Slashdot Mirror
Court Rejects msfreepc.com Settlement Claims
mr_tommy writes "Neowin has posted a link to a court ruling (pdf) on the controversial MSfreepc.com website. The court ruled that claims in the Microsoft antitrust settlement made via the site were not legitimate, and as such all submissions made through it would be rejected. The website, operated by Lindows.com, attempted to use the Californian settlement against Microsoft to its own benefit by getting users to signup and make a claim. Lindows saw an opportunity to capitalise on the ruling by getting Microsoft to pay for users to have Lindows software and hardware; undoubtedly too bitter a pill for Microsoft to take. Microsoft filed suit against the website Michael Robertson, owner of Lindows and a strong anti-Microsoft voice, will undoubtedly be disappointed with the ruling. The 'legitimate' site for claims is still available."
Well, it sucks for Lindows but if any of you out there still want to file a claim, you have until March 15, 2004.
Remember, it's your money so it's better to file it through the official channels...
Note: I know some of you will never file anything with M$ so this post doesn't apply to you (you don't need to go crazy on the replies, just go to the next post).
It is not enough to have a good mind. The main thing is to use it well. - Rene Descartes (1637)
Frankly it was an underhanded act which is on a parallel with some microsoft have made in the past. Had they used the site to inform users of the process they could go through, then all would be fine and dandy. However, actively leveraging a misdemeanour by another company to gain a competitive advantage in a way such as that just wasn't on.
Was it slightly underhanded? Sure... but, I'm sure the hardware they gave away was contingent on their claims being accepted (correct me if I'm wrong)... otherwise, they give out a little free software (not that expensive to Lindows.com to do so), got their name out a bit... Can't see this HARMING them all that much... Now, if they start asking for their software back over it, that could be a bad thing... Let people keep their LindowsOS', consider it a marketing cost...
Wow, a web page run by a non-microsoft group hosted by someone other then microsoft is running a web server other then microsofts. Will wonders never cease?
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Umm, I tried googling around for "ConcentricHost-Ashurbanipal" and couldn't find evidence that it was actually an http daemon but more like it was jsut a service offered by concentric networks. Can you clarify?
Lindows doesn't really care much about this. Sure, they would have taken the money, but what they really wanted was to give MS a black eye by publicizing the court ruling, and also to expand the Lindows user base.
They accomplished a fair bit of each, and what they gave away were just copies of software that hardly cost them anything in the first place. This was another smart marketing move by their CEO, and inline with his other moves: not very classy, but shrewd nonetheless.
I'm all for choice but I was not at all impressed with Lindows compared to other desktop based Linux distibutions. I bought $199 Walmart PC's for my kids this christmas. One with Lindows and one with Lycoris. Lindows was usable and it worked without problems but the click-n-run selection was too limited. I tried several non Lindows repositories and regular old packages but eventually I got frustrated and started over with Mandrake. Although not required, I feel the money I could have spent on a Lindows subscription was much better spent on a Mandrake membership.
Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
I have no pity for Lindows. Naming a project "Lindows" implies that Linux is some cheap knock-off of the "Real Thing".
I remember seeing goods imported into Russia from China with things like alarm clocks with names in Russsian, which, when pronounced, sounded remarkably like "Hyundai", and "Adidas" bags with too many stripes and a bunch of garbage characters that were supposed to be a slogan. That's the kind of stuff I think of when I hear "Lindows".
This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!
Why is it when SCO implements a business model based on extremely questionable legal interpretation, they are accused of being "on crack"; whereas when MSFreePC implements an extremely questionable business model, they're really good guys? Wouldn't it be more consistent to conclude that the guys at SCO have been sharing their bad crack with the guys at MSFreePC?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
undoubtedly too bitter a pill for Microsoft to take
The Lindows msfreepc.com site was discussed here a couple of months ago.
The site was encouraging people to sign up for the rebate whether or not they were eligible and regardless, they had no basis to collect names.
This is one of those rare instances when MS is totally right.
Lindows was just trying to get a free ride on the settlement's coattails.
;P ).
The letter of the settlement said that all claims must be submitted by the original purchasing party (not an intermediary like Lindows) and each claim must also must be signed by the original purchasing party (electronic signatures don't count).
