Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Sends Takedown Notice To MSFreePC.com
DJFelix writes "Just to add some more drama in California this week, legal counsel for Microsoft issued a takedown notice to Lindows CEO Michael Robertson, demanding the immediate shutdown of the MSFreePC.com website. The MSFreePC.com website allows people who purchased certain Microsoft products in California, or used certain Microsoft products in California to submit a claim in the $1.1 billion class action suit Microsoft lost in California. The site is still up for now, but how long will it last?"
I instant messaged the URL for MSFreePC.com to a lot of people I know, and most of them told me they they were ineligible to participate because, get this, they obtained the qualifying software illegally. They all missed the point about becoming after the fact. It couldn't be more clear.
No one reads anything anymore. Case in point, notice the two occurrences of "they" above. (fp)
$, else M$FreePC.com could've been his, and he would've avoided this mess. I mean, Microsoft wouldn't claim that M$ actually represents them, would they?
Do they have any legal rights to demand such a shutdown?
Its just informing consumers, what could be wrong about that.
Hmm.. well, I'm not a Lawier, or Lawrence, so I have no idea. Anyone care to Enlighten?
// instant - "I for one welcome our new Decaff Coffee-Flavoured-Coffee Overlords"
Sounds like MS is trying to keep the number of people from joining this suit to an absolute minimum.
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
...we just litigate every competitor into going out of business. In what world is that anti-competitive?
If whales learn how to use weapons we're all screwed!
Microsoft? Screw over it's customers? Nah.
Robertson doesn't buckle to pressure from Microsoft.
Send all the lawyers you want, he'll come up with something new to make you send more lawyers.
Oh, and he'll win because it makes MS look like the litigation-happy bastards they are.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
If the reality is as the letter says it is -- and I'm not in California so I haven't cared enough to look -- then it seems to me that MS's concerns are completely reasonable.
.sig: be the majority of voters.
Remainder of my
Save Maine's economy: write stuff down. All comments are exclusively my own, not my employer.
What? Someone is being deceptive to Microsoft customers? How dare they LIE to Microsoft's customers! MS customers DEMAND honesty and integrity from the companies they buy from, and Mr. Gates will be damned if he'll just sit by and let his unfortunate customers get swindled!
Until it's slashdotted out of existance...
I remember when they issued this bogus statement about their impending breakup.
Yes, it is a joke.
tcd004
I read it, and they seem to have a good point.
because I have been enjoined by this Holy Office to abandon the false opinion which maintains that the Sun is the centre
... I'd forgotten about this one. Thanks for the reminder.
I RTFA, and it seems that Microsoft is wanting to take it down because "it's deceptive" on the grounds that the claimants won't get their money since they have to physically sign for it.....huh.
I'm saying they're just grasping for straws trying to get it to come down. I figured the thing to do would be to let those claims go through, get denied and give Lindows one hell of a black-eye.
Read the link, all it says is that it will not work. The agreement states that people have to mail in a signature. You can't do that on their website... Now about shutting down a site, that stinks...
reading the letter, it really sounds as if lindows is being sneaky, and trying desperately to capitalize on the class action suit by getting sales and customer information by any means possible.
in other words, it sounds like lindows is trying microsoft tricks, and microsoft doesn't like that.
should be interesting to see how this plays out.
Cause a court order may not be able to shut the site down, but I'm sure a slashdotting will do the job!
> The site is still up for now, but how long will it last?
Not very long after the post.
- Arwen, I'm your father, Agent Smith.
- Well, you're just Smith, but my father is Aerosmith!
According to the article, it looks like the major beef is that submitting via the website does not output the claim in the determined format. While this seems to be a small issue, imagine if you were the guy that admins the email server getting the 1000s of email generated by MSFreePC.com. I would think that MSFreePC.com could change the procedure to output a more compatible format to send to MS and all should be fine. Whether or not MS is just playing a bully is yet to be determinined (in this case).
In the article, Microsoft objects to the site because it misrepresents the settlement and encourages people to submit claims that are invalid.
It's just as likely that Lindows is being self-serving as it is that Microsoft is being malicious.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
"Takedown notice" usually refers to a procedure defined in the DMCA that allows someone alleging copyright infringement to demand that an ISP take a site down. This is not what is happening in this case. Microsoft has no means of forcing Lindows to take the site down without a lengthy legal process.
What is Wrong with this web site? I mean Microsoft did lose in court on a side note Im getting that free PC :-)
Linux is like living in a teepee. No Windows, no Gates, Apache in house.
It is nice to know that corporations are skipping that whole government bit, you know laws, judges, rights that sort of thing, and just determining the laws themselves.
That being said, the web site is maybe a little ambigious, but I am sure that has never stopped the MS marketing and advertising department in the past.
Those who print fiction for press releases should not be issuing judical decisions on others for doing the same, or something like that.
If you read their comments, there are some serious legal issues with this. If Lindows can't verify that each and every one of the claims submitted through the site is valid, then it really is unfair to Microsoft. On the other hand, I think the argument that claimants must submit their own claims is invalid. If you grant the power of attorney to Lindows to make the claim for you and then you give them what you receive in the settlement in a private transaction for goods in return, then it would seem to be perfectly valid. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that's correct. I don't believe that the argument that it encourages fraudalent claims is correct, though. In any settlement such is this, it's in the interest of the claimants to maximize the value of their claims. It's no different than any other lawsuit. There are some potential problems with this, and MS is right on some of their claims. It was a nice marketing strategy by Lindows, though. Does anyone know if they'd profit off of this or lose money? It seems like a good marketing strategy and such a program would be more effective than any advertising could hope to be.
