Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Settles Minnesota Antitrust Suit

An anonymous reader writes "According to the Star Tribune: 'The Microsoft antitrust suit in Minnesota was settled out-of-court Monday seven weeks after it began, but before the plaintiffs even finished putting on their case before the jury. Terms of the settlement won't be disclosed until they are finalized and presented to a Hennepin County judge for preliminary approval 'in early summer,' Microsoft said in a statement. The antitrust suit in Hennepin Country District Court sought as much as half a billion dollars from Microsoft for alleged overcharges of more than 1 million Minnesota consumers and businesses who bought Microsoft Windows, Word or Excel software between 1994 and 2001.'"

176 comments

  1. What is Minnesota doing... by nberardi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What is Minnesota running out of money just like the EU? So they try to hit up the cash cow, I think we will see more and more of these suits comming out, and all that it is going to do is make it so generic that they will get thrown out on the spot.

    1. Re:What is Minnesota doing... by macmaniac · · Score: 5, Interesting
      It's a pretty interesting application of anti-trust legislation: seems Minnesota tried to leverage that Microsoft was a monopoly which then put its competitors off, resulting in Minnesotans being overcharged for proprietary software, despite alternatives still existing.

      Seems like a bit of a stretch for a lawsuit to me. However, it must have gotten someone at Microsoft scared, else they wouldn't have settled it.

    2. Re:What is Minnesota doing... by mls · · Score: 5, Informative

      What is Minnesota running out of money just like the EU? So they try to hit up the cash cow...

      Well, MN is running out of money, but that isn't what this is about.

      MN was one of the original states in the anti-trust lawsuit. When the other states settled, we didn't.

      It just took this long to pan out.

      --
      -mls
    3. Re:What is Minnesota doing... by nberardi · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      They said it was filed 7 weeks ago, that doesn't seem like a long time to pan out. This reminds me of the cigarett battle with "big" tobaco. Where states got a ton of money to combat tobaco use and give out to people for health care. Then the states turned around and used that money for everything but the intended use. It is going to happen here, because the population of MN isn't going to see a dime.

    4. Re:What is Minnesota doing... by nberardi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is usually cheaper to settle out of court than put this in the public domain. Look at what happened to OJ for instance, he was found guilty, but everybody thinks he is guilty except in the eyes of the law. Microsoft doesn't care what the law thinks of them, they care what their customers think of them, and that is why it is always cheaper to settle, and not set a president.

    5. Re:What is Minnesota doing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny you should mention it. Minnesota was also one of the hold-outs in the tobacco lawsuits when the rest of the country settled. Won a big settlement, most of which went into the pockets of Mike Cerici (who later tried to run for the DFL Senate candidacy, only to lose to Mark Dayton in the primaries) and his lawyer buddies.

    6. Re:What is Minnesota doing... by dman123 · · Score: 1

      The trial began 7 weeks ago. It was filed a looooooooong time ago and took until now for the fun to begin.

      --

      --
      dman123 forever!
      Filtering out the -1s and 0s since 1999.
    7. Re:What is Minnesota doing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      Below Fail IT post FAILS IT!

    8. Re:What is Minnesota doing... by ePhil_One · · Score: 2, Insightful
      However, it must have gotten someone at Microsoft scared, else they wouldn't have settled it.

      I'm not sure. They may have just as well want Minnesota to sign a document with terms that they never would have agreed to under normal circumstances. MN gets a cash payout, but inadvertently indemifies MS against all future action, lest they have to pay back the money. We all know MS can be sneaky about the fine print.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisted little posts, all alike.
    9. Re:What is Minnesota doing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they really cared about what people thought, they could have settled this whole anti-trust thing back before it started and avoided 5 years of news coverage. Probably would have been a lot cheaper as well.

    10. Re:What is Minnesota doing... by mgoodman · · Score: 2, Informative

      Errr, except that OJ didn't really have the option to settle...

      And when he did have the option to settle in his civil suit, he didn't. And lost.

      I bow before you, king of screwed up analogies!

      --
      01100111 01100101 01110100 00100000 01101111 01110101 01110100 00100000 01101101 01101111 01110010 01100101 00101110
    11. Re:What is Minnesota doing... by strictnein · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Won a big settlement, most of which went into the pockets of Mike Cerici

      He and his buds only got about $250 million. (chump change) The state got $7 - $8 billion.

      What I loved about the results of that case was that when the public found out how much money ($250 million) that one little lawyers firm got a lot of people were pretty upset. But our friendly attorney general said that amount was "fair" (I'll give you one guess as to what political party he's affiliated with). I wonder how jealous the state's lawyers were when they saw the millions of dollars that Mr Cerici and his buds got in comparison to their public (albeit still good) wages.

    12. Re:What is Minnesota doing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The EU is running out of money. But that's not the reason I believe. It's never wise to completely dependend on one company. The EU knows that too.

    13. Re:What is Minnesota doing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I think you mean a precedent - oh wait - MS already run this country, maybe you are right :(

      MG

    14. Re:What is Minnesota doing... by Lord+Kano · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So they try to hit up the cash cow, I think we will see more and more of these suits comming out, and all that it is going to do is make it so generic that they will get thrown out on the spot.

      The suits against the tobacco and gun industries have opened the floodgates. Whenever a state needs revenue it'll sue the biggest unpopular company it can find.

      Personally I don't believe that a monetary solution is what an entity would go after if they REALLY wanted to stop Microsofts practices. They'd seek to punish them by forcing them to open their code.

      THAT would alter Microsoft's behavior overnight.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    15. Re:What is Minnesota doing... by cdf123 · · Score: 1
      I don't think that will fly.

      IANAL, but my understanding is that any contract that allows one of the parties to break a law without penalties is thrown out in court. So a contract that allows M$ to continue overpricing and maintaining an illegal monopoly would not be valid, and in 2 years or so they could go back and do it again.

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't write a contract that breaks a law and expect it to hold up in court for your defense.

    16. Re:What is Minnesota doing... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Actually OJ was found innocent in a criminal court, guilty (or rather 'responsable') in a civil court of law under a lawsuit brought by family members of the people killed, and then innocent again on appeal under that lawsuit.

    17. Re:What is Minnesota doing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "... and that is why it is always cheaper to settle, and not set a president."

      Then why didn't the Supreme Court settle and why did they set Bush to be the president?

  2. Good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Or else Minnesota may have sent Brock Lesnar and Jesse Ventura after them. They could easily beat Gates and Ballmer in a tag match.

    1. Re:Good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or else Minnesota may have sent Brock Lesnar

      Forgive me, but I can't take seriously a man who has tits

    2. Re:Good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are pecs, and you're clearly jealous.

    3. Re:Good thing by Otter · · Score: 1
      Actually, at the moment, Ballmer might have a real shot against Lesnar. I still wouldn't hold out much hope for Gates, though.

      NFL hopeful Lesnar injured in motorcycle accident

      As OpinionJournal noted, "By contrast, we're hopeful he'll be OK."

    4. Re:Good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you talking about Lesnar or Ballmer?

    5. Re:Good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is... Lesnar was barely injured, and he'll resume training Wednesday. Last year, he was in a boating accident where his leg got hit by the propellor... he wrestled a few days later. At Wrestlemania last year, he did a move and landed on his head, knocking him silly, but otherwise leaving no long term damage (that anyone's aware of).

