First Class Action Suit for Microsoft

Re:Greed is the root of evil by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 23:07 · Score: 0

Right. They 'made you buy it'. Easy - don't buy from Office Depot. Build your own or order from somewhere else. Second, blame Office Depot - not MS. MS didn't force them (they never did truly force anyone, and they haven't even 'strongly suggested' it via price cuts for a long time). Get a clue.

Re:Hey I want in! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 23:09 · Score: 0

So those HUNDREDS of other people this happened to must have felt it was their fault for being a dumbass and spilling hot coffee on themselves. Those HUNDREDS of people didn't go whining to a lawyer and try to sue. At most she should have been awarded the cost of her medical bills and a cup holder.

Re:is this copyright violation? by ucblockhead · 1999-11-21 23:09 · Score: 1

Yeah, and if the I feel like modifying a bunch of GPL'd software, sell it for lots of money and keeping the source private, well, you all can just get over it because keeping source public is annoying...

(Halt the flame throwers. I don't really think that.)

The same thing that makes the posted NY Times article illegal makes the above illegal. You can hardly demand legal protection for your rights while trampling over the rights of others.

--
The cake is a pie

Re:Greed is the root of evil by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 23:13 · Score: 0

So don't buy from Office Depot. Do you whine to GM when you can't buy a new Honda at your local Chevy dealer too?

Re:Idiot. by jejones · 1999-11-21 18:47 · Score: 1

There is/was Win32 support in OS/2...which Microsoft made a point of repeatedly breaking with successive releases of Win32s. They finally got it "right" when they added a call specifically to allocate memory beyond the 512Mbyte limit that OS/2 (up until the recent "Aurora" version, which IBM isn't going to sell as a client the way they have previous ones) imposes on DOS sessions.

Re:Couple good reasons by fwad · 1999-11-21 18:49 · Score: 1

. (4) Your GUI has is too integrated into your kernel. A bad video driver crashed your machine.

But that gives you performance. Let's look at linux and all these frame buffers drivers sitting in the kernel now - a bad one of those and your system crashes - just you wait until hardware vendors start shipping linux frame buffer drivers for there video cards!
--

--
-- Kernel Panic: Error reading /dev/caffeine

Re:Greed is the root of evil by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 23:15 · Score: 0

Heaven forbid that a consumer should actually educate him/her self before making a purchase! Get real, if people make uninformed decisions they have no one but themselves to blame.

Re:Hey I want in! by Ralph+Bearpark · 1999-11-21 18:51 · Score: 1

Thanks for pointing out the facts here. You make a good point. Someone should moderate your comment to visibility.

Regards, Ralph.

Re:Look! by Darwin2000 · 1999-11-21 23:17 · Score: 1

I believe when I looked into becoming an OEM distributor back when win95 was new, that to sell 1 OEM copy of windows on any PC, I had to ship WINDOZ on all the machines. I also had a QNX machine setup for some ISO9000 stuff where I used to work. The consultant said he would ship me a couple copies of windows unopened, because he couldnt get compaq's without an OS from MS. 3 boxes arrived with over 200 copies. No wonder why he charged a fortune for the system.

I do agree the lawyers are just money sucking leaches on humanity in this case. But there are some very valid points to thier lawsuit, and if they dont do it, someone else will I guess.

Didnt AOL have a lawsuit like this? About rounding up 5 second time estimates on usage, back when then charged hourly? I believe they lost that one for a multi million settlement.
Later

Re:Fsck Armageddon, This is Hell by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 23:20 · Score: 0

Don't forget to include Coke and Pepsi in your suits. They have been deliberatly targeting young people (Pepsi Generation) with their harmful substances!

Re:Hey I want in! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 18:53 · Score: 0

IT WAS COFFEE. IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE HOT. Good lord. What did she expect. "Oh, let me put this SCALDING HOT CUP OF COFFEE BETWEEN MY LEGS." Come on, I am surprised she didn't sue the car maker for not putting cup holders in her car. This is just one of many examples of American's exploiting their own stupidity.

Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.

Re: Retard by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 23:20 · Score: 0

Yeah - consumers really want BeOS. That would be popular - sell machines preloaded with a gimpy OS that no one wants. Right... And it's not MS's fault if some idiot computer maker is afraid of them. Last - prove it.

Feel sorry for yourself. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 18:55 · Score: 0

Hey ph@-g-g-0-T ! TRILLIONS, NOT pathetic Billions. And how much did you have again ? 2 cents..... poor-ass ph@gg0t !

Re:Don't be a fool by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 23:26 · Score: 0

Just curious but what does NT4 or Windows2000 do in this situation? I've seen plenty of OS/2 crashs, from what I've seen it's better than Win95 but far worse than NT as far as stability goes.

Re:This comment is "Insightful", moderators? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 18:57 · Score: 1

No, the stupid people are those who flame, rather than logically explain their case. Last time I checked, calling people names or using vailed insults never did anything to further anyone's arguments. With that said...

Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.

Re: Your own answer, dumbass. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 23:27 · Score: 0

Dude - you answered your own faulty argument. Mandrake Linux is available for $30. Why the hell don't people use it!? Moron. What are you, a dumbass? Listen carefully. There exist choices. Linux, FreeBSD, OS/2 (marginally), Mac, BeOS, etc.. Some of these choices are even very cheap as you've stated. So how the HELL does MS have a monopoly, rocket surgeon? People can buy other OS's cheaper!! Get a clue, idiot. You're contradicting yourself. With an oil monopoly, for example, people can't. There is no such thing as a software monopoly.

good luck !! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 18:59 · Score: 0

Let's see....Trillions, 2 many lawyers, experienced in fighting an oppressive government that doesn't understand economics, and microsoft is scared of trial lawyers ?!? Get a grip. Oh..wait, but all of you should be running the country, forget those economists, bankers, and capitalists. Hail Communism, the great /. commie bunch is here !!!...and where's the leader, the great General ESR (Extremely Stupid Retard)..

I like your sig! by Noke · 1999-11-21 19:04 · Score: 1

Open Source. Closed Minds pretty much sums up the general attitude I've seen develop here over the past year.

Re:is this copyright violation? by Zontar+The+Mindless · 1999-11-21 19:05 · Score: 2

Yes, it is a copyright violation
No, the NY Times doesn't have to "just get over it because the login/pass thing is annoying"
Yes, /. could conceivably get in legal hot water over it being reproduced here in toto
No, you don't have to read it if you don't want to play by NYT's rules.

Zontar The Mindless,

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.

Where ? (Re:Look! linux!) by Forge · 1999-11-21 19:05 · Score: 1

Where and why did they cost more ?

--
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?

Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 23:27 · Score: 0

You look at the ASP of computers during that time. If there had been no monopoly the price of the OS would have dropped in line with everything else. Don't worry about figuring out the right number. I'm sure enough "experts" will make enough in fees giving an answer to that question.

Re:Class actions mean nothing by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 23:30 · Score: 0

Tell MO that.

mcd coffee spandex by fishbowl · 1999-11-21 23:37 · Score: 2

Well, the jury is still out on the question of
whether 70+ year old ladies should go around wearing tight spandex.

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.

Re:mcd coffee spandex by fishbowl · 1999-11-26 00:22 · Score: 1

Okay, she was wearing *tight* sweatpants.
I still believe that the pants contributed as much
to the woman's injuries as the coffee. Some people like their BATH WATER hotter than what comes out of your mr. coffee. I'll need to get
a thermometer to test the temperature of the coffee made by my (vintage) percolator, but I do
know that the water comes within a degree or two of boiling. Many a morning I have splashed a bit from the cup onto my hand without 3rd degree burns, but then I've touched an alloy exhaust manifold on a vw bus that's been going uphill for a few hours without third degree burns either. I don't expect everybody's skin is the same, and I'm sure that a 79-80 year old woman would have far more sensitive skin. I also know that even in the "old days", the coffee served by mcdonalds could be drunk from the cup.

Regardless of any of this stuff, the main point of the coffee lawsuit is that McDonalds rudely refused to pay the woman's medical expenses, and dismissed her complaint out-of-hand. That's what the suit was about, and why the arbitrary "amount of money mcdonalds makes on one day's coffee sales" in damages were considered reasonable.

Anyway, in response to your comment, I'll mouth off whenever I feel like it. If you can flame me hotter than a vw exhaust manifold, maybe I'll chill ;-)

Regards, James "never had that problem with a slurpee" McGill

--
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Re:mcd coffee spandex by copito · 1999-11-22 06:15 · Score: 2

She was wearing sweatpants (which I believe is still legal in some states). Read the facts before mouthing off.
--

--
"L'IT c'est moi!"

Lawyers by 101010 · 1999-11-21 23:48 · Score: 1

If given the choice of ridding the world of either microsoft or all attorneys, I would have a tough time deciding. This whole class action suit is pathetic. There's not a consumer out there that will benefit. The lawyers on the other hand will all be retiring wealthy in the Bahamas somewhere. This will be just like the tobacco suits, the lawyers will walk away with 90%, the rest divided among the 10 million people they "represent." Let's face a fact here, the consumer will suffer from the class action suit, not the company. Only the lawyers win. We'll all end up with some stupid $10 rebate on our next upgrade to windows 2005.

name/pass for nytimes by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 19:07 · Score: 0

slashdotname slashdotpass

Let Loose The Hounds! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 23:54 · Score: 0

I'm really no fan of Government intervention in the affairs of private individuals and business. And God knows we certainly have far too many lawyers, at least here in the U.S., looking for a way to dig a buck out of somebody's hide. But I must admit that, as much as I dislike those, I think I dislike Microsoft more. Much more.

So I can only hope that the various and sundry packs of hounds chasing Microsoft will inflict upon it as much grief as it has, IMO, inflicted upon the computing industry.

Copyright by Erik+Hensema · 1999-11-21 19:09 · Score: 2

/. isn't liable because of common carrier status. But they were take down this post, then they would be liable for all simular future posts.

How about a new moderation category "copyright violation"?

--

This is your sig. There are thousands more, but this one is yours.

This is why... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 19:10 · Score: 1

This is why its bad to hurt M$, the only winners will be the bottom feeding scum sucking lawyers.

Re:This is why... by Eccles · 1999-11-21 21:19 · Score: 3

This is why its bad to hurt M$, the only winners will be the bottom feeding scum sucking lawyers.

I'm thinking of trying to organize an anti-outrageous class-action lawyer fee system.

Basically, the idea would be something like "The undersigned refuse to be considered the member of any class in a class action lawsuit unless the lawyers agree to the following fee schedule, based on total cash payments to class members: 30% of damages up to $200,000, %20 of damages from $200,000 to $1,000,000, %10 of damages from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000, 5% of damages from $2,000,000 to $50,000,000, and 1% of damages above that $50 M. (All this working like tax schedules, so for $500,000 in damages, it would be 30% of $200,000 + 20% of $300,000.) For coupons or vouchers, fees would be based on half of the amount of coupons actually redeemed within one year of issuance."

If very large numbers of people signed such a statement and it was given legal weight, the bottom-feeders wouldn't get so rich and would have to work towards getting actual money for their clients, not just useless coupons that no one redeems.

--
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.

Fucking retard. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 23:59 · Score: 0

Look, mom! I can post to slashdot!

That's about all I gleaned from your otherwise moronic post. Did you learn your arguing style on the schoolyard during recess? Calling people names is sure a great way to win.

Go back to your mindless little shithole of an existance and leave the rest of us alone, idiot.

Does Microsoft have the cash? by TomG · 1999-11-21 12:06 · Score: 1

We all know that Microsoft has billions in the bank, but a refund for every sold copy of Windows 95/98 would bankrupt the company.

I'm trying to feel pity....trying....failing...

Re:Does Microsoft have the cash? by BitS · 1999-11-22 00:17 · Score: 1

I have NEVER seen a complete copy of Windows 95, or 98 sold for $100. Those are UPGRADE copies, not complete OSes. Legally, installing them on a new machine, you break the licensing agreement before you even get the software installed.

Last I check, Solaris for Intel was free (or damn close to it) for development use, and $100 for non-commercial use. If you own a Sun workstation, Solaris is automatically licensed to you.

I >may be wrong, but I also believe that an unlimited user Solaris license is less then $1k, but windows9x sure as hell isn't a server. FreeBSD is what $40 for the CDs and book? There are umpteen bazillion linux distros ranging from a $1 for a CD to $100 for cd, manuals, and "support".

I ask however, when exactly did microsoft ever support anyone... the only experience I had with microsoft technical support resulted in. "I'm sorry, we do not support your video card" Well, no $hit, thats why I'm calling. Microsofts support consists of holding you on the phone long enough that your free support is used up and then they can charge you.

Unfortunatly the real problem here is... simply, what do you compare windows9x to? It is not a server, its a workstation, and most other OSes, although they can and do function as workstations, are designed to be servers. I can't think of many TRUE workstation ONLY OSes like win95 out there (Maybe MacOS). OS/2 was more akin to NT then 95, so thats not fair.

My personal opinion is that selling Win9x at $100 for a COMPLETE (non-upgrade) copy is far to much. I don't care WHAT you say about R&D, testing, implementation, there is absolutely NO WAY you will EVER make me believe that microsoft had to sell Win9x for more then $20 a copy and STILL make a killing. After the product is released, its nothing but profit from there on out. How many millions of copies were sold? At a dollar a peice, they should have paid microsofts bills for R&D, and salaries of these people for a while, let alone all the other products that came from with the Win9x series (Office9x, Development software, server licenses) The question I have is, wouldn't it be nice to see them get hit with... a fine of about %50 of thier net worth? The only down side to it, it wouldn't do anything more then just really piss them off I think.

--
http://www.schizo.com/
Re:Does Microsoft have the cash? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-02 06:57 · Score: 0

You forget that MS doesn't have to charge what you people think they should charge. They did the market research and chose to charge the price that would maximize their profits in turn supporting the people that really matter, their investors. No one has even been coerced by Microsoft into purchasing a copy of Windows, or no one has admitted to this anyway. Therefore people voluntarily purchased windows 95/98. "A fool and his money are soon parted" As for the Judges FoF, thery were a joke. He did nothing to prove MS a monopoly. He mentions some unethical dealings adn some strong arming that failed but nothing worked in MS favor except the game of chicken with IBM and as far as I'm concerned, IBM got what they deserved. Until people get ALL the facts, then please keep quiet about this case. You only make yourself sound like an uninformed idiot.
Re:Does Microsoft have the cash? by doobie · 1999-11-21 19:53 · Score: 1

A refund on every copy of Windows 95/98 wouldn't bankrupt the company. Lets say that there are 100 million copies of windows 95/98 out there, at 100$ each lets say. Thats only 10 billion dollars. Bill can give that up and still have 90 billion dollars.
Where it would run into problems is the fact that most investers might pull out....and then their stock would crumble taking most of the market with them.
Jason
Re:Does Microsoft have the cash? by tinsel · 1999-11-21 12:17 · Score: 1

Even if they lose the suit, it's only the retail copies they'd have to pay for. Not insignificant, but I doubt it would break the bank.

It is worth noting that Windows 98 sells for around $180, while MacOS 9 sells for $85. Of course, upgrade versions are generally cheaper, and retail versions of MacOS are probably only used on machines that came with an older version of MacOS, but...
Re:Does Microsoft have the cash? by tinsel · 1999-11-22 10:33 · Score: 1

You're right of course. I still have some doubts. Haven't bundled sales been allegedly non-mandatory since that consent decree a few year back? I could imagine that MS might be protected because they've already reached an agreement on a similar/overlapping matter. I am not a lawyer, of course.
Re:Does Microsoft have the cash? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-22 10:58 · Score: 0

the flaw in your theory is that not all of bill's money is in CASH.

most of that asset is virtual, i.e. stock. thus, if the stock market were to beat microsoft's share price down significantly, bill wouldn't be nearly as rich as he *appears* to be...
Re:Does Microsoft have the cash? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 12:48 · Score: 0

Even if they lose the suit, it's only the retail copies they'd have to pay for.

Did you read the article? It states that there are 18 states, including California, that allow class action suits to be filed for products that were sold indirectly. In other words, if you bought a computer that was preinstalled with Windows, you are still in the game.
Re:Does Microsoft have the cash? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 22:51 · Score: 0

And OS2 cost over $200 and all the various Unixs cost thousands, BeOS costs $99 and boxed supported Redhat costs $89 now. I think they'll have a hard time proving to much was charged for Windows considering how much other operating systems cost and considering that in the FoF the judge says that MS charged to little for Windows.

Re:Make moderators accountable by tzanger · 1999-11-21 19:28 · Score: 2

Slashdot should just allow all users the ability to check who moderated any post. Essentially moderators get to act as anonymous cowards in regards to their moderation. There's no accountability, so anyone who wishes to try and surpress a viewpoint through moderation, does so with no worries.

That's what Meta Moderation is all about. The system knows who moderated who to what. Meta Moderation, if in disagreement, costs the moderator a little karma, if I'm not mistaken.

As far as filtering based on score, that's exactly what moderation is about. And for those who don't have the time nor the inclination to read 180 messages, setting their filter to 2 or 3 is great. Yes you will miss some good comments, but you will also miss most of the useless ones. Let's be honest -- in 180 comments, how many are truly "big" enough to warrant being read? Maybe a dozen. The information scourers like myself will stay at zero to see (almost) everything, but most busy people will sit at the higher levels to just skim.

Re:Hey I want in! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-22 00:13 · Score: 0

I don't understand what you're saying. You agree that 180 degrees is too hot. Then you say the lawsuits are moronic. I don't understand. McDonald's knew that people were getting burned, knew that if anyone drank the coffee immediately they would get burned, but still kept the coffee that hot. How is this not asking for a lawsuit?

Look! by DanJose52 · 1999-11-21 12:08 · Score: 1

They've got money! I want a piece of what they have with as little work as possible! GIVE ME WHAT YOU EARNED! I don't care how MS earned it, most end users handed cash over without argument...they were offered alternatives, and now want to get rich by being lazy and claiming something that isn't theirs? Not too shocking.

Dan

Re:Look! by GregWebb · 1999-11-22 00:24 · Score: 2

Forced, no. But have they made it impractical to use anything else? Sure.

I was a longterm Amiga user who loved those machines. Criticise me if you will, but I like Amigas. Now, I'm not trying to blame Microsoft for the death of the Amiga - contributory factor, perhaps, but it went thanks to massive incompetence at Commodore in the main. So, I looked at the market, wanting a new platform. I couldn't get another Amiga seriously. I couldn't get a BeOS machine. I could get a Mac (which I actually quite like...) but I'd then be in a very similar position to that which had made me dump Amigas - little or no software. So, much to my displeasure, I get a Windows 98 PC. The OS is horrible in most respects, the hardware is a triumph of engineering effort over basic design and it shows in some big ways. Do I like the machine? No, not really. Did I have a practical choice? No, not really. Do I think Microsoft have harmed the market? Of course.

Greg

--
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Re:Look! by Hammer · 1999-11-21 19:42 · Score: 1

my dell-box recently had the hardware warranty (!) voided by the fact that I removed Bills junkware and installed Linux.
To be perfectly honest I somehow feel that they are trying to limit my choices...
Re:Look! by GregWebb · 1999-11-22 00:29 · Score: 2

Not even then. In the main, tyres are mounted on wheels in a very standard way which anyone can use. There's a few odd ways Michelin use, but they're still open standards IIRC. And oil? One may be better at the job than another, but there's nothing fundamental that stops interoperation. It's pretty well known how to make automotive lubricants :)

The problem here is the barrier to entry. It's huge, which isn't the case with the car parts analogy.

