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?"
should be http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-7978672.html
501 Not Implemented
is that California would ask Microsoft to take the approach RedHat suggested. (In short: MS buys the hardware and RedHat gives away the soft)
I heard somewhere that Carnegie used to do the same thing with all of the money he donated for libraries and the like - the catch there was that the money came back to him because they were forced to buy all the steel & books and whatnot from his companies.
I think it's quite interesting that under RedHat's proposal (where Microsoft puts all that money to hardware, and RedHat gives all the software for free) that was mentioned here the other day things change the settlement from giving 200,000 computers to giving over a million.
That alone should make one pause at the "stink test". At the very least it should point out the valuation of Microsoft's software in their proposal.
MS may just be wanting what Apple was doing during the 80s and early 90s: Trying to get people familiarized and hooked young on their platform. However, if California really wants MS to pay, why not have MS pay for the hardware for public schools and libraries to upgrade or implement computers for the classes, and then have another company, say Red Hat, etc., provide the software and training, at MS's expense. That way, they're not getting anything out of the settlement, and they can't possibly profit from it. Seems fair to me.
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
Firestone announces it will be donating surplus "Wilderness XT" tires to Afghanistan's Northern Alliance, as well as any Goodyear employee involved in R&D or Marketing.
I am become Troll, destroyer of threads
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'
"sir, we're a monopoly, we get to set the price"
Not to mention that education is the last Mac stronghold. I just wonder what'll happen in five years when the 'free stuff' runs out. Will MS continue to provide low cost solutions? Didn't think so.
Drug dealers always like to give out free samples
"The conduct of neither [party], if strictly examined, will be irreproachable." -Elizabeth Bennet
In this case I see their attempted settlement as something that is good for PR(what is less loveable than donating computers to be used by kids in schools?), that is less expensive than some other alternatives, and which will cause the least damage to their reputation and ability to turn a profit in the future. If they thought that forking over $9 billion was the only way they could continue to make a profit they would do that. However, they will exhaust all alternatives before resorting to that and hope to find one which is preferable(like donating to schools). It's a simple, logical fact.
What's in a Sig?
Reminds me a lot of Andrew Carnegie. There were an awful lot of mistreated workers in his companies. He ruthlessly used individuals and destroyed competetors. He was a beleiver in social darwinism.
On the other hand, in his later years, he was a noted philanthropist. Or at least, he gave money to various causes he liked.
At its deepest level, this is a question about whether or not you're good if you're selective about which kinds of good you live up to. Carnegie could have gotten a good image by actually just treating his employees well. Microsoft could get a good image by just agreeing to only compete on the merits of their products (well....). But that wasn't their preference.
I wouldn't mitigate the fact that giving computers away or founding charitable organizations is a good thing. I just think that true goodness sometimes has to respond to demands outside its own interest.
And it's especially disenchanting, though, if the only good you choose to do is that which does you good, and you'd like to look noble for it.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
I'm still amazed at the pair of brass balls needed to even suggest a settlement like this.
Can you think of any other company that would see flooding the market with their product as a good solution to a monopoly lawsuit? If AT&T had suggested adding free phone lines to schools in reponse to the goverment saying they already had too much control, they would have been laughed out of the court room.
That sounds exactly like a convicted arsonist who proposes to make up for his deeds by distributing matches in the schoolyard, then sets up an extinguisher manufacture. As much as I hate M$, I have to say I admire them and their attorneys for having the guts to even think about proposing a deal like that, that's classic Microsoft. If the DOJ goes for that, it sure won't be their finest hour ...
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
However, this decision sets a new standard for abuse and irony. My wife's a worker's compensation attorney, so I get stories of liars and shenanigans in courts every day. It's never anything close to this, however.
The settlement is supposed to punish Microsoft for abusive practices, but actually rewards them greatly:
1. No real cash payment - they "charge themselves" for software, rather than paying penalties. win.
2. Cash from the US government - that same self-charge comes as a business expense and a loss against an MS business division, thus it is treated as a TAX WRITE-OFF. The write-off value is far greater than the charge, thus they MAKE money on balance.
