OT: Microsoft Settlement, Class Action Options

[mohnliting]

I'm afraid I have to go with Scott on this one. I purchased a lot of Microsoft products during the covered time ( I was building and selling computers at the time.) No one from Microsoft forced me to buy their products. While there is not doubt that Microsoft has used its assets to force other companies out of business, they had the assets to do so because of customers who purchased their products.

For instance. I find it interesting that Windows XP now is able to zip and unzip files. I no longer have to buy WinZip to do the job. Will this put WinZip out of business. It might if enough customers like the XP features enough to no longer buy WinZip. Is this Microsoft's fault. Maybe indirectly because they have provided the product, but if the customers don't like it they can still buy WinZip.

Microsoft has included a media player in Windows for several generations, however I prefer WinAmp and Music Match Jukebox, depending on what I am doing. I have purchased both programs as well as updates because I prefer them over Microsofts player.

In other words, don't blame Microsoft if they provide a product that meets a need and therefore is purchased by the public and therefore makes Bill Gates rich. If you don't like Microsoft use a Mac or install Linux.

Just my opinion. Keep ranting, Scott!

[soloracer]

Scott,

I have another one for you. A guy buys a new Winnebago and drives down the road from the dealership. Once on the freeway he sets his cruise control and gets out of the seat to go make a pot of coffee. The Winnebago goes off the highway and has the wreck of wrecks. The man survives and sues Winnebago for not detailing in their owners manual that you could not get out of the seat when the cruise control was on (Duh! It's not AUTOPILOT). He wins and gets a $2,000,000 settlement....and a new Winebago. (Sorry just saw this was mentioned eariler. Slightly different but the same none the less)

Or how about the women that goes and buys a spermicidal jelly from her local drug store. She takes it and ends up getting pregnant. So she sues her drug store saying it's their fault she got pregnant. Why? Because she took the product ORALY instead of following the directions on the container. She says she assumed that because it was a jelly and because it was being sold close to where they also sold food items that it must be taken orally. She wins.

However, these examples and the ones you gave were examples of STUPIDITY being justified in the court system. (Protecting of the Stupid). As far as I know Microsoft has not been sued for the "STUPID" actions of it's users. It has been sued for the manner in which it has tried to limit competition in one area by using it's monopolistic status in another. For example, if a PC manufacturer expressed interest in selling or providing a product that was a competitor of one of Microsofts products they would get a call saying that doing so would mean that Microsoft would price their Windows software to them so high that they would no longer be competitive. In such a case Microsoft is leveraging their monopoly status to limit the growth of another brand.

Another method of doing the same thing is bundling a product in their Windows software. For example, you can say that the Internet bundle was "free" but that the price increase on the product was due to improvements in the Windows environment (file access, etc.)

They could also make certain technologies more difficult to use within the Windows environment. For example, program A is designed to integrate with Windows. Microsoft comes out with a new Windows that is packaged with all new PC's and guess what? Program A no longer is able to integrate with it. Worse yet, Microsoft won't divulge what it did to make program A not work properly any more citing "confidential information" guidelines. Even worse would be if Microsoft had a free "update" that people would install that did one thing but also affected something else that was important for the use of program A. Now program A doesn't work anymore and people are either forced to live without the update or buy the microsoft version of program A.

Microsoft being sued for these things have nothing to do with the STUPIDITY of the end users. I think everyone would agree that there are way too many stupid lawsuits out there and that nobody would condone them.

[soloracer]

QUOTE (mohnliting @ Jan 7 2005, 07:06 PM)

I'm afraid I have to go with Scott on this one. I purchased a lot of Microsoft products during the covered time ( I was building and selling computers at the time.)  No one from Microsoft forced me to buy their products. While there is not doubt that Microsoft has used its assets to force  other companies out of business, they had the assets to do so because of customers who purchased their products. For instance. I find it interesting that Windows XP now is able to zip and unzip files. I no longer have to buy WinZip to do the job. Will this put WinZip out of business. It might if enough customers like the XP features enough to no longer buy WinZip. Is this Microsoft's fault. Maybe indirectly because they have provided the product, but if the customers don't like it they can still buy WinZip. Microsoft has included a media player in Windows for several generations, however I prefer WinAmp and Music Match Jukebox, depending on what I am doing. I have purchased both programs as well as updates because I prefer them over Microsofts player. In other words, don't blame Microsoft if they provide a product that meets a need and therefore is purchased by the public and therefore makes Bill Gates rich. If you don't like Microsoft use a Mac or install Linux. Just my opinion. Keep ranting, Scott!

