I disagree about competitors not receiving any rewards from this case. Aside from the free advertising that they receive for having their opinions heard, they're opinion is any hurt done to Microsoft is good for everyone else. And so some actually will benefit from this in the form of new customers. Now I know that alot of individuals think that this is a good thing, but remember that this is the USA and not Europe.
Since MS forces OEMs to install Windows it's hard to see how the OEMs could then be held responsible for the cost of the OS.
Ok, I won't argue about licenses b/t MS and OEMs, but the fact still remains, the OEMs purchase MS OS's in bulk and so they pay a reasonable amount less than at retail. They are the ones deciding the price of the systems and that price includes a relatively cheap MS OS (and I'm not referring to quality;-). So how is MS over-charging... especially with copies purchased with OEM PCs, but also with retail copies (which are still relatively cheap as software goes)?!?
Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of these lawsuits are centered around the idea that MS "over-charged" them for their OS. Does this sound rediculous to anyone else?
But before I go any further, lets just get this out of the way. MS is BIG. MS IS a monopoly. And MS isn't innocent of the FEDERAL charges.
Whew, now that was tough, but back on task... Ok, so these people claim MS charged them too much. Whoop de doo. If this is true, they're entitled to what? A whole $40?!? (just a guessimate as to what they were over-charged by) To me, the facts do actually speak for themselves in this case. 1) The majority of the people in on the lawsuit purchased their PCs from an OEM. OEM's purchase MS's OS's at an extremely discounted price. So how is it that MS is the one that "over-charged"? Couldn't the OEM's be held liable instead? 2) This is an OS (quality is not an issue here) that is under $200 (and no, comparing price to linux is not an issue either). MS Office suite costs more than any of its "Home Edition" OS's. Photoshop costs more. I could name many other pieces of software that cost WAY more.
So again, I ask you... What are these people really entitled to? In my opinion... Nothing. They do not deserve any of the money (assuming MS loses) that would come from the lawsuit. All of them can easily be compared to ambulance chasers. If they do actually pull this off (which I really hope they don't), this will be the biggest con in history.
But aside from that, I'd wish that everyone would just take a step back and look at the issues objectively instead of fanatically. This industry was conceived by individuals who did not strictly adhere to the status quo, and since all these lawsuits have surfaced... a new status quo is blindly being followed.
Slashdot Mirror
Can we say blind zealot??
I disagree about competitors not receiving any rewards from this case. Aside from the free advertising that they receive for having their opinions heard, they're opinion is any hurt done to Microsoft is good for everyone else. And so some actually will benefit from this in the form of new customers. Now I know that alot of individuals think that this is a good thing, but remember that this is the USA and not Europe.
Since MS forces OEMs to install Windows it's hard to see how the OEMs could then be held responsible for the cost of the OS.
Ok, I won't argue about licenses b/t MS and OEMs, but the fact still remains, the OEMs purchase MS OS's in bulk and so they pay a reasonable amount less than at retail. They are the ones deciding the price of the systems and that price includes a relatively cheap MS OS (and I'm not referring to quality
Ok, correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of these lawsuits are centered around the idea that MS "over-charged" them for their OS. Does this sound rediculous to anyone else?
But before I go any further, lets just get this out of the way. MS is BIG. MS IS a monopoly. And MS isn't innocent of the FEDERAL charges.
Whew, now that was tough, but back on task... Ok, so these people claim MS charged them too much. Whoop de doo. If this is true, they're entitled to what? A whole $40?!? (just a guessimate as to what they were over-charged by) To me, the facts do actually speak for themselves in this case. 1) The majority of the people in on the lawsuit purchased their PCs from an OEM. OEM's purchase MS's OS's at an extremely discounted price. So how is it that MS is the one that "over-charged"? Couldn't the OEM's be held liable instead? 2) This is an OS (quality is not an issue here) that is under $200 (and no, comparing price to linux is not an issue either). MS Office suite costs more than any of its "Home Edition" OS's. Photoshop costs more. I could name many other pieces of software that cost WAY more.
So again, I ask you... What are these people really entitled to? In my opinion... Nothing. They do not deserve any of the money (assuming MS loses) that would come from the lawsuit. All of them can easily be compared to ambulance chasers. If they do actually pull this off (which I really hope they don't), this will be the biggest con in history.
But aside from that, I'd wish that everyone would just take a step back and look at the issues objectively instead of fanatically. This industry was conceived by individuals who did not strictly adhere to the status quo, and since all these lawsuits have surfaced... a new status quo is blindly being followed.