Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Would Settle For The Children
The news from MSNBC
is that Microsoft wants to, er, settle for the children. Take that
whichever way you want. They propose to settle civil anti-trust cases (not the DoJ suit) with a $1.1 billion (retail value) spanking (they
have $36 billion in the bank), consisting of free computer goodies to our nation's poorest schools (the first hit's free, kids). I'm sure Microsoft will upgrade those old computers to keep them current, in perpetuity, for free, out of the kindness of their hearts, but in an apparent oversight that was left out of the news report. Of that $1.1 billion, $0.9 billion will be software presumably valued at whatever Microsoft wants to charge (see "monopoly"). For hardware and (laughable) training/support costs, Microsoft will be docked three weeks' worth of interest on their cashpile; they will seek matching funds for the remainder, I am not making this up. Some lawyers opposed this but "concluded that Microsoft's monopoly already is so pervasive that students would have to learn to use these products anyway in the workplace." Update: 11/20 21:22 GMT by M : Heh. Red Hat offers an alternative to Microsoft's settlement proposal - you provide hardware, we'll provide software.
While I really don't have a problem with microsofts products, their anti-competitive business stance is very disturbing. .9 billion given back to them. How sad.
At what point does this top being Microsofts fault and start being the fault of the millions of users? If people didn't buy the software or use the software, a monopoly would not exist!
I bet they write off the whole 1.1b as a bussines expense and save on taxes this year.
A real penalty would be 1.1 Billion in hardware. If you let them include the software, credit it for it's actual value (7 cents per CD).
SD
âoeWho knew something as harmless as willful ignorance could end up having real consequences?â
What's so bad about that? At least the money will be put to good use. Adequate amounts of computing equipment are hard to come by for many schools. Would you rather see this money go to some huge corporation like AOL, Apple, Corel, or Borland that needs money like a hole in the head? Or even worse the government? And let's be real...those computers are gonna use Microsoft software anyway...they might as well have Microsoft give it to them for free.
Slashdot, the site where everything's made up and the points don't matter
Jamie's ignores the inconvenient fact it is not clear that any harm to consumers could be proved at all. The unanimous Appellate Court decision in US v. Miscrosoft was pretty clear that any plaitiff representing consumers would need to prove net harm according to a stiff set of tests. I'd bet on Microsoft's odds to win that test in a court of law. (In fact, I continue to do so, since I'm not only an employee of the company, but continue to hold on to the bulk of the shares I've ever bought or been granted. My money is where my mouth is.)
However, even ignoring that, the key computation lay in asking how much each consumer would collect even if the most generous award were handed down. It turns out that the total payout would be less than $10/consumer before legal costs, and negative afterwards. The court isn't willing to go forward with a class-action lawsuit that will harm the plaitiffs even if they win.
This is a solution that makes everybody with a legitimate stake in the outcome win. Consumers benefit by getting something, the lawyers benefit by getting their costs covered, and Microsoft benefits by not having to go through another trial. The only losers are the third parties that make money off the continued controversy. I don't have a lot of sympathy for Larry Ellison or Scott McNealy, though -- do you?
In this day and age, I think most of us have more important things to worry about than wheather the disadvantaged poor kids will be using Microsoft or non-Microsoft products.
Really, who gives a shit! I mean, why not just say:
"Wow, that's really a nice thing to do for kids who would otherwise probably not get a chance to use a computer."
and go on about your business? I have really come full circle in this whole anti-Microsoft thing. I liked and used MS products, then abandoned them in favor of their *nix counterparts. Lately, though, I've come to realize what a load of crap most of the *nix software is.
The fact is, the Internet, and computer software in general are not some magical thing that doesn't have to follow the rules like the rest of the world. Companies like Microsoft are in this business to make money, and frankly Bill Gates does an extremely good job at making money. His company makes a product that people want, and he has every right to promote it and try to get people to buy it. Just like any other product.
People, you need to realize that just because a company actually wants you to *pay* for something, that doesnt' automatically make it illegal. I mean, why should they be a company if they can't make any money?