Greg

--
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Re:Look! by Danse · 1999-11-22 01:13 · Score: 1

but larger shops that would use OS/2 (or WinNT) probably do their own custom disk images anyway, so the market for preinstalled OS/2 was probably small enough that even IBM could afford to neglect it for a cheaper Windows licence

Whether they could afford it or not is irrelevant. The point is that they should never have had to do it in the first place. It just proves that Microsoft has some serious monopoly power when they can make even IBM bow to their demands and forsake its own OS in favor of Windows. That's what is meant by squelching consumer choice and competition. Consumers didn't get a choice. I'm not just talking about larger shops. I'm talking about anyone who wanted to use OS/2 instead of Windows. Their choice was taken away because they were going to have to pay for Windows even if they didn't want it.

--
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Re:Look! by quonsar · 1999-11-22 01:21 · Score: 1

So then Microsoft should be punished for the idiocy of the American public? Please. I would say that any Joe Moron could have gone to their locally run computer store, those that did not have a contract with MS, and had them build a computer for them. Problem solved.
The idiocy of the American computer-buying public is M$ most valuable asset. It is what has allowed them to foist a crippled bug-ridden product on millions while convincing those millions that any problems are the result of their own failure to grok the tech.
Those idiots "know" that a Dell box is superior to a no-name white box, because (the "logic" goes) if the white-boxen were so good, M$ would have contracts with the builders of them as well.
So, for example, Mr. Idiot #458,975,221 is faced with the "decision" to purchase "inferior" hardware without M$ OS, or "brand name" hardware with the M$ OS.
So, yes indeed, punish M$ for the carefully cultivated idiocy of the public. M$ feeds, fertilizes, maintains and relies upon that idiocy.

====== "Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16

--

Sacred cows make the best burgers.
Re:Look! by Reid · 1999-11-22 01:22 · Score: 1

Sure, you're right. I just wanted to point out the obvious idiocy of the analogy. I suppose next we'll be hearing Mr. Open Mind go on about Pepsi including a Coke in each six pack!
Re:Look! by fortunate+hazel · 1999-11-22 02:45 · Score: 1

I worked at Dell in tech support for over a year. Putting your own OS on the box does not void the hardware warranty. But it makes things pretty tough for the techs who are trained on troubleshooting in windows 9x/NT to figure out what the heck is wrong with your hardware if you put Linux on it. And if they don't know what's wrong, they won't replace hardware. So they'll either tell you to boot the Dell-supplied Diagnostics disk and try and troubleshoot off that (not likely if it's a weird hardware glitch), try and support you in Linux if they're familiar with it, or if you're being annoying, they'll tell you to call back when you've got Windows reloaded on the thing. But your hardware warranty is all good. Kind of, but not quite, a catch 22.
Re:Look! by elflord · 1999-11-22 04:53 · Score: 2

I recall seeing it available for the Dimension. However, their linux site is a bit of a mess now, and it's not clear what's going on.
In the meantime, there's a ton of good linux hardware shops ( such as http://www.tcu-inc.com )
Re:Look! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 12:28 · Score: 0

Yeah - pretty pathetic. They saw the pricetag on the box, and knew exactly what they were buying. They made a conscious decision to buy it. This is ridiculous lawyermongering. Also - they didn't overcharge. Compare prices to any other commercial PC OS and it's fine.
Re:Look! by Reid · 1999-11-21 22:15 · Score: 1

Please, not the car analogy! When there's just one company with ~90% of the tire, stereo, oil, or car markets, then you can bring it up. Until then, it's useless.
Re:Look! by Reid · 1999-11-21 22:18 · Score: 1

Can you get linux on a Dimension yet? Last I saw, I think it was only on the Optiplexes, which are the "workstations".
Re:Look! by lubricated · 1999-11-21 12:29 · Score: 2

Let's see. It used to be that you couldn't buy a PC without windows installed. Even if you didn't want windows, you still had to pay for it. Hmmm.... that doesn't sound like being offered alternatives. Sounds like windows refund day.

--
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
Re:Look! by DanJose52 · 1999-11-21 12:31 · Score: 1

Any consumer that did not want windows could learn enough to piece together their own machine. No computer buyer has ever been 100% forced to buy a microsoft product. Prove me wrong.

Dan
Re:Look! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 12:39 · Score: 0

"nearly"

yep...

"nearly"

but not

impossible!
Re:Look! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 12:41 · Score: 0

try it sometime...
Re:Look! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 12:44 · Score: 0

If you want to buy a laptop, you pretty much have to get 98 or NT on it (and no, I don't consider that a choice) -- In fact, it was a Toshiba Laptop case that sparked the original Windows Refund Day.
Of course from a price-fixing POV, I think the bundled products (and in particular the "$X / unit produced" rather than "$X / unit with windows installed" pricing schemes are a much bigger concern than retail sales, but according to the article those aren't litigable. So basically, I agree -- this has "a bunch of lawyers with the scent of blood" written all over it.
Re:Look! by M@T · 1999-11-22 12:21 · Score: 1

> Sure, today you can go to VA.

... or Dell.

yeah... TODAY you can go to Dell... but how did that come about??

Wouldn't have had something to do with the pressure being lifted by the mere existence of the anti-trust trial would it?

The question is: would Dell have been providing Linux had the anti-trust trial not occurred? And if so, how much would they be hurting now??

--
'sapientia potestas est'
Re:Look! by lubricated · 1999-11-21 12:45 · Score: 1

yeah. and when shit happens you have to fix it yourself. make sure you have a receipt for every component you bought. Also be prepared to pay more because (in my area) prebuilt computers are cheaper than ones you put together. few people were ever forced to buy a car. It's more of a convenience thing. Oh wait you need a car to get to work. You need to use a windows computer at work. You need to take your work home. Now you need a computer at home. Not everyone can build their own computer. Say you are blind. You are not going to be able to play with the jumpers on your motherboard. laptops are another example. No one ever had to buy a windows computer, but many didn't take the time or money to learn how to put one together before they had one of their own.
It takes time to learn to build a computer and for many time is money.

--
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
Re:Look! by Jeremi · 1999-11-21 12:46 · Score: 1

Any consumer that did not want windows could learn enough to piece together their own machine. No computer buyer has ever been 100% forced to buy a microsoft product. Prove me wrong.

No, you're right. But most people do not have the time, the expertise, or the self-confidence to put together their own hardware. Furthermore, most people who buy PCs are more or less required to buy Windows, because if they don't, they won't be able read their co-worker's MS-Word attachments, etc. So in the eyes of Joe Consumer, there really is no choice.

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:Look! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 13:17 · Score: 0

Like "nearly" 100% market share?

Not quite 100% market share, but in all practicality, a monopoly.

So yeah, in all practicality, impossible to get a (new) laptop without Windows.
Re:Look! by itachi · 1999-11-21 13:57 · Score: 2

Major brand name pc without windows but with a big, corporate warranty. Sure, today you can go to VA. How many consumers know of VA? Does VA have the years of household recognition that a name like compaq has? True, I'd much rather own a VA box than a compaq anything (expect a ds10 _would_ be nice....), but we have to look at the joe average population.

That and laptops.
Re:Look! by elflord · 1999-11-21 15:30 · Score: 1

Sure, today you can go to VA.
... or Dell.
Re:Look! by IronClad · 1999-11-21 14:06 · Score: 1

Did he say ANY consumer? Sounds like someone who needs to sit at a help desk for a while. Hmm.. This takes me back to 3 years ago this month, when was pouring over hardware compatibility lists for a PPRO that would support Solaris x86, OpenBSD, and Linux. Found 3 vendors. Each *refused* to sell without Windows or for that matter without the MS application bundle. Naively, I actually allowed the machine to boot 95 rather than booting the machine from an alternate OS and wiping the disk. (Who reads the EULA of something they never wanted?) I figure several hundred of my hard-earned bucks are sitting in Billy's account in return for little or no value received. I hope that one of those suits has my name on it..
Re:Look! by IntlHarvester · 1999-11-21 14:21 · Score: 1

I recall a computer shop owner telling me that he couldn't sell a computer without an Operating System installed, but that OS didn't have to be Windows, it could have been NetWare, SCO, MS-DOS, IBM DOS, or even DR-DOS which was pretty cheap in those days.
--

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Re:Look! by Danse · 1999-11-21 14:29 · Score: 1

IBM couldn't even sell OS/2 installed. If you wanted it, you could buy it, but you were still gonna get (and pay for) Windows whether you liked it or not. They'd send a retail OS/2 along with it though so you could install it yourself. Hell of a choice.

--
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Re:Look! by IntlHarvester · 1999-11-21 14:40 · Score: 1

Hmmm. I recall for a while, IBM was configuring all of their commercial computers as duel-boot (OS/2) and (IBM DOS/MS Windows 3.1) machines, which booted into OS/2 by default. It took some obscure trick to get it to boot DOS/Win3.1. Needless to say, neither the Windows nor the OS/2 shops were very happy with this arrangment.

I can understand your frustration, but larger shops that would use OS/2 (or WinNT) probably do their own custom disk images anyway, so the market for preinstalled OS/2 was probably small enough that even IBM could afford to neglect it for a cheaper Windows licence
--

--
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
Re:Look! by M@T · 1999-11-21 17:01 · Score: 1

Any consumer that did not want windows could learn enough to piece together their own machine.

I guess I'd be supplying myself a 12 month warranty on all parts and support too huh?
Sorry, I can't afford that. I'd have to charge myself too much.

M@T

--
'sapientia potestas est'
Re:Look! by elflord · 1999-11-21 22:42 · Score: 2

my dell-box recently had the hardware warranty (!) voided by the fact that I removed Bills junkware and installed Linux.
Why on earth did you buy it with "Bill's junkware" installed if you wanted to run linux on it ?
Re:Look! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 22:53 · Score: 0

Back before IBM decided to stop supporting OS2 you could by systems with OS2 pre installed, hmm looks like consumer choice to me. Just because people didn't want to use OS2 or buy IBM computers doesn't mean Microsoft over charged for Windows.
Re:Look! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 18:38 · Score: 0

So then Microsoft should be punished for the idiocy of the American public? Please. I would say that any Joe Moron could have gone to their locally run computer store, those that did not have a contract with MS, and had them build a computer for them. Problem solved.

Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
Re:Look! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 18:42 · Score: 0

And when you buy your car, what choices are you given when it comes to tires? Or the brand of stereo equipment? Or the type of oil used?
And again, as for taking time to learn to build a computer, your locally run computer store will be more than happy to build a computer for the visually challenged, or anyone else, and put whatever OS they want on it. Maybe if Joe Moron took some time to find out his options, he wouldn't go with Windows. But how many users do you think actually cared what OS they ran, before the government started making a big deal about it?

Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.

BeOS by emmons · 1999-11-21 19:29 · Score: 1

I'm not sure which company(ies) is was, but I remember reading that Be Inc. offered a major computer maker lisences free to be preloaded on that companies machines. This was in the day when that particular company was scared shitless of M, and therefore declined the offer. A good lawyer could make a case that all the customers of that particular company could sue for the full OEM cost of Windows, because M used it's monopoly power to raise the price exactly that much.

let b= cost of Be OS; w= cost of windows OEM; s= $ amout customers got screwed because of M' monopoly

b = 0
s = w - b
therefore, w = s
q.e.d.

Of course, you need to take into account the cost difference of all of windows' nice little features.

-----

--
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.

Re:Commentary? by Masem · 1999-11-22 00:15 · Score: 2

MS reduced the cost of the OS (not upgrade) to the large OEMs in order to make sure that their OS was installed there.

On the other hand, the consumer cost of the OS upgrade is too high, but since newer programs require the upgrade (that is, as Joe Public sees it), they can charge higher for it.

MS is playing both sides of maintaining their monopoly while still raking in hugh profits.

--
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:

Commentary? by shario · 1999-11-21 12:08 · Score: 2

Could one of those lawyers who previously answered to some Slashdotters' questions give a quick comment on this?

Re:Commentary? by Masem · 1999-11-21 20:24 · Score: 2

Actually, the FoF specifically states that MS could have easily sold Win98 for $49 and still made a profit, but instead sold it for $89. That's $40 per copy of Win98 sold. I think that's pretty good proof of 'damages'. IANAL.

--
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Re:Commentary? by whitey07 · 1999-11-22 05:24 · Score: 1

that statement in the fof is a guess or conjecture by judge jackson. LIke saying gateway sold a computer for 2 grand when they could have sold it for one grand. THat fof should not hold up in the damages phase of any class action. You need something to compare the cost of windows with - the analogy with the drop in hardware prices could work but I would prefer something more concrete. Damages have to be something more than a bunch of consumers or people on /. feel harmed.
Re:Commentary? by whitey07 · 1999-11-22 05:30 · Score: 1

That statement is not about damages to the consumer. Would you want the government to tell you what you could sell something for? Any relation to damages in the fof is pure conjecture. The court needs more than consumers feel harmed or /. people hate windows. They need a reasonabnle dollar amount. An analogy to another OS would be nice but that may not work as windows until recently did not have much competition,but that is not MS's fault. Anyway any class action verdict is only going to hurt MS and make lawyers very rich which would accomplish nothing constructive unless you feel destroying a company is a good thing.
Re:Commentary? by copito · 1999-11-22 06:21 · Score: 2

It may not hold up, but it is based on an internal MS study, so it's more than just a guess or conjecture.
--

--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
Re:Commentary? by nebby · 1999-11-21 12:30 · Score: 1

I got no points. Moderate this guy ^^ up! :)

--
--
Re:Commentary? by M@T · 1999-11-22 12:04 · Score: 1

Actually, the FoF specifically states that MS sold Win 98 for $89. I think that in itself is a pretty good figure for damages.

Customer: I didn't want Windows 98.
MS: You got it anyway.

Customer: But I didn't want it!
MS: Consider it a gift - from us to you.

Customer: But you charged me for it...
MS: What!? You want something for nothing?

Customer: I...didn't....want...Windows...98!!!
MS: You got it anyway.
.
.
.

M@T

--
'sapientia potestas est'
Re:Commentary? by whitey07 · 1999-11-21 13:22 · Score: 1

the big problem with any class action is demonstrating damages, in other words for a class action to be a successful the pliantiff would have to put a dollar figure to show damages. Jackson's finding of fact did not have much to say on damages and the standard for determining damages is fairly so strict so an arbitrary forgure should not work though depending on the judge. Also - their are many other complications - not to mention that if MS pushs any class action to trial, a verdict could and most likely would be years from now and i mean many years. Just a little of my worthless opinion. Ed
Re:Commentary? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 22:59 · Score: 0

The FoF also states that Microsoft charged to little for their OS in order to hold on to their monopoly. So which is it, was Windows to expensive or to cheap? There are no damages to consumers this is just a group of bottem feeder lawyers trying to get some quick cash.

Re:MS-DOS 6.22 by unitron · 1999-11-21 19:32 · Score: 1

"A full version of MS-DOS 6.22 ran $30 in its time." You may have purchased it at that price, but I suspect that the official or "list" price was considerably higher.

--

I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

Only those who paid for mswindows? by jesser · 1999-11-21 12:08 · Score: 1

Hmm.. don't you think Microsoft, by creating a buggy operating system in order to maintain their monopoly, did about as much damage to those who used Windows without paying as to those who paid for Windows? And what about the people who used other operating systems and weren't able to find software for them because of the dominance of Windows?

--
The shareholder is always right.

Re:Don't be a fool by tzanger · 1999-11-21 19:33 · Score: 1

As an example, I had a Redhat 5.1 server which was working perfectly well. I kept up to date with all the security updates, installed programs both from source code and from RPMs. It all worked perfectly well, but I could tell that things were slowly getting messier - different versions of binaries sitting around, compiled for different versions of the libraries.

You're right... but at least with a Linux-based system I can find out what libraries are used by what software or take a look at the last accessed/modified dates and trim to my heart's desire. I used to do that in Windows... I had a "/junk" directory and I'd move the full path of files I thought were useless into it and run for a while... if I didn't use it in a couple weeks, it vanished.

In the end it became a choice between updating all the packages by hand, or installing from a later distribution and porting across all the config changes. I chose the latter because it is a fact that entropy increases in any system over time.

Again correct. :-) You can't beat the system, but as mentioned, you can sure stretch the time between installs. Personally I like to update everything by hand, but to each his own. :-)

Micro$oft suits by cadfael · 1999-11-21 12:10 · Score: 1

I doubt anyone is surprised by this. The timing fits with the finding of fact. I am curious if there are a load of such suits waiting to see if this first round is going to be successful and then get after M$. As is mentioned by another poster, M$ does not have the cash to pay everyone, so I expect the big boys to come out fast and hard if this sort of action seems successful. Hope Bill put some cash under his mattress.

--
-- The Hollow Man
Non illegitimati carborundum

Re:Fsck Armageddon, This is Hell by toriver · 1999-11-21 19:35 · Score: 1

You are right: The real evil here isn't Microsoft, but the lawyers (leeches!) that make a living (vultures!) off their 'cut' in such lawsuits (ambulance-chasers!). Aren't these the same lawyers (devils!) that took a large portion (greedy monsters!) of the multi-billion settlement between the tobacco companies (also evil!) and the states? If there was any justice (hah!), people who lost their jobs due to their employer being sued to oblivion over peanuts should sue these lawyers (bastards!) for compensation.

No matter how evil you think Microsoft are, they pale in comparison to lawyers. Remember, they were hated even when Shakespeare wrote "Henry IV"... :-)

Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 12:10 · Score: 0

Why am I not surprised? The feeding frenzy based on MS's newfound monopoly status is beginning.

The question is, "What is a correct price to charge for a monopoly product, as opposed to if it had competition?".. The answer? Impossible to tell.

Re:Not surprising by perky · 1999-11-21 19:53 · Score: 1

actually you can draw the supply/demand curves for the market given some parameters that are normally drawn from comparable industries. Hence you can determine to some extent what the price of the product would have been given other market conditions.

--
"The new wave is not value-added; it's garbage-subtracted" - Esther Dyson, Dec 1994
Re:Not surprising by user · 1999-11-22 06:13 · Score: 1

Yep, just like the price of games, a venue where MS doesn't have any particular market share, has greatly reduced too... or... wait... -User

--
Emacs is for experts. Pico is for beginners. VI is a disease.
Re:Not surprising by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 16:08 · Score: 0

Doesn't work... the market has changed like mad. Like, for example, there weren't really consumer PC's before windows. (Exaggeration, I know, but true to a good approximation.)
Re:Not surprising by itachi · 1999-11-21 15:19 · Score: 2

Look at the price range for consumer pc OSes between the first PCs and the beginning of the MS monopoly. Average, then adjust for inflation. We should be left with the average consumer OS price in a non-monoploy environment. Then, figure the top and bottom end prices also. Each person in the suit can define how happy they were with windows on a 1-10 scale, 10 being overjoyed, and 1 being suicidal due to windows. Fit the prices to the 1-10 scale, and MS pays each person the difference.

For those without passwords... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 12:10 · Score: 5

November 22, 1999

Microsoft Faces a Class Action on 'Monopoly'

By STEVE LOHR

Lawyers say they will file a class-action suit against Microsoft on Monday on behalf of millions of Californians, in the first of what legal experts say could become a flood of private litigation springing from the Justice Department's antitrust action against the company.

