Microsoft Settles Iowa Antitrust Case

ForestRangerBob writes "Comes v. Microsoft is over after Microsoft agreed to a settlement. The class action lawsuit alleged that Iowa consumers had been overcharged for Microsoft products for a decade owing to Microsoft's monopoly of the market. Predictably, the lawyers are about to get a big payday and 'the software giant will certainly be on the hook for millions of dollars, some of which may end up helping Iowa school kids. Average consumers will probably end up with a few bucks or a coupon for a free operating system upgrade, but the real winners will no doubt be the lawyers — the team prosecuting the case has already earned $60 million in legal fees from a 2004 case in Minnesota that charged Microsoft with similar offenses.'"

Comments

documents on iowaconsumercase.org gone

[whoever57]

When I first tried to read the comments, I got /.'s familiar "nothing to see here..." message, which also describes the site that hosted the documents from the Iowa case. Going to the site hosting the documents now results in a login request.

Re:documents on iowaconsumercase.org gone

[just_another_sean]

I see that google caches of some of it are still available. I couldn't find anything at archive.org though on the WBM.

A quick glance at Groklaw shows more links to the Iowa site then copies of the docs. What a shame the public record gets so quickly covered up once the money starts changing hands.

Re:documents on iowaconsumercase.org gone

[Anonymous Coward]

I used wget to take a mirrored copy of the entire site about two weeks ago so some of it could be available then. If someone could advise me regarding the legal side of making it public, then I will make it public. Please send advice to iowaconsumercase@dodgeit.com

Re:documents on iowaconsumercase.org gone

[inf4m0usB]

I managed to download the whole (except the vid streams) site (2.59 GB) the day I read about the case here.

Re:documents on iowaconsumercase.org gone

[oldgeezer1954]

I've got the streams for Gates deposition except for one corrupt file... If there's interest I'll put them out on a torrent.

Re:documents on iowaconsumercase.org gone

[gnetwerker]

I am willing to host the documents and bear any legal risk (of which I do not believe there is any). Contact me through the email here.

You're kidding, right?

[Dunbal]

Average consumers will probably end up with a few bucks or a coupon for a free operating system upgrade

      No, that's worth WAAAAAY too much. The consumers will get a free Microsft Vista (tm) mousepad.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[Joebert]

Oh, they'll get a free Vista upgrade alright...

Re:You're kidding, right?

[schwaang]

Average consumers won't even hear about this. Just like in the California settlement, I don't know anyone who actually filed. Two people I know started the process and were intimidated by the paperwork because they didn't have receipts for computers they bought years before and were afraid of being audited. (They both had legitimately purchased copies of eligible MS products.)

Hopefully the money that doesn't go to the lawyers will at least go to schools or something.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[frdmfghtr]

I'm not ready to agree with that just yet.

There is a similar lawsuit in Wisconsin and the vouchers, while not the biggest payout in history, aren't peanuts for the average user either.

Look at page 22 of the settlement agreement pdf: the vouchers range from $15 for EACH OS installation to $23 for each Office installation. Now, when I got my settlement forms in the mail, Microsoft had me down for eight Win98 installations, Win98 SE, WinME, several Office installations, and I think a Win2K installation; I can't remember the details, but I have copies at home somewhere. Apparently, all those reinstallations where I sent in a new registration weren't completely useless :)

Not willing to submit a form with errors (the claim forms warned of perjury if the claims made were known to be false) I corrected the form for what I knew to be accurate; I think the total amount of hardware/software vouchers I'm entitled to came to about $100.

The lawyers' cut: $33 million. (Page 8 of the detailed notice)

So compared to the REAL winner, yes, the vouchers are a pittance. Still, if I can use the vouchers towards some neat accessory for my MacBook, I won't complain too much.

Re:You're kidding, right?

[peektwice]

Your mouse has been moved. Do you wish to allow or cancel? The allow button has been clicked. Do you wish to allow or cancel?

Re:You're kidding, right?

[aussie_a]

You incorrectly spelled downgrade.

Laywers are the winners

[nurb432]

Well duh.. even the losing side's laywers get paid well.

Re:Laywers are the winners

[EggyToast]

Yeah, I love how the article makes it sounds like lawyers don't almost always work for winning case payouts. I'm sure lawyers would love if retainer fees could pay for running an independent business, but that's simply not the case.

If people are anti-lawyer, they should stop suing people. But then other people would have to stop trying to break the law. <sigh>

Re:Laywers are the winners

[hackstraw]

Well duh.. even the losing side's laywers get paid well.

The problem is that MS is a little upset that it cost them some of their beloved cash, but they shake it off and think of this as the cost of doing business. They are like everyone else, they don't want to pay for utilities, taxes, or whatever, but its just the cost of doing what you do.

What I want is a real judgement or change from these cases, not a glorified parking ticket. What is going to change from this? Nada.

What is microsoft a monopoly on? A poorly implemented, poorly documented, closed source, closed API "standard" operating system where the only people who know the standard is MS.

From what I understand, cifs was opened up (don't know the details here, but that is what I understand), but that is only the tip of the iceburg of MS's embrace and extend vendor lockin thing.

UNIX/Linux has POSIX, IEEE specs, open source, rfcs, and all this. Heck, Microsoft had its own version of UNIX back in the day, and it was pretty decent. But the fact is that we don't want BSODs, we don't want viruses, we don't want to be yelled at by paperclips, we don't want to have the tray yell at us or telling us we have too many icons on our desktop, we don't want crappy browsers pushed on us, we don't want 99% of what MS gives us, we want something that runs our applications on our hardware, and something that "just works".

I say its time for MS to be forced to publish their "standards" and APIs.

Re:Laywers are the winners

[Thaelon]

I think the laws should be written plainly enough that lawyers become unnecessary. The intent of most laws is known without having to read them.

We (the USA) needs to scrap legal jargon and rewrite the laws plainly, then let a judge decide if the law applies to an act and let the jury decide if they're guilty.

I mean, stop and think for a second, if a really good lawyer means you get a more favorable outcome, how fucked up is our legal system?

Re:Laywers are the winners

[nomadic]

We (the USA) needs to scrap legal jargon and rewrite the laws plainly, then let a judge decide if the law applies to an act and let the jury decide if they're guilty.

The more plain they are, the more ambiguous. Give me an example of what you would consider a "plainly written" law, and I guarantee I will find ambiguity or loopholes in it.

Laws are structured for precision.

Re:Laywers are the winners

[h2_plus_O]

We (the USA) needs to scrap legal jargon and rewrite the laws plainly, then let a judge decide if the law applies to an act and let the jury decide if they're guilty.

This reminds me a little of the push toward 'natural language' programming- someone had the great idea that if programming languages were more like 'plain english', that anybody could then program. To make a long story short, the problem was never that the language was too difficult to learn (tho to be certain, it was a hurdle) it was that people aren't explicit in their speaking or writing. The problem was never that people didn't know the right words, it's that they didn't think in ways that work. There's more to programming than just syntax; there are design principles, evolving technologies, patterns, best practices, and more.

Jargons exist for good reason- expediency, accuracy. They allow us to 'chunk' large concepts into usable mouthfuls, and they allow us to distinguish concepts that for most people are indistinct. Don't blame the jargon; that's just an indicator that there's a whole world in there that regular people almost never need to know about.

Re:Laywers are the winners

[hawkinspeter]

How about: Do no evil.

Re:Laywers are the winners

[nomadic]

How about: Do no evil.

Who decides what constitutes evil? So you think an extreme fundamentalist judge can throw you in jail for working on Sunday or drinking alcohol? At what level does an act pass from merely bad into "evil"? You tell a telemarketer you're busy and can't talk to them, isn't that a lie? Are all lies evil? Are you approaching "evil" from a religious or secularist viewpoint?

And what constitutes "do"? Are evil thoughts doing evil? What about words? Speaking and thinking are acts, should you be punished for them?

Re:Laywers are the winners

[EggyToast]

Exactly. It's rare to encounter a dentist or oral surgeon who uses "impact" in superfluous ways. Similarly, someone skilled in argument and communication to use "rhetorical" without thinking.

Re:Laywers are the winners

[ZorbaTHut]

You've come up with possibly the worst example imaginable.

Kudos.

Re:Laywers are the winners

[Thaelon]

People that think like you are the reason we have such convoluted laws. People that think like you are the reason we allow people to get off on "loopholes". Whomever defined the precedent that because a particular instance of crime didn't quite fit the definition of the law that the offender gets off free should be shot. THERE is the problem with our legal system.

You call them precise and structured (whatever that means). I call them, exhausting, frivolous, wasteful, wordy, incomprehensible and ridiculous and almost entirely lacking in structure.

"Do not steal." People know what stealing is without having to be told.

What if person A stole something from person B, then person B stole it back? I don't think the laws we have now even cover this, but it's obvious who is in the wrong.

What about if person B happened to break a window in the act of stealing the thing back?

Under the system I envision, Person A is guilty of theft (if convicted by a jury) and person B is guilty of destruction of property (if convicted by a jury).

The problem with the existing laws that try to cover every possible scenario is that they don't cover every possible scenario and they never will because we don't live in a finite world.

I can't believe you got modded insightful. Interesting, sure, but insightful? I've never seen a post so well written by an obviously intelligent person so lacking in insight.