Help me. I've been modbombed by a few people with entirely too much time on their hands.
A lot of the problems (not including the real signature ones) have to do with missing parts of the form.
MS's laywers however also had a type
quote:
In addition to mischaracterizing the settlement and encouraging consumers to submit defective claims that will denied, the website also encourages people to submit fraudulent claims.
I am assuming that should say will BE denied.
paul reinheimer
It's bad enough for Microsoft to have to endure a competitve company with the same 'slogan'.. much less bundling the software with free PCs. People have no choice!
The instant claim just sounds like an "instant rebate" deal. Sure, there are forms to fill out etc, and if one bounces or is denied for whatever reason, the person will be billed for the products or services they acquired under the instant approval option. I'd assume the person gets billed for the things they buy but once completed, the claim gets used as credit.
Only frauds are hurt by this. I did read the article but am I missing anything important here? Microsoft is angry why?
Microsoft is saying that Lindows is urging fraudulent claims against Microsoft with incentives like "a free PC to the first 10,000 who purchase more than $100 of stuff," and discounts on Lindows software. I, myself, think that Lindows is being shady, but not illegal. There is a definite exchange of goods, one is the money gained from Microsoft, the other is the Lindows product.
The website put up by Lindows has to be acting on good faith that the claims against Microsoft are valid. If the consumers are submitting fraudulent claims, something which may be happening regardless of Lindows, then there is a problem. The present issue is "who's problem is it?" I think that Lindows should do some type of verification on all claims that it processes, making sure that they are all valid. It may cost a bit of money to do so, but I still think that Lindows will come out on top.
Another thing that Lindows could do is to post a warning about the penalties of committing fraud.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
Before bashing MS, read the letter. Lindows (MSFreePC.com) is mis-leading the public into thinking that they can enter them into the class. MS is only saying that due to the nature of the settlement and to the agreed method of joining the class, the way that MSFreePC.com is going about it is invalid. Wake up and RTFA before you go screaming about how evil MS is.
TODO: Insert witty sig
From MS (in the letter)
Claim forms submitted through the www.msfreepc.com website will be invalid because they will not be signed. Instead, these claims will include only the claimant's typed name (called a "digital signature" by the website) which is invalid under the Settlement Agreement.
Please Click Below to show that you Accept the EULA before using Windows/Word/Excel
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
Mike sure has got his mind set on toppling the giant, more than any other individual (or company for that matter) i don't personally find his actual products all that appealing, but i certainly have enjoyed his ideas. ive really started to think (just in the past month) that ms is really going to lose a bunch of market share. between this kind of crap making them look bad, all of the security issues, ibm's open source push, and sony's drm lawsuit, ms is finally getting pushed around by some big boys. they are major, but the us government, the us public, ibm, and sony, are all bigger.....
that aren't entirely 'legit'?
That's unpossible!
I'm by no means any sort of MS apologist...but Robertson has made some other rather lofty claims in the past that have never been lived up to...
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
This is probaly both.
1. If MS is right, they won't get their money. They will probaly be upset at MS because someone said MS would pay for it.
2. If MS is wrong, they pay more.
Both are bad for MS.
When will you people stop acting indignantly shocked by everything Microsoft does? We already KNOW it throws its lawyers at anyone who threatens its bottom line.
Slashdot's 'Microsoft is Evil' stories are like someone who posts every time his cat does something cute. Yes, we KNOW it behaves that way, we know it will *continue* to behave that way, we don't need headlines about it any more.
And Microsoft itself is like a T.Rex at the end of the Mesozoic era: it's big, it's powerful, but its world is changing and its days are numbered. It isn't worth our attention any more. Let's please get back to stuff that matters?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
All Subscribed Users
"The site is still up for now, but how long will it last?"
And to *help* the site you submitted it to Slashdot? I don't buy it. You're one of them, aren't you!
"Such claims, if approved, will take settlement benefits away from legitimate class members and from California's public schools, which will receive vouchers worth two-thirds of any unclaimed settlement funds."
Wow... Microsoft is so benevolent... two-thirds of unclaimed funds in vouchers! Weeeeee...
How long will it last? you ask... Well it's a simple equation + 5 seconds...
You obviously just assumed they were suing over the domain. Instead, what the article said was that they were suing because the web site was deceptive and encouraged people to make false/fraudulent/inaccurate submissions that don't qualify for the settlement.
Complexity is Easy. Simplicity is Hard.
The article is longwinded and legalistic, so I'll recap for the lazy:
Microsoft lost a class action case in California and owes a lot of people there money. msfreepc.com is offering people Lindows in return for their stake in the settlement. Microsoft's lawyers are complaining since the msfreepc.com form does not include things like signatures and certifications that filling out the legal forms firsthand would require, so they say claims from these people will be turned down. Microsoft's lawyers also portray Lindows as taking money away from schoolchildren, because leftover funds go to CA schools, and expiditing the claims means more of the money will be disbursed.
Why is a so-called monopoly being forced to pay money to their competitors? I thought monopolies didn't have competition? Just shows you how irrational the CA ruling is in the 1st place.