The suit, to be filed by three longtime class-action lawyers, will accuse Microsoft of using its monopoly in operating systems software to overcharge buyers of Windows 95 and Windows 98. The complaint does not estimate the financial impact to Windows users, but the lawyers are seeking triple damages if the suit leads to an eventual finding of financial harm.

The big software maker's vulnerability to private suits increased sharply earlier this month when Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued his findings of fact in the government's antitrust case against Microsoft. Jackson concluded that Microsoft is a monopoly whose anticompetitive acts have stifled innovation and harmed consumers.

Unlike conclusions of law, a judge's findings of fact in a federal antitrust case are not generally considered admissible as evidence in private suits. But Jackson's findings agreed so strongly with the case presented by the Justice Department and 19 states that antitrust experts say his final verdict, expected early next year, will almost surely find that Microsoft is a monopoly that violated the law.

The biggest financial threat to Microsoft may come not from corporate suits, but from class actions on behalf of the millions of users of the company's industry-standard Windows operating system. Such consumer suits, legal experts say, have the potential to cost Microsoft hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps even billions, in damage claims. "This is the start of the race to get to the courthouse," observed Stephen Axinn, a partner in Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider who is an antitrust litigator. "It could be like the tobacco litigation, in the sense that you have lots of plaintiffs lawyers in different states sharing information."

Reducing the financial risk from such litigation, according to legal experts, should be a powerful incentive for Microsoft to seek an out-of-court settlement in the government case. The chances of a settlement appeared to increase last Friday when Jackson appointed Richard A. Posner, a federal appeals court judge and leading antitrust scholar, as mediator in settlement talks between Microsoft and the Justice Department and the states.

"The prospect of a flood of private follow-on cases -- with their triple damages in private antitrust cases -- are lawsuits with potentials that Microsoft simply cannot ignore," said Herbert Hovenkamp, a professor at the University of Iowa law school.

Yet, publicly at least, Microsoft insists that its risk from private antitrust suits is exaggerated. "That litigation is something we're prepared to defend and defend aggressively, if necessary," said Tom Burt, a Microsoft lawyer.

In consumer class actions, legal experts say, Microsoft has defenses that will lessen its potential liability and present formidable obstacles for plaintiffs. For example, most computer users do not purchase Windows directly from retail software stores in shrink-wrapped boxes. Generally, the operating system is already loaded on personal computers when they are purchased. An estimated 90 percent of Windows 98 users got it preloaded on new machines.

The legal significance is that a 1977 Supreme Court ruling -- the Illinois Brick Company vs. the State of Illinois -- declared that indirect purchasers of goods could not recover damages in class-action antitrust cases.

Since 1977, however, 18 states including California and New York have passed laws allowing indirect purchasers to qualify for triple damages in antitrust class actions.

And while Jackson's findings do provide a road map for plaintiffs' lawyers, there remains a lot to prove in court. Jackson, for example, found that Microsoft has a monopoly, but he did not say precisely when it achieved monopoly status. He found consumers were harmed by Microsoft, but the class-action lawyers must put a figure on how much users were overcharged.

"The econometrics on damages will be very complex," Axinn said. "There's no question that Microsoft has some good cards to play on defense."

Still, Jackson provided class-action lawyers with some tantalizing details. In asserting that consumers may have paid more for Windows than they would have in a competitive market, he cited a Microsoft study suggesting possible prices of $49 and $89 for the retail upgrade to Windows 98. Microsoft chose to charge $89, which the study identified as the "revenue maximizing" price.

"That portion of the judge's findings was an invitation to a class-action lawsuit," said Robert Litan, a former senior official in the Justice Department's antitrust division who is now at the Brookings Institution.

Microsoft replies that the November 1997 study was garden-variety pricing analysis. Trying to estimate an optimal, or revenue maximizing, price is something that every consumer product company routinely does for each of its offerings.

The judge's discussion of the Microsoft pricing study, according to Terry Gross of Gross & Belsky in San Francisco, is "a clear marker." But, he said, it is mainly the overall drift of Jackson findings that provides a solid starting point for the class-action suit that he and his colleagues are filing.

"Throughout the judge's findings," Gross said, "he makes it clear that all Windows users were harmed by paying too high a price for Windows."

The class action, which the lawyers plan to file in California Superior Court in San Francisco, does not specify the number of members in the class of both individual and corporate users of Windows. But Gross estimated that the number in California was "at least 10 million," and he said the suit covers Windows users since the introduction of Windows 95. The complaint does not estimate the financial damage to Windows users in California.

Earlier this month, a small New York advertising company that purchased Windows, Seastrom Associates Ltd., sued Microsoft and sought class-action status to represent thousands of similar corporate customers in New York state.

But to take on Microsoft in a class action, legal experts say, will require experience, skill and resources. They note that the three lawyers behind the California suit -- Gross, Daniel J. Mogin of San Diego, and Francis O. Scarpulla of San Francisco -- are experienced state class-action lawyers who have worked for two decades on antitrust cases involving products ranging from snack foods to tires.

The lawyers say they will continue their litigation even if the federal case is settled out of court. Jackson's findings of fact alone, they insist, ease the way for suits like theirs.

"A settlement in the government's case wouldn't make our case go away," Gross said. "We still have these findings that Microsoft is a monopoly that abused its power by overcharging consumers."

Typically, only a final ruling -- not the findings of fact -- can be used as evidence in other cases. But a judge's fact findings and final ruling are ordinarily issued at the same time. Jackson took the unusual step of separating his findings of fact from his findings of law, which gave his fact findings greater importance.

Still, legal experts say Microsoft will surely challenge any attempt by class-action lawyers to build a case on the findings of fact alone.

Reposted without permission. Feel free to moderate down or delete if you need to CYOA, slashdot owner types.

Re:For those without passwords... by Megasphaera+Elsdenii · 1999-11-21 20:50 · Score: 1

Ddirectly after the announcement of the findings of fact, the International Herald Tribune (and possibly one or both of the parent papers, New York Times and Washington Post) ran a story on a connection with the legions of lawyers that served in the tobacco wars (i.e., smokers claiming damages from the major tobacco companies) and who might soon be out of work. There are some interesting parallels. The big weakness in M$ litigation would be that most of Windows has been soled through original equipment manufactorers (OEMs). The only strong case, the article stated, was for Win98 updates bought as CD-ROMs in shops.
Re:For those without passwords... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 16:10 · Score: 0

Don't do this; it's copyright violation. And we like copyrights -- they're what stop MS from making a proprietary fork of linux, for example.

OVERCHARGED? UNDERCHARGED??? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 19:38 · Score: 0

One thing struck me as funny in the microsoft pricing of windows. The judge said microsoft could have charged less ($40) for windows, but every economics 101 student knows monopolies will usually lower their prices to kick competitors out. So on one hand if they charge $40, ppl will claim they are trying to flood the market with their cheap software because they can afford it, on the other hand if the price goes up, another group will say they are milking the public. Now microsoft knows this, and it kept the price of windows at ~100$ for a long time ( and they still get sued for it). What gives? You can't go out and get something, use it for 5 years and then sue claiming it was too expensive. (put american joke here). If they should be sueing anyone, it should be Dell or Compaq. I can understand them saying microsoft wants them to only install IE with windows, but they don't have to install windows in the first place.

Re:OVERCHARGED? UNDERCHARGED??? by SoftwareJanitor · 1999-11-21 20:03 · Score: 2

monopolies will usually lower their prices to kick competitors out

That is only until they have effectively eliminated the competitors. MS-DOS 6.x+Windows 3.x was sold much cheaper than Windows 95. By the time Windows 95 came out, the Amiga and Atari were dead, OS/2 and the Mac were already in severe decline and Linux hadn't started to take off much yet. Microsoft raised the price of Windows 98 compared to 95, despite the fact that it was mainly bug fixes and window dressing on top of 95. The prices of MS-Office have also gone way up as competition has gone down.

The traditional monopolistic pricing pattern is certainly there with Microsoft, make no mistake about it.

class action? by Eupolis · 1999-11-21 12:11 · Score: 1

Hm. Well, as far as the floodgates are concerned, a broad class action suit or two would in theory limit the number of claims that would reach the courts to those few. At least, I would think.

Last Post! by dxkelly · 1999-11-23 12:53 · Score: 1

Woo Hoo!!

Re:At last, some common sense by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-03 02:54 · Score: 0

Funny - I handed an MCSE a redhat boot disk and he got redhat installed in seconds on his machine. His machine multi-boots about 6-8 different operating systems, but hes STILL having trouble getting NT to install. He has ZERO unix experience and tons of Win95/98/NT/2000 experience. He said redhat 6.1 was the easiest OS he ever installed.

KDE and Gnome make Linux just as easy for the brain-dead users as win95, in-fact easier, cause it doesn't blue-screen and leave the user wondering what button they pushed (like pushing the wrong button will crap out your machine).

And as for the Mindcraft shit - you show your ignorance well. A benchmark serving STATIC web pages? Yes, in that one small area, NT was faster, and in about a week, the Linux community patched the OS to fix the problem. They also added a kernel level http server that can serve static pages from the hard drive and its the fastest web server out there. And web server tests are hardly the be-all and end-all of OS testing - more a test of web server software. And we are talking about 100% free product competing head to head with microsofts premier OS. Hahaha. I love it.

Re:Greed is the root of evil by Znork · 1999-11-22 00:27 · Score: 1

I have not _once_ wanted to buy windows. Yet I have at least 4 copies that I have paid for. Plus Word and various other wastes of diskspace that company has managed to excrete. Simply because the alternative, to go to the trouble to get a computer without windows, would cost me more. This is due to corporate licenses, bulk contracts, etc. I have been forced, due to Microsofts illegal actions, to pay, and pay more than necessary, for something I do not want.

Just go away. Your argument has been voiced and disproved so many times its not even worth arguing anymore. You are simply wrong. If someone should take responsibility for their actions it is Microsoft, and if you want a fine example of how not to do that just read their licenses. Just imagine if they 'took responsibility for their actions' and paid back what their substandard dung has cost in lost work and buisness to those suffering from the bugs. The total value of Microsoft wouldnt even begin to cover that.

Re:Don't be a fool by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-03 03:02 · Score: 0

HAHAHAHA .. only time I had a cable problem like that, there was this message on my screen that said to check the cable !!!

It was Linux of course. The system kernel ethnernet drivers looked at the most likely explaination of what was happening at the hardware level - all systems go but the hardware wouldn't send over the cable - no cable!

As for "my machine doesn't feel like it" - I see that all the time too - on SOMEONE ELSES COMPUTER running WINDOWS. Linux don't. As for Mac - it will get better as it integrates more and more of Mach and Next/Unix technology :)

Re:Don't be a fool by Anonymous Coward · 1999-12-03 03:10 · Score: 0

Uhmm .. tell your mother to get the latest caldera or redhat. Insert CD - just use defaults for everything. It will autodetect everything first pass, no rebooting 3 or 4 times and inserting disks. No booting DOS from floppy and hunting for CD drivers either! in 30 minutes she'll have KDE or Gnome up on screen (no additional driver disks needed). You can check out the gnome gnumeric spreadsheet for a very excel-like application (also loads excel files just fine). Insert the staroffice cd - it should start automatically in a second - again use defaults if it ever asks you anything. staroffice works like ms-offce - if she's used it, she'll know how to get around in it just fine. Now try the same with Windows NT and Office. You may be downloading drivers off the net b4 you know it

Re:Hey I want in! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-22 00:38 · Score: 0

how hot is hot then? would it have been proper for McD to replace swizzle sticks with thermometers? The thing is, a burn caused by a 180-or 200-deg liquid would have almost the same effect as a 160-deg liquid. it'll still hurt! how can people be so stupid to uphold these kinds of lawsuits.

Re:Hey I want in! by JordanH · 1999-11-21 19:42 · Score: 1

And in addition (aand I've said this here before), lawyer's and plaintiffs should NOT be allowed to profit from punitive damages (they are PUNISHMENTS, not rewards). The punitive fees should be distributed to the community (somehow).

The plaintiff benefits from punitive damages in order to encourage the pursuit of punitive damages.

These punishments are determined by a court and are, in theory, justly applied against a defenendent. What does it matter who receives the benefit from the award?

There is a conflict of interest in giving these awards to the community in that it is the people, through their courts and juries, who would determine the damage AND benefit.

If you feel that the punitive damages are excessive, then consider support for tort reform. Fix the right problem.

IANALB Comments by niemidc · 1999-11-22 00:39 · Score: 2

I was the *non-lawyer*, but I'll offer some comments as the others are staying away from this flame-ridden topic ;^)

First, Hawk and many others had already warned that many such lawsuits were to be expected given the damning evidence in the FoF.

Second, the FoF have little standing outside of their own case until/unless they become part of a final court decision. But they provide an excellent roadmap for anyone else to follow, including what conclusions to pursue, what witnesses to call, and how Microsoft will attempt to respond. The $49 vs. $89 snippet alone could be fantastically helpful if it can be backed up.

The class action suit(s) and the Caldera private suit could constrain some of the proposed remedies, because it may be quite complicated to apportion major monetary damages across multiple new companies if Microsoft is split up. If Microsoft's cash hoard and its Win9x monopoly business go together, that would be the one to take the money from, but that risks all the real Microsoft talent fleeing to a new company that has all the real forward-looking assets. At any rate the private liability accumulated by Microsoft will have to be consciously planned for during the remedies phase and also in any possible settlement.

Re:Another little econ lesson... by Mut · 1999-11-22 00:40 · Score: 1

Now this has interesting consequences...

#savage snipping#
Well, it's a monopoly, so they'll make as many copies as they need to to get the lowest possible price. And they set the selling price based on that. So the consumer ends up paying more for the good than the market indicates the good is worth. Which, pardon the pun, isn't good.

So - if I understand right - the fact that they're able to make more profit than they would in a competitive environment is evidence that they're abusing their monopoly. In other words, companies with monopolies who want to stay legal should keep to the competitive position on the curve, reducing their profits.

_But_. As I understand it, companies (specifically, their directors) have a legal obligation to maximise profits for the shareholders. Does this mean that they're stuck in a legal tragedy situation, where whatever they do they break the law? I seem to recall that you can't be punished for that.

Obdisclaimer: I know nuffin' about Law, so I may well have caught the wrong end of the stick and misunderstood. And I'd imagine someone's already sorted this one ought before. But I'd be interested to know what the solution is.

Mat.

Sorry, you're rather unobservant by Chris+Johnson · 1999-11-22 00:47 · Score: 2

I don't _use_ Windows: I'm typing this from a Mac- and MS still found ways to harm me. They systematically exterminated all the software companies they could and did everything they could to ensure that nobody would write software for anything but _their_ operating system. This _is_ covered in the findings of fact as one of the types of damage they inflicted. They did this so well that _your_ instinctive reaction is to behave like there is no software for anything else. That's how close they came to scorching the earth for the entire computer industry, and I can name off a long list of products which didn't really have to be Windows-only.
I can quite legitimately blame Bill Gates for screwing up the market for Mac software, or indeed for Linux software or Be software: it's all the same argument, by abusing their monopoly they screwed up the normal operation of the free market. The FoF covers this, and the drying up of alternatives is considered one of the most subtly harmful results of the abuse of monopoly.

Where are the lawsuits? by quonsar · 1999-11-22 00:53 · Score: 1

I find it interesting that there have as yet been no suits based upon the quality of the product. This one seems focused around the $89 price.

For years now, I have been reading about unreliable servers, frequent rebooting, and people coming to all sorts of accomodations with their M$ products in order to keep them running - scheduled reboots, for example.

Over the years, this has got to have cost a lot of companies a lot of money. If Toshiba can bend over to the tune of 2 billion because of a bug in a floppy controller that has never caused a documented loss of data to anybody, where are all the lawsuits against M$ over service outages and lost time which occur daily and are widely acknowledged throughout the IT world?

====== "Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16

--

Sacred cows make the best burgers.

Re:Where are the lawsuits? by mesocyclone · 1999-11-22 12:28 · Score: 1

When you agree to the End User License Agreement (EULA), which you must in order to use the product, you waive your rights to sue on any sort of quality grounds.

Until a lawyer with cojones tests the argument that EULA is an invalid contract because you have *no choice* but to agree to it (i.e. the contract was made under duress), nothing will happen here.

I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the "no choice" argument is true enough (in light of the monopoly) that it should be able to break the EULA. In fact, it might be possible to take on the whole industry this way, since EULA's in general are terribly abusive.

--
The only good weather is bad weather.

Re:Hey I want in! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 19:57 · Score: 0

did you read the list of facts earlier? Coffee should never be 180 degrees farenheight. The company received several complaints about 3rd degree burns but kept it at that temperature, which a McDonald's QA person admitted would cause burns.

Not First by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-22 00:56 · Score: 0

Ummm...
This is not the first class action suit filed after the FoF. It's the third. I'm not going to trace down the links, but the first was filed in New York, a few days after the FoF. The second was in Orange County (CA) last week. I imagine after the final ruling there will be a flood. And there will be a final ruling. Even with the mediator appointed, BillyG will not settle. It's just not in him.

John

Re:This comment is "Insightful", moderators? by CrosseyedPainless · 1999-11-21 19:58 · Score: 1

Well, how about putting your cute little tagline in your sig, so my no-sig setting will filter it out?

Yes, It Sure Is by Greyfox · 1999-11-21 20:02 · Score: 2

If /. hadn't rejected the story I submitted a few weeks back, we'd all know that a web site is getting sued for copying stories from two or three newspapers and that they lost their preliminary motion to dismiss the case citing "Fair Use" since the stories were being used to generate comments. The papers in question make a case that the web site is causing them lost revenue since they make a good bit of money selling archived stories.

Sorry I can't be more specific but I seem to have lost the link at the moment. Linking to a story should be OK (Though some web sites don't like "deep links" either) but copying one verbatim crosses the line.

While /. should be relatively safe from a lawsuit for a user posting a message like this, someone might be able to supoena Rob's web logs and go after the real perpitrator (And maybe even the moderators who moderated it up.)

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

Um, Hello... by Greyfox · 1999-11-21 20:08 · Score: 2

Yes, they did! Unless you've built your own computers for the past decade and a past, not only did someone MAKE you buy a copy of Windows, they probably MADE you buy a copy of DOS 3.3, 5.0 and 6.0 as well. You may have specified that you didn't want anything on the system, but you certainly did pay for a license, whether you wanted it or not. That's one of the things the DOJ is on about (Though they spanked MS for per-processor licensing a few years back, the status quo has remained in the industry to this DAY or we wouldn't have had a Windows Refund Day a while back.)

--

I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

Learn to read. Read to learn. by Wakko+Warner · 1999-11-21 20:10 · Score: 0

There were three sentences in my reply. Your comment applies to the third sentence only. Please check your comment, reread my original comment, and reply again. Thanks for playing.

- A.P.
--

"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad

--
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"

Re:Hey I want in! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 20:17 · Score: 0

What's the temperature difference between a boiling coffee and 180 deg? It's just about 32 deg and that's not much. 180 deg is still hot. the US legal system is just plain stupid for giving credence to these moronic lawsuits. it's really laughable.

