Proposed Microsoft Deal Rejected

[soapbox]

"Microsoft Corp. has lost its bid to settle dozens of private antitrust lawsuits by donating $1 billion worth of computers and software to the nation's poorest public schools. U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz ruled Friday that the proposal was unacceptable because it would give the software giant an unfair advantage over rival Apple Computer, a major player in the education market." [i] [url=http://apnews.excite.com/article/20020113/D7H0V7OG0.html]More...[/url] [/i]

[S_Gould]

Well, it's good to see a modicum of common sense in this case. The proposed "punishment" for Microsoft reminded me of Brer Rabbit saying "Please don't throw me in the briar patch!" :D Scott

[Chip McDonald]

I don't get it, Apple won't be donating a billion dollars worth of computers to those schools either, and if Gates had done that it wouldn't have impacted Apple any - UNLESS Apple was selling them to some of these schools, which is likely.... in which case WE are paying for those computers instead of Gates. So what if some inner city kids learn Windows instead of Mac OS, it's better they have the machines than none at all, which is likely going to be the case. What am I missing? Apple is apparently doing quite well, are they not? IBM is still around. A lot of people are using Linux. Somehow BeOS was written. Netscape is still around. The computer industry has exploded since MS happened and I daresay the world's productivity and prosperity (relatively) has as well. Sue Gates for allowing bad coding, not for being really successful in an industry that didn't exist 20 years ago.

[Duhduh]

Right on, Chip! Ya know, that really sucks that all those schools wont get computers. $1 Billion worth of pc's is a shitload of pc's!!! Then again, that would be giving to a "charity" in which Gates could write off. So, "we" would STILL be paying for them. :D But c'mon! $1 Billion worth of computers to public schools? I hope the judge that denied that can sleep at night.

[Henchman]

Yaay!! Come on everybody. Let's hear for those good old boys over at Apple. Way to go. Yes, big Bad Microsoft. Shame on you for giving away a billion dollars worth of computers. let's spend another bazillion dollars on lawyers fees to continue this fight, and tell the kiddies who have nothing to go fuck themselves. So that people who still consider what kind of computer they use as a status symbol, can keep going on their tirade about how bad PC's are. Even though they cost way less than a comparable MAC. And let's face it, what most of those kids want it for is basic computing, internet etc. Fuck you Apple. A computer is like a vacuum cleaner to me. I don't give a fuck who makes it, as long as I don't have to buy a new one every year, and it doesn't cost an arm and a leg. And I could care less how fucking high tech it looks or not. Get over it already.

[robmix]

[quote]Originally posted by Henchman: [b]Yaay!! Come on everybody. Let's hear for those good old boys over at Apple. Way to go. Yes, big Bad Microsoft. Shame on you for giving away a billion dollars worth of computers. let's spend another bazillion dollars on lawyers fees to continue this fight, and tell the kiddies who have nothing to go fuck themselves. So that people who still consider what kind of computer they use as a status symbol, can keep going on their tirade about how bad PC's are. Even though they cost way less than a comparable MAC. And let's face it, what most of those kids want it for is basic computing, internet etc. Fuck you Apple. A computer is like a vacuum cleaner to me. I don't give a fuck who makes it, as long as I don't have to buy a new one every year, and it doesn't cost an arm and a leg. And I could care less how fucking high tech it looks or not. Get over it already.[/b][/quote] I think you need to read a bit more about the case and what companies brought complaints against Microsoft. Apple was just one of them along with Sun and many others. Also in the U.S. anti-trust lawsuits are brought by the Federal government, not individual companies, although those companies may be called to testify. The current ruling was made by a judge, not an employee or stock holder of Apple. Get a clue. Rob

[soapbox]

FWIW, I don't believe that anyone is stopping Microsoft from giving away a billion dollars worth of computers to schools. What is being stopped is Microsoft giving away a billion dollars worth of computers to schools as a way to settle an anti-trust settlement. It would have been more than ironic if Microsoft were allowed to settle in this way. It would have created the same type of injustice that got Microsoft into trouble in the first place: unfair competition by a company that can force their products on consumers in a way that cripples their less influential opponents. In the first case, Microsoft weaved their browser into their OS to knockout Netscape and win the browser wars. Now as a settlement for this abuse of power, they want to force their computers into schools around the country and win the education wars. It reminds me of the mob giving to charity in order to gain public sympathy while forcing their way into businesses. It all boils down to this: [b]A fair settlement in an antitrust case is one that leaves competitors in a stronger position relative to the monopoly, not in a weaker one.[/b] The proposed settlement turned that idea upside down! I, for one, am glad this ploy didn't work. Sure, I hope that schools get a billion dollars worth of computers, but Microsoft should have to pay a billion dollars to give the schools computers from its competitors. That's the only type of punishment that will be effective.

