US software company would be safe in the near future. Our law system is based on precedence. RedHat, Oracle, and dozens of others would quickly die a swift and painful death -- not only due to the threat of law suits but also due to the complete and total dry up of the money they need to live on.
Who wants to own a piece of a software company that can be sued and "killed" based on the end users allegation that the product was inferior?
The only group that will profit from this development is lawyers.
Get over it weenies -- Microsoft is still the king of the Intel platform and still owns 90% of the populace and probably 89% of the technical population and 98% of the non-technical. Linux ends up with a small percentage and the Mac wins the #2 spot with users at large.
Joe consumer still has NO options for OS's -- no options for an OS that will run that new game, that will interoperate with his PC in the office in the way he can deal with, no option that is easily supportable in any corner of the country. Joe is stuck with Microsoft. Not because Microsoft strong armed the industry but because Apple overpriced themselves (if you want a company to hate, they are easier than Microsoft). Because Linux is still usable only by techno-geeks who don't mind wasting hours to get app x to run on it (don't tell me you can compile any app you want -- my grandmother has no clue how to compile an app and she is the market we are talking about -- 98% of computer users). The instlal of Linux has come a long way. The application support is not clean enough by a long shot. The upgrade process (recompile my kernal?) is arcane.
Anyone know Erin Brockovitch's Phone number?
It seems intuitive to me (but IANAL) that buying a computer from a Minnesota dealer provides you with associated costs and benefits peculiar to that jurisdiction. Therefore, purchasing a computer from a dealer in Minnesota qualifies you to be joindered into the suit. This would certainly apply to purchasing on-site, and probably purchasing mail-order or over the Web from a Minnesotan dealer.
It would probably also apply to a mail-order or Internet-order deal as well in which a Minnesota resident purchased a computer from a company outside of Minnesota, as long as that company satisfied the "minimum contact" requirements so that long-arm jurisdiction may be invoked. Usually, simply selling to a client in another state isn't enough, but websites may or may not qualify as active solicitation of business -- it's still a grey area, insofar as I know.
Any lawyers care to take this one up?
"I am become a fisher of men. Now, what kind of line do I use for a 240 lb. Pharisee?"
Sure, not all of the activity would be useful, but I don't mind saying I _miss_ the days when it seemed like there was some new Netscape plugin or image format popping up every five minutes. It took a great deal of 800-pound-gorillaing to stultify the industry to the point where basically nothing happens and the big noise is a concept as essentially hollow and meaningless as dotNET... I think it'd be great to break up the logjam and get things moving again.
So yes, absolutely, I want Microsoft out of business. Come on, there are lots of other companies out there that you might like. If you're so dead-set on corporate welfare and protecting Microsoft from darwinism, did you also lobby to protect Apple through all the past and present times it's done really stupid things? Can't have it both ways now.
DMCA == law
DMCA == bad
law == bad
antitrust laws == law
therefore...
antitrust laws == bad
yeah, ok... how bout this one:
god == love
love == blind
ray charles == blind
therefore...
ray charles == god
Your logic is just great! Almost as good as your overall knowledge of business practices and monopolies.
Forced? Really? That's bulshit. You could have paid someone to go buy the various parts and construct a PC from scratch, no? But that would have likely been more expensive and inconvenient.
If you can show me a site where I can buy generic laptop parts and build one all from scratch like I can a desktop, I'd appreciate it. The major complaint about not being able to buy a machine w/o Windows has usually be by laptop buyers. Fortunately, there are some manufacturers who now sell linux pre-installed on their laptops. However, if push comes to shove, and Billy tells Dell to drop linux preinstalls or have their next set of license agreements given the same treatment that IBM got in 1995, what do you think they will do?
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
This is bullshit. First of all, IBM fought cloners in court and lost. Most of them never lisenced IBM technology, and IBM never "opened up" their platform. It was forced open by black-box reverse engineering of their chipsets and extensive legal battles.
Secondly, Microsoft negotiates a separate contract with each of the major OEMs. Any one of them could tell MS to go to hell, and chances are all MS could do is raise the price of Windows. It's not Microsofts' fault that none of the OEMs have any balls.
Thirdly, you don't pay "full price" for pre-installed copies of Windows. Microsoft gives OEMs deep discounts, which presumably get passed on to the consumer.
Finally, at least MS liscences their OS. Apple doesn't even do that. If you want a Mac, you pay a "Mac OS tax" for the privilege. It's precisely the same issue. Can I sue Apple for not selling Macs without OS's? If not, then how is MS different?
The point of these class action suits isn't whether or not they get a license, it's whether or not you have a choice. And up until recently, the average consumer that lacked the know-how to build their own machine was without choice if they wanted to buy from a reliable OEM.
Sure, but I still think my analogy to Apple holds. If I have a right to PC hardware without a copy of Windows, don't I have a right to PPC hardware without a copy of Mac OS? My question is: how is this different?
The real difference is that Microsoft has a larger market share, and hence lawyers can get more money out of them. But as a matter of law and economics, what's the difference? Judge Jackson ruled that the "relevant market" for Microsoft was PC consumer OS's, so it would seem that there is a similar market for antitrust purposes for Mac hardware. If that's the case, Apple's far more of a monopolist than Microsoft is.
The logic of your position seems to me to lead to the conclusion that no company can ever enter into exclusive bundling arrangements. Does that mean that nVidia got too much market share, OEMs wouldn't be allowed to sign exclusive deals with them to bundle in all of their computers? Or if I don't like the hard drive in one of Compaq's computers, do I have a right to demand they put in a different one of those?
Law has to be objective and clear to everyone who applies it. I hope I'm not coming accross as just asking assinine questions to be annoying. It's crucial that antitrust law like all law be specific, clear, and universal. You can't have one set of rules for companies you like and another for those you don't, and you can't change the rules in the middle of the game. I believe that's what a lawsuit would mean-- Microsoft isn't being punished for breaking any identifiable law. They are being punished for making a product that some people don't like. I think that's bad law no matter how you slice it.
This is a very valid point. If this is what the lawsuit would be over (and the facts are sa you relate them), I would wholeheartedly support it. The key issue here, then, is fraud-- you were sold a product that had hidden conditions.
But this is very different from the more general claim that you're "forced" to purchase Windows. Here you knew you were going to get Windows, you just weren't told what the conditions of that purchase would be. It's a different issue.
But I agree with you-- if a company is going to stick a draconian EULA inside the box where the user can't read it until after he opens it, he has every right to return it for a refund. If they want to make it binding, they should force the sales clerk to show you a copy of the EULA before you walk out of the store with your copy. Otherwise, you have every right to get your money back when you find the EULA.
Look, Dow Chemical got socked with a staggering judgement...they simply declared bankruptcy and continued on. The tobacco industry got hammered, but they're still around. This will do nothing to Microsoft.
In fact, it seems to me that the very basis of the class action suit in Minnesota is a loser from the start. The claim is that people were overcharged for their operating system. When I worked for a major PC manufacturer, I know that they bought their licenses of Windows 95 and 98 for about $45 per computer. NT licenses were about $10 more. Nobody can convince me that that's overcharging.
I don't always like the business tactics that Microsoft employs, and they use corporate doublespeak terribly well, but in the end, the software generally works, is integrated well and is pretty much easier to use than other alternatives.
Microsoft won't last forever...even Bill Gates admits that. But they aren't going to be sued out of existence.
-h-
> If Linux/BSD/MacOSX/Whatever is a better OS than Microsofts, then let them compete in the marketplace, not in the courts.
That's exactly the problem with monopolies: the market doesn't work correctly in the presence of a monopoly, and alternative solutions can't win on their merits.
--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I keep hearing you M$ apologist repeat over and over that if other companies were any good, they would be able to compete in the marketplace.
Problem is, the fair playing field of the marketplace has been warped by M$ market dominance. They have been able to bend standards to make other products incompatible, and since they are the dominant players everyone bends to their standard. If another company starts gaining ground by winning a major contract, they buy out the other party. That is, competitors never have a chance to gain market momentum(sp?) no matter how good their products are!!
That's the point. That is always, has always been, the point. M$ gained market dominance early in the race, and through careful manipulation of the 'network effect', has worked to insure that no competitor can get a foothold in the market.
Futhermore, regardless of who is selling the product, there are laws that say a product must work as advertised or the purchaser is due a refund. Advertising that something is easy and cures cancer, then denying it in legalese on a tiny slip of paper hinden deep in the packaging is not considered kosher.
I regret that I don't live in one of the listed states so that I could add my name to the list. I'd like to receive a refund for DOS 6.0 and Win3.1 (last version I bought), 'cause it never did work right and there was no way in hell for me to get a refund until now. I had to replace that combo with OS/2 to get real work done.
Maybe this won't kill M$, but it will weaken them enough that they don't have the cash on hand to immediately kill every competitor that pops up. At some point, people will start to realize that M$ product aren't really all that great after all, and THEN the market will start working. And that is what WILL kill M$.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
By this logic you should be able to demand any component of the computer removed-- you don't want any memory or a sound card-- and get a discount for it. Computers are package-deals. There are dozens of components, and different companies put different parts in. You are free to pick those you want.
Only one problem with this logic: My "rights" with the sound card are not the same as with the software. If the "package deal" includes a sound card, I am legally allowed to remove the sound card and resell it to recoup some of the money. According to Microsoft's EULA, this is not allowed with their software since it was licensed to that particular machine. You can not resell your copy of Windows to recoup some of the money you spent on it.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
Are we also to assume that one must be a resident of MN to join the suit?
What if we bought the computer in MN?
What if the dealer was in MN?
Well, by that logic, Windows doesn't crash .. you crash because you chose to run Windows.
... but ... hheeeey waitaminute ... TROLL ALERT?! damn, back to the main thread ..
The tabacco industry lied for many years about the dangers of smoking (and I smoke, so I'm not some bleeding heart liberal here). It may be black and white today, but many believed the tabacco industry earlier in the century.
I guess what I'm saying is that if Microsoft makes certain claims, than their products should backup those claims. Whether they do or not, I'm not here to discuss
"Old man yells at systemd"
Really now, does anyone think that industry-friendly George W. Bush is going to let this come to fruition?
It'll grind its way through the court system for years, as Microsoft brings out its legal "rhino chasers" (really big guns). That and the Tolkein-esque "one shrink wrap to bind them, own them, and prevent them from doing anything" legal writ on every peice of MS software. That alone will help put any class action software lawsuit into a death spiral faster than a Chinese fighter jet playing chicken with US spy planes.
If it ever became a serious threat, expect the Republicans to draft legislation preventing class action lawsuits aimed specifically against software companies. With all that buggy code floating around, why, the legal system would be nothing more than one class action after another (who says law doesn't have built -in recursion subroutines?)
The only way Microsoft is ever going to be brough to their knees is through massive consumer dissatisfaction. People start buying their competitors products in lieu of Microsofts. That's the only way to deal with them. In their earnings reports.
These concerns vaporize as soon as you have to maintain and buy systems for a company;
In-house labor is usually quite expensive per-machine.
Machines ordered in bulk are usually cheaper and usually have identical hardware.
More limited warranty (if any).
Warranty covers indivual parts, not whole systems.
I'm busy!
There are other reasons, but these alone make the tax something that is a given expense that simply can't be avoided regaurdless of the OS that ends up on the machine.
Notebooks, though, are damn difficult to buy without a pre-installed OS. Those that are available usually have some flavor of Windows installed first, and then wiped clean...so the tax isn't really avoided.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
41:And the angel opened the 31337th seal, and there was a calm in heaven. And when the angel had opened the 31337th seal, there came a sound of which had not been heard before. From the depths of Hell came forth lawyers, holding speech devices near their ears, into which they did speak for a time. Then a great cry came forth "Babylon is falling! How will we control our devices?" Then I beheld the spirit of the Lord bringing with him many boxes. Unto Man did he give distributions for the boxes, and all of those found using the distributions did survive plague of the Lawyers.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Death is but a mere obstacle to lawyers.
