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, it always comes down to vouchers.
They gave away some software.. OHH THE PAIN. HOW MUCH IT HURTS.
Keeps their marketshare up, doesn't really cost them any real capital, just a slight market dilution, and so on. Not like, say, 200 million in auto parts.
It should have been CASH.
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.
I know others will point this out - but when will MS actually be punished for persistent illegalities rather than "giving away" stuff of "$$$" value that they claim a tax refund on?
What happened to three strikes? Where are the orange jumb suits and chains?
They are obviously serial offenders who see this sort of thing as a small cost of doing business.
-- Free software on every PC on every desk
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
The lawyers who agreed to this settlement should be paid in vouchers. Let this happen a couple times and maybe some proper settlements would be reached.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Thank you very much for the business.
Sincerely,
Steve Jobs
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
It does print it on the receipt. Except that Wal-mart doesn't require a receipt for merchandise credit. show up with anything that a CS drone can scan with their little gun, and they will take it, and give you all the money you want on a Gift Card.
RTFC?
Auto-reply to ACs: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect."
$200 million in exchange for which they get to rule the computer industry and do absolutely anything they like, and the government bodies that are supposed to periodically stop in and enforce anti-trust laws will look the other way, because Microsoft's already had its "punishment".
For $200 million? That sounds like a pretty damn good deal to me.
Especially when you have the amount of money in the bank MS does. I mean, hell, $200 million is what they spent on keeping the x-box disaster afloat in just the first quarter of this year alone.
Would you like a bag of ice for that wrist there, Microsoft?
Those were the last of the bits of the U.S. government holding out on actually holding MS accountable instead of just settling with them, right? Is the EU still going forward with anything?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
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!
"It was cash when the plantiff's were overcharged, shouldn't it be cash when it's returned?"
Uh, if you refund money from a monopoly, what's to prevent that money from going right back to the monopoly? At least, in this case, it gives people a chance to try out alternatives.
It's a little more complicated than that, though. According to the final ruling in the anti-trust case, Microsoft isn't guilty of creating a monopoly, they're guilty of maintaining it. The implication there is that at some point, people said "We want Microsoft" and found the price fair. If they agreed to pay the price, why should they get cash back? Let the buyer beware.
In any case, I'm not all that surprised that it turned out this way. Silver lining, folks. Non-Microsoft products get an audience they didn't have before, and schools benefit too.
"Derp de derp."
I signed up on the class action suit against MS (in CA) and still have not gotten anything (they were supposed to mail it). Some good winning a lawsuit against these guys does.
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. :)
but, it might have turned out differently, if lets say Gore was elected over Bush. Cliton/Gore Administration, were pushing for a break-up which should have happened, it did to Standard Oil, it should have happend to Microsoft. Ofcourse we got George Bush. A rich Repubican who would hate to loose the hefty amound of money that his party gets. Sure the Democrats may not be much better, but that mentality that voting for Green is a vote wasted has got to stop.
What good really has come out of Microsoft in lets say the past 5 - 10 years. Absolutly nothing. Not one good thing worth noteing exsists. I can't think of a single thing that Micrsoft has done that has benifited consumers. Now they need to protect their monopoly with DRM. I think we should rent billboard and put on them what Microsoft is doing, it's the only way people will find out before it's too late.
Maybe we can use the vouchers to pay our $699.00 SCO licensing fee...
Anyone ever heard of this site? It's run by the same people that make Lindows, and it's been around for a while. They make it nice and easy to (1)determine if you're eligable to recieve any vouchers, (2)redeem said vouchers. Also, it's possible to get an entire pc- probably one of those $199 lindows pc's, but hey it's free. Are you gonna complain?
-D
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.
If this is anything like the california 'settlement' it's a fucking sham. The state of california filed the lawsuit on 'behaf of its constituents'... and here is what happened.
... that's $129 of COLD HARD CASH
The lawsuit result was for a couple billion dollars that microsoft had to 'give back' to its customers in california. So, much like the vouchers system in this one.. if you sent microsoft your license keys, they would give you a 'voucher' certificate. You could then purchase other hardware/software and mail in the receipt+voucher to get cash. Now here is where the scam is....
All the money that isn't redeemed goes to seperate places. 2/3 of it goes to the state of california to 'help fund schools' and the last 1/3 goes back to microsoft. Now we all know if they get money from microsoft that can only be used for schools that means they will offset funds for schools later...
So this is essentially payola for the state of california, fucking swine.
who is going to go through the effort to get back, oh $50 on their microsoft licenses so that they can just purchase more equipment. Not joe blow.
Compare this to the lawsuit filed by apple's customers about the G3's not being supported by macosX. The settlement says 'send in your copy of OSX and we will give you $129'
goverment for the people indeed.
- "Never let a computer tell me shit." - DelTron Zero
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.
"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."
What's stopping people from using Sun or OpenOffice anyway?
Maybe I'm just tired here, but I'm baffled by why you were modded up as interesting. Microsoft's Office line is quite profitable. It also is quite useful. To be displaced by OpenOffice, it would have to be better and I mean significantly better than Office. (we call that competition over here.) It wouldn't hurt for Sun to advertise, either. Lots of complaining about Microsoft's monopoly in the Office market, but I have yet to see a commercial for OpenOffice or anything else.
Lots of whining, but not a whole lot of doing.
Simply put, Office will be displaced by an alternative when somebody steps up to the plate and competes with Microsoft. Sitting around endlessly twiddling your thumbs will not do well against Microsoft aggressively marketing and developing their product.
"Derp de derp."
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
Yes and no. MS would lose market share only to the point where they started reducing the price, or more likely, bundling other applications into it (and then removing any other method to buy them). MS is trying to secure your purchase as hard as they can, actually.
"and then how do I get Bush's tax refund?"
Easy, become a millionare and make lots of campaign contributions.