Re:Another little econ lesson... by Jherico · 1999-11-22 01:33 · Score: 1

Companies are compelled to increase thier value for their shareholders, but not to the extent that they break the law. If a company could somehow gain a strategic market advantage from killing someone, and they went ahead and did it, they certainly couldn't use as a defense in court that they had to do it in order to avoid a suit by shareholders. Nor could the shareholders bring suit if the company failed to commit murder, no matter how absolutely it could be proven that such an act would increase the value of the company.

Note, I do not claim this will continue to apply if Bush wins the presidency. Flame away.

Jherico

--

Jherico

What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"

Re:Tell this to Toshiba... by quonsar · 1999-11-22 01:45 · Score: 1

...Here's what happened in the Toshiba deal:

1) lawyers smell blood, find glitch that could have caused up to (!) $1,000 per user x 1,000,000 users = $1e9 in damages

2) lawyers get some stooge to file the class action on behalf of all potential "victims"

3) big company settles for fear of bankruptcy

4) stooge gets $20k, 1e6 users get certificate new floppy disks, lawyers get 10% x 1e9 = $1e8

Amen! And now here we have M$, with a bug-filled unreliable product, with lots of documented harm caused in the form of outages and IT support costs, no need to find stooges, as a few days testimony by a few thousand IT admins and users will establish damages to anybody's satisfaction, and certainly no dearth of hungry lawyers.

So where are all the lawsuits?????

====== "Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16

--

Sacred cows make the best burgers.

Re:Don't be a fool by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-22 01:52 · Score: 0

I don't know how many of the people who post here actually write software, but I have. I'm not the greatest programmer in the world. I've never written anything that crashed NT. Everything I've written, at one point or another would barf out itself, there's a big difference there. I come across apps all the time that crash, and the only fault for that is the programmers of those apps. I'm trying to remember when I last bluescreened NT, I think it was around service pack 3, some neat little conflict between a creative labs sound-card driver and tcp/ip... That was over a year ago. I run NT at work, and at home triple boot 98/NT/Linux. Linux was the most painful to install, as it was the first time I'd installed Linux. Nice OS, lots of power. Wouldn't recommend it to my friends yet (non-techs). I still recommend Macs to them. They tend to just work, out of the box. Most import feature for a non-tech person. I use 98 for directX 5 and 6, that's it. I don't boot it very often. I run NT for a month or two, and then I'll need to do something that requires a power-down. NT, in my experience, is rather stable, as computers go. But I always save while I work, regardless of what kind of computer I'm on. Setting up a computer so that it's stable is a skill, one you have to learn, and for each OS. Did anyone who has been beating on this guy ever setup their linux box flawlessly, the first time? I don't know anyone who has ever installed an OS for the first time, and it go well. I know lots of people who have used computers that have been setup for them by people who knew what they were doing, and it work very well. OK, before I ramble too much here, my point. NT isn't the devil's spawn, but another OS that's geared to a completely different market than Linux, so until you're prepared to write an OS that my mother (an accountant) can use every day, including setting up a new computer, get off it. Linux is a great OS, but it's not geared for the non-technical people out there (i.e. dumbasses to those of you who can't see outside of the the realm of computer geeks...) -A rather pissed off computer engineer and yes, I'm hiding behind coward because I don't really want to get flamed for this...

At last, some common sense by perky · 1999-11-21 20:23 · Score: 1

OK, so there have been a few other people saying that Linux/*BSD/GPL/Free Software isn't the answer to everything, and that MS products are not all useless etc, but the vast majority just slag off MS and get moderated up for it.

Wake up and realise that just because MS have used some pretty bad corporate tactics, their products are not necessarily bad. An analogy might be Nestle. Just because their agressive marketing of baby formula in the 3rd world has caused lots of harm, doesn't mean that a Kit-Kat bar is a bad product. (I don't know if they have them in the states, so a Kit-Kat is a chocolate wafer bar thing)

I think that win32 is a reasonably good OS for the task it sets itself. It was designed to be easy to use rather than incredibly stable and secure. If you want five nines reliability, you buy an S/390. If you want to word process and browse the internet easily, you buy MacOS or windows. If you want better stability, and lower-level acces to your machine on Intel, you use Linux. The point is that not everyone knows how to install linux, and even more people would be terrified by an x-term. Windows is aimed at people who just want to use a given set of apps without worrying about how it works, and it does a reasonably good job at it.

NT is a good system, as was proven by the recent Mindcraft benchmarks (and before you complain about the validity, I mean the SECOND set, that were carried out with Linux techs on hand to tune the Linux system). Stop just mindlessly hammering MS products because MS isn't the most friendly corporation in the world.

Oh yeah, according to another poster, because I don't slag off MS at every opportunity I must be "stupid". So feel free to disregard everything I say because I am "stupid".

--
"The new wave is not value-added; it's garbage-subtracted" - Esther Dyson, Dec 1994

Take this as advice from an active user.. no flame by cybrthng · 1999-11-21 20:23 · Score: 1

This is not a flame. But please, slashdot. Lets get back to the roots of technology.

I *beg* of this website to totally quit being a media player, and become the news site it once was. I can go to news.com and get all this info, and the comments just aren't anything constructive for such a moot overly plaid topic already.

Microsoft is in its own boat, so is linux, so is solaris, so is netscape. But lets move on. Get back to "news for nerds, stuff that matters" as this microsoft trial is old news, it doesn't matter, as the outcome will only effect people who use windows avidly. And frankly, if there is a disucussion, it should be how a windows user should prepare for any changes, and not talk about "the beast" itself, because they're is no right or wrong with that.

Just my 2 cents

Re:I'm gonna sue Microsoft by Mr.+Slippery · 1999-11-22 02:06 · Score: 2

There's a reason you shoot to kill in cases of home invasion. Hard to sue if you're dead, huh?

One does not shoot to kill in a self-defense situation, one shoots to stop. If I was going to shoot to kill, after the bad guy was down and no longer a threat I'd go over and put a round in his head. And if I did so, no only would I be charged with excessive use of force, I would probably be sued vigorously by the intruder's family.

Of course, I may be arrested and/or sued for shooting to stop, but I have a much better legal (and ethical) position when my goal is clearly to stop the threat to my safety.

--
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood

Re:Make moderators accountable by quonsar · 1999-11-22 02:10 · Score: 1

Slashdot should just allow all users the ability to check who moderated any post. Essentially moderators get to act as anonymous cowards in regards to their moderation. There's no accountability, so anyone who wishes to try and surpress a viewpoint through moderation, does so with no worries.

I think this is a great idea. Also, unlike other suggestions I've read re: moderation, this would be simple to implement.

Slash already keeps track of the moderation totals for a given message and displays this data when the CID format of the URL is used. Looks like it would be simple to include the moderators id in the form of a link to the moderators user page.

====== "Rex unto my cleeb, and thou shalt have everlasting blort." - Zorp 3:16

--

Sacred cows make the best burgers.

Re:Don't be a fool by perky · 1999-11-21 20:37 · Score: 1

When it does you begin sacrificing quality to serve the idiots, who then continue to complain "It's too hard! Make it easier!" simply because they don't want to learn. MAKE THEM LEARN

It may surprise you, but 95% of the millions of computer users out there use computers as a tool to get their job done. This may be by using the web to research things, or by using email or a word processor. These people do not care or want to care about how the system works. They will buy whatever system puts the technicalities as far away from them as possible, because it does not benefit them to know how to configure their machine.

There is absolutely no reason for them to learn how their machine operates. Many people drive a car, but it is not mandatory for all drivers to be experts on how their car works. They just use it to get from A to B.

Just take some time to put yourself in the shoes of the average user, and realise that they have different expectations from a computer to you.

--
"The new wave is not value-added; it's garbage-subtracted" - Esther Dyson, Dec 1994

Re:actually.. by jesser · 1999-11-22 02:33 · Score: 1

maybe windows being full of bugs isn't why microsoft still has a monopoly, but being full of (buggy) "features" kept people buying it and the bugs kept people upgrading.

--
The shareholder is always right.

Re:What would you do with Microsoft? by VAXman · 1999-11-22 02:36 · Score: 1

There are already lots of us who use non-Microsoft and non-Linux/Unix systems which are far superior to either one, who hate both of them, and who chuckle at those who are involved in the Unix/Linux vs. Windows wars - why choose between a Honda and a Saturn when you can have a BMW?

The original poster was anonymous... by Wakko+Warner · 1999-11-21 20:38 · Score: 2

...yet you appear to have no problem with that.

As for "freedom of choice" when it comes to operating systems, it has been pointed out time and time again that it is impossible to purchase a laptop computer without paying for Microsoft Windows. That blows your pie-in-the-sky freedom theory out of the water.

Now, as to the previous poster's comment about Microsoft and your subsequent condemnation of it: I really don't know why so many people think that corporations are physical entities and, as such, should be given the same treatment as one would to, for instance, their grandmother. Why should I kowtow to Microsoft? If I think they suck, I sure as hell have every right to say so. It's not like Microsoft's feelings will be hurt -- they're not human beings! I can't piss them off; I can't punch them in the stomach, much as I'd like to sometimes. It's bad enough that corporations have been endowed with the same property rights as human beings have in this country; do we really have to start ascribing emotional attributes to them too? Some would have it that way, though, it seems... it's a shame.

- A.P.
--

"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad

--
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"

Re:The original poster was anonymous... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-22 08:44 · Score: 0

As for "freedom of choice" when it comes to operating systems, it has been pointed out time and time again that it is impossible to purchase a laptop computer without paying for Microsoft Windows. That blows your pie-in-the-sky freedom theory out of the water. I beg to differ. http://www.linux.org/vendors/systems.html There are about 100 vendors that sell Linux precompiled in about 15 different countries. I don't know how to get this across to you people. "YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE WINDOWS!" Stop complaining and switch.

Re:Something's wrong here... by knick · 1999-11-21 20:40 · Score: 1

That's a good point. For example, with Standard Oil, the gas stations purchase the oil and gas through Stand...wait, they purchased it direct from the Standard Oil. Because, even if the end user was a comsumer, so what the owners of the stations themselve, and if anything, they were the ones being hurt. Opps, that was a bad example.

Let's use AT&T. Comsumers purchase the services.. uhh..oh, they purchased the services directly from AT&T.

How do you defined purchased. SOMEONE has to purchase directly. They are consumers also. The potential monopoly affects all levels of the chain.

Give them a way out? Perhaps this a offshoot of the "sue 'em" way of thinking today, but anti-trust laws are not a way of providing conduits for class-action lawsuits. They may be protected from the money-hungry lawyers (yeah, those lawyers are ONLY concerned with the purchaing public, not lining thier own pockets),but they still aren't protected from any punishment that the courts themselves decided to lay upon them.

I think lawyers like this should be sued!!!

Re:I will offer to release all claims... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 20:44 · Score: 0

Last offer, I want an elocution

I initially read this as "electrocution."

I was going to suggest that that might be a bit harsh... :-)

Re:Don't be a fool by aschlemm · 1999-11-22 02:58 · Score: 1

I haven't seen this sort of thing happening yet on any of my Linux systems. I've been through the following upgrades with SuSE Linux (I started using SuSE Linux at version 5.2): 5.2->5.3->6.0->6.1->6.2.

I have been very careful to only install RPM packages from SuSE and RPM seems to do a very good job of updating the existing packages. It updates older packages when I do an upgrade and as best as I can tell it removes all of the files that make up the older package first before installing the newer files from the update.

crappy of options by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 20:53 · Score: 0

"Your honor, my clients had no real choice in PC operating systems, and were left with a crappy of options."

Oh, be quiet! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 20:53 · Score: 0

Brevity is the soul of wit, friend.

This class-action suit is frivilous because there was no damage that wasn't self-inflicted. No one had to buy Windows, and there WERE reasonable substitutes (OS/2, MAC). If only we could sue M$ for shipping defective products... Certainly the bug fixes in Win98 should have been provided free to all Win95 owners.

IMHO, the only legitimate claims against M$ were made prior to the recent finding of fact (Netscape, et al).

Class Actions and Social Policy by werdna · 1999-11-22 03:18 · Score: 3

Several of our colleagues have observed that class actions of this kind are being brought by law firms with only $$$ in their eyes. Yea, verily this is probably the truth. Class action plaintiff firms are indeed an entrepreneurial bunch.

But several of these messages suggested that the truth of this proposition also implies that class actions so brought do not serve the purposes of justice. Here (though I primarily practice law on behalf of commercial defendants in such actions), I will part company with my /. colleagues and will speak on behalf of my bretheren at the plaintiff's bar.

It is not uncommon for businesses to engage in commercial activities in violation of the law and the policy set by legislatures, rulemakers and the courts. In many cases, there is no "real harm" to any one member of the public, but hundreds of thousands of dollars can be made, scattering the costs over millions and tens of millions of customers, each suffing only at most a few pennies or dollars of damage at most. A primary example occurs in the mis-collection of sales taxes from consumers.

Indeed, few people would even monitor this conduct, least of all the government, whose enforcement resources are limited at the end of the day. Were there no enforcement by the government, why would businesses tow the line?

The answer: because there exists a small cabal of class action plaintiff law firms who specialize in this kind of practice. They investigate these micro-violations, and bring civil actions on behalf of the consumers who were overcharged, each only pennies at a time.

True, consumers will get a pittance back at the end of the day compared to what was taken, but they will get something they would not have gotten otherwise, and at little cost and with minimum disruption to their lives. More important, the bringing of such actions STOPS the bad practices, and deters companies from "overreaching by neglect." It is easy to look the other way when your "mistakes" are making you money.

If such actions could not be brought, there would be no check on this kind of microviolation. Class action disputes of this kind (see also qui tam actions) are the only meaningful engine to assure enforcement of certain kinds of social policies.

Why let lawyers get rich at the expense of a Microsoft or other company, with little revenue actually flowing to the victims? The answer is simple: so that the company will be deterred from microviolation conduct in the future. Here is where you will find the justice.

Think ahead: a statutory class action remedy for excessive spamming by or on behalf of commercial entities!

Re:Hey I want in! by greenrd · 1999-11-22 03:44 · Score: 1

If you as a company can't prevent grevious injuries from mishaps which even intelligent people will have, then you shouldn't serve coffee through the drivethrough.

Oh come on

Cars kill a lot more people than spilt coffee. A lot more. Even intelligent people sometimes kill themselves and other people in car accidents.

So should we impose a ban on the sale of all cars?

What about the customer's responsibility to prevent such accidents? Like, don't put a cup of scalding hot coffe between your legs? It's kinda stupid, you gotta admit.

--
Female Prison Rape in NY

Re:Take this as advice from an active user.. no fl by TPx · 1999-11-22 03:45 · Score: 1

Fuck you bitch.

Does this require comments? It is so hard no to qualify that as a typical Linux user answer...

But I agree, Slashdot used to be MUCH more interesting months ago. Now I read it just for the occasional funny comment. Not a good sign for a "News" site...

Free-market price of Windows by DrCode · 1999-11-22 03:49 · Score: 1

Actually, there is a free-market price for Windows; you can find it by visiting the on-line auction sites. When I wanted a copy of Windows95 for my home-built machine, I bought a shrink-wrapped (and I believe, legitimate) copy of Windows 95 for $65. This was the "full" version for new machines, which sold at retail for around $180 and which my hardware distributor was selling for about $100.

Re:Free-market price of Windows by user · 1999-11-22 06:04 · Score: 1

Right, because, as we all know, on-line auctions encompass all consumers in existence... :)

Another thought is that if someone was selling this at $65 or less (assuming they had a reserve lower than that price), then, somehow, Microsoft allowed them to get a copy for *less* than the price you claim is a fair market price.

-User

--
Emacs is for experts. Pico is for beginners. VI is a disease.
Re:Free-market price of Windows by Last+Warrior · 1999-11-22 06:21 · Score: 1

The "full" version of windows in the non-upgrade distribution is for sale with a new computer purchase only. The price of this OEM sku is less because of the licensing agreement that M$ has with the hardware distributor. Copies of this software sold without accompanying hardware are illegal based on the licensing agreement. LW

Re:Don't be a fool by asuffield · 1999-11-21 20:55 · Score: 1

The trouble is, even with a homogenous Microsoft-only environment, the system is not necessarily that stable. This is partly due to inadequate testing. Under Linux or OS/2, while a sufficiently carefully coded program can break the system, by exploiting bugs or security holes, it is difficult to crash a machine by accident. Unlike under Windows. If you don't believe me, write 256 bytes of 0's to location 0000:0000 from a DOS prompt. You can even use DEBUG. Windows will almost always crash. Then try it with Linux on a PC. No crash. And this is a remarkably simple error to make. I've done it. Then I switched to Linux for development.

Do Microsoft have to refund? by asuffield · 1999-11-21 20:56 · Score: 1

As I understand it, the EULA obliges the retailer to refund the money, not Microsoft. And they can insist that you return the complete system.

RE: shooting to stop by Autonomous+Cow · 1999-11-22 04:00 · Score: 1

Sorry this is a little off-topic but it shows how ridiculous our suit-happy society has become. And that is definitely on target.
If some greedy idiot breaks into my house and tries to hurt me or my wife or my kid I want to hurt him first, so bad that he wants to stop. He is the aggressor, where does he get the right to sue me, the victim? And if he does have that right, then why can't I go try to rob some really rich people/companies, get shot by their security forces, sue, and make lots of money? Sounds like a plan...
The reason I don't like the system is because it only works for the bad guys. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

--
The Autonomous Cow. Moo.

Class Action Suits - sorry about the AC - legaleze by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-22 04:07 · Score: 0

(from legaleze) The LA Times is running an article under "breaking news" about the class action suit to be filed in San Francisco today as well as others already filed (www.latimes.com).

Re:Hey I want in! by Eccles · 1999-11-21 20:59 · Score: 2

IT WAS COFFEE. IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE HOT

McDonalds serves (served?) their coffee at a higher temperature (180 vs 150-160 degrees fahrenheit) than other drivethroughs. If you're going to serve coffee in that way, you (as a business) should take reasonable precautions to prevent these sorts of accidents, especially after HUNDREDS of other incidents. Serve it at a lower temperature, make the cups as strong and secure as possible, possibly put the cup in an additional safe container, etc. If you as a company can't prevent grevious injuries from mishaps which even intelligent people will have, then you shouldn't serve coffee through the drivethrough.

--
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.

Re:Don't be a fool by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 20:59 · Score: 0

You were right. I did 16bpp color depth and it looks as good as Windows. My bad !!

Re:MS-DOS 6.22 by Mr.+Piccolo · 1999-11-21 21:01 · Score: 1

I seem to remember $50 or $60, but maybe that was 6.0.

--
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei

Re:Another little econ lesson... by itachi · 1999-11-22 05:13 · Score: 2

Perhaps I'm not explaining the mechanism very well, but it's not really a choice on the part of the monopoly. Intentional or not, they do end up with a higher price than a fair market porducer selling the same good to the same consumers. Now whether or not consumers should be re-imbursed for the damage done to them by a monoploy is a seperate issue. Personally, I think that they should. A monopoly does really bad things to the market and to development of the good. However, since monopolies aren't an everyday situation, maybe this should be dealt with as part of the final ruling. My point is just that the entire market has been hurt by this, particularly including consumers. They are right in claiming they've been hurt, but dealing with that is a seperate issue.