3. The schools - Schools are one place alternatives still ahve penetration. (They used to be the bastion of Apple...)
4. The children - Lo', the children! In the silliest irony of all, the sacrifice one monopoly for bringing MS products to the schools. These guys make Big Tobacco look good.
5. Perception - The public will see this as an overture to help those same children, thus improving the MS image.
In the end, Microsoft wins at every turn. How could this settlement possibly have come about? There is literally no aspect of punishment at all. Microsoft even makes money on the deal.
This is a sad day for our courts.
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.
Use this link instead. ("ttp://" => "http://")
Okay first off, I am your average Microsoft hater, for all of the usual reasons, but to the point that against my generally open-minded principles I tend to shudder everytime I hear the letters, "MSCE."
Anyway, with that in mind, is Microsoft doing anything that Apple and/or Sun haven't already done? Is this on such a large stage and with such hubris that no one can look at it against what other software and hardware vendors have done?
Example is as follows: Sun donates a whole pile of hardware to UC San Diego. UCSD agrees to switch to Java as their CS Departments core language over C/C++.
Let's make this clear: they are going to make money off of poor schools while coming off as altruistic at the same time. Can you imagine the M$ software audit nazis shutting down a school because it couldn't afford to upgrade the site license to their "free" software? I'm glad to see that the State of California, home of many good things, has the balls to stand up to this crap.
Which reminds me of another thing: how the hell is "giving away" software to poor schools going to help all of the victims of the M$ monopoly? How long have these lawyers been away from the outside world, that they would lose sight of their objectives? I guess since its all money to them, they don't really give two shits one way or the other...
Friends don't let friends use multiple inheritance.
Somehow, i don't think slashdot "thinks" anymore.
What good is california going to do with making this decision? Do you think poor schools in california will get computers with software pre-loaded on it?
Do you think a kid will be more well off With Linux over Windows? Does that teach them anything else other then the philosphy of free software?
I personally want my kids to understand Word and Excell and possibly how to use Photoshop and applications like that for when they go to work. I would want linux to be an afterthought, as it has never occured to me to run it as a core os.
Somehow i don't see Redhat or california providing the means that Microsoft can. Monopoly or not, microsoft has the money and power to provide an education for our kids. Monopoly aside, California has no right deciding this fate.
Put the computer and the software at the kids choice, if RedHat has the means to do this then don't take a free ride off microfts problems, go out there and support our schools.
It's not really all that different, except for what is, in my mind, a pretty major factor.
Apple and Sun weren't doing this as part of a supposed "punishment". Apple and Sun did this for a competitive advantage, but they were in a position where they should try to do that. Giving Microsoft an opportunity for a competitive advantage somehow just doesn't seem like punishment to me.
There is only one objective response to that question.
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
I think they are trying to extend the monopoly and get Apple and others out of the schools...
Providing low-cost or free computing equipment to schools and universities - so a generation of graduates comes up pre-trained on your stuff - is an old hack.
IBM did it. DEC did it. Amdahl did it. Cray did it. Apple did it.
But to use such an anti-competitive activity as a SETTLEMENT of an anti-trust conviction... Now THAT takes GUTS!
If they get away with it, it will qualify as the legal hack of the century.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The settlement offer was donating 1.1 billion in software and hardware to the "poorest" public schools. 900 million in software alone, which after 5 years the schools would have to renew the licence! On the otherhand, Redhat has offered to distribute and support all software needed if microsoft only provides the hardware instead. With the 5th largest economy in the world Cailforina has the ability hold out against MS until a cash settlement is provided.
"Get them before they get....
I believe Microsoft is up to no good.
Suppose they decide to donate 1 billion dollars worth of equipment. Think of the advantages of donating computer equipment to schools:
Microsoft would choose the schools and then supply the cheapest computers available on the market. The cost of these computers would be deducted from the 1 billion dollars. Microsoft would then install their own software on these computers. This would definitely include one of their operating systems and a bunch of office productivity, educational, art applications and games. Microsoft would then deduct their suggested retail price of the software from the 1 billion dollars.
