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."
Sure, that pays for your purchase of Windows 98, but where's the compensation for mental scarring?
I'm no lawyer... but the point of sale was in iowa, so a company would have to follow state laws also. Just becuase they are based out of stated doesn't mean they are above state law when selling to resedents (of course the internet is the big gray area right now). Its like a fast food joint having to follow local health standards even though they are based out of state. (I know there are allot of holes in this analogy, but take it for what it is worth)
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
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!
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.)
<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.
This case is not about Microsoft giving price breaks for bulk purchases. The District Court's Findings of Fact speak better than I could about Microsoft's Windows 98 pricing behavior...
as it relates to OEMs: "In a competitive market, one would expect the price of an older operating system to stay the same or decrease upon the release of a newer, more attractive version. Microsoft, however, was only concerned with inducing OEMs to ship Windows 98 in favor of the older version. It is unlikely that Microsoft would have imposed this price increase if it were genuinely concerned that OEMs might shift their business to another vendor of operating systems or hasten the development of viable alternatives to Windows."
as it directly relates to consumers: "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."
This behavior has nothing to do with bulk purchase discounts, but it has everything to do with misuse of monopoly power. That is why the court demonstrated that both resellers and consumer purchasers were harmed by Microsoft's behavior.
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.