Re:Another little econ lesson... by user · 1999-11-21 21:05 · Score: 1

Given the fact that a monopolies goods are priced higher than they otherwise would be, MS has hurt anyone who has bought a computer since MS became a monopoly. ...um... the point is that a monopoly could charge more for their products, or that they might stagnate development, not that they automatically do so. Also, from the FoF: It is not possible with the available data to determine with any level of confidence whether the price that a profit-maximizing firm with monopoly power would charge for Windows 98 comports with the price that Microsoft actually charges. Even if it could be determined that Microsoft charges less than the profit-maximizing monopoly price, though, that would not be probative of a lack of monopoly power, for Microsoft could be charging what seems like a low short-term price in order to maximize its profits in the future for reasons unrelated to underselling any incipient competitors. So... the FoF isn't an automatic gimme on determining whether damages are due, nor what the extent would be. I also find the second half... interesting. It reads, to me, like this: Well... they could have raised the prices, and if we see that this occurred, why, look, they are a monopoly. Just in case we find that this isn't the case, well... there could be some mystical magical other reason why Mr. Evil MS is doing this, we just don't know what it is yet. ...this is not, of course, to say that there wasn't an alterior motive, just that I found that bit to be a little slanted... -User

--

Emacs is for experts. Pico is for beginners. VI is a disease.

Re:Greed is the root of evil by mojos · 1999-11-22 05:18 · Score: 1

Dude, you go out to some store and look at any of the computers there, you HAVE to buy them with Windows. Most likly right now, 98, or NT WS. You are forced to buy it with the computer if that is the computer you want. Now you can build your own, you can have one made for you with out Windows, but most people dont know that, nor want to take the time to figure out what they want on the system. Most dont understand it, even though they should, they just want it, and some might not want windows, but yet they are forced to buy it. So why should they be? you should have the choice but you dont because of MS and their ways.

Re:Greed is the root of evil by asuffield · 1999-11-21 21:06 · Score: 1

But what about all the people who bought Windows because it came packaged, and they didn't know about other options? They weren't asked, and they didn't know they had a choice.

Re:Another little econ lesson... by user · 1999-11-21 21:10 · Score: 1

(Erm... depite a happy preview, my formatting disappeared when posted... trying again)

Given the fact that a monopolies goods are priced higher than they otherwise would be, MS has hurt anyone who has bought a computer since MS became a monopoly.

...um... the point is that a monopoly could charge more for their products, or that they might stagnate development, not that they automatically do so.

Also, from the FoF:

It is not possible with the available data to determine with any level of confidence whether the price that a profit-maximizing firm with monopoly power would charge for Windows 98 comports with the price that Microsoft actually charges. Even if it could be determined that Microsoft charges less than the profit-maximizing monopoly price, though, that would not be probative of a lack of monopoly power, for Microsoft could be charging what seems like a low short-term price in order to maximize its profits in the future for reasons unrelated to underselling any incipient competitors.

So... the FoF isn't an automatic gimme on determining whether damages are due, nor what the extent would be. I also find the second half... interesting. It reads, to me, like this:

Well... they could have raised the prices, and if we see that this occurred, why, look, they are a monopoly. Just in case we find that this isn't the case, well... there could be some mystical magical other reason why Mr. Evil MS is doing this, we just don't know what it is yet.

...this is not, of course, to say that there wasn't an alterior motive, just that I found that bit to be a little slanted...

-User

--

Emacs is for experts. Pico is for beginners. VI is a disease.

Re:Don't be a fool by greenfly · 1999-11-21 21:14 · Score: 1

Everything should be made as easy as possible, but no easier.

How much of a threat is this really? by Drayke · 1999-11-21 12:13 · Score: 1

Honestly, I've got to look at this and say that the class-action suits on the consumer level aren't necessarily going to be very much of a concern for MS. As has been pointed out, the vast majority of Windows installations are bundled packages, not people buying individual CDs. This makes it difficult to come by a preponderance of evidence showing harm to consumers. At the corporate level, I think there's a more real threat, but I don't really personally see much potential in the consumer suits.

-Drayke

--

-Drayke

If all the world's a stage, it must have been an easy audition.

Re:heart of the matter by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-22 05:26 · Score: 0

A full version of MS-DOS 6.22 ran $30 in its time. In five years, Microsoft has been able to increase the price of its lead product over six-fold.

[reply] So ? You are comparing apples and oranges. Thats like comparing a Model T at a couple of 100 dollars with a Ford Taurus. There is not comparison. Both DOS and WINDOWS are different beasts.

Also, just look at their profit margin. It's on the order of 100%, as opposed to just ~15% for most software companies. They have a bigger margin than anybody in their industry, by far. In a competitive market this just does not happen.

[reply] That is a bunch of crap. In a capitalistic, market driven economy, prices are set at whatever a market can bear. Do you know how much margin Sun enjoys ? The big box vendors charge you an arm and a leg for everything - hell they dont even give a compiler when you purchase their OS.

Something's wrong here... by jesser · 1999-11-21 12:13 · Score: 1

"The prospect of a flood of private follow-on cases -- with their triple damages in private antitrust cases -- are lawsuits with potentials that Microsoft simply cannot ignore," said Herbert Hovenkamp, a professor at the University of Iowa law school.

In consumer class actions, legal experts say, Microsoft has defenses that will lessen its potential liability and present formidable obstacles for plaintiffs. For example, most computer users do not purchase Windows directly from retail software stores in shrink-wrapped boxes. Generally, the operating system is already loaded on personal computers when they are purchased.

Aren't monopoly-owned products likely to be purchased indirectly? Why does antitrust law give triple punishment for monopolies but then give them a way out?

--
The shareholder is always right.

Microsoft Class Action Lawsuit by gitgat · 1999-11-22 05:33 · Score: 1

Most of you people are missing the point.Do you actually think that this is going to dent Bill Gates? The only ones going to get rich are the attorneys. The final take for you and I is going to be a pittance.I was part of the class action lawsuit against Fleet Mortage for their escrow withholding practices.After the lawyers took their cut,my check amounted to $0.19.All you Microsoft users-enjoy your newfound wealth. gitgat & the gitchie goombahs

Class actions mean nothing by else...if · 1999-11-21 12:15 · Score: 1

This probably isn't worth worrying about. Most class actions end up hurting the company and enriching the lawyers, but doing nothing for the consumers. Remember the big monitor lawsuit, where all the major monitor companies apologized for including the black border as part of the monitor size? I think I have a five dollar rebate for the purchase of my next monitor lying around somewhere. That's not an atypical settlement; if this case gets won, it will just be with a similar settlement. (Actually persuing a class action lawsuit into the court room is virtually unheard of.)

Re:This is *not* flamebait by PimpBot · 1999-11-21 21:21 · Score: 1

We all have heard a million times the "It's not the OS's problem. Its your install, or your hardware, or something, but not M$'s fault." This IMO is [...] completely wrong as well.

While I agree WinNT leaves much to be desired, in my expierence, this actually is true. At CMU, we have clusters with Sun, Linux, NT, and Mac boxes. In my expierence, the NT boxes are always extremely stable (on par with the Linux boxes), and are very responsive. Of course, a default install of NT right out of the box isn't that great, but I'd love to know exactly what CMU does to its NT boxes to keep them running so well for so long.
--------------------------

Re:nope, common carrier by copito · 1999-11-22 05:50 · Score: 2

#include

I'd be careful about giving legal opinions if you're not a lawyer (I'd be even more careful if you are a lawyer). The facts as I understand them is that common carrier status for websites is a somewhat murky subject. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act makes the limits to liability much more explicit, but also requires that a service like Slashdot remove materials that they know about and which are objectionable.
--

--
"L'IT c'est moi!"

Hey I want in! by Ater · 1999-11-21 12:16 · Score: 3

As a disgruntled Windows 98 user, I have suffered extreme amounts of emotional damage from using windows, and I demand compensation! Why just last night I was downloading a 200 meg Swedish teenage lesbian erotica video on my box, and the damn thing BSOD'ed on me after 6 hours, while I was 98% done! Realizing my hours of downloading were in vain, I not only sobbed uncontrollably, but I have also lost all sexual function and have been forced to undergo months of therapy to regain it. My sex life has been destroyed thanks to MS and its buggy OS, and had I not been forced to run Windows, I would be having a delicious pr0n spree right now. Running Windows has ruined my life, and it's your fault, MS! Oh, and all that little monopoly stuff wasn't that nice either.

Re:Hey I want in! by copito · 1999-11-22 06:00 · Score: 2

All she asked for was payment of the medical fees. McDonalds refused. They got slapped. The Jury awarded punitive (that means punishment) because McDonalds had been warned and sued many times and had made no changes. The award was about 1 day's coffee receipts for McDonalds and was reduced on appeal.
--

--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
Re:Hey I want in! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 12:24 · Score: 1

Your post is completely useless if you don't include the URL of that teenage lesbian erotica video.
Re:Hey I want in! by copito · 1999-11-22 06:09 · Score: 2

So you're a forensic biologist now. Without proof your argument is specious. Here's the relevant facts from The Actual Facts About The Mcdonalds' Coffee Case

Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus, if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.

--

--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
Re:Hey I want in! by copito · 1999-11-22 07:15 · Score: 2

Cars kill a lot of people. But people understand and accept the risks when they purchase and drive a car. There are substantial regulations pertaining to auto safety, which also gives the manufacturers some protection from liability. But in the end, if a company knows of a significant safety problem relative to other vehicles in the same class and does not correct it, they are potentially liable.
--

--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
Re:Hey I want in! by TCook · 1999-11-21 12:45 · Score: 1

As humorous as this post is, our litigious society here in the US, very well could see "recovery" in a case like this. Remember the 'duh woman' suing McD's over hot coffee?
Re:Hey I want in! by TomG · 1999-11-21 12:48 · Score: 1

Amazing how you had months of therapy between yesterday and today, isn't it? Hopefully the judge won't notice that little descrepancy. :)
Re:Hey I want in! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 13:12 · Score: 3

Agressive consumer legal action is the most effective tools American consumers have to curtail abuse of corporate power.
Submitted for your approval, the facts about the McDonald's coffee suit.
Re:Hey I want in! by Ater · 1999-11-21 13:33 · Score: 1

yeah but we can overlook that little fact, cant we :)
Re:Hey I want in! by Zen · 1999-11-21 13:37 · Score: 1

awwww. I wanted to say it. No fair.
Re:Hey I want in! by ChadN · 1999-11-21 15:32 · Score: 2

And in addition (aand I've said this here before), lawyer's and plaintiffs should NOT be allowed to profit from punitive damages (they are PUNISHMENTS, not rewards). The punitive fees should be distributed to the community (somehow).

--
"It's overkill, of course. But you can never have too much overkill." - Anonymous Slashdot Coward
Re:Hey I want in! by CFN · 1999-11-21 14:22 · Score: 1

I agree.
But lawyer should not be allowed to bring suit for their own financial gain.
Re:Hey I want in! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 16:12 · Score: 0

Yes, I do. Drive-through lane giving out "food" that can't be safely consumed. Third-degree burns to the thighs and genitals, a week in the hospital, skin grafts. Not the first victim. Would have settled for actual medical costs, but McDonald's refused. IMHO the store manager (if not the CEO) should have been hosed down with the swill, head to toe.
Re:Hey I want in! by fwad · 1999-11-21 18:29 · Score: 1

What? Everyone knows coffee is hot! Do we really need to go around telling people

"Careful now - don't jump into the river - you might get wet"

"Make sure you don't stuff 3 chessburgers into your mouth at once - you might suffocate".

The person that should have been hosed down and nail to a wall is the stupid money grabbing woman that sued.

I feel sorry for her - it's a nasty accident - but that's just it. I suppose if McD's had served the coffee at a cool temperature she would have sued because the coffee was not hot enough and so she didn't perform at her optimum that day. McD's were right to fight this - it's just a shame that the Judge and the American legal system is so stupid.
--

--
-- Kernel Panic: Error reading /dev/caffeine

Re:is this copyright violation? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 21:27 · Score: 0

But you're forgetting that the Internet is about the free exchange of ideas and information. If the NY Times did not want it being reprinted on Slashdot, then they would not have made it available online in the first place.

Amen! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 21:36 · Score: 0

Amen to that brother! This web site is quickly devolving to the level of a *.advocacy newsgroup. Except it's mostly one sided :)

I'm gonna sue Microsoft by TunaPhish · 1999-11-21 12:18 · Score: 1

All the CDs that I have copied of Windows98 and Office97 have crashed on all 30 computers I've installed them on in different ways, and I plan to sue Microsoft because of it! How dare they crash my computer!!

Wouldn't you have done the same?

(This is similar: Burgular breaks into my house and cuts his foot on the kitchen floor, and sues me because my linolium was bad)

Re:I'm gonna sue Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-22 07:34 · Score: 0

Off topic. True, but on the other hand if he lives he'll sue you for medical bills, sue the gun company for selling you the gun, sue the people who made the bullets and sue the people who made the floor that broke his fall. A good for nothing loser will screw everyone. Unless there are witnesses, it's hard to say what was excessive use of force, unless of course you're a cop, in which case it's always excessive, even if he had a gun to your own head. (No I'm not a cop). I say, in all seriousness, it doesn't pay to shoot someone unless you intend on killing. I'd probably not shoot someone if they were walking off with my TV. But if they threatened my family or myself....well, I'm sorry, shoot to kill.
Re:I'm gonna sue Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 13:41 · Score: 0

The sad part is in cases like that...often times the victem has to pay the idiot.
Re:I'm gonna sue Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 16:14 · Score: 0

Amen brutha
Re:I'm gonna sue Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 14:50 · Score: 0

There's a reason you shoot to kill in cases of home invasion. Hard to sue if you're dead, huh?

Re:Take this as advice from an active user.. no fl by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 21:48 · Score: 0

Fuck you bitch.

Re:Don't be a fool by perky · 1999-11-22 06:07 · Score: 1

This isn't to defend the current state of the art in computer usability-- there's plenty of work to be done yet-- but I think that there is a limit on how simple we can make a computer before we start to sacrifice the essential complexity that makes computers compelling in the first place.

I see your point, and that is not what I am arguing. What I am saying is that the "essential complexity" interests me, and most of the other /. users, bores the shit out of most of the users in "the real world". What they want is apps that are as easy to use as possible, and that includes the OS.

in answer to your comment on the functionality of cars: Most people use computers for only a few tasks, rather than stretching their abilities. The ability to get from A to B is synononymous with word processing a document. The internals are beyond their knowledge and the knowledge that they care about. The fact that a computer is perhaps more advanced than a modern car (although I would contest that) is irrelevant - both machines are way beyond the John Smith mentality, knowlwdge, and understanding. Consequently how far they are beyond is of no importance: the fact is that it makes no difference to the average person how something works as long as it gets the job done, adn win32 gets the job done when it comes to making word processing and browsing the internet easy.

Lastly, I don't think that the limit on making interfaces simple is that dependant on the complexity of the underlying operation. For example the core of the software that I am working on is very complex, but just as much research goes into making the UI usable. Once the UI is very good, it will most likely not change very much, but the core will continue to evolve.

--
"The new wave is not value-added; it's garbage-subtracted" - Esther Dyson, Dec 1994

Greed is the root of evil by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 12:22 · Score: 1

Nobody made anybody buy a copy of Windows. I didn't have a gun pointed at my head when I bought mine. I didn't have a gun pointed at my head when I started smoking either. The fact is I did what I did and it's nobody else's responsiblity except mine. People need to stand up and take responsibility for thier actions. I'm tired of people blaming everyone else and not realizing they are the ones who put themselves in that situation.

If you don't like windows, don't buy it. Use a typewriter for godsakes. But don't blame Bill Gates for making you buy anything. You are the only one who made that descion.

Re:Greed is the root of evil by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 12:37 · Score: 0

Another root of evil is people who just assume the facts they made up in their heads are true.
When you come back from the planet of the ostrich people, read a newspaper or something and find out how many people didn't have a choice about buying Windows.
Oh wait, I just read your last paragraph. If you don't want Windows, use a typewriter. Hey, aren't you Bill Gates?
Re:Greed is the root of evil by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 14:24 · Score: 0

>Nobody made anybody buy a copy of Windows.

Office Depot made me buy one when I bought the box I'm on now. It's amazing how quickly it's been forgotten that M$ required its OS to be on every PC sold.
Re:Greed is the root of evil by itachi · 1999-11-21 15:13 · Score: 2

The argument brought by this suit isn't that consumers were forced to buy windows. The argument is that the price of windows was artificially high due to the fact that MS had monoploy power. The suit simply claims that the consumers who did buy the good from a monoploy are entitled to be reimbursed now that the monopoly has been declared to be such.

Re:Lord, I am afflicted with a boil... (nt) by Niko. · 1999-11-21 21:55 · Score: 1

OK, I guess my moderators missed the Life of Brian reference to all the people lining up to importune Brian...

Sorry to waste bandwidth.

Re:Don't be a fool by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 22:03 · Score: 0

There is absolutely no reason for them to learn how their machine operates. Many people drive a car, but it is not mandatory for all drivers to be experts on how their car works. They just use it to get from A to B.

No offence, but I don't think you can realistically compare cars and computers. A modern car may be chock full of microprocessors and whatnot to control its fuel injection, but at the heart of it, a car's a pretty simple machine for-- as you say-- getting from A to B. If a car had the equivalent functionality of a computer, it would have optional caterpillar tracks, a steam shovel attachment and the ability to travel underwater; its dashboard would stretch right around the interior of the car and it would be just as difficult to use as a computer!

This isn't to defend the current state of the art in computer usability-- there's plenty of work to be done yet-- but I think that there is a limit on how simple we can make a computer before we start to sacrifice the essential complexity that makes computers compelling in the first place.

-- Ken (who's forgotten his /. login)

Here's what you tell them by UnknownSoldier · 1999-11-21 22:21 · Score: 1

> I really don't know why so many people think that corporations are physical entities

They aren't. Corporations are just a legal entity.

If anyone says otherwise, ask them to look up "corporation" in Black's Law Dictionary.

IANAL

Cheers

Re:Don't be a fool by dirk · 1999-11-21 22:38 · Score: 1

It never amazes me to hear people say that computers shouldn't be made for the average person. This sentiment mainly stems from the fact that that is how Microsoft became the juggernaut they are, making computers so EVERYONE can use them, not just the "computer elite". People seem to forget that before Joe Average got a home computer, they weren't all that great. You could do a lot, but not nearly what you can today. The Internet was a collection of academic text pages you could go see with Lynx. Without the average "stupid" computer user, we wouldn't be making money in the computer industry. And in general this is because of Microsoft. MS made their software so you didn't need 5 years of experience and 6 manuals to install and run software (I know other people did it to, but MS is the big name people see and recognize and associate with it). Without MS, computers wouldn't be nearly as wisespread as they are (no, I'm not saying they are the sole reason, but they played a big part in it). The average computer user is what drives the market now. The average computer user likes games, so there are a lot of games. The average computer user like ease of use, so everything is becoming easier to use. As much as everyone would like to dismiss the average computer user, they are what the computer industry is about.

--

"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"

This is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 12:29 · Score: 2

OK, I was naive. I thought that the idea behind class action lawsuits was to benefit large groups of consumers harmed by corporations and various other entities.

What this lawsuit clearly shows me is that class action lawsuits are there to make lawyers rich. You just have to be there first. It's lotto for lawyers.

If you saw Regarding Henry, you'll see that shooting a lawyer in the head makes them good and nice... I'm not advocating shooting them, but perhaps requiring a partial lobotomy upon passing the bar could restore sanity to these idiots.