Re:Laywers are the winners

[hawkinspeter]

I was kinda being facetious, but just for the hell of it, here's how I would interpret it. "Do" would mean a physical action - thinking or speaking evil would not be counted. "No" - none. "Evil" would have to be defined by a consensus of the population (either the whole population for consideration of broad classifications or a subsection for more detailed cases e.g. a jury of twelve). Either religious or secularist viewpoints can be valid depending on the type of society. Letting a single judge be the sole arbitrator of whether an act is evil would most certainly be problematic, but if a society decides that drinking alcohol is evil, then you would have to be careful about drinking there (or move elsewhere). Generally, the difference between a "bad" act or an "evil" act has to be measured by its effect with society deciding on the relevant punishments.

The system works!

[Iphtashu Fitz]

Not...

Almost makes me wish I was a lawyer. Almost.

Re:The system works!

[TheGratefulNet]

in fact, it seems there is more money to be made in the good ole' USA by SUING for IP than actually INVENTING IP.

if some kid in college asked me if he should go into law or engineering, I know what I'd say.

(up until the point where lawyers are OUTSOURCED. now wouldn't that be a nice bit of irony? don't laugh - I bet this move is on its way over the next decade and so lawyers will be 'out of work' just like many of my fellow engineers in the USA are).

and I do like that comment, a few above this one, that says the lawyers should be paid in the same form as the consumers. lol! what a great stipulation. closer to real justice, too. of course that would mean they would not even WANT to spend time on the suit.

wow

[Billly Gates]

A coupon so Microsoft can increase sales of more copies of windows.

Boy, that sure showed Microsoft.

Re:wow

[KKlaus]

That's actually more insightful than funny, in my opinion. If I buy a laptop that burns my house down, you think I really want store credit? The worst thing is that I suspect it's actually profitable for the "losing" company when coupons are forced. Customers are drawn back to someone they never would have bought from again because bargains are attractive. Some punishment.

Re:wow

[EvilRyry]

Agreed. Grandparent really should be insightful. This certainly isn't the first time that Microsoft has been 'punished' by being forced to give away free products. In reality this just tightens their grip on the market. Especially when schools are involved.

Re:wow

[phorm]

No, but I'd imagine the lawyer bill wasn't exactly a happy thing for them. Unfortunately it sounds like both sides needed to foot those.

Makes You Wonder

[Azarael]

I have no grudge against most legal professionals, but what a huge waste of time and money. Rules should be enforced to prevent wrong doing rather than punishing for it. MS throwing a huge amount of money into a settlement does very little to help anyone and does no more to rectify a wrong (prehaps less) than jailing a murderer.

Re:Makes You Wonder

[pilgrim23]

You expect Justice? ....Lawyers... Microsoft...did I somehow miss another player here?

Re:Makes You Wonder

[Azarael]

No, you're right and that is exactly my point. It isn't justice, and could never have been justice..
Besides, I'll conceed the point that there's no money in provention, except for the money left in "people's" pockets, everone knows how well the capitalism machine works for "people".

Re:Makes You Wonder

[Pantero Blanco]

Rules should be enforced to prevent wrong doing rather than punishing for it. MS throwing a huge amount of money into a settlement does very little to help anyone and does no more to rectify a wrong (prehaps less) than jailing a murderer.

How on earth are you going to "enforce rules to prevent wrong" without using punishment methods? You don't execute or jail a murderer in order to resurrect the people he killed; you execute/imprison him so that 1. he's unable to kill any more and 2. others are less likely to murder because they don't want to be imprisoned/executed.

The problem here is that the criminal can shrug off the penalty. If they fined MS, say, ten billion dollars that had to be paid in cash (not worthless coupons), it WOULD have an effect on the company's future behavior because they would have to straighten up or die (which would leave them unable to commit further crimes).

Re:Makes You Wonder

[ChrisA90278]

I've been running for president under the "common sense" party for years. I can solve ALL problems with simple common sense. For example crime: As you say, it is better to PREVENT the crime. So simple common sense says to put people in jail BEFORE they commit the crime. Gosh how easy was that! I'm for the death penalty too. We should execute people before they can murder someone. Prevention, that's the way to go.

I have other common sense solutions to all the other problems too.

Re:Makes You Wonder

[Azarael]

Meh, you're making a straw man argument by vastly oversimplified solution. I didn't say it was going to be easy, but nothing is every accomplished unless you try. The legal/justice system is by far not the only way to prevent the problems in society, it's just the most obvious (an likely vastly overused one). Unfortunately, it's hard to say whether any other solutions have been successful (and how much) where the justice system seems to have failed.

Re:Makes You Wonder

[Twanfox]

Imprisonment of a murderer is 'enforcing rules to prevent wrong [doing]' since, though it doesn't correct for the issues before, it prevents wrong from them doing it again. In the case of Microsoft, they have grown large enough that the punishments written into law are not sufficient in size to hamper them, and do not serve as a deterrent. In a case like this, they need to seek a non-monetary remedy that seeks to prevent future occurrences, much like putting a murderer in jail.

The Judicial system in the US is badly flawed for this notion. There is no notion of preventing repeat offenses, simply punishment for past acts done. If you just don't care, then the punishment will never be a deterrent, and you work that much harder not to be caught.

A lot of flaws in the legal system. Justice isn't, in most cases.

Re:Makes You Wonder

[sjlumme]

That's not always true. If the rules for when you do and do not get punished for wrongdoing are clear and the courts predictable and reliable (big if!), then punishing people after the fact for wrongdoing is a way of preventing wrongdoing. After all, if a you know that your wrongdoing will cost you money in the end, you'd be stupid to do it. (Unless, of course, the fines or damages aren't set high enough.)

For instance, the government can prohibit all the things that might cause traffic accidents, like talking with passengers, not being well rested, talking on cell phones, fiddling with the radio, and so on. It's enormously expensive to enforce those rules, and people will only stick to them if you do actually enforce them a lot. You need lots of police to patrol the streets all the time, and everybody has an incentive to be as uncooperative with them as they can.

On the other hand, if you just make people liable for crashing into each other, you only need to enforce that law in cases where it's very obvious that a crash happened, and you don't need oodles of police patrols just to check whether people are using cell phones. And moreover, you have victims of accidents who voluntarily are going to put time, money, and effort into prosecuting the cases, so you barely need to involve a police force at all. But best of all, just the threat of having to pay (or of losing eligibility for cheap insurance) will prevent people from driving recklessly in the first place.

Re:Makes You Wonder

[gstoddart]

I have no grudge against most legal professionals, but what a huge waste of time and money. Rules should be enforced to prevent wrong doing rather than punishing for it.

Well, if there were no consequences for vilating the rules, WTF would be the value of the rule? It would be a complete joke -- "you're not allowed to do this", "oh, darn you to heck, you did it again".

The whole point about rules (ie laws) is there is presumed to be an or else part of it. Once someone has broken the rules, you need to punish it. Now, this time it was a reltively light slap for Microsoft. If they break the rule again, the level of the punishment will go up.

Is this really an alien concept?

Cheers

Re:Makes You Wonder

[Azarael]

I agree, but that kind of punishment just isn't going to be applied. At this point we're looking at damage done almost a decade ago, which is part of the problem. Sadly, I can't see a clear way that any branch of gov't could have stepped in before 2000 to help fix this before the situation really got out of hand. Now it will take years more, if ever, for the market to really open up to MS alternatives. In the case of software, I think things like open standards backed by governments will help prevent these problems, but we obviously can't have some body explicitly running all the market places (like we have seen with Communism).

Re:Makes You Wonder

[Azarael]

The problem is that people will always make some poor decisions, regardless of the consequences. There's a very fine balance between making the rules too fine or too broad and the line will always be a moving target :-(

Re:Makes You Wonder

[Azarael]

I don't disagree. I really should have argued that in my opinion, the system leans to far towards punishment (specifically punishment long after the fact), than prevention (punishment much closer to the offence and continual efforts to discourage offences before they happen). Obviously, saying it is much easier than doing it.

Re:Makes You Wonder

[sfjoe]

Rules should be enforced to prevent wrong doing rather than punishing for it.

Is this a joke? Is there to be some enforcement organization responsible for scrutinizing every activity in order to prevent a misdeed before it occurs? How far do you want Big Brother to go in order to prevent wrongdoing?

Re:Makes You Wonder

[Azarael]

The point was poorly made, it might make more sense to think of it as training or incentives? Bear with me, if you want to bring up a child to use good grammar don't you agree that practising good grammar around them and correcting them when they make a mistake is the way to go about this? Yes, how to go about applying this idea to businesses is unclear. Perhaps finding a way to chang the rules to make anti-compative behavior unprofitable to begin with would be a good way? I don't claim to have the answer, but that doesn't mean that they aren't there, and that no one should look for them.

Bet the states are licking their chops now

[fishyfool]

with Vista Ultimate pegged at 399.99. talk about overcharging.

Re:Bet the states are licking their chops now

[truthsearch]

But... but... it's the ultimate. No price is too high!

Re:Bet the states are licking their chops now

[just_another_sean]

Personally I'd only pay that much for the eXtreme eDition! Ultimate. A kids toy I tell you...

Re:Bet the states are licking their chops now

[walt-sjc]

Hah. The eXtreme eDition pales in comparison to the Home Equity Loan edition... That one even includes Microsoft Tax Manager that automatically redirects your income tax refunds to Redmond!

Re:Bet the states are licking their chops now

[idontgno]

Oh, I dunno. $640K should be enough for anyone.

Re:Bet the states are licking their chops now

[level_headed_midwest]

But... but... it's the ultimate. No price is too high!

