Slashdot Mirror
California Consumers Settle MS Antitrust Suit
lseltzer writes "According to AP, $1.1B in Microsoft products will go to California consumers to settle antitrust claims against the company. I bet the lawyers don't get paid in software." Actually, the article says that those who apply for some of the settlement will receive "vouchers redeemable for any manufacturer's computer-related products and software."
I'm getting my "vouchers redeemable for any manufacturer's computer-related products and software" made out for an Origin 3000.
In mathematics, one does not understand things, one merely gets used to them.
--VonNeumann
Does no one realize that this ammount of retail cost to Microsoft is pennies in production cost? They're losing virtually nothing in this and it is a complete failure of the political system to prosecute them.
And why doesn't MS have to pay real ca$h damages? What kind of hardship is this settlement? $1.1 billion in software is like $100K in media, boxes and shrink wrap. This is punishment in what way?
I am the very model of a modern major general!
"Though the face value of the settlement is $1.1 billion, the actual amount will depend on number of consumers who claim, according to Microsoft lawyers."
How likely is it that enough businesses and consumers will actually make a claim to seriously impact M$? Sadly, not very.
Settlements of this sort have zero punitive effect on the defendant. I've received settlements of this sort from NEC, Intel, Iomega, and others. What were the "vouchers" typically? $10 off coupons for my next purchase from the company. The company would still profit from the purchase anyway, assuming I actually made use of the coupons, which I never did. And I doubt most consumers do either. In Microsoft's case, the worst thing that would happen is that they would have to produce a few extra CDs and sell them for a few bucks off. What a rip off!
Law's don't change when you settle a suit. You just get money. Now, if you were to actually go through with it...the potential damage in law would do exponentially more damage to Microsoft than a drop-in-the-bucket lump sum of cash value.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
How can anyone let this happen? The resolution is to provide software to the retail value of $1.1B, but the cost to the convicted is that of producing the CDs and boxes that accompany the product. I thought the damages were meant to punish the convicted, as much as compensate the victims. A convicted monopolist is allowed to pay the damages by providing more of the software which has been deemed anti-competitive by the very same courts. Apart from vague 'because it's Microsoft' comments, can anyone please enlighten someone from outside the US as to why?
..k
The Mothership
This is almost as silly as forcing drug lords to give away vouchers for free drugs. Not quite that bad, but similar effect.
First you'll say Pay! Then it's no no... not pay, install linux. Then it's no no, I wouldn't trust you to install linux.
I WANT BILL TO COME AND CLEAN MY TOILET BOWL.
It's sad to see that you are completely on a viceral level of 'reasoning'. I pray to god you never get in some power situation... cause, hell, Bill maybe be 'evil', but he's cold and calculated.
You would probably have burned people in auto-da-fés if you roamed around during the inquisition...
As some have already noted, the actual wording is that the vouchers are good for ANY computer product. I propose that people use these vouchers to fund your favorite linux distribution or open source group. Let's use Microsoft's money to fund their competetion.
There's no sig like SIGSEG
How does one actually qualify to make a claim for a voucher, especially if you double or triple purchased a Microsoft license. Most companies have a hard time just knowing what their current licensed products are, not to mention knowing how much they are eligible to claim going back to 1995. I can just imagine the helpline: "okay let the BSA do an audit and they'll tell you what we owe you (er, you owe us!)".
And did anybody else catch that of the unclaimed refunds schools get 1/3, and of that amount half will be for vouchers of MS products only.
I'd laugh if only this wasn't so sad !
Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
This costs Microsoft less than three cents on the dollar of their approximate $40 billlion cash on hand - which they don't bother to pay as dividends to their stockholders either.
Microsoft must be laughing their asses off. They've got a world economy nearly dependent upon them, and they will go on doing exactly as they please, admitting no wrongdoing.
If I were Grey Davis, I'd have told Bill "settle" Lockyer (CA state AG) to help balance the state budget by trying to get a few extra billion outta Microsoft's war chest.
But then again, I'm not Grey Davis - I have ethics and accountability.
The only requirement for a solution to be "enough", IMHO, is that it prevents Microsoft from continuing to practice anti-competitive monopolistic behavior. As we have seen, they won't stop on their own. The fact that they exist pretty much makes it inevitable that they will behave in an anti-competitive manner. The only real solution to the problem that I see is a split, but that has problems of its own.