Re:This is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 12:54 · Score: 0

Right. The first clue is that instead of seeing headlines like "three large companies who have bought a lot of MS products are filing suit against MS" you see headlines like "three lawyers file suit againts MS." The worst ones are stock-holder class action suits -- generally the setlement doesn't pay for the drop in stock price caused by the suit. Of course, the lead council gets 1/3 of the total settlement, which adds up...
Re:This is ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 13:45 · Score: 0

As in the recent Texas tobacco decision...Texas is getting 10's of billions to recoup losses due to smoking related illness...3 lawyers are splitting 3.3 Billion for it.

My hatred for Lawyers is topped only by my hatred for humanity. (and a town in eastern washington)

Caution: this post will be moderated down)

Good Point. Wrong Target. by the+red+pen · 1999-11-22 06:15 · Score: 1

You are spot on about flaming (and your tagline is brilliant), but you were not responding to a flame. It was actually a pretty reasonable post.

Perhaps, rather than calling Windows apologists "stupid," he should have pointed out that none of them demonstrate any capacity for critical thought. Bigger words, same meaning.

Re:Don't be a fool by an_Ex-Lurker · 1999-11-22 06:28 · Score: 1

I'm sure this ain't the time or the place, but... You can try checking your ethernet card, make sure it's all plugged in and the cat didn't knock it out. There's always a logical explanation for these things... and that explanation isn't always "M$ sux"... but sometimes it is... hell, sometimes the explanation is as nebulous as "my machine doesn't feel like doing that right now" ...I've seen that be the cause plenty of times

Re:Idiot. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 12:31 · Score: 0

Complete idiocy. Windows 95 would have dominated either way. Nice little fantasy about it, but software vendors would have developed for Windows 95 primarily no matter what MS did. Get a clue. IBM didn't do crap for OS/2 marketing or courting developers. Novell's OS was just a character mode piece of crap. Microsoft made the right decision at the right time, now you fascist idiots are whining about it.

OEMs by reptilian · 1999-11-21 12:33 · Score: 2

Does anyone know the details of microsoft's OEM pricing scheme? Besides the obvious bully tactics, what does it amount to, on average, per computer for it to come pre-installed with Windows '98?

Would OEMs, especially the ones not in bed with M$, be able to bring lawsuit against M$ to recover damages? Or purchasers of those OEMs products?

When I worked for a local computer store (actually worked in 2 different ones), we got maybe $10 or so less than retail, but charged the retail price to the customer, even if it came preinstalled. That IS a consumer cost. I'm not sure how big OEMs get charged, but if the cost is relegated to the consumer in ANY WAY, one would think that the consumer would be able to recover those costs.

Of course, not many would bother if it comes down to a couple bucks/computer, triple damages, minus a third for the lawyers cut: you'd get many $10 out of it.

Man's unique agony as a species consists in his perpetual conflict between the desire to stand out and the need to blend in.

--

72656B636148206C72655020726568746F6E41207473754A

Re:OEMs by RallyDriver · 1999-11-21 12:50 · Score: 2

Just unpacked our first Dell Linux preloads at work today. Dell's OEM rate for NT-WS must be around $125-$150, because the price difference between NT-WS and Red Hat preloads is $75 (with Linux being cheaper). The Red Hat preload systems come with support from LinuxCare and a plastic shrink-wrap with install manual and CD/floppy kit, much like the NT OEM one in fact - figure those at $50-$75 total, hence the figure. You also get a nice pamphlet from Microsoft on how to use a mouse (yes, really) which comes with the 2.5 button rodent (little wheel) supplied.

I think Win98 OEM's at around $30-40 in bulk, and around $75-85 for mom 'n' pop shops - many "build you own" places in the UK will resell Win98 OEM kits at this latter kind of rate, if bought with certain components (ISTR it's actually the HD, not the motherboard, that counts).

If you check into successful MS-Tax refund stories you might get more data; when Toshiba did it I think they used to sink the full "list" price of an OEM, rather than disclose their pricing deal with Micro$oft.
Re:OEMs by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 13:02 · Score: 1

Yeah, Toshiba did that. They also claimed that their contract was per unit produced, not per unit sold, so they had to pay for that seat of windows even if they were to sell systems without windows.
I know that with Win95, a hard drive was sufficient to sell OSR2. I think I heard somewhere that it could actually be sold with either a hard drive or a motherboard, but since consumer sales of hard drives are much higher, I suspect that it is the usual option.
Re:OEMs by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 16:16 · Score: 0

Charging full price to the consumer was just retail markup. If your computer stores weren't monopolies, no problem.

don't like food? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 12:35 · Score: 0

...stop eating.

That's your argument.

Millions of people make a living and feed their families from software. Opening the market won't make IT/Computing jobs go away, but (hopefully) it will spread them out a bit.

Like away from Redmond. Kick Ass!

By the way, as a Taxpayer, I'd like to see massive amounts of money refunded to the gov and returned to the public in the form of tax cuts.

Re:don't like food? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-22 08:32 · Score: 0

You have to eat food. You don't have to use windows. I'm not saying that I like microsoft I am just saying that up until the 1980's people have gotten along fine without computers. If you don't want to use windows, don't. Use another operating system, or break out the pen and paper. But Bill Gates did not hold your hand and tell you "But this or you can't use a computer." You bought it. If you don't like it 1)Deal with it 2)Put something else on it. Its that simple.

by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-22 07:40 · Score: 0

Lawyers can smell money faster than sharks smell blood.

Re:I agree by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 12:37 · Score: 0

I agree with your statement. They are just looking for easy money.

Look! by divec · 1999-11-21 12:37 · Score: 1

Laptops. Nearly impossible to build yourself one.

--

perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'

I can prove you are an idiot! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-22 08:09 · Score: 0

You say --> "They 'suggested' it via pricing cuts" YES! They suggested it with pricing cuts that would PUT VENDORS OUT OF BUSINESS IF THEY WERE NOT ACCEPTED. This proves you are an idiot. In fact, you are a fukking idiot. Craw back into your dungpile and eat your mother's feces! Have a horrible day. I hope you don't have kids, because if you do they will be ugly! Heh heh. This post is stupider than you are! But my first paragraph is highly intelligent and proves that your brain is the dungpile of Slashdot. You better take something for that constipation before you explode and stain these pretty walls!

JOKER - YOUR POST MAKES YOU LOOK BAD by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-22 08:22 · Score: 0

While I was reading your post, it made you look REALLY bad. I don't think you can think for yourself, since it is such a repeat of what other people's arguments have been. I'm not going to reply to the individual points in your message, because I suspect that you have spent absolutely zero time thinking through the issues yourself. Here's some advice -- when you are quiet, people give you the benefit of the doubt (regarding your intelligence.) However, as soon as you open your mouth THEY KNOW what your intelligence level is. I probably should not be too hard on you -- it seems like you are about 13 or 14 years old. I see no sign of any higher education in your post. This is fine--you are young. And if you're a lot older than that I would REALLY keep my mouth shut since that's how you come off. But assuming that you are a 13 or 14 year old, take my advice because once you get to the "big school" they are going to want you to think more creatively than this (you have a couple of years to get older and wiser, though.)

Lawyers just trying to make money by Dr+IOStream · 1999-11-22 08:27 · Score: 1

This is nothing more than a common case of lawyers trying to make money...they would do this even if Microsoft charged $2 for Windows.

--
~Jay (Negative Seven)

Lawyers' field day by Fuhrer · 1999-11-21 12:38 · Score: 1

The potential benefit for consumers for this class action lawsuit is almost zero. Just because the FoF basically trashes Microsoft to hell doesn't mean that every lawsuit brough against them is going to be instantly successful. This is just an act of greed by greedy lawyers.

Think about it. If you signed up to this lawsuit, what could YOU possibly gain as a result, besides lots of wasted time (and money). On the other hand the lawyers would have a field day...

Re:Don't be a fool by demon · 1999-11-22 08:42 · Score: 1

Even (shock horror) linux systems tend to degrade over time.

Umm. Are you kidding? I've not had this problem with Linux. I don't know anyone who can say (with a straight face, anyhow) that they have.

And if you can say that with a straight face, you don't understand the reasons WHY this happens with Windows - (a) registry corruption and (b) DLL incompatibilities (due to lack of versioning, which causes new versions to constantly be installed over other versions). In my experience, I can't help but agree with the experience reported earlier - Windows' stability goes downhill the longer it's installed.

And to the person who says that Windows' stability is influenced by the "quality" of the install, (a) it's not like you have that much control over the install process and (b) as someone else said, a perfectly stable Linux box, when booted into Windows, is not necessarily stable - I don't know that you can blame that on bad hardware...

--

Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"

They're trying to be the first in line by Cycon · 1999-11-21 12:40 · Score: 1

Taken from the article:

Unlike conclusions of law, a judge's findings of fact in a federal antitrust case are not generally considered admissible as evidence in private suits. But Jackson'sfindings agreed so strongly with the case presented bythe Justice Department and 19 states that antitrust experts say his final verdict, expected early next year,will almost surely find that Microsoft is a monopolythat violated the law.

and:

"This is the start of the race to get to the courthouse," observed Stephen Axinn, apartner in Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider who is anantitrust litigator.

It would appear that these fellows are attempting to be the first in line with open hands demanding compensations. The only problem with their case is that they're relying on the judge's finding of fact, and simply assuming that the final decision will open the flood gates for suits similar to theirs.

It's a bit of a gamble, but as they say, the early bird gets the worm

--Cycon

(of course, the second rat gets the cheese...)

--
Your Brain + EEG + LEGO Robots = Brainstorms

Don't be a fool by Joker · 1999-11-21 12:40 · Score: 1

I can't stand by and listen to everyone rip on Microsoft. I may not like their corporate tactics, but I do have to admit, they make great products. Windows NT, for instance can be very stable if you have good computer parts and take the time to install it correctly. I can't begin to tell you how many times, a friend has been complaining about how unstable their system is, and all it turns out to be is a crappy install. Now I also like linux. But for the average user who can't learn how to "double click" or how to "go to the file menu and click print," linux isn't the answer. That's why there's iMacs and windows 9x. Linux isn't quit at the dumbass level, like Mac and Win9x, yet. I can sit here all day and say that my linux box crashes all the time, but I know deep down inside, the memory may be bad, and I probably did a bum job of installing it. That's not anyone's fault but my own. I'm not going to take a class action suit to red hat, bitching that I can't get my computer to work. And how some say there are consumer victims of microsoft... that's absolutely ridiculous. If a computer was shipped to someone without an OS, what the hell would they do? They'd go to some IT and say, "it keeps saying no operating system found when I boot up. Help me.." People seem to jump on the bandwagon when it comes to bad mouthing microsoft (kinda like falcon's fans). Just chill out people. Those of you who get so upset about "this OS is better than this OS" are almost as bad as those people on campus trying to push bibles into your hands every two minutes. Give it a rest. You're not a victim of Microsoft. If your computer crashes, chances are, it's either a hardware problem (not microsoft's problem) or it's a software install problem (which is also not microsoft's problem). Give it a rest, my ears are bleeding.

Re:Don't be a fool by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-22 20:53 · Score: 0

NT will crash if you have more than one user. To me, it seems like a single user OS. We paid for NT in our organisation yet it was a weekly reinstall after it crashed every day. And the hardware wasn't flaky. We used lots of hardware and found out it couldn't just handle more than one user. With 800 users it was a mad raving lunatic of an operating system. Linux has no such problems that's why we switched to it.
Re:Don't be a fool by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 13:01 · Score: 0

You're probably right. Hey, roblimo, can you check this joker guy's ip address to see if he's coming out of microsoft ?
Re:Don't be a fool by Joker · 1999-11-21 13:02 · Score: 1

Are you not listening to me? Window's isn't goint to crash for NO REASON. Either you installed some shitty McAffe Crash Guard software or you've got bad hardware. Granted, the system will prolly slow down after a few days because of memory leaks, etc, but it's not going to crash for NO REASON. Software by third party vendors can make Windows unstable by corruption, like netscape for example, but generally, if you don't install shitty software, your windows box isn't going to crash.
Re:Don't be a fool by Microlith · 1999-11-21 13:19 · Score: 2

Great, bloated, stable-if-you're-lucky software. I've had it crash on me with excellent hardware, and with a fine setup. Tell me, how can you tell a crappy install, since 98 and NT do most of the install without asking the user anything (because it automatically assumes EVERYONE is a moron). My setup is good. It works fine, but every once in a while, something happens and windows randomly freezes. Is it the OS? Is it an app I am using? It should be able to kill bad apps, or at least leave error logs as to what caused the error. NOTHING should ever descend to the dumbass level. EVER. When it does you begin sacrificing quality to serve the idiots, who then continue to complain "It's too hard! Make it easier!" simply because they don't want to learn. MAKE THEM LEARN. As you later state: But for the average user who can't learn how to "double click" or how to "go to the file menu and click print," linux isn't the answer. Can't learn? Sounds to me like refusal to learn. Like the quote says, "Windows hasn't increased computer literacy, it's just lowered the standard". More On Hardware: A system should be able to tell you your system is bad. If your system is crapping out due to bad memory, it should be able to tell you that to your face. Until then, to most people that Bluescreen is a fault of the OS. Most system reliability problems lie with microsoft from what I've seen. Brand new PCs from the likes of HP and compaq for home users still die. I can sit here all day and say that my linux box crashes all the time, but I know deep down inside, the memory may be bad, and I probably did a bum job of installing it. You try making the same idiots who are "incapable" of learning how to double click figure that out, especially since their copy of 98/NT probably came preinstalled. Also, Microsoft, since they have "monopoly" power, should be forced to stand behind their product. They probably the only company who's product does critical jobs, yet they don't stand behind it (they have a clause stating essentially NO WARRANTY, and you have to pay extra for tech support). The ENTIRE Linux community stands behind it. They don't want it to crash, so they make it that way. Microsoft has no need to care, because according to their EULA, they don't have to! Better put some cotton in those ears, because it looks like it's going to be a while.
Re:Don't be a fool by aschlemm · 1999-11-21 13:24 · Score: 1

The worst problem I've seen with NT Workstation is that the stability seems to degrade over time as software is installed and uninstalled. I can't tell you how much time I've seen developers waste in some of the places I've worked where they have to reinstall NT and all of their software they use to get a stable system where they can get some work done. I think alot of this is the DLL hell that Windows creates for us. It was and is still fun to be standing in the cube of a fellow developer talking and see his/her NT box blue screen when he wasn't even touching the box.
Re:Don't be a fool by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 13:52 · Score: 0

Uhh ... That would be because you don't have the faintest idea what you are doing. If you have X setup properly and start the server with at least 16 bpp color depth, graphics will be easily as good as those in Windoze. Now, fonts are a different story - do yourself a favor and install a truetype font server.
Re:Don't be a fool by itachi · 1999-11-21 15:28 · Score: 2

wtf. sounds like poetry. deep down inside you're a fag.

Dude, that's not cool. Bigotry sucks. Open your mind, life goes easier that way.
Re:Don't be a fool by kweerboi · 1999-11-21 15:34 · Score: 1

I remember seeing an article in PC Magazine that somewhat brushed this topic. The author stated that upon having to return to an earlier version of Windows, he had forgotten how to use a lot of it due to the fact that Windows has since them gotten "easier".

When it does you begin sacrificing quality to serve the idiots, who then continue to complain "It's too hard! Make it easier!" simply because they don't want to learn. MAKE THEM LEARN.
I agree with this, but the question is HOW MUCH should they have to learn? GUIs have definately dumbed down the user. Put the typical Mac or Windows user in front of a *nix or dos prompt and he/she will be at a loss of how the hell to operate it. So does that mean to users should have to know a basic set of commands? Or is that going to far? If for say a user can't get a program to compile... is it going to far to ask him/her to learn the programming language? I mean, yeah both of these are going a bit overboard. The standard user of a GUI should still learn how to handle hardware conflicts and edit some basic system files if necessary, but most users aren't going to be thrilled at the idea. You can't FORCE them to learn anything. There are a lot of users with a "I just want to do my work and I don't give a rip about anything else with the system." mentality. A lot of people don't have the TIME to sit down and learn the ins and outs of their system. If they just don't have the time due to say job, family, active social life, etc., can we blame them for their lack of understanding? Their "stupidity" is not necessarily due to a refusal to learn.
So what's the solution to this? There really isn't one. You can't require a computer operator to have a certain level of knowledge about the system before he or she can operate it. You're always going to have newbies and "dumbed down" users. And as long as they are there, you're going to have a market for GUIs such as MacOS and Windows.

A cool feature might be to offer users various levels of how much access they have to the system in terms of how many settings, etc they could tweak, so that novices wouldn't have to deal w/ stuff, but advanced users could go in and do as they pleased to tweak their systems. Of course I haven't seen any of the major GUI OSs offer this.

The only thing I worry about with these class-action suits would be the possiblity that these same "dumbed down" users would just get greedy and decide to join the suit despite the fact that they had no idea as to what the suit stood for.

Does Microsoft use unethical business practices? - Yes

Should they make repremands to users who were "harmed" by Microsoft's monopoly power? - I think that depends on the case.

Are some people just going to be greedy and try and get in on the cash? - Of course.

--
Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Re:Don't be a fool by Bronster · 1999-11-21 14:06 · Score: 1

[ Stability tends to decrease over time ]
Unfortunately this isn't a problem which is restricted just to NT Workstation, or to Microsoft products. It's actually a normal state of affairs for just about any system. Even (shock horror) linux systems tend to degrade over time.
As an example, I had a Redhat 5.1 server which was working perfectly well. I kept up to date with all the security updates, installed programs both from source code and from RPMs. It all worked perfectly well, but I could tell that things were slowly getting messier - different versions of binaries sitting around, compiled for different versions of the libraries.
In the end it became a choice between updating all the packages by hand, or installing from a later distribution and porting across all the config changes. I chose the latter because it is a fact that entropy increases in any system over time.
The difference between Microsoft products and most other systems is how long it takes to break down, and how drastic that breakdown is.
Bron "All hardware sucks, all software sucks - some just sucks more than others" Gondwana.
Re:Don't be a fool by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 14:13 · Score: 0

NT performance degrades over time due with lots of app.installs/uninstalls because the registry files get humongous. Apps also have a bad habit of leaving their .dlls in /%systemroot%/system32 or /%systemroot%/system. A good portions of BSODs are caused by inconsistencies between versions of .dlls. The standard ones get old, vendors supply versions with extensions, and they all get put in different places: app. directories, system folders. It's anyone's guess which version of a .dll is linked at run-time by an app. If you search, you'll see that you have sevearl duplicate versions on any given box.
Re:Don't be a fool by normiep · 1999-11-21 15:47 · Score: 2

(because it automatically assumes EVERYONE is a moron).

Sort of like a lot of the new installation programs for the comercially popular linux distributions. Yeah, yeah, they still allow you a higher degree of control... but if you notice, the direction they are going in is to automate as much as possible. Hmm, I wonder why? Maybe its because thats what normal consumers want? Besides, neither you nor I might be the normal consumer, but I'm sure we could both still benefit from better (well... anythings better than the almost non-existant) hardware detection.

NOTHING should ever descend to the dumbass level. EVER. When it does you begin sacrificing quality to serve the idiots, who then continue to complain "It's too hard! Make it easier!" simply because they don't want to learn. MAKE THEM LEARN.