However, say you were considering selling Winzip on some systems to appease a small segment of the population. Then Microsoft came to you and said "Sorry but if you do that we will raise the price of Windows that we sell you to the point that the other computer makers become much more competitive than you and since the majority of the systems you sell are Windows then you would most likely end up broke" Would you be so inclined to sell Winzip? Would you say that was "fair practice"? Just because it never happened to you doesn't mean that it hasn't happened.

[mohnliting]

While you are correct, then your argument would justify that company taking Microsoft to court and suing for unfair business practice. This does not justify a class action lawsuit in which lawyers and most consumers were not hurt. Yes, I am aware that Microsoft allegedly used tactics such as these with large hardware manufacturers. It is the perogative of those hardware manufacturers to pursue a case and then reimburse their customers upon winning. However, after reading the information on the provided website I am not convinced that this is the case in this situation. I repeat, buy a Mac or install Linux.

[Pnambic]

QUOTE (skline @ Jan 7 2005, 06:43 PM)

Next: You pull into a drive through resturant and order coffee, You pay for that nice hot cup of coffee and continue to drive in your car. Did you order cold coffee? No, you ordered hot coffee. Is it their fault you were stupid and spilled it in your lap? You should not have been driving with a hot cup of coffee in the first place. Thats like talking on the damn phone while you drive 80 mph in a school zone in your SUV.

Hmm...I've got a cell phone...
I live near a school zone...
(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/idea.gif)
Dang, no SUV. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/dry.gif) (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/cool_shades.gif)

I could really use the extra millions too!


Here's the only problem I see really. Microsoft has tried their hand at so many different things that it seems they really don't do anything really well anymore, but they're so big, and apparently quite willing to unlawfully wield their monopoly, it makes it really difficult for companies that might be able to focus on a particular service to provide to compete. In the end, our selection is severly limited.


Does Microsoft provide worthwhile tools and services for reasonable prices? Yes.
Has Microsoft built an incredibly profitable company? Yes.
Am I jealous? Somewhat.
Would I do the same thing in their shoes? I dunno.
Would I like more selection? HELL YES!!!


Well, I guess thats my two cents until I decide otherwise...

[d7n7master]

Aside from the legal premise of "this" issue: One question.
I have a "different" issue with m/soft. So if I get a few bucks out of this, fine. I won't get a dime for all the grief & frustrations I've/we've endured running winders 3.1, 95, 98, and ME. Now XP, service pack 2. (sounds like a sequal...)
All of which I PAID for, ALL of which were flawed, buggy, pieces of shit.
How many times has "Winder's" crashed to the point where you said, (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/finger.gif)
c:\format c fuckin' :\???
Are you sure?
Fuckin' A (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/flipa.gif) How many times? 10? 100? 1000?
And then you,
Reload winders, reload all your stuff - If you had a back-up. You DID back-up at least monthly, right??? Uhhh, no. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/ohmy.gif) - Reload what's left. Damn, shoulda kept my APPLE-II.

That's my question. How many times has winders crashed to where you had to re-format C:???
Once a year?
Twice a year?
Every other week?
Been left on hold by customer support 'til you hung up - frustrated?

[mohnliting]

O.K. - Maybe it's not worth wasting my time, but I'll try to make sense without using vulgarities or demeaning others.

Back in 1982 I bought a 1981 Chevy Citation. I owned it for 9 months. During that period of time I went through 3 transmissions, two wheel bearings and power steering pump. It was a huge lemon. Needless to say, I learned my lesson. I didn't buy another Chevy until 1998 when I bought a 1996 Chevy S-10. I hated the Citation and wasn't going to let Chevy sell me another lemon. I had alternatives and I used them.

So, you hated Win 3.1. Then why buy 95, 98, ME or XP? Especially if you hated each one in succession? There are alternatives.

Yes, I have reformatted my harddrives and re-installed windows many times over the last 13 years or so. I just reformatted my daughter's and wife's computer harddrives within the last month. However, I enjoy the benefits that Windows provides and I am willing to put up with the inconveniences. I like the fact that I can easily build my own PC, replace parts that die and use powerful software that is available for the Windows operating system.

Has Microsoft practiced tactics that are probably unfair to their competitors? Undoubtedly. However, the consumer has enabled them to do so by continuing to purchase their products. And, I am sure that the competitors would have done the same had they been able to do so.

There is an old saying that goes like this - Burn me once, shame on you. Burn me twice, shame on me. If you don't like the product that Microsoft provides then pay more money and buy a Mac or remove Windows from your PC and go with Linux (a fairly viable alternative these days.) However, if you continue to purchase products that you feel are inferior then you enable the manufacturer to continue providing inferior products.

