Microsoft Wins Windows XP Downgrade Lawsuit

CWmike writes "A federal judge has dismissed a year-old lawsuit against Microsoft over alleged antitrust violations for the 'downgrade' rules it set for Windows Vista and XP. The order put an end to the lawsuit filed by Emma Alvarado in February 2009. In her original complaint, she accused Microsoft of coercing computer makers into forcing consumers who wanted to run Windows XP to first buy Windows Vista, or later, Windows 7, before they were allowed to downgrade to XP. The judge rejected Alvarado's accusations, saying that the plaintiff had not proved Microsoft benefited from the downgrade practices that it created and that OEMs implemented."

Comments

How?

[leetrout]

I'm not a lawyer but how do you not prove that they benefited by having OEMs sell the newer version of their software before allowing a downgrade path?

Re:How?

[HermMunster]

There are a lot of ways they benefit. One by having mechanisms built into Vista that patrol the user that weren't there in XP that were rejected by XP users when they released WGA. The next is that they actually denied consumers the choice even though consumers asked for it and in the end the only way to get it was to pay for the OS twice (once for Vista and once for XP). OEMs aren't just the big boys such as the royal OEMs.

This person's failure was obviously her failure of knowing the law or getting adequate legal council. Or Microsoft has deep pockets that get judges all hot and wet.

The OEMs were forced to sell Vista and were told not to allow XP. Microsoft's approach to forcing Vista was systematic. It isn't hard to see what they had done over the past two years. Those actions could only be taken by a monopoly in the manner they were, and then again only by a monopoly with something to gain. Microsoft had been directing Royal OEMs to remove support for XP in the BIOS tables and as well had been telling hardware vendors not to provide drivers for XP (sound, wireless, etc). They didn't direct this in this manner without some plan and thus benefit to themselves.

Really, it isn't hard to understand that users wanted X product but were forced to buy V product and then buy X product afterwords. When resellers said they were not able to comply and that Microsoft had discontinued their right to purchase the X product and then systematically denied support, and then lied about the availability of product keys. That's coercion of all parties--to say the least. When you consider Microsoft came up with more product keys after the netbook craze began you can see they were manipulating and coercing OEMs and thus consumers.

If I were this person I'd refile (as I'm sure the case didn't go to trial) and then subpoena all the OEMs and their communications in preparation of the Vista release. I'd be willing to bet there's some real telling details in those correspondences.

Re:How?

[hairyfeet]

The problem is there was NO Vista Home to XP Home, which means that home users had to buy a more expensive license just to get XP. And THAT right there was the problem, and why they should refile.

Re:Stupid Lawsuit

[wizardforce]

So this lady was suing because of what? Being slightly inconvenienced?

In addition to tying the purchase of Vista to these machines, MS/OEMs charged a significant amount of money to replace Vista with the desired OS (Windows XP) which she claimed raised prices relative to a competitive marketplace which is certainly true.

And Vista wasn't bad at all. Especially with a new machine that had the proper drivers.

That is subjective and further irrelevant because the question is not whether you wanted Vista on the machine but whether the purchaser wants Vista on the machine. To her and millions of others, Vista was very undesirable.

You sue the wrong party or pursue the wrong action

[Telephone Sanitizer]

how do you not prove that they benefited by having OEMs sell the newer version of their software before allowing a downgrade path?

This is from the article:

Computer makers, not Microsoft, charged users the additional fees for downgrading a new PC from Vista to XP at the factory. However, Alvarado did not name Lenovo Group Ltd. in her lawsuit.

She sued MS for a practice of the OEM. Wrong defendant.

It's possible that she could have shown vertical market manipulation, but that might not have been relevant. Such practices might give rise to a federal antitrust suit, but she brought a state unfair practices action.

I'm no expert in the laws of Washington state, but from the article it appears that among other things she had to show that she did not receive value for her money and she failed to do so.

Re:It's their copyright and they can do as they wa

[QuoteMstr]

Most of the world's non-embedded computers run Windows. When a company reaches that level of influence, it ceases to be just another firm and instead becomes a part of our societal infrastructure. It's certainly reasonable to hold such organizations to a higher standard than we hold smaller organizations. The power company can't "do as they want" either.

As long as Microsoft wants to enjoy the lucrative benefits of being a singular part of society's information infrastructure, society ought to have a say in how Microsoft is run.

You might argue that imposing such restrictions is "punishing success". That's hardly true. The people responsible for Microsoft's growth have been rewarded many times over. If Microsoft finds regulations unbearable, it can split itself in two smaller companies, or shrink some other way. Then, it would no longer be subject to the same scrutiny.

But as long as Microsoft