If each computer costs Microsoft $500.00, and then they deduct $2000.00 for software (the more software they install on these computers, the more they can deduct), Microsoft actually spends only one fifth of the 1 billion dollars. The rest is money they never spend. They would be giving away copies of their own software. This does not cost them anything, since software is not a tangible product, and they don't actually have to manufacture those copies (other than putting them on a CD, the cost of which is negligible at their high quantities). Microsoft ends up spending 200,000,000 instead of 1,000,000,000--a huge savings!
But wait, there's more! These computers would simply serve as an advertisement for Microsoft. Furthermore, they'll probably put a different spin on the donation, making it appear as an act of good will, instead of a punishment for an abusive monopoly. Most folks would think Microsoft is very noble, as they don't follow the lawsuits. And I haven't even gotten started yet. Here's the best part! Microsoft would write off the entire 1 billion dollars as an expense, and end up not paying taxes on that money, even though four fifths of it never left Microsoft's bank account! (Microsoft has some genius accountants. They will somehow manage to do this, and the government won't be able to do a damn thing about it.) There are probably another ten or so huge benefits to Microsoft. They would essentially turn this "punishment" into a marketing ploy, and further expand their monopoly.
My suggestion for a real punishment follows: The government should decide which schools most need free computer equipment. Then, the government will decide on an amount of money to be spent on that school. Microsoft will be required to give the school a cash grant, which the school can use to purchase anything in the realm of computer equipment. The total amount of money spent by Microsoft on grants should be not less than 2 billion dollars.
Here's where my suggestion gets interesting: The schools have 100 percent choice as to which products to buy with the grant money. This could include scanners, printers, monitors, speakers, any computer hardware, etc. They could buy a PDP-11 or an SGI Onyx, or anything in between. Furthermore, they could get any software they want, whether it is IRIX, Windows 2000, Linux, or anything else out there. But here's the catch: If the school decides to use software products from Microsoft, Microsoft may NOT charge for them. They will be required to give the school a special, 100 percent free, totally unlimited, site-wide license for that product. (The license is special in that any faculty member or student of that school would be permitted to install that piece of software at any number of computers in their home at no cost. This prevents the grant from being used as an advertisement, which would benefit Microsoft instead of punishing them.) To close another loophole, if the school wants a software product made by another company, and Microsoft would somehow profit from this (through licensing fees, by owning shares of the company, or any other method), Microsoft is not allowed to make that profit. In other words, the ruling would prevent Microsoft from IN ANY WAY profiting from their products being given to the school. And finally, this requirement lasts forever. If Microsoft is still in business 200 years from now, and that school wants to use some software of theirs, Microsoft must still follow this rule.
In other words, the school may purchase (or obtain freely, if applicable) whatever computer related products they want, including Microsoft products, if they wish, but Microsoft may in no way profit from this punishment. If these were the terms of the punishment, I would agree to it 100 percent. Otherwise, I think Microsoft is playing games again.
Oh well.
Yes, donationg equipment to schools can be beneficial to a company as you depict in the Sun example.
Usually settlements costs act as a deterrant to further violations, and in this specific case (since it can potentially benefit Microsoft) I fail to see how the settlement will prevent further violations.
>I hope Microsoft wins this battle. The stupid antitrust laws should be repealed anyway. They're over 100 years old!
Hey, so is the whole country... time to close up the tent everyone.
.
-pyrrho
This is getting less and less funny every day. :/
According to lawyers and others briefed on the deal, Philip Morris would provide tobacco products valued at about $900 million over five years to schools where most students qualify for free federal lunch programs. Philip Morris also would be responsible for making available 200,000 reconditioned ashtrays and tobacco pipes during that period, $90 million in teacher training and $38 million in technical support. It would provide as much as $250 million to set up an independent foundation to meet project goals, and would seek an additional $200 million in matching funds.
If the settlement goes through, Philip Morris's brand name and products will gain even greater presence in the nation's schools. Some of the lawyers in the class-action cases were uncomfortable with this but concluded that Philip Morris's monopoly already is so pervasive that students would have to learn to use their products anyway.
