Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Drags Feet with Settlement Claims

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft is holding up compensation claims from a quarter of million Californians in order to punish Lindows.com, and to coerce the class action plaintiffs 'into siding with Microsoft against its Lindows competitor,' according to a court filing seen by The Register. The document, filed on 21st November by Townsend and Townsend and Crew, lead counsel for the Californian class action consumers, points out that none of the claims being held up was actually filed via Lindows.com, yet Microsoft has held them 'hostage' for over two months."

133 comments

  1. Hmmm... by Newer+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does this mean that all of us who filed via the Lindows method are going to be stiffed? I did receive a claim form direct from the court...I wonder If I should file it. It says I have until March 15, 2004.

    1. Re:Hmmm... by johnnyb · · Score: 3, Informative

      I would go ahead and file. This way, if any additional class-action litigation comes about because of this, you would be elegible for that, too.

    2. Re:Hmmm... by loknor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "The document, filed on 21st November by Townsend and Townsend and Crew, lead counsel for the Californian class action consumers, points out that none of the claims being held up was actually filed via Lindows.com"

      'nuff said

      --

      me karma am bad
    3. Re:Hmmm... by dsfox · · Score: 1

      If you filed via msfreepc you can't be stiffed, you've already received your award! I would think this means it would be fraudulant to file directly.

    4. Re:Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Illegally help up, yes. Since when is Micro$oft fair about anything?

  2. Argh by SpiffyMarc · · Score: 4, Funny

    They need to hurry up and process all the legitimate claims filed with proper proof-of-purchase, so they can get down to what really matters... processing all those phony ones from MSFreePC.com!

    *eagerly awaiting his ill-gotten gains*

  3. A move for the books? by NightWulf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not a professional accountant, but could this be a move for the stock? According to the article, they won't have to pay out all 1.1 billion but there will still be a good chunk of money paid out. If they can keep delaying this until after the end of the year, they wouldn't have to report it on this quarters accounting forms. It would seen to me, even for MS, a big cash payment like that will look serious on paper. I could be wrong in my facts though.

    1. Re:A move for the books? by Prof.+Pi · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If they can keep delaying this until after the end of the year, they wouldn't have to report it on this quarters accounting forms.

      Only to have it as a charge on next quarter's earnings report? What would they gain from that? I know modern execs have an extreme short-term outlook, but that would really be extreme. Unless some guy is getting ready to retire and his retirement bonus is based on this year's stock performance.

    2. Re:A move for the books? by mlush · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Only to have it as a charge on next quarter's earnings report? What would they gain from that?

      Tax breaks?

    3. Re:A move for the books? by abolith · · Score: 3, Interesting
      OR the could be paying out some of it now and delaying the rest, so as to spread out the total payout over 2 quarters thus making the damage seem smaller to the stock holders....well it an idea anyway.

      --
      if you want "No More Hiroshimas" then I say "You First. No More Pearl Harbors."
    4. Re:A move for the books? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm not a CPA either, but IAR once you have a reasonable expectation of paying out the cash you take a charge for the full amouunt, which you can reduce if you discover you overestimated the actual payout.

      Side note - this allows companies to control earnings by overestimating, for allowances for unpaid debts. Say you overestimate by 1 billion dollars (in a period where earnings are great) - you can discover your error in a period where earnings are poor, magically adding back earnings removed earlier.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    5. Re:A move for the books? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Well its possible MS did not anticipate losing the case and its not reflected in the current SEC paperwork.

      My guess is they will factor in the 1 billion when doing guestimates on profits next year.

      Or they are doing another dejavue from the DOJ vs MS case. They will refuse to pay and keep putting it off and getting the case appealed until a judge sides with Microsoft.

    6. Re:A move for the books? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Remember that fiasco with AOL's accounting practices near the start of the year? That's basically what they'd wound up doing to look profitable. They took the money they were loosing and kept finding new ways to defer it until the next quarter. So they kept loosing money, but it didn't show up on any accounting reports.

    7. Re:A move for the books? by JayBlalock · · Score: 1

      Except that, as the article points out, they're unlikely to actually *lose* a fraction of the 1 bil, and will in fact likely recoup nearly all of it right back.

      --
      Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
    8. Re:A move for the books? by TheTomcat · · Score: 3, Interesting
    9. Re:A move for the books? by TheTomcat · · Score: 1

      Sorry for replying to myself (I unchecked the +1) but here's a different article.. this is the one I was looking for when I found the other.

      S

    10. Re:A move for the books? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the stock hasn't moved in 2 years, I'd say "proabably not." They're doing it just to spite a group of consumers that it considers "lost" anyway.

  4. Gee, what a suprise! by crass751 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Microsoft is dragging its feet on settlement claims?

    In other news...
    Water is wet!
    The Sky is blue!
    Ice is cold!
    and so on ad nauseum.

    1. Re:Gee, what a suprise! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      A Slashdot reader is biased against Microsoft?

      In other news...
      Water is wet!
      The Sky is blue!
      Ice is cold!
      and so on ad nauseum.

  5. And in news just to hand... by rimu+guy · · Score: 1, Funny
    Microsoft Drags Feet with Settlement Claims

    Now in news just to hand:

    Sun rises in the east.

    Sheesh

    Non-Microsoft-based VPS Hosting

  6. Battle of resources, not facts by mabu · · Score: 5, Informative

    Is anyone surprised?

    It doesn't matter whether we're talking about SCO, Microsoft, the DMCA, RIAA, or Michael Jackson. The new get-rich-quick or save-your-ass business model is now based on seeing who can legally travel the farthest on the gas they have in their tank.

    1. Re:Battle of resources, not facts by mattjb0010 · · Score: 5, Funny

      It doesn't matter whether we're talking about SCO, Microsoft, the DMCA, RIAA, or Michael Jackson.

