Slashdot Mirror
California Takes Issue With Microsoft Settlement Idea
Deepfoo writes: "Note from CNet on the California challenge to Microsoft's attempt to settle the 100 civil cases on file against it by donating equipment. The dissenters will argue that those harmed in the lawsuit aren't getting compensated directly in this way, and that the ploy of donating equipment to schools is a transparent effort to further extend its monopoly. The dissenting California lawyers estimate the actual damages due to Californians alone could be on the order of 3 to 9 billion (wide range, but that's what they've said). Is Microsoft a do-gooder, or up to no good?"
It's just like going shopping for your wife and getting her a digital camera beacuse *she really needs it* and you end up using it all the time. The gift, or the donation is really for you. Only you benefit for it.
I find it hard to believe that donating a bunch of windows software and hardware to communities on a limited basis is going to resurrect the BeOS, put Sun back on the line as the company of the internet or put money into developing better products for less money for billions of people. This think of the children ploy is as transparent as those "feed the children in 3rd world country" foundations. Most of the money goes to to the Not for profit administrator and a scant few cents actually makes it past the us border.
what a joke
http://cincyboys.blogspot.com/ Everything Cincinnati. Including the word 'Finnih'
Typically(as I understand it) in a lawsuit the whole idea is restitution of damages. I love the idea of Microsoft giving technology to underprivilaged schools, and if they want to do it then full steam ahead. But... their donation of resources shouldn't have any bearing on the actual civil litigation going on.
Companies donate money and services to charity all the time. In marketing that's called PR. Make the rest of the world think that you're allright. I'm from Southern California and I remember that when the Indian Gaming tribes went under fire during Proposition 5, they were donating money to charities left and right. Still do as a matter of fact.
Does anyone *really* think that the poor school districts are the ones who were hurt by Microsoft's Monopolistic(tm) practices? No, of course not. They wouldn't have been buying computers either way, it's the hardware that's too expensive for them--not Microsoft's inflated prices and crappy software. So after years of bullshit the average consumer has put up with by dealing with Microsoft's business tactics, as a settlement we get a company donating to an unrelated charity. Well, sign me up Frank.
There isn't any need to debate whether this sort of thing is going to extend Microsoft's monopoly or not. They do that kind of stuff all the time. It's the fact that people are willing to accept it as a term of a lawsuit settlement that pisses me off. Give'm hell boys.
As much as I like and respect the power of computers, it occurs to me that there are a number of higher priorities for schools, especially poor ones. How about books that aren't 25 years out of date? How about hot lunches for kids who can't afford to eat? How about pencils and other supplies? How about furnaces and boilers that actually work? How about kicking in a subsidy to help pay teachers what they're worth instead of keeping them at the poverty level?
Microsoft and RedHat will continue to play their little P.R. power games, using our schools as pawns. But each time I hear a story like this, I lose a little more respect for each of them.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
Slashdot is the home of the big-bad MS bashing, but worse than Big Tobacco? These guys deliberately withheld information that showed smoking was addictive and killed people. What's MS done? At worst played fairly dirty when competing, and trying to achieve a monopoly. Hardly a fair comparison here.
Now I agree the settlement is pretty silly, mainly because it doesn't cost MS very much at all. Personally I think even the Red Hat solution is poor. After all, they're saying that these poor schools just don't know how to spend the money, so we'll pick for them. Wouldn't a better solution be to just give the money directly to the schools in question so they can spend it where it's needed? There's not much point providing computers to schools if the literacy standards are too low, for instance.
Robert Ewing Visit the ANU Film Group home page http://www.anufg.org.au Australia's largest film society.
IANAL, but . . .
In most states, only "direct consumers" can sue for anti-trust damages -- e.g. typically this means Dell or Compaq, not the end-user. The suits involving these states are going to get thrown out anyway, so they are willing to settle for anything .
In CA (and some other places), indirect consumers can sue. So these states don't want to give in. But, MS cleverly made the settlement contingent on all suits being settled.
The class-action lawyers for the consumers in states that can't really sue are trying to force this settlement down the throats of the other groups. What will the judge say? Who knows.
Complete nonsense. By this argument someone who makes his money by killing and robbing is not evil - he's just trying to make a living like everyone else. The notion that corporations should be outside ethics and moral considerations is ridiculous.