[DC]

I don't get it. Since when did monopolys become illeagal in America?! :confused:

[Alndln]

"Microsoft weaved their browser into their OS to knock out Netscape",Huh?,isn't Windows their product?Thats almost like getting sued for not letting musicians you dont even want to play on your CD.I just found out that PT files won't load into Sonar,lets sue Digidesign for creating a monopoly.Personally I don't give a flying crap what happens in this case,although my nieghbor who's an old women who spy's on everyone in the neighborhood might. [ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Alndln@hotmail.com ]

[Intheether]

[quote] A fair settlement in an antitrust case is one that leaves competitors in a stronger position relative to the monopoly, not in a weaker one. [/quote] Amen, Geoff! Shame on microsoft, once again.

[timobrien]

[quote]Originally posted by DC: [b]I don't get it. Since when did monopolys become illeagal in America?! :confused: [/b][/quote] When they flip the bird at the regulators that control the country. Had Microsoft expressed even the slightest bit of concern or remorse (even if it was faked) and tried to be human beings during the process, they would have gotten away with murder. You don't piss off judges and act like you are bigger than a government if you hope to survive in the real world.

[Rog]

[quote]Originally posted by Alndln@hotmail.com: [b]"Microsoft weaved their browser into their OS to knock out Netscape",Huh?,isn't Windows their product?Thats almost like getting sued for not letting musicians you dont even want to play on your CD.I just found out that PT files won't load into Sonar,lets sue Digidesign for creating a monopoly.Personally I don't give a flying crap what happens in this case,although my nieghbor who's an old women who spy's on everyone in the neighborhood might. [ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Alndln@hotmail.com ][/b][/quote] Nope, you either don't understand or you don't care. If you don't care then you have problems as this kind of thing is just plain wrong for so many reasons and, if M$ are allowed to get away with it, other companies will try similar tactics leading to fewer independant companies and more multinationals. Then you have less choice as the market is hardly what you can call 'free' so they can charge what they want and you get what you're given. In adding explorer M$ got their browser (NOT a part of the OS, by the way) in there first. Most people wouldn't even think to change their browser if they're given one that works as soon as the boot for the first time. This gives explorer an unfair advantage over Netscape, et. al. Case in point: 20 years ago there used to be over 50 news corps in the US, now there are only 6. Ever noticed how the news media seeks to brainwash the US population these days? if you didn't notice, chances are you alrady have been brainwashed. Choice is an inherently good thing. Businesses seeking to limit choice need a strong gov't to step in and sort them out.

[videoeditor1]

To all the people on one side or the other of the fence that would seek to position Microsoft or the Govt or Apple or Sun, or Netscape or any of the states as the "bad guy"... It really is much more complicated than this, a 200 word blurb (by any of us) on this forum does not begin to encapsulate the core issue and those scenarios peripheral to the central case. We may as well start discussing religion or smoking or Apple vs PC's...or Pro Tools vs Nuendo... all over again. Furthermore, all fo us are going to have our individual slants and preferences. There is no single great truth in this case. Remember that. NYC Drew

[Henchman]

When will the big antitrust suit start against clear channel? From what I understand they owalmost every rdistation in the US. What about the Independant promoters? They are doing more harm to an industry than MS has ever done to the computer industry. I understand the importance of fighting monopolies. But is MS really to blame for their smart business sense. Is it their fault that Apple is hiding behind the anti-trust laws to try and gain a better market position. Why are PC's alot more affordable than Mac's? If Apple was to make a real MAC, (not an Imac), but one with all the slots and expandability at the same price as a comparable PC, I might buy one also. But that's not the case. If MS bought Avid and stopped making Avid and Digi productsfor the Mac, and made them PC only. Would that be considered unfair business practices? Let's face it. In reality, a company like MS with the enormous amount of money they have, can fight a case like this untill the end of time. Literally. and who pays in the end? The taxpayers. That's life. You have a huge pile of money, you get away with anything. Do you really think the US government would do anything to harm a multi billion dollar company, who's taxes are a huge source of income for the government? Especially in the current economic climate? I don't think so. Wake up. smell the coffee. Ok as a businessman. Wich would you rather have on your side? Hmm let's see in one hand Apple and Sun etc.,in the other MS. Me? MS. Why? Who gives a shit about computers? MS, apple, Sun. Same shit, different pile. If you really want something that is outside of all the bullshit, go with linux or Unix based systems. Because really, Apple would love to be what MS is.

