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?"

Comments

Re:The letter text is on Newsforge

[Roberto]

Yup. If the claim has to be signed, a site saying that you don't need to sign one, yet promises to handle your claim seems either fraudulent, or at least useless and misleading.

Did you read the article?

[s20451]

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.

Re:Huh?

[cK-Gunslinger]

It appears that MS's claims may be valid. MSFreePC.com offers a way to "click to join" the class-action lawsuit, but MS argues that all submittals must be signed, and such. The web-site is definitely in poor-taste, but it may very well be illegal as well.

Re:Huh?

[B'Trey]

Why not read the linked article? The site does more than inform consumers. It sets up a system that supposedly allows consumers to file for a claim through the website, and allows Lindows to accept their rebate for them and apply it to a purchase through Lindows. MS claims this violates the terms of the settlement. IANAL, and have only seens MS's side of the claim, so I have no idea if what MS says is correct. They seem to have a point, but it's relatively easy to spin legal jargoneese that sounds good but is completely bogus.

It's too bad you didn't read the article

[BdosError]

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.

Re:Should have avoided saying "takedown notice"

[Xerithane]

"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.

Factually incorrect, and do some research. Cease and Desist orders were available and used long before the DMCA was a twinkle in your RIAA chairwomans eye.

Party A says to Party B that Party B is doing something that is wrong. Party A gives Party B an opportunity to cease doing something before Party A proceeds with legal action that will be very costly for both parties, but probably more so for Party B.

Missing the point

[poptones]

I think many of you are missing the point. I jsut went to the website and took the "quiz." During that time I took part in the dot-bust, so I actually DID buy an assload of e-machines at office depot, which I reported in the "quiz" as five licenses to windows (in this case, win98). Filled out the other stuff, including name and address and the last four digits of my SSN. I would imagine Lindows will claim the "typed signature" combined with the SSN fragment would constitute a valid "signature" but that really doesn't matter anyway.

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.

Re:Huh?

[petecarlson]

PUBLIC LAW 106-229--JUNE 30, 2000
ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES IN GLOBAL AND
NATIONAL COMMERCE ACT
VerDate 11-MAY-2000
14:52 Jul 05, 2000
Jkt 079139
PO 00229
Frm 00001
Fmt 6579
Sfmt 6579
E:\PUBLAW\PUBL229.106
APPS10
PsN: PUBL229
Page 2
114 STAT. 464
PUBLIC LAW 106-229--JUNE 30, 2000
Public Law 106-229
106th Congress
An Act

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ''Electronic Signatures in Global
and National Commerce Act''.
TITLE I--ELECTRONIC RECORDS AND
SIGNATURES IN COMMERCE
SEC. 101. GENERAL RULE OF VALIDITY.
(a) I
N
G
ENERAL .--Notwithstanding any statute, regulation, or
other rule of law (other than this title and title II), with respect
to any transaction in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce--
(1) a signature, contract, or other record relating to such
transaction may not be denied legal effect, validity, or enforce-
ability solely because it is in electronic form; and
(2) a contract relating to such transaction may not be
denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability solely because
an electronic signature or electronic record was used in its
formation.
(b) P
RESERVATION OF
R
IGHTS AND
O
BLIGATIONS .--This title does
not--
(1) limit, alter, or otherwise affect any requirement imposed
by a statute, regulation, or rule of law relating to the rights
and obligations of persons under such statute, regulation, or
rule of law other than a requirement that contracts or other
records be written, signed, or in nonelectronic form;..."

So, unless the settlment specificaly denies the use of a digital signature as described, it is legal. On to the terms of the settelment... Oh wait, the final terms of the settelment have not yet been written. It will be a simple matter of law, If MS can get the terms written in a manner that precludes electronic signatures, then they will be right. If they can't, then they will be wrong. Does anyone have the terms of the proposed settelment?

UETA allows electronic signatures

[bshroyer]

It seems that a large part of Microsoft's argument is the requirement on a wet-ink signature. The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) passed by most states in 2000-2001 sought to, among other things, give electronic signatures much the same force and effect as wet-ink signatures.

California's
2001 SB97 reads:

1633.7. (a) A record or signature may not be denied legal effect
or enforceability solely because it is in electronic form.
(b) A contract may not be denied legal effect or enforceability
solely because an electronic record was used in its formation.
(c) If a law requires a record to be in writing, an electronic
record satisfies the law.
(d) If a law requires a signature, an electronic signature
satisfies the law.

This seems pretty clear to me, but then, as they say, IANAL.