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."
"proceeds of the settlement will be distributed to members of the class in the form of vouchers redeemable for ANY manufacturer's computer-related products and software."
notice the word 'any'
$1.1B in Microsoft products
What's that... a few hundred boxes of MS Office?
"And in other news, the ACME toxic waste company has agreed to settle its lawsuits by giving out $1.1Billion in ACME brand toxic sludge, or vouchers good for any other brand of toxic waste.
I am not sure if the Windows ME and Windows NT which came with my desktop and server is refundable...
I am pretty sure that most of their money is made on their crappy OS which I was forced to pay when I purchased my hardware to run BeOS and Linux...
They have so much money so, $1.1 Billion dollar penalty is a drop in the bucket. Let say that parking ticket in the town was $30 per violation.
If illegal parking brings $110 profit because there were no other competitors which knows town officials well enough..and had money to pay off violation.. they still make $80 profit... as long as they make profit...they will ignore the rules and regulations which normal businesses are bound to...
This is really sad...
Well... now we have a tax cut for riches to worry about.
Today, we have this settlement, which allows consumers to claim a voucher. We also have a request by California Gov. Davis to cut funding to social services and education, as well as to increase state income taxes. Consumers should be allowed to settle their increased tax bill by handing over their settlement voucher to the California government, in exchange for a guarantee that the voucher would be used to purchase computer technology equipment and other educational resources for state schools. Perhaps also the California government should be awarded any unclaimed consumer vouchers after a certain (short) settlement period. This way, schools would be able to purchase whatever resources best fit their needs (instead of having free Microsoft products handed to them), and some of the sting of the increased taxes could be reduced.
Just a thought...
sig my booty, check my website
I'm just trying to get a grasp on what the real financial impact is here (and whether if it is really a penalty)
maybe the state of California can now afford that Oracle contract it signed... *ducks*
There aint no pancake so thin it doesn't have two sides.
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.
California: "Microsoft, we are going to sue you because you use unfair business practices by giving away your product to destroy your competition!"
Microsoft: "As a punishment, you should make us give away our products. That will teach us!"
California: "Sounds good to me!"
DOH!!!
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The story is a dupe, the topic is boring, the facts weren't checked. WE GET IT!!
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.
Actually, what would be funny too is if Red Hat did a quick advertizing blitz offering free boxed copies of Red Hat to anyone willing to prove that they bought some hardware with their refund voucher. They could even offer to preinstall the software on selected hardware sellers products. Just an idea.
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?" `":" #");}
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
If you think this is bad... ...Their first offer was to port the "dancing paperclip" to FreeBSD, Linux, and Solaris.
-- Terry
And a link to the article
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
Wouldn't it be appropriate to use as many as possible of these vouchers for a purchase from FSF? Perhaps the FSF could make some sort of micro-edition of Gnu software to be bought for download (i.e. minimal cost for FSF)?
$25/$0 =
Divide by zero error. Post terminated.
Read reviews of shopping cart software
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