    6. Re:Good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linus Torvolds.

    7. Re:Good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure.

      1. When Microsoft settles out of court, they never admit guilt. So any subsequent lawsuit will have to start from scratch.

      2. They will try to pay in software (which costs them pennies), I'm sure.

      3. None of this does nothing to restore competition, which I tought was the purpose of an antitrust lawsuit (besides recovering customer losses).

    8. Re:Good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, those are tits. Call me old-fashioned, but I think tits look better on women.

    9. Re:Good thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't tell the difference between muscle and fat? A woman's breasts are primary fat. Pecs are primary muscle.

    10. Re:Good thing by jdwest · · Score: 1

      Not so fast, my friend. Methinks Dancin' Monkey Boy could do some serious damage in the ring. He's got that WWF stage persona and primal scream down pat.

      --

      Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet ...
  3. Is this the new MS strategy? by koa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just throw money at every piece of litigation they are in? Are they trying to artificially boost their public perception by being in as little lawsuits as possible?

    --
    ....move along....nothing to see here....
    1. Re:Is this the new MS strategy? by Ian_Bailey · · Score: 2, Informative
    2. Re:Is this the new MS strategy? by the_mad_poster · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Does that surprise you? If you can throw money at a problem and that costs you less than getting in the fight, that's what you should do, as a company. It's not like they're strapped for cash.

      Besides, the plaintiff is under no obligation to take a settlement offer, so they must have found the terms acceptable based on their complaint.

      --
      Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
    3. Re:Is this the new MS strategy? by prell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the chief motive for MS to settle these lawsuits is that, written into the settlements is that, in exchange for money, Microsoft acknowledges no cupability or guilt as stated in the indictment/whatever. I think that's a standard clause of these settlements. Someone will have to correct me if I'm wrong.

      Has Microsoft not settled one of these? I imagine if they didn't settle, and therefore accepted blame (if that's indeed the case), it would set a precedent that could really cost MS some money in the long run.

      IANALBIWLO (I am not a lawyer, but I watch Law & Order).

    4. Re:Is this the new MS strategy? by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      Unless you're in the right, and want to prevent other bottom feeders from trying the same sort of tactics. In that case, you don't throw money at the problem, you throw lots and lots of lawyers.

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    5. Re:Is this the new MS strategy? by Mike+Hawk · · Score: 1

      And those lawyers are free?

    6. Re:Is this the new MS strategy? by Gaijin42 · · Score: 1

      The bottom feeders are already out against MS. Everyone who had even a potential case (The feds, the states, and europe) (individuals are covered via the large suits) has already filed a case.

      Therefore MS can only save money by getting rid of these things quickly. Once all the suits are settled, they are in the clear, because everyone who was against them has given up their rights by settling in the first place.

      There are no new people who can make suits, because they were already represented by the bigger suits.

    7. Re:Is this the new MS strategy? by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1


      They haven't (yet) settled the EU case. In fact, one of the sticking points to settlement was the ability to use that case as precedence for future EU cases--the EU guy insisted that it be allowed as precedent setting, and Microsoft rejected those terms. For exactly the reason that you mention--the EU already has 1-3 new cases lined up, on similar grounds, that intends to use the current one as precedence--which will mean both higher awards and a faster time to litigate.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    8. Re:Is this the new MS strategy? by Vandil+X · · Score: 1

      Microsoft is settling as many court cases as possible so they have more resources available to market their upcoming technologies, such as Windows XP SP2, Windows Server 2003 SP1, Windows 2000 SP5, the new WMP upgrade with MS's music store, Microsoft's video iPod-like device, and the usual "any time now" Longhorn beta 1 stuff.

      --
      Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
    9. Re:Is this the new MS strategy? by aastanna · · Score: 1

      Everyone who had even a potential case (The feds, the states, and europe) (individuals are covered via the large suits) has already filed a case.

      Microsoft operates all over the world, there are still plenty of countries who could sue. Personally I'm hoping Canada gets in on the act, we could use a bit of cash too :)

  4. Other Sources by JaxWeb · · Score: 5, Informative

    PC World

    Forbes

    FT.com (A good one!)

    --
    - Jax
  5. As I live in MN... by teamhasnoi · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I've been following this somewhat. Minnesota was one of the original states in the anti-trust trial that went nowhere. Frankly, I'm expecting the same from this. Coupons, vouchers, and 'free' educational software that will be charged against the judgment at full retail value.

    Score one for the little guy? I doubt it.

    MS should have been broken up like Ma Bell a long time ago.

    1. Re:As I live in MN... by On+Lawn · · Score: 1


      Score one for the little guy? I doubt it.

      It seems to me that any settlement on behalf of the people should result in compensation going directly to the people involved. And compensation is always half of a rememdy.

    2. Re:As I live in MN... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cry me a river.

    3. Re:As I live in MN... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, right. Ma bell. Since, you know, Microsoft has a monopoly on a limited physical resource. Oh, wait. They don't. You can go and use any of dozens of alternatives.

      And "overcharging" is a laugh. If it's too much, don't freaking buy it. Simple, eh?

    4. Re:As I live in MN... by Gaijin42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The microsoft to Ma Bell analogy holds little water.

      Bell was a large company, broken into several smaller companies, each allowing to provide service to a given area. No restrictions were made on what type of product each baby bell was allowed to produce, or the prices each baby bell could set (other than the pricing regulations already in effect)

      The other large anti-trust case, (Standard Oil) was the same. Location of service were split into multiple companies, not type of service.

      Microsoft is a producer of goods, not a distributor of goods. The things that they do distribute (Software downloads, services) aren't really location based. As Slashdot is well aware, the internet has no boundries.

      There are 0/None/Nada precidents for splitting up a company based on product, or telling a company what products they can create.

      While MS did (and may continue to, depending on who you ask) act uncompetitavley, this power would not be removed by any logical splitup.

      If you split them into OS vs Office for example, the major source of anti-compete accusations in the past was bundling of features within the OS, or forced contracts on OEMs. Neither of these would be fixed by this (proposed) split.

      As stated, geographical splits don't really make sense for a virtual company. You could split up distribution, but MS doesnt really do their own distribution except for downloads. Everything is already passed out to OEMs or chains like Best Buy.

      The only thing you could do would be to make the internal departments act like Black Boxes to eachother. The office team doesn't get any inside info on the OS that isnt available to other developers.

      Even with that, MS is still a defacto monopoly. Very few buisiness apps or games run on non-MS hardware (Discounting mainframe and huge unix apps like SAP that MS isn't even competing with)

      In office they have a defacto standard, because everyone wants their files to be readable by as many people as possible. The new XML file formats will significantly lower the barrier for entry into that market tho.

      And finally, The fact that Mac and Linux are claiming such good marketing position, is in fact evidince AGAINST MS being given a radical splitup. If you really want MS to get split up, make Apple and Redhat say that they are closing because MS drove them into the ground.

      As long as they are around, all MS will get is "corrective" action.

    5. Re:As I live in MN... by angle_slam · · Score: 1

      Agreed. They've never been accused of using their OS "monopoly" to leverage their Office "monopoly." Split them up, and you two "monopolies" instead of one.