This settlement is a joke. 1/40th of Microsoft's cash reserves? It may be a lot of money, but they've got money out the wazoo. The lawyers get rich, the consumer gets a $20 voucher, whoopee. Not to mention that most of the voucher money will probably go unclaimed, and the claimed part will largely be spent in a manner that only strengthens Windows's hold on the market (Office, Windows software, Windows itself, Windows PCs, Windows-specific hardware). And there is no mechanism to ensure they won't turn around and do the same anti-competitive things tomorrow. The settlement is the equivelant of a verbal warning. "Bad Microsoft! Don't do that again!"
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
Yes it would appear a few of us missed the fact that the vouchers could be used for any computer related product. However, there is a potential weasle-clause in there.
"Two-thirds of any unclaimed settlement proceeds will be donated to California's most needy public schools in the form of Microsoft educational and productivity software..."
Let's hope everyone who is entitled to really does make their claim. Any one know how likely that is?
Otherwise, the Monopoly will simply extend itself into the need public schools "in the form of Microsoft educational and productivity software", and we don't want that now, do we?
The people in this settlement are not paid in money, they are paid in $25 worth of software. How much software do you get for $25 from Microsoft? Possibly a computer game.
Since most people may not want a computer game from Microsoft, and instead opt for using this as a discount for say Microsoft Office or Windows XP. Since the margins for these products are HUGE, Microsoft may actually end up earning money from this settlement.
It will certainly not cost Microsoft as much as a pure monetary settlement would. It will also end up INCREASING Microsofts market share.
This is peanuts for Microsoft, and may actually end up hurting their competitors more than them.
Of course, how much does it actually COST microsoft to stamp out $1.1B "worth" of software? A full copy of office is what, $750? It costs them what, $5 to package it?
Microsoft gets to write of $1.1B in losses, but it only costs them about $1.5MILLION to do it. That's going to be great for shareholder value!
Plus, they'll probably book $50 per copy for support at one point or another.. So this is just another great money-making scheme that is good for M$ and BAD for consumers.
What Microsoft should be forced to do is buy each and every californian a nice retail packaged copy of RedHat with OpenOffice, along with 4 hours of RedHat phone support and a decent linux book for newbies (if there exists such a thing).
That would teach M$ a lesson. This settlement will actually turn out to be very profitable for them.
"We can't give you your money back sir. We can only give you in-store credit. [I understand we sold you a piece of shit. But our policy is to screw the customer. You can only receive credit to buy more shit.]"
I know it's happened to me at various stores.
There is no penalty here. Microsoft will get all the money back that they settled on.
So, Microsoft is found to have unfairly leveraged their monopoly, so the request is: "Um, hey, can we have some more of that software 'ya got there? It's just the best darn thing we could thing we could use."
Just imagine if this form of punishment were applied to other organizations acting in a criminal manner:
A mob being asked to offer it's "protection services" at no cost for one year.
Politicians found to have taken bribes being asked to serve without their official pay for the remainder of their term.
A drug cartel being asked to provide half it's crop to the state for free the next year.
A corporate polluter punished by being forced to create more product next year.
Ryan Fenton
Wow. You guys must really live in alternate plane of reality. ... I'm truly speechless at how unsatisfiable you will ever be.
Hardly. However we do live in different realities, several of 'em.
You will never satisfy all of us with any *one* thing. The flame wars of vi versus emacs, Linux versus BSD, Gnome versus KDE, etc. are primarily for entertainment value. They also serve as a reminder that no one solution can solve all problems.
In search of poetic justice. Those of us still using Microsoft products can still dream, can't we?
It's common in these kinds of settlements for manufacturers to give vouchers for their own products. This is likely no different: you can probably use the vouchers to buy Microsoft software and hardware running Microsoft software. Non-redeemed vouchers will be given as 1/3 in Microsoft software and 1/3 in hardware (presumably, PCs running Microsoft software) to schools.
Even $1.1 billion in cash would be a slap on the wrist. This "settlement" is an insult: it's a marketing promotion for Microsoft and a means by which they can get more of their software into the education market.
BUT MS having to give 1.2 billion dollars to the people of California, that's just not good enough
You ought to know, at the very moment as you were typing that sentence, that MS does NOT give money. They will give software which they evaluate to be worth 1.2 billion. Just keep in mind that there are no more costs in developing that software. Keep also in mind that MS is thecompany that has the highest total margin of all those registered on NASDAQ. And this margin (of 30%-31%) was calculated by including businesses such as MSN and Xbox which are losing money!
Basically, MS gets to give away boxes, manuals and CDs, all of which is very cheap to produce, and actually further EXPAND their market. They could very wel book it under "marketing".
Brilliant. I just don't understand who on the Californian side agreed to this ridicolous settlement.
Sigged!