      Well the RIAA and Michael Jackson have been going after little kids, but Microsoft?

    2. Re:Battle of resources, not facts by Maestro4k · · Score: 5, Interesting
      • Is anyone surprised?

        It doesn't matter whether we're talking about SCO, Microsoft, the DMCA, RIAA, or Michael Jackson. The new get-rich-quick or save-your-ass business model is now based on seeing who can legally travel the farthest on the gas they have in their tank.

      Well, yes and no. I'm not surprised because I know Microsoft tends to behave this way, but at the same time, I'm a tad surprised at how flagrantly they're thumbing their nose at all the governments (states and federal) that these settlements effect. As for federal, things aren't looking perfectly hunky-dory for MS on that front, as thre seems to be a fair chance the holdout state may manage to get tougher sanctions placed on MS.

      Yes, I know we all think Microsoft is the Evil Empire (tm), but even evil empires/villians generally know when it's time to shut the hell up and at least pretend to play by the rules for a while. Hasn't MS learned by now that further antagonization very well may cause them to end up in bigger trouble? If they start ticking off enough business and individuals, they may find not only public sentiment totally against them, but some seriously powerful lobbying interests pulling out the big guns to launch attacks on them. That could hurt a lot more than any of the current judicial cases/settlements would, and definitely would be far worse than the miniscule amount of money they'll be out by playing by the rules of the game in this case.

    3. Re:Battle of resources, not facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Michael Jackson have been going after little kids

      BZZZZT!

      It has been alleged that Michael Jackson has been going after little kids. I don't know whether he has or not.
      This could just be another attempt by his accusers to grab a chunk of money by making up some juicy dirt. It happens all the time.

    4. Re:Battle of resources, not facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft just stands in awe of all that potential..

    5. Re:Battle of resources, not facts by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      During the first case against Michael Jackson, Jackson benefited some 8-million dollars through secondary means due to publicity, even after the settlement.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    6. Re:Battle of resources, not facts by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, I know we all think Microsoft is the Evil Empire (tm), but even evil empires/villians generally know when it's time to shut the hell up and at least pretend to play by the rules for a while.

      Sorry for straying offtopic, but this is generally not true. Actually most empires in history fall just because they went for yet another "easy prey" and bitterly discovered that it wasn't that easy after all. Would the Soviets keep away from Afghanistan, they could pretty well still be in Kremlin. Would Napoleon keep away from Kremlin, he could pretty well keep Paris, Vienna, Berlin, Rome and Madrid till the end of his days. And still this lesson didn't keep Hitler from repeating exatcly the same mistake. The same goes with the villains - Al Capone could live his days in luxury if he wouldn't be too greedy.

      DISCLAIMER - no, I am not saying that Bill Gates is like Hitler or Capone; I'm just saying that history proves, that saying "Okay, I have gained enough, now is the time for peaceful consumption of what I've got" is actually the MORE difficult part than saying "Let's build an empire from scratch".

    7. Re:Battle of resources, not facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meanwhile, the RIAA has been alleging things about little kids. And in their case it most definitely is an attempt by the accusers to grab a chunk of money. So it still fits, in a way...

    8. Re:Battle of resources, not facts by richie2000 · · Score: 1
      Well the RIAA and Michael Jackson have been going after little kids, but Microsoft?

      Who's the main target demographic for the XBox?

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
    9. Re:Battle of resources, not facts by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Yes, MS learned they are above the rules and do not have to listen to anybody.

      Look at the recent doj case as an example. This just confirms ms can do whatever they want.

      My guess is MS will refuse to pay and wait for the next higher court to take its case and then will settle as soon as they find a favorable judge just like the doj case.

    10. Re:Battle of resources, not facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...so -- you're saying you like it rough from Mikey?

    11. Re:Battle of resources, not facts by sultanoslack · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Yes, I know we all think Microsoft is the Evil Empire (tm), but even evil empires/villians generally know when it's time to shut the hell up and at least pretend to play by the rules for a while. Hasn't MS learned by now that further antagonization very well may cause them to end up in bigger trouble?

      No, because it hasn't landed them in bigger trouble. They continue to ignore the legal system and it continues to be very profitable for them. And they'll keep thwarting the legal system as for them it's been a working strategy.

      Microsoft has learned that they can win most of their court cases and get slap-on-the-hand settlements for the rest and then see to it that the slap doesn't even actually happen.

    12. Re:Battle of resources, not facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yeah, because last time this happened Micheal so wanted to prove his total and complete innocence he settelled out of court for millions of dollars.

      Now I don't know about you, but even if I were Micheal Jackson and had that sort of cash just lying around, I wouldn't prove my innocence by buying off the complaint and not going to court.

      So, how well do you think little old Micheal will fair in the nonce wing?

    13. Re:Battle of resources, not facts by DarkSarin · · Score: 1

      Absolutely--there is little in history that makes me think that any "villain" does know when to stop, and it all goes back to the idea that you express--greed.

      I think M$ is NO different in that respect--they are already one of the biggest corporations in history, and they have a LOT of cash, but they want MORE! This is what really annoys me about that company--every thing they do seems to be about getting more money.

      I know that that is the idea of any publicly traded company --to generate cash for the stockholders, but there are extremes that I wouldn't want a company to go to.

      Now I don't mind them making money, but to continually seek to enlarge themselves at the expense of others is a problem because it stifles competition.

      --
      "We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
    14. Re:Battle of resources, not facts by RickHunter · · Score: 1

      get slap-on-the-hand settlements for the rest and then see to it that the slap doesn't even actually happen.

      Or, even worse, get settlements that actually make their position stronger. Forcing a convicted monopolist to give away a certain amount of their own software makes no sense. The problem is that they've already got far too much market dominance. Giving them a way to get still more market dominance is not a punishment.

