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.
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