Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Offers A Modified Settlement

inepom01 writes: "Just read a story here about Microsoft offering a different settlement proposal- this one would have two other companies join in on the foundation MS is establishing- Connectix and Key Curriculum Press. Since Connectix makes software that lets Windows programs work on Macs, seems like same old Microsoft tricks." gnovos points to another story at MSNBC on the shifting terms of this proposal.

3 of 366 comments (clear)

  1. Please Help by Lysander+Luddite · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Somebody please explain to me how anything MS offers will punish it for overcharging consumers for Windows.

    1. A $1billion pay out in software, hardware, and support is nothing, especially extended over a few years. MS grosses $1billion a *month* on its products. So they would pay fines equivalent to one month of income at most.
    2. Making the schools choose their tech needs is cool, but if MS charges less directly than on the open market (see article quote from MS Spokeman) then why would schools select anything else?
    3. What refurb'ed computers will be used? And wouldn't that mean running older versions of Windows? I'm guessing most schools aren't likely to buy older Macs.
    4. What made Steve Jobs speak out so loudly about this? He's been very quiet on bashing MS, even after MS got rid of their non-voting investment some time back. He sent Avie to testify about MS wanting to "knife the baby" of QuickTime. Does he really feel secure to bash MS now, or is it that Apple really, really threatened by cheap MS software being given to schools? I'm guessing the latter since mercurial Steve was relatively restrained in his response and the legal brief Apple provided.
    5. What happens when the support money (a paltry amount IMHO) runs out? Do the schools get stuck paying for support on old equipment running old software that isn't supported by their makers anymore?

    I don't have a great solution. I'd prefer to see the schools be given a lump sum of money to invest in whatever they want (like textbooks or infrastructure improvements) rather than allow MS to get even further entrenched in one market they don't completely push around today.

  2. Re:What ever happened to justice? by cnkeller · · Score: 4, Interesting
    What ever happened to the way our legal system used to work... where the guilty party didn't get to choose their own punishment?

    I know you were being funny, but remember a while back when ,mayor Marion Barry was caught on video tape buying/using crack, convicted, served his sentence, and then got re-elected mayor of DC? He didn't exactly sentence himself back to being mayor, but you would have thought the legal system might have prevented him from obtaining a position in which he previously abused the power....

    --

    there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots

  3. write to Judge Motz - and your representatives by passion · · Score: 5, Interesting

    (thanks go to Bill C. from the lugwash list)

    Send this to Judge Motz - Wired reports that he's only got 200 complaint letters so far.

    U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz
    Garmatz Federal Courthouse, Suite 4415
    101 West Lombard St.
    Baltimore, MD 21201

    It is my belief that the proposed antitrust settlement with Microsoft
    Corporation is not in the best interests of the American people. It
    does not protect against future abuses and in fact encourages the
    spread of the Microsoft software monopoly by training a vast army of
    young people to use their operating system and attendant application
    programs to the exclusion of very viable software alternatives.
    America is based on freedom of choice; but students in Americas'
    public schools can only learn to use computers, an essential skill
    for the coming generation of employees, on the products provided to
    them. Today, the Dept. of Justice has an opportunity to broaden the
    scope of that choice and thus empower generations yet unborn. It also
    has the opportunity to cave in to Bill Gates and thus must choose
    between greatness and ignominy.

    The Northern Territories school district in Australia, with a
    population of just over 200,000, finds that it saved $1,000,000 in
    the first year alone by using Linux alongside Microsoft products to
    provide computer education at all grade levels. This was enough to
    allow the school district to purchase an additional 1,000 computers
    for distribution in the schools and as loaner units for students (and
    their parents) to use at home. In a few short years their children
    will be competing, very effectively, on the worldwide intellectual
    marketplace against American children whose access to hardware was
    hampered by the prohibitive cost imposed by the practice of using
    Microsoft products all but exclusively in the public schools. The
    Australian experience could have been dramatically more productive
    had they used Linux as the operating system on all their computers
    but it was a good initial step. The present savings represent its use
    in their servers only.


    http://opensourceschools.org/article.php?story=2 00 11207001012102

    I support the notion that Microsoft should pay its fine in hardware
    donations only. It has been brought to my attention that Red Hat
    Software of Research Triangle Park, NC, (near Durham, NC) has offered
    to provide pro-bono copies of the Linux operating system
    corresponding to a Microsoft donation of hardware. It is my desire
    that any donation of software that Microsoft might choose to make
    would not be included in the proposed settlement but must also be a
    pro-bono gesture corresponding to the Red Hat Software offer.
    Moreover, any copies of software Microsoft might donate should
    require no payment of any sort by the schools at any forward point in
    time. It must be a true donation of indefinite duration, just as the
    Red Hat offer is. Otherwise, if required to pay, the schools would
    eventually have to abandon their training programs for lack of funds
    to re-license / upgrade their software.

    http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/011120/202744_1.html

    While Microsoft Corporation should not be excluded from expressing
    generosity, such generosity, expressed as software gifts, only
    furthers their ability to monopolize the marketplace and should not
    be permitted as a part of the penalty for having followed illegal
    practices in the establishment of their dominance in the software
    market.

    Microsoft has painted itself the champion of choice and freewill
    while villifying open-source software as being un-American. I think
    it is time for their actions, public and private, to match their very
    public words.

    Software donations should be no part of the proposed settlement.

    --
    - passion