Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Settles Antitrust Suit with Vouchers

Posted by timothy on from the now-with-extra-lock-in dept.

TedCheshireAcad writes "Microsoft has apparently settled its antitrust case with the state of Arizona by offering $104 million in product vouchers. Arizona consumers in the state from 1996 to 2002 will get $15 for their past operating system purchases and $9 for past application purchases. Public schools in Arizona will get 50% of unclaimed vouchers and 50% of vouchers that have been claimed but not redeemed for software products. I remember when lawsuits were settled with money, not monopoly propogation."

29 comments

  1. Aren't punishments supposed to punish? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So the punishment is... increasing their marketshare? Can my startup get that "punishment" too? Oh, wait, we're too small. We'd just get fined $36.2 billion.

    1. Re:Aren't punishments supposed to punish? by Kethinov · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not a punishment, it's a settlement. MS has made an offer and they have accepted it. Case closed.

      --
      You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
    2. Re:Aren't punishments supposed to punish? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Right. My mistake. Still seems like Microsoft got the better deal though. If I were Arizona's lawyers, I'd have held out for at least a few million in cash. It still wouldn't hurt Microsoft noticably, but it'd be a hell of a lot more useful than a bunch of vouchers for MS Office.

    3. Re:Aren't punishments supposed to punish? by MindStalker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Trust me, the Arizona lawyers did hold out for a few million. In their pocket.

    4. Re:Aren't punishments supposed to punish? by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      That is so true. This case is NOT about the consumer. If you think the lawyers were on your side, trying to right a wrong, punish MS, you are quite naive. It's about greed - lawyers getting rich. Most class-actions are about greed.

    5. Re:Aren't punishments supposed to punish? by silicon+not+in+the+v · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It's not a punishment, it's a settlement. MS has made an offer and they have accepted it. Case closed.
      That's the part that breaks my heart about this. I expect MS to make an offer like that. It's the best for them and gets them off the hook from a cash settlement. BUT, I expect it to be laughed at--not accepted! It's the prosecuting side that screwed this up. If they accept these kinds of settlement offers, that's when we lose. I wonder if MS is able to do this because of their threatening legal presence. Winning cases is very valuable for a lawyer's reputation. I wonder if that is swaying the decision on accepting these Mickey Mouse kinds of offers. The lawyer gets to look like he "beat Microsoft", which looks great on a resume. If he doesn't accept it, MS is going to bring the Hammer(TM) to try to squash them and get off scot free. The lawyer gets paid either way, but it looks better to "win" easily in a settlement than to potentially lose if it goes all the way through court.
      --
      We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
    6. Re:Aren't punishments supposed to punish? by 4of12 · · Score: 1

      MS has made an offer and they have accepted it. Case closed.

      Many state AG offices will deal with MS this way.

      New Mexico's AG settled their part of the anti-trust trial for US$100K plus legal expenses; somewhat less than what MS makes in the way of profits in the state. Maybe they were giving Bill a pass because he spent some time in NM before moving back to Washington.

      As far as most people are concerned, MS owns an essential facility for computers and the product vouchers are practically as good as cash.

      It shows that most of the public, including those in state law enforcement offices, remain unaware of alternatives that are much better than they suspect (open source, MacOS...) .

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    7. Re:Aren't punishments supposed to punish? by sevenatis · · Score: 1

      What ticks me off.....if they had paid in cash, people would be bitching that the fine isn't big enough because of they have such huge cash reserves. A penalty is a penalty; it sets legal precedent for the next time. Eventually they will go to the well one time to many and then they pay the piper. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but they do turn!

      --
      ++ Jesus loves you as you are;
      ++ Cuthulhu thinks you need barbeque sauce!
  2. Paying out in Monopoly money? by Isomer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know, this gives a whole new look on money you get with those monopoly games. Turns out that if you are a monopoly you can print your own currency and have people use it....

  3. Vouchers just for M$ products? by djcapelis · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Can the vouchers be used for other things like with several other settlements? Or does it have to just be refunded for more M$ crap?

    --
    I touch computers in naughty places
    1. Re:Vouchers just for M$ products? by Kris_J · · Score: 3, Funny
      Swap them for Gmail invites?

      (Can I be modded redundant if I've made the same joke in different discussions?)

    2. Re:Vouchers just for M$ products? by jtev · · Score: 1

      Microsoft makes realy nice mice. Work in X to. If I was in AZ I'd be getting one. Especialy since the settlement says the value of any vouchers redemed on non-software products goes to schools.

      --
      That which is done from love exists beyond good and evil
    3. Re:Vouchers just for M$ products? by sgeye · · Score: 1

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3848531.stm "These will be valid for the products of any computer firm, not just Microsoft."

  4. other companies by will.murnane · · Score: 1, Redundant
    Can you imagine if this happened in other fields?
    In the news today: Ford has issued a recall affecting 36000 vehicles. Customers with the 2007 F150 are affeted, and can turn in their vehicles for a replacement vehicle and a free muffler.

    I don't think it'd go over so well. Or maybe book publishing - if your book is damaged we'll give you 15 pages of the next one in the series.

    1. Re:other companies by MachDelta · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except they're not even giving you anything of value on its own! Its like being given a fucking gift certificate to HMV after one of their CD racks fell on you and crushed your legs. That'd go over like a lead baloon, yet Microsoft can practically get away with murder? I don't get it. Something is seriously fucked with the system if this is what passes for "modern justice".