I think $8 sounds like a lot more reasonable price, don't you think?

Re:Bet the states are licking their chops now

[geminidomino]

Leave the Playstation 3 out of this!

Payoff to the Lawyers

[ATestR]

To be fair, the lawyers should have to take their cut in coupons for Microsoft products, just like everyone else will.

Re:Payoff to the Lawyers

[mdm-adph]

Yeah, I'm sure they'll go along with that -- right after you pry their check-endorsing pens out of their cold, dead hands.

Re:Payoff to the Lawyers

[elrous0]

Hey, it takes a lot of money to buy cars fast enough to chase down those ambulances.

-Eric

Bias against lawyers?

[Biff98]

NAH! That's objective reporting at it's best. NO bias at ALL!

And the truth..

[s31523]

but the real winners will no doubt be the lawyers
Isn't this always the case? I hate these lawsuits because the rich fat-cat lawyers make out and the real people that deserve something get like $10. No sh*t M$ is settling. They have to pay millions of dollars for thousands of dollars in product just because the lawyers litigated the case at 500 per hour. It just sucks, all the people involved as plaintiffs that essentially allow those blood suckers to make millions should get some sort of profit sharing, not just their $10 cut. And don't bitch about the actual cost of doing the litigation, because that is BS and you know it!

Re:And the truth..

[nomadic]

And don't bitch about the actual cost of doing the litigation, because that is BS and you know it!

Do you have some understanding of litigation costs that you want to share with us? Are you speaking from personal knowledge?

Re:And the truth..

[gravesb]

Not to defend the amount lawyers make, because it does seem a bit much, but isn't it also logical that a large group of people would go to law school, charge less, and take away an enormous amount of business? Even $10 an hour would make a large difference in big litigation. Maybe the market isn't clear, but there are market forces at work, even in litigation.

Re:And the truth..

[MindStalker]

Where's Erin Brockovich when we need her?

But seriously thats how these things SHOULD work, lawyers getting a few millions sure, but people actually getting what they deserve as well.

Re:And the truth..

[nomadic]

It's the same principle as how neurosurgeons can charge a lot of money. If the issue is important enough, you want to hire the best, not just anybody with a JD and bar membership.

Class action lawsuits: welfare for lawyers

[mschuyler]

Class action lawsuits are one of the most mis-used legal tactics in the country. Look at ANY class action lawsuit against ANY company. The 'remedy' afforded to consumers is on the same level as a few bucks in rebates: Most people don't bother with jumping through the hoops (and be sure and include the SKU from the inner flap of the outer box you just threw away and a certified copy of your birth certificate) and the companies know this. They don't amount to anything anyway. It's just an accountng trick. But the lawyers, oh, my goodness. Millions of dollars to the law firms for "all their hard work." What a crock. The kids of Iowa will see nothing tangible. /rant

Re:Class action lawsuits: welfare for lawyers

[nomadic]

Look at ANY class action lawsuit against ANY company. The 'remedy' afforded to consumers is on the same level as a few bucks in rebates

Ok, you completely misunderstand what a class action is. It is not limited exclusively to consumers, or especially large numbers--you can have a class action on behalf of just a few people. And there have been plenty of class actions where class plaintiffs each recovered significant amounts of money. Just because something hasn't been reported on slashdot doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Re:Class action lawsuits: welfare for lawyers

[gumbi west]

Here's the thing. Our market uses a capitalist market structure, so the firms that make the most money beat the other firms. Put another way, if there is a way to make more money, the contentious executive who is thinking of his shareholders will make the money (most MBA graduates say that the maximizing shareholder value is the primary focus of an employee).

In light of this, when someone does something counter competitive, just taking money away from them helps quite a bit. Now we can argue about where it should go, but this is better than the other options (leaving the money with the company that swindled the consumer). Put another way, if one company starts to swindle and nothing happens, all competitors will either start to do the same or go out of business. Class action lawsuits provide some protection against that and are an overall boon for the consumer in net, if not in effect per lawsuit.

Re:Class action lawsuits: welfare for lawyers

[c0d3h4x0r]

Just because something hasn't been reported on slashdot doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Well, shit. There goes my proof for the non-existence of God.

Re:Class action lawsuits: welfare for lawyers

[Oddster]

You are absolutely, one-hundred percent wrong. Class action lawsuits in the United States are the most sane and civil form of business-consumer conflict resolution this world has ever seen, and are in fact the only way in this country for consumers to get justice against unsavory businesses. If you knew anything in detail about class action lawsuits, there is no way you would ever espouse the opinion you do, period. The only way you could be under this perception is that you have been reading about nothing more than high-profile lawsuits, from Big Media no less, which are geared solely towards sensationalism, not facts.

Or perhaps the next time a Dell laptop battery explodes on your lap, you'll call a plumber to fight for your compensation.

Re:Class action lawsuits: welfare for lawyers

[AtlanticCarbon]

People work for money. If you didn't provide incentives for lawyers, they would not try to redress these wrongs. In the long run, class action litigation deters businesses from misbehaving.

Re:Class action lawsuits: welfare for lawyers

[mr_matticus]

Don't be ridiculous. Legal fees have nothing to do with the amount in settlement awarded for damages. They make money because that's their billing rate plus actual expenses--that's what legal fees ARE. So when the award is legal fees plus damages, you're not sharing money from the same pool. The fact that you wind up with little in the end is because the court decides that, say, $90 million in damages is enough--but when you've got 30 million affected consumers, that's only $3 each. The award is a basic remedy. The consumer didn't put any work into being a member of the class, didn't contribute even so much as a letter of support to the lawyers, but sat around with their hand held out AFTER having agreed to overpay in the first place. It's not just the lawyers that make out big in these settlements--it's the first guy or two who approached the lawyers to sue on their behalf. They often end up with thousands of dollars from a $100 wrong. If there's a lesson to be learned here, it's that you should start the class actions if you want a bigger cut. Why should the lawyers charge Microsoft less than they charge other clients, just because each individual customer only gets a few bucks? They shouldn't. What might be nice would be if they insisted on bigger damages. But companies always try to settle that amount for as low as possible, because it makes good business sense. Lawyers don't care how big the settlement is because the public doesn't, either. It's free money. You didn't work for it, so get over it.

Re:Class action lawsuits: welfare for lawyers

[Fred_A]

Except that in this case the result of the class action was to give away products (software) that are essentially free to manufacture. So in the end no money was taken away from the offending corporation. What's more it was helped in its effort to gain mindshares.

I sometimes wonder if those cases aren't fake lawsuits designed to put MS software in schools that had second thoughts.

Re:Class action lawsuits: welfare for lawyers

[geminidomino]

What, you expect them to have enough of a soul to stop them?

The only good lawyer is in a package of Soilent Green.

Re:Class action lawsuits: welfare for lawyers

[gumbi west]

fair enough, I don't argue that it's perfect, I argue that it's far from it. But if the lawyers did get lots of cash (as everyone says) and this is much better than MS having lots of cash.

I would preffer that it would be that anybody could sue on behalf of the affected people and that there would be a reasonable lawyers fee and the funds would be given to the government or perhaps just a lottery that the people in the affected class could play at no cost.

Good to know

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I never knew you could sue people if for overcharging. This is great. Now I am going to go sue that burger place i just ate at for charging me $10 for a burger, when it obviously should have cost six dollars (according to Carl's Jr.)

And for some reason, I thought we won the cold war...

Re:Good to know

[anagama]

Terrible analogy. The fact that you have a choice to spend $10 or $6 on a burger means the price you paid was fair (if you thought the price was unfair, you would have gone elsewhere). Plainly, the more expensive burger joint thinks the merits of its burgers exceed those of the fast food joint's.

In contrast, the very point of monopoly litigation is that the is nowhere else to go. No competition.

Re:Good to know

[rajafarian]

Wow, I never knew you could sue people if for overcharging.

Dude, the lawsuit was supposed to have been not so much about overcharging but over the things they did and still do to allow the overcharging. Things, you know, like penalizing OEMs for installing alternate operating systems.

I read some things that came out about Microsoft and Gates during the lawsuit and I came out thinking that Gates IS evil and his charity foundation has to be more about PR than actually helping someone else out, although they do inadvertently end up doing that, too. Someone asked me, "Don't you think that the world is better off with Gates giving so much money away?" and I replied, "Sure, but it would be a even better world if they didn't behave like monsters in taking the money in the ways that they do in the first place!"

Too bad all the documents are gone now.

Re:Good to know

[RightSaidFred99]

You're right, there is no other operating system I can buy besides Microsoft Windows. I'm glad you cleared up that egregious error in logic.

Linux doesn't exist, MacOS doesn't exist, *BSD doesn't exist, and none of the dozens of more specialized OS's actually exist.

Re:Good to know

[Sacrelicious2]

And you know, I think part of the reason that it is so hard to find computers with alternate operating systems have more to do with the producers of those operating systems. I'm sure Dell would love to sell computers with the MacOS, problem is Apple doesn't let them. Plus, selling other operating systems creates more costs in things like installation and technical support than they would make in sales. If there was a huge demand for *nix OS's, then the OEMs that make them (yes, they do exist) would see an increase in sales, and by the laws of supply and demand, more companies would work to incorporate those sales. However, the demand is not there, thus there is no increase in sales, thus most companies will not bother to sell those computers. In regards to *nix systems: since even basic use of the system requires a decent background knowledge of computers, it will never be used by the large majority of non-tech savvy consumers. For the people who are tech-savvy enough to effectively use *nix, they are more likely to build their own computers, and thus the OEMs make no money off of them. MacOS does stand a much better chance of taking down windows than *nix does, since it is easier to use by the masses, combined with the fact that it is now considered the 'cool' computer. I don't think this will happen, however, do to the fact that gaming is on the rise as far as standard uses of a computer, and macs are no good for games, thus the jokes regarding the lack of existence of 'mac gamers'.