Getting back on topic, I think it's great that Microsoft is doing this, as it will give a chance to kids who wouldn't otherwise have one.
"A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force." -William Blum
About twenty bucks.
.iso's "valued" at fourty bucks a pop?
Ain't the software business grand?
Can I pay MY legal fines by donating Red Hat
KFG
I can get a very basic PC setup with no software for about $600 and if I purchase XP for $100 and XP Office for another $500 then I have a potential free system for the needy that cost a total of $1,200. So about 50% of the cost is for MS software and the other 50% is for some lame hardware. By the MS calcualtions the software will cost just over 80% of the total. Which leads me to wonder what kind of hardware they are purchasing to give to the needy for free?
What do you mean "at what point does this stop being MS's fault"?
They broke the law. In a court of law they were found guilty. It never stops being their fault - they did it.
Can you really not understand why people are upset by the proposal that punishes a company that has been found guilty of breaking the laws of the United States with behavior reminiscent of the crime?
I'm not opposed to the idea of helping these schools, but these are separate issues. Fine let's decide to give the schools the settlement. Give them 1.7 billion in cash and let them maintain their buildings, pay teachers more (i.e. let them decide what they need).
What else are they going to throw in free downloads of windows media player?
The government(s) should actually settle on this case, and let MSFT donate $1.1 billion to the school systems of software. But demand that it be their competitor's software (preferrably linux and other commercially-available Open-Source software). For example, let MSFT donate approx 10,000-20,000 boxed sets of either RedHat, Mandrake, Suse, etc, to the existing PC's in the schools. This will put significant cash flow in the high-tech industry, help further their competitors, and actually punish MSFT.
10,000 copies of linux could be divided as one official copy to each school or school district. they can then make legal copies within the schools. This can actually be more useful and efficient than you'd realize. If each school had one computer running linux, teachers and school computer folks can begin to assess how to run windows software under WINE, and other educational linux software. eventuallly this would save the school a bundle as they realize how to migrate their systems.
Of course there would be lots of details as to how the $1.1 billion would be distributed amongst MSFT's competitors. But there is NO WAY MSFT should be "punished" by allowing them to extend their monopoly further.
Oh that's interesting, basically none..
Thus, Windows is doing everything that the majority of users need...
Except that it could be argued that Microsoft (and the software industry in general) have changed the average user's mindset to believe that this is as good as computers get, and getting any better stability, inherent virus resistance and security and so forth isn't really possible.
But they aren't going to give up 'cash' to install a couple of thousand copies of Windows on these school machines. It'll just be the ammount they decide to 'charge for it that they claim they 'lost'.
>what about the hardware to support them? That's not mentioned at all
Yes it is.
Microsoft also would be responsible for making available 200,000 reconditioned computers and laptop computers during that period, $90 million in teacher training and $38 million in technical support.
Makes me wonder though who is lining up to get this contract for 200,000 'reconditioned' computers? I've always wondered what happens to the leased machines like the ones our company gets. We have a 3rd-party leasing company that gets the boxes from Dell which we lease for 18 months. We ghost the drives and put them on people's desks. When they go off lease, we wipe the drives and the leasing company takes them away.
My first guess would be that MS is going to source these from multiple leasing companies that operate in the areas where these 14,000 schools are?
...And, you are going to tell use that teaching them Linux and KDE will make them BETTER suited for the job market?...
:-( ].
I think it would, yes! There is a need for people who know how a computer works (not so much the hardware but the software-side of it). And Unix-admins are really wanted (at least here in Europe they are).
Just as you understand the workings of a computer better when you 'grew up' with DOS, I think people who have learned to think about software-configuration (as needed in Linux), and can learn some shell-scripting (as possible in Linux) will learn a lot more than the kids who only learn the 'point-and-click-and-drag-and-drop for dummies' that Winblows is, hiding everything that happens behind a nice graphic interface. Furthermore kids are much more eager and able to learn these things than grown-ups are.