Wait!
It's um . . . uh.
Crap!
Let me check my copy of "Slashdot Answers to Microsoft Questions For Dummys". Here it is!
What was the question?
---------
Launch all sig
Comment removed based on user account deletion
C'mon!
They've entrenched themselves in a monopoly.
Now the government's soloution is to further EXTEND that monopoly?
What do the THINK putting a bunch of Windows machines in school is GOING to do?
Yeah. MS takes a licensing loss.
BOO FRICKING HOO!
Like they don't lose at least that much to people who ALREADY install their products on multiple systems?
They still have primary imprint on kids at school.
Basically hooking them into the MS cycle of endless bugfixes re-dressed into expensive upgrades.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
If the deal went through, Microsoft would be really getting a sweet deal. Consider that the majority of that 1.1 billion dollars, somewhere around 80% - nearly 900 million - would be to supposedly "pay" for their own software. But how much does it cost them to produce that package, the CDs, and the (ever shrinking) enclosed printed documentation? Have you ever seen the prices for products in their company store? $50, $60 for even their highest-dollar packages, and you can bet that's well more than the materials cost.
So, they lose (let's be generous) around $300 million (around $200 million in PCs, somewhere about $100 million in materials costs on the software and its packaging), to get themselves absolved of any wrongdoing. For a company that has supposedly billions of dollars in cash on-hand, that's chump change.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
I do volunteer work in several elementary schools in a middle-of-nowhere city. I have worked in about a half dozen schools now, and the best one at fighting illiteracy is the one with the most computers (that are actually used). The majority of the computers in this school are all rather old, many of them running on ancient macs or win3.1 machines. However, they are well used in the 'Accelerated Reader' program. I have seen this program make a sharp difference in the children's willingness to actually pick up a book with this program. Getting a child willing to read is a big part of fighting illiteracy. This isn't someone else's rhetoric I am regurgitating; I have seen this myself.
Then I have seen other schools where the 'Clinton computers' just get stuck in a corner and get occasional use from teachers and teachers' aids only. That sure helps...
Ironically, the other schools in this area get more funding than this one because they have a higher percentage of low-income students (90% is the average, the one I am praising has 'only' 30-60%). However, the extra money doesn't seem to be well spent. Just throwing money at the problem doesn't even make a dent. All of the problems you listed will not be affected at all by putting more money in the system; it all depends on how the local government apportions it and handles it. For example, it doesn't matter if $X of extra money gets apportioned to schools if it takes > 6 months to get anything approved. 'Need a new boiler? No problem! You just have to call a long list of people and then wait another 6 months and hope for no additional delays. Yes, you will get that new boiler; it is guaranteed by law... just not when you get it.' This is the real trouble I have been dealing with.
So what we really need are local responsive governments (including school boards), sane teachers (You wont believe some of the oddities I have seen; Well, maybe you might. Your childhood memories probably weren't exaggerated...) and good school equipment that actually gets incorporated into the curriculum. Meet these three needs, and our schools will actually be pretty good despite other problems. As long as these needs aren't met, throwing money or books at the problem won't cause much change at all.
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
At the same time, the fact that it was the idea of a prosecutor doesn't make it a logical remedy, which is the real issue here. The attorney's fees are irrelevant to MS if they can get the low settlement cost; an important issue the CA lawyers raise is that the $10 figure is based on a very conservative estimate of how much MS has overcharged consumers. As I am sure you read he alleges overcharges in CA to be $3-5 billion.
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
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.
I guess my point is that even though I don't agree with the business tactics that Microsoft has taken, even though I think that Windows XP is overpriced for what you get, I believe that there are alternatives out there.
Here's the hard part: to get what you really want takes a little work. So I built my own computers and installed my own operating systems. And I can honestly say that Microsoft hasn't harmed me, hasn't stifled my innovation and basically has had little to no impact on me.