[Dylan]

Boo freakin' hoo. First, Microsoft doesn't have an internet monopoly, AOL does. Even though you can't technically uninstall IE from Windows, absolutely nothing stops someone from installing another browser like Netscape or Opera and using it instead. Plus, AOL bought Netscape, so if Netscape is unhappy with where they are today, maybe they should be looking at why AOL doesn't use their browser instead of IE. I do agree that just letting Microsoft donate PC's to schools would be too easy for Microsoft, so why not just stick em with a big ol' fine and be done with it? OTOH, these schools could greatly benefit having all of these PC's, so why not do both?

[alcohol_]

You can argue all you want. However much you argue here, it will be a minute fraction of the arguments the courts heard. Microsoft was found criminally guilty of violating US business laws. They didn't play by the rules of the the good old USA and were found accordingly. Microsoft appealed and lost the appeal too. However, you feel doesn't matter, Microsoft is a business involved in felonius violation of US laws, and that judgement was held up under appeal. Excuse the redundancy, but some people just don't get it. Microsoft is guilty, if you don't like it, elect new Congressmen to change the laws. Many reasons are given to criticise the Microsoft settlement. One is that it doesn't amount to a billion dollar settlement. The Microsoft OS cost Microsoft the price of makng a CD (pennies), because these CDs they are going to give to the schools are sales they wouldn't have made anyway. If you were fined some substantial amount of money wouldn't you like to pay for it in CDs of your latest recording, at say $80 per CD, whatever M$ charges. It's like printing your own money. I haven't forgotten that they were also going to provide refurbished computers to run their OS CDs.I don't the number but the settlement was so favorable to Microsoft and so objectionable it's been thrown out. The other thing, is that the settlement amounts to a promotion of Microsoft by the government, a subsidy if you would, because they are substituting Microsoft products for money. If the penalty is a billion dollars, then Microsoft should give a billion dollars to the schools and let them purchase what they want.

[robmix]

[quote]Originally posted by Henchman: [b]When will the big antitrust suit start against clear channel? From what I understand they owalmost every rdistation in the US. What about the Independant promoters? They are doing more harm to an industry than MS has ever done to the computer industry. I understand the importance of fighting monopolies. But is MS really to blame for their smart business sense. Is it their fault that Apple is hiding behind the anti-trust laws to try and gain a better market position. Why are PC's alot more affordable than Mac's? If Apple was to make a real MAC, (not an Imac), but one with all the slots and expandability at the same price as a comparable PC, I might buy one also. But that's not the case. If MS bought Avid and stopped making Avid and Digi productsfor the Mac, and made them PC only. Would that be considered unfair business practices? Let's face it. In reality, a company like MS with the enormous amount of money they have, can fight a case like this untill the end of time. Literally. and who pays in the end? The taxpayers. That's life. You have a huge pile of money, you get away with anything. Do you really think the US government would do anything to harm a multi billion dollar company, who's taxes are a huge source of income for the government? Especially in the current economic climate? I don't think so. Wake up. smell the coffee. Ok as a businessman. Wich would you rather have on your side? Hmm let's see in one hand Apple and Sun etc.,in the other MS. Me? MS. Why? Who gives a shit about computers? MS, apple, Sun. Same shit, different pile. If you really want something that is outside of all the bullshit, go with linux or Unix based systems. Because really, Apple would love to be what MS is.[/b][/quote] Regarding the Clearchannel monopoly - they're already investigating it at the conrgessional level. I'll see if I can dig up the article. As far as the Microsoft judgement - you seem to be hooked on the Mac vs. PC issue when that is such a small part of it. Do a little research and see what Sun has gone through in the last decade. AOL, Netscape, Apple - they all have some pretty scarey stories about threats to executives, stolen software, break-in's, and stolen employees. The case is huge, and none of us have all the facts but the reality is Microsoft has been found guilty by a federal judge,the appeal was upheld and now they have to be penalized. Rob

[Dogfur]

Easy answer - Big, gargantuan cash penalty, big enough to affect Microsoft - Give it to schools who may need something even more important than PC's for the students. Alot of schools in less affluent communities may have greater challenges than "no computers". Harder answer -get cash from Microsoft and actually see it make it to the education system, and not sucked up by our leacherous and corrupt government.