Don't kill me, but it seems there are valid points to M$ fax:
1) M$ writes that under the settlement the claimants must sign under penalty of purjury. That is not possible using the website and thus may invalidate the claimants rights under the settlement.
2) On that background M$ fax doesn't seem unreasonable if the settlement stipulates that they must not impeede the claimants in getting their reward under the settlement. They are in that case just protecting themselves from (yet) another lawsuit from disgruntled claimants.
Use the manual form system where you fill out forms, mail back receipts, and wait for up to 6 months or more to receive your settlement.
Or...use MSfreePC.com to get your Instant Settlement* TODAY! [...]
*If you qualify, your "Instant Settlement" is the credit that Lindows.com will give to you to immediately purchase products using the MSfreePC program in exchange for the right to process your settlement claim on your behalf as described in more detail in Step 7 and Step 8 of the Instant Settlement Wizard.
Bash microsoft all you will, I find that very shrewd of Lindows. It's basically piggy backing on the settlement. Not cool.
The site is still up for now, but how long will it last?
... who read the above sentence and mentally added:
How -- long -- will -- it -- last?!?
Someone get the Shatner Earworm out of my mind please....
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
How many of these customers will get the lindows os and accompanying software and never install it? ms customers to the very end.
What processor , features are included ???? By the picture, doesn't look too fancy. Maybe a celeron.
Michael Robertson is a populist of the worst kind. He plays on media stereotypes in order to make money with a poor quality distro.
Microsoft is right in taking action against anti-competitive behaviour as it were the Linux companies acting against SCO.
Robertson - drink more WINE!
Hay guys, I also have got some interesting whois info :
.com and .net domains can now be registered
Whois Server Version 1.3
Domain names in the
with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net
for detailed information.
Domain Name: MSFREEPC.COM
Registrar: GO DADDY SOFTWARE, INC.
Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
Name Server: UDNS1.ULTRADNS.NET
Name Server: UDNS2.ULTRADNS.NET
Status: ACTIVE
Updated Date: 12-aug-2003
Creation Date: 12-aug-2003
Expiration Date: 12-aug-2005
Last update of whois database: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 06:20:02 EDT
Isn't that interesting, huh?
Go Daddy! Go!
Lindows CEO Micheal Roberts is a lying scumbag? Who would have ever guessed?
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
Why hasn't the settlement been more widely publicized? I'm a news junkie and I've only heard about the $16/product through /.
[Yes there are a zillion google hits, but have YOU heard about it through your local news or paper?]
IANAL (at least not yet), but last I checked, courts weren't just allowed to blatantly ignore Congress. If I remember correctly, Congress passed a law a few years back giving digital signatures the same legal standing as physical signatures. So if a Court is saying otherwise, that court's order is invalid, unless they're challenging the digital signature law itself.
-Mike-
Notice I didn't use plural - it would only take one lawyer - any lawyer - to determine that they were asking for trouble with MSfreePC.com and the way they're going about it. I asked about this in the original story - how can they file claims for people when they aren't even giving people access to the documentation outlining the rules, qualifications and benefits of the class action? I'm sure they did it for the tons of free publicity, as well as the goodwill anyone would get for doing anything against MS, but I think this one may just cost them more than it's worth. I'm surprised it's MS that's contacting them and not the courts. If I were the Judge and I heard about a web site that's sole purpose was to circumnavigate my ruling and orders, I'd be gunnning for the people behind it. Seems to me they could be facing obstruction of justice charges, maybe even fraud.
Don't get me wrong, I hate MS as much as the next guy, but in this case, they are totally right. I think Lindows jumped the gun and didn't think this one out. It looks like they didn't even read the terms of the settlement.
Oh yeah, and what lawyer would ever let them say MS was "found guilty" when it's a civil proceeding?
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
The site is still up for now, but how long will it last?
About five minutes after posting on Slashdot....
www.wavefront-av.com
Cnet Article
Microsoft has demanded that Linux seller Lindows.com take down a Web site that offers to process customer claims from the settlement of a California class-action suit against the software giant.
In a letter sent to the Linux seller on Friday and reprinted in a Lindows announcement Monday, attorney Robert Rosenfeld said Lindows' MSfreePC site includes false and misleading information and encourages filing of fraudulent claims. It demands that Lindows take down the site by noon Monday or face legal action by Microsoft.
Lindows announced the MSfreePC service earlier this month, offering to file claims on behalf of current and former California residents who qualify for proceeds from the $1.1 billion settlement of a class-action suit claiming Microsoft overcharged for its Windows operating system. People who submit a valid claim through the Lindows site receive an immediate credit in the amount of their anticipated settlement, good for the purchase of Lindows software or hardware.
The first 10,000 people to submit claims will also get a free WebStation, the stripped-down network PC the company introduced earlier this year.
Lindows CEO Michael Robertson said he wanted to make it as easy as possible for people to claim settlement awards, which range from $5 to $29. If few eligible consumers go through the claims process, Microsoft could pay out considerably less than the maximum $1.1 billion it agreed to.
But the Lindows service won't result in any valid claims, according to Rosenfeld, because it fails to meet several requirements detailed in the settlement. For starters, claims must be submitted with an actual signature.