Re:Good to know

[anagama]

You don't have to tell me that. The last Windows I owned or used was ME. But the existence of fringe OSes (and I don't mean "fring" to be any sort of insult, just an acceptance of market share data) doesn't mean that MS has not engaged in monopolistic pricing and practices.

Perhaps the better analogy would that there are several tofu burger joints giving out free lunches, and a meat burger joint charging $20 a meal. Nobody believes the tofu burgers are good, or somehow has managed to fail to notice the existence of these places, so people feel compelled to eat at the meat burger place and pay the crazy prices. Then there's lock-in, which I somehow can't fit into this lame meat burger analogy. The fact is, for most people, only Windows exists for one reason or another. Like how MS has coerced OEMs to put their OS on machines.

Re:Good to know

[Sacrelicious2]

A: For the vast majority of the public, windows IS a superior product to both linux and OSX B: If you are trying to tell me that the vast majority of people are unaware of OSX, then you are so completely out of touch with modern culture that it is scary. And like I said, it is apple who told the OEMs that they couldn't put OSX on the computers.

Re:Good to know

[Scudsucker]

And you know, I think part of the reason that it is so hard to find computers with alternate operating systems have more to do with the producers of those operating systems.

Nope. Thanks for trying, though.

I'm sure Dell would love to sell computers with the MacOS, problem is Apple doesn't let them.

Because Apple doesn't want to out of frikkin business, that's why. Dell had plenty of time to sell computers with BeOS and Red Hat, who would be quite happy to sell through Dell.

If there was a huge demand for *nix OS's, then the OEMs that make them (yes, they do exist) would see an increase in sales, and by the laws of supply and demand, more companies would work to incorporate those sales. However, the demand is not there, thus there is no increase in sales, thus most companies will not bother to sell those computers.

No consumer demands Windows. Consumers demand platforms for their applications. And where are the most applications? The Win32 api. So where do consumers go? Windows. And since most consumers run windows, what api do most software companies develop for? Windows. A real anti-trust settlement would have broken up Microsoft into separate companies and force them to open their api's.

I don't think this will happen, however, do to the fact that gaming is on the rise as far as standard uses of a computer, and macs are no good for games, thus the jokes regarding the lack of existence of 'mac gamers'.

"Not as good" does not mean "no good". Besides, this reinforces the monopoly argument: if DirectX and Win32 were forced open, Linux vendors and Apple could run games just fine on their systems without modification.

$60 Million? Oh Noes!

[Greyfox]

Demanding $60 million from Microsoft is like Dr. Evil demanding ONE MILLION DOLLARS from the World's Leaders today. Bill Gates could probably find that much money just by scrounging around in the various couches in his mansion. That provides no incentive for the company to change its behavior. No... if you want them to take notice you need to ding them for THIRTY THREE BILLION DOLLARS! Mua ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaa!

Re:$60 Million? Oh Noes!

[Alaria Phrozen]

Um.. you do know he gave almost all his money to charity, right?

I guess you haven't heard of the The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Or maybe it's just popular to rip on the guy. Oh don't get me wrong; I'm sure he still has a nice house.

Re:$60 Million? Oh Noes!

[Scudsucker]

Promised to give, you mean. And what he promises to do with the money in no way mitigates the way he got the money in the first place - it would be like saying Pablo Escobar should be free from criticism if he gave his money to AIDS and caner research. It's also worth pointing out that they are big backers of the Discovery Institute, who are big backers of forcing Intelligent Design into science classrooms.

Re:$60 Million? Oh Noes!

[jbourj]

No incentive? If they do settle for any amount of cash then it sends a BIG message to the rest of the world (especially the other 49 states) that Microsoft will cave in and pay big fees for any future class action law suits---because they fear the possibility of losing a real battle. This sets a nasty precedent where every state will be knocking on MS's door for hand-outs.

IMHO: if you don't like using MS software, go to Linux or Apple. The argument ''there isn't any other player in town and so you're robbing me blind just because you can'' is both wrong in today's software market and based on an absolutely misguided interpretation of how capitalism works.

Justice? There is only one kind of justice....

[zappepcs]

that is when the people who are dissatisfied with MS and how the courts fail to create fair business practices from them all switch to Linux or Apple.... THAT would be justice

Re:like always

[Frequently_Asked_Ans]

Fascism is a political ideology and mass movement that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community. Many different characteristics are attributed to fascism by different scholars, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, totalitarianism, anti-liberalism, and anti-communism. There are numerous debates between scholars regarding the nature of fascism, and the kinds of political movements and governments that may be called fascist. For further elaboration, please see definitions of fascism and fascism and ideology. Fascism emphasizes the role of the personal will in creating political institutions, the use of violence in supressing political and ideological enemies and an existentialist emphasis on "living the moment dangerously". The term fascism was first used by Benito Mussolini, and it comes from the Italian word fascio, which means "union" or "league", and from the Latin word fasces (fascis, in singular), which means rods bundled around an axe. The fasces was an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of magistrates, and the symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity: a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is very difficult to break.
Sieg Hail long live the master Operating System!
I see your and "The Failing" Wikipedia's definitions differ....slightly

Real winners are Microsoft

[RyoShin]

but the real winners will no doubt be the lawyers

Of course, but here Microsoft wins, too. The article doesn't say how the exact payment would be (the article says just "millions of dollars"), but we'll be conservative and say that Microsoft will have to pay out at least 50 million (if it were 100 million, they probably would have said "hundreds of millions"). A quick Google search says that their revenue is around 10 billion. That means they have to pay a half of a percent of their annual revenue. Looking at it another way, it will take them less than a week to recoup that.

This is only a bit more of a punishment than the fine from the EU of a couple ten thousand dollars a day.

And what else do they have to give out? More Microsoft products! Either a voucher, or software for schools. And from that comes support contracts, future upgrades, additional add-ons, all which will cost the schools and/or users additional money.

Why do courts and defendants even allow this? If I cut myself with a razor because it was used shoddy construction and a blade wasn't secured properly, and sue the company, why would I want another razor from them? I may get the razor free, but I still wind up having to buy blades for it later.

Granted, they aren't saying they don't want Windows, just that they were overcharged, but this still seems ludicrous.

Doesn't Qualify

[Petersko]

"Bet the states are licking their chops now... with Vista Ultimate pegged at 399.99. talk about overcharging."

I doubt it would qualify. After all, there are three editions below it, each of which will successfully run the vast majority of Vista-compatible products. In no way are you forced to buy the top of the line. You'd have to argue they are overcharging for the "core" or basic product. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. That's a different question.

The obvious next step

[frovingslosh]

So when do we start the law suits against the lawyers who screw the average guy by filing lawsuits on their behalf and then making all the profits and getting us coupons? Seems like a lawsuit that the jury couldn't help but award to us.

Re:The obvious next step

[nomadic]

How are you getting screwed? You're getting compensated for what you've suffered, which in this case isn't a whole lot.

You think you should make a million dollars because you had to pay $100 for Microsoft software?

Re:The obvious next step

[mdm-adph]

No, but $50 because I had to pay $100 for Microsoft software sure would be nice.

Re:The obvious next step

[frovingslosh]

Oh, come on The consumer gets screwed big time in these suits, we see it over and over again. The often end up with no more than a worthless coupon good only at the manufacturers website for items bought at "full retail"(in other words at whatever price the seller wants to set) and not even available for use with any other offer, while the lawyers make millions. If the claim that the consumer suffered no real harm could be made, then the party being sued would have made it and the lawyers would have had no validity in filing the suit in the first place. Clearly they frequently sell out the public in order to make their own profits.

Microsoft, Lawyers and Evil

[Petersko]

Microsoft cannot begin to dream of reaching the level of evil that lawyers as a group have attained. You think the cost of having a Microsoft monopoly is high? Lawyers and legal organizations increase the cost of every single thing you ever bought in your life, from penny candy to auto insurance. They take a portion of every bit of money that changes hands for legal reasons, they siphon money off of broken families and child support settlements, and from birth death they get their cut every step of the way.

Re:Microsoft, Lawyers and Evil

[tcc3]

Yeah everyone likes to talk shit about Lawyers...until you need one to represent *your* interests.

Re:Microsoft, Lawyers and Evil

[chromozone]

Wherein your problems REALLY begin because the paraistes suck clients dry. The legal class today is 90% pond scum.

iowaconsumercase.org mirror?

[Trelane]

Anyone have the iowaconsumercase.org documents mirrored? The site now requires authentication.

Helping schoolkids?

[Doctor Memory]

the software giant will certainly be on the hook for millions of dollars, some of which may end up helping Iowa school kids Oh, yeah, Microsoft loves helping schools. I remember when I lived in Portland, Microsoft was incredibly helpful.

Actually, as it turned out, they were helpful — they helped spur the development of K12OS...

Re:Helping schoolkids?

[iconeo]

Yeah, they've also donated several buildings to university campuses.

$50?