My personal opinion is that much of the Microsoft bashing goes on for a few reasons:
1. You're jealous of Bill Gates because he made a lot of money.
2. Microsoft is a big (relatively speaking) company and big companies are easy to hate.
3. Microsoft aggressively protects its intellectual property interests.
It seems to me that only the third reason *might* be a position to argue from, except that, from a legal perspective, MUST protect their IP interests.
As far as the "innovation" issue, I'd say that's a red herring. Innovation, at least in the sense that most people bandy the word around, really doesn't exist. Very little work in any industry is innovative, regardless of what the marketing flacks might say. For the last several years almost every "new" product or idea has really been nothing more than an evolutionary improvement on existing work. Now that's not a bad thing...it really is how new products get introduced. But I don't think it's appropriate to say that Microsoft stifles innovation...the very complexity of many of the "things" that we use today really limits true innovation.
And just as a bonus...for everyone who rails at companies who (mis)use US patent laws to protect their patently obvious software developments, remember that the antitrust laws that Microsoft was accused of violating were put in place to combat the excesses of the railroad barons of the 19th century...just as poor an application of the law to the Microsoft situation as the application of patent law to software and "methods". Read your history!
And finally...the "Windows tax" isn't necessarily a Microsoft invention. Consider the economies of scale. I was part of management for a major computer manufacturer and one of the decisions that we had to make regarded the shipment of systems with no OS or a custom OS installed. From a cost perspective, it simply was too expensive to delete Windows from our configurations and create a special process for the small number of orders that required no OS. It wasn't a contract requirement, it wasn't Microsoft leaning on us to ship Windows, it was economics plain and simple. To knock $40 off the cost of a system and ship with no OS cost well over $40 to implement on such a small volume of computers. Want to blame somebody on the "Windows tax"? It's the corporate bottom line. Oh, and the company is still in business. And, in a sea of red ink, actually made a profit last quarter.
-h-
How much bigger and more powerful do YOU want them to be?
It is nothing but a transparent ploy to extend monopoly. I can't believe anyone would fail to see it, or ignore it. It's blatent and it's obvious. And it's predictable. This is precisely the way we've all come to expect MS to behave.
So... Ballmer thinks that even if people were given the choice they would still install Microsoft software.
What is depressing is that he is probably right. Microsoft does have a monopoly on the desktop after all.
I think that Microsoft should just give the schools the money and let them do what ever they want with it. Buy desks or chairs. New basketball uniforms... What ever the schools wants.
It's ridiculous to pretend that giving a billion dollars worth of software to schools costs Microsoft anything. Probably it costs them 4 million dollars in packaging. But they can more than make that up from the advertising they get as a result... Microsoft has probably spent 500 million advertising XP and 2k already.
That isn't even a punishment. And they have been convicted, right?
Not two weeks ago I wrote our (CA's) attorney general, supporting his decision to not settle...
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
If this works, maybe I'll try it myself next April:
"Dear IRS, Instead of a check, enclosed please find 800 copies of my latest shareware valued at $40.00 each. I'm sure you'll agree that the benefit to society of making my software available to hundreds of schools serving hundreds of thousands of children far outweighs some petty cash payment."
I could save a fortune this way. Go Microsoft!
Of course Microsoft is just trying to extend their reach into other areas and get more kids hooked on their 'crack'.
Everyone knows that poor schools have no money for software purchases.
Everyone knows that Apple used to rule the education market.
Everyone knows that Linux deployment in schools and 3rd world countries is the only alternative to flat out software piracy.
So, Microsoft gives away current versions of software that costs them nothing. They display Apple. The keep Linux at a distance. They get the kids hooked into an OS that provides no development environment, is not as manageable, is harder to administer, is a petri dish for viruses, and requires that the schools eventually bow down to Micros~1, and sign up for SOFTWARE ASSURANCE support.
That's the real agenda -- Microsoft is semi-secretly moving towards a subscription software model.
No more upgrades, just by a year's support contract. Heck, they can give away the software for FREE! Just pay them support every year, and you'll get the newest software. If you don't join Software Assurance, they're not going to fix your bugs in old versions, so you'd better upgrade! If Microsoft doesn't make enough money, they can just threaten a site audit for license compliance, and that's enough to scare organizations into lock-step with Microsoft's subscription software model.
Giving Windows software to a poor school is going to end up costing the US taxpayers money.
Catch-22 - Microsoft wins either way.
Wow! Thank you for sharing your incredibly insightful opinion. Everyone who likes UF must be wrong, because you don't find it funny.
Disclaimer: I don't read UF. I have no opinion on its humor either way. However, I know that PvP and PA's creators hate Illiad with a frothing passion and thus, like sheep, PvP and PA fans tend to hate UF with the same frothing passion.
You know, I haven't seen Illiad attach either of these two authors. Says a little something about his maturity.
And you know, I see a lot more UF links posted on Slashdot than PA or PvP links. Obviously it has a fairly large following of people who think it's funny enough to share with others. But, I guess they're all wrong. You no doubt are the authority on humor and thankfully have come along and schooled the lot of us. God forbid we might make the terrible mistake of breaking from the herd.
If you find something else to be funnier and more relevant, submit that. Don't insult what other people submit. It just shows you to be petty and immature. You like the Katz bashers who are too stupid to block his articles if you find him that offensive.
...thus guaranteeing that these machines will never run Windows, and also helping to work against Intel's monopoly.
Intel does actually innovate, as well as monopolise. In this respect they're ahead of Microsoft.
Also, $1.1G is literally petty cash for Microsoft. If California suffered $3G-$9G, let's call it $3G and figure out the value per capita, then amortise that across the whole world, call that the spend, and make sure it gets spent worldwide too. (-:
Can anyone improve on the justice of this proposal? (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Uh, dude... this one WAS a civil case. RTFA.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
It would be interesting to see where these lawyers get their money in the future. I would not be surprised if suddenly they were "consulting" for MS to the tune of a million or two or three. I hope someone monitors these people and nails them when they collect their "reward" for throwing this case.
War is necrophilia.
You're confusing your points.
Windows has the widest driver support, because it has the largest need - it is a consumer desktop OS. The only third party driver on my Solaris boxes at work is from EMC, and it is 100% reliable. I could care less if I can hook a $39 webcam to my Sun server.
OTOH I can tolerate my home Linux box falling over when I insmod an experimental driver.
Win2k is far more stable than Win 3.1, but it has not yet reached the reliability of Linux, never mind Solaris. It still has the good old "unexplained BSOD", it's just rarer. This has now been relegated to being a minor nuisance for a consumer desktop - it's still a *big deal* for a production server. When did you last see Solaris or FreeBSD kernel panic due to an OS bug?
On the other hand, it isn't so long ago (Amiga, Win 3.x) that home machines had to be rebooted to get out of a game. System stability and scalability just isn't a big deal, and consumers now expect software to crash; the concept of software systems which don't routinely fail is a novelty to non-techies.
The kernel engineering of most Unix-like systems is on the whole superior to NT, a lot of which is based concept-wise on VMS and has a number of silly legacy hangovers like drive letters and expensive processes; operability is a bigger issue - the registry is a murky swamp, and it's hard to run a proper security policy when everything (including MS products) insists on blatting DLL's everywhere. Ever found a production MS shop where everything under the sun doesn't run as Administrator?
Most of that huge software library (like anything else) is worthless crap - if you actually look at what most home consumers *use* on their Windows machines, it's an email client (AOL or Outlook), a pirate copy of MS-Office, and one or two games.
Unix is far from being "dead end" technology - it's 30 year history speaks to (a) how well it was designed to begin with, (b) how mature it is, and (c) how well it has evolved. Do you still think NT will be around in 2015?
Yes, you could make a better consumer OS than Windows by putting more GUI candy on top of Unix - perhaps Apple will show us how. As to usability, in many ways, the newer X11 window managers (Gnome) have better HCI and are more powerful than Windows (cut and paste is the day-to-day obvious one for me), what lacks is the vendor packaging support and app-level integration. The average user could care less whether they click SETUP.EXE or foo.rpm as long as it works, but having to add MIME types to NS4.7 by hand is a drag.