    6. Re:As I live in MN... by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      "And "overcharging" is a laugh. If it's too much, don't freaking buy it. Simple, eh?"

      This is what I don't understand. I am not a North American, but I don't see how this works. If A makes an offer X to B, and B accepts it, we have a contract (there must be valuable consideration, but that's not important right now). If A subsequently sends him an invoice for X+C, we have "overcharging". Maybe they would get away with it here and there, accidents happen, but if it starts occurring on a regular basis it's criminal fraud, right? And yet people are saying Microsoft "overcharged" customers. Surely they don't mean in the criminal sense. Presumably someone had to come up with some approximate figure to stick on the "real" price tag. And why don't we know that figure?
      You know, if someone from Free software were ever slapped for undercharging, you bet I'd be laughing manaically for several minutes.
      Cuh... I dunno. Anyway, so is "overcharged" overloaded in the antitrust scope?

    7. Re:As I live in MN... by ragecgi · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I live here too, but how do I get my cut of that pie from both MS products I bought between those dates stated in the article??

      Also, what if I cannot prove I OWNED a licence back in 97??

      long sice trashed those boxes....

      On Xp now, love it, but as usual with MN, I HIGHLY doubt I will ever see a red cent of that settlement my wonderfull government got for me, on my behalf.

    8. Re:As I live in MN... by Ben+Hutchings · · Score: 1

      They have been accused of using undocumented Windows APIs in Office to gain some kind of advantage. However, I never saw any details along with such accusations. Office may be using undocumented features, but probably only the sort of implementation details that many developers accidentally rely on.

    9. Re:As I live in MN... by sakasune · · Score: 1

      no, its more like A makes a product with flaws but sells it for X to B, where X represents a large, unfair price. B has no choice but to take the price because either 1)most of their apps they want, only work on Windo...i mean Product A or 2)it came with the box they bought (HP, Dell, etc).

      --
      "You're arguing for a universe with fewer waffles in it," I said. "I'm prepared to call that cowardice."
    10. Re:As I live in MN... by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      You appear to have missed the point. Who decides what is a "fair price"? And what is it, for Windows? The things you mention may be taken into consideration when making a choice, but to say you have "no choice" is just ridiculous. I'm sure Mac users would chuckle if you told them they had "no choice".

    11. Re:As I live in MN... by sakasune · · Score: 1

      Well, apparently MS gets to "decide" the fair price. Windows and Office, I dont think they are worth the price they charge. And for those reasons and a few others, I AM a Mac user. Yes, there are choices, linux and mac....but if you have certain applications that only work on the Windows platform (like where I work), there isn't much choice.

      --
      "You're arguing for a universe with fewer waffles in it," I said. "I'm prepared to call that cowardice."
    12. Re:As I live in MN... by 4of12 · · Score: 1

      As long as they [Apple & Red Hat] are around, all MS will get is "corrective" action.

      Exactly.

      So the recent concerns about the slow pace at which the consent decree's prescribed API licensing and documentation are having any effect on bringing about new competition in the server space are zero surprise to anyone in this forum.

      As mentioned in an earlier /. story, Microsoft is making a very pragmatic push to buy legal settlements as part of a business strategy.

      How much will it cost them to settle with Massachusetts? I'm sure MS can afford it.

      In the longer term, the company has only to worry whether a lid can be kept on the cost of legal settlements. Since they're not in a line of business that creates human health problems (the cost of which is rising at a terrific rate) like tobacco or asbestos (or possibly even fastfood, MS will probably be able to play this strategy out for some time.

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
  6. Yeah, whatever... by shrykk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Microsoft are like that car company (Ford???) who decided it was cheaper to compensate burn sufferers and the bereaved than fix the gaping flaw that made their fuel tanks tend to catch fire.

    Microsoft can pay fines out of their petty cash, while perpetrating similar tricks over and over.

    --
    #define struct union /* Reduce memory usage */
    1. Re:Yeah, whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Until some court decides: "Fine $1, but clean up your act." Happened to restaurant company I won't name.

    2. Re:Yeah, whatever... by TheJavaGuy · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Don't forget Microsoft previously paid $1.55 billion to settle similar suits in nine other states and the District of Columbia.

      --
      Opera Watch - An Opera browser blog.
    3. Re:Yeah, whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if its cash it counts,
      if its in software licenses, it doesnt count as anything.

    4. Re:Yeah, whatever... by Goobermunch · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In all fairness to Ford, they were simply applying a straightforward economic risk assesment when they released the Pinto.

      Evaluate your risk of harm, evaluate the cost of dealing with the results of the harm, and compare with the cost of

    5. Re:Yeah, whatever... by Goobermunch · · Score: 1

      D'oh!

      In all fairness to Ford, they were simply applying a straightforward economic risk assesment when they released the Pinto.

      Evaluate your risk of harm, evaluate the cost of dealing with the results of the harm, and compare with the cost of repairing the design. If it costs more to make the vehicle safer than it will cost to compensate those who are likely to be injured, then your conduct is arguably not negligent.

      What screwed Ford over was that the plaintiff's lawyers brought in the evidence that they had done the cost-benefit analysis. The jury went ballistic.

      --AC

    6. Re:Yeah, whatever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, what screwed Ford is that their assessment of damage claims was way off, and therefore risk assessment was baloney. Don't think they still aren't doing the same thing.

    7. Re:Yeah, whatever... by angle_slam · · Score: 1
      I believe it was GM.

      But that case was a joke. A drunk driver ran into the victims at an incredible rate of speed. Yet it is GM's fault? The victims just went after the deep pocket. Just like the MS case. (Jaguar and Panther cost more than XP, how is Windows overpriced?)

  7. Settled for what? by Gothmolly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Free" copies of WindowsXP? "Free" copies of MS-Word? a $4 coupon off your next purchase of $600 software? MS is just extending their monopoly, probably dangling a carrot in front of the schools, after all, who can fault them if its 'for the kids' ?

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Settled for what? by Killswitch1968 · · Score: 1

      I know. Nothing annoys me more than when companies give stuff away for free. Costco was giving out these "free samples" but really it was a ploy to suck me into their monopoly. Needless to say they're on my boycott list, as well as every other company in the universe.

      --

      Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
  8. Why the gubamint? by gr8_phk · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I don't understand. If the people of that state were overcharged, why is the state getting a big pile of money?

    Could be the state got overcharged, but there are enough other cases where it works the way I interpreted this one to ask anyway.

    1. Re:Why the gubamint? by nberardi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For the same reason states got cigeratte money instead of the public for smoking and putting up with second hand smoke. Then they turned around and used that money for everything but the intended purpose. Which I really think what MN is hoping to do here.

    2. Re:Why the gubamint? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're probably right. Check into the Metro area light-rail project. Original estimates were somewhere below $500 million; last I checked, actual costs were well above $800 million.

      That's right - $0.8 BILLION dollars for a train that will connect downtowns Minneapolis and Saint Paul. That's it. Hopefully, in the next ten years, they'll build a line that runs from each of the downtowns to the Mall of America. Of course, that'll cost extra.

      Not to mention that now that Metro Transit has no money, they couldn't reach a deal with the bus drivers' union, so there was no public transportation at all for 41 days. The strike pushed back the unveiling of the light-rail system, too.

      Minnesota is a fucked place to be.