It's my hope that Lindows does the right thing and notifies all parties that submitted a claim through them that their claim was rejected... at least that way the 'injured' parties still have time for recourse (of course 90% of those claims were probably from Slashdot readers... who are now notified
The market stopped being fair once Microsoft got into it. This is Microsofts *punishment*. They should not be allowed to weasel out of it by claiming they'll only give away the hardware if it is accompanied by $big-X (retail) of their own software that actually costs them small-x cents.
--
E_NOSIG
Lindows is out a few linux distros which are really just debian distros prettied up a bit so they are out of no real money here.
Microsoft looks bad for shutting down a site to help consumers take advantage of the settlement, so they can be spun in the press to be trying to get out of their obligations.
To be honest you can't really blaim Robertson or Lindows.com for putting up the site becuase they win either way.
Now Microsoft... They eitehr Lose or have a Neutral outcome from shutting down this site. To be honest I don't know why they did it... unless they are still trying to claim that they won/were not found to have violated the law in the antitrust case.
> Can you clarify?
Just based on this.
The Army reading list
Many companies do this. H&R block will give you a "loan" check when you fill out your taxes, based on what you will get back from the government. How is what this website does different? They are giving people products based on how much money Microsoft will owe them. What is the big deal? Nobody is forcing people to use that service.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
They aren't basing it on the concept that you couldn't make an informed decision, they are basing it on MS's anticompetitive practices that basically destroy competition.
Lawyers were hired because MS was breaking anti-monopoly laws, not because you paid too much for windows. It's the concept that - were MS not so heavy-handed and dominating, there might be a lot more competing products. If there were competing products, you would have had more choice, and may have chosen something else.
Really, I think that the settlement should pay out those that belonged to companies destroyed by MS, they're the ones that by far took the brunt of anti-trust.
You may be happy with windows, I myself don't mind XP overly much. But if it weren't for MS, there might be something just as good, possibly better. We'll never know because very few were able to ever reach a workable status before being destroyed by MS, except for OS/Linux mainly due to availability, freedom, and wide distribution (not to mention dedication of many individuals who make OS possible).
The market stopped being fair once money came into it. THe market stopped being fair when businesses stopped being locality driven. The market stopped being fair when the business owner stopped knowing all the customers who came into his store. The market stopped being fair a long long time ago.
The MSFreePC site is still accepting applications for their "instant settlement" and they say that they will be honoring claims even if they ultimately lose in court: "We will fully honor all of the terms of the MSfreePC.com web site and will not be asking you for money or taking back product that has been made available to qualifying consumers, even if we do not receive payment from the Settlement Administrator" This means that you can get your $100 worth of free Lindows software AND file a legitimate claim to get your $100 from the settlement! Woo hoo!
The fact that you're offered the chance to get part of the money they illegally overcharged you with is in recognition that for many people there was no real choice. It wasn't about "making an informed purchase" but about customer being given the choice of Microsoft or nothing because of Microsofts illegal practices.
If you don't want it, don't take it. But don't go around whining because the government upholds the law.
If you think anti trust laws should be repealed, fine, but if they do, don't come whining when you get shafted left right and center by companies that get powerful enough to dictate whatever price they choose.
Michael Robertson has a history of aggressive yet haphazard business models and this is not the first legal smackdown one of his companies has received.
When he was at MP3.com his "strategy" was to confront the music industry head-on, effectively trying to take the banana from the 800 pound gorilla. It wasn't until he launched the infamous myMP3.com service and the copyright violation lawsuits started pouring in that he attempted any sort of amicable agreement with the industry. Surely we haven't forgotten the massive legal smackdown MP3.com incurred as a result.
Robertson's strategy with the Microsoft rebate smacks of the same confrontational and haphazard business decisions that doomed his earlier business.
"Because of their anti-competitive tactics, consumers have paid billions of dollars more than they would have been likely to had Microsoft played fair."
How do you come to this conclusion? Microsoft Windows costs $99, $30 cheaper than MacOS. The so-called law MS broke is so vague, they didn't even know they broke it until they were convicted. There are no strict definitions of what constitutes a monopoly in the Sherman antitrust act. Given the existence of products such as MacOS, Linux, various flavors of unix, OS/2, etc., why should MS be called a monopoly? Anti-trust laws are unfairly written and give the govt. too much power to destroy companies they don't like. Just look at Standard Oil as an example of a so-called harmful monopoly that managed to decrease the price of oil by 70% to consumers. There was no evidence of predatory pricing, which was the standard up until then to prosecute monopolies, but they were attacked anyway, because of other comapnies who couldn't compete, not through any goal to improve things for consumers.
Vote for Pedro