      Of course, given that they won the antitrust case by paying off the Federal government after Bush got elected, this shouldn't surprise anyone...

    15. Re:Battle of resources, not facts by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Judging by the size of the original controller..

      really really big adults.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    16. Re:Battle of resources, not facts by azuretek · · Score: 1

      Well even if he is innocent, who would the courts believe? a child on his death bed? or an accused molester?

      It's pretty much a losing situation for Michael either way, after all it is just circumstantial evidence and the verdict will be decided based on testimony and not "evidence".

      I think Michael is just a weird guy but I don't think he "molested" any child. He's just strange and probably hugged and treated the kids like he wanted to be treated as a child. Of course that's a bit weird if you aren't related, any child could mistake it for a sexual act. Did any of you see that special about Michael? They made him look insane! When he said certain things they would do voiceovers with words like "chilling" and played eerie music. If I were Michael I would have sued them because they obviously went there to make him look crazy.

    17. Re:Battle of resources, not facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey Michael, when the RIAA said screw the customers, they didn't REALLY mean screw.....

    18. Re:Battle of resources, not facts by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      they may find not only public sentiment totally against them, but some seriously powerful lobbying interests pulling out the big guns to launch attacks on them.

      I know it may not seem like this from a slashdot reader's perspective, but public sentiment is very much for Microsoft, not against it.

      For every geek they piss off, there's 10 investors that love them.

    19. Re:Battle of resources, not facts by Myopic · · Score: 1

      i think al capone died of syphallus, so to live longer he would have had to do more than stay away from greed...

    20. Re:Battle of resources, not facts by JayBlalock · · Score: 1
      I think the primary point, however, is that if they continue behaving this way, the heavy hammer is eventually going to fall on them. All it would really take is an administration a bit less beholden to Corporate interests than the current one, and they're in a world of excrement.

      Remember, Clinton was all for smacking them down. Then when Bush got into office, he told Ashcroft to let them off the hook. (well, presumably. The order technically just came from Ashcroft, but I can't imagine him doing that without Presidential OKing)

      With it very possible Bush will be tossed out in a year - which means a more moderate Democratic president - they are behaving in an incredibly short-sighted and possibly self-destructive manner. Right NOW is precisely when they should be playing nice, to hedge their bets against a hostile administration coming to power next year.

      --
      Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
    21. Re:Battle of resources, not facts by danheskett · · Score: 1

      Of course, given that they won the antitrust case by paying off the Federal government after Bush got elected, this shouldn't surprise anyone...

      Actually, you should get your facts straight. Bush campaigned repeatedly on the promise of ending the MS anti-trust trial as soon as possible via settlement.

    22. Re:Battle of resources, not facts by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 1

      Well, all we have to do is wait for the political climate to turn against large corporations and we'll see a new wave of trustbusting. Besides, with corporations taking more and more these days, it's just a matter of time before people get pissed off enough to do something. This situation is nothing new, it happened in the first part of last century and will probably happen again in the first part of this one.

      Response to disclaimer: I'll probably get lynched for saying this, but Gates is actually not a bad guy. Really. He's already given away somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 billion, roughly half his fortune, and is actively working on giving the rest of it away. He's said in the past he doesn't want to leave anything to his kids; he wants to give it all away before he dies so they have to make their own fortunes. If anything, it seems like a nice system of wealth redistribution; as his favorite charities help out some of the poorest people in the world. His company (in which he has little say in business decisions anyway these days) may not be very nice but I think it's wrong to characterize him as evil.

    23. Re:Battle of resources, not facts by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Response to disclaimer: I'll probably get lynched for saying this, but Gates is actually not a bad guy. Really. He's already given away somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 billion, roughly half his fortune, and is actively working on giving the rest of it away.

      If you rob a bank, and give half your ill-gotten gains to charity, and on your deathbed give away what's left ...

      ... you're still a bank robber.
      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    24. Re:Battle of resources, not facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except - he didn't rob a bank. I personally can only admire the very, very few rich who give generously. And I can't but admire a man who gives more than 50% of all his posessions to charity. Keep in mind there's many rich who don't see a reason to do that - among them open sources greatest heroes.

    25. Re:Battle of resources, not facts by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1
      Except - he didn't rob a bank. I personally can only admire the very, very few rich who give generously. And I can't but admire a man who gives more than 50% of all his posessions to charity. Keep in mind there's many rich who don't see a reason to do that - among them open sources greatest heroes.


      The point is that a thief is still a thief. No, Gates didn't rob a bank for his money; he stole it in subtler ways. Look, I'm glad he's giving money to charity, but it doesn't excuse what he did to get that money -- and all the other money that he's not giving away, to buy himself a palatial house and a pretty wife and all the rest of the goodies -- in the first place.

      Which "heroes of open source" do you have in mind, BTW? Some of them are pretty well off, but none of them have anywhere near the amount of loot Gates does ... and AFAIK, none of them screwed over a bunch of other people to get what they do have.
      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    26. Re:Battle of resources, not facts by RickHunter · · Score: 1

      Actually, you should get your facts straight. Bush campaigned repeatedly on the promise of ending the MS anti-trust trial as soon as possible via settlement.

      So the fact that Microsoft helped buy the election of the administration that handed them the keys to the kingdom instead of buying them off after makes things better how, exactly?

    27. Re:Battle of resources, not facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A 45 old man that shares his bed with kids that aren't his own (which he admitted in TV interviews), HAS been going after little kids. This is NOT an allegation. HE said he did this with kids.