    3. Re:Why the gubamint? by plover · · Score: 3, Informative
      No, Minnesota took their tobacco settlement money ($4.5 billion) and after enriching the law firm (to the tune of $450,000,000 which averaged out to around $3000/hr for everyone in the company, including the janitorial staff) actually put a pile of it aside for the intended purpose of preventing kids from smoking. They created a project called "Target Market" and they paid for lots of commercials featuring stuff like body bags being dumped on the steps of R.J.Reynolds Corp., etc. The campaign was supposed to be "edgy", "hip" and "relevant" and all those other current marketing words. They were somewhat interesting, but damned if I know if it worked, I'm older than that and I've never smoked.

      Anyway, this year the state eyeballed that big ole Pile-O-Money and said, "Hmm...health of kids vs. budget deficit and a no new taxes pledge." You get 0 points for guessing which one won. Research has shown that youth smoking is up in the six months following the end of the campaign, but whether it's a true cause and effect is anyone's guess.

      --
      John
    4. Re:Why the gubamint? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      For the same reason states got cigeratte money instead of the public for smoking and putting up with second hand smoke. Then they turned around and used that money for everything but the intended purpose. Which I really think what MN is hoping to do here.

      The Tobacco lawsuit was based on the idea that the state had to pay extra health-care costs as a result of fraudulant marketing of cigarettes.

      Aside from their own computer systems, I don't see how the state can personally claim a loss from Microsoft's monopoly. But the point is moot. The state was not the plaintiff. The state simply represented the people of Minnesota in a class-action suit. It is the people who will supposedly collect the payout from the settlement.

    5. Re:Why the gubamint? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      states got the money for the money they had to spend on state public health care to treat state citizens for the effects of smoking.
      In effect, the states were reimbursed for the cash spend on state public health care. The money was never intended for the general population.

  9. Re:heh.... by Adriax · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What we need is for the goverment to start seizing 10% of microsoft's assets a year until they change their ways.

    Not enough to kill them off (which would be devastating, considering winXP would stop running), but enough to wake them up.

    --
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
  10. I wonder.. by mikeophile · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Will the one million overcharged customers be seeing any of this settlement? Or is this just a penalty being assessed by the state?

    If so, I can see why M$ would settle.

    A win against them in court by the state would make it a lot easier for a class-action suit to also win, setting even further precedent in other states.

    1. Re:I wonder.. by TheJavaGuy · · Score: 1
      Will the one million overcharged customers be seeing any of this settlement? Or is this just a penalty being assessed by the state?

      NO and NO, the lawyers will get every penny of it.

      --
      Opera Watch - An Opera browser blog.
    2. Re:I wonder.. by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      I thought it was going to the starving artists to compensate for those Evil Content Pirates(tm)... Oops, wrong evil monopoly!

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
  11. Get ready for the Linux FUD.. by -tji · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Microsoft is going full throttle to settle all outstanding lawsuits. It wouldn't do to have a bunch of outstanding legal battles while you're throwing mud at Linux and questioning the legal security of the businesses that are using it.

    Regardless of how the SCO thing works out, you can be sure that MSFT will be using this FUD when trying to close deals with big business customers.

  12. I didn't suspect this to happen so soon by mistermoonlight · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm glad to hear it. At least some states are sticking to their intentions of getting the money they were screwed out of, or screwed themselves out of.

    *begin offtopic*

    And yes, we need the money. The current governer has decided that his priorities are with the suburbanites, further widening the schism between upper and lower class.

    (BALLMER)TAX CUTS! TAX CUTS! TAX CUTS!(/BALLMER)

    *end offtopic*

    1. Re:I didn't suspect this to happen so soon by haapi · · Score: 1

      *resume OT* The current governor pisses-off plenty of suburbanites, you can be sure. *end OT* :-)

      --
      Well, apparently, you only have to fool the majority of people for a little while.
    2. Re:I didn't suspect this to happen so soon by kcb93x · · Score: 1

      We should have a Minnesota Forum for /.ers. That's what we need.

      Make a forum for each state, and/or topic, /.. Let's not *just* discuss news. Let's have an open forum thread.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  13. Minnesota simply looked at the chances... by Marnhinn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Also a fellow Minnesotan (and proud to be one), I can see why they chose to settle the suit. It may not have helped the little guy, but given Microsoft more or less got off from the Federal Government, chances of this suit succeeding are very slim. Also - MS has been paying out CASH for quite a few of it's settlements - from the article "Microsoft previously paid $1.55 billion to settle similar suits in nine other states and the District of Columbia."

    Hopefully this will result in that type of settlement and not the "free educational software" [which is ironic as the suit is because Microsoft was a monopoly - letting them put their software in schools only increases the monopoly].

    --
    There is always a frontier where there is an open and willing mind
    1. Re:Minnesota simply looked at the chances... by jasondlee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That doesn't say it was paid in cash. I think the OP has a very good point...

      jason

      --
      jason
      Have a good day?! Impossible! I'm at work!
    2. Re:Minnesota simply looked at the chances... by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      Microsoft more or less got off from the Federal Government, chances of this suit succeeding are very slim.


      Microsoft got off because the Bush administration was elected into office, not because they case against them was bad. Remember that they were actually found guilty?

      I think the case was settled because MN needs cash right now because of the continued budget deficits. The fact that they decided to settle while the prosecution was still making its case (and before Microsoft even got a chance to defend itself) is pretty good evidence that MS thought they were going to lose. I only hope they didn't settle for software and coupons. MS should at least bleed a little cash for this.

      --
      AccountKiller
  14. M$ Settlements by blutrot · · Score: 5, Informative
    On the same case:
    ``Wash.-based software giant to reach trial. Microsoft has reached settlements in nine states and Washington, D.C., totaling $1.5 billion, including $1.1 billion in California. Cases were dismissed in 16 other states.'' Minnesota plaintiffs near court date with Microsoft on overcharge claims


    This leaves us with 24 more states that have not come to any decision or have not gone after Microsoft.

    Minnesota's citizens were overcharged between $10 to $70 a year. 9.7 million licenses were overcharged from 1994 to 2001. Silicon Valley
  15. Is M$SFT Guilty? by TheJavaGuy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Here is a qoute from the article:

    Microsoft attorneys said the company had done nothing wrong...

    Then why settle even before the plaintiffs even finished putting on their case before the jury?

    Could it be the case was compelling?

    --
    Opera Watch - An Opera browser blog.
    1. Re:Is M$SFT Guilty? by DaHat · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Or maybe because they didn't want to go to court and have a long and drawn out case.

      Yes, if they fought it they'd have a chance of winning, but by handing out settlements now and then they save time and money that can be used in fighting other cases, or just sat on.

      No matter which option they choose, Microsoft has plenty of money to burn in such cases.

    2. Re:Is M$SFT Guilty? by Goobermunch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, it's more likely that Minnesota's AG realized that they weren't going to be able to convince a jury of every element they needed to hit in order to obtain a favorable verdict.

      The situation goes like this:

      MN isn't sure they'll win, but MSFT isn't sure that it will be able to overcome local prejudice. What do you do? Give it to an unpredictable jury? Or make a decision everyone can live with?

      --AC

    3. Re:Is M$SFT Guilty? by donutello · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let me play the devils advocate here.