"Claim forms submitted through the www.msfreepc.com Web site will be invalid because they will not be signed," according to his letter. "Instead, these claims will include only the claimant's typed name (called a 'digital signature' by the Web site), which is invalid under the settlement agreement."
The settlement agreement also specifically prohibits third parties from filing claims on the behalf of others, according to the letter, which alleges that the Lindows service encourages the filing of fraudulent claims by not presenting claimants with the terms of the settlement or adequately quizzing them on qualifying purchases.
"The Web site's clear objective is to encourage claimants to maximize the amount of their claims rather than submit claims that accurately reflect purchases made or benefits to which they are entitled," the letter said.
A Lindows representative said early Monday that the company was still reviewing the letter. The MSfreePC site was still operating as of Monday morning. Microsoft representatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Lindows is no stranger to Microsoft lawyers. The software giant sued the company shortly after Robertson formed it, claiming the name infringes on Microsoft's Windows trademark. That case is set to go to trial in December.
payper liesense stock markup FraUD, softwar gangster execrable/?pr? ?firm? hypenosys.
that should take care of that?
we consulted with yOUR creator/the ultimate legal counsel first. those fauxking murdering thieving corepirate nazi foulcurrs best get ready to see the light.
It seems ironic to me that a company that is supposedly about increasing the adoption of new technology to help people would be against the use of the very same technology to assist people.
Companies are only forward looking when it suits them to be. If it goes against them, then they can be just as much a luddite as they assume people who don't use MS products are.
Please mod down...
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
It sounds like it's encouraging people to settle through them so they would be the legal fees. Anyone who knows how mass tort works knows that means the operators of that site would get millions of dollars while the saps who sign up are lucky to get $5.
It also encorages people who pirated the software to sign up illegally. I've seen postings here saying how great that feature is, but it's illegal and immoral, and as much as I hate MS, they're totally right to demand the shutdown.
Microsoft is taking a legal action against a website that is doing something wrong. If you read the context of the complaint, you'll quickly see what little "details" Lindows is leaving out of this site, and based off my exposure to episodes of Law and Order, probably give Microsoft a decent LEGAL reason for wanting this site removed.
So why don't you clarify this up a little bit... is it really YRO?
The FUD on this place is appauling.
I see nothing wrong with it.
They're taking all the individual claims, and packing them into one gigantic claim. They can process the claims a lot more efficiently that way. They're not necessarily making a profit at it. It's more of a community service.
I haven't read the terms, but it's possible they're taking a risk, too: They have to sift through the claims to determine if they're valid. For the ones found invalid, they may have already paid the claimer.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Microsoft's letter is interesting in that they seem to be warning Lindows about something they have no jurisdiction over. Robertson is taking a big risk with the site; he's covering the bill, and if he isn't being very careful with his language and procedures, the judge could throw out claims filed through the site and Lindows would be short a large chunk of cash.
If the reality is as the letter says it is -- and I'm not in California so I haven't cared enough to look -- then it seems to me that MS's concerns are completely reasonable.
This is "informative"? In what sense?
The letter from MS is BS; as others here have noted, it mostly objects to procedural aspects of the claims process (e.g. digital signatures), mostly on hypocritical grounds (think MS's click-though EULA's) and throws in a few "think of the children!" sops (e.g., stating that even if the digitally signed claims were excepted, the real consequence would be that the schools wouldn't get to purchace MS products at 150% of retail with the unclaimed funds).
Even if you credit these objections, it would only be fraudulent if the Lindows people (after failing to get the settlement funds) tried to charge the people who had used the site. There's nothing wrong with me (for example) offering to pay out lottery winners or cash checks, etc. and then just burning the check or ticket. As long as Lindows.com acctually accepts the filling out of their form in leu of payment, there's no fraud involved.
-- MarkusQ
Well atleast they have the common sence to host it on a server running Linux and Apache :)
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
:gb2gbs:
No, no no....
Shatner would more dramatic pauses and empasis like:
How...long........will it..LAST!
Last I heard, there a very few things you may take legal action on for things that "might happen at some point in the future".
Unless Lindows actually submits malformed claims then nothing can be done.
"Your unauthorized website offers class members the opportunity to submit claims under the Microsoft settlement and obtain an "Instant Settlement" that they may use to purchase between $50 to $100 worth of Lindows software."
Hold up. How is a web site unauthorized? Are they trying to tell me that I need permission to create a web site? Microsoft doesn't completely control the web yet, come on now. Maybe I'm dreaming again, but I could have sworn the first ammendment mentioned something about free speech...
Perhaps the web site encourages fraud. Saying "drugs are cool, you should get high" encourages people to use illegal drugs, but where in the constitution does it forbid me from saying that?
You'd think they would have phrased their letter better. I mean they have a huge team of lawyers.
Hypocrisy is the 8th deadly sin.
The link has been posted to /. !!!
Did anyone else notice the sales pitch on the bottom of the submitted letter? Maybe I'm mistaken, but it would seem that Lindow's is a media wh*re, and I wouldn't be suprised if they knowingly violated the agreement to get more publicity. First they claim they'll have Windows binary compatibility, then fail to provide that, then charge to install a binary of free software, and not to mention they're selling a mutilated version of debian...Bottom line is, they're a company that lost their main sale point, and need another way to sell their product.
for pointing out some flaws. They should then fix their website and everyone will be happy. Cough, cough, choke, choke...