  7. MS has a point on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know someone from IRC who openly brags about making up information to get a free download of Staroffice 7, because he says his claim will end up being thrown out. The fact is, it does encourage people to make up phony claims, and unfortunately, people like the one I mention above will probably never be caught. This is exactly one of Microsoft's objections, and they couldn't be more right in what they've said. By requiring people to file claims through the court, as would normally happen, people are much less able to make phony claims. As much as I don't like Microsoft, and even though they're guilty, it doesn't make it right to steal from them, or from Lindows.

    It's a nice idea to encourage people to claim their piece of the settlement, and as much as I like seeing it happen to Microsoft, it really can't be done in a fair and legal way.

    1. Re:MS has a point on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to say, when you bend over half of a population and pump them till they bleed, don't cry when 3/4 of the population beat down on you for it.

    2. Re:MS has a point on this by shepd · · Score: 1

      >By requiring people to file claims through the court, as would normally happen, people are much less able to make phony claims.

      If it workes for Bill Gates, why can't it work for anyone?

      You don't get it both ways, Microsoft. Either you let everyone lie to the courts, or you don't. Which one they prefer -- they've already made your own bed of nails on that one -- doesn't matter.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    3. Re:MS has a point on this by Maestro4k · · Score: 3, Insightful
      • I know someone from IRC who openly brags about making up information to get a free download of Staroffice 7, because he says his claim will end up being thrown out. The fact is, it does encourage people to make up phony claims, and unfortunately, people like the one I mention above will probably never be caught. This is exactly one of Microsoft's objections, and they couldn't be more right in what they've said. By requiring people to file claims through the court, as would normally happen, people are much less able to make phony claims. As much as I don't like Microsoft, and even though they're guilty, it doesn't make it right to steal from them, or from Lindows.
      Umm, did you miss the important part of the article about the fact that none of the claims being held up are from lindows.com? This would be akin to the IRS saying "Oh well, we know a bunch of people have lied on their income taxes, so we'll hold up sending back any rebates until we catch them all, no matter how long it takes! Oh yeah, and if they volunteer to come forward to tell us they lied, we won't listen, we have to figure this out on our own!"

      This isn't an issue of whether Lindows' thing is illegal, or against the settlement terms, etc. This is simply about MS being the whiney little brat screaming and crying, jumping up and down, saying "I want it my way NOW!!!!!"

    4. Re:MS has a point on this by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      False claims?

      How about, "Just reboot the machine, that will fix the problem"? Or, "It's the user's fault", or maybe "That's the fault of 3rd party vendors"? Etc. etc.

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    5. Re:MS has a point on this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >My god, the bias on /. is sickening and the reason why Linux will *NEVER*, *EVER* be accepted by the majority of the population... they'd need to hav lobotomies in order to want to be associated with losers like you lot.

      Exactly where did I say linux?

      Oh, I didn't.

      Looks like you need some "Hooked on Phonics".

      HAND, YHBT.

  8. How was this going to work in the first place? by benna · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From what I read, they don't require the proof that the settlement requires, so how are they going to get the money? And what's stopping you from filing claims with both MS and Lindows? I doubt MS is going to share it's data with Lindows.

    --
    "It is not how things are in the world that is mystical, but that it exists." -Ludwig Wittgenstein
    1. Re:How was this going to work in the first place? by evilviper · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Yikes... Where to start tearing apart your post?

      From what I read, they don't require the proof that the settlement requires

      I don't know what the hell you read, but the Microsoft standard claim form requires practically NOTHING. Name of product, where you got it, your own address, and signature... That's it. I have the form right in front of me as a matter of fact.

      And what's stopping you from filing claims with both MS and Lindows?

      The same thing that stops you from filing two claims with Microsoft... When Microsoft recieves the information, they see that they've already paid one, and refuse the other.

      I doubt MS is going to share it's data with Lindows.

      That's how Lindows gets their money. If Microsoft doesn't pay Lindows for your claim, then Lindows doesn't pay you. Simple.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:How was this going to work in the first place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      For the record i didn't actually write this post and I admit I know nothing about how this all works. I just stole this post from a previous article to gain karma.

      benna

  9. Interesting Thought..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How many other companies can afford to pay 1.1 billion and barely feel it....?????
    ONE

    1. Re:Interesting Thought..... by GonzoTech · · Score: 1

      Well, I would say that most fortune 500 companies could afford to pay around that amount, but then I remembered Enron and WorldCom. I guess every big company needs a scandal in one form or another in order to keep the warm and fuzzy feeling inside.

      --
      "Snatching defeat from the mouth of victory on a daily basis."
    2. Re:Interesting Thought..... by vidarh · · Score: 1

      Not many companies has that kind of money in cash or cash equivalents, because most established companies don't hoard - they distribute dividends to their shareholders. So I'd guess relatively few companies could afford it without seriously eating into their cash reserves.

  10. Seriously by SpiffyMarc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm not sure what intentions Lindows had beyond marketing their software using a court decision, and I'm equally unsure of how they can say that any of the claims filed by Lindows on behalf of the claimant have any merit whatsoever.

    When I first read about this program on /., I rushed to MSFreePC and completed all but the last couple steps to file a claim. Of course, I've never even been to any states that BORDER California, let alone purchased a PC there. What's to stop anybody from doing that, and how could they ever verify the legitmacy of the claims?

    As bad as it may be, I think Microsoft is well within its' right to not accept MSFreePC claims, or at least to challenge their validity in a court of law. That shouldn't stop them from processing claims submitted under THEIR terms, however.

    1. Re:Seriously by Coryoth · · Score: 1

      When I first read about this program on /., I rushed to MSFreePC and completed all but the last couple steps to file a claim. Of course, I've never even been to any states that BORDER California, let alone purchased a PC there. What's to stop anybody from doing that, and how could they ever verify the legitmacy of the claims?

      Well, that's Lindows problem isn't it. They buy the right to your claim (with free stuff to you). If your claim is bullshit, well, they don't get the money for that claim from MS.

      I don't see the problem here.