You say, Microsoft is too big to take on. Well, IBM used to think the same thing. So did Novell. I remember when Word Perfect was the "king" of the word processor. Apple had the corner on the market for educational institutions not so many years ago. Microsoft only "rules and reigns" as long as the consumer permits them to do so.

[skline]

In respose to all that was said, You dont have to run Windows, nobody twisted your arm to run Windows, there are alternatives. Take the MAC for instance. The reason you dont hear much about MAC problems is there are only about 1 MAC to every 75 PC's. Trust me, MAC's have problems too and they are just as expensive if not more to fix. Talk about trying to corner the market? Up until recently, the MAC was so proprietary that only Apple "Approved" software could run on a MAC, that is how they limited their problems. Not as many people were writing software for MAC as they were for the PC's. Odds are you will have less problems with the MAC because there are less of them in comparison. Another example, if you just use the Internet without anything but a cable or DSL line and no real provider like AOL, you will most likely be ok, Add AOL and you have now become a target for Adware, viruses and stuff because there are so many AOL users. Easy targets. I have been on the Internet since 1986 and have never had a problem. Of course that was back when it wasnt a GUI web interface as it is today. You used Unix commands to go where you wanted and get what you needed. The Internet is based on Unix which was written by scientists, for scientists. It was never really written for the general public. As for Microsoft doing unfair practices, I dont think Bill Gates had anything to do with what you are all talking about. I can guarantee it was some salesman putting undue pressure to keep his figures up out of greed. The fact that he worked for the largest company gave him a bold sense of security and that is just how salesman work. Again, it all comes back to greed. I have heard about all the stories where people sue out of their own stupidity. Its just wrong. There are reasons to sue sometimes, but all of these I have seen were wrong. The only people getting rich are the lawyers. Does that seem ok to you? If it does, then go ahead and condone the stupid lawsuits and push our country into the enevitable poor house. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The American way.

[soloracer]

mohnliting:

It's a good thing that you had a choice other than Chevy in your case. However, what if the only choices other than a Chevy were foreign makes that had no local support for parts because Chevy controlled the distribution of parts? I guess what I am saying is that I don't see a viable alternative to Microsoft right now. Linux doesn't have the large support network that Windows has (partly due to the before mentioned tactics of Microsoft) and Mac's are not being used by most businesses. So if you are a working professional and have to take work home with you are pretty much stuck with a pentium based machine with Windows. Just like if you want to drive to work for any distance you are going to have to get a car that burns gasoline (damn oil companies....) (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/wink.gif) I'm not saying that Microsoft is all bad. They do some things very well and I still remember a time when we had too many alternatives - so many that you would almost have to get 4 different machines to use all the programs you needed. At least Windows consolidated all the programs on one platform. What would be perfect is if the Windows operating system was made by several different software companies - sort of the same way as how PC's are now made by several different companies (Dell, Compaq, etc.) using the same components.

Skline: Don't blame the salesman. It wasn't the "salesman" who had his e-mails being confiscated. It was senior management (Bill Gates, Paul Allen, etc.) I'm in sales and can tell you that the sales people act on direction given by senior management. It would not be the act of one salesperson that would cause such an investigation. Otherwise he would be fired by management and there would never be a huge lawsuit going on. A lawsuit happens because the senior managment has set a direction and approved behavior. You sound just like all the higher ups at Enron and Arthur Anderson who want to blame their misbehavior on some lower level people by stating "we didn't know what was going on". Bullshit. Believe it or not sales people are not all "greedy" as you suggest. Usually they are driven by senior managers who want more money or more power. In the case if Bill Gates it would be a power and control thing. He's already a billionaire - how much more money does he need or necessarily want do you think? In his case it was POWER and CONTROL. I believe he would like to be the only one who decides the direction that the computer industry goes. And one way to do that would be to limit the viable alternatives available to people. Do you honestly think Internet Explorer was bundled with Windows because Bill Gates gave a damn about giving the customer "more functionality"? Or do you think that maybe he wanted to control how we all went to the internet and thus give him control on what we see and do when we are there?

[ClayPerrine]

I am not going to comment on anything said in this thread, other than the comment that I had "hijacked" someone's user name. I didn't do it. I wouldn't do it. I would also not edit someone's post without asking them to edit it first.

As for this thread.. it's polarizing the user community... So my suggestion is to take this to a forum like slashdot to discuss it. We are here to talk 914s.

I do have one last comment. I work for Microsoft support. If anyone here EVER gets put on hold with Microsoft Support for hours and never talks to someone, give me a call or an e-mail. I will personally find out what happened. This is something I have some control over, and frankly, it should not happen.