If we don't do it, then it won't get done. Even a one page letter ("This is a bad idea, don't do it!") will be helpful.
The letter should be FAXed to
Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of these lawsuits are centered around the idea that MS "over-charged" them for their OS. Does this sound rediculous to anyone else?
But before I go any further, lets just get this out of the way. MS is BIG. MS IS a monopoly. And MS isn't innocent of the FEDERAL charges.
Whew, now that was tough, but back on task... Ok, so these people claim MS charged them too much. Whoop de doo. If this is true, they're entitled to what? A whole $40?!? (just a guessimate as to what they were over-charged by) To me, the facts do actually speak for themselves in this case. 1) The majority of the people in on the lawsuit purchased their PCs from an OEM. OEM's purchase MS's OS's at an extremely discounted price. So how is it that MS is the one that "over-charged"? Couldn't the OEM's be held liable instead? 2) This is an OS (quality is not an issue here) that is under $200 (and no, comparing price to linux is not an issue either). MS Office suite costs more than any of its "Home Edition" OS's. Photoshop costs more. I could name many other pieces of software that cost WAY more.
So again, I ask you... What are these people really entitled to? In my opinion... Nothing. They do not deserve any of the money (assuming MS loses) that would come from the lawsuit. All of them can easily be compared to ambulance chasers. If they do actually pull this off (which I really hope they don't), this will be the biggest con in history.
But aside from that, I'd wish that everyone would just take a step back and look at the issues objectively instead of fanatically. This industry was conceived by individuals who did not strictly adhere to the status quo, and since all these lawsuits have surfaced... a new status quo is blindly being followed.
If you cant keep the threads straight, get out. Your a risk to the kernel. It would suck if the whole site panicked because you cant differentiate thread context and topics.
Back in the days when the typewriter was king of the office, IBM's office products division was accused of monopolising the market, and asked to propose a solution, before one was imposed on them.
No worries, they said, we'll just double the price. And they did. And guess what? They sold more units than at half the price, because people figured that the more expensive product had to be better...
Microsoft haven't actually doubled the price of Windows here, but there proposed remedy reeks of similar or worse chutzpah, what with getting a full-price tax break on what they supply for peanuts, swamping the schools with their monopoly product, and proposing a ``penalty'' that amounts to a few weeks' interest on their cash holdings, and at the end of five years leaves the poverty-stricken schools dependent on paying licence fees in order to keep using their now-established software.
As another poster said, it's like tabacco companies handing out free cigarette in apology for luring people into using a product that kills them slowly and painfully.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Judge Motz's office's fax number is (410) 962-7574 - let them know this will only help M$, maybe a lot of messages can convince them to do the right thing(tm).
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
The first problem I have with this guy is that he tries to claim that doing a little volunteer work validates his pronouncements that computers promote avid reading habits by children. To what extent this is true I don't know but I do know that parents have the most influence on a child's educational habits - followed by teachers. If parents want their children to read they need to switch-off the TV AND the computer and get some books in the house. Parents need to set the example by reading books themselves!!! My wife tries to motivate her 4th graders by devoting classroom time to her reading out loud. She takes the time to find great books and tries to act-out the parts. The kids love it. But things like this can not help if the student's home life is not one where education - and reading - is valued.
As for the remark about the "Clinton computers"
I want to be alone with the sandwich
The value of my proposal is hidden in the details. You see, all of these class action suits could be settled without giving anything to the plaintiffs. According to me, this entitles their lawyers to 40% of what the plaintiffs receive, which is NOTHING. Of course this means no meaningful relief to the plaintiffs and no punishment for the defendants, but that's a small price to pay if it means pulling the plug on litigation, which seldom provides anything other than a paycheck for the lawyers.
The bottom line is that this "settle by charitable contribution" trend will eliminate anyone's motivation to pursue a class action suit. Since there are only so many political patronage jobs to go around, putting the lawyers out of work would force them to pursue meaningful employment elsewhere, thus resulting in a benefit to the economy. Without the threat of those pesky class action suits, just imagine how many jobs these benevolent corporations would create! This could stop the recession!
