From: anonymous
After following the last link I have below, I speculate but it appears that
Microsoft wanted to settle quickly. They have information that Microsoft
violated US Dept. of Justice 2002 ruling. If I have an article listed below
that you have not done yet, you are free to use:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9011285&intsrc=hm_list
or http://tinyurl.com/ysj3ky
/quote/
Restaurant meal helped fuel Microsoft's Iowa settlement deal
Lawyers say agreement to end class-action lawsuit was reached on Sunday
According to information released by the Iowa plaintiffs during the trial,
the lawsuit covered 7.5 million purchases of Windows and other Microsoft
products between May 1994 and June 2006. More than 1,100 Microsoft customers
opted out of the suit, but Conlin said that number was a statistically
insignificant portion of the overall base of users who made qualifying
purchases. "It was just half of half of half a percent of the total number
of people affected," she said.
Regarding a claim by the plaintiffs that they had proof Microsoft was
violating its 2002 antitrust settlement with the DOJ, Conlin said it's
unclear if and when the public may have access to that information. "We did
what lawyers are supposed to do, which is turn it over to the U.S.
Department of Justice and the Iowa Department of Justice," she said.
/-quote/
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/expectations-mount-microsoft-forecast/story.aspx?guid=%7B0DB4CAAF-82F0-4AAD-AE4E-1738E4379E5E%7D
or http://tinyurl.com/ysoj4s
Expectations mount for Microsoft forecast
By John Letzing, MarketWatch
Last Update: 12:51 PM ET Feb 15, 2007
/quote/
Microsoft also announced Wednesday the settling of an antitrust class-action
suit brought against it in Iowa. That suit, filed in Polk County District
Court, represented thousands of Iowans claiming the company's
anticompetitive practices cost them some $300 million more for software than
they would have paid otherwise.
Microsoft said in a news release that the settlement involved unspecified
payments to Iowans who bought certain software between 1994 and 2006.
The Iowa suit had resulted in a steady stream of negative publicity for
Microsoft, as plaintiffs' attorneys had been regularly publishing court
transcripts on a publicly accessible Web site. The resolution of the Iowa
suit leaves one active antitrust case facing Microsoft, in Mississippi.
/-quote/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/14/microsoft_iowa_settlement/
Microsoft and Iowa dream up settlement
Corn fed By Gavin Clarke in San Francisco
Published Wednesday 14th February 2007 18:20 GMT
/quote/
Microsoft has settled a lawsuit alleging it exploited its dominant position
to overcharge Iowa state consumers $453m in the last 12 years.
In a standard settlement deal, local schools are set to benefit with
Microsoft providing funds to low-income institutions for the purchase PCs
and software - probably Windows. Litigants in Iowa had claimed $329m in
damages.
Details will not be disclosed until April, the date for preliminary court
approval.
/-quote/
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2007/feb07/02-14IowaSettlementPR.mspx
or http://tinyurl.com/yr5kxj
/quote/
Microsoft and Plaintiffs Resolve Iowa Class Action Lawsuit
Settlement will benefit Iowa consumers, businesses and schools.
DES MOINES, Iowa, and REDMOND, Wash., February 14, 2007 ? Class counsel and
Microsoft jointly announced that a settlement has been reached in a class
action lawsuit that alleged violations of the Iowa Competition Law.
The terms of the settlement are not being disclosed pending preliminary court
approval, which is expected in April. The settlement concludes the
seven-year case and will provide compensation to individuals and businesses
that purchased specified operating system and application software including
Word, Excel and Office from May 18, 1994, through June 30, 2006. Details
for making claims will be announced this spring.
/-quote/
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9008500&intsrc=article_more_bot
or http://tinyurl.com/2dd7lg
/quote/
Iowa plaintiffs claim to have proof Microsoft violated 2002 antitrust decree
Judge says evidence may be submitted to DOJ
Eric Lai
January 18, 2007 (Computerworld) -- Lawyers suing Microsoft Corp. on behalf
of Iowa consumers claim to have evidence that the company is withholding key
application programming interfaces (APIs) from competing software companies,
a violation of its 2002 settlement of its antitrust case with the U.S.