Personally I think that Microsoft is not as concerned about people submitting invalid claims as they are in receiving huge numbers of valid ones. And for Lindows' part this web page was probably put up out of spite. They're no doubt still a bit miffed over Microsoft's legal action over the Lindows name.
Isn't corporate bickering fun to watch?
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
It pokes in M$' wounds with a dirty stick!!!
What a relieve for someone whose precious downloads were fucked by their CRAP operating system for so many times...
Didn't Little Bush sign a law that makes digital signatures just as valid as a hand written one?
Claims cannot be transferred at all and a transferee of vouchers may not redeem more than $10,000 in transferred vouchers.
It's enough to make your disk head spin.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
From TFA: "For the foregoing reasons, Lindows.com must correct or take down the www.msfreepc.com website to rectify the many serious defects we have identified above." They're demanding they fix it *or* take it down.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
It's a very very basic machine designed to run Lindows from a CD with NO hard drive - probably has 64MB RAM and the cheapest Celeron possible.
What he's *really* doing is once again suckering Microsoft to establish a pattern of apparent legal harassment towards his company. This will come in handy in the future.
The request is reasonable. If it was a case of lindows merely offering information about how people can make their claims it would be legitimate. But their site makes the claim that you can file your claim agaisnt MS through the lindows site, and according to the terms of the settlement that is clearly not true (for one thing, the form has to be physically signed to be legitimate.) So the Lindows site is making false claims about their capacity to file on your behaf. Asking them to change that is perfectly reasonable.
(And you will note if you actually read the statement instead of trusting the slashdot summary that it is NOT are request to take the site down. It is a request to take it down OR fix the faulty claims it makes about what it can do for you.)
Lindows could just change the site so it doesn't do the filing on your behaf, but still does everything else, and it would be legitimate. If it resulted in a form you can download, print out, and sign and stuff in an envelope, then it would be removing the point of contention with the lawyer firm that sent this notice.
This isn't an example of MS trying to censor valuable information from the public. It's an example of them trying to get a site to stop making fradulent legal claims. The site can continue to exist as an informational site telling people what steps they need to take to get a refund, but right now it's giving incorrect information about what those steps are, and making the claim that it can file your claim on your behaf, which it can't.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
The PC in the picture can be found here. Silly thing doesn't come with a harddrive, but otherwise seems to be fairly decent for a home (not gaming) machine.
You do realize that many many schools have EA's with Microsoft, right? You do realize that many many schools WILL be buying MS software - right? Now however, some of them will be given it for free. What's so confusing about that? Sure, its not a 1 for 1 basis ($1 of software given by MS doesn't rob it of $1, as the distribution channels are getting hit worse really) but its still a big deal. Its actual money MS would have gotten, but now won't. I forget the accounting term for it, but it is an actual loss of money. Is that so hard to see?
What are they giving away? They are giving away the same thing MS is giving away - a "license" to use their software for a period of time. In my case I get 30 weeks of "free click-n-run" plus an OS install which I can use on all my home PCs (if I desire). Whether or not MS ever pays Lindows a penny really doesn't matter - what lindows has done is signed up another potential user.
MS is right about several things. I'm tempted to send many of my friends here and tell'em just to make up some shit so they get the "free click and run."
Once you fill out the form you can download lindows, install it, and use the "click and run" archive for a period of time. They lose nothing but some bandwidth, and in exchange they get the opportunity to show another person how linux can work for them. The user gets a lindows plus account, which is great because it gives them an excuse to give away "premium" software the user usually has to pay extra for.
It may be a bit shady, and MS may be right on many counts, but it doesn't matter - even if Lindows loses the ability to collect on all those "signatures" they still may drive a few more users from the arms of MS. If those new linux users stay with lindows, then they get a fresh revenue stream. And if they don't stay with lindows, maybe some of them will move onto redhat or debian or whatever. Maybe some of them will buy macs. What matters is just that people are encouraged to try something new because they have the promise of free shit. Lindows isn't normally free even to end users, so there's a greater perception of value here on the part of mom sixpack and, therefore, greater incentive to try it. and if they can't collect, so what? As much as I'd like to cost MS money, I honestly wasn't going to jump through the hoops required just to maybe get back a check for $80. At least this way there's a chance I'll cost MS some money and, hey, in the meantime I got something with some modest perceived value.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I think we can all agree that there are probably two things that Microsoft doesn't want.
1. Lots of legitimate claims
2. The publicity that a website like this can generate.
Microsoft states over and over that online forms will in no way be accepted. They also make a good point that Lindows seems to be offering a way that people can get an "Instant" Settlement. After reading the Lindows web page I must agree.
From the Lindows site:
Choose a method to process your claim
.
There are two ways to get your settlement:
.
Use the manual form system where you fill out forms, mail back receipts, and wait for up to 6 months or more to receive your settlement.
Or...use MSfreePC.com to get your Instant Settlement* TODAY! This site provides an easy-to-use "Instant Settlement* Wizard" which can be completed online in about 4 minutes and will allow you to get an Instant Settlement* to purchase valuable computer products TODAY without you having to spend one dime or mail in a single form! Click the flashing arrow below to see what products you can purchase INSTANTLY, should you qualify. You could even be eligible to receive a FREE PC!
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
"We have never and do not engage in anti-competitive practices."