[Intron]

What I thought was interesting is the claim that Windows adds $50 on average to the cost of a computer, pre-installed. First off, that's a lot less than the retail price. Second, regardless what you think of it, it's pretty cheap for a substantial piece of software that comes with installation and support.

Re:$50?

[Scudsucker]

Second, regardless what you think of it, it's pretty cheap for a substantial piece of software that comes with installation and support.

Not when you realize the fact that $50 goes to Microsoft and none of it gets spent on installation and support. Those costs are borne by the OEM you bought the computer from.

As a citizen

[Maxo-Texas]

these cases really upset me.
I get mail all the time showing the lawyers are going to make 4 to 16 million dollars and as a member of the class I'll get less than a hundred bucks. I do not join the class. I know ultimately, i'm going to be paying higher prices because of this crap.

Re:As a citizen

[Scudsucker]

these cases really upset me. I get mail all the time showing the lawyers are going to make 4 to 16 million dollars and as a member of the class I'll get less than a hundred bucks. I do not join the class.

Then hire an attorney and have him litigate a separate claim for you. You assume absolutely no risk in a class action lawsuit, and yet you complain that you don't get more? Just who is really being greedy here?

I know ultimately, i'm going to be paying higher prices because of this crap.

Nonsense. If companies aren't held accountable for their criminal and negligent behavior, they'll keep right on with their criminal and negligent behavior - costing you FAR more money as a consumer.

Re:As a citizen

[Maxo-Texas]

You missed my point entirely.

It's not about me getting more.

These cases should not even take place.

In many of them the members of the class get nothing but a worthless coupon while the lawyers walk away with millions.

Then, the product prices are raised to cover those costs so in reality *I* am paying the lawyers.

You want the companies to be held accountable- fine. But you pay me 4 million dollars- I'll do my best to find something wrong with every company. This does nothing but make everything we want to do more expensive, and drive any kind of risky product off the market even if I want to buy it knowing it is risky.

My honda element got some sort of stupid class about the windshield-- well hell, it's got a nearly flat windshield- of course it's going to take rock hits harder. I knew that going in. Any damn fool who looks at the slope of the windshield vs a four door is going to know it's going to take more dings.

What do they have to do- put a big red sign that says "THIS WINDSHIELD IS FAIRLY VERTICAL AND WILL GET DINGED BY ROCKS MORE"?

Re:As a citizen

[Scudsucker]

You missed my point entirely.

No, I didn't.

It's not about me getting more.

No, it's about you being a good little elitist.

These cases should not even take place.

Nonsense. Class action lawsuits are the only way to stop companies from fleecing millions of consumers in amounts too small to make litigation worthwhile for a single individual. Case in point: the price fixing of cd's by the RIAA. Even if you hired an attorney to get redress for the price fixing, you'd have to have hundreds of cd's to make this worthwhile. And for every person who would sue, there would be thousands who wouldn't bother. So it would be simple business sense for the RIAA to continue to continue the status quo because the cost would be insignificant next to the reward. Class action lawsuit enters stage right. A few consumers getting back a few hundred bucks wouldn't even attract their notice. A few million consumers getting back $20-$30, they'll notice.

But you pay me 4 million dollars- I'll do my best to find something wrong with every company. This does nothing but make everything we want to do more expensive, and drive any kind of risky product off the market even if I want to buy it knowing it is risky.

Okay, if you want to be stupid. But meritless class action lawsuits will be dismissed like any other.

My honda element got some sort of stupid class about the windshield-- well hell, it's got a nearly flat windshield- of course it's going to take rock hits harder. I knew that going in. Any damn fool who looks at the slope of the windshield vs a four door is going to know it's going to take more dings. What do they have to do- put a big red sign that says "THIS WINDSHIELD IS FAIRLY VERTICAL AND WILL GET DINGED BY ROCKS MORE"?

Problem: two seconds of Googling reveals that you are full of crap. The windshields aren't cracking because they are flat, they are cracking because Honda used shitty windshields.

There should be a limit

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

The lawyer's fees should be limited to a percentage of the actual damages collected by their clients. Using pseudo calculations like, "5 million customers would be given as much as 30$ worth of coupons and so the lawyers will collect 50 million dollars (33% of the total) in hard cash right now" is a farce. Just making sure that the lawyer's take would not exceed 33% of the what the class of victims collect as a total would be a step in the right direction. In the present system, once the award is declared and the lawyers have been paid, there is no incentive for anyone to seach and find all the members of the class and compensate them.

Re:There should be a limit

[Scudsucker]

If you want a larger chunk of the pie, then higher your own representation and assume some of the risk. In a class action lawsuit, the attorneys carry all the risk, and deserve to be well compensated. Besides, all this bitching about attorney fees comes from an attempt to convince people that paying attorneys a lot of money is somehow worse than holding companies accountable for criminal and negligent behavior.

Re:Let's sue on behalf of Linux

[east coast]

I can download Linux for $0. It is a full-fledged operating system. If Linux can cost $0, so should Windows and Mac OS X.

But do you know what isn't free for Linux? Drivers for my 600 USD printer.

I have no problems getting these drivers for Windows and probably no problem getting them for OSX as well.

While I do run Linux on a limited basis in my home I can honestly say that it's not a solution. Grumble all you want to about it but when it comes down to it Linux doesn't support what Windows does in my environment.

So I'd gladly pay the 400 USD for Vista Extreme (or whatever the hell they're calling it) to keep my printer going. I'd pay for a Linux driver for my printer too. One simply does not exist.

This is yet another example (in a long list of examples) of why some people can not simply "march with the penguins".

Linux is not a total solution, stop marketing it like it is one or be just as guilty as the asshats at Microsoft and Apple. At least in their cases I can honestly say there is support for my hardware.

And even if I could get these drivers I'm still not going 100% Linux because of the lack of applications I need to do my daily things. Don't get me wrong; Linux is neat, I enjoy playing around with it, it does a lot of what Joe Sixpack needs it to do but it's still not where Windows is today in overall applications and hardware support. You may complain that it's the fault of MS and the market forces but that doesn't get my printer printing.

then opt out of the settlement

[kansas1051]

If you are so bothered by having someone represent you for free, you should just opt out of the class action settlement and file suit yourself. In everyone one of these class action settlements, all known class members will receive a letter from the court informing them of the settlement and of how to opt out (you just need to send a letter to the court). I'm sure most people receive several of these every year and just throw them out because they haven't been harmed enough to care.

As for the "kids of Iowa", the Iowa AG should file suit against Microsoft to recover money for the kids, that way greedy plaintiff's lawyers can't get any of it. If the Iowa AG doesn't want to do this, your problem is with him (and Microsoft of course)

Re:then opt out of the settlement

[TykeClone]

He did that with the tobacco company lawsuits. In that case, the money was supposed to go to the state Medicaid fund.

It didn't.

Torrent desperately needed

[Anonymous Coward]

We desperately need this up on bittorrent. Please do it if you can or ask for help if you can't.

Too bad in a way....

[oldgeezer1954]

It's unfortunate that the case is settled as the truth of MS as an organization was finally getting out in detail with their website. While it's too bad that the documents are now unavailable there are many who claim they have copies. At the very least the documents made public in the case to this point clearly put to bed the myth/fiction that MS competes on the merits of their products. Their use of secret api's and intentional sabotaging of competitors products is now proven by their own internal documents.

Read "King of Torts"..

[the_rajah]

by John Grisham. It's about how class-action suits work, or don't, at least for the members of the class. Very interesting reading. Be prepared to be angry whenever you hear the term class-action. The only winners are the lawyers. I wish, as another poster commented, that they were paid with Microsoft coupons.

Re:Read "King of Torts"..

[suckmysav]

Read it and I agree with your recommendation

Re:Read "King of Torts"..

[gumbi west]

Not sure if you know this, but Grisham is a novelist, and a good one at that. As with all good writers, the focus is on what makes the best story, not what is reality. I've never read this book so I can't refute it's central points, but I can't imagine a country without tort and without class action tort.

In the end, the system isn't perfect, but having the lawyers get rich is better than having the companys get rich mainly because of the incentive system that it sets up for companies.

put it this way, if you want to keep the cookies in the jar, you can put a sign on the jar that says, "don't take cookies" and then if someone takes them you ask them to put it back (but don't punish them if they don't) or you could allow another person to catch them and take the cookie from them. When you do the latter, the incentive is to catch people, and there is little incentive to take (most of the cookies stay in the jar). When you do the former, people just take the cookies and you've got nothing left.

Price controls

[duncan bayne]

It's sad that the US Government is implementing price controls on the market - but in order to maintain the veneer of laissez-faire capitalism, they're doing so via 'anti-trust' legislation, rather than through explicit legislation.

Re:Price controls

[RightSaidFred99]

Yeah, that's exactly what it is - price controls. They call it anti-trust, which is ridiculous because MS has no OS monopoly. They have a Windows monopoly, meaning it's an IP and trademark "monopoly". Logic dictates that antitrust law applies to limited physical resources and government granted monopolies. Most of the dweebs who hate MS and the greedy government entities who attack Microsoft aren't logical, though.

This just in: Apple has a monopoly on the Ipod! McDonald's has a monopoly on the Big Mac, and Brittney Spears has a monopoly on the song "Hit Me Baby One More Time"! Also, Tivo has a monopoly on the Tivo software! Good God, sue them all, quick!

Re:Price controls

[duncan bayne]

> Most of the dweebs who hate MS and the greedy government entities who attack Microsoft aren't logical, though.