Department of Justice.
That evidence, according to testimony on Jan. 10 (see page 7,654 of the
transcript), includes an expert review of Windows XP source code provided to
the plaintiffs' attorneys before the Comes vs. Microsoft Corp. trial began
in December.
"We intend to present this evidence to the jury; we're just not sure when,"
said Elizabeth Kniffen, one of the lawyers representing the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs allege Microsoft's anticompetitive practices resulted in the
company overcharging Iowan consumers. They are seeking as much as $350
million in damages.
The presiding judge in the case on Tuesday granted the plaintiffs' attorneys
and expert witnesses the right to inform the DOJ about the evidence.
APIs allow independent software companies to create applications that run on
Microsoft's platforms, such as Windows. The 2002 settlement of the federal
antitrust case required Microsoft to share its APIs with third-party
companies and to appoint a panel of three people with full access to
Microsoft's systems, records and source code for five years to ensure
compliance.
But as recently as December, security companies such as Symantec Corp. were
complaining that Microsoft was refusing to grant them access to a kernel
protection technology in the 64-bit version of Windows Vista called
PatchGuard. Microsoft argued that giving away access to PatchGuard would
compromise Vista's security, but it eventually agreed to create new APIs for
Vista to let security vendors get around PatchGuard.
A Microsoft spokesman disputed the plaintiffs' claim.
/-quote/
Related:
,----[ Quote ]
| "Most of those allegations had been out there... And those e-mails were
| old. We were very anxious to continue the trial so we could tell our
| story." (Rich Wallis, MS general counsel)
`----
http://www.computerpartner.nl/article.php?news=int&id=4756
So, what did Microsoft try to hide? Why is there no longer access to all the
evidence? What was Microsoft unable to hide? Here is just a tiny sample:
,----[ Quote ]
| From: Bill Gates
| Sent: Saturday, December 05, 1989 9:44 AM
| To: Bob Muglia (Exchange); Jon DeVaan; Steven Sinofsky
| Cc: Paul Mariz
| Subject: Office rendering
|
| One thing we have got to change is our strategy -- allowing Office
| documents to be rendered very well by OTHER PEOPLES BROWSERS is one of the
| most destructive things we could do to the company.
|
| We have to stop putting any effort into this and make sure that Office
| documents very well depends on PROPRIETARY IE capabilities.
|
| Anything else is suicide for our platform. This is a case where Office has
| to to destroy Windows.
`----
http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/2000/PX02991.pdf
Allchin's 'Buy a Mac' E-Mail Exposed
,----[ Quote ]
| "I must tell you everything in my soul tells me that we should do
| what I called plan (b) yesterday. We need a simple fast storage
| system. LH [Longhorn] is a pig and I don't see any solution to this
| problem. If we are to rise to the challenge of Linux and Apple, we
| need to start taking the lessons of 'scenario, simple, fast' to
| heart. Jim"
`----
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/operating_systems/allchins_buy_a_mac_email_exposed.html?kc=MWRSS02129TX1K0000535
http://tinyurl.com/y5cuu6
,----[ Quotes with annotation ]
| "(Microsoft manager:) I don't like the fact that the report show us losing
| on TCO on webservers. I don't like the fact that the report show us losing
| on availability (windows was down more than linux). And I don't like the
| fact that the reports says nothing new is coming with windows .net server."
|
| [...]
|
| "I don't like it to be public on the doc that we sponsored it because I
| don't think the outcome is as favorable as we had hoped. I just don't like
| competitors using it as ammo against us. It is easier if it doesn't mention
| that we sponsored it."
`----
http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/9000/PX09695.pdf
|
|
