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."
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!
They're losing virtually nothing in this and it is a complete failure of the political system to prosecute them.
Why are you assuming anyone who took advantage of this would choose software?
Think X-Boxes. Think mice, keyboards, and joysticks.
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
It doesn't quite work that way.
It is true that the cost to develop, package, ship, advertise, and support a product is signifcantly less than the retail price of the product itself.
However, you must realize that if you get something that you were going to buy without having to pay for it, they have lost revenue. It doesn't matter if they put 90% margins on their software. They have lost the money they would have made and used to subsidize other projects. Since really only the Windows and Office groups are even profitable, that does indeed affect their bottom line.
Now, it won't hurt like outlaying actual currency, but it will still hurt quite a bit.
The world is neither black nor white nor good nor evil, only many shades of CowboyNeal.
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.
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?" `":" #");}
Ehm... Do neither... Your logic is flawed: it's the total sum that you pays them that counts. Net total you still pay them. It's better to leave the Xboxes and the games on the shelves. Get your gaming kicks at Sony or Nintendo. And if you think those companies are evil, buy yourself a used Sega Master system.
Plaintiffs' lawyers estimate consumers will recoup about one-third of what they spent for Microsoft products, including the Windows operating systems and popular Office and Word programs, between Feb. 18, 1995, and Dec. 15, 2001.
For example, consumers will receive a voucher for $29 for each copy of Microsoft Office purchased, $26 for each copy of Excel, $16 for each copy of the Windows operating system and $5 for each copy of the word-processing program Word, according to plaintiffs' lawyers
Since when have they been selling Windows for $48?
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
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
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.