Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft CA Settlement Claim Forms Hit Mailboxes
mattOzan writes "So I got my Standard Claim Form in the mail today from the California State Superior Court, as I assume many other California residents did as well. This is the mechanism to get a chunk of the US$1.1 billion settlement Microsoft reached with the state of California for their anti-trust lawsuit. All the legal details (PDF) can be obtained online.
Some of the fine print: the money will be doled out as vouchers based on what qualifying MS software you or your company obtained between 1995 and 2001 (nothing for 'server computers' or Macs). Two-thirds of all unclaimed money will be given to low-income California schools for computer purchases, and vouchers may also be donated to charity."
The lawsuit alleges that Microsoft violated North Carolina's antitrust and unfair competition laws. The story is here.
The settlement, which last Thursday received preliminary approval from the North Carolina Business Court, will make vouchers available to class members that may be used to buy any manufacturer''s desktop, laptop and tablet computers, any software available for sale to the general public and used with those computer products, and specified peripheral devices for use with computers. If all class members claim and are issued the vouchers for which they are eligible under the settlement, the maximum value of the vouchers issued to class members will total approximately $89 million.
Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Microsoft will provide one- half of the value of the "unissued vouchers" - i.e., one-half of the difference between $89 million and the value of vouchers issued to class members - to North Carolina''s public schools in the form of vouchers that may be used by schools to purchase a broad range of hardware products, Microsoft(R) and non-Microsoft software, and professional development services. In the event any vouchers issued to class members are not redeemed, Microsoft will provide one-half of the value of those unredeemed vouchers to the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction.
Given that Apple has so much of a huge market share in schools, one has to wonder if vouchers good for MS products are a way for MS to start claiming some of that Apple market share as an intended/unintended side effect. One really wonders when you see the quote from their counsel...
"We're pleased by the opportunity to help schools all across North Carolina get the computers and software they need," said Brad Smith, general counsel for Microsoft. "This settlement allows us to focus on the future and building great software, and avoids the cost and uncertainty of litigation."
Seeing "non-Microsoft" software spelled out in NC's agreement is particularly heart warming though.
Given that Apple has so much of a huge market share in schools, one has to wonder if vouchers good for MS products are a way for MS to start claiming some of that Apple market share as an intended/unintended side effect. One really wonders when you see the quote from their counsel...
Either way, it's a good thing. Any extra computers in schools that need them are better than none at all. Even a few Commodore 64s or TRS-80s would be preferrable to having nothing.
Obviously you didn't read the article.
From the settlement FAQ:
"Q: What can the vouchers be used for?
A: You can exchange your vouchers for cash by submitting proof of purchases you made after July 18, 2003 of the following computer products: Any desktop, laptop, or tablet computer made by any manufacturer for any operating system platform, or any of the following devices: printers, scanners, monitors, keyboards, or pointing devices (e.g. mouse, trackball). Qualifying software includes any non-custom software offered by any software vendor for use on a desktop, laptop or tablet computer. The qualifying computer hardware or software does not have to be a Microsoft product. After you submit proof of purchase to the Claims Administrator (either with your claim form or your voucher) a check will be sent to you for the amount of your purchase. The Claims Administrator will keep track of any remaining value on the voucher for your use in making future purchases. The claim form instructions and the voucher will explain the redemption procedure in more detail."
The vouchers go towards buying computer hardware and software, and "The qualifying computer hardware or software does not have to be a Microsoft product."
In the future, please read the article before you post. You will save time by not making remarks that are obviously false and clearly addressed in the article, and other people will save time by not having to correct you.
evil adrian
1. Engage in unfair business practices
2. Lose class action lawsuits
3. Profit!
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
When the big MS antitrust case was running, at the very beginning, I believe MS was trying to make a very specific point about the relationship of IE to Windows. MS was saying that their HTML rendering engine was a component of Windows (much like Gecko was the rendering component of Netscape) and that IE was a thin application shell that wrapped around that engine to create the behavior of a browser like Netscape. Other Windows applications can use that rendering engine, such as their help. So they could construct help files like web pages, but the app that you see them in is a help tool, not a browser.
That architecture is different than Netscape who carried their own rendering engine along with many other components as a bundle in their app. That difference in architecture is where the rathole regarding "taking IE out of Windows" comes from - removing the shell (as the CMU prof demonstrated) is relatively trivial, but if you object to the presence of the rendering engine, then the removal of that is not only painful but breaks other parts of Windows such as help.
Of course, it doesn't help that MS was also being an ass about this all.
Netscape (actually, I think it's other plantiffs such as Sun's Java) would complain that their ability to interact with the interfaces of these internal components was disadvantageous vs. Microsoft's own access and ability to enact change in the interfaces.
The remedy to this solution would have been hard to implement I think - you have to force Microsoft to publish and commit to a set of public interfaces and functionality, make them available to all comers, and create some mechanism through which MS can't have back-door entry. In practice, quite difficult to do, especially in areas like this, subject to significant evolution.
Once again, it doesn't help that MS was being an ass about this too.
OK, now flash forward to Eolas. For competitive reasons, MS got pulled into having plug-in interfaces. Later, they took the ball and moved it beyond where Netscape had already set it. Today, those public plug-in interfaces are the way that Real audio can be a pluggable replacement to Windows Media, or that Macromedia in some future Flash will become yet another option. Again, to a lesser extent, these kinds of plug in interfaces are what allows Sun to build a pluggable JVM (although I believe this is a pretty different mechanism).
So, if MS decides to lose the EOLAS case, that pretty much gives them carte blanche to slam the doors through the existing public interfaces shut and switch back to proprietary interfaces of their own, and their own control. In Soviet Russia, you don't plug into the brower, it plugs in to you (sorry, couldn't help it)! In a post-EOLAS world, poor Microsoft can't publish an API that allows Quicktime or Flash or RealMedia to appear in a window because they can't afford the license. But that won't stop them from doing a non-infringing implementation of Windows Media will it?
I think this is definitely NOT a case where the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
37: Mother's father's mother's father's mother's maiden name______________
193: Last digit in decimal expansion of pi___
7.92x10^14: Meaning of life_
The Law of Falling Bodies
I disagree with you completely, because you obviously didn't RTFA.
As I commented earlier to another person that doesn't know what those blue underlines are for in the article, the settlement FAQ clearly states that the vouchers go towards buying computer hardware and software, and "The qualifying computer hardware or software does not have to be a Microsoft product."
Therefore, those schools could go and purchase Macintosh or Linux hardware and software if they wanted to, and nothing is standing in their way.
evil adrian
If M$ is allowed to pay that 1.1 billion using the retail value of it's software, then that's not even going to start to hurt them, given their profit margins on software. I don't know what the cost for M$ to produce a bulk CD is, but I'm betting it's waaaay lower than the retail price for the software on it. And most of the software would be one CD + a bunch of license keys, anyhow.
Does everything include nothing?