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 wired: http://www.wired.com/news/antitrust/0,1551,48543,0 0.html
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
Either hell has frozen over or I missed something. Microsoft has not triumphed over the government, as MSNBC claims. AFAIK, the 18 states involved are still in discussion about the goverment settlement. Just like MS, portrarying themselves as the victim. "We won the case against the government, now we just have to work out these little suits. The big, cuddly teddy bear you as Microsoft will not give in... we will fight to stay strong". Yeah, bite me. Microsoft is not good for the consumer, yet they're parading themselves around like the consumer is on THEIR side.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
Are they kidding? This doesn't solve anything; it makes it worse! By providing software _for free_ to such a large number of people, the software now becomes the defacto standard for yet another group of people. These students will grow up in Microsoft(TM) America and like so many people before them be hooked into software that they'll be reluctant to leave in the future.
And using poorer schools... that's good. These schools would have previously been a good "target market" for OSS... can't beat the price. Now MS gets three victories for the price of none... they get the plaintiffs off of their backs, they get the PR boost that always comes with helping poor children, and they get a win against OSS. And what does it cost them? A "virtual" $1.1 billion. They're giving software to people that probably wouldn't have bought it in the first place, and they're giving away a product based on its RETAIL value; it costs MS very little to give this software away. The realized cost to MS will probably be less than $100 million. Much less.
Another Seattlement, if you ask me. I think I'm going to give up and be a rice farmer now... until Microsoft (TM) Wheat pushes me out of the staple foods market.
-- Minds are like parachutes... they work best when open.
Maybe I'm being cynical, but Microsoft providing the software for these institutions for free would be a very good move on their part to slow down the adoption of alternative operating systems and office suites. It's here, in schools that cannot afford the MS pricing anymore, that the erosion of MS monopoly will begin, and Microsoft has proposed a very effective counter measure to it. They slow down Linux and OSS adoption, and get DOJ off their backs. Both with one strike.
Then again, maybe they're just doing it for the goodness of their hearts...
In other words, this (i) helps Microsoft strengthen their Monopoly, (ii) costs Microsoft little more than $200 million, and (iii) probably harms children.
Today, Phillip Morris, manufacturer of cigarette products, agreed to settle all pending lawsuits that allege that they (PM) sold cigarettes to underage smokers.
The generous $1.9B settlement provides for Phillip Morris to provide, free of charge, a lifetime of tobacco products to every Junior and Middle school in America. The settlement would consist of $1.1B worth of prepared tobacco products, and $800M worth of reconditioned ashtrays and smoke detectors.
Phillip Morris attorney Hugh Smokem commented that "This is an equitable settlement which answers our critics charges that we sell tobacco products to minors. Clearly, no tobacco will be sold here."
30
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?
Bullshit. These kids need better computers in their classrooms the way staving Afghanis need shiny new Air Jordans.
These kids need school buildings that aren't falling down, schools that are free of violence, teachers who are competent and well-paid, and textbooks that are up to date. Computers in the classroom (other than in progamming and clerical classes, of course) is a fad that will ultimately have as much revolutionary impact as educational filmstrips. (Beep.)
This is a loss for everyone except Microsoft. In any sane nation, their corporate charter would have been revoked long ago, their corporate HQ razed and the ground salted, and Gates would have spent a week in the pillory, being pelted with rotten tomatoes and old DOS manuals.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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 $1.1 billion would be distributed amongst MSFT's competitors. But there is NO WAY MSFT should be "punished" by allowing them to extend their monopoly further.
Facts:
1. It is legal for MS to be a monopoly.
2. It is illegal for MS to abuse their monopoly power.
#1 is the result of consumer decisions; that's why it's legal. #2 is the result of MS decisions. So, to answer your question, it stops at the point when Microsoft stops illegally abusing their perfectly legal monopoly status.
Have you not been reading the case? at least one of the points at issue is that M$ has been forcing hardware vewndors who sell its product to not carry competing products (ie. if you want to make a PC with Windows on it you can't sell PCs with Linux or Be, or etc on it).
The result - I couldn't buy a laptop with Linux, or even a blank one to put Linux on myself - now because of the DoJ suit things have changed (a little). That's called "leveraging a monopoly" it's illegal
So long as a customer goes to buy a PC at a brand leader like Dell, or Compaq, or Gateway and they don't have a choice of a non-M$ OS, or of one without an OS (at a lower price of course) then we don't have a choice.
PS: you want to buy all the old copies of Windows I was forced to buy with my last few computers? oh wait I'm not allowed to sell them - I was forced to pay for them, declined to accept the license but seemingly am still bound by conditions in the license I didn't accept that bar me from selling it
Force Microsoft to donate $1.1 billion among the Free Software Foundation, the OpenOffice project, KDE and GNOME projects, the Linux kernel team, and various others. That'll pay all the significant Open Source developers out there for hmm.. at least the next 10 years.
You're joking, right?
How about Outlook's Virus of the Week? How about IIS's Vulnerability of the Week? How about ten years of blue screens? How about twenty years of a crappy filesystem that corrupts itself at the first opportunity? (And don't give me any bullshit about FAT being robust. If it were robust, why is SystemAgent set by default to paper over its fragility?) How about a fundamentally b0rk3d system design that the merest child could tell you was a disaster from the start? How about twenty five years of lying to the public (you would call it "marketing" and "PR") about how "innovative" Microsoft is, when in fact they've been strip-mining the industry for other people's ideas, filing off the serial numbers, and presenting them as their own? Good gravy, not even Bill's BASIC was original, being a port from a BASIC interpreter at Harvard (such activity would be considered criminal today by Bill's own set of "ethics").
You're right, but only in a sense that a dissembling lawyer would agree with. It is difficult to measure the harm to consumers, but that does not mean it didn't happen or merit correction.
Except that Microsoft was found guilty of criminal anti-trust violations. They do not get to win. Not by a longshot.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/011120/202744_1.html