[Part Pricer]

QUOTE (ClayPerrine @ Jan 9 2005, 09:56 AM)

As for this thread.. it's polarizing the user community... So my suggestion is to take this to a forum like slashdot to discuss it. We are here to talk 914s.

That statement, has the highest probability to polarize this community.

My understanding is that the purpose of this club is to provide a "garage-like" atmosphere where we can shoot the shit about anything (with the explicit exception of politics).

[ClayPerrine]

Notice I phrased it as a suggestion.........

Also notice that I am staying out of the debate. I KNOW I am biased, and I don't want to say anything that will piss off my friends here.

[mohnliting]

I learned a long time ago that I don't have to agree with everybody else and they don't have to agree with me. We can still be friends. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif) I personally like the exchange of ideas, because my ideas are not set in stone. Therefore, I try to contemplate all that is said as long as it does not demean others.

However, as this is a forum primarily for 914 discussions I will now shut up on this particular issue. However, I have found it informative and thought provoking. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/clap.gif)

As many others have said, "Let's all be friends."

I hope to meet some of you in person someday. How about an event up here in the Sacramento area. I'm up for helping to organize. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/driving.gif)

[larryp]

I really should ignore this but it is the sort of thing, just like politics, civil rights (e.g., minority set-asides), taxes and Iraq that exactly does NOT lend itself to sound bites and tidbits. Tort reform makes for nice politicical issues but it really is bullshit and the "stories" everyone has heard of are either apocryphal or, if true, have a lot more subtlety involved. None of whioch makes it past, let alone to, the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal, Congress or Leno.

As to Microsoft, they committed unfair trade practices. Period, end of story. It has nothing to do with having a better or worse product, or being first or bestest or nothing. It DOES have to do with not being allowed to quash a competitor just because you are a big fucking gorilla. The idea is that if you ARE better, then you should be able to compete on that basis. The reasoning is that if you are not allowed to stomp on competitors based on your size then there might someday actually BE some and then prices will have something to do with reality rather than market exclusivity. This simply does not result in inceased costs by any scenario.

As to the various lawsuits cited (the RVer, the thief who tripped, etc.), they are bullshit. They are funny as hell, but they are still bullshit. As to the ones that are true (and there are some, for sure) it is good to get past the seeming inanity and look at the facts. How about the guy (a woman, actually) who sued McDonalds for spilling the coffee while driving? Well, customers of that McDonalds had been complaining for more than a year that their coffee was too damn hot; there had been several customers who had received 2d degree oral burns. McDonalds has corporate guidelines on how hot coffee can be and that franchise had their machines set ca. 30 degrees over. Still, they managed to ignore the complaints and did squat. That, folks, is bad behaviour and not only gets you liable for harm, it gets you punitive damages. Had the woman spilled coffee that was the correct temp she would have been scalded and had 1st degree burns. Instead, because the franchisee ignored the earlier complains, she received 2d and 3d degree burns and needed skin grafts. And the actual damages reflected her contributory negligence in not using a cup holder. So what is the problem?

[KaptKaos]

/rant

Last time I looked, this whole Microsoft thing was a settlement. Which means that instead of persuing appeals, Microsoft made a business decision and gave in. What ever the reason they decided to settle, they did. I believe that the costs of the settlement (coupon toward further purchases) was less to Microsoft than the costs of continued litigation and the threat that they may lose worse on a decesion.

On top of this, Microsoft was operating under a consent decree with the Feds for their business practices. This decree was put into place by MS willingly as a way to stave off further litigation back in 96 (if I recall correctly).

Was MS overstepping in its business practices? Yeah. I think so. That's my opinion and its based on the way that they strong-armed Compaq and others in their OEM agreements. The only reason that this was a problem was due to the aforementioned consent decree that MS agreed to. Otherwise, they would have been fine.

Regardless of all of this, it is the consumer that pays. Microsoft just calculates the costs for their litigation into the costs of the software. We all pay and we all lose. Scott is correct and his analogy of the longshoremen is 100% spot-on.

What's worse is the cost for medical malpractice insurance. In states that have no caps, they are losing doctors that specialize in risky practices like obstetrics. Its too exepensive to practice and they just leave. So when you read about health care costs going sky high, its generally not due to greedy doctors, but more to greedy lawyers.

When you hear someone rail against "big business" take time to think what they are saying. Businesses, big and small, are made up of people. Regular people are invested in those companies either directly or through there mutual funds and pension plans. Its silly to think that big business is not directly connected and related to all of us in a financial way one way or another. So taking from MS in the short-term may make some people (mostly attys) rich, in the long run we all suffer with higher costs and lower returns.


/end rant