      Jedidiah.

  11. Since the law doesn't apply to microsoft by RLiegh · · Score: 1, Interesting

    why should they benefit from it? I don't see anything wrong with Microsoft being "exploited" any more than I did when I heard that Dahmer got offed in prison...

    In both cases, my reaction is: "couldn't happen to a nicer fuck". And I dont' see any reason to feel bad about that.

  12. I don't feel sorry for them by Prof.+Pi · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    The fact is, it does encourage people to make up phony claims

    Just desserts. Microsoft has made a habit of making phony claims against people for years. What do you think happens if their hired goons, the BSA, pull an audit on your company and your sysadmin can't produce all the requisite documentation to "prove" they had a "right" to use the software on every single machine found? Will Microsoft's henchmen say, "oh well, I'm sure you bought them all properly; we understand it's a pain to keep all this paperwork for things that cost just a hundred dollars"? Yeah, right.

    The only bad thing about false claims is that if the total claims exceed the settlement limit, then the people with real claims will get smaller amounts, if I understand the settlement correctly.

    1. Re:I don't feel sorry for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hey, if accounting and inventory control isn't your cup of tea, don't go into business.

  13. Re:Mod this anti-MS zealot down.. by RLiegh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "grow up"? big words coming from an ac.

    The law only applies *in theory* to microsoft, but yet they have never had to deal with any signifigant penalties (sorry, to M$, 1.1 billion dollars is not signifigant), which means that they are *in practice* exempt from the law.

  14. Inventory control by Prof.+Pi · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Probably a company like IBM has a thorough system in place. But then again, MS wouldn't be crazy enough to sue someone that big over a few licenses (especially when they can pay SCO to make trouble for them).

    But how many small businesses are going to be that efficient? Especially when the guy who runs the systems is probably someone doing it part time along with his other duties, who may have been handed the job by the last guy who left, without a significant training period (after all, Windows is so easy to run, right?). A lot of small research labs (e.g., under one professor at a university) are run like this, usually by student volunteers.

    And the point is, Microsoft accuses you of theft without any proof whatsoever. They have no way of tracking where that version came from, to know, for instance, if it was copied from some other disk). They have no witnesses to testify that they saw you make the copy illegally (unless they can find the guy you laid off last week and he has a grudge). But "innocent until proven guilty" means nothing. It's more like, "we have more lawyers than you and can grind you into the dust whenever we choose, so wouldn't you rather have a site license and end all these worries?"

    1. Re:Inventory control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In small businesses, the guy who has his eye on the inventory is the owner. Or at least he damn well should and has no fucking excuse for not paying attention. Will there be gaps? Yes. That's part of business too. Does that make it acceptable for a business to be missing a major fraction of it's licenses? Nope. No more acceptable that it is for a gun store in Tacoma to be mysteriously short more than 200 guns. At some point, it doesn't matter whether it was malicious or not, because of the epic scale of incompitence.

      If the neighborhood green groccer can keep his store stocked when the local angry youth bum-rush his store every week, the car dealership, escrow office, state farm reps can buy a locking (possibly fireproof) file cabinet for all their important business documentation, including licening agreements with other companies.

      I tried the old, "dog ate my homework" excuse in 3th grade (only I unwisely substitued hamster for dog), it didn't work then for me. I see no reason small businesses would imagine they'd be able to find shelter behind a similar excusse at their stage of the game.

      If they're not good at business, or at least if they're poor enough that they habbitually lose important documentation, they shouldn't be in business anyway. Microsoft is doing the world a favor by culling the herd and teaching the slower ones a valuable lesson that can be broadly applied to life, not just their business.

      Notice, they don't need proof. Maybe Microsoft is the freaking devil, in which case, why are they inviting Microsoft in, and agreeing to the diabolical licencing schemes. Either way you want to slice the onion, it's bad business, and garunteed to cause tears at some point.

    2. Re:Inventory control by Prof.+Pi · · Score: 1
      Does that make it acceptable for a business to be missing a major fraction of it's licenses?

      In the BSA cases I've read, the threshold was as low as 5%, not a "significant fraction."

      At some point, it doesn't matter whether it was malicious or not, because of the epic scale of incompitence.

      "Epic scale of incompitence [sic]"??? Over licenses costing a few hundred dollars?

      First of all, most small-scale computer users may not even be aware there's an issue. They paid for their computer, right? Thanks to Microsoft's monopoly, most people don't even think of the software as being something intrinsically separable from the platform. They think of Office as being an option for their PC, like getting automatic transmission. How many car owners are expected to have separate documentation giving them the right to use their automatic transmission?

      Second, it is standard practice in most businesses that there is a price threshold below which bookkeeping requirements are far less, because of the expense involved. In my former workplace, anything over $5K was "equipment" and had to have stickers on it and all kinds of tracking; anything less was "supplies." Meals under $10 did not require receipts for reimbursement, because having someone look at them was more costly than the chance that someone might claim his $5 lunch cost $9.99. For most places, the typical cost of software falls in that "supplies" region, and Microsoft's insistence otherwise falls totally outside of normal business expectations.

      It's funny that you sneer at anyone whose inventory methods don't meet Microsoft's standards, calling them poor businessmen and "incompitent," but you say nothing about a giant company trying to get out of a legal settlement by whining that they can't track do the paperwork to verify every claim.

      Notice, they don't need proof.

      Since when was "innocent until proven guilty" banished from our legal traditions? (Other than asset forfeiture?) Note that you are required to carry registration for your car, but if you can't produce it when you're pulled over, you can only be charged with failing to show registration. You can't be charged with stealing the car unless they can actually prove that.

      why are they inviting Microsoft in, and agreeing to the diabolical licencing schemes. Either way you want to slice the onion, it's bad business

      I would agree that buying Microsoft is bad business, and I warn people about BSA audits as one of the risks of MS software. But many people say it is nearly impossible to do business without buying MS (Word docs or ISVs only writing for Windows or whatever), and their argument was legally validated when Microsoft was declared a monopoly by the same court system they are so willing to use agianst others.