This doesn't make any sense, of course things should be made as easy as possible. First of all, this is what consumers want. You aren't going to be competative if you don't listen to your customers. And if you haven't noticed this is exactly the direction many linux distributions are going. And your statement that you should "MAKE THEM LEARN" also doesn't make any sense. Computers are supposed to make life easier for people, they don't need or want to sit down and learn a large set of arcane commands and formats for 50 different configuration files (well.. I like to do that, but thats just me), they just want to sit down and get something useful done.

It might not have dawned on you, but ONE (I'm not saying its the only) major reasons why windows is dominant today, is that its relatively easy to use, even for someone who has never touched a computer before (well... macs are even more like that, but they lost for other reasons).

What I will agree with you on, is that it is nice to have the abillity to get down and dirty with the operating system and bypass all of the dumbed down controls... maybe with a little (well... a lot) more work kde or gnome will give us just that.

Also, Microsoft, since they have "monopoly" power, should be forced to stand behind their product. They probably the only company who's product does critical jobs, yet they don't stand behind it (they have a clause stating essentially NO WARRANTY, and you have to pay extra for tech support). The ENTIRE Linux community stands behind it.

Okay, this is just wrong. If you take a look at Part 11 of the GPL its pretty clear that there is, I quote, "NO WARRANTY".

The linux community might be a little more helpful when it comes to fixing bugs than microsoft, but when it comes to the court room they are not any more accountable than microsoft.

--
-- Point? None! Cob.
Re:Don't be a fool by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 14:22 · Score: 0

You've never actually been a tech, have you?
Third party software? What if I want a firewall? What if I want the industry choice for a webserver? What if I want virus protection (because I actually need it)? What if I want to USE my box, besides solitare and the OpenGL screen savers. Are drivers third party software? Where do I buy microsoft hardware? Joker, what the HELL are you talking about?

Anonymous Coward
"For a good time, goto your nearest Windows NT box and change the text string in the 3D Text screensaver to 'I love NT'. Seriously, try it, you'll be surprised as to what happens."
Re:Don't be a fool by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 14:39 · Score: 0

Funny, I was wondering the same thing. But the other way around!
Re:Don't be a fool by tyrant · 1999-11-21 17:19 · Score: 1

So what are you saying? No-one should use software unless it comes from MS? Don't use 3rd party software because it will make your OS unstable? What kind of an answer to the problem is that? What it all boils down to, and is one of the biggest reasons for me, is that no application should be *able* to make the OS unstable. What windows users everywhere have got used to, and what saddens me the most, is how it is accepted that your computer will need rebooting several times throughout the day. The number of times I have heard "Oh it's ok, it locks up like this every now and again, you just have to reboot"
Flakey software has got people to accept interuptions like that and pass it off as the normal operation of a computer.

Well it's not good enough for me, and it shouldn't be for anyone else....
Re:Don't be a fool by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 17:21 · Score: 0

Corel Linux is a bucket of puss.

I installed it, and -still- could not find an easy way to connect to the Internet. The crap dialer that comes with it will dial the ISP and connect, then the pppd just times out, and the error log function doesn't work.

I can't beleive the amount of whinging you Linux people do about Microsoft when your own OS lacks the easy function of connecting to the 'net.

Now -THAT- is harm to consumers. Some poor jerk goes and buys Linux and can't even get on the 'net for support.

Wake up propellor heads!
Re:Don't be a fool by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 17:49 · Score: 0

Works fine here. and I'm not much of a "propellor" head either.
Re:Don't be a fool by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 17:52 · Score: 0

remove the opengl screensavers from your list. My stock 98 install on a machine with software GL crashes (hard) if I leave the morphing objects screensaver up for too long. the same machine running slackware 4 has yet to have anything other than netscape crash.
Re:Don't be a fool by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 17:59 · Score: 0

Ok, explain this:

I took two PCs running win98 with relatively fresh installs(1-2 weeks). I then setup file sharing and connected the two PCs with an ethernet cable and began copying a large file (212 MB) over. During the middle of the copy the client said "host not found." I looked and sure enough the computer was gone from the network neighberhood. I then worked for four hours trying to set it up again and finally pulled the hard drive out of the source computer and stuck it in the client. what should i have done? i re-installed file sharing, tcp/ip... i don't understand how it can all of a sudden die.

Re:No. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 12:41 · Score: 0

Being full of bugs has nothing to do with it. Also, some how some way people who bought proper licenses had to pay for it. If they couldnt find software that was there problem. Programmers dont have to code for all OS's.

ph33r the Suedot Effect! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 12:41 · Score: 0

When the hordes of hungry lawyers finish with the tobacco companies, plump juicy Micros~1 is ripe for pickin'

ha, ha gullible fools by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-22 11:36 · Score: 0

this suit is a joke -- even the two lawyers admit as much.

it's becoming painfully clear that the USA put on a monkey show for idiots worldwide -- "We're gonna spank MSHAFT for hosing all the little people" -- but now look what's happening.

a settlement is imminent. MSHAFT stock is rising.

just like all the other lawsuits that have had merit over the years -- a payoff and a quiet settlement at the end. billgatus will quietly pull the strings from behind the scenes, and his company, having actually defeated the judicial branch of the USA, will become more wealthy and powerful than anyone could have previously imagined.

ha, bill gates just pulled off the greatest scam in history -- and the world lapped it up like a starving pup eats gravy. Goooood boy! He played the whole planet for the chumps they (we) are.

did anyone really think it would be different?

How about state-initiated class-actions? by freeBill · 1999-11-22 13:05 · Score: 1

In the early '70s, state attorneys general started suing large corporations using class-action claims based on small amounts of harm to large classes of constituents. Does this produce less bottom-feeding? Is it still practiced today?

It would be particularly ironic when you consider the idealistic young attorney general from Washington state who established the precedent by suing oil companies for overcharging consumers.

That idealistic, young Ripon Society member today has become Microsoft's pimp-in-chief in the U.S. Senate: the cadaverously macabre (and decidedly unidealistic) Senator Slade Gorton.

Another interesting question: If you had a time machine, went back and told the young Gorton what he would become, would you be guilty of murder? Because he certainly would commit suicide rather than become the epitome of what he fought against in the '70s.

--
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.

Re:heart of the matter by Joker · 1999-11-21 12:45 · Score: 1

What the hell kind of an argument is that. You're just acting like a two-year-old who can't express their feelings with words. How about some fact to backup your argument? Keep in mind, microsoft charges no more for it's os at comp usa than a retail version of linux.

Can I sue Microsoft? by sralston · 1999-11-22 13:11 · Score: 1

The IT department at work says I *have* to upgrade my M$ Outlook97 to Outlook98, supposedly to ensure "Y2K" compliance (yeah, I believe that!). When I "resisted" by pointing out to them that Outlook98 REQUIRES the presense of IE (4.x), and WILL NOT FUNCTION WITHOUT IT (!) (deinstall IE on a computer with Outlook98 installed, then *you* try to run Outlook if you don't believe me), and that I refuse to have IE on my system(s) because I prefer Netscape, and that besides all that, my "patched" Outlook97 *is* Y2K compliant! (!JERKS!) Well... None of those arguments prevented them from coming back and saying: "Upgrade or else remove all copies of pre-Outlook98 from your system(s)" (!) I feel SO violated. Who can I sue? BTW: This is where I drew the line with having M$ crap forced upon me. In the words of my 18 year old daughter: "That's IT - IT'S OVER!" I'll switch to some (any) other mail interface and deinstall Outlook - NO PROBLEM!

Re:Can I sue Microsoft? by TPx · 1999-11-23 12:11 · Score: 1

Why don't you sue your IT department? Oh! Are you afraid to lose your job? What a pity...

Grow up and get real. There are no lines to be drawn. It's a computer. It's a program. If using a computer program causes you emotional problems, my suggestion is a psychiatrist, not a lawyer.

Re:Look! You are an end user, are you? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-22 14:39 · Score: 0

What a condesceding prig you are!

>most end users handed cash over without >argument...they were offered alternatives

There are NO alternatives to Windoze really.

Joe Consumer goes to 95% of the stores and what does he see: Windoze everywhere.

Let's face it, most consumers think a Mac is
that tasteless soggy hamburger and that
Linux is a character from Peanuts.

Most people buy computers because
a) they want to play games
b) they want to 'surf that Net thingy'
c) dont really know why they buy it but since
eveyone else does, tehy have to have one as
well!

Which, by the way, is also a way to tell all the Linux-fascists that while Linux is a good product
and Open Source truly a great idea, the OVERWHELMING majority of computers users couldnt tell a simm from a motherboard.

Its nice to be able to spout techno-jargon but let's remember the rest of the planet.

Re:Look! You are an end user, are you? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-22 14:55 · Score: 0

What condesceding prig you are!

>most end users handed cash over without >argument...they were offered alternatives

There are NO alternatives to Windoze really.

Joe Consumer goes to 95% of the stores and what does he see: Windoze everywhere.

Let's face it, most consumers think a Mac is
that tasteless soggy hamburger and that
Linux is a character from Peanuts.

Most people buy computers because
a) they want to play games
b) they want to 'surf that Net thingy'
c) dont really know why they buy it but since
eveyone else does, tehy have to have one as
well!

Which, by the way, is also a way to tell all the Linux-fascists that while Linux is a good product
and Open Source truly a great idea, the OVERWHELMING majority of computers users couldnt tell a simm from a motherboard.

Its nice to be able to spout techno-jargon but let's remember the rest of the planet.

Re:Lord, I am afflicted with a boil... (nt) by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-23 09:41 · Score: 0

Those guys can hardly write correct English, so don't expect too much from them !

Re: Yeah Man and Copying Software is OK Too by TookyCat · 1999-11-23 11:21 · Score: 1

Yeah man, and copying shareware and cracking it is 100% ok, too. I mean, if those shareware authors did not want it cracked then they wouldn't have made their binaries available to the public for download in the first place.

Right??

(ya freakin moron!!)

Re: EXCELLENT POINTS IN THE ABOVE POST!!! by TookyCat · 1999-11-23 11:39 · Score: 1

Wow this guy has laid it out!! If anyone can argue or disprove what the above post has said (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=99/11/21/2357 232&cid=219), email me at tookycat@bigfoot.com and we'll discuss.

I don't expect to hear from any of you!

Unless you want to complain that you are "forced" to use Windows because the software you like runs on Windows. Well, choose one or the other!! You can't have your cake and eat it, too!

PS: Moderators, please moderate the above one up! Even died-in-the-wool Linux zealots would have a hard time arguing.

Re:Idiot. by Tarnar · 1999-11-21 12:54 · Score: 1

Yes, you are a complete idiot. OS/2 failed because the AntiTrust suits against IBM prevented them from properly marketing it. Just look at the restrictions placed on IBM. It also failed because MS refused to license the Win32 API. But that's noone's fault because MS wasn't obliged to license it. First point stands though.

Re: Systems don't just degrade like you say by TookyCat · 1999-11-23 11:53 · Score: 1

Having extra DLLs in your system directory rarely, if ever, causes BSOD crashes. They are user space programs and it is very difficult to BSOD cause of user space. Kernel drivers (which could cause BSOD) do not use your comdlg32.ocx or your comctl32.dll that can get version conflicted by being overwritten. It just doesn't happen.

And, the problems of apps leaving those DLLs in the system dir, is FAR LESS WORSE than if they blindly DELETED them from the system dir upon program uninstallation, hoping that no other program was dependent on them!!! There are a LOT more chances that a program will work with two different versions of a DLL, than those of a program working with the DLL deleted altogether!

And there are myriad of tools to tell which dll is linked by an app at runtime. I prefer PEsx at http://www.jps.at/ in his Win32 Tools. You might also try Dependency Viewer "depends.exe" in the NT Resource Kit and also in the Platform SDK (and any other SDK like the default one with Visual C++).

Josh Straub
tookycat@bigfoot.com

This BANTER moderated up? WTF are moderators on? by TookyCat · 1999-11-23 12:02 · Score: 1

Calling people "fag"s? Yeah, I know I would moderate it up.

Realize.. by sporty · 1999-11-21 12:55 · Score: 2

.. this is the result of the lack of success of the people realizing the cost of buying oem copies of software they don't want, MS responding by sorta allowing refunds until they pushed it to the computer sellers. Then with this whole monopoly buisness, the time is right and more proof exists.

---

--

-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only

Past experience by Martin+Foster · 1999-11-21 13:04 · Score: 1

Quote:
Yet, publicly at least, Microsoft insists that its risk from private antitrust suits is exaggerated. "That litigation is something we're prepared to defend and defend aggressively, if necessary," said Tom Burt, a Microsoft lawyer.

It seems to me, that if the Microsoft defense team appointed to each and every single case that might arise are nearly as diligent and cunning as the ones employed in the DOJ trial... Then there are in serious trouble and the above statement means nothing.

Of course, it could all be a ploy by Microsoft. Since they know/hope that they can keep the DOJ off their case simple by stalling the process as best they can. And figure that by the time they get done with the DOJ they will simply get a slap on the wrist.

Instead they are going to concentrate on the Class Actions suits and hit them as hard as they can. Of course, conspiracies or devious plans can be found in anything.

I told lawyer to file suit against M$ for windows by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 13:06 · Score: 0

After an attorney told me about the hours he spent recovering from another Windows crash, I told him to file suit.

We all know they have a disclaimer.

I told him, I should ask for a refund, based on the disclaimer, saying to get a refund if I did not agree with the terms. We all know how quickly M$ has refunded the money for people not running Windows, but the machine came preloaded. When they refuse to do that, we use that against them for the disclaimer of bugs. They can't have it both ways!!

Mattel still retaliates against injured geek!

You're right by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 13:08 · Score: 0

I can get amazing uptimes on a Windows box -- all I have to do is let it sit there and not do anything with it.

Re:You're right by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 13:51 · Score: 0

Get out! I've seen just the OS running a screensaver it came with lock up

Re:Idiot. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 13:16 · Score: 0

Yes, you are an idiot. IBM did market OS2, they had lots of TV commericals. They just didnt market it properly. Correct,MS is not obligated AT ALL to release there API. But there was Win32's support in OS2.

Couple good reasons by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 13:16 · Score: 0

Just a few reasons your windows system will crash: (1) DLL Hell System files get written over from one app install to the next by regular users. (2) Crappy and complicated APIs Your windows system has silly outdated and complicated APIs that are difficult to use. The programmers end up tripping over their own code. (3) Your memory management sucks. Open up a couple apps and if your only have 32 or 64 megs of ram your system is swapping like hell. (4) Your GUI has is too integrated into your kernel. A bad video driver crashed your machine.

This Lawsuit Is Not Enough by Carnage4Life · 1999-11-21 13:18 · Score: 1

I've never been a big fan of class action lawsuits because they always seem to turn a bunch of ambulance chasers into millionairres while failing to reward those who should be rewarded.

I would rather get paid for all the information I have lost and lost productivity due to various BSODs brought on by MS Office, IE , Outlook Express and Windows. I would like reimbursement for all the software I bought and downloaded over the web on a 56K modem only to have the Scandisk bug force me to reinstall Windows (in early versions of Win98 whenever scandisk ran there was a chance it would overwrite the boot sector of the HD. It took 2 occurences and the purchase of Norton Utilities...which has an option to replace Scandisk b4 I stopped having to reinstall Windows98). I would like reimbursement for all the work I lost everytime my machine switched itself off without rhyme or reason because of the power management bug in Windows98.

I would rather see people reimbursed because MSFT forced us to use their crap software and cost us time and money...instead of a sweeping, lawyer- enriching payout that gives MSFT fodder for its constant spin that it is being victimized for being successful.

Bad Command Or File Name

Re:again ? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 13:19 · Score: 0

Heh. I have seen this post at LEAST 3-4 times before on slashdot.
ANd i mean this EXACT SAME post. WORD BY WORD.
Everytime there is a topic with "microsoft" in the title this post appears.I am not joking.
Will be funny to find out where it comes from just out of curiosity. I bet it's a cgi script of some sort. Something that is similar to another post it's reasonable. But something EXACTLY the same over and over and over again it's not ;P
Either someone has it in a word .doc and he cuts and pastes everytime or this is some sort of a script .

BAD PUN WARNING by Eimi+Metamorphoumai · 1999-11-21 13:23 · Score: 1

First-class action suit? I wouldn't describe any of Microsoft's actions as first-class.

(Don't say you weren't warned.)

--

Visit me on #weirdness on the Galaxynet.

What would you do with Microsoft? by puppet · 1999-11-21 13:27 · Score: 1

Without MS, who is next on the list to hate? There must be someone because without MS I see a dwindling motivation for Linux.

Maybe Linux will be hated by some other upstart OS creator thus fueling the great circle of life. yeah!

Kill the friggin lawyers by CFN · 1999-11-21 13:34 · Score: 1

Class action suits where no one was "harmed" are a bunch of nonsense.

To quote the NYT:
They note that the three lawyers behind the California suit -- Gross, Daniel J. Mogin of San Diego, and Francis O. Scarpulla of San Francisco -- are experienced state class-action lawyers who have worked for two decades on antitrust cases involving products ranging from snack foods to tires.

These guys will claim that everyone who bought windows is entitled to damages. MS will respond by offering $5 discounts on purchase of future OS, not really costing them anything. But the shyster lawyers will keep 1/3 of $5 * number of windows users, i.e. a huge ammount of money.

These guys make their (much more than comfortable) living by convincing a bunch of people that they are owed a couple of bucks from some company. The lawyers make a hugh chunk.

I run windows on a couple of systems. After finding out ms was a monopoly I did not feel as though I was incredibly harmed, and owed money. Most people probably feel as I do. But these slime balls decide it is an incredible opportunity to make some big bucks.

It is sick. Protecting people against death-trap autos - Good, making a quick $100M when no one was hurt - Bad.

I have lawyers in my family. I do not think that everyone who practices that profession is corrupt, but I really think the laws need to be changed to prevent laywers bring suits for THEIR financial gain.

Microsoft's lousy lawyers make it an easy target by Mark+Gordon · 1999-11-21 13:37 · Score: 1

Remember how Microsoft was represented in the anti-trust trial by bumbling idiots? That's not even counting Bill's less-than-stellar performance. Based on my experience with Microsoft's software, I'm not entirely surprised to see them screw up, though. ;-) I'm sure lots of lawyers were watching the trial and wiping the drool from their chins. The tobacco companies expect to get sued and retain the services of lawyers who have spent years studying the best ways to get tobacco companies off the hook. Microsoft has invested most of its attention into protecting its monopoly against innovation, er, competition; they forgot about the courts. This is the logical result.

Re:again ? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 13:47 · Score: 0

Would you mind posting links to the other posts .. I would enjoy tracking this thing down. =^)

Re:Look! linux! by bago · 1999-11-21 15:20 · Score: 1

actually I've seen more than a few laptops for years with linux pre-installed. Even had the lil redhat logo where the windows logo went.

--
.

This is *not* flamebait by Get+Behind+the+Mule · 1999-11-21 15:22 · Score: 2

Once again, someone who has posted a pro-MS message on Slashdot gets moderated down, although the message is no less appropriate than most of the other ones around here.

For the record: I think MS is a band of gangsters and that both the anti-trust suit and the coming class action suits are richly deserved justice.

Nevertheless, this guy is entitled to his opinion, and stated it with arguments and no more flamage than most of the anti-MS posters. Moderation is not meant to be censorhip for unpopular viewpoints.

