"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:10943098.HXO4sXrV3l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> __/ [ Mark Kent ] on Friday 19 January 2007 08:12 \__
>
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> __/ [ Doug Mentohl ] on Friday 12 January 2007 17:01 \__
>>>
>>>> "The Tennessee Department of Education will distribute $15,315,586.25
>>>> in software vouchers to local school systems as a result of a
>>>> settlement in a lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation"
>>>>
>>>> "Local administrators may use software vouchers for current or future
>>>> Microsoft operating system software"
>>>>
>>>> http://www.state.tn.us/education/news/nr/2006/12_18_06.shtml
>>>
>>> Microsoft was found guilty. Its payment is admission of this (merely an
>>> attempt to escape prosection). Why the heck should more software be
>>> acquired from the criminal? Why does this recur? It's outrageous.
>>>
>>> The scenario is intended to end up with jailed executives, not a
>>> settlement that shackles even /more/ people, especially now that
>>> software
>>> is made which is more Draconian than ever before.
>>>
>>> Parables involving drug dealers spring to mind.
>>>
>>
>> This is the height of third-world and US corruption. I've no idea how
>> on earth anyone could possibly consider this to be a settlement of any
>> kind. Are Microsoft not considered to be the world's richest company by
>> many? Should they not be fined? Do not the legal people understand
>> that Microsoft's production costs are ZERO? Do they not understand that
>> vouchers for Microsoft software merely means that Microsoft have yet
>> again broken the law and got away with it?
>
> The "production cost" part of your argument is a nice one... worth a
> mental
> note! Punish the drug dealer by giving him a lethal (but not deadly) doze
> of
> cocaine. Microsoft is trippin'.
>
Amid all the glee over Microsoft's losses in these class action suits should
come an understanding that the issue was framed as an overcharge due to the
effects of having a legitimately constructed monopoly in operating systems
for desktop computers. Nationwide, the settlements have averaged about $5
per copy of DOS or Windows versions purchased at retail. The settlements
are in the form of sizeable cash payments to the lawyers involved and
vouchers sent to customers who apply for reimbursement. The vouchers are
useable for non-Microsoft software compatible with Microsoft operating
systems as well as for the operating systems themselves. Further, a base
level of payments is established and a proviso that unclaimed vouchers up to
the base limit are aggregated and given to the educational systems of the
state. 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.
|
|