[Throatsinger]

Don't know if it's true, but I read there was opposition based on real problems with this plan. Something about the computers being outdated crap with old software, etc., the kind you can't give away. Etc... Maybe it's better to know the facts before having an opinion??? Steve Sklar/Big Sky

[usicMa]

Consumer ignorance.

[offramp]

DC: Resistance to monopolies are why America was founded in the first place.

[jomag2000yahoo.com]

[quote] Case in point: 20 years ago there used to be over 50 news corps in the US, now there are only 6. Ever noticed how the news media seeks to brainwash the US population these days? if you didn't notice, chances are you alrady have been brainwashed. Choice is an inherently good thing. Businesses seeking to limit choice need a strong gov't to step in and sort them out.[/quote] 20 years ago there used to be about 50 record companies now theres only about 6 major ones Its that damn 1% again jOmAg [ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: jomag2000@yahoo.com ]

[Chip McDonald]

The crux of the MS situation isn't about monopolies, competition, or Apple (who again, seems to have done pretty good despite "unfair" competition). The problem is that Bill Gates is [i]one person[/i] who isn't beholden to one single politician or mobster on the planet. He's powerful, he's rich, he knows it, and a lot of people on the planet don't like that. So he's a target. Look at the face of it: here the U.S. is about to take apart the last remaining pinnacle of our dominance in a world market. We've given everything else away. You'd think having a global economic force like MS would be considered something almost like a National Security issue, but instead the Powers That Be really want it taken apart. Not so much dismantled, but Gates [i]diluted[/]. It's not like you can do anything to "THE MICROSOFT CORPORATION" and have it still be there and *not* continue to follow it's corporate instinct to dominate. What's important is they want Gates out of there. Walmart has just about blown out K-Mart, along with every small business that sold anything found inside. Nothing said about that. Corporate mergers happening left and right, nothing. Music stores - the Walmarterization of that industry is going just according to schedule. FTC does nothing. Tobacco industry... well, I'll leave that alone... But Gates is unique. No one is getting kickbacks from him. Gates does have to make any Enron-esque "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" phone calls. Doesn't need to lobby senators to be able to release more copies of XP. He's not beholden to anyone, probably the first time someone with that kind of wealth and power has ever arose to the level he's attained. Throughout history billionaires have required the cooperation of the Powers That Be - until Bill Gates happened and caught them off guard. So now they're going to try to take him out.

[Dan South]

Let's say you have a friend, Larry, who's a computer wiz. For his graduate project, he came up with a new browser that's amazingly fast, has support for any type of audio, video, animation, etc. without the need to download players or plugins, it runs on any platform, including PDA's, because it's written in a portable language (like Java), it has a built in search engine that learns about your preferences and tailors searches to them, automatically starts up in the morning and summarized news stories that will be of interest to you, it supports virtual reality hardware, etc. In other words, a brilliant and amazing leap forward in browser technology. You go over to Larry's house one day. He's got a working prototype. He even GIVES you a copy. You install it and it works right away - no hassles, no configuration - and it's absolutely amazing. You surf the web with effortless abandon. This thing is BRILLIANT. You're really excited. You drive over to Larry's house and insist that he start a company TODAY to sell his new browser. He'll make a mint, right? You suggest the idea, and a sickened look comes over his face. He tells you that the idea won't fly, because he can't get any venture capital to start a browser business. He's alreadh contacted the investment bankers, and they've told him to forget it, because you can't make any money selling a browser. "Why?" you ask, astonished. "This thing is AMAZING!" "Because a dominant player with a well-established name already gives their browser away for free," Larry explains. "They can do this, because they earn tons of money from sales of other products." "But," you argue, "your browser is so much BETTER than theirs." "Yeah, it is NOW," Larry continues. "But within six months, they'll have incorporated all of my new features into their FREE browser. The banks are right; there's no way to compete in that market." - In today's world, who can start a company to build any of the following? - a web browser to compete with IE? - a word processor to compete with Word? - a spreadsheet to compete with Excel? - an application-building platform to compete with VB/VC++/etc? - an operating system for personal computers (remember Be (dead) and Red Hat (struggling))? What's next? The tricky thing about software is that it has virtually no unit cost to distribute, unlike hamburgers or gasoline or auto parts that have to be made out of some material. If Little Guy, Inc. comes up with a brilliant new program, Big Player Industries shifts some developers over to make a similar product. Their product is slightly inferior, but they give it away for free. Little Guy eventually goes out of business (or shifts their business focus), and no one else will dare enter the market. BPI now can turn out as shoddy a product as it wants and it's market share will remain untouched for a LONG time. Do we REALLY want this kind of a situation? Do we want ONE company to make ALL of our software? What's their motivation to improve their products? What can you buy if you don't want to use THEIR stuff? The software industry is going to be as efficient, as productive, and as responsive as some state run industry in the former Soviet Union. This has nothing to do with a preference for Macs or Suns or Oracle databases. It has to do with a preference for FREE ENTERPRISE, a belief that free markets will deliver the best goods and services over the long haul and that free markets need competition to remain healthy. That's the bottom line.

