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."

4 of 29 comments (clear)

  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.

  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. 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!