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."
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.
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*
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
How many other companies can afford to pay 1.1 billion and barely feel it....?????
ONE
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.
/., 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?
When I first read about this program on
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.
Hey, if accounting and inventory control isn't your cup of tea, don't go into business.
"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.
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?"
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.
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.
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
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.
-
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 >$1billion which is not chump change even to MS
Actually MS is different than other business in that respect. They have absolutely huge cash holdings compared to pretty much any other company around. It's like MS is scared to spend it, or give part of it to stockholders in dividends and such. Strange how a company as big and powerful as MS can act like a terrified little company scared something may come along requiring huge sums of money.Then again, MS tends to act like a child a lot, so perhaps it's all related to Bill Gates. With MS being so successfuly so quickly, he's probably a bit sheltered from reality, business and otherwise. So he (and in response to that, his company) act like frightened children. It could also be that ole Billy's a bit scared that the success can't continue, since I suspect he doesn't have nearly as much of a clue as to how MS was as successful as it is as he'd like to pretend. :)
What? A benevolent, law-abiding company like Microsoft, whose only goal is to make people's lives better and more productive, trying to chisel people out of money it owes them? This can't be true. It's those anti-Microsoft zealots at it again. Don't believe everything you read on Slashdot.
Townsend and Townsend says:
"Although plaintiffs expressed some initial concerns with the Lindows web site, we are now satisfied with Lindows' explanation of its procedures and believe that it fully comports with the express terms of the Settlement Agreement."
Microsoft is known for slowly backing out of punishments, or does pay people....such a politicians to look the other way.
and seriously, has microsoft ever done things the legal way? no, but they have done some legal things.. but based off illegal actions.
they dont like following federal law, but they sure like using federal law against its own consumers.
when I first heard M$ 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.
Give 'em a break, they're still running the mail merge for the form letter response...
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
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.