      Could it be because the legal system in the country is so screwed up that it is simpler for a company to just settle every lawsuit it faces, regardless of merit, than it is to fight the lawsuit and win? Of course you could just as easily argue that fighting the case would have cost MN more than it would get if it won compared to what it got in the settlement.

      There are two sides to every coin. One thing I think we can all agree to is that there is something seriously wrong with a legal system when the cost of prosecuting or defending a case is a significant factor in the direction a case goes.

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
    4. Re:Is M$SFT Guilty? by AndrewHowe · · Score: 1

      It sounds like there's not enough competition between your laywers to push the costs down. But you have millions of the fuckers! Perhaps a recently laid off IT worker would have luck in the legal "profession".
      It's an old lament that our (UK) legal system is always becoming Americanis^hzed. A bit ironic since you nicked it off us in the first place... But anyway yeah, it's stupid here too.

    5. Re:Is M$SFT Guilty? by Goobermunch · · Score: 1

      Or could it be because we have a legal system that allows independant rational actors to determine the value of their rights and the price for which they'll part with them?

      97% of cases in this country settle. Reasons for settlement vary. Cost of prosecuting or defending the case is one factor. However, you don't just balance the cost of litigating against the amount you want to win. Instead, you have to address the multitude of variables that constitute the jury.

      Because the jury is the ultimate arbiter of fact in a case, you not only have to prove that the other party has, in some way violated your rights, you also have to prove the extent to which your rights were violated. Finally, you've got to get them to agree on a dollar amount.

      The certainty of settlement looks a hell of a lot more attractive now, doesn't it? Settlement is a wonderfully rational option that hearkens back to traditional notions of contract. You can see why businesses so often see it as viable.

      --AC

    6. Re:Is M$SFT Guilty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the fact that lawyers are "overpaid" which drives the cost up - it's the fact that liberal judges have over the years enforced ridiculous provisions in the law in an attempt to impose their brand of socialism on the world. This is most true in criminal cases (for example, last week a convicted child molester was freed from prison because a judge ruled that he was not given the right to "face his accuser" - a 15-year-old girl who committed suicide after the incident) but also applies to civil cases where judges over the years have encouraged huge jury awards based on bizarre interpretations of the constitution and existing laws.

    7. Re:Is M$SFT Guilty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why settle even before the plaintiffs even finished putting on their case before the jury?

      Could it be the case was compelling?


      It could be that the case would cost more for Microrsoft in the long run to defend (regardless of outcome) rather than just settle. It's not that hard to figure out, and has been discussed about 3209582395823958 times on here everytime theres a new MS settlement story.

  16. Between 1994 and 2001... by Patris_Magnus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There was other software available. The desktop users may have not wanted to try and learn new/other software or had an IT dept. that was willing to administer multiple party apps., point being that we should learn to live with our decisions instead of suing over them... Something to think about.

    1. Re:Between 1994 and 2001... by NullProg · · Score: 3, Informative

      Hmm,

      No there wasn't even if you wanted to. Don't you remember the Licensing restrictions Microsoft made the PC Makers sign in order to get attractive windows pricing?

      Typical consumer call to Dell (or IBM, Compaq, Acer, Gateway, etc).

      Consumer: I want a computer with OS/2 on it.
      Dell: We only ship with Windows.
      Consumer: Then I want a computer with Dr. DOS on it.
      Dell: We only ship with Windows
      Consumer: Can I have a computer without an OS for $100 less?
      Dell: No, we only ship with Windows

      Enjoy,

      --
      It's just the normal noises in here.
    2. Re:Between 1994 and 2001... by Patris_Magnus · · Score: 1

      I can make the same comments about computer hardware. Dell, Compaq, Gateway, etc... were/are not the only place to buy computers. I don't know about you, but I believe the only "real" reason to go with a big mfgr. is for the customer support. I have been building my own pc systems since before windows 3.1. I have made the choice of having control of what hardware and software goes into the box over having an overseas technician at my beck and call. I have had that decision bite me a few times (hardware compatibility) in the past but I live by my decisions and accept the consequences, which is really my point.

    3. Re:Between 1994 and 2001... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Funnily enough, I always managed to find a PC manufacturer willing to legally sell me a PC that was either OS less, or had something other than an MS OS on it. Am I really in the minority here?

    4. Re:Between 1994 and 2001... by NullProg · · Score: 1

      I could always buy for myself a white box PC from a local Mom and Pop store (Naked PC in Microsoft terms) without an O/S. But at the coporate level we could never buy brand names in quantity (Dell, IBM, Compaq, HP etc) without windows, even if we asked for it. Hell, we were an IBM shop and couldn't get OS/2 PC's in 1996 because it would violate the contract they had with Microsoft to distribute Win95.

      It's not that IBM wanted to ship Win95, but when your OS/2 customer base is at 20-30% and your Windows base is at 60%, which OS do you need to ship with your PC's?

      A Typical IT response at the Bank I worked for was What do you mean we have to re-image 50 machines to OS/2! :)

      Enjoy,

      --
      It's just the normal noises in here.
    5. Re:Between 1994 and 2001... by Long-EZ · · Score: 1
      I have been building my own pc systems since...

      How many times is this lame M$ defense going to be used to justify anticompetitive OEM marketing licenses based on an OS monopoly?

      I'll say it one more time. Did you build a notebook PC? I didn't think so. We are only now starting to see good notebook PCs that ship with Linux or without an OS.

      So, yeah, you can put together off-the-shelf parts and make a desktop PC. But if, like so many of us, a notebook PC is your computing choice, there were no options other than buying a notebook PC, PAYING THE @$#%ING MICROSOFT TAX, and then installing Linux. And you couldn't even sell the Windoze you were forced to buy to someone who wanted it. The CDs were all effectively labeled "Warning, this is a highly customized version of WinBlows that will only work on a PC that already shipped with the same version of the crapiest and most popular OS in the world."

      Finally, most PC consumers don't want to build PCs from parts, so even though it's possible to assemble a desktop PC, not being able to buy a Linux PC is still a monopolistic impediment that prevents competing OS vendors from being able to compete on anything close to a level playing field.

      So please stop saying, "Just build your own PC like I did."

      --
      >> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
    6. Re:Between 1994 and 2001... by Patris_Magnus · · Score: 1

      No other companies make notebook computers that use another OS besided Windows? What about Mac? Oh, wait... They overcharge for both their hardware and OS... Actually, during the time in question there were (and still are) companies that sold generic laptops with no OS. If you wanted to go with the big name (Dell et al), you got what you got. The point still stands, you make your choices, live with them.

    7. Re:Between 1994 and 2001... by Long-EZ · · Score: 1
      The generic notebook PCs available during the time in question cost $100 less, were a year behind the state of the art, used inferior parts and had much lower reliability and poor support. They weren't a viable option.

      The point is, Microsoft DID use their OS monopoly to severely limit choices for consumers, squelch healthy competition, and maintain their monopoly. Consumers were harmed by Microsoft's unfair and illegal anticompetitive practices, as the courts have repeatedly demonstrated. Technology suffered too, as technically superior OS options were suppressed.