  15. This isn't about MyFreePc folks!!! by Maestro4k · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Ack, so many posts already, all saying that they agree that the MyFreePC site is probably plagued by cheats. Come on guys, that's not the main point in this article!!! It plainly says the following: "The document, filed on 21st November by Townsend and Townsend and Crew, lead counsel for the Californian class action consumers, points out that none of the claims being held up was actually filed via Lindows.com, yet Microsoft has held them 'hostage' for over two months."

    This is about Microsoft wanting its way and screwing over innocents to try and get it. They're just being whiney crybabies here about MyFreePC. Sure, they may have some legit complaints about MyFreePC, but that shouldn't stop them from processing legitimate claims that have nothing at all to do with MyFreePC! This is truly just pathetic behaivor on MS's part.

    1. Re:This isn't about MyFreePc folks!!! by mrsev · · Score: 1

      I agree. Its time to bring out Robo-judge. Spank that M$ ass!......... Bad Bill, Bad!

  16. gimme a break by penguin7of9 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's a nice idea to encourage people to claim their piece of the settlement, and as much as I like seeing it happen to Microsoft, it really can't be done in a fair and legal way.

    The settlement is whatever the parties agree on. They could have agreed to give the money to chain smokers, or to donate to endangered ducks, or to burn a billion dollars to heat orphanages. It doesn't matter matter whether you consider the distribution fair, what matters is what they agreed to.

    And what they agreed to is that they owe a billion dollars, a light penalty anyway compared to the harm they have caused. But now they are trying to delay and wriggle out of that, too. That is definitely not fair.

  17. You must be new here by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1, Troll
    Ah, such fresh faced innocence. I bet you read the headline. The post AND the articles linked in the post. So naive. Real /. Trolls scan the headline, notice a few words as they scroll down for the reply button and then post their "thoughts" without previewing. You yet got much to learn.

    Yes of course you are absolutly right. The post and articles point out clearly that the claims being held back have nothing to do with the lindows. These claims have been made by ordinary citizens of California and should have been handled.

    As for why MS is doing this. Bill Gates is a little kid. For the last 20 years he has been head of an empire growing ever bigger. Everyone around him told him he was a hero. Now slowly he is finding out that outside his little empire people really don't share his vision of the world. Law makers are after him, geeks are building software for FREE, major companies he thought he had beaten multiple times are still there ready to see him fail.

    I am willing to bet that nobody on this earth will be able to get Bill Gates to admit that this is a just punishment, that he Bill Gates was guilty and that this settlement is exactly what MS deserved. To all the MS apologists. Proof me wrong.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:You must be new here by Maestro4k · · Score: 1
      • As for why MS is doing this. Bill Gates is a little kid. For the last 20 years he has been head of an empire growing ever bigger. Everyone around him told him he was a hero. Now slowly he is finding out that outside his little empire people really don't share his vision of the world. Law makers are after him, geeks are building software for FREE, major companies he thought he had beaten multiple times are still there ready to see him fail.
      I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees it that way. I had pointed out in some other posts that MS was acting like a big whiney crying brat, yelling that they wanted everything their way. :)

      And I agree, it is just punishment, I guess karma really does work sometimes. (In the real world, not just /.)

  18. It's just an accounting maneuver by heironymouscoward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The bulk of this money will return to Microsoft in the form of new income. So logically, they have no reason to block the settlement. I deduce therefore that it's a subtle way of pumping profits into 2004.

    Or maybe Microsoft just hate Michael Robertson so much they would rather find themselves in breach of the settlement than pay one red cent... Nah, can't be.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature
  19. Just speculation but by miyako · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I've seen a few posts speculating that MS may be trying to put off paying out untill next quarter in order to make profits look better, but is it possible that they are just keeping that cash in a high interest account or some other high growth thing for as long as possible to recoup some of the lost mony by collecting interest?
    I'm in now way an accountant, but it seems to me that this might be a way to gain back some of those losses.
    On a side note, there have been a few posts about how $1billion is not much to MS, but really I think that although it might be a much smaller percent of their overal value than any other company, that $1billion is still a fair loss in the sence that it could have been used to generate some ammount >$1billion which is not chump change even to MS

    --
    Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
    1. Re:Just speculation but by Maestro4k · · Score: 2, Insightful
      • I've seen a few posts speculating that MS may be trying to put off paying out untill next quarter in order to make profits look better, but is it possible that they are just keeping that cash in a high interest account or some other high growth thing for as long as possible to recoup some of the lost mony by collecting interest? I'm in now way an accountant, but it seems to me that this might be a way to gain back some of those losses.
      Interesting theory, but I'm not sure that businesses can work the accounts that way. I think the money would be part of their normal cash holdings until it's actually paid out. The interest would be included in normal earnings estimates in that case, and they'd have to account for the loss of interest from the payout in the next year's reports. So while to you and me it would look like it was helping recoup some of the losses, it wouldn't because the interest was "expected" income, not "unexpected" (i.e. sales better than expected, etc.).
      • On a side note, there have been a few posts about how $1billion is not much to MS, but really I think that although it might be a much smaller percent of their overal value than any other company, that $1billion is still a fair loss in the sence that it could have been used to generate some ammount >$1billion which is not chump change even to MS
      Actually MS is different than other business in that respect. They have absolutely huge cash holdings compared to pretty much any other company around. It's like MS is scared to spend it, or give part of it to stockholders in dividends and such. Strange how a company as big and powerful as MS can act like a terrified little company scared something may come along requiring huge sums of money.