HAHAHAHAHA.. Hahaha.. ha.. that was good.
I can't find it now in www.ca.gov, but I thought several years ago (1st Davis administration) that California law was amended so that a digital signature was just as valid and carried the same 'weight' as a wet signature.
A contractual agreement cannot supercede state law, so shouldn't a legal (albeit digital) signature be enough?
Maybe the lawyer is trying to apply Washington state law to a case that is subject to California law.
nothing fancy.
i) microsoft screws a bunch of people
ii) a bunch of lawyers finally wiggle some money out of microsoft
iii) Lindows (oh, THOSE guys) try to extract the settlement money by allowing it to be exchanged for their product--ostensibly, the free Debian OS with thier proprietary packaging.
iv) microsoft cries foul and, trying to take the good guy approach, says that not only is Lindows playing dirty ball, they are taking money out of the school system with their tactics
SO:
1) microsoft SCREWS YOU (they disagree--no one forced you to BUY that product from them)
2) microsoft is ordered to pay you back (they actually cast this as a magnanimous gesture on their part to fund schools)
3) if you agree to get paid back, then accroding to microsoft you are TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM KIDS
4) Lindows tries to look the good guy by giving you a FREE COMPUTER (but wait, the settlement amount couldn't cover THAT cost)
Who says we ever left the Jungle, people?
Gimme a second to gird my loin - I'm about to be flamebaited by the Linux zealots who have surrendered all perspective on the meaning of "free" and "open" and "fair".
*gird* *gird*
Okay, here's the deal. I've already
pointed out that Lindows sueing Microsoft is no better than SCO suing Linux users - in either case it is ultimately a tactic used to increase corporate profits at the expense of a competitor, using the legal system as a prybar.
Micro$oft makes several valid and salient points here about Lindow$'s predatory tactics. What Lindow$ is essentially doing is leveraging their anticipated income on the sale of current products. Moreover, if you look at the MSFreePC, it is quite deceptive. You are not getting a "free pc". You are purchasing a PC from Lindows with settlement rightfully due you for being forced to purchase MS Software in the past.
This whole thing stinks. Now, watch my score drop like a prom-dates panties.
michael robertson is just trying to rake in some quick and easy cash and from what it sound like hes back to his fraudulent ways. on top of that hes trying to do it under the lame disguise (that has obviously fooled the slashdotters who are blinded by their hatred for microsoft) that hes just trying to help the consumer. he deserves to be shutdown. his bloodsucking sharkish ways are nearly worse than microsoft.
So try this on for size:
Perhaps Lindows knows that most, if not all, of the settlement submissions will be turned away as invalid -- but they also know that it can be a huge PR investment for them. Give away some free PCs and a whole boatload of LindowsOS software, and in return get a TON of publicity when Microsoft turns down their settlement submissions.
The funny thing is, in this case everyone would win except Microsoft, who about breaks even. To wit:
1. The schools win, because every legitimate claimant who uses the "instant settlement" (which will get turned down as invalid) will be one less legitimate person that gets paid -- so the schools get that much more money.
2. Lindows wins, because they get a LOT of publicity for their dollar, both from the original FreePC offer and later from their settlements being 'unfairly' rejected as invalid.
3. Microsoft breaks even, because they take a hit in the PR department, but they end up paying less actual cash to legitimate claimants.
Something to think about, anyway.
Well I printed out the form, signed it and provided proof of residence. Where is my money Billy?
California's
2001 SB97 reads:
This seems pretty clear to me, but then, as they say, IANAL.
The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
That when I said this would happen, and that Lindows would just lap up the extra free publicity from yet another Slashdot front page story, I got modded down as a troll.
Trolling's just another word for telling people what they don't want to hear, apparently.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
... make an email signature just as valid as a pen-and-ink signature?
(UETA is the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, enacted in California, IIRC.)
Michael Robinson will probably let this one go to court. He has been quite outspoken in the past about MS and im sure a Cease and Desist order isn't going to scare him off especially with his past victories.
Mr. Robinson seems to like picking fights with the bullies and I think he went into this knowing full well MS would bring their legal machine into it.
:)(smile)
So, I filed online for the CD price-fixing class-action settlement, and everything looked fine, and I've been waiting for what seems like a long time for my check...
I went back to the site and it appears that "Notices of appeal have been filed by persons whose objections to the Settlement were denied by the District Court. Counsel for the State Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Settlement Class are contesting those appeals. Until the appeals are resolved or denied, payments for valid claims and distribution of CDs under the Cy Pres Distribution Plan cannot go forward Please check this web site periodically for updates."
Jarndyce and Jarndyce, anyone?
I don't think it matters whether you file for your share in the Microsoft settlement with Microsoft, with Lindows, by carrier pigeon, or by dropping your claim in the nearest wastebasket--the mean time to payment will be about the same.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
According to this website, it's a violation of Federal Law for Microsoft to say that electronic signatures are invalid.
Get rid of everything Micro and Soft: Buy Viagra and/or Linux
Alas and alack, Federal law and the law of most states provide for the legitimacy of an electronic record as a "signed writing" within the meaning of the law. Microsoft itself expressly lobbied for the Federal E-sign statute.
why do I have to sign to get a refund?
To "Check if you qualify" it asks for your email first... which I find really strange unless you are building a spam list.
