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 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.
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 $9 billion was the only way they could continue to make a profit they would do that. However, they will exhaust all alternatives before resorting to that and hope to find one which is preferable(like donating to schools). It's a simple, logical fact.
What's in a Sig?
I'm still amazed at the pair of brass balls needed to even suggest a settlement like this.
Can you think of any other company that would see flooding the market with their product as a good solution to a monopoly lawsuit? If AT&T had suggested adding free phone lines to schools in reponse to the goverment saying they already had too much control, they would have been laughed out of the court room.
That sounds exactly like a convicted arsonist who proposes to make up for his deeds by distributing matches in the schoolyard, then sets up an extinguisher manufacture. As much as I hate M$, 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.
I heard somewhere that Carnegie used to do the same thing ...
There is at least one big difference here. Carnegie didn't build libraries to settle an anti-trust lawsuit. No judge compelled him to be a philanthropist. And it was Carnegie personally giving money for the libraries, not the steel trust.
No matter what you may think of Carnegie and they way he acquired his wealth, you must acknowledge that he gave away almost all his money before he died, and that he did it because he thought it was the right thing to do.
And I'm not saying Gates hasn't begun philanthropy on the same scale. It's a bit too early to judge that.
Let's just make sure we don't confuse Gates' (and Ballmer's and Allen's, etc.) own personal philanthropy with Microsoft Inc.'s brazen attempt to disguise a marketing ploy as a philanthropic endeavor.
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.
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.
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
>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
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
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.
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 $40.00 each. I'm sure you'll agree that the benefit to society of making my software available to hundreds of schools serving hundreds of thousands of children far outweighs some petty cash payment."
I could save a fortune this way. Go Microsoft!
Which reminds me of another thing: how the hell is "giving away" software to poor schools going to help all of the victims of the M$ 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...
Maybe you should ask the PROSECUTION , as they set the terms of the settlement.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
My personal opinion is that much of the Microsoft bashing goes on for a few reasons:
We bash Microsoft because most of us are computing professionals. I'm sure a lot of McDonald's bashing goes on in kitchens, and a lot of KIA bashing goes on in garages.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
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
Since MS forces OEMs to install Windows it's hard to see how the OEMs could then be held responsible for the cost of the OS.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Every programmer in the world. We have all had the right to write programs for money removed from us. Basically, any programmer who comes up with a good, popular, program can have that program copied by MS and see it given away as part of Windows and there is nothing they can do about it because MS can run them through the courts until they're broke.
Microsoft is a big (relatively speaking)
Yes, relative to all other companies.
big companies are easy to hate.
This is a classic cop-out by MS apologists. Big companies are hated because they treat everyone like shit. It's not the bigness which people hate, it's the treatment.
Big companies can not, even if they want to, treat their customers well. The best they can do is treat the important customers well and everyone else has to lump it. In MS's case, they are so big that NO single customer is important and they can treat everyone like shit.
You're jealous of Bill Gates because he made a lot of money.
I am jealous of Gates because he has been given a lot of money while I'm stuck here having to earn it. I didn't have a million dollar gift from my granddad when I was born and IBM never gave me a licence to print money. The government has never said to me "the last version of your software failed and crashed, was late arriving and didn't do what you said it would; could we have another million copies, please?".
Gates has sponged of the rest of us while destroying other companies (Netscape being the best known) for years. Why should anyone innovate in the face of that? If you thought of a new way to browse the web, would you spend time working on it knowing that if it works it'll just appear in IE7?
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!
This didn't make sense. What are you talking about? Are you saying that only railway companies can be monoplies?
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.
I think you're lying. It doesn't cost 40 dollars to not install Windows on every tenth computer. Uninstalling it would be stupid.
Anyway, the phrase "Windows Tax" disguises what it really is: blackmail and extortion. Your company may have not wanted to remove Windows from its machines but, if it had, it would have quickly found out that it didn't have the option. MS simply would have stopped providing you with Windows and there sure as hell ain't enough of a non-Windows market to support a large OEM with no OS to pre-install.
This is the biggest abuse of the monopoly position: forcing OEM's to pay protection money in order to stay "in the game".
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"