      Then again, MS tends to act like a child a lot, so perhaps it's all related to Bill Gates. With MS being so successfuly so quickly, he's probably a bit sheltered from reality, business and otherwise. So he (and in response to that, his company) act like frightened children. It could also be that ole Billy's a bit scared that the success can't continue, since I suspect he doesn't have nearly as much of a clue as to how MS was as successful as it is as he'd like to pretend. :)

    2. Re:Just speculation but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Preview before you post - what you wrote here it's total nonsense!

      >MS tends to act like a child a lot

      This is laughable. In what way? So far they've slaughtered every and any competitor that came their way.
      Slashdot folks may not like him but Bill is probably the greatest business leader since WWII.

    3. Re:Just speculation but by krumms · · Score: 1

      since I suspect he doesn't have nearly as much of a clue as to how MS was as successful as it is as he'd like to pretend.

      err ... have you been living under a rock?

      In what way is Microsoft's iron grip on the desktop market unsuccessful?

    4. Re:Just speculation but by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      he meant the reasons, what he meant was that billy boy doesn't himself know all that well why ms won the desktop and isn't really the business wizard he'd like to be(christ, read the road ahead and you might even agree).

      -

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:Just speculation but by unclethursday · · Score: 1
      Perfect Example:

      MS to OEMs: "You can't uninstall IE to put Netscape on the computers you sell anymore!"

      OEMs: "But our customers ask for Netscape."

      MS: "I don't care! I make Windows, and I say no more uninstalling my IE for Netscape!"

      OEMs: "Well, our customers ask for it, so we're going to do it for them."

      MS: "Well...well... If you uninstall IE from any more machines you sell, I'll take away your Windows licenses! Then you won't be able to sell any computers at all!"

      OEMs: "um..."

      MS: "And just to show you guys, every version of Windows that comes out from 98 on will have IE integrated into the OS, so you CAN'T uninstall it, even if you want to!" *sticks out tongue, stamps foot and turns head away*

      Not exactly the way the conversations went down, but the general feeling is the same as what happened. MS was spurned by the fact that OEMs were uninstalling IE to put Netscape on the machines, so MS threatened to revoke their Windows licenses to make the stop doing that. Then, just to make sure the OEMs couldn't do it at a later date, they integrated IE into Windows so tightly that normal users can't get rid of it.

  20. MS has no point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The agreement says they pay out a maximal of 1.1 billion. That means they've done at least 1.1 billion damage. So, any phony claim is only depriving real claims of their share of the settlement. MS has no reason to complain because they owe 1.1 billion. People who aren't getting their share of the claim should be out trying to get their fair share.

  21. Townsend and Crew? by Compact+Dick · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a bunch of pirates to me...

    1. Re:Townsend and Crew? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that MS logo just a tiny bit childish?

  22. This can't be true! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    What? A benevolent, law-abiding company like Microsoft, whose only goal is to make people's lives better and more productive, trying to chisel people out of money it owes them? This can't be true. It's those anti-Microsoft zealots at it again. Don't believe everything you read on Slashdot.

    1. Re:This can't be true! by RoadkillBunny · · Score: 1, Funny

      Don't believe everything you read on Slashdot.

      Hey! Slashdot is my only source of daily news!

      --
      Cheers,
      RoadkillBunny
  23. And the truly ironic thing is... by dsfox · · Score: 2, Informative

    Townsend and Townsend says:

    "Although plaintiffs expressed some initial concerns with the Lindows web site, we are now satisfied with Lindows' explanation of its procedures and believe that it fully comports with the express terms of the Settlement Agreement."

  24. hmm, is this really that big of a shock? by ShadowRage · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Microsoft is known for slowly backing out of punishments, or does pay people....such a politicians to look the other way.

    and seriously, has microsoft ever done things the legal way? no, but they have done some legal things.. but based off illegal actions.
    they dont like following federal law, but they sure like using federal law against its own consumers.
    when I first heard M$ was supposed to send out money.. I laughed, because I knew they wouldnt do it. Also, if they did pay the settlement, they'd lose a massive chunk of cash,.. which they wish not to do.
    so really, they are like "hmmm, no, dont wanna do it. we dont wanna lose money. and federal law doesnt apply to us"

    also, they'd prolly jack up a licensing fee in the next windows release... and require you to pay like 700 bucks for the next windows release.. preinstalled or not.

    1. Re:hmm, is this really that big of a shock? by JayBlalock · · Score: 1, Troll
      Um, they were fairly law-abiding until they decided to overthrow IBM and DOS \ OS/2. Of course, at that point, they were only a small software shop best-known for putting out a really great Flight Simulator. (and a pretty good word processor)

      That's what drives me batty about our current system. Ultimately, the Best Product pretty much cannot win. Whichever company has the slickest marketing and the most underhanded back-room tactics wins. And that's almost never the guy with the best product since he will assume he can win through market pressures.

      While it certainly wasn't a perfect operating system, just imagine what the last decade of computing would've been like had OS/2 become the standard instead of Windows...

      --
      Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
    2. Re:hmm, is this really that big of a shock? by GoneGaryT · · Score: 2, Interesting
      While it certainly wasn't a perfect operating system, just imagine what the last decade of computing would've been like had OS/2 become the standard instead of Windows...

      Don't pile on the torture, man. In 1994, I had OS/2 and early GNU/Linux running under OS/2 Boot Manager and, frankly, I was in non-MS-Windows heaven.(It was the install floppy reads that gave the game away. After about disk 5 on OS/2, it started multitasking and chomping data like Mr Creosote. Early Slack and terrific memory management did a similar trick there, as I recall.) I mean, technically, Microsoft and MS-DOS was so passe if not yet niche from there on. What the fuck went wrong?