[Alndln]

Dan,that's the weakest argument Iv'e heard yet.It's Microsofts OS period,not your freinds or Netscapes or any one else's.If your freind gets into the browser desining buisness he should check his options before he even gets into it,like,what am I gonna run this on.If this suit was based even remotely on that premise,too bad they lost.Maybe soon if wer'e lucky the government can start dictating what's gonna be on our next projects,oh wait a minute,they already do,it's called the "record industry" and peer pressure.

[alcohol_]

Alndln@hotmail.com and Chip, The case isn't about Bill Gates nor about draconian government power, it's about the laws of the land that have been established over 50 years ago. Laws, the implementation of which has to to do with ethics, fairness, and establishing a dynamic business environment. Laws if not enforced would have resulted in the extinguishment of Microsoft. If you know the history of Microsoft you would understand that their initial success is directly consequential to the existence of anti-trust laws. So you guys can beg questions all you want about Bil Gates and personality and government power, you all miss the point. In this country, not in some idealistic Shangrila of Libertarian imaginationn, we have laws that deal with business practices that have helped the US to become the most successful, dynamic country in the history of the world. You owe it to yourself to learn about their genesis and the sophistication of their implementation. Have you guys read any of the court documents? Have you read the finding of the facts? Are you familiar with the particulars and the history of business abuses that led to the establishment of anti-trust laws? Are you willinng to throw out 50 years of jurisprudence without such an investigation? Thankfully most of us are wiser. Joe

[Alndln]

I'm famailiar with antitrust laws.I also think this case is weak as they come and don't beleive any party when it comes to big buisness and accusations,especially when they come from the likes of such cut throat idiots such as "AOL".Since Microsoft was already found guilty why are we even discussing this?My guess is the obvious,just another childish Mac/PC thing in a long list of others.

[alcohol_]

[quote]Originally posted by Alndln@hotmail.com: [b]I'm famailiar with antitrust laws.I also think this case is weak as they come.[/b][/quote] One of the richest companies in the world, that can afford the best legal talent in world, shouldn't be losing cases as "weak as they come." Perhaps Microsoft should have hired you to handle their legal case. Unless the case against Microsoft was so strong, that even Microsoft's legal talent couldn't prevail. I think the latter was true, since even on appeal, Microsoft was found guilty of felonius violations of the law. Joe

[wildabstaol.com]

[quote]Originally posted by soapbox: [b] Microsoft should have to pay a billion dollars to give the schools computers from its competitors. That's the only type of punishment that will be effective.[/b][/quote] EXACTLY!

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by Joe Egan: [b]Alndln@hotmail.com and Chip, So you guys can beg questions all you want about Bil Gates and personality and government power, you all miss the point. In this country, not in some idealistic Shangrila of Libertarian imaginationn, we have laws that deal with business practices that have helped the US to become the most successful, dynamic country in the history of the world. You owe it to yourself to learn about their genesis and the sophistication of their implementation. Have you guys read any of the court documents? Have you read the finding of the facts? Are you familiar with the particulars and the history of business abuses that led to the establishment of anti-trust laws? Are you willinng to throw out 50 years of jurisprudence without such an investigation? Thankfully most of us are wiser. [/b][/quote] You're one of these guys that starts saying "Standard Oil, Standard Oil", everytime this topic comes up, aren't you? Or is that as pretentious to say about you as is what you're saying about me? See, I'm trying not to come across like a POMPOUS ASS.... No, it's not about 50 years of jurisprudence. The personal computer industry is an entirely new dynamic. There are no applicable existing cases that apply. Software is not a commodity. MS may be guilty of unfair business practices, but they obviously are not a monopoly - as evidenced by the fact that people here use Macs, Linux, Opera, Netscape, AOL, and who knows whatever else. MS has achieved the largest market share; that is not the same as having a monopoly, they are not the sole source of what they provide nor do they control it.