Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Settles Six Class-Action Suits
Bootsy Collins writes "Microsoft has
reached a settlement
in class-action lawsuits filed against them by five states and the District of Columbia. Two of the six settlements have already been approved by the relevant courts.
The settlements would provide $200 million in vouchers to past purchasers of Microsoft software.
The vouchers can be used to purchase hardware, software, or training; suprisingly (given plaintiffs' willingness to roll over on this issue in the past),
vouchers used for software need not be used to purchase Microsoft products. More on this story from the
Washington Post as well as
many other news sources."
I mean, really. Even if it is for third party stuff. It was cash when the plantiff's were overcharged, shouldn't it be cash when it's returned?
It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
wow, that's like what, 3 minutes interest on their $40 billion in the bank. that'll really set them back a ways.
...
...
...
...
they're back.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
1) Use a voucher to buy a bunch of software from Wal-mart, or other retail chain with below-average intelligence Customer Service. 2) Return said software, unopened, for merchandise credit. 3) Profit?
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
http://www.redhat.com/training/
MS should be made to host a free, high bandwidth FTP site that mirrors all of the current distributions of Linux and similar free OS software. If nothing else, this would in part make up for all the money received by MS from their unfair "Microsoft tax" charged on nearly every commercial x86 PC; a tax paid for no services whatsoever by those who use only Linux, *BSD, or the like on said machine.
vouchers used for software need not be used to purchase Microsoft products.
But how much do you bet they will anyway?
Like: Hey, we've got all this money we can do whatever we want with : how about we go get new computers? guess what's installed on the computers that will be paid in the machines' price tag?
Unless people massively buy non-Intel boxes and/or Unix software, I'm willing to bet this will mean more money in the bank and more market penetration for Microsoft. Even if Linux, BSD or some other non-Windows OSes are actively promoted, you'll find a lot of Microsoft keyboards or mice in the hardware.
How could it be otherwise? Microsoft has the market so well cornered that sooner or later, a lot of the settlement money will come back to them.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
That's what always gets me about these Microsoft suits. MSFT always says "we're guilty, but don't punish us because it'll hurt our business!" and somehow this is taken as a legitimate argument in every single case. "Willingness" to roll over indeed... that's why is called a fscking SENTENCE... you know, a PUNISHMENT!
Well, the government basically does not see Microsoft as doing anything wrong, not really. Before the current administration took over, they telegraphed their desire to see antitrust actions against Microsoft done away with.
You and I can read the antitrust regulations and see obvious violations. Serial offenders? Absolutely they are. Not only that, but blatant serial offenders. They walk into a courtroom and blatantly try to pull falsehoods over on the judge. When they get caught, they just keep on going. When they get found judicially to be an illegal monopoly, they disagree and appeal. When the appeals court agrees they are an illegal monopoly, they release statements saying they are just "innovators" instead.
So instead of the orange jump suits and chains, they get tax credits and market share increases. When justice is measured out in terms of profit and loss, those who make the most profits are viewed as the most just. Business as usual today. Expect a lot more of the same.
Still...it is a fun vision to picture Billy G. and Monkey Boy Ballmer on a chain gang. :)
I wonder how much the largest voucher is worth. In the $202 million settlement here in Florida, the largest voucher is worth a whopping $12.
To be fair, most people found the price to be right only because they didn't have to pay for it. I mean, who would go out of their way to fork over 200 dollars for a copy of Windows XP or 400(That was what it was costing the chain back when I was working retail) for a copy of Office, when they can go to their local computer geek, announce proudly, "Burn me a copy of Windows and Office, Geek!" and recieve both for the princely sum of 10 dollars for the media?
I bet that if Microsoft somehow found itself with a way to make people pay for their software, MS Office would magically find itself displaced by something like Sun Openoffice. I'd also be willing to bet that windows would remain as popular as ever. 200 dollars is a small price to pay for all your software to keep working.
It's been a long time.
Those who get a voucher from any of these deals should get together and donate all of their vouchers to an open source project. If you must, purchase a "license" to use that software. Put that money where it can be directly used against the Microsoft monopoly. Imagine Microsoft having to write 200 million dollars in checks to Redhat, MySQL, or Gnome. Hah! Oh, the irony.
"Ermm... are you saying they shouldn't give out money, because people may spend it on Microsoft products?"
Sort of. I meant that in a more general sense than just Microsoft. The thing is, when I picture a monopoly, Microsoft is not the first company that comes to mind. I think about the way phone companies used to be. Things that are part of your must have list that you end up paying for month to month. If I were to get a refund from AT&T, that money'd likely go towards paying my phone bill. Or maybe, it'd be used for stuffing my face. Either way, the chances of it being used to do buy a product from a competitor are very very low. That's not much of a punishment to a monopoly. Make competing products more attractive, and then the monopoly has something to worry about.
"The idea of being illegally overcharged, then given a refund of a "coupon" instead of money, seems unfair. If my gas utility manipulates the price of natural gas, I'll still heat my house. Just because they were found to be price gouging does not mean that either (1) I will not be using natural gas anymore or (2) that I will necessarily spend a refundon natural gas. Cash lets me make that choice."
You're right. However, the Microsoft monopoly is a little different from the case you've provided here. People need to heat their homes, that's where the gas company's monopoly comes into play. With Microsoft, though, the choice to use it is largely in part to it being the standard the market has chosen. "This is the cool thing to have." I'm having difficulty explaining my thoughts clearly here, and I apologize for that. What I'm trying to say is that the plaintiffs here contributed to their own damages.
" If I illegally put a charge to your credit card, and you overlook it and pay it, does that mean you agreed to pay it?"
That's not quite what I'm getting at, no. There's no overlooking here. The price tag is right there in front of their face. At some point they nodded their head and said okay. The information they're missing is that because Microsoft's the only game in town, they don't know the average cost of an OS. That's a fair complaint, in my opinion, but it is not one that Microsoft is entirely at fault for. They own some of that responsibility, particularly if they're squashing competition that could influence their pricing. But it is not their fault that the customers paid that price.
I hope that makes my thoughts a little clearer. I don't feel that Microsoft is being punished severely enough, but I do feel that the type of punishment is suitable. With any luck, it'll make the individual consumer think a little more carefully about their choices, as opposed as to doing what's fashionable in Wired magazine. Though I do attribute Microsoft's monopoly to the market saying "we want them here", I do feel that a lot of the people who made that happen were mindlessly following the hype.
"If I'm not making any sense, it's because it's way past my bedtime. Sorry."
Totally understandable. I'm kinda tired myself.
Cheers man
"Derp de derp."
Funny -- just today I threw out the application for my voucher from the CA class action lawsuit.
In 1998, I bought a ThinkPad with Win98 installed. Apparently, this makes me eligible for $16 of Microsoft vouchers redeemable at major chains. I just needed to fill out a big honkin' form ripe for targeted marketing / mailing lists / etc. Why would they need anything more than my name and address??
The small print? By submitting the voucher I agree that Microsoft has been totally cleared of any wrongdoing and I will never pursue any other claim related to this against Microsoft in the future. For $16. Why bother?
I should have been a lawyer -- these are the only guys getting any money out of this settlement.