But it's not just Government entities. A lot of anti-trust legislation is the result of careful lobbying on the part of companies that are losing in the marketplace, & who see anti-trust legislation as a means of harming their competitors. Here in New Zealand, the Government is nationalising the key infrastructural assets of our major telecommunications company as the result of a clever lobbying & public PR campaign by many of the other industry players.

As P. J. O'Rourke said, "When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators."

Re:Price controls

[Scudsucker]

They call it anti-trust, which is ridiculous because MS has no OS monopoly.

Of course they do. A monopoly is a company that dominates a market to the point that it has detrimental effects on the consumer, not that they have to have 100% marketshare.

Re:Price controls

[RightSaidFred99]

This is false. Microsoft does not dictate the OS market, consumers dictate it. A monopoly created by consumer choice is no monopoly at all. There are, demonstrably, alternatives. Microsoft has no pricing power over any of the alternatives, some of which are even free. Ergo, Microsoft has no monopoly.

I really don't get the Big Government mentality Slashdot has about MS. Apparently you all think Linux is far superior, and it's even free, but you want the government to step in and punish Microsoft for some obscure reason I've never really understood.

In short - consumers cannot make a monopoly by choosing between multiple distinct products. Monopolies are government created or exist based on scarce physical resources. 90% of the population deciding they want MS products doesn't mean the government suddenly gets to set the price and regulate a private company, at least it doesn't in a rational world.

Re:Price controls

[Scudsucker]

This is false.

No, it's not false. You just have no idea what you are talking about, as evidenced by the fact that Microsoft is already a convicted monopolist . Try reading up on the subject.

A monopoly created by consumer choice is no monopoly at all.

Microsoft didn't gain a monopoly with consumer choice. They gained a monopoly by giving OEM's a discount if they would ship all of their computers with a version of Windows. Ship a different OS, and say goodbye to that discount - a kiss of death with the razor thin profit margins in the cutthroat PC industry. Consumers had a choice alright - Windows 95, Windows 98 or Windows NT. Want to by a Dell with BeOS or OS/2? You're SOL, buddy. Want to get an HP with no operating system installed so you can install Linux? Still SOL. Try using the clause in the Windows EULA that stated that you could return the copy of Windows that came with your machine for a refund if you disagreed with the terms of the license? Microsoft would ignore you.

I disagree

[rajafarian]

I say its time for MS to be forced to publish their "standards" and APIs.

I disagree. I think that Microsoft has to be stopped from using anti-competitive tactics in their way of doing business and the rest will take care of itself. Let them keep their junk, closed source, buggy operating system.

I say one set of prices for EVERYONE published publicly with no contract tie-ins to any other MS or competing product coming into the equation will take care of everything!

Re:I disagree

[hackstraw]

I disagree. Fixing prices is not the answer. What? Admit that they are a monopoly of an unpublished API and standard and regulate them like electricity and water?

Look at what governments are pushing for. Things like the ODF. People want a word processor, and unfortunately Word is the only guy left on the block, but people don't want to be tied to the .doc format so that they are not tied to the MS upgrade lockin.

I say that governments and the people can demand the standards and APIs to be open, and then competition will naturally follow.

All cars are essentially the same, and they have to comply with emissions, take the available fuels out there, fit on the roads, and all of this. But all cars don't cost the same. Some are simply nicer, and that comes at a price, but we still have a choice to buy a cheaper car that will get the job done.

Re:I disagree

[Trelane]

nfortunately Word is the only guy left on the block

oh is that really so?

I say that governments and the people can demand the standards and APIs to be open, and then competition will naturally follow.

This will allow technical competition, but not economic nor political, as any competitors might have the same APIs (good luck verifying that, though), but will face huge hurdles to overcome because of bundling deals, discounts on Windows if they sell only Office, etc, not to mention advertising and buying politicians, which Microsoft can afford much more than anyone else.

Re:Let's sue on behalf of Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

What printer do you have?

why....

[Grinin]

Aside from this Iowa case, why can't Microsoft be tried once more by the government on anti-trust violations. I'm no lawyer, but I feel that every time Microsoft releases something new they do so not for the benefit of the consumer but for the benefit of the share holders. Is the government simply too computer illiterate to realize what Microsoft is doing with their latest operating system, or has the whole world gone mad with power money and greed? I'm leaning towards the latter, but there has to be something or someone who can stand up to Microsoft for the consumers. I feel like the majority of the population just walks in a row like sheep and recites a mantra to themselves, "Must buy, latest and greatest MS release".... Like lemmings.

Re:why....

[Ogive17]

Aside from this Iowa case, why can't Microsoft be tried once more by the government on anti-trust violations. I'm no lawyer, but I feel that every time Microsoft releases something new they do so not for the benefit of the consumer but for the benefit of the share holders. Nothing illegal here, if you want to stay in business you develop new product. And a company is suppose to act in the best interest of the share holders...

Is the government simply too computer illiterate to realize what Microsoft is doing with their latest operating system, or has the whole world gone mad with power money and greed? I don't understand why Microsoft gets blamed so much. What they have done is no different than the industry leader in just about every industry. You don't rise to the top by being best friends with your competition.

I feel like the majority of the population just walks in a row like sheep and recites a mantra to themselves, "Must buy, latest and greatest MS release".... Like lemmings. After reading this part I wasn't surprised to see a linix signature.

Until mainstream programs/games are released for linix at the same time as windows and/or mac, there won't be a shift in market share. Personally, I don't switch because I wouldn't be able to play games. And since gaming is what I mainly use my home PC for, there is no need to switch.

You should focus your Microsoft hatred towards the 3rd party software companies, they are the ones that enable windows to maintain their market dominance.

Re:why....

[Grinin]

First of all. Its spelled "Linux" not linix. You're on /. you should know this by now.

No kidding they're supposed to act in favor of shareholders, however it should also benefit the consumer, by having some friendlier business practices.... Google is rolling in the cash, and you don't see them trying to screw over their customers/consumers.

As for gaming... you can use wine (win32 emulator) to play just about any game you can in windows. Ie: Counterstrike (any steam application) World of Warcraft and plenty of other games. There are even open source FPS's like mods of wolfenstein which are entirely free. Take a look at http://www.linuxgames.com/ for more information.

I can agree with you on one part, which is until programmers start developing cross platform software for both businesses and consumers alike, Linux will only be adopted by geeks. Which, if you would have read the article in my signature, you would have realized that I also speak of the down sides of linux. And again, if you would have read the article in my signature I speak to the software developers and plead for them to develop POSIX compliant software. There is a reason why there are programming standards, and there is no need for software to ONLY work in Windows. Take a look at Skype for example. Windows/Linux/Mac/etc. These are companies that know what they are doing, and know they can be profitable by designing software for all platforms.

Re:why....

[Grinin]

Not necessarily. Microsoft just simply isn't a company to find new and inventive ways to be a profitable company. They always simply try to copy someone else's idea and they usually fail. See Zune reviews on Slash.

I just graduated from college with a degree in business and in no way did they say "OK class. Today we're going to learn how to run a business on the edge of legality and try to convince consumers they need your products then once they are locked in, we screw them out of every penny they have"

Again, using Google as an example of a company that does good for both the consumers as well as their shareholders. Notice they even have a clause in their privacy statement which says "We shall do no evil" or something to that effect. And so far they haven't done any evil. They were even the only search engine to stand up to the government when they asked for search queries.

Also, look at Skype. Skype was created by the old founders of Kazaa which as you may remember was a P2P application which eventually got sued, luckily for the skype guys it was after they sold kazaa. They then used their cash out money to start skype... In their first year they made 60million dollars and were purchased by eBay for roughly 1 billion dollars.

These examples prove to me that you can cater both to the consumer and to the shareholders. Skype was free and still is free to this day and is profitable because they sell pc -> land line minutes at a discounted rate. Which, internet telphony is starting to lower your monthly phone bill as a result of the added competition.

Changing masters is not freedom.

[jbn-o]

Switching to free software is far better than switching from one master to another. Apple is largely just another proprietor, but with a completely free software operating system and only free software apps on top of that, you can liberate yourself from proprietors/monopolists.

Still a Monopoly

[Doc Ruby]

And Microsoft is still a monopoly. If Iowa dealt with all organized criminals by just making them give back what they'd stolen when caught, every Iowan would have to join the gang to make a living.

I don't know....

[RootWind]

That will probably end up being $32.99 billion in the hands of the lawyers...

Re:I don't know....

[Greyfox]

That's not the point. The point is that if you actually fine a company enough money that it actually hurts them, they have an incentive to not behave that way anymore. It doesn't matter who gets the money as long as the company found guilty of illegal behavior doesn't. Wipe out a company's profits for a year and see if they want to continue doing what they were doign in the future.

Of course MY regime would hold corporate upper management and public servants to Samurai Honor Code. Having to commit seppuku if your company does something illegal would be a strong incentive not to do anything illegal. I don't think that's too much to ask if you want to be responsible of the well being of thousands of people and get paid millions of dollars a year for your efforts.

Re:I don't know....

[Eivind]

True. The main point of fines is to change behaviour. For that to work, the fines have to be significant enough that it *matters* to the person fined.

I have a lot of respect for the traffic-ticket system in Finland. You're fined depending on your net-worth and income-level. So a rich person speeding will get a larger fine than a poor person speeding.

Makes perfect sense. If you're on welfare, $50 is a significant amount -- probably enough to make you think twice. If you're Bill Gates, then $50 is a completely ignorable amount -- you could pay that much every hour and it'd still be ignorable.

If you're Jaako Rytsola (Finnish entrepeneur caugth driving 47mph in a 25mph zone last year) then that can mean a whopping $71.000 fine. (the fine in this case was 20-day-fines where a day-fine is defined as your disposable income, which is basically your net-income minus minimum living-costs)

For companies it's the same. If you fine Mom 'n Pop $5000 they'll take notice real quick. If you fine Microsoft $5000 it's completely down in the noise and certainly not enough to make top-management adjust behaviour (indeed top-managment may not even hear about it)

Average price?

[OhHellWithIt]

From TFA:

The company claims that the average price of Windows has held steady at $50 (PDF) for the last ten years,

Why is it I've never seen a full version of Windows for $50 at Staples, Office Depot, etc.? And, if I remember correctly, the "Microsoft tax" I paid when I bought my Dell laptop last year was around $100.

Too bad I don't live in Iowa. Well, maybe not. It's ten degrees Fahrenheit in Cedar Rapids right now.

Re:Average price?

[aduzik]

And it's five degrees Fahrenheit in West Des Moines (otherwise known as "outside") right now. At least I might get some Microsoft coupons! That makes me feel warmer already

Re:Average price?

[AMDinator]

Yeah, and it also makes me feel warm that valley high school, which already has a billion IBM laptops including some very nice Core Duo T60s, will probably get even more stuff out of this. Maybe they'll put the money towards more smartboards, those things are fun.

Re:Average price?

[aduzik]

Haha. That's what Microsoft meant when they said they were happy to help out underprivileged schools, right? You don't get any more underprivileged than Valley. Next they're going to be donating to Waukee schools.

Re:Let's sue on behalf of Linux

[east coast]

It's an OkiData C5300n. (and yes, I know they're cheaper now).

In all honesty I thought about trying to create my own print driver for it but I know nothing about print drivers and I highly doubt I have enough coding skill to pull it off.

Kill the lawyers!

[Yaksha42]

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.

Microsoft Settles

[hisstory student]

SCO should be so fortunate.

Settle mint, anyone?

[StikyPad]

the team prosecuting the case has already earned $60 million in legal fees

Normally I try to look for the other side of the story, and give the benefit of the doubt to who/whatever is being maligned by the Slash&burn summary or the groupthink. In this case, however, I find it very difficult. While fees != profit, it's hard to believe that the investigation, research, and preperation expenses would amount to more than a third of that figure. Additionally, the acceptance of a settlement indicates that they could care less about either setting a precedent or actually taking MS to task. I guess that shouldn't surprise me, but I'm still disappointed.

Re:Settle mint, anyone?

[oldgeezer1954]

I fully agree with you and the fees are obscene. With that said though they normally take these cases on speculation and a percent of the settlement (1). If your speculation of the case costs was right (20 mill) then they've lost their shirts in the process. Do we require 'the class' to pay the fees? How many would risk that against a corporation worth billions. So what do we do? Cap the fees? At what percent? At what dollar value? As noted in the first paragraph the firm takes a huge risk. Doesn't the maxim of huge reward accrue to them? And if we do that then why can't we cap the profits and rewards earned by large companies and rich people, such as MS and Gates. The phrase slippery slope applies although many may want to take that slide. (1) That's the way the law society fee structures work in my part of Canada.... Possibly different in other jurisdictions.

Re:Limit lawyers' fees from class action lawsuits

[Teun]

I am a lawyer. I do trial work. I charge an hourly rate which I think fairly represents my time, taking into account expenses, experience and the years of study and training it took to get qualified.

It is not all that different from the fees I am charged by my plumber, and less than my dentist charges.

Just take out his (legal) liability insurance and that dentist will be a whole lot more price worthy...

you are a bad lawyer

[Scudsucker]

Trial lawyers who run these class action suits, however, usually settle for a piece of the pie, or charge for inflated time at inflated amounts, or both.

And generally get nothing unless they win. Higher risk, higher reward.

Result: they take on many suits that should not be brought.

If the suits are without merit, they will be dismissed, same as any other.

Remedy: ban any lawyers from taking any portion of the amount at offer, and limit them to capped hourly rates.

Then many worthwhile cases will not get the best representation.

Look, these class action lawsuits don't cost consumers a thing. All of the risk is carried by the attorneys, and so they deserve to be well compensated. Don't like it - assume some of the risk yourself and hire your own representation - or else you are greedy yourself.

Re:you are a bad lawyer

[jeremycobert]

Look, these class action lawsuits don't cost consumers a thing.... WTF ? do you think these companies absorb the cost of the settlement ? hell no , they pass the cost off to the consumer.

Re:you are a bad lawyer

[Scudsucker]

WTF ? do you think these companies absorb the cost of the settlement ? hell no , they pass the cost off to the consumer.

No, they were already passing off the cost to consumers in the form of faulty products, and without accountability enforced from lawsuits, would keep right on doing it. People would still be having heart attacks from Vioxx and Ephedra. Ford would still be making Explorers that would roll over at the drop of a hat with exploding Firestone tires. Record companies would keep price fixing their cds. McDonalds would still be making coffee that would burn you to the bone. And so on. And on. And on.

deluded nonsense

[Scudsucker]

You want more money from a company that has wronged you, hire your own damn attorney. You are getting something (a settlement) for nothing (no effort or risk on your own) and you complain about not getting more money? Just who is really being greedy here?

Lawyers and legal organizations increase the cost of every single thing you ever bought in your life, from penny candy to auto insurance.

No, they reduce those costs by holding companies accountable for their criminal and negligent actions. You would be paying more money without lawyers, because companies would never be held accountable and would keep on doing what got them sued in the first place.

The greatest trick in the world wasn't the devil convincing people he did not exist. The greatest trick was big industry convincing workers and consumers that standing up for themselves through lawsuits, regulation and unions is bad and those things need to be gotten rid of, for the benefit of the common man than big industry.

Re:Let's sue on behalf of Linux

[dadragon]

Did you try Google? http://www.linuxprinting.org/show_printer.cgi?recn um=Okidata-C5300

It's a postscript printer, you shouldn't need drivers. You do need a custom PPD file, though: http://europe.oki.com/fcgi-bin/public.fcgi?pid=6&c id=135&chid=10&pdflag=&prid=407&OSId=5&languageId= 1

Both of those came from the printer's page on linux-printing.

Microsoft Is Evil

[dbdunn23]

Yes I know all you /.ers are gonna bash me for this, but quit acting like MS is the only corporation that buys market share. Do you think automobiles still run on gasoline because car makers think it is a good idea? No, they run on gasoline b/c Exxon/Mobil has paid for them to run on gasoline. Do you think Gov. Perry (Texas) passed a law that requires all pre-adolescent girls to get vaccinated against an STD b/c he thinks it is in their best interest? No, he passed the law b/c Merck gave him a s**t load of money. I know its fun to bash MS b/c they throw sacks of money around to stay at the top of the market, but there are hundreds of companies that do it, and thousands that would if they had the money.

Minnesota Settlement...

[Rick Richardson]

02/13/2006 FUNDS RECEIVED *type: *DEPOSIT $251.00

$251.00 is serious money from Microsoft Corp, NOT "Average consumers will probably end up with a few bucks or a coupon".

Wouldn't it be nice

[bwbadger]

Wouldn't it be nice if the judge could rule that the public good would be best served by seeing the case through, and did indeed ruled so in this case?

Re:Let's sue on behalf of Linux

[east coast]

Actually, I must apologize, it's a C5200n. I misspoke.

Aside from that you must admit that if you goto Linux Printing's Okidata list there are a fair number of OD printers with no Linux support.

And yes, I googled and had done other research with no luck.

Stop and think for one second...

[Brain Damaged Bogan]

Everyone keeps bashing on Microsoft in this article... but did anybody stop to think that if they set the price of a product at $X and the consumers were willing to pay this price instead of looking at open-source alternatives then it's the consumers own damn fault that they got ripped off.
Microsoft is NOT a monopoly, there's always an alternative if the consumer would just look past their noses they'd see it. Honestly bashing MS because they set a price they figured people would be willing to pay is just foolish... you should be bashing the people who were dumb enough to cough up the cash for MS products.

Re:Stop and think for one second...

[suckmysav]

This would be a valid point were it not for the fact that Microsoft uses its vast market power to exclude alternatives from being visible at the point of sale. By ensuring that the likes of Dell, HP/Compaq, IBM, Acer and Gateway don't offer alternative OS choices through threats of massive price hikes via their OEM contracts they make it virtually impossible for someone to purchase a brand name PC without purchasing Windows with it.

Have you ever tried buying a PC without Windows? There are only two ways to do it. Buy a whitebox from a small retailer or stumble upon the occasional PC with pre-loaded linux that is usullay hidden deep in the bowels of the websites of online retailers such as Dell and HP.

In the first case a lot of people are hesitant to buy non brand name PC's because they incorrectly assume that they will get better quality if they choose a brand they "know" (read: have heard of).

In the second case it is usually impossible to find any PC loaded with linux just by connecting to a retailers main page and just clicking. You usually have to already know that they offer a Linux PC and then have enough ability to search and find it on the site. Often you can't even find it using the search tools on the site and you have to do a site: search in Google, which most people don't even know you can do.

You can't just go pick a PC and then choose between Windows and Linux, which is how it would work were there a level playing field.

This is why people are always "bashing on Microsoft". If they had faith in their own product then they would have no problem with competing fairly against Linux.

Clearly they don't have faith in their products, so why should we?

Re:Stop and think for one second...

[ezberry]

Microsoft has been convicted, very recently, of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. See US v. Microsoft (D.C. Cir. 2001). It violated section 2 of the Sherman antitrust act with predatory practices. It attempted to monopolize the browser market, illegally tied its browser, created exclusive dealings contracts that, while not on their face unreasonable, contributed to the section 2 violation. The court dismissed only the leveraging claim.
I think your biggest understanding is that you don't have to be a monopoly to violate Sherman. Section 2 prohibits monopolization and attempts to monopolize. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire ... to monopolize any part of trade ... shall be deemed guilty... Liability ensues when a company monopolizes or comes dangerously close to doing so.
This case, of course, deals with Iowa law, and not Federal law, but the same principles apply. Antitrust law is all about stopping anticompetitive behavior. If you act anti-competitively, then it causes harm to the market which means that your premise of a rational consumer buying the product that they see fit at the price they see fit no longer applies.

Re:Stop and think for one second...

[suckmysav]

Are you suggesting that Microsoft does not use their dominant position in the market place to enormous amounts of pressure major vendors to not offer Linux as an alternative? Do you really believe that Microsoft is willing to compete head to head with Linux on equal footing? Why should they be allowed to threaten OEMs with huge price hikes if they dare to offer alternative products?

As for Walmart, as far as I am aware they were selling absolutely crappy ultra-cheapo white boxes without any sort of ability to advise potential customers or offer much in the way of after sales support. Considering that 90% of the planet do not have Walmart stores anyway I don't see what they did or didn't do as being particularly relevant. When HP starts offering a choice between pre-installed OS's I will take notice.

I have noticed that HP have very recently started offering laptops with nothing but FreeDOS on them (along with a Suse Linux 10 Certified tag). Whether that is due to the widespread disappointment with Vista remains to be seen.

I've also noticed that while most major suppliers had removed Windows XP as an option on their new PCs for launch day it now appears that XP is back on sale, and in a lot of cases as the default option.

Consumer Refunds and Personal Privacy

[smeckert]

I was offered a settlement for software bundled with my laptop, but to claim it I had to give MS a heinous ammount of personal information, including my social security number and birthdate.

I declined the offer rather than have enough information for identity theft in the hands of a company I don't choose to do business with in the first place.

It's bad enough you have to buy Windows even if your going to use something else.

Perhaps the intent to be clear is there...

[rjbiii]

but it rarely actually happens, especially in less intuitive areas of law like anti-trust. For instance, the credit card industry hacks who re-wrote the bankruptcy code with the 2005 amendments did such a poor job that in some cases their objectives for making the changes may be undermined by the poor language used. Also, it appears that in some cases, the new amendments might be overturned for violating various constitutional provisions. You think the anti-trust code doesn't need a specialist? Take a gander at it. What about the Income Tax code? Even attorneys who don't practice in these areas are often mystified by the language. Plus, in our legal system, each state may pass its own laws, and each federal circuit may interpret the same laws differently. It the circuits become too divided, or if the state legislatures get a little crazy, the Supreme Court can rectify the situation. No matter the legal system, a good lawyer will always be helpful. Why? Because juries don't always make decisions strictly on the facts. Think of it this way: if there are two job applicants competing for the same job, and one has substantially better qualifications, but the other has better political, social skill, and has a more professional image, which one will get the job. Perception counts, and reality (sometimes) bites.

Re:Let's sue on behalf of Linux

[east coast]

Really? MS? Is that why there's Mac support for it? Sounds like a mound of bullshit to me.

Anyway... none of that changes the facts, none of that makes my printer work.

And none of that stops the OSS mouthpieces (such as yourself) from developing your own drivers.

You've obviously missed the point of this post and you've only helped for me to see that OSS fanbois are always going to blame everyone else for their lack of hardware and software support.

Oh well, Windows works for me. That's what counts today and that's how I'm going to vote with my dollars until things change.

Worthless vouchers

[laing]

I have a few hundred dollars worth of vouchers from the California M$ anti-trust settlement. They want me to send in my original receipts (from 5 years ago) in order to redeem them. For me, it's not worth the trouble to sift through my old records to see if I have them. A better solution would have been to allow for the use of product serial numbers -- they are readily available. I'm sure that I am in the majority. What this means is the the California settlement was a BIG WIN for M$.

Aren't we all the cynical ones

[smchris]

The Minnesota settlement got my wife and me a refurb Epson 2400 scanner, a cheap HP inkjet (both linux compatible) and three LinuxStore "Tux" keyboards from Cheapbytes.

I'll take it. But, yes, I would rather be using IBM OS/4 HyperDrive today.

Re:Let's sue on behalf of Linux

[east coast]

What kind of idiot are you?

Man, a fantastic first line from a linux "advocate". You still don't understand why people call you guys snobs?

Linux does everything that you need.

Except for make my printer print, run EQ2 or CounterStrike or MS Office applications just to name a few things...

Linux has applications coming out of its ass.

Applications that I don't need because Windows has them as well. You need to offer me more, not excuses.

Cups (the common unix printing system) works with mac osx too... so, I'm basically calling your story .....bullshit!

Never said I was running Mac OS. I fail to see your point.

Last I checked, cups was very plug and play (over the network too), and all gui. Nothing to configure, and more than 4500 of the most popular brands and models of printers were fully supported (I got support for my HP printer from cups, and with direct support --in cups-- from HP!).

It's not an HP. If you, mr. genius, would have taken the pains you'd see clearly that I do mention in the thread that it's an Okidata. I guess reading is just too much for someone of your superiority?

Linux has millions of available applications. The only thing really stopping it is a pervasive campaign put on by microsoft which trys to sway people by paying their marketing people to infect sites (such as slashdot) and try to make it sound like Linux can't

What? Oh come on now. This is the ultimate bullshit. Linux fails because Microsoft commands it to fail? What a bunch of fucking shit. It's loser fanbois like you who give linux a bad name, not microsoft.

What was the exact make and model of your printer again? What was it? Huh? Cat got your tongue?

Again,I did mention it in the thread, but you're such a cool guy I'll let you go through the trouble of reading if you're really that interested.

It's assholes like you that are ruining the n00b linux experience. You start off by simply insulting me instead of asking a simple question? fuck. not to mention that you've already proven you have no real interest in helping me by being so smug.

Fuck, with advocates like you who the fuck needs microsoft? I'm sorry that we don't all come out of the womb knowing everything about linux. with people like you around it certainly helps me take more interest in just going back to a pure windows environment where I can get some help without being browbeaten for not being Mr Linux Wizard.

Again, you're more of the problem than microsoft.

Re:The point of a company....

[Grinin]

I agree... but like i said in the above comment replies, you can cater to shareholders while developing good products that benefit consumers. In fact, if they made better products that benefited the consumers they would sell more units, more licenses, etc and the shareholders will get to enjoy a rising stock price.

Google: (GOOG) current stock price: 465.93
Microsoft: (MSFT) 29.40

Re:Network printer, use CUPS and IPP

[east coast]

PS the reason why you get the vitriol from some people is your namecalling: "zealots like you" and that you're a twat.

Uh, no. I never called anyone a zealot until I was called an idiot. So fuck off, hard.

I'll leave you guys to your Linux. Thanks for the "help".

What have I been saying...

[jskline]

What have I been saying all this time!!! The only people doing anything here is the lawyers are making all this money, and the consumer still gets ripped. Microsoft will most likely just pass this cost along to the consumer in higher prices and consider it part of doing business. It's like the lawyers have some kind of grip on the monetary system of this country! What is it that makes these people grab all the money and leave nothing for the so-called group that they are representing??? I don't understand that one!

Then theres the line they put in the suit that says something to the effect that you are considered inclusive to the suit unless you *explicitly* write in and opt-out. And; as part of that suit, you are agreeing to surrender all your rights and awards over to these lawyers to be part of the class. What kind of judge allows that???

Re:like always

[AlgorithMan]

yes, this wikipedia entry is inaccurate
fascism means by definition nothing more than ANTI-DEMOCRATIC - and this wikipedia entry describes quote elements are usually seen as its integral parts so it describes not what fascism IS, but what most people BELIEVE IT WAS

and I think its very anti-democratic to break the law on purpose, knowing that you'll face nothing but a fee that is much less than the money you made by breaking that law

Yes, of course I know that...

[the_rajah]

he's a novelist. He's also an attorney so his novels have authentic background information, but, yes, it's fiction.

I, too, cannot imagine a workable legal system without tort law and class action, but it doesn't hurt to point out the flaws in what we're working with. Read the book as I suggested, it's very interesting.

Anyway, thanks for reading and commenting.

Re:Let's sue on behalf of Linux

[dadragon]

Well, drat. That looks like it's a winprinter (host based printer language). The C5400 looks like it'd work with an expansion card. That's too bad, unless OKi decides to support it.

I generally look for PS in printers I buy. Partly because they work with UNIXy systems like Linux or Mac OS X, but also because they'll continue to work even with the newest version of Windows. My Photosmart P1000 is now a paperweight with x64 Vista, so it's going to my sister who uses an iBook exclusively.

Re:Network printer, use CUPS and IPP

[east coast]

BTW Fucktard, where the fuck do you see this as being a postscript printer? It's certainly not in OkiData's own specs

So I call "bollocks" on your research.

Who the fuck is the twat now?