      The penalties for Microsoft's repeated and willful antitrust violations need to be in line with the severity of the crime. We need to stop allowing Microsoft to continue to act like a monopoly, then pay a small "cost of doing business" fine. It's more like a monopoly tax. Given that the fines are often paid in the form of Windows PCs for school children, they probably come out of the Microsoft advertising budget. It's outrageous.

      I don't see how you can defend Microsoft's marketing tactics. Do you believe the bully should always win, just because he's the biggest? If monopolies are so great, why not have the government control all software development, under the guise of standards for interoperability?

      Microsoft has consistently abused their own customers because they're a captive audience. Consumers need to wake up and fight against this monopoly which benefits only itself. There are much better choices, and consumers need to know this.

      --
      >> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
    8. Re:Between 1994 and 2001... by Patris_Magnus · · Score: 1

      In response to your first point: I don't know if I agree with your statement but what I do know for a fact is that governments and municipalities have little need for "state of the art" equipment. For the engineering departments of these organizations that may have a need, there are superior choices to PC/Windows for these applications. these systems are generally even more expensive (ESRI ARC running on a SUN runs into the many thousands of dollars). So you buy cheep hardware (The best Dell is still cheaper than a middle of the line SUN) and bitch about the OS being, in your opinion, too expensive.

      As to your other arguments: I have never defended MS's marketing tactics. I am simply saying that what you and others perceive as being overpriced is actually cheaper in the long run. Having a multitude of application software to choose from that is specifically designed for a MS platform has value. Third party vendors do not have to pay to support other operating systems, which lowers their costs that get passed on to you as cheap software choices. If you want to complain about over priced products, try looking at licensing costs for engineering packages such as Autodesk Inventor.

      As I have said before, other choices have always been available, they are just usually more expensive than a PC/Windows package.

    9. Re:Between 1994 and 2001... by Long-EZ · · Score: 1
      You are completely missing my point. I never said Windows is too expensive. My only complaint about the price was about being forced to pay for an operating system I didn't want and wouldn't use.

      My complaints with Windows are:

      A monopoly invariably results in inferior products. That seems obvious, as there is no competition, and therefore no need to worry about the consumer. Companies should compete on merit, not marketing dirty tricks.

      A monopoly exists to maintain the monopoly, not to compete to satisfy market demands which would benefit consumers.

      While a monopoly would seem to bring standards and order to a messy market, it quickly degenerates into "standards" that only perpetuate the monopoly. Every time the proprietary DOC file format changes to force people to buy yet another new version of a word processor, the monopoly wins and consumers lose. Every time someone puts up a website that uses Internet Explorer's proprietary extensions instead of the perfectly good HTML standards, we move a little closer to the bad old days when there was little chance of viewing a document created on a different computer or using a different application.

      Open source software provides real choices. Consumers pick what they like, on a fair and level playing field. Sure, it'd be nice if there was only one Linux GUI, instead of Gnome, KDE, etc. But that sort of thing is minor compared to the bad situation that arises from a monopoly.

      I'm not one of the Linux fans that insists on everything being free. I like free enterprise. If you have a better product, you should make money. I purchase nicely integrated Linux distros, and I don't save much money over buying Windows. In a competitive environment, It's mostly about choice.

      Repeat after me. Monopoly... bad.

      --
      >> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
  17. A shame... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    I'm from Minnesota and lived there during those times, furthermore I used lots of Microsoft software... it's a shame I didn't pay for all of it.

  18. Nothing but... by deadmongrel · · Score: 1

    Cost of doing business.

    1. Re:Nothing but... by Pizentios · · Score: 1

      Yeah, unfortunatuly they seem to beable to afford any and all fines that get thrown at them...to bad really, since the idea really behind a find is to make you realize that you did somthing wrong.

      --
      -Pizentios
  19. Yup. Think of the kids. by eclectro · · Score: 2, Interesting


    I'm not the only one who immediately knew what the settlement terms are.

    Free software for schools, and $5 dollars off your next X-box purchase.

    And probably a few million for the cash-strapped state.

    "Toss them a bone."

    It works every time. And it's back to business as usually for our favorite megamonopoly.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  20. RE: Failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    NO, YUO!

  21. Wow. by hot_Karls_bad_cavern · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yep, i agree. Will someone please address this issue? i know we live in a time when a law suit is both a legit way to "right a wrong" and a way to intimidate, hush, or exact financial ruin upon someone.

    How long will MS keep paying what looks to be hush money to make problems go away before someone notices that they are not chaging?

    That is, of course, only one issue...i'm worried about what nberardi is worried about: at what point will legit suits against MS get tossed out because it looks/smells like another "let's hit MS's deep pockets" suit?

  22. Shut Up, communist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    MS should have been broken up like Ma Bell a long time ago.


    Why, so that some foreign corporation pushing Linux could come in and take away more American jobs by pushing inferior products? Fact is, Microsoft got to where they are today by making better products that people wanted.

    1. Re:Shut Up, communist. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Wrong,

      MS got where they are now mostly because they out spent and out marketed everyone else in their industry (you can do that with several billions of $$$ at your disposal) and utilizing predatory business practices goes a long way towards culling the fledgling competition. Linux an inferior product?!? Get back into your Windows 98 corner and don't come out until you've removed some more spyware and reboot a few times and think about what you've just said. In another 8-12 quarters Linux will start to dominate the desktop then we'll see who makes the better product.

  23. Re:Only 1 million consumers in minnesota? by DaHat · · Score: 2, Funny

    You've never been to the Minneapolis area have you?

  24. Settled, eh? by Xerp · · Score: 1, Redundant

    So thats pretty much an admission of guilt, isn't it? As well as a simple fine, wouldn't it make sense for the law to introduce checks and balances to prevent companies taking advantage like this again? What is to stop Microsoft overcharging and just paying fines? Oops, they did it again...

    1. Re:Settled, eh? by Patris_Magnus · · Score: 1

      We live in a free market society. If I put a $1,000,000 price tag on my 1974 Pontiac and you feel that you need it soooo bad that you are willing to pay for it, hey shame on you. My point is, there was other software available during the time in question. If the decision was made my the govt. of MN that with all things considered it was cheaper to buy MS than to switch over to something else they should live with their decision.

    2. Re:Settled, eh? by Goobermunch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, most settlement agreements have a disclaimer of liability (not guilt, this wasn't a criminal trial). If this had gone to the jury and an actual verdict been issued, then the court may have had the ability to set up a situation where further improper conduct on MSFT's part would have resulted in contemp citations.

      Yet another reason why MSFT benefits from settling.

      --AC

  25. Re:heh.... by molarmass192 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The only problem is that there's no law on the books to allow this kinda thing. What we need-ED was for the anti-trust trial do what it was supposed to do and break the company up like they did AT&T. There's still the "regulate-it-to-death" approach remaining: create an FTC-like oversight body for operating system software that would force MS to open up their software. This could create a market for resellers and even competing flavors of Windows. The only problem is that the OS business would become a tangled bureaucratic mess like the communications business now is.

    Personally, I'd rather the govt keep MS's bundling activities in check and let the competition invade MS's core business horizontally, at least until some kind of a competitive balance is restored. Would MS kick and scream? Of course, this is a measure designed to reduce their market share, the exact opposite of their end-all-be-all goal.

    --

    Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
  26. The settlement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Microsoft will give Minnesota 700,000 copies of Microsoft Bob.

