Slashdot Mirror
Iowa Court May Order Microsoft Refunds
dowobeha writes: "The Des Moines Register is reporting that thousands of Windows 98 users in Iowa could get $40 refunds from Microsoft. The Iowa Supreme Court has found the big boys from Redmond guilty of price fixing in violation of a 1976 Iowa law. According to the report, this is the first antitrust ruling in any state that favors 'indirect purchasers' (regular consumers who got Windows preinstalled on their newly purchased computer) rather than "direct purchasers" (manufacturers who license Windows to distribute on new machines)."
Maybe this is a small consolation for living there to begin with.
Since there are only about 3 computers in Iowa to being with, this isn't going to hurt Microsoft too much... :)
Laugh
Nosce te Ipsum
It would be interesting to see how this would work in other states, but it would be difficult seeing as the case was based on state, not federal, law.
Sleep is for the weak!
Perhaps other states will follow suit, or is this false hope?
"You sir, have just crossed my happy line..."
Bloody hell, I knew I should have moved to Iowa! Dang it!
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
... Just wait until Windows 2000 is released over there.
"Derp de derp."
Aren't sales from MS to Iowa residents interstate commerce and thus a matter for Federal antitrust law?
More details would be hepful; I can't help wondering if that story didn't simplify to the point of dropping some key point of the suit.
IANALBTISANAY
I live in Iowa and actually own a legal copy of Win98, so I'll be expecting my $40 check any day now :)
yes 40 dollars compared to the 300 hundred you probably paid with the computer to get windows 98
Righteousness postpones the inevitable
http://burningaureole.caveism.net
Sure, that pays for your purchase of Windows 98, but where's the compensation for mental scarring?
I hope this good news can soon be applied to the rest of the country. I'm ashamed to say I could use the 80 bucks.
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
Use of the following at the start of each program: int main(int argc, char* argv)
Funny. But wrong.
As I understand it (from my wife, who's a retired Windows developer - which I'm not), Windows programs consist of a bundle of event handlers and an event loop, and don't have a main() - especially a main(int argc, char** argv), which is a unix-system-interface-ism, related to handling command-line arguments.
One of her favorite flames relates to an alleged windows programmer who was unaware of this fact.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Hmph...and then I guess it's up to these **direct purchasers** to ensure that the money trickles down to the consumers that are immediately affected by the anti-trust violations. Shows you were everyone's priorities lie, hm?
I am SURE everyone has gotten that DISNEY / MSFT or AOL / MSFT chain letter where if you forward this email bill gates will send you a couple bux...
;)
So... same spirit here; forward this to your senator in your state and you just might get 40 bux from bill gates too
My life in the land of the rising sun.
BG "Is this hell?"
Iowa "No, it's Iowa."
This is probably a marketing ploy by Iowa to attract open source development shops to thier state.
Good plan.
WAR TUX!
Just curious if Iowa is the only state with this law?
"I think you know what I'm talkin' about, Mr. President; We're gonna kill us a mummy!" - Bruce Campbell as Elvis Presley
ie the difference in price between the Windows 2000 that i wanted to get, and Windows XP which is the only thing computers in stores come installed with anymore.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Lets see, Joe's PC Palace was required by Msft to pay for Windows whether the PC shipped with Win, OS/2 or whatever. Of course they could just not sell Msft products at all and not have to pay Msft for shipping OS/2, but I'd say that 'requirement' for being a Msft franchise was pretty illegal, unlawful, willing, etc.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Before we start on the "I didn't know there were any computers in Iowa..." jokes- let's remember- the digital computer was INVENTED in Iowa- at Iowa State University!
Iowa is an interesting state. It's got a relatively small population, which at one point was even the fastest shrinking population of any state in the US -- this in a time of urban sprawl and growth mentality. This could have made it politically marginal, but by cleverly arranging early caucuses there, they're suddenly important.
:)
One wonders if this isn't another realization of the power of precedent setting, and perhaps a manifestation of that rumored Midwestern common sense.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
It's not clear to me from the material available whether the ruling rests on lack of competition from competing products (such as linux, OS/2, etc) or lack of price competition.
I think that most people would accept that Windows has a de-facto monopoly and that doesn't really condemn Microsoft, people choose the product they want to buy (for whatever reason).
There would be a good case against Microsoft if it denied its dealers the opportunity to discount the product thereby eliminating competition at that stage.
Does anyone have sight of the judgment?
I don't think this is a good idea. The point should be to change certain behavior in the future, and perhaps to punish them for what they did in the past. It is not to give out mass refunds to computer users, who really did have a choice in the end.
Well *I* think mass refunds ARE a good idea. A slap on the wrist that causes no pain is not very effective at changing future behavior. "First you get his attention."
As for "really did have a choice in the end", what choice? I've bought at least three computers with included Windows that I've never used, because there was no way to get a computer of similar characteristics WITHOUT bundled Windows due to Microsoft's anticompetitive practices. The ELUA that appeared on the screen when I booted 'em always said if you don't like it, don't use it and you get a refund. I've spent hours per machine trying to get that money refunded and have yet to see a cent.
I've always thought that one of the sanctions against Microsoft from the antitrust trial should be requiring them to set up a refund center for people who didn't use the bundled Windows and hadn't been given a refund, requiring them to return the entire added cost (including the computer company's and retailer's markup, and a bit extra for the user's time and trouble applying for the refund).
THAT would be the appropriate sanction for forcing the manufacturers to chose between charging for Windows on all their machines or having it on none.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Whether the details are right or wrong is unimportant. This post is +10: Insightful and Funny.
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
I love the US class action legal system. The lawyers get paid big bucks and the consumers wind up funding a new marketing program that locks them in even tighter to the guilty party!
Don Dugger
"Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale
For all you Iowa bashers... remember one of the earliest computers was built at Iowa State University
Anyway, I'm glad something is being done about the Windows tax that's been put on OEM computers all these years. Make 'em pay!
Aren't sales from MS to Iowa residents interstate commerce and thus a matter for Federal antitrust law?
Yes, they are. They are also subject to state law where they sell their products. Being an interstate transaction adds federal jurisdiction to an already existing state jurisdiction, it does not in any way negate the state's jurisdiction.
In other words, it adds regulations Microsoft must follow, it doesn't supercede any. Just as California emissions standards apply to automobiles built in Detroit (but sold in California), so to Iowa's antitrust regulations apply to Microsoft's sales in Iowa, regardless of where Micrsoft is headquartered, or the floppies and CDs their shabby OS is distributed on happen to have been printed.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I remember back when I was a small tyke that Nintendo was acused of price fixing on their NES consoles. Alot of people will think "Price-fixing in consoles???" But they don't remember the days when it was just Nintendo (The Atari was old and not not a serious compeditor) and there was no competition. Nintendo was free to do as they like and they forced retailers to keep prices artifically high so smaller retailers could be forced to buy @ higher prices.*
Well, Nintendo got busted and as part of a setlement they agreed to a rebate offer for any customer. You called an 800 number and they sent you a $15 dollar cupon for your next game purchace. They also were forbidden to do this again and were watched closely. Microsoft wouldn't even have a crack to slide the X-Box into if Nintendo still kept an iron glove on the retailers.
Now days Microsoft is doing things along similar lines and using extra tactics to keep their product monoply. Imagine if Nintendo had never been busted, and did not allow retailers to sell other videogame consoles. They might have been able to keep their monoply and we would have the N64 selling for $300 today.
If I got any of this wrong then post a correction as I was quite young when this happened and I'm suprised that I could grasp the concept of price fixing enough to remember it all these years later.
* If you have a product with a MSRP of $100, you may sell it to Wal-Mart @ $50 and to smaller stores @ $75. Wallmart could then turn around and sell the product @ the $75 that the smaller stores are paying and the small guys would never be able to keep up. When you make Walmart sell it @ a higher price to keep business of the smaller guys, you are price-fixing. This is illegal.
------- Assumption is the mother of all f$#@ ups.
I applaud the notion that a company responsible for price fixing be made to pay for its noncompetitive tactics.
That said, however, I see where this could open up all kinds of cans of worms.
What if it could be shown that the supplier for one part of my Ford Mustang exerted similar tactics and caused the price of some component to be exagerated compared to what a competitive marketplace would support?
Could I get a refund of several dollars from the manufacturer of the power seats?
What about going back two levels of suppliers?
Iowa might be right -- and it might even work -- but on a state by state basis I could see where the feds would get all kinds of complaints from businesses seeking to avoid this kind of potential hassle.
OTOH, if the feds did their job, looking out for development of anti-competitive marketplaces, then we wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. Maybe there's been a de facto rollback of the Sherman anti-trust act that I don't know about.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Go price any name brand notebook computer with Windows, now price the same model without windows. You will find that you either can't buy it without windows, or that the price is the same (You are being sold windows, they are just not including it) This is because Microsoft requires vendors to but a windows license for each unit they produce of any model that is offered with windows.
"We feel that consumers were not injured at all," Desler said. "Consumers have clearly benefited from Microsoft's efforts to improve our products."
One thing that a judge has to set straight with Microsoft is that price fixing and monopolistic practices can not be dignified by saying, "but you did benifet from being forced to buy our operating system."
Not sure how many people live out there, but between home buyers and businesses, you're looking at far more than a few "thousand". Microsoft will most likely be refunding upwards of 100 million in cash. Not like they can't afford it.. It's no wonder why they have so much money sitting there doing nothing..
A much better punishment would be to force them to open their APIs and interfaces so the rest of us can write compatible software. A $40 rebate isn't doing anyone good individually, its just eating away at an already shaky tech economy.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
That way, they get you coming and going. You paid for the OS you didn't want or need, and you don't intend to buy anything from them in the future anyway, so the coupon will remain unused... Microsoft smiles. The lawyers smile, too, since they got paid. Consumers? Hey, you won, right? Be happy about it.
--
I don't want to rule the world... I just want to be in charge of mayonnaise.
kewl, now I can finally get that microsoft optical mouse I've wanted......oh wait
3 computers? Whatever. It's comments like this that make people in Iowa better than people like you.
Iowa has ALWAYS been in the top 3 for education.
Iowa had the FIRST state-wide fiber optic network.
Iowa had the FIRST digital computer in the world.
So go ahead and make fun of us. We know how good we are.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Read the article again, this is the Iowa State Supreme court telling the local court to hear the case.
It wasn't decided if it was anti-trust or that a refund was due. Only that it should be heard.
this is not a sig
This deal is one of the few things that makes living here worth it. Well, that and farmers daughters ;)
How could the Iowa state court system enforce this decision? Unless Microsoft has a business outlet in Iowa (which I dont think they do), through what means would the state of Iowa be able to make Microsoft pay? Seems like a temptest in a teapot then, because Microsoft is not bound by the laws of Iowa.
Price fixing is defined as a collaborative effort between ostensible competitors to maintain a minimum price. Microsoft is too ornary to collaborate with anyone, legally or otherwise.
And monopolies are not illegal, They cant be unless you want to erase all patent and copyright laws (and I know some folks do). Only the abuse of a monopolistic position to suppress competition is illegal.
This was a remarkably dumb decision. The Idaho supremes need to lay off the corn whiskey.
---Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote.
But since I live in Seattle, I will have to pay fealty to the Dark Lord in Redmond, across the Lake of Tears ...
darn this taxation without refunding!
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
You mean the guy in AOLTW's pocket? You bet he will attack Microsoft what with AOLTW being a New York company and Microsoft being a Washington based Company.
According to this the population of Iowa is 2,923,179 residents. Assuming each person has 1 legally-purchased copy of Win98, $40 to each person winds up costing Billy-Boy $116,927,160. Which is approximately 0.29% of M$'s $40 Billion cashpile. A very insignificant amount in the grand scheme of things for Redmond.
Think For Yourself. Question Authority.
Whichever goon moderated this OffTopic must be completely devoid of understanding of the issues being discussed!
Central to the whole matter is the question of whether or not there was an *illegal* monopoly.
Get with the programme!
Microsoft announced today that they had bought up all the legislators in Iowa for cash.
"It's a wise investment," said I.M. Ydobon, speaking on behalf of the firm. "We figure we can record as a tax deductible expense, under the line item for operation costs."
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
I just purchased a Pentium 4 screamer for myself. Since I was converting my old Pentium II compuuter to a Lunx box, I wanted to use the copy of Windows 2000 that I had running on it on my new computer -- I refuse to "upgrade" to XP. I was mindful of getting slapped with the OS tax if I refused a copy of XP. My solution?
I built the damn thing myself.
I bought the motherboard, video card, and case from CompUSA. I bought the memory, hard drive, DVD drive, skipped the floppy drive, Ethernet card, and sound card from a mom and pop computer store.
If you have avoided rolling your own computer, I must report that it was extremely intuitive and easy. If you can build Lego models, you can build your own PC.
Just say no to the MS tax. Build your own computer!
52$ OEM WinXP Home.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
I just ordered a computer from one of the many internet sites (micropro.com) that lets you modify the computer's configuration. I found that some type of MS Windows was a required purchase if my computer had a hard disk, so I configured it diskless. Then I added the hard disk I wanted as a separate item in my shopping cart. No MS tax with little effort.
$52.00!!??! damn! where the hell did you get the price??
This ruling is a great way for folks to give Microsoft the raspberry... It reminds me of the little wanna-be demonstration that took place in Redmond about two years ago when some Linux bitch-boys tried to get their money back for unwanted copies of preinstalled Windows.
Except this ruling actually accomplishes something. Personally, I believe a few changes need to be made to Windows.
- The initial startup screen is one thing. The first time Windows is started--and I know this already happens so read on for the changes--the user should be presented with Microsoft's EULA with the option to accept or decline. This EULA would, obviously, exclude from its own terms the "use" of Windows up to and including this acceptance/declining process. If the user accepts, everything proceeds as normal. If not, they'll be presented instructions for receiving their refund within a day or two. Following that, the partitions on the hard disk would be removed in preparation for another operating system. (And to prevent theft of Microsoft's valuable intellectual property, which they so kindly permit us to use on the rare occasions that it actually functions correctly.)
- Windows should be made to coexist peacefully with other operating systems. For one thing, it pisses me off that every time Windows is reinstalled or certain other functions performed, Windows overwrites the MBR, making it a real pain for users of multiple operating systems to maintain their Windows installation. Things of this nature should be removed.
- Microsoft should provide a six-pack of Negra Modelo to customers who supply a 1000 word essay detailing their reasons for refusing Microsoft's EULA and opting to take a different approach.
- Microsoft should provide a generous monetary reward to any competing developer who can supply a 1000 word essay that actually justifies accepting Microsoft's EULA in the face of their evil actions against the whole software industry.
Oooooooooooh well.You can get an OEM copy on Ebay for that much. Or from a local computer store. You just have to buy a small piece of useless hardware with it.
Millions? What do you think the population of Iowa is, what percentage of them have computers, what percentage of that have an MS OS, what percentage of that have Win98 rather than an older or newer flavor, and what percentage of that have a legal copy of the OS?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
What if it could be shown that there is an industry that takes a product worth $0.25 in physical cost and packaging, maybe $2.50 in IP value, and then sells the product for $15.00? Then you find that while there are several large makers of this product who would ordinarily be in competition driving prices down, they apparently "agree" on the $15 price, since because of the IP issues they don't really compete directly. Oh, they funnel a goodly share of the profit into "advertising", making sure that their products are the ones that get air time.
Naaah, too unlikely that such a thing could ever happen.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Worst State to Live In: Mississippi. With Alabama not too far behind. Trust me. It sucks.
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
I used to work at MS, and now I work at a Pharmaceutical company. I'll tell you right now that if MS had to go through the rigorous federally mandated red tape that is pretty evident around here, software prices would go through the roof, and no one would ever develop software because it would be WAY to expensive. ~Vlade
I defy you to take the ads out of the Sunday paper, and find different prices for the exact same items in ads from Best Buy, Circuit City, CompUSA, or any of the big, mass-market, national consumerist chains.
They've even stopped bothering with the fiction of charging $xx.95 at one chain, versus $xx.99 at another chain - prices are for the most part identical.
Where's the competition?
Where's the "free marketplace" that some apologists like to trumpet?
There is no such thing.
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
There's a line in the consitution that requires states to give "due weight" to the legal actions of other states. Ergo, if I'm married/divorced/sued/imprisoned in one state, I can't escape that marriage/divorce/judgement/jail term simply by fleeing the state.
This little bit of the law is why there was all that fuss about Hawaii possibly allowing same-gender marriages a few years back. If they had did it then, then homosexuals could become married *all over the country* by having their marriage in the rather romantic state of Hawaii.
MS can appeal the Iowa decision through Iowa's courts, and then through the federal courts, and they might even file suit in Washington court to block it, but simply being in a different state isn't going to let them get out of whatever Iowa demands.
(And if MS doesn't do anything, they'd get smacked pretty hard. If I filed suit against MS, properly notified them, and they didn't respond, I'd get whatever I could convince the judge was fair for the wrong committed against me.)
Uh, I haven't read the law, but... how can they make monopolies illegal?
The states (including their component munincipalities) can make anything not explicity ruled legal by the federal gov't illegal. The problem, of course, is that any law has to pass judicial review by the relevant court (probably the highest court in the state) or it'll get tossed.
New York, for example, could outlaw wearing white after labor day. But once they charge someone with the crime, they have to deal with the inevitable appeal to a higher court that will, almost certainly, toss out the conviction and the law.
(and let's not even get into the setup of executive pardons...)
Really, it's rare that the consumer gets more than a few bucks in their pocket (I've had some from comcast) but as long as the company being sued views it as a spank, then you have to console yourself with that.
In terms of the sprint spectrum- there was issue that they were pushing the spectrum but planning a new network (Sprint PCS) that was NOT compatible... I was excited to hear about the suit (I had a spectrum (not the sinclair, dummy!)) phone and thought this would be cool-
it turns out the "settlement"- a couple of bucks off getting sprint PCS service was worse than the special they had going on at radioshack at the time!!
The lawyers response? "This was the best we could do. Now excuse me I have this fat check to cash..."
Thank god I married a (soon to be) lawyer...
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
<blockquote>
According to Outpost.com:
MacOS X 10.1.3 - $129
</blockquote>
That's for the full version of OSX. I couldn't find an upgrade version.
Also according to Outpost.com:
Windows XP Home Upgrade - $99.
Windows XP Pro Upgrade - $199.
Windows XP Home Full Version - $199.
Windows XP Pro Full Version - $299.
Now obviously the big OEMs don't pay that much, but if you're going to compare retail price, at least compare the prices of equivalent products.
That said, it could also be evidence of price fixing. The problem is determining which is really occuring.
Dude from Grinnell invented the integrated circuit.
Go Pioneers!
Not only did we just hand a little something nasty Redmond's way with this decision (although it's far from over), we are also a state that has one of the best anti-spam laws on the books. Read it yourself at
h tm l
:)
http://law.spamcon.org/us-laws/states/ia/714E.s
Yep, we rock. We roll AND rock!
And to answer some other posts: yes we have universities...better go look em' up. We have computers, lots of them. And we even have an MS office in Des Moines (makes it easy to hand them papers).
Oh, and I would be remiss in not mentioning that the Sullivan Brothers are from Iowa as well (RIP).
I'm probably going to get modded into oblivion for this, but I really want to know... Why is what Microsoft did considered a bad thing?
When I go to the supermarket I tend to buy the largest package of something that I think my family can consume before it goes bad because prices tend to be better in bulk. I makes a certain amount of sense too. To the producer, a sale of 1 unit package is not worth as much as a packaged sale of 5 units. Of course, this can be messed up, but the general idea still holds.
Also, I tend to work at a lower hourly rate when I know I'm going to get a project that is 3 times larger than a normal project. I do that, of course, because I'm getting more stable work.
So how is Microsoft charging less for bulk purchases somehow wrong?
The goal of a company is to make a profit, within the bounds of the law. Like the Sherman Anti-Trust act.
Making money by ignoring the law is called racketeering.
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
Sure, it's not a clean, 100%-of-the-market textbook economic monopoly, liked you learned about in 7th Grade. Nobody ever said it was.
Fortunately, economists typically have more than a 7th Grade education. So, "monopoly" isn't usually that pure even in economics texts. Lookup up "Four Firm Concentration Ratio" or "Herfindahl-Hirschman Index". By either of those measures, MSFT enjoys unprecedented monopoly power (which doesn't require 100% market share).
Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
Uh, sorry dude. Iowa does, in fact, have lots of fiber. Not just for schools, either, although the one in question is the Iowa Communications Network.
If you were an IT admin in a school in Iowa and didn't know about ICN, then you must have been trying really damn hard to make your school part of the reason we're not always #1 in education.
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
Contrary to popular belief (and many ill-informed CS texts) the Atanasoff Berry Computer was the first electronic digital computer.
Read up on how Mauchly and Eckert's ENIAC patent was rendered void by a 1973 court case based on prior art in the ABC. Basically, Mauchly "borrowed" key ideas from Atanasoff to get ENIAC working.
Check the facts next time before you buy into popular myth.
I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen
Yup, the Nebraska Corn Huskers are really giving Iowans a bad name. :)
I am concerned about any program, any piece of hardware, any treaty, any law that treats me as a consumer, not a citizen
I have recently bought a few items, like walkie-talkies, household tools etc. The prices in the ads, and in the stores (best buy, good guys, sears and so on) were all different, and shopping around saved me $$$. I usually do this when I'm about to buy something, so I don't have to go to many stores. So, respectfully, I disagree, the facts don't bear it out.
From the U.S. District Court's findings of fact http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm# iiih
"A Microsoft study from November 1997 reveals that the company could have charged $49 for an upgrade to Windows 98 -- there is no reason to believe that the $49 price would have been unprofitable -- but the study identifies $89 as the revenue-maximizing price. Microsoft thus opted for the higher price."
Spitzer made NY's decision to join the DOJ settlement . I could understand an accusation that he is in MSFT's pocket. But AOLTW? What has he done for them lately?
If you want code monkeys hire a UI grad. If you want R&D guys hire from ISU. CompSci at ISU is really just Electrical Engineering Lite. CompSci at UI is great if you want to become a Microserf. As for Engineering at both Universities ISU is better hands down for the simple reason that more corporate money comes through ISU (an engineering research I inst.) than does UI who are again better at turning out tech drones so in demand by corporations.
"Secrecy is the Beginning of Tyranny" "No intelligent man has any respect for an unjust law" -Robert Heinlein
Based on the few Business Law and numerous Economics courses I took, I believe the following to be true...
A monopoly is not, in and of itself, illegal. Gaining a monopoly is not, in and of itself, illegal. Gaining a monopoly through illegal means is, of course, illegal - as is using illegal means to maintain a monopoly and/or misusing monopoly power in one market to gain market share in different market.
In this case, the allegation is that "Microsoft unlawfully and willfully maintained a monopoly that artificially drove up the price of Windows 98", not the fact that they had a monopoly...
Did MSFT take this seriously, briefly? That is why they permitted those russian hackers to download some of their windows related code.
Micorsoft's 'improvements' to their products only improve their ability to continue to lock out any meaningful competition, and to force users into an ongoing upgrade cycle.. They are not aimed at helping consumers.
> Microsoft responded that the Iowa lawsuit went > against federal law, which says only "direct > purchasers," such as computer makers who buy > Windows 98 from Microsoft, can recover damages > for antitrust violations.
Regardless of what federal law they are choosing to violate, they have also violated state law, which is what THIS case is about.
They seem to forget that the end-users are the purchasers, and the OEMs are only distributors.
It would be one thing if Compaq/Dell/etc had bought the copies of Windows for their own use, and then decided to recell them. Buts that obviously not the case. They were merely distributors for MS.
And most of the end users were purchasing the COMPUTER, not the software. The software was bundled due to (illegally) monopolistic contracts that MS had forced the OEMS to agree to.
--
Until your average home computer user has a REAL choice about what OS to have preinstalled on their Intel-based PC, and authors of word processors and 'business' applications (spreadsheet/database/etc) have full access to accurate, complete (and maintained and updated) documentation to the file formats that MS has forced into commodity use in the business world, and to the network formats they have made so many entities dependent on, Microsoft is and continues to be an illegal monopoly.
The original case is not, or should not, have been a 'lawsuit', it was, should have been a 'criminal trial' - the convict should have little, if any, say in the decreed punishment. And surely should not be allowed to continue to practice the criminal action, as Microsoft is still doing.
Thats one of my biggest peeves - why is this being treated as a civil manner. Microsoft has been found guilty of a federal CRIME, and so far I see no punishment, or corrective action..
I will have a huge party the day that you can get any PC (laptops and 'consumer' grade included) from the major manufacturers without any MS software preinstalled, and an even bigger one when it isn't the 'default' if you dont specify something else..
Damn, those pesky gremlins have done it again...
That is certainly why they do it. But that doesnt make it legal.
This sort of contract is an example of an illegal monopolistic practice.
Because MS is a monoply, it would be almost impossible for a PC vendor to not offer to include Windows for any customer. They could also not be profitable paying MS 'list price', becuase then they would not be able to compete with *their* competitiors. Becuase of that, MS has an almost unlimited power over PC vendors, enough to force them to deny entry to competitors to MS. THATS why its illegal.
It would be legal for MS to require these terms if MS were not a monoploy. And most vendors would turn them down. MS would have to (compete) with the other OS vendors for the OEM's business. That would be a good thing. Those terms are not illegal in and of themselves, they are only illegal whan a company is a monopoly. That is what 'anticompetitive' is all about.
Most people who comment understand this implicitly, so they often leave out the full explanation.
MS practices consist of 'maintaining an illegal trust'
IANAL
First off, taking a chunk of Microsoft's $40 Billion+ cash reserves and putting it back into circulation would be good for the economy.
Secondly, your assertion that the stock markets determine the health of the economy as a whole proves only that don't know a damn thing about economics.
Have you ever met a wealthy economist?
If their so damn smart about money, how come they aren't rolling in it themselves?
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
...to attempt to divert the energy flow from an onslaught of anti-Iowa jokes to a flamewar about which was the first digital computer. (dollars to doughnuts someone will drag something out of Britain).
Of course, the correct response to your post is something like "Well, of course they invented the digital computer there--what else wsaa there to do?".
Liberty uber alles.
The basic idea is to invert copyright, to not just make your code public but also to KEEP it public, including versions of it modified by other people.
You copyright your code, then
license it to others, with the licence provision that provision that, if they distribute your code OR CODE DERIVED FROM IT (i.e. modifications or things containing it) they must also provide the source and sublicence it under the same terms.
Upsides:
Nobody can fix a bug and copyright the fixed version, keeping YOU from using the fix.
Creates a large "commons" of public code that other people can build on.
Lets a large body of users see the code and potentially debug it.
Downside (for proprietary software vendors): If someone trying to make a non-open-source product uses GPLed code as a small part of the product, unrelated to the product's key features, they must now publish the code to all their key features. (Exception: There's a variant called "LGPL" that essentially lets people use libraries without publishing anything but the libraries they used.)
To proprietary software vendors, who place a high value on keeping their "neato-keen inventions" secret, this is seen as "more expensive than money".
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
As for the first electronic digital computer, that wasn't ENIAC, either. I know you USAns like to think that you invented everything, but Colossus here in the UK beat you by a few years.
The first binary electronic digital computer was German: Konrad Zuse's Z1.
And ENIAC wasn't even the first stored-program electronic computer: while ENIAC had to be programmed by plugboard, the Manchester Mark 1, aka `Baby', was storing programs in memory along with data, just as all current machines do.
Credit where it's due, please :)
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Downside (for proprietary software vendors): If someone trying to make a non-open-source product uses GPLed code as a small part of the product, unrelated to the product's key features, they must now publish the code to all their key features. (Exception: There's a variant called "LGPL" that essentially lets people use libraries without publishing anything but the libraries they used.)
Trying to paint the GPL in a poor light? Any software publisher should be aware of the license associated with stuff they use in their product. If they aren't, then too bad - software is expensive, and it pays to protect your investment. If they are aware of what the GPL means (and it is a very simple license), then, since the GPLed feature is not core and fairly small, they should reimplement it, right? This smacks of Microsoft and their incessant whining about how it's so unfair that they can't just use somebody else's work for free.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Trying to paint the GPL in a poor light?
Not at all. Just trying to explain why some software companies shy away from using anything GNU. A real drag when you're working for them and would like to use GNU toolsets, for instance.
Any software publisher should be aware of the license associated with stuff they use in their product. If they aren't, then too bad - software is expensive, and it pays to protect your investment.
Oh, but they are aware. And they're also concerned about the possibility that, if they use any GNU tool in development or even have the code in house, some GNU tool (i.e. Bison) or a lazy programmer might insert GPLed code in their product. Then once it's discovered the FSF or Stallman drags them into court and forces them to disgorge their source code.
Rather than risk this, some software shops just refuse to let it in the door.
And since Linux (or GNU/Linux, as Stallman likes to say) is under the GPL at the kernel, application, and development toolset level, this forms a barrier against the adoption of Linux.
If they are aware of what the GPL means (and it is a very simple license), then, since the GPLed feature is not core and fairly small, they should reimplement it, right?
Right.
But the net result is that GPLed and proprietary software are two separate worlds, with neither side able to incorporate the work of the other. (Or at least not witout serious reverse-engineering and hassle.)
Now this is FAIR. (The proprietary types won't let the GNU types use their proprietary code, the fruit of perhaps a decade of work by hundreds of people. So why should the GNU types let the proprietary types use theirs, which is the fruit of several decades of work by thousands?)
But it's a massive pain in the ass.
This smacks of Microsoft and their incessant whining about how it's so unfair that they can't just use somebody else's work for free.
Nah. Just trying to be "fair and balanced". B-)
I worked for several years in a shop where the corporate software stars were constantly flaming GPL as "more expensive than money". (A decade or so after they went comatose for lack of funds they threw in the towel and released their orphaned source - too little and too late.) I just wanted to make sure their ideas had been included in the discussion.
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 knew I lived in Iowa for some reason! Hahaha, I'll use my $40 to distribute linux cd's to all those fools who use Windows. Thank You Bill!
Hard work usually pays off over time, but procrastination pays off now.
And hand out coupons for $40 off Micros~1 products, such as WinXp, Office XP, DevStudio...
if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
Ever heard of the ABC? The Atanasoff-Berry Computer?
The first electronic digital computer, built at Iowa State University between 1937 and 1942, before the much better-known ENIAC? And, hey look, that was before Colossus as well.
So, perhaps before you act so knowing about how we "USAns" like to think we invented everything, perhaps you ought to do a little research. I'll give you the following link to help you get started.
ABC Computer
once it's discovered the FSF or Stallman drags them into court and forces them to disgorge their source code.
IANAL, but if it was demonstrably unintentional, wouldn't the court be likely to assess a fine and require the removal of the GPL code?
And since Linux (or GNU/Linux, as Stallman likes to say) is under the GPL at the kernel, application, and development toolset level, this forms a barrier against the adoption of Linux.
Well, Linus has stated time and again that running a program under linux, while in requires some linking and interaction with the kernel, constitutes normal use. The issue with the standard libraries is the main reason that the LGPL was written - I don't think RMS ever intended to co-opt applications through the libs. He's an idealist, but he doesn't seem to like sstrongarm tactics.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
"Gnu Public License".
Actually, General Public License. That's why it's known as the GNU GPL.
See the FSF's website
There is no sin except stupidity -- Oscar Wilde
>we are also a state that has one of the best >anti-spam laws on the books. Read it yourself at
Offtopic, but what the hell . . .
It allows you to recover a measly ten bucks per message or $500. That's gonna shut the spammers down RSN! Lots of attorneys are going to jump on board to sue them spammers to collect their ten bucks. Woohoo!
Washington's law, on the other hand, provides for recovery of $500 PER MESSAGE in addition to providing that a violation of it is a violation of the state Consumer Protection Act. If it's an "interactive computer service" suing under Washington's law, it provides for damages of $1,000.
IANAL, but if it was demonstrably unintentional, wouldn't the court be likely to assess a fine and require the removal of the GPL code?
Probably. But the perception is that while FSF might be reasonable, Stallman has a socialist axe to grind and may push for draconian remidies. Copyleft is based on Copyright, and Copyright law recognizes that enforcement is a game of whack-a-mole. So it compensates by giving the copyright owner a sledgehammer for the moles he does hit.
But in business if you're dragged into court you've ALREADY lost, regardless of the outcome. The costs are high, you don't recover them if you win, and they come right out of your profit margin.
Winning one big suit can drive you into bankruptcy. So businessmen will generally avoid the risk, unless there's a lot of reward for taking the risk. Do Linux and GNU tools provide that improvement over the alternatives? Many companies say yes. But many say no - or "I don't know, but I DO know I don't need it. So I won't bet the farm."
Well, Linus has stated time and again that running a program under linux, while in requires some linking and interaction with the kernel, constitutes normal use. The issue with the standard libraries is the main reason that the LGPL was written - I don't think RMS ever intended to co-opt applications through the libs. He's an idealist, but he doesn't seem to like sstrongarm tactics.
I agree with both points. With the LGPL and the public statements of Linus (and others in similar positions in the Free Software movement) it's clear to me that with minimal care there's less of a risk with even (L)GPLed software than with proprietary software. (Imagine one of your guys using a Microsoft library, or reverse-engineering and cloning part of Microsoft's code to get around a problem, then finding that Microsoft actually intends to enforce some of those ELUA provisions. B-) )
But it's not MY opinion that matters. It's the opinion of the appropriate executives in thousands of companies, big and small. Many are Pointy Haired Bosses and all have been heavily propagandized by Microsoft. So some of just say "No GNUs is good GNUs."
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
You could always look at a non-intel laptop:
PowerPC G4
UltraSPARC IIe
OK, so the Apple will come with OSX, but at least it's UNIX, contains a fair bit of Open Source code and seems to do the job pretty well. The UltraSPARC comes with Solaris, also a pretty good start, I imagine you could get Linux or NetBSD onto either one with a bit of work (I must admit I've not done it myself).
You're correct. They're just jealous because Macs aren't price-competitive.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.