on Jan 21 2007 3:03 pm amicus_curious wrote:
> the issue was framed as an overcharge due to the effects of having a
> legitimately constructed monopoly in operating systems for desktop computers.
No, the issue was MS violated Tennessee antitrust laws and
concomitantly were practising an illegal monopoly. If the monopoly was
legit then why did MS settle.
"A lawsuit filed in Tennessee claims that Microsoft violated
Tennessee's antitrust and unfair competition laws and thereby
overcharged consumers for certain of its operating system, word
processing and spreadsheet software"
download.microsoft.com/download/9/4/2/9426c190-fff0-474a-8430-3f9e555f96e6/tn_notice.pdf
> The vouchers are useable for non-Microsoft software compatible
> with Microsoft operating systems as well as for the operating systems themselves.
But you have to buy a Windows computer to 'qualify' ..
"Class members whose total claim is $950 or more must purchase a
computer
in order to be eligible to use vouchers for printers, scanners,
monitors, keyboards and pointing devices"
> The cost for this is not zero as the poster claims since the
> vouchers go to distributors rather than Microsoft itself and
> represent lost volume that would commonly be paid for in cash.
But it does help keep non-MS software out of the schools. Like where
can I buy a Linux desktop in the average computer store.
|
|
