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?"
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"
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Not really. If they're actually putting out fraudulent information (i.e., a signature is required to join the class action,) then why shouldn't they be enjoined from continuing to do so?
Two things stand out as bizarre about the letter from MS's lawyers, though:
1) The letter claims that the site doesn't disclose that a person must have purchased the software for use in California. The site very prominently does so on the second page.
2) It seems to me that the group that would get burned by this if the "digital signatures" things isn't legitimate is Lindows itself, not the consumer. Lindows is trying to appropriate the right to join the class action in place of the people involved and giving them something for that right. If it turns out they can't, Lindows is left in the lurch, having given out the products.
Yes it seems reasonable to me too. The part about physically signing the document makes perfect sense, legally or otherwise. People who falsify stuff and sign are more likely to be prosecuted as perjurers(sp?). There must be several thousand of such folks in the wings at any given momment. I'd bet none of them lived nor resided in California during the times the settlement specifies. Wanna bet?
"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...
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.
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.
Now if they had only used Passport, then MS would have been in the sticky position of saying, "Passport isn't legally binding in our case, but please continue to store your personal information and credit card info in it because it's legally binding everywhere else..."
-Adam
Send all the lawyers you want, he'll come up with something new to make you send more lawyers
Problem is, Robertson's track record isn't very good in this regard. Look at his history at MP3.com:
At least Lindows isn't a public company this time, so his investors should understand the risk he is taking better than the public did with MP3.com
Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
They modded him down because he is off-topic. This isn't a lawsuit by Microsoft against Lindows. It is basically a cease-and-decist letter against the MSFreePC site because they consider it deceiving and encourages users to make fraudulent claims. He is just a Microsoft bashing troll who didn't read the artcile. He deserves whatever negative moderation he gets.
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.
The letter said nothing about Microsoft not wanting consumers to claim, in fact the argument was that consumers are being bilked into purchasing a competitor's product under the presumption that they will be credited back by the class action, which is not true. Running with your argument, the more people "claiming" through this marketing gimmick, the more valid class members Microsoft will not have to pay out, so it would be just as in Microsoft's interest to let all the snake-oil salesmen profit and take back the moral high ground.
Score one for Microsoft in appearing reasonable and minus one for Linux as Lindows removes all ethical credibility.
Sigh. What jerks.
Well atleast they have the common sence to host it on a server running Linux and Apache :)
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
Even though the terms of the settlement agreement do not allow digital sigatures, the site could still take the information and allow a digital signature for the power of attourney needed to submit the claim on that parties behalf. Since myfreepc.com was filing on behalf of the individual, myfreepc.com could sign the legit signature for them.
Fire in the hands of the village idiot is no tool, but a weapon of mass destruction
Yeah, Microsoft has to give X hundred million dollars to schools, which they do by giving them Microsoft products. In other words, they can print money.
I'm sure they were begging to be punished this way. Punish the monopoly by forcing them to lock in another generation of customers.
Exactly what criteria do you need to meet to become a judge? Common sense and a plain reading of law certainly aren't any more.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Except Clinton signed a bill making digital signatures just as legally acceptable as physical ones.
(That bill was probably pushed through by MS themselves, to give credit to their EULAs.)
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
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.
Good point, however, when I electronically submit my taxes to the IRS, I have to agree to a statememt that is very similar to this, and am able to "digitally sign" my return. That's leagal, so why shouldn't the Lindows website be legal?
The pen is mightier than the sword...
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)