Though I was amused that I got
"We have detected that this email address already exists as a Lindows.com account. If you are a Lindows.com member, please Click Here to use the special login page."
when I entered billg@microsoft.com.
Over all opinion, this guy just wants to collect emails and personal information for marketing purposes. I'll let those with legal knowledge decide if you could really get a settlement out of this or now. But whether it is shut down or not, Mr. Robertson will have a lot of private information in his hands to sell to spammers or telemarketers. Not saying he would but, well, no telling what he plans to do with that information!
--Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
You do realize that posting this story will probably kill the site for M$.
Oh well. At least it wasn't a small country.
Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (PDF 128k). Title I, Section A specifies that a signature on a legal document cannot be denied (effect or validity) solely because it is in electronic form.
No, I'm New Here
Their improper usage of capitalization (at least by standard practice).
For example:
"Claims Submitted Through The Website Will BE Invalid Because They Will Not Be Signed."
WhY, oH wHy WoUlD oNe CaPiTaLiZe ThE fIrSt LeTtEr Of EvErY wOrD? Unless of course it is to emphasize a point. But if that was the case, it would be much more effective to COMPLETELY capitalize certain words instead (like just capitalizing the "WILL" instead of every letter and the "BE").
What are the "settlement agreement" letters?
I have received several of these for former occupants of the house I am in, but have not recieved one myself, which would indicate that these are accurately being sent only to purchasers of certain Microsoft products. Do these have anything to do with the Lindows offer? They sure do indicate that the details of the settlement have been figured out.
But it doesn't matter if not a single claim goes through. Lindows sells software and Click-n-Run. Their expenses are the already-written software and the negligible costs to run the servers. Lindows benefits greatly from more Lindows users. This whole thing is nothing more than an elaborate scheme to give away Lindows. I think that's a good thing. Lindows has made some errors, technical and otherwise, but they are trying to make Linux work better for the non-l337 desktop users.
Litigious bastards
The issue of an ink signature is not really valid, since as many people have already pointed out, electronic sigs hold equal legal weight now in most states, CA included.
Anyone ever get an instant tax refund from H & R Block? Its really the same thing as what Lindows is doing. You sign over your right to them, you get instant payout, they get to make the claim for you. H & R gets a cut, where as Lindows pushes their product in exchange for fronting you the settlement.
Also, Lindows isn't encouraging false claims. If you get away with a false claim, then your only screwing Lindows and not MS. They now own the rights to an invalid claim, and they won't get reimbursed, even though they already gave you software. MS shouldn't really care about this.
There was no problem with digital signature in the CD suit, and there shouldn't be here either. I don't see anything illegal about what Lindows is doing, but it is a sleezy piggy back manuever.
Moderation Totals: Flamebait=2, Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=6, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=12. (not mine)
Its called money, you can buy rights when you have money. Microsoft owns any website which has M and S in its name no matter the order, I mean this is like Lindows, funny Lindows gets sued but Winamp is just fine.
Its ok to change the laws if you are Microsoft, its OK to change the laws if you are Enron, the RIAA, or any other big rich company. Money buys the Law, so Lindows is illegal, just like Linux is illegal.
Yes we are working for Microsoft, havent you seen the Microsoft Banner ads? Dont you notice the pro Microsoft posts? Didnt you see the serveys where most of us actually are using Windows XP but almost all of us talk like we support open source and use Linux? Look the economy is bad and some of us want to keep our jobs,
The rest of that nonsense is a troll. I got the karma to spare, but I simply don't care enough to care.
Listen Mr. Dumb Stupid Idiot, Lindows is Microsofts official competition, Microsoft was sued for ANTITRUST, do you know what that is? What is the best way to solve an AntiTrust lawsuit? You help the competition. This helps Microsofts competition that Microsoft illegally kept from competition using their monopoly powers. Microsoft therefore deserves this.
Nothing new here. MS wants to use a 50 cent CD and a couple bucks worth of docs to pay off about 300 or 400 dollars worth of settlement at a whack. It is like being a counterfieter except the courts often back MS on this shady exchange. Lindows wants to get in on the action and get a bit of the settlement. I can't see much wrong with that. I haven't cared much for Lindows but they do some creative marketing. More power to Lindows if they can make it work. We all know the only thing MS has going is agressive (anti-competitive) marketing and legal. let MS take their own medicine. I only regret that the lawyers will get the biggest piece of the action as usual.
Still, kudos to Lindows...this is Clasic used-car salesman one-upmanship at it's finest! After all, drive into a Chevy dealer with a Ford, and they'll give you extra incentive to get you out of that ford and behind the Chevy wheel! Pizza places honor each others coupons all the time...and maybe even +10%.
This is great marketing! MS has got to hate it. After all, MS has perfected giving away free software to kill competiton. Lindows is doing one better by giving away Microsoft's money to give away free software to kill competition! All's fair in Love 'n War...that's what MS has said for years. This is hillarious!
HellerEhrman
Robert A. Rosenfeld
rrosenfeld@hewm.com
Direct (415) 772-6609
Main (415) 772-6000
Fax (415) 772-6268
Tell him what you think.
it says my email address [fuck@you.com], has already been used in the 'eligible' form... ah well, no free pc for me :/
(Think on this ... if MSFT does not have to pay out cash to the parents, it can dump software on the schools ... software that will eventually have to be upgraded. But the upgrades won't be free -- they'll be paid for with the tax dollars of the parents who got gypped originally and then taxed to pay for the upgrades.)
