Hi All
If you haven't heard, us Cal folks have some microsoft money coming our way.
Wouldn't want any of us 2 miss-out. Hurry quick. 1/8/05 is the last postmark accepted.
Quick!!! Go to:
www.microsoftcalsettlement.com

I usually figure these things are scams, but this appears to be real...

Nice of them to research it for us

I find it creepy that the claim form opens in internet explorer despite going to the site in firefox...

Oh, it's real - Just mailed my form in today. I wouldn't have posted if I hadn't checked it out!!!
Hurry up & download the form. Day after tomorrow is too late!
Cheers, Gary

Rant/

Well, I for one think the lawsuit is a crock of caca. Microsoft came up with a better mousetrap and other companies are jealous and felt the need to waste our tax dollars and our precious court system to sue a big company. I would no sooner try to collect from them than take money from another member here. I think it is wrong and a bunch of crap. I am so sick of people trying to sue because they feel they were treated unfailry. The product was not defective, it did what it was supposed to do and half of the people I know never paid for any of the software they use anyway. Its like this, you come up with an idea that makes billions of dollars and some guy who is jealous because he didnt think of it decides to sue you and take it away from you. Everybody trying to get something for nothing. Greedy people will be the fall of our economy I can promise you this. Like the union people that want more money for what they do. The average longshoreman makes about 96k a year and they have the best benefits money can buy and they keep asking for more. Thats all fine and dandy, the shipping companies have to charge more for shipping so they pass that on to their customers who pass it on to you and so on. So when you go to the store and see that something that used to only cost $3.00 is now 8 or 10 bucks, you know why. Its a viscious cycle that is growing exponentially. It wont be long till everything crashes down hard. I think it will be in my lifetime too. You heard it here first! Mark my words.

End rant/

Nice rant Scott. But it's not about product, it's about practices.

"violations of California state law as well as violations of federal antitrust law that serve as predicates to state law claims of unfair competition"

If you break the law, you should pay the price. Or are you suggesting something else?


But, I make a lot of money off of Microsoft products. Perhaps some of these people can use their newfound funds to pay you to fix their problems.

"The day Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck is the day they make a vacuum cleaner."

Here's the way I see it.. The lawsuit went through the legal system and the end result was this settlement. In theory, if Microsoft hadn't done anything illegal, it would not have gotten to the point of paying end users. If Microsoft DID do everything on the up and up, and this lawsuit ended with them paying end users, i would consider this wrong. The fault in that would be in our legal system, not in the end user. For the most part I trust our legal system, unless I have a reason not to. To my understanding it isn't a matter of the product, but the practices of the corporation. From where I sit it looks like Microsoft did break laws, and is being punished for it.

Note: This is not a rant. I am only stating my opinion, and some of my limited knowledge of the goings-on of the computer industry. I realize others have different opinions, and I respect that. I just want to show where I am coming from.

QUOTE (skline @ Jan 7 2005, 03:01 PM)

Rant/ Well, I for one think the lawsuit is a crock of caca. Microsoft came up with a better mousetrap and other companies are jealous ...

Uh-Oh. Clay P. has hijacked Scott's bbs account!

-Ben M.

Ok, Let me add something else.

Law suits of big companies that were totally stupid and should have been thrown out.

A family goes out and buys a cool three wheels ATV for some desert fun. They go out to the desert and thier 10 year old son goes out and jumps on the trike with no helmet and twists the throttle all the way and flips it over on top of himself breaking his neck and dies. The family sues the manufacturer and wins. Why? The manufacturer didnt flip it over on the dumbshit kid. The manufacturer didnt leave it where the kid could jump on and ride it in a way it was not intended for. Its the damn parents fault for not supervising their child properly. I say "Sue the parents"

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.

Next:
You buy a gun for home defense, it is your right, you have the gun at home in a locked cabinet like you should, right? Not everyone is that smart. They leave loaded guns where children can find them and play with them. Is it the manufacturers fault? I think not. Or a burglar breaks into your home and you shoot him. His relatives sue you for wrongful death. Whats wrong with that picture?

