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.
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
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?
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
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.
>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?
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/
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?