I don't recall MS ever forcing me to buy their products, there are many alternatives around, so what's the problem? Sure, lots of things suck about MS software, but they haven't 'harmed' the average home user.
Anarchists never rule
Does the Slashdot Jihad hate Microsoft so much that they want them OUT OF BUSINESS? Jeezum crow, MS isn't the greatest software company in the world, nor are they cute and snuggly, but worthy of being DESTROYED?
How come I don't hear the same things about Cisco, or Oracle, or even Sun for that matter? Shit, Bill Gates isn't even the richest man in the world anymore, and is mostly concerned with the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation anyway.
Sure they make a crappy OS (tho, I understand Win 2K ain't all that bad) but is that so bad that they deserve to be visited by a plague of lawyers? (Which, BTW, I'm pretty sure St. John the Devine listed as a Sign of the End Times in Revelations)
"Beware by whom you are called sane."
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
If Linux/BSD/MacOSX/Whatever is a better OS than Microsofts, then let them compete in the marketplace, not in the courts.
Red Hat, Macintosh, and some other OSes are for purchase at your local staples.
Please be advised not everyone wants to see a company destroyed just because they are a (sometimes mean and unfair) competitor. Maybe just hurt a little.
-Ben
siri
The only folks who win in class-action lawsuits are lawyers and the defendant. The suits take a large proportion of the award. The defendant is usally punished by requiring them to send out dollar-off coupons to the plaintiffs, like what happened with GM. This decision most certainly isn't a coup for the common man. It's just an opportunity to get a discount on your next purchase of Windows.
you forgot NT and XP
--
Je t'aime Stéphanie
I can see it now.........
40 million people that bought computers with MS-DOS/Windows preintalled since 1994, left a Minnesota court room today jubulant. They will be entitled to a percentage of the record setting settlement of 53 trillion dollars. It is expected that Microsoft will challenge the desision and thus tie this matter up in court for many decades.
I love the smell of Karma in the morning
Ok. I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but we shouldn't band together to attack Mississippi. It's a fine state with a colorful history. Perhaps their support would be beneficial to the cause too.
--
1) A consumer buys a computer from a catalogue that only has a notation "Windows included". No mention that the user will have to sign a contract in order to use the software. Nor, is he given an oppurtunity to read the contract before paying for the compuer.
2) Consumer reads the contract and does not want to sign it.
3) He contacts the seller to receive a refund for returning the product (as instructed to by the contract).
4) Seller says that their contract with Microsoft prohibits them from reinbursing them.
5) Consumer can not legally sell the unwanted software to recoup some of his lost money.
6) The consumer now has something he paid for that he can't use; but, can't resell.
That is a big difference from buying a bundled sound card.
Will it make a difference in court? I don't know. I am not a laywer. But, it sounds like their was some misrepresentation since the computer was sold without any mention of a contract.
I feel like picking a fight with everyone who thinks they are right. - Rainmakers
oh, c'mon Hemos. I would like that just as much as you, but we both know that it isn't going to happen. Sure, they'll end up taking a hit financially, and will probably have to make some changes in their pricing, but they will be far from dead. Heck, all those lawsuits couldn't destroy the tobacco industry, and they kill people.
---
/bin/fortune | slashdotsig.sh
There's never been a time that you couldn't buy a computer without Windows... Sure, if you wanted a Dell, you had to get Windows, but you probably also had to get Brand X hard drive and Brand Y motherboard. Bundling is a common practice in most businesses. But big name brands aren't the only companies out there, and you could always buy machines made with quality components to put whatever OS you wanted on them.
IMHO, the cases will fail. Doesn't mean they won't drag out and give the lawyers on both sides lots of money, though...
--
Assume that there are valid arguments against your position.
Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
- Nietzsche