Disclaimer: This article is for entertainment only; not to be taken seriously. I am not a lawyer. This not an offer to settle anything. Any copyrights/trademarks belong to their respective owners. The companies mentioned here may or may not be involved in a current or past class action suit. Use as directed. Your actual mileage may vary.
For having the guts to take a stance against this particular settlement.
Apart from Californian resistance, much of the gist of this story has been covered by an earlier one.
Likewise, my opinion has been expressed there, including why it takes a great deal of courage to stand up to this settlement.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Look, it's pretty much standard to settle class actions by paying the plaintiff's lawyers and paying the class close to nothing (thought that's more than they should get in many cases). Here, the class gets nothing. Zilch. Their attorney's hve *no* authority to do this, and are violating their ethical duties in doing so. The attorneys in states with stronger laws are objecting. There's no basis for microsoft handing things to schools instead of the plaintiffs. It's an even farther stretch for them to send the schools a check. . .
hawk
hawk
CNN has Steve Job's opinion on the Microsoft deal. He says, "We're baffled that a settlement imposed against Microsoft for breaking the law should allow, even encourage, them to unfairly make inroads into education -- one of the few markets left where they don't have monopoly power"
I guess anyone could have guessed this would be Apple's view of the settlement.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
I have an idea for a much better punishment for Microsoft. They would continue with business as usual, BUT the following must change: Microsoft must completely stop advertising its products. Instead, Microsoft would be required to double the amount of money it spends on marketing... half of this money would be spent on vigorous marketing campaigns to benefit Microsoft's competitors, such as Linux. The other half would be spent on elaborate advertising campaigns bashing Microsoft's products. They would be required to outright tell the world how much their products SUCK, and heavily discourage anyone from using their software. Not only that, but all their programs would be required to contain a ton of annoying popup ads advertising their competitors, and every minute, a window will pop up that will block the entire system, and it will bash Microsoft and try to persuade the user to switch, and this window would be on the screen for a random amount of time between 30 seconds and 2 hours before an OK button appears to hide it, and that button would only be visible for 1 second, and if you miss it, the window will stay for twice as long as it just has, and it will be impossible to shut down your computer properly while this window is up, and if you turn the power off, there will be a 5 second delay between every machine instruction during the scandisk that will take place, which you won't be able to cancel, just to make things more cumbersome. In other words, Microsoft would be required to make their software VERY annoying so that their users will have no choice but to switch to something with more choice. Furthermore, Microsoft would be required to pay 100 dollars (USD) to anybody who switches from Microsoft programs to a competing product. (100 dollars per program switched, that is.) Furthermore, Microsoft would be required to release all of its software to the public domain, including full source code. Furthermore, Microsoft would be prohibited from continuing development on their software. Their programmers would be paid to work on Linux full time. Of course, Microsoft would put all of their programmers through extensive UNIX training before beginning this work. Microsoft would be required to pay a one million dollar fine per bug found in their code. Bill Gates would be required to go on tour, praising the FSF, GPL, Linux, etc., and heavily bashing Microsoft and their trash products. Oh yeah, and to make things fair, all computer hardware in the world would be free from now on, because Microsoft would be required to pick up the tab for whatever hardware anybody chooses to buy. Oh yeah, and Bill Gates and all of Microsoft's executives and shareholders would be required to give all their money and material assets to people who make free software. Yeah. That's a good punishment for Microsoft. Because they suck. But it probably won't happen. Oh well.
Slashdot is the home of the big-bad MS bashing, but worse than Big Tobacco?
I think it was intended to compare courtroom practices, not end results.
- Scott
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
Ayup. Why d'ya think I chose Alpha and PPC? (-:
Would have chosen MIPS too only they're getting kind of hard to get. I remember something from about a year ago to do with a MIPS-based ATX motherboard, though.
IA64 Linux is now shipping from several places. The next release of Mandrake looks set to ship for at least IA32, IA64, PPC and Alpha, if Cooker is any good as an indication. There's also some discussion of a 386/486 backport (standard Mandrake needs at least a Pentium).
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing