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!
... 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
Sure, that pays for your purchase of Windows 98, but where's the compensation for mental scarring?
Only other states that have a similar competition law would be able to do this. Consumers in idaho were able to sue only because of the 1976 Competition Law.
However, if more strong antitrust sanctions against Microsoft are not gained at the federal level, I wouldn't be surprised if dissenting states decide to create special laws to handle such cases in the future.
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
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?
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
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.
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
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
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."
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
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.
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 $40 Billion cashpile. A very insignificant amount in the grand scheme of things for Redmond.
Think For Yourself. Question Authority.
I just purchased a Pentium 4 screamer for myself. Since I was converting my old Pentium II compuuter to a Lunx box, I wanted to use the copy of Windows 2000 that I had running on it on my new computer -- I refuse to "upgrade" to XP. I was mindful of getting slapped with the OS tax if I refused a copy of XP. My solution?
I built the damn thing myself.
I bought the motherboard, video card, and case from CompUSA. I bought the memory, hard drive, DVD drive, skipped the floppy drive, Ethernet card, and sound card from a mom and pop computer store.
If you have avoided rolling your own computer, I must report that it was extremely intuitive and easy. If you can build Lego models, you can build your own PC.
Just say no to the MS tax. Build your own computer!
52$ 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.
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.
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.
Opening APIs isn't a reasonable punishment for prix fixing -- it's a non-sequitur. Fees, damages, penalties -- these are all just punishments.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
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.)
But since I live in Seattle...
Big deal. You live in Seattle. So does everyone else.
Get over yourself.
Ten-to-one you moved here in the last three years, and you're from California.
BFD...
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
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.
What a crock!
Do you have any faint clue as to the amount of Micro$oft'$ cash reserves?
At all?
BillG wouldn't walk across the street to piss on the money this judgement might cost him.
t_t_b
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
<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.
If those other companies' stock prices are a function of Microsoft's price, then it either means: 1) They have invested in Microsoft, and therefore share responsibility for the damage that Microsoft caused or 2) Their prices are not based in reality to begin with.
What's good for them is good for the rest of the industry? (Hmm.. tell that to Apple, Novell, Caldera, AOL/TW, Nintendo. Tell it to the countless companies that have gone out of business because users felt they "needed" MS products, regardless of what the user wanted.) Policies and judgements should not be influenced by an abstract line on a graph that says "nasdaq" at the top, especially when there's so little correlation between the shape of that graph and the productivity and actual value of the companies.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Dude from Grinnell invented the integrated circuit.
Go Pioneers!
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?
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.
How about you check the facts.
The ENIAC was already well on its way to completion by the time E & M saw Astantoff's machine. Also, the ABC was based on very different technology than the ENIAC.
The issue is a matter of debate, not a myth.
I agree.. just can't believe their statements. I don't care if it is improved to give me a shave and make my morning coffee when I sit down at the computer. I can't get over their comments that, IMHO, they're saying as long as they do something they feel is 'beneficial', they can violate the law and gouge due to lack of competition. Talk about arrogance, spin, and double talk. That's similar if Rockefeller said back in the old Standard Oil monopoly days 'but I'll put a service station on every corner as soon as I put all the other people out of business. I'll triple the price and gouge you, but you won't have as far to go to get gas. It's a public benefit, so you can't break up Standard Oil'. It wouldn't have floated then and shouldn't now.
...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
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
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"
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.
Yeah, that was my point. But I guess saying anything that could possibly be misinterpreted as pro-Microsoft on Slashdot is risking getting labelled "Flamebait". I'm surprised your post wasn't modded down as well, Anti-Bob.
include $sig;
1;
First off how do you define abuse? Is it deviating from anything but a normal (breaking even) profit? If so, about 90% of businesses would be in violation.
All you have to do to answer these questions is look at existing law. No, there should not be a limit to how much profit a company is allowed to make selling their product. But if they charge too much, there should be an environment where someone can sell a competing product for less.
I totally agree, monopolies suck. However, there MUST be some wiggle room between what sucks and what is ILLEGAL. Monopolies, in and of themselves, are not illegal. What IDIOT would make a law that punished a company simply because their competitors went out of business?
OK, since I'm on Slashdot, and many people here think "monopoly==satan", and my earlier post got modded down as flamebait when it was just stating the facts, I think I'm going to have to spell it out for y'all.
Say, for example, I'm one of two Espresso stands in Iowa. Nobody else in Iowa knows where to buy espresso beans except me and one other guy, who happen to work on the same street. We each sell tall mochas for $2.50. Now, the other guy gets hit by a truck. BAM! I'm a monopoly, and according you you guys, I'm now illegal. I didn't hire the truck to hit the dude, I haven't even changed my prices yet, but you guys think I should be illegal.
Now, I agree, I hate monopolies. But in and of themselves, they should NOT be illegal. Look, even if my espresso stand starts charging $4.00 per mocha, people who don't think it's worth the money will stop buying them. Everyone else who continues to buy them is making a decision that I am providing a service that is valuable to them to the tune of $4.00.
It only becomes illegal when my business gets huge, spreads all over Iowa, I become a major customer of the espresso bean vendors, and I tell my vendors that I will stop doing business with them if they sell beans to anyone else in Iowa. Do you get it now? THAT'S abuse of monopoly power.
include $sig;
1;
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