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?"
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.
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.
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).
IANAL either, but maybe they have a legitimate (hehehe) beef under some kind of "pending lawsuit" clause.
Either way, it seems pretty clear to me that Microsoft's aim is to keep the list of claimants as small as possible, and if they can dismantle this website they can possibly eliminate quite a few possible claimants from the suit.
William
When you're not looking, this sig is in Latin.
The problem is that they are offering to file the claims for the user when the details of the settlement say the user must file the claim themselves. Also, the settlement says the user must also physically sign and mail in their claim, while the website is just collecting digital signitures which is not permitted by the settlement.
This is just to name a few of the obvious ones. Here is the full text of the letter on Newsforge.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
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.
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.
How many of these customers will get the lindows os and accompanying software and never install it? ms customers to the very end.
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
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
I didn't say that he hasn't done things that merit legal action, I just said he doesn't fold like an accordian.
The more Microsoft goes after this guy, the more he is going to want to make them go after him.
Then he can say "ohh OHH look at the big monopolistic tyrant holding me down with lawsuits and anti-competitive practicies!"
While MS is anti-competitive, and they are a monopolistic entity, most uninformed people won't know of Robertson's past side with him, especially as he is "fighting the good fight" for Linux.
It's all political posturing, and Microsoft is playing right into it.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
You're right, but here's the thing. What will the schools do with that money? They'll probably upgrade to the latest version of Windows, or accept "free" upgrades from Microsoft for a fixed term as payment. Microsoft wants the money to go to schools, because in the end, it benefits them. The more kids then can get to grow up using only Windows, the better for Microsoft. These kids go on to be CEOs and CIOs later in life, and familiarity has a way of clouding judgement, especially in IT. Apple did the same thing years ago, and without their school programs, Apple would probably be out of business today, or at least relegated to special uses like SGI is (though probably a much less profitable area than SGI).
--That's the point of being root, you can do anything you want, even if it's stupid.
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.
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.
Don't fight fire with fire. This simply is a misleading business practice, which does not only hurt Lindows' credibility, but potentially also can have a negative impact of the entire Open Source movement.
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
I'd bet you large sums of money that the Lindows offer includes something that says "you agree to reimburse Lindows for the cost of your free merchandise if your claim is rejected" or something like that.
7. SELL THE SHIT TO VIVENDI FOR $385 MILLION.
I bet its $384,999,996 more than u have.
So please... he's an asshole, but he's not stupid.
The "donated" software will be valued at retail value, possibly ten or more times more than the price a school would actually pay for it. Microsoft may also "donate" software that the schools would never buy on their own. And as many have pointed out, Microsoft software donations are actually in Microsoft's benefit, since it encourages lock-in to their product.
They also want the money to go to the schools becuase, MS only has to pay out 2/3 of unclaimed funds. Presumably, they keep the remaining 1/3. It looks like Mr. R simply wants to make a buck while ensuring that MS pays out the full settlement.