Will someone please moderate it back up? Meanwhile, I'm going meta-moderating until I can find this one.

--
Always keep a sapphire in your mind

Re:This is *not* flamebait by javilon · 1999-11-21 16:45 · Score: 0

I think this guy has been moderated down because the lack of quality and knowledge of his post. We all have heard a million times the "It's not the OS's problem. Its your install, or your hardware, or something, but not M$'s fault." This IMO is not relevant to the (overcharging class lawsuit) discussion at all, and completely wrong as well.

--

When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon Johansen trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."

Tell this to Toshiba... by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 13:58 · Score: 0

...who just shelled out $100s millions for a floppy disk error that nobody complained about. Here's what happened in the Toshiba deal:

1) lawyers smell blood, find glitch that could have caused up to (!) $1,000 per user x 1,000,000 users = $1e9 in damages
2) lawyers get some stooge to file the class action on behalf of all potential "victims"
3) big company settles for fear of bankruptcy
4) stooge gets $20k, 1e6 users get certificate new floppy disks, lawyers get 10% x 1e9 = $1e8

Re:Another little econ lesson... by itachi · 1999-11-21 15:25 · Score: 2

I forgot one important point which is relevant here. The suit is about the fair price, not the option to purchase. Being unfairly overcharged because there was no other way to use a joe average home PC. Sorry.

Fsck Armageddon, This is Hell by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 14:03 · Score: 0

Ya know...because of the insane amounts of coffee I have been drinking lo these many years...I now have high bloodpressure and a sleeping disorder...I believe a class-action against the coffee companies is in order.

Now that they have proven that roller-coasters can cause minor amounts of brain damage (if you ride them many times)...I think I will also sue them.

Because I was FORCED to buy gasoline for my car to get to work...I have had to take my car in to get fuel filters replaced...spark plugs replaced...I think the oil companies are next in line.

While I was in the army I was forced to run. It has now been proven that joggin/speed walking can cause cancer in your joints, time for the FED

Because of companys continuing to sell ancient keyboards that cause CTS, time to target anyone who distributes them.

Don't even get me started on the people who manufacture car stereos that can be turned up so loud that I am now losing hearing in my right ear.
Just because it was my choice to turn it up, they should still be punished.

When does it end? When will people learn how to take care of themselvs?? Why is it that so many people here claim they hate MS so much, yet even though they do not interact with anything that is MS, they still allow MS to consume their lives.

I am fucking near tears here. What the fuck is the point anymore?? Your petty complaints with MS mean NOTHING. Want to complain about stifling competition?? How about the oil companies who refuse to allow alternitive energy sources to make it to the public? Are you too scared to take them on??

What about all the corperations who are destroying the planet??

You people are hypocrites.

Re: About $40.00 - How to measure - Bounty solutio by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 15:30 · Score: 0

Difference: When DOS6 came out it cost x. six-12 months later Y. Same deal for windows. Some economist can ask to see MS reckoned price/elasticity curve, and you can see the amount of 'rent maximisation' that took place. They will have this documented too. Rather than to correct water under the bridge, make DOJ pay a bounty, say $50 direct to every end consumer who reimaged their pre-canned machine with windows. Internationally, this number should be upped to include taxes/duty. The harm to consumers in EEC is much higher.

Linux users class-action suit for refunds by Get+Behind+the+Mule · 1999-11-21 15:35 · Score: 2

Remember Windows Refund Day? How many people have successfully obtained their refunds for unused MS software? Is MS still throwing up barriers against collection of refunds? Are they still hoping that no one notices that they ever promised any such thing?

I think that Linux users ought to bring a class action suit to force MS to pay their refunds.

Judging from the posts made so far, I suppose a lot you will say, "No way, I'll never do that, class action suits and anything involving lawyers are Inherently EVIL, and I'll have nothing to do with it." I think this is ideological and naive. MS has collected about a hundred bucks from you for absolutely nothing. If you're willing to tolerate something like that, then would you please send some of your money to me, too? After all, I haven't done anything for you either.

Seems to me that this is a no-brainer. The EULA specifically states that those who choose not to use Windows are entitled to a refund, and yet experience has shown that people trying to exercise that right are systematically hindered. MS has no right to money for nothing. If contracts are to mean anything at all in this world, then MS should be forced to pay.

--
Always keep a sapphire in your mind

Re:Linux users class-action suit for refunds by dbrown · 1999-11-21 16:31 · Score: 1

John Dvorak (in PC Magazine) brought up an interesting perspective on this whole "refund" issue. Many small time PC makers complain that Microsoft sells Windows licenses to the big companies (Dell, Gateway, etc) at a discount, while the smaller companies pay a higher price.

Microsoft claims that everyone pays the same price. However, if the big guys actually do pay less, the refund could be higer than what MS actually sold the license for. Maybe this is why they don't want to give any refunds.

If its true that big companies pay less for the Windows licenses, they have two reasons not to give refunds. 1) They could lose money in the process (instead of just breaking even). 2) They could be caught lying about the "everyone pays the same price" idea. Which could hurt their legal position even more in the DOJ suit.

Ah, the arrogance of anonymnity by bago · 1999-11-21 15:37 · Score: 1

Don't like apples? Do not eat them sir.

The entire linux community is living proof of choice and options. Anyone can do anything (within the realm of possibility), and this is the corner stone of the freemarket and life itself. A glorious self organizing chaos of new ideas and methods.

Your personal attack on residents of redmond and your faith in the government only serve to show your naivety.

The government already forces me to work 5 months out of a year for their benefit, against my will and wishes, I do believe they have enough money. Secondly, the inherently toxic power of budgetary discretion poisons many, and is responsible for obsolescence to continue in its annals, as evidenced by Ice deleveries to capitol hill.

--
.

Re:heart of the matter by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 14:14 · Score: 0

Windows '98 goes for $180 retail for the full version. Most people never pay that much since they usually only upgrade or buy it with the system. The upgrade is $100. Compare that with Mandrake Linux, which is $30.

A full version of MS-DOS 6.22 ran $30 in its time. In five years, Microsoft has been able to increase the price of its lead product over six-fold.

Also, just look at their profit margin. It's on the order of 100%, as opposed to just ~15% for most software companies. They have a bigger margin than anybody in their industry, by far. In a competitive market this just does not happen. They make money hand over fist and do it with inferior products.

Bill Gates has become the wealthiest man in the world. And he did it all with your money.

You dumb bastard.

This is the way it should be by Kaufmann · 1999-11-21 14:20 · Score: 1

Hell yeah! As more and more people realize that Microsoft is, in fact, the Beast of the Apocalypse [1], the masses rise against their former masters and take back their computing freedom by force!

Seriously, this is a Good Thing - and a good comeback to those who were previously bitching about the government trying to, um, "meddle", in Microsoft's private affairs (motivated by what was it? "jealous" companies like Sun and Netscape). Now it's the people. If they can prove that Microsoft actively and intentionally harmed the consumers, all hell's gonna break lose. (I hope.)

1.666 Microsoft Way.

--
To the editors: your English is as bad as your Perl. Please go back to grade school.

damn the lawyers by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 15:48 · Score: 0

do you think the lawyers are that altruistic? suing on behalf of the people? they just see this as an opportunity to get richer. i bet they are hoping for a settlement of some sort.

Everyone thinks they know thermo... by nathanh · 1999-11-21 16:04 · Score: 1

I chose the latter because it is a fact that entropy increases in any system over time.

This is pure and utter tripe. The correct statement is that entropy increases in any CLOSED system over time.

Your RedHat box is not a closed system. Your administrative input decreases the entropy.

It's not hard to keep a UNIX box neat. It just requires patience and some small effort.

My real peeve here is the thermodynamics bollocks: I guess I've been reading talk.origins too much lately...

This comment is "Insightful", moderators? by Wakko+Warner · 1999-11-21 16:13 · Score: 2

I'm sure everyone who's ever bought a laptop with Windows preinstalled on it simply because there was no other way to purchase a laptop will agree with you. Oh, but, yeah, they should probably just be lugging around typewriters, that's right.

Why is it that only stupid people seem to be Microsoft apologists?

- A.P.
--

"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad

--
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"

Ok, as much as I hate Microsoft... by nyet · 1999-11-21 14:43 · Score: 1

I don't think they overcharged for windows, save for the OS bundling games they played with computer manufacturers.

If anything, they dumped it on the market for LESS than they should have to gain market share, but seeing as its a software product, dumping is hard to prove: per copy costs being $0.

Yet another example of why per-unit cost accounting for software is a waste of time.

Re:heart of the matter by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 14:45 · Score: 0

Looks like you bought Windows, as well. Doesn't that make you a "dumb bastard," too? And even if you didn't, you're still a dumb bastard for judging a product you don't even own.

Typical Linux advocate with no valid points. He thinks he knows what he's talking about. That's the dangerous part.

Steeltoe by Steeltoe · 1999-11-21 14:46 · Score: 1

Moderate me down all you like, but why put up yet another story about how Microsoft is going to be sued in the future? This is the third such article I read here on /. And it's all a waste of bandwidth and an attempt at forcing us to go with the media flow. Just because everyone else now shouts "FOUL!" at Microsoft, doesn't mean we suddenly have to be running along with them.

Why not just wait until the lawsuit has been made?

- Steeltoe

--
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/

Another little econ lesson... by itachi · 1999-11-21 15:10 · Score: 3

So far I've seen a lot of comments where people are yelling at each other as to whether or not MS being a monoploy hurt consumers, and if so, which consumers. So, here's the basic free market lowdown on monopolies (Which should apply to most readers, whether you like it or not)

In a normal market, you have supply and demand. Pretty basic. Price on the vertical axis, supply on the horizontal. S & D look like an x. As price rises, producers are willing to make more. As price falls, consumers want more. For instance, say 5 people would want a pc if it costs 1 million USD. 10 people want one if it costs 750,000 USD. etc on down to a whole lot of people if it costs roughly 2,000 USD. Same deal for supply - producers will make x pc's at price n. 2x pcs at price 2n. These two curves intersect at some point. Assuming that nobody interferes with the market, the intersection of the supply and demand curves will show you the price per unit of the good and the total production of the good. Now, if you can't differentiate between the various versions of the good (butter is butter is butter, no brand names), then the only difference is price. So one company charges more, and their version doesn't sell because it's more expensive. When brand names and quality get added in, it gets more complicated, but the same basic notions are there. It's an issue of paying for the consumer preferences. Take beer. Nobody could mistake Guiness for Bud, no matter what. Now, Guiness has a higher price per volume, but since consumer preferences for beer vs. pisswater come into play, Guiness can be sold at a higher price because some consumers are willing to pay more for actual beer rather than buying cheaper pisswater. However, bud and miller are priced pretty similarly, because the two goods are very very similar, and price can very easily be a differentiating factor.

I'll assume everyone is following so far. So now we have our consumer market for operatin systems. Way back when, in those long ago days of the Carter years and early Reagan years, you could buy several commercial operating systems for your computer. And they were priced in a way not too different from the beer pricing I described above. Sure, server OSes might cost more, but the consumer of server OSes feels okay because they are getting a serious OS, as opposed to something like ms-dos, which fits consumer needs but certainly wont be driving your big, bad, company mainframe. Then, time goes by. For whatever reasons, the number of OSes starts to fall. Soon, we only have the MS OS family.

Before, we had two products that were competing, and the differences between the two, as far as the market cared, were price and consumer preferences. The existance of competition kept the prices close. If consumers were indifferent to which OS they used, price was the only differentiation. Now, with just Windows left on the market, there's nothing holding prices down. So prices go up. Which means that, for any physical good, quantity produced drops. After all, putting that extra money into production just raises our costs. And, as a monopoly producer, we want to minimize costs while maximizing price. This is profit maximization. If we make software, this means skimping on the product testing while notching the price up as much as the consumers will stand. Now, our monoploy is going to set it's price based on the lowest possible production costs. Now, the lowest possible production level is going to be expensive - you build a single prototype car, you have to pretty much handbuild it from scratch. Build a limited run - you have dicounts for buying/building a part in bulk, etc. But costs scale back up as you start to use up limited resources - if you try to buy every sparkplug ever made, it's starts to get pricey. Software mucks with this, since once it's compiled, duplicating it is nearly free, so it's not entirely clear to me what the monopoly effect would have on a software company. However, there are some costs. The CD/floppy that it ships on, the manual, the box, the plastic wrap and paper with the EULA on it. So each shipped copy costs somewhere between a dollar and 10, depending on the quantities shipped. Well, it's a monopoly, so they'll make as many copies as they need to to get the lowest possible price. And they set the selling price based on that. So the consumer ends up paying more for the good than the market indicates the good is worth. Which, pardon the pun, isn't good.

If the above doesn't make sense, I probably left something out. I don't think I did, but it's been a while...

So, the conclusion, the whole point.
MS is a monoploy, for whatever reasons, and abused it. Given the fact that a monopolies goods are priced higher than they otherwise would be, MS has hurt anyone who has bought a computer since MS became a monopoly. Higher prices hurt consumers - less money left to spend on other goods. And not just computer consumers, either. Because artificially high price of windows kept consumers from having that money to spend on alternate goods. Whatever the difference between the market price for an OS and the price that was charged for monoploy Windows is money that should have gone into other markets - computer games, waterskis, water buffalo, whatever. So any market that you didn't spend money in because of the inflated price of Windows was hurt by MS. Now, IANAL, nor am I an expert witness in the area of economics, but I do know economics, and I have studied economics as applied to law, and I feel relatively confident that this conclusion isn't too far out in left feild. I wouldn't try to file a class action suit on behalf of the waterski industry, but I will say without a doubt that MS has done a serious injury to free market consumers and should not be allowed to just walk away.

I'm pretty sure this qualifies as copyright violation. Considering that registration is free, I can't see any reason this should be supported by slashdot.

Legally, can slashdot copy someone else's news word for word? These companies make money from banners, and slashdot is bypassing that. You guys need to watch yourselves.

Jeremy

--
Looking for a Python IRC bot?

Re:is this copyright violation? by Eupolis · 1999-11-21 22:44 · Score: 1

That's almost like saying, "if they didn't want me to distribute copies of this book, they wouldn't have printed it in the first place," or even, "if they didn't want me to copy this game for all my friends, they wouldn't have put it on a disk in the first place."
Books and the periodical press are about the free exchange of ideas and information, too. That's why we have a freedom of speech and press clause in the First Amendment -- that was around a long time before the Internet. But books, press, and webpages all fall within the scope of the copyright law.
Under the US Copyright law, even the "fair use" of copyrighted materials may be limited depending upon "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." 17 U.S.C. 107. Publishing it here deprives them of income for their work -- income that they don't even take out of the person who goes there and uses it for free. Explain how that's fair.
Re:is this copyright violation? by FooGoo · 1999-11-21 18:15 · Score: 1

I would say your right but a better question would be is /. liable for user posts?

--
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
Re:is this copyright violation? by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 18:16 · Score: 0

Big deal. I doubt Rob or anybody else is going to loose sleep over this, since all posts are owned by the posters, and not /. Anyways, NY Times can get over it because the login/pass thing is annoying. =P

I will offer to release all claims... by jcr · 1999-11-21 17:37 · Score: 1

.. against microsquish, in exchange for getting to hit BG and Ballmer in the face with a pie.

Alternatively, I'd settle for an injunction to prohibit them from claiming that they ever innovated a single fucking thing in their lives.

Last offer, I want an elocution that they pirated DR and Stacker's code.

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."

Well, not Linux specifically... by jcr · 1999-11-21 17:40 · Score: 1

... but there's an awful lot to hate about UNIX in general.

-jcr

--
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."

Re: Knob. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 22:46 · Score: 0

Don't blame Microsoft for the laptop (non)-issue. First, you're wrong. Second, MS no hasn't required anything like this for a long time. In fact, they never did. They 'suggested' it via pricing cuts, but they never forced anyone. Blame your vendors, rocket surgeon. Better yet, blame the lack of demand and get a freaking clue. Win98 is about the only OS with really good hardware support for laptops. It's the logical choice until Windows 2000.

Re: Knob. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 22:47 · Score: 0

Don't blame Microsoft for the laptop (non)-issue. First, you're wrong. Second, MS hasn't required anything like this for a long time. In fact, they never did. They 'suggested' it via pricing cuts, but they never forced anyone. Blame your vendors, rocket surgeon. Better yet, blame the lack of demand and get a freaking clue. Win98 is about the only OS with really good hardware support for laptops. It's the logical choice until Windows 2000.

Make moderators accountable by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 18:09 · Score: 0

Slashdot should just allow all users the ability to check who moderated any post. Essentially moderators get to act as anonymous cowards in regards to their moderation. There's no accountability, so anyone who wishes to try and surpress a viewpoint through moderation, does so with no worries.

Personally, I think anyone filtering out posts based solely on score needs to take off the rose colored glasses. The truly worthless posts (a.k.a. "First Post!") are few enough in number that it's not worth missing the full spectrum of opinion. I don't want someone else deciding for me what is and what is not relevent - Slashdot tries to do this enough without the help of it's moderators.

New charging policies validate monopoly hypothesis by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 22:52 · Score: 0

Seems like I read somewhere that windows 2000 full install was going to run about $319, and that the cheap upgrade version from 95/98 would be $219? Sounds like Microsoft has won the grand prize in the monopoly game. Time to crank up the prices, now that the competitors are toast.

You are right though, sueing after getting five years use seems dirty to me. Even if you never used it.

What planet are you from???! by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 18:19 · Score: 0

I did a clean install of my Win98 a couple of weeks ago. Installed a new version of IE5. Nothing else on the machine. Just about every day it goes down on me. So tell me my problem is not with MS products?! (and no, I dont buy cheap/shitty HW)

that action is first class. by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 18:26 · Score: 0

mmm. i'd like to see a stone bill gates entwined around a stone natalie portman.

I was forced to buy Windows on my laptop by SpiceWare · 1999-11-21 23:04 · Score: 1

I purchased the laptop to run OS/2 on it, but had no choice but to take it pre-loaded with Windows. That certainly wasn't self-inflicted...

Re:heart of the matter by Anonymous Coward · 1999-11-21 23:06 · Score: 0

Windows 98 sells for far less than that if you shop around a little. Just because you or some other stupid consumer chose to go to an overpriced computer superstore to make your purchase does not mean that Microsoft is over charging for the product. Check http://www.pricewatch.com for many places that sell Windows and NT for less than boxed Redhat sells for - full version of Windows too not just upgrades.

Hardware? by thales · 1999-11-21 18:38 · Score: 1

Sorry Joker, A lot of the time it's the OS. I have set up several dual boot Linux/NT boxes that were stable running Linux, But BSOD once or twice a month running NT mode. I have also converted NT boxes to Linux and cured the instability. Same hardware, different levals of stability. The problem is NT ages, It loses stability over time, and it isn't because of users making changes. NT loses stability even if the user makes no changes to the OEM installed software package. NT can be set up to be stable. Most NT boxes start out as fairly stabe machines, But sooner or later the BSODs start occuring and the problem gets worse untill a reinstall. Then the cycle starts over.

--
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est

nope, common carrier by emmons · 1999-11-21 18:47 · Score: 1

/. isn't liable because of common carrier status. But they were take down this post, then they would be liable for all simular future posts.

-----

--
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.

Slashdot Mirror

First Class Action Suit for Microsoft

299 comments