Next:
You go to the doctors office for medical treatment, they wont see you without insurance or payment up front. You get all upset and say its not fair. Why do they have to charge so much you ask? You try to pay for the malpractice insurance they have to have because there are so many cry baby ninnies out there trying to sue for any reason at all.


The whole damn country has turned in to a bunch of panty waste cry baby sissies. If you fall down, get up and move on, dont sue the store cause they were trying to keep it clean for you. If you buy a gun, lock it up so your kids cant get at it. If you have something dangerous, know that it is dangerous if used improperly. If you smoke, why would you want to sue the cigarette manufacturers? Did they force you to smoke? Did they force you to smoke in your home with your kids there? They only make the product, it should be your responsibility to use it safely and correctly. I dont see anyone trying to sue the liquor maunufacturers yet people die everyday from drunk drivers. I know there are exceptions to everything, but for the most part, dont blame someone else for your mistake, take it like a man and resolve it and hope it doesnt happen again.

Ok, Im done, sorry I am so opinionated, this shit really bugs me.

my impression was microsoft was prosecuted for protecting it's intellectual rights. it's not really a monoply to me, just lacking a soild competitor.




Henry waiting for a Louis

if you ask me class action lawsuits are a bunch of bs any way the average person in one gets 5 or 6 bucks and the laywers make millions. they were invented to stop multible law suits based on the same thing but now they just make laywers rich. if you ask me just fine the piss out of somebody, not pay 1 million people 5 bucks.

Boy Scott, quitting smoking sure put your panties in a wad. I really hate to agree with you on anything but I will on "law suits" and in the same breath will add "workman's comp", but this thread is way to political so.............

Howard....delete it! (secret message to Popluation Mind Control Center )

Agreed scott... but the problem is that people dont observe or practicxe common sense. there is a reason why other countries call the US the "nanny state". Our childre are educated not to question, not observe, and if things don't go their way... sue sue sue...

Sorry gotta go with the Scotts on this one we are to litigous of a society. Can't weigh in on the Microsoft thing exactly but his second post is right on.

In the big picture, I agree with Scott. However, I reacently was offered part in a class action aimed at Ford regarding their TFI module that was defective and largely a POS. This module would fail when heated and cause the car to shut down and cost a couple of hundred to fix. It was a very poorly designed part places in the hottest part of the engine. I believe that if they were proven to have known about it and not to have fixed it, they were liable to pay for the problem. I still didn't lie and say my car had less than 100K miles before the deadline and such. Now Ford seems to recall their cars for any problem which is good, but they sure do it often for each model which is not so good. Everything has a down side. Just my humble opinion.

Scott, pop a niccorrett! You know I love ya man.

I was part of the Ford Explorer Firestone tire class action. I got a letter saying we won (all 2 million of us or so LOL)

Havent seen a cent yet

QUOTE (skline @ Jan 7 2005, 03:01 PM)

Greedy people will be the fall of our economy I can promise you this.

but one of the issues in any anti-trust suit is greed, so to single out just the microsoft users seems a bit odd. ie microsoft is just as damn greedy (if not more), thus this case.

hell it frankly looks like everyone is greedy: the doctors and the patients; the computer company and its users; the coffee maker and it's coffee drinkers.

but i'm a bit of a marxist, so f--k it anyway.


btw, that slickdeals.net website is hilarious! nice find!

What about the guy that bought an RV, set the cruise control, and went to piss, and the thing crashed? He won. No one informed him he couldn't do that.

Can I jump out of a car at 80 mph, and say no one told me I couldn't do that?

Is that for real?

How about the guy who broke into someones house and tripped on a lamp cord that was extended across the halway floor. He sued the owner and won. (so I have heard).

Blame the jury of our peers!

The guy at my FLAPS read it in an RV magazine he subscribes too.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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...

Dang, no SUV.

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...

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,
c:\format c fuckin' :\???
Are you sure?
Fuckin' A 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. - 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?

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.

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.

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....) 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?

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.

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).

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.

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. 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.

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.

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?

/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