    2. Re:other companies by k12linux · · Score: 1
      Actually, wouldn't it be more like receiving a coupon towards $1000 off your next Ford... and it would have to come with the "may not be used in conjunction with other offers" disclaimer.

      Yes, that seems more accurate. Then you can go to the dealer and get your $1000 off, or possibly take advantage of the $1500 cash back offer instead; making your coupon basically worthless.

  5. Right... by stienman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I remember when lawsuits were settled with money, not monopoly propogation.

    I doubt it. Pithy comments are all well and good, but I'd like you to point out one such case against a monopolist that you remember where money (and nothing else) was paid in restitution.

    Perhaps I just missed the "I'm pretending I'm an old timer" or "sarcasm" tag...?

    -Adam

    1. Re:Right... by node+3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I remember when lawsuits were settled with money, not monopoly propogation.

      I doubt it. Pithy comments are all well and good, but I'd like you to point out one such case against a monopolist that you remember where money (and nothing else) was paid in restitution.

      That's not what the guy said. He said that the punishments of the past worked against the monopoly, not propogating them, and that cash damages were paid in cash.

      While I can't speak for cash damages, I know that IBM was (is?) prohibited from pre-announcing new products (thus they couldn't really promote new versions of OS/2, for example, before they were out), and AT&T was prohibited from selling computer software (thus Unix was semi-free until the next monopoly fiasco of AT&T which broke it apart and allowed them to market Unix).

      This time it's absurd. It does a really poor job of punishing MS, and does nothing to stop them from further breaches. After all, what does MS have to fear? They'll have to give away some software which, btw, helps their marketshare?

      The point of punishing a monopoly is to keep them from either a.) remaining a monopoly, or at the very least b.) stop them from continuing to abuse their monopoly status. This isn't punishment, it's encouragement!

    2. Re:Right... by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      Judge: "And for remaining to be a monopoly, your reward is..."

    3. Re:Right... by polyp2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This time it's absurd. It does a really poor job of punishing MS, and does nothing to stop them from further breaches. After all, what does MS have to fear? They'll have to give away some software which, btw, helps their marketshare?

      Yeah, its like a drug dealer getting busted and as a punishment having to give some of his stash away for free.

      --
      Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
    4. Re:Right... by cgenman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd like you to point out one such case against a monopolist that you remember where money (and nothing else) was paid in restitution.

      There is a very famous case, which supports the voucher "punishment," whereby for its rampant and flagrant price fixing Nintendo was ordered to send out $5 vouchers to its customers. The irony was that Nintendo at the time was making more than $5 per cartridge sold thanks to its flagrant price fixing, so even when being "punished" it was making a profit due to the activity it was being punished for.

      --
      The ______ Agenda
  6. OMFG THIS IS 2 AWESOME LOL! I can't wait! by Fortunato_NC · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Holy frigging rebates Batman, I'm gonna get me a software voucher!

    Let's see, it's only good for MS software, and I get $15 for Windows 98 and $9 for Office - $24 - SWEET! I can finally grab that copy of Microsoft Bob I've been itching to pick up. And with the $10 I've got left, I'll score a copy of "Return of Arcade" for Windows 3.1. This is gonna be AWESOME! Thanks, Bill - All is forgiven! Please send my vouchers soon!

    --
    Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
    1. Re:OMFG THIS IS 2 AWESOME LOL! I can't wait! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy Cow, I had totally forgotten about MS Bob... the good ol' days, when software didn't need to have a purpose to suck money out of my wallet!

  7. Those lawyers... by jotaeleemeese · · Score: 2, Insightful

    .... obviously have no concept of natural justice.

    OK, it is a settlement (why should a company settle if they are innocent? Do they understand how valuable reputation is? Even for MS) but the overwhelming feeling is of injustice: MS was caught doing something improper (heck, they pretend they are apologizing for it with those vouchers) and their punshment is to facilitate for them to do more of the same.

    USians: what are you doing about this insanity?

    --
    IANAL but write like a drunk one.
    1. Re:Those lawyers... by sevinkey · · Score: 1

      What do you expect Americans to do? Shoot Bill Gates?

      You sound as if you think we actually CAN do something about this.

  8. ..Meanwhile, in an Arizona courtroom: by chuckcolby · · Score: 1
    Judge: You are ordered to pay 3 billion dollars to the people of Arizona.
    Microsoft Lawyer: Your honor, thats more than $1000 per citizen. (lie) We simply don't have that much cash around. (/lie) We have lots of these "Bill Bucks", though!
    Judge Okay, that'll do. (gavel bangs)

    --
    We all get along together like tornadoes and trailer parks.
  9. it's a settlement, not a judgement by SHEENmaster · · Score: 1

    I doubt any attorney or law firm would take on a class action lawsuit like this without a real paycheck at the end. Was Plaintiff Attorney payed with Bill Bucks, or hard cash? Was he payed by the people of Arizona, or by Microsoft?

    --
    You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
  10. What monopoly propogation? by ljhiller · · Score: 1

    There is nothing in any of these articles that states the MS vouchers must be redeemed for MS products. The CA settlement permitted vouchers to be redeemed for any software and some hardware purchases. This entire article is a troll.