Another thing is that they can learn that there's more than Micro$oft on this world and will have a real choice if they grow up, if they want they can either use M$-shit, or a real OS. [btw, I use M$
If M$ gets it's way, they will only know M$ and will not easily change to anything else. I agree fully with the people who say that M$ is only perpetuating their monopoly this way.
What would be really good would be if M$ was forced to give the schools new hardware and OSS to run on it. If the kids want to change to M$ later when they leave school, well, I won't stop them. But at least they'll know there's more. And the talented kids will have had a chance to get into a real OS, and, to return to the beginning of this reply, have a lot more chances on the job market!
(Just mij 0.02).
What person will donate an airborne act of love?
Unfortunately, our beloved country is ever more controlled by corporate interests. Even Al "I hate Big Oil" Gore receives a ridiculous amount of money from corporate sponsors. No comment needs to be made about GWB and his administration.
Here's my take on why most people in government support Microsoft. First, whatever the morality of their practices, they are arguably the most successful business in history. They pay lots of salaries and benefits and have created much wealth.
Also, many people remember how scary it was in the 80's when the Japanese were kicking our asses in every way (with the Koreans and other Asian nations not far behind). MS, along with Intel, Oracle, Sun, etc. have brought the world technology leadership solidly back to the US. Many politicians want to keep it that way.
Don't get me wrong, I'm badly disappointed with this proposed settlement and the one for the still-pending DOJ case. That's why I only use Linux on my computers (except for a lingering Win98 partition at home to play a couple of Windows only games).
You know what? Thank God for all MS's security holes. If Windows/IE/IIS/Passport were all actually secure, then they would completely take over everything, no question about it. Then we'd all truly have our entire computing experience controlled by Redmond.
I'm getting depressed, I'm going to shut up now.....
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/011120/202744_1.html
Anyway. Of course an overriding goal is to increase the company's bottom line. However, traditionally, companies have also followed the constraints of the particular nation's laws. If not follow them to the letter, than at least to not directly oppose them.
Basically the original comment stated that "At what point does this top being Microsoft's fault and start being the fault of the millions of users? If people didn't buy the software or use the software, a monopoly would not exist! ". This evidence proves that consumers had no choice before 1998.
Actually users do not buy the Operating System. YOUR OEM DOES. Infact the EULA is not written for consumers but for oems. This is why the BSA only goes after businesses and oem's and not individuals. Individuals never agree to the EULA unless they are doing a manual install. Mainly coroporate clients. Infact it is a monopoly if you strangle competitors by controlling the distribution. This is precisely what MS did. Rockafeller started his whole monopoly by buying out train companies. With distribution under control he took over the whole market by charging sky high rates for competitors oil so his was always cheaper and standard oil would get a profit wether a consumer bought oil from him or someone else. This is really not that different then Microsoft's deals with the OEM's.
http://saveie6.com/
What about the ownership cost of all this hardware and software? If the schools cannot afford to buy computers, they surely cannot affort to support them. I don't think Microsoft is going to provide on-site or even regional admins to keep the computers running.
Microsoft Windows never refers to itself for bad things, only good things. Ex: Windows has detected new hardware, and must restart your computer [not windows]. You have installed new software; you must restart your computer [not windows]. Your computer [not windows] has crashed. People then associate all the annoying things with the whole computer and not the operating system itself.
Got friends?
Schools don't need computers. They need teachers. They need good teachers. They need good teachers who know their stuff and who are passionate about teaching. Schools need money to buy good teachers. Not many people that talented will teach for 30 g's a year when they could do any number of things and make three times that.
Everyone knows the school system sucks. It's going down the tubes. Just today I read an article in my local newspaper about how low US students scored on science tests. I remember a few years ago hearing how poorly we performed on math tests when compared to the rest of the world. What I don't recall hearing is any mention of more money for better teachers. The solution is so obvious yet all I hear is "a computer for every classroom". Bullshit. Computers don't teach people; teachers do. (Well, actually you teach yourself, but teachers motivate you.)