... we'll give you software in exchange for your rights (if any) in the rebate."
... and take your pitchforks to Redmond, WA.
Microsoft is talking out its butt.
Lindows is saying "Hey
Microsoft is saying "Lindows is cheating your kids! Rise up, Californians!"
The courts have already decided that Microsoft cheated the parents. That's what the rebate is all about.
Rise up, Californians, indeed
Ummm, Actually according to the law cited above, NO LAW can be passed which prevents one from using a digital signature....
So they can stick the "you can't use a digital signature" thing right up their collective asses. I'm fairly confident that M$ would have had a little thing called a Severability Clause inserted in the agreement so it won't affect the settlement agreement, except to allow people the right to use digital signatures... For the layperson, severability clauses typically state that if any portion of the agreement is adjudged invalid or unconstitutional or whatever, that the remaining "good" parts of the agreement shall still remain in full force and effect...
No IANAL, but I have read and negotiated about 1000 contracts and worked with lawyers, and these things are in about 90% of the stuff I read...
M$ is just pissed that someone is using their tactics against them... tough shit
I agree, the whole thing is fishy if claims have to be signed by the people and can't be processed by a third party, but it's not like MS is being reasonable here.
Because of E-Sign legislation, a digital signature is as valid as a written signature. Believe it or not, the legislation allows for any type of digital signature (the veracity of each to eventually be tested in court, if need be). So, for instance, an email exchange between the consumer and the freepc website should legally constitute a signature, and the complexity (and restrictions) that everyone here is talking about can be avoided.
The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
We have detected that this email address already exists as a Lindows.com account. If you are a Lindows.com member, please Click Here to use the special login page.
Maybe Melinda used Bill's address when he wasn't looking...
Money for nothing, pix for free
wear and tear? on computer software?
Read what the AC wrote: "they are also supposed to 'donate' computers," which are hardware and thus subject to wear and tear.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Without M$, perhaps we wouldn't have Linux, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and other free software. Of course, without Gates, maybe we'd all have boxes with Motorola PowerPC chips ;)
perl -e 'print $i=pack(c5, (41*2), sqrt(7056), (unpack(c,H)-2), oct(115), 10)'
The claims cannot be transferred.
The vouchers can be transferred.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Is it true that Microsoft is trying to shut this site down?
Microsoft has taken no legal action against MSfreePC.com. They have, however, sent a letter to our Chairman of the Board "objecting" to the site. Because MSfreePC.com makes filing legitimate claims very easy and thereby encourages many people to file claims that may not have otherwise, it's not surprising that Microsoft sent us this letter. Since Microsoft keeps a portion of the unclaimed funds, the fewer people that file claims, the more money they get back. (Click here to read their letter to our Chairman and our response back to their Chairman, Bill Gates.) The MSfreePC Program is in complete compliance with both the letter and spirit of the settlement and we will continue to leave the site up, offering products to qualifying consumers at no out-of-pocket cost to them. We will fully honor all of the terms of the MSfreePC.com web site and will not be asking you for money or taking back product that has been made available to qualifying consumers, even if we do not receive payment from the Settlement Administrator. In other words, even if Microsoft attempts to harm the MSfreePC Program, WE will make sure you, the consumer, are not injured by their actions. We will live up to all commitments made at MSfreePC.com, even if Microsoft fights the site and tries to see that the Settlement Administrator doesn't pay your claim to cover your purchase.
The moderator put "how long will it last" to the end of the article waiting for someone to play the comic and lay out the punch line.
It's just a gag don't take it too sincere.
What Lindows is doing is offering to give people "free" software. The hype is that they will charge MS the fifty dollars or mroe for your "free" software but the fact remains that this costs Lindows even less than MS's offer, as I can simply download Lindows and MS has to ship actual boxes of bits.
Whether or not Lindows ever collects is irrelevant. It's irrelevant for the same reason MS should never have been allowed to settle a claim for absuing the market by furthering itself in control of that market.
Lindows is linux. It may be a "special" linux but the fact remains it is, at its core, truly free software. That means, at the worse, Lindows will be "locking in" new users to free software.
It has nothing to do with "stealing from MS" and, after filling out the forms myself, I don't think even they believe they can actually collect any money. If they can, great - but I have doubts, and one of those doubts is that the folks at Lindows believe they will be able to collect any money from MS. And if they don't collect a dime what will they be out? A few gigabytes of bandwidth - the cost of which will probably balanced out by others paying the extra ten bucks for boxed CDs to save themselves the download.
But it is a good marketing gimmick - a gimmick they even play up on the Lindows site where, at the bottom of every page, is the disclaimer "Lindows is not associated with Microsoft. In fact, we don't really even like them because they are suing us" - with "suing us" linked to a press release about the whole affair.
It's marketing. and it's not even particlularly unethical marketing. I certainly don't find this nearly as unacceptable as when MP3.com decided to co-opt the works of all those "legacy studios." It's just Lindows once again making an attempt to ride the hype machine that inevitably follows every Microsoft legal move. Stretching it only slightly you could call it the "anti-SCO" marketing ploy. Instead of suing everyone, they get themselves sued and, in the process, buy some extra hype.
Hey... it's their money.