      I even started becoming a heavy REXX addict... there's nothing of the sort in any Microsoft product. Damn their eyes, Cap'n. I am bitter and resentful even now. Yes.

  25. Mail Merge by drdestructo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Give 'em a break, they're still running the mail merge for the form letter response...

  26. He's not invincible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Remember the pie incident? Remember....? Think about it... think bigger... yes... that's right... it would be sooooo easy... where are all the crazed loners when we NEED em?

  27. How future MS settlements should be handled by shadow255 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Let this be a warning to any other states which have not yet completed class actions against Microsoft for anticompetitive pricing. Any settlement reached should require that Microsoft place the settlement amount, in cash, into an escrow account managed by an impartial third party with disbursements to be managed by said third party with strict guidelines and regular court oversight.

    It's time to stop letting these things get turned into PR circuses benefiting the the defendant who chooses to settle out of court (and apparently giving no benefit to the plaintiffs, so far).

    Standard disclaimer: IANAL, use this advice at your own peril, yada-yada-yada.

    --

    Logic is a wonderful thing but doesn't always beat actual thought. -Terry Pratchett

  28. That article might be a little out of date by runlvl0 · · Score: 1

    Note the date on that article, February 17, 2000. It was based on Microsoft's most recent annual report (at the time), 1999.

    "A significant portion of the wages Microsoft pays to its employees comes in the form of stock options rather than in cash. Compared to the rest of the industry, the amount of cash Microsoft pays its programmers is at best mediocre. It attracts and retains employees via stock options..."

    "So there you have it. $3.1 billion from a tax loophole [the "Stock option income tax benefits."], $1.3 billion from its employees [payroll deductions to exercise those options], and $0.7 billion from put warrants combine to give Microsoft over $5 billion from its own stock in fiscal 1999. And it avoided paying $9 billion in wages. All that from a company that only had $7.8 billion in net income. And as long as the stock keeps going up, they can keep doing that ad infinitum."

    Options to buy MSFT at $120, anyone? The MS class of 1999 ought to be vesting any time now.

    Obligatory Simpsons reference: Disco Stu's "Can't Stop the Learnin' Disco Academies"...
    Disco Stu: Did you know that disco record sales were up 400/ for the year ending 1976? If these trends continue... A-y-y-y!

    --

    Carthago delenda est!
    1. Re:That article might be a little out of date by TheTomcat · · Score: 1

      That IS pretty funny..
      It also seems that MS is trying to get rid of options all together, now.. according to Wired.

      S

  29. I'd suggest castration instead... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But neither Bill nor Steve have anything to cut off.

  30. So what you're saying is... by Solandri · · Score: 1
    I know someone from IRC who openly brags about making up information to get a free download of Staroffice 7, because he says his claim will end up being thrown out. The fact is, it does encourage people to make up phony claims, and unfortunately, people like the one I mention above will probably never be caught. This is exactly one of Microsoft's objections, and they couldn't be more right in what they've said. By requiring people to file claims through the court, as would normally happen, people are much less able to make phony claims.

    So you're saying it's too onerous a burden for Microsoft to have to verify all those claims themself, so a court should do it? I dunno, when the SBA audits you, you have to somehow prove to them that all the software that's installed on all your computers is properly licensed. You don't get the benefit of a court absorbing the cost of the audit for you. I don't see why Microsoft (SBA member) should get that benefit.

  31. Oh yes, they do by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope, it means they haven't done any real damage (please keep in mind that distributions of Linux cost as much as retail copies of windows (and way more than mass licences) - and for these, the vendors do not have to shell out money for imoplementation and test). It means that Microsoft realized that they'd be tied in litigation to the point where that process would cost them more than grudgingly accepting an unjust 'punishment'.

  32. Nothing unethical about it by Peaceful_Patriot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I live and work in California and filed a claim through Lindows.com. I have purchased a great deal of MS products over the last 7-8 years for myself, my children and my employer.

    The items I claimed on the Lindows form represented only a fraction of the $$ MS has gotten from me over the years.

    Because MS is paying with vouchers, and those vouchers will not cover the cost of any new software, they are betting most of it will come back to MS along with some cash.

    I filed that claim through Lindows because it gave me a chance to use my share of the settlement money to help a MS competitor and I felt assured the money would not wind up back in MS's pockets. This seems to be the intention of the portion of the settlement which states the settlement"cannot be used by Microsoft to complicate or discourage claims, and they must not discourage legitimate Microsoft competitors from promoting the settlement, distributing claim forms or otherwise participating in the settlement process as expressly contemplated by the Settlement Agreement."

    I have no idea whether I will ever see my new free PC but I certainly don't consider myself a thief, nor do I blame Lindows for "promoting and participating in the settlement" as is their right.

    --
    There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come.
  33. A few pertinent facts here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    - MS is refusing to pay ANY claims in an attempt to extort the attorneys for the class members to object to MSfreePC

    - MSfreePC requires the IDENTICAL information that the manual process does. In fact, it's the same form. They are just doing it electronically. To the extent that someone could defraud MSfreePC, the IDENTICAL opportunity exists with the paper process.

    - Microsoft objecting to ONLINE settlement claims is dripping with irony given their "innovation" advertising campaigns.

    - While 1.1B is the announced number, if you read The Register article you will see that currently they are ONLY going to be paying $50MM!! That's less than 5% of the trumpeted settlement amount. Yes, I know they give a bunch of other money in the form of free software - CDs are cheap. That costs them nothing.

    This whole process seems like a scam, not MSfreePC, but the whole settlement process. I bet the attorneys will get more than MS ends up paying out.

  34. This comes under the heading of ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    the "So what did you expect?" department.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  35. you forgot "You insensitive CLOD!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or something like that.

  36. Linux terrorists strike again by writertype · · Score: 1

    A reasonable comment gets modded down into oblivion. Sad.