    1. Re:The settlement by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

      We prefer Minnesota Sven But thanks anyway.

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    2. Re:The settlement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... Minnesota lost?

      Wouldn't that be cruel and unusual punishment?

  27. Re:Hmmmm, New poll option??? by Pizentios · · Score: 1

    hmmm, maybe they should poll how many ./ users pay for M$ software....heh, i know i don't pay unless i can't get it free.

    --
    -Pizentios
  28. Re:Only 1 million consumers in minnesota? by -kertrats- · · Score: 2, Informative

    With only 4 million people TOTAL up here, thats normal enough.

    --
    The Braying and Neighing of Barnyard Animals Follows.
  29. Re:A victory for women everywhere! by Pizentios · · Score: 1

    I wonder how much of that 80% is in there IT section of the company.

    --
    -Pizentios
  30. Re:heh.... by rokzy · · Score: 1

    that gave me a thought: what would happen if terrorists took out MS HQ?

    what would be the financial impact relative to 9/11?

    also if a lot of MS staff were killed, could Windows continue to function? would the government have to step in, nationalise and release patches for the sake of stability?

    MS would certainly be an easier target than the more obvious Pentagon/White House type.

  31. Re:Other Sources (Local Sources) by BenFranske · · Score: 2, Informative

    Or try reading about it in the local paper the StarTribune story.

  32. Re:I bet the WIndows code isn't this shoddy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just goes to show that 2.4 ownz still:

    bash$ find linux-2.4.25 -exec grep FIXME {} \; | wc -l
    1940
    bash$

  33. Not Paid in Cash? by Marnhinn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You're right. It does not specify that it will be paid in cash, but one would assume so for several reasons:

    1. Other recent lawsuit actions. MS recently settled 2 other lawsuits for a total of 2.04 billion dollars [1.6 billion Sun, 440 million Intertrust]
    2. Non-Cash Settlements have hurt MS. When MS settled with the DoJ and some states in November, provisions in the settlement prevented MS from engaging in exclusive contracts that would prohibit software developers or PC makers from using competing products [source - news.com].
    3. Settlements with some states have been for software and like, but some [for example California which settled for 1.1 billion], the money is available to claim if you want (a cash settlement).

    I would bet the settlement with be for a decent amount of cash, but you have to claim it and the unclaimed Cash goes back to MS [like California and Florida's settlements.

    --
    There is always a frontier where there is an open and willing mind
  34. Re:Sigh by strictnein · · Score: 2, Funny

    Fargo is in North Dakota. You betcha.

  35. Re:heh.... by Adriax · · Score: 1

    MS would probably just use it as an opportunity to outsource to india... You can bet they've got contingency plans setup for that, like programmers on tap in india and all the "crucial" employees (read, managers) officed in the same material they build black boxes out of.

    --
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
  36. Re:I bet the WIndows code isn't this shoddy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You should turn on case-insensitivity

    bash$ find linux-2.4.25 -exec grep -i FIXME {} \; | wc -l
    2029
    bash$ find linux-2.4.25 -exec grep -i shit {} \;
    ./fs/isofs/inode.c: * Some dipshit decided to store some other bit of infor mation
    ./fs/jffs2/gc.c: /* Shitloads of space */
    ./fs/jffs2/dir.c: /* Oh shit. We really ought to make a single nod e which can do both atomically */
    ./net/ipv4/tcp_input.c: * all the algo is pure shit and should be replaced
    ./net/ipv6/exthdrs.c: and opt->hdrlen is even. Shit! --ANK (980730)
    ./drivers/net/declance.c: * v0.007: Big shit. The LANCE seems to use a diff erent DMA mechanism to
    ./drivers/net/sunhme.c: /* Remember: "Different name, same old buggy as shit har dware." */
    ./drivers/net/sunlance.c: * This was the sun4c killer. Shit, stupi d bug.
    ./drivers/net/wan/z85230.c: ct=2; /* Shit happens.. */ ./drivers/net/sk98lin/h/skgepnm2.h: * Shit, mismatched calculation of SK_PNMI_ HUNDREDS_SEC. Corrected.
    ./drivers/scsi/esp.c: /* shit */
    ./drivers/scsi/esp.c: /* shit */
    ./drivers/scsi/NCR53C9x.c: /* shit */
    ./drivers/scsi/NCR53C9x.c: /* shit */
    ./arch/x86_64/ia32/ia32_ioctl.c: /* XXX Shit, this doesn't work f or async URBs :-( XXX */
    ...on and on...

  37. Re:Hmmmm, New poll option??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are you implying!
    I'm shocked and appalled that someone would be so gauche as to suggest that experienced computer users are very likely to pay nothing for software because they know where to find warez and how to apply cracks.

    It's be like saying we don't give a damn about a bunch of dipshit bands whose songs we could freely download in a thousand different ways! Perhaps if we had'nt been taken advantage of so much in high school we wouldn't feel like this was our due!

  38. Re:Only 1 million consumers in minnesota? by grunt107 · · Score: 1

    Proposed Windows fan club. Offer an industrial-strngth fan to chop up MS 'puters - or a club to beat them into teenie tiny little parts. That will eliminate the BSOD.

  39. "It doesn't matter" -- B. Gates by kclittle · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "You don't get it. It doesn't matter".

    Supposedly this was Gates rejoinder to Steve Jobs when the latter said, "We're better than you." Gates knows in this case that throwing a bit of cash to Minnesota to settle the suit doesn't really matter, either. It's the same Machiavellian insight as to what it takes to win his grand strategic goals at the cost of a few tactical losses. "Oh, I over charged you for the years between 1994 and 2001? So sorry. Here's a 30% refund in 2004. Thanks for the 70% I get to keep! (And the time I needed to eliminate my competition, hehe...)".

    --
    Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
  40. No reasearch went into buying from M$ ? by buht · · Score: 1

    And I wonder who did the pricing comparisons and research before buying this overpriced software.
    If that was done, then where is the reasoning to complain?
    Shop smart, shop S-MART.

    --

    -- The box said Windows 2000 or better... so I installed Linux
  41. Redefinitions by t_allardyce · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Where settlement, read 'Microsoft agrees to give away some of its products (which it will claim are worth a total of severl billion dollars when really its plastic and amounts to potential lost sales) to schools where it hopes to lock in students at an early age (i.e those lost sales are actually an investment at Microsofts advantage).' - for example whats better: give 10,000 copies of office to schools as part of a settlement, or give 10,000 copies of OpenOffice (essentially identical) to schools and Microsoft can give a sum of money to someone else?

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:Redefinitions by milette · · Score: 1

      One of the only reasons Linux and various flavours are so popular is because they are FREE. Check out the computer science programs at most Universities and see what's being used. If people (or states) don't want to buy a particular software product or feel it is overpriced -- they have the CHOICE of buying something else. The same idiots who suggest that Microsoft should give away their source code are the same ones bitching and screaming if someone copies 2 lines of text from their web site or even THINKS about using some obscure, invalid patent issued 20 years ago by a government employee who couldn't spell Operating System -- let alone have a clue what it was. When in doubt -- hire a lawyer. When in doubt about being in doubt -- hire a lawyer. It's the "American Way". (Any wonder why lawyers drive Mercedes and BMWs and have multi-million dollar homes while most techies work 20 hours a day and get there on a bike?) If Microsoft had half a brain (which is debatable, at times I must agree), they'd have moved the whole freakin company to the Cayman Islands, fired all the tens of thousands of people they have full-time employed, and hired them back the next day as tax-free contract workers. If Microsoft REALLY wanted to screw the US Government and avoid billions of dollars in taxes AND litigation, this would be the fastest and easiest way to do it. With all the crap they've been put through by JEALOUS competitors and 'make a fast buck lawyers' -- it may still be quite a viable option... Marty R. Milette

  42. Obligatory Fight Club by brunes69 · · Score: 1

    Take the number of vehicles in the field, (A), and multiply it by the probable rate of failure, (B), then multiply the result by the average
    out-of-court settlement, (C).

    A times B times C equals X...

    If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

  43. Re:heh.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    which would be devastating, considering winXP would stop running

    So...that would be different from *insert random broken security flaw/patch combination here* we already have?

  44. a * b * c = x by mav[LAG] · · Score: 1

    If x is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

    --
    --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
  45. Still waiting to receive my settle... by wtoconnor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't know about anyone else but I still have not received my CA settlement money. Paper work I sent in almost six months ago has not produced a check. I guess we have to bring up a lawsuit to get then to pay the money they already own us from the previous law suit.

    1. Re:Still waiting to receive my settle... by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

      if it's done by the same people who did the CD MAP lawsuit you may be waiting til next year.

  46. Re:heh.... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I wish someone would start doing what you suggest, but to the freaking governments. Or havent you noticed that in recent years, barely any government in the world is really acting in the best interests of the people it perportably represents? Ever wondered if a 'normal' person could get elected to a governmental position in the majority of western nations? Just look at the sums of money involved in getting elected president, they are up there as a good portion of a $Billion. Normal people barely get a look in once every 4 or 5 years.

  47. Re:Only 1 million consumers in minnesota? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there's only about a million people in the twin cities metro area. population-wise its smaller then milwaukee metro.

    how many of those people were computer users who bought MS products from 85-01? a million doesn't sound unreasonable.

    get yourself an almanac.

  48. California Antitrust Suit, still waiting by Schlaegel · · Score: 1

    I have been waiting for vouchers from the settlement with California for quite some time and they are still not here! The settlement was supposedly approved by the court on January 10, 2003.

    It is now far from the time originally promised for the distribution of the vouchers. I have seen the deadlines and distribution times change twice at the official website.

    I can not help but feel that part of their plan is to s-t-r-e-t-c-h the process out as long as possible so that people forget about the vouchers. I originally held off on a new system purchase because I wanted to use my voucher, but have since given up.

    Lets hope that Minnesota's settlement will be a bit more timely.

  49. Re:Only 1 million consumers in minnesota? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are actually about 3 million people in the Twin Cities Metro area. The total population of MN us about 4.5 million.

    The Twin Cities are just behind Cleveland in size and considerably bigger than the Millwakee metro area, which BTW is the smallest market in Major League Baseball.

  50. How is Windows overpriced? by angle_slam · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    You can get Windows XP for less than $100. Panther costs $129. How is Windows overpriced?

    This case is just a money grab. Whether or not MS is a monopoly, they don't overcharge for their software.

    1. Re:How is Windows overpriced? by justMichael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where can you get a FULL, non-upgrade, non-OEM copy of XP for less than $100?

    2. Re:How is Windows overpriced? by angle_slam · · Score: 1

      Why does it have to be non-OEM? You can find OEM copies (FULL, non-upgrade) for $100 or less at practically any internet software vendor. All you need to do is buy hardware.

    3. Re:How is Windows overpriced? by justMichael · · Score: 1

      eh, you're right. If buying a $3 NIC and calling the purchase an OEM deal is good enough for Microsoft, why should I care.

      I found XP Home for ~$85, OEM or ~$72 CD only OEM.

      XP Pro is around $130 or $120 CD only.

      Realistically, if you are going to compare XP to Panther, you should probably compare Pro as feature to feature that is a better match. Which makes them pretty much the same price or Panther cheaper as Fry's is selling Panther for $109 this week ;)

    4. Re:How is Windows overpriced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if all you have to do is buy hardware, then Panther is free with any new Mac purchase.

    5. Re:How is Windows overpriced? by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 0

      The price of the bundled Mac software (the Mac OS and various iApps and whatnot) is built into the price of the Mac.

      --
      -- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
    6. Re:How is Windows overpriced? by angle_slam · · Score: 1

      As pointed out earlier in this thread, hardware can mean a $3 NIC.

  51. Re:I bet the WIndows code isn't this shoddy... by nlindstrom · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    I ordinarily don't respond to Trolls, but I had been wondering for awhile what a teabagger was. I looked it up, and for the edification of my fellow /. readers, here is the definition:

    Teabagger, a man who squats on top of a man's or woman's face and lowers his genitals into his or her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging."

  52. ooo ooo me too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to settle with Microsoft, where do I sue?

  53. Sue the county! Who are they to allow a settlement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You people should sue the county, they have no right to settle, and in secret? WTF? Are you people all stupid? You will see nothing, they should be forced to trial, and YOU ALL should receive the money DIRECTLY, not through rebates, cold hard CASH back!
    The government will just use any money to EXPAND, hire more government people and then your taxes will go up when the money is gone but the people still want to get paid.
    If you don't get direct cash, you are just plain stupid people.

  54. Okay, here's my guess. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I'll give you one guess as to what political party he's affiliated with

    Ummm... The DemPublicans?

    Or is it the Larouche party?

    Maybe he's a libertarian! Yeah, that's it!

  55. Who says Panther isn't overpriced? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who says Panther isn't overpriced? Since MS Office costs a lot more, is it overpriced? Isn't "overpriced" judged by the market? Ah, but they're in trouble for vandalizing the market, aren't they? It's not as simple as you portray it.

    Anyway, how much did your School District, Federal, State, and Local government blow on MS software last year? Find out and try to calculate how much free and open source software can save for YOU in tax burden alone! :-)

  56. dude you need a fucking brain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why and who would do that? Just because boeing is dominant in the us big long haul market, does that mean docking it 10 % so that its competitors can catch up.

    Stupid idiot. And god knows why the mods modded it up.

  57. Re:Between 1994 and 2001...Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll keep your "advice" in mind next time Slashdot has a "Linux needs, in order to..." article.

  58. Unsafe at any speed.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, the car was the FORD Pinto.

    (and it is the subject of the book "Unsafe at any speed.")

    Ford made a calculated decision that the cost of paying out for death resulting from the poorly designed car would be less than the cost of recalling/replacing/repairing the defective cars. Rather nasty really, imho.

    1. Re:Unsafe at any speed.. by Ben+Hutchings · · Score: 1

      The particular example in Unsafe at Any Speed was the Chevrolet Corvair (which was quite rapidly fixed). The Pinto came later.

  59. Refunds in real money? by MAFIAA · · Score: 1

    Presumably M$ will want to pay whatever fine it is in 'tokens' for free software. When you eventually got your 'free' software could you not then return it unopened for a refund in real money? ... just a thought

    --
    I wonder if those who believe Might Is Right ever wonder if they Might Be Wrong...
  60. ms by trebek · · Score: 1

    so sad that microsoft can literally buy out whoever they want...