Judge kills Microsoft private suit settlement
January 11, 2002 1:16 PM   Subscribe

Judge kills Microsoft private suit settlement that would have had MS donate hundreds of millions of dollars worth of software to schools... and effectively killed any incentive to use non-MS products such as a Macintosh or Linux.
posted by pmurray63 (9 comments total)
 
I don't understand how this ruling has "killed any incentive to use non-MS products". Seems to me that the ruling effectively prevented Microsoft from forcing its way into schools in which it hadn't had a particularly strong hold. This settlement idea put forth by Microsoft was characteristically self-serving (much like many aspects of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation as well) and I applaud the judge for seeing through Microsoft's intents.
posted by raintea at 1:25 PM on January 11, 2002


I agree. Bill's "punishment" for his company was anything but. Stick 'em til it hurts!
posted by darren at 1:26 PM on January 11, 2002


No, the ruling doesn't "kill any incentive"... the settlement would have. That's what I meant. Sorry if it was expressed poorly. Glad to see we finally have a judge who gets it.
posted by pmurray63 at 1:33 PM on January 11, 2002


Ah, on second reading, I recognize the ambiguity in the post. My apologies for not stopping to read more carefully! But if it was "settlement" rather than "ruling" that you meant, I wholeheartedly agree! ;)
posted by raintea at 1:37 PM on January 11, 2002


previous thread, proving that skeptical MeFites also saw through Bill's wily ways.
posted by whatnot at 1:44 PM on January 11, 2002


Doj: "Lets see here we have a lot of states that want you to open windows APIs, offer office on three new platforms, and document your office file formats."

Bill: "You didn't mention *children*."

DoJ: "Huh?"

Bill: "What about the children using those ancient and buggy 3.1 and 95 computers out there!"

DoJ: "You mean the OSs your company sold them?"

Bill: "Yeah, they're crap. How about I buy them a bunch of new windows machines?"

DoJ: "Ummm, no."
posted by skallas at 2:01 PM on January 11, 2002


Exactly, what this ruling did was stop MS from "dumping" product. What MS proposed would have been illegal if not done as part of a court order. It would have been flooding the market with MS products, costing MS next to nothing. All of those actions would be to the detriment of MS competitors, because as the software becomes obsolete, MS would have a set market for the upgrade fees. Their competitors would be much weaker, if they existed at all.

But, you have to give MS lawyers props for almost getting away with it. Those are some sneaky darn barristers.
posted by dejah420 at 2:18 PM on January 11, 2002


Microsoft spokesman Jim Desler said company officials are 'disappointed that this unique opportunity to advance very significant social benefits has been blocked.'

So...stuffing free "refurbished" shitty software down the throats of our public schools would result in "significant social benefits" that would reverse the effects of having stuffed artificially overpriced shitty software down the throats of the general public? Kind of like giving native Americans another string of beads after they found out that what Europeans meant by land ownership was "you leave or we kill you."
posted by zekinskia at 3:16 PM on January 11, 2002


(Waiting for owillis to come and defend MS, or any number of people to compare this to Slashdot)
posted by jragon at 5:30 PM on January 11, 2002


« Older "Err...hello...is that Alex Braganza? Sorry to...   |   Is historical revisionism acceptable Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments