backtop


Print 103 comment(s) - last by dav115.. on Feb 21 at 4:20 PM

Latest lawsuit for the software giant alleges anti-trust violations for fees charged to downgrade to XP from Vista

Microsoft is no stranger to lawsuits and allegations of antitrust violations. Many consumers and other software makers have claimed that the software firm has a monopoly in the operating system market. So far, Microsoft has been fined in Europe and other countries for antitrust violations.

The latest allegations of antitrust violations come from a lawsuit filed by a Seattle woman named Emma Alvarado. In court papers filed by Alvarado, the woman claims that she was forced to pay to downgrade a Lenovo notebook she purchased from Vista to Windows XP. According to the suit, Microsoft and its partners are able to charge fees due to the lack of competition in the OS market.

The woman says that she was charged $59.25 to downgrade to XP on her Lenovo computer and that the fee is a violation of antitrust rules. In court documents Alvarado writes, "Since the introduction of Vista, Microsoft has effectively eliminated competition in the operating system PC market and created a monopoly position for itself in that market."

Microsoft told InformationWeek in an email, "Microsoft does not have a downgrade program. It does offer downgrade rights as part of some Windows Vista licenses, including Windows Vista Business purchased through the OEM channel. Microsoft does not charge or receive any additional royalty if a customer exercises those rights."

In other words Microsoft is saying that it did not charge Alvarado the nearly $60 it cost to downgrade to Windows XP, Lenovo did.

Alvarado goes on to claim in the court documents, "Microsoft has used its power to coerce OEMs, internet access providers and others into agreeing to restrictive and anti-competitive licensing terms for its Windows XP operating system in order to stifle competition in the market. Microsoft did so in order to maintain, protect, and extend its market power in operating systems software into the next generation of personal computing, to lessen competition, and to enhance its monopoly position."

Damages being sought in the case are not specified, but Alvarado is seeking to have the case classified as a class action. No official legal response has come from Microsoft at this point.

This lawsuit is the least of Microsoft's worries right now; the firm missed its earnings estimates and cut 5,000 jobs recently.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Again...
By nangryo on 2/19/2009 11:01:12 AM , Rating: 2
The one that have the most benefit from this are the lawyers




RE: Again...
By Screwballl on 2/19/09, Rating: 0
RE: Again...
By omnicronx on 2/19/2009 12:13:44 PM , Rating: 5
Nobody is going to benefit from this because she will not win. Her entire case is based upon the fact she was charged extra money to downgrade, which is out of Microsofts control. Thats like buying a car and in which the dealer charges you extra money for certain services, and going off and suing the manufacturer..


RE: Again...
By reader1 on 2/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Again...
By weskurtz0081 on 2/19/2009 12:58:01 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously? How does MS make it necessary? The companies don't HAVE to offer XP. Really, they could just offer Vista, that's how it worked in the past. MS isn't making it NECESSARY for them to offer XP or to charge for it. It's just the nature of the game, pay to play.


RE: Again...
By reader1 on 2/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Again...
By omnicronx on 2/19/2009 1:15:13 PM , Rating: 1
Windows XP is still supported, until MS ceases to do so, nobody is being forced to move to Vista.

P.S MS is not a true monopoly, and never has been.


RE: Again...
By reader1 on 2/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Again...
By HaB1971 on 2/19/2009 5:39:11 PM , Rating: 4
No, the purpose of the fee is the company has tooled their build policy to install a particular OS and to change that means that the unit has to be dun dun duh customized .

You can claim an X-Files type conspiracy here all you want but if Ford decided to continue to sell it's cars to be available only in black (check your history on the Model T) and you come waltzing in and demand a red one.. I'm going to charge you for it because it is now customized.

Nothing is stopping this woman from buying the computer as is and installing any compatible OS she wants other than her own inability to do so.

Because someone makes and sells something of a particular flavor, brand or color only does not make a monopoly. If you want that very special product to have exactly what you want and nobody makes it, then start your own company and make it yourself.

Only don't make it look any thing like a fruit based product or Steve will come smash your face in.


RE: Again...
By reader1 on 2/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Again...
By HaB1971 on 2/19/2009 6:17:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, the purpose of the fee is the company has tooled their build policy to install a particular OS and to change that means that the unit has to be dun dun duh customized


Provide proof of this or just continue with your baseless argument.

By that, I and probably everyone else would like documented proof that Lenovo had their hands full tied when coming to sell computers with a specific OS.

If by the fact the Microsoft entered into an agreement with Lenovo were that Microsoft would only sell to them as an OEM only Vista that still does not make it a Monopoly.

Please go look up the word and comprehend its meaning before you decide to post another word. Either that or go join the Westboro Baptist Church, they might believe you


RE: Again...
By reader1 on 2/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Again...
By Nekrik on 2/19/2009 7:57:32 PM , Rating: 2
Holly crap you're dense and completely wrong. They can buy an operating system from RedHat, Sun, Netware, etc... They have only one place to legally buy/liscense Microsoft Windows (what ever version), and that's from Microsoft. That is not by any means the only place they can acquire operating systems from.

The fact that most OEM sellers choose to offer Windows is because it is available for OEM liscensing, it supports a wide range of hardware configurations, it is highly interoperable with other systems, it is very well known, and it is easy to learn. They choose the OS that will sell the best. If Apple wanted to try and engineer their OS so it supported more than their proprietary hardware configs, or the OOS group could get its shit together you might see other offerings more often.


RE: Again...
By reader1 on 2/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Again...
By ChronoReverse on 2/19/2009 9:18:47 PM , Rating: 3
Those companies were built selling Windows machines. Of course they can't stop selling them all of a sudden.

It would be like making Coca Cola stop selling any more cola overnight. It's a ridiculous argument.


RE: Again...
By reader1 on 2/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Again...
By TOAOCyrus on 2/20/2009 11:29:51 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
by reader1 on February 19, 2009 at 9:45 PM quote: Of course they can't stop selling them all of a sudden. Exactly! Which proves Microsoft has a monopoly.


No one denies that but the fact is a monopoly is NOT illegal. Whats illegal is using your position to unfairly force out competition. I don't see how this effects competition at all as its between two of MS own products.


RE: Again...
By JKflipflop98 on 2/19/2009 9:38:00 PM , Rating: 4
Yes, they can.
But the business would tank because all other operating systems are terrible for home use.

People aren't being forced into using Windows. Heck. . . Linux is FREE and it can't begin to compete with Windows. They literally can't give it away. Is it because M$ is a "monopoly"? No, it's because Linux sucks so badly - and is so difficult to use - that people are willing to pay more for Windows.


RE: Again...
By reader1 on 2/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Again...
By Pryde on 2/19/2009 10:32:49 PM , Rating: 2
Yes they could if they wanted. Windows isn't stopping OEMs from selling any other OS. Windows may or may not have monopoly but simple fact is most people enjoy and have zero problems with windows. These days Linux distros can pretty much do anything windows can but game, people just choose windows because it is easier.


RE: Again...
By reader1 on 2/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Again...
By jhb116 on 2/20/2009 12:22:36 AM , Rating: 2
So this is the reason why we need to allow Darwin's theory to route out the weak..............


RE: Again...
By Nekrik on 2/19/2009 5:41:27 PM , Rating: 3
Crap, do you make everything up? It's almost entertaining to read you posts but it's an old game so became boring very quickly (besides, we already got another poster for that :)).

The additional price is there because for Dell, HP, etc... there is an additional cost to offer the option. Additional assembly costs, support costs, licensing costs, etc... The costs are not imposed by MS, they're there at the descretion of the OEM vendor. Take the fucking foil hat off and quit spreading so much fud.


RE: Again...
By rudy on 2/19/2009 5:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
Or you are paying extra to support an EOL product. This is both from the standpoint of M$ and Lenovo or any OEM. YOu want to keep people together. If you try to buy a car part or computer part from an outdated model you usually pay more then that of a current model. The reason is it is scarce and cost extra money to produce a low volume part or support and outdated OS.


RE: Again...
By Belard on 2/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Again...
By Belard on 2/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: Again...
By yomamafor1 on 2/19/2009 1:15:29 PM , Rating: 4
I think its a consensus that when a newer, better OS comes out to replace the old OS, the old OS will be discontinued. Microsoft's alleged monopoly has no relevance in this case.


RE: Again...
By reader1 on 2/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Again...
By neogrin on 2/19/2009 1:25:55 PM , Rating: 2
ok, so when Adobe releases Photoshop CS4 and starts to phase out CS3, Adobe is using it's dominate position in the photo editing software biz to force users to CS4? or when Firefox 3 came out and the older version was no longer (offically) avaiable for download, is Mozilla forcing users to Firefox 3?

Come on. New version is released, old one goes away...just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's aginst the law.


RE: Again...
By Cobra Commander on 2/19/2009 1:46:05 PM , Rating: 1
I'm going to sue Chevrolet by preventing me from buying a '67 Stingray and forcing me to buy their new Corvette. And I'll cite the reader1 statute.

And I'll be mocked, ridiculed and laughed at until the cows come home and for good reason. Think dude, and look at how it works in this world all around you and realize Microsoft is no different in this respect.


RE: Again...
By reader1 on 2/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Again...
By lightfoot on 2/19/2009 4:36:47 PM , Rating: 5
Microsoft in no way forces any new PC to run Windows. Last time I checked, I can buy a PC without any Operating System. The problem is this person bought a PC that CAME with Vista, and she CHOSE to have a DIFFERENT OS installed on it.

The fact that Microsoft allows XP to run under a Vista license is in no way an antitrust violation. She was charged by either the retailer or the manufacturer to reimage the machine in a non-standard manner. She was charged for the LABOR required to provide this SERVICE.

It's like walking into a car dealership and picking out a black car and then telling the dealer to paint it red. She was fortunate that the dealer only charged her for labor, and not the paint. Red cars are offered (just like XP machines are offered) but she chose a black (Vista) one.


RE: Again...
By reader1 on 2/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: Again...
By lightfoot on 2/19/2009 11:58:40 PM , Rating: 4
Most people want Vista - especially if they are buying a computer that is preloaded with Vista.

Vista is a superior operating system in virtually every way over XP (especially since SP1.)

This is not a monopoly issue. This is an issue of a person buying a product and expecting it to be something that it is not. If she did not want to pay the $50 dollar charge for reconfiguring the ENTIRE system, she should have returned the machine, and bought an XP machine (or Mac, or any other computer.)


RE: Again...
By makius on 2/21/2009 7:20:48 AM , Rating: 1
I've been running Vista for over a year now and I love it! In fact I cringe every time I have to use an XP based system.


RE: Again...
By HollyDOL on 2/20/2009 2:04:30 AM , Rating: 3
Agreed. That woman is virtually suing Microsoft for her own personal stupidity. I am really getting sick of this 'sue Microsoft for the evil in the world' attitude these days.

I am using Vista Bussiness 64 on my machine (MSNDAA license) and I am very happy with that system. Since the MSDNAA release it's up and running and no problems so far. Ofc unless you count up fact it dropped backward support for ancient 16bit applications.

Fact is thank god they dropped that support. At least it forces old Fortran, Cobol etc. developers to use modern development tools (!32bit+!!) or retire.

I am confused how anyone can blaim Windows for slowing down computers evolution. Yes, they are not ideal, but there is NO ideal OS and won't ever be (and no, Linux with its thousands warnings thrown during compilation is NOT).

Windows was first OS that _massively_ introduced multiscating - thing we can hardly live without these days (for those who don't know... multiscating = ability to execute and run more than 1 application at time). Yes, OS2 had the feature as well, but the company failed to approach the market to force it through.

Thanks to Windows we are able to work with hardware using some documented interface; I am pretty much convinced it wouldn't be this ways if there was more OS without one taking majority of the market... Instead of making one or two drivers and working on making them better the developers would have to make 12345 different drivers for 12345 different OSes - slows down development process, lowers quality; thanks to slow software development you have to slow down hardware development because you would need to develop those freaking 12345 drivers.

Without Windows Intel would be introducing Netburst CPUs these days and the best graphic card you could get would be Voodoo 2.

Thanks to Windows we have huge API that allows us fast development of our software. Anyone remember the pain to create stupid button in DOS and have mouse running over it and click and stuff?

Even though Microsoft doesn't implement everything as ideal we would like to, it's still far far best choice everyone has. And thanks to its monopoly we have terrabytes of software we can use every day.


RE: Again...
By weskurtz0081 on 2/19/2009 2:29:03 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm... that's weird, I just bought 6 computers 2 weeks ago, and 2 this week, FROM HP, with XP Pro on them..... all for no extra charge!

Not to mention, I called MS, and they told me to install Pro on the two Vista machines we had..... NO CHARGE!


RE: Again...
By dragonbif on 2/19/2009 2:59:51 PM , Rating: 2
I hate to tell you this but the charge is for the time it takes the OEM to go in and change the OS from Vista to XP. Microsoft does not get anything from it.
Also if we use XP for the next 20 years computers would not go anywhere because they would not need to. Because Vista came out having a 4GB computer is common now and the cost of memory is way down. I remember when a 512MB stick of DDR cost $90 even tho it had been out for a year. Now you can get 4GB of DDR2 1066 for the same price. Microsoft pushes computers to the next level and without that push there would not be a need. We are still stuck on 32bit and Microsoft would like their next OS (after 7) to be 64bit only and so would I.


RE: Again...
By Justin Time on 2/19/2009 4:03:36 PM , Rating: 2
This is the IT equivalent of 'ambulance chasing'.

MS provide FREE rights to downgrade all Vista Business versions to XP-Pro. I sell Lenovo, HP, Toshiba, etc etc, and have never encountered a case where the customer has been charged by MS (either directly or indirectly) to downgrade.

However, the downgrade process assumes you have access to a copy of the XP media. MFGs normally include a FREE copy of XP media with their Vista Business systems, but I have seen some low-end packages where the media was not included (hard to understand the MFG’s thinking, but it happens) and then you either needed to provide your own copy (from a previous system) or buy one... perhaps from the MFG.

MS do NOT provide any rights to downgrade their Vista Home versions, and anyone who sells a Vista Home based system with the advice that it has downgrade rights, should be held accountable for any costs incurred to do that.


RE: Again...
By Belard on 2/19/2009 8:44:49 PM , Rating: 2
From someone who orders Lenovo ThinkPAD products for my clients, you are very much wrong.

1 - only some manufactures are making notebooks that support XP (Its a driver issue, not hardware)

2 - And this article/some posters are wrong. Lenovo doesn't charge $60 for XP, MS does make money for the downgrade. (below)

3 - MS, as stated - only allows some versions of ViSTA to get the side-grade to XP. What versions are those? Lets se... Enterprise and Business.

So when ordering a computer (mostly notebooks) from Lenovo, only their Thinkpad line has the option. You have to UPGRADE from Vista Home to Vista Business... oops, that's $60. But Lenovo is currently nice enough to (A) pre-load XP onto the computer (B) include the Vista-Business installation DVD(s) - rather than those useless make-your-own-recover-discs.

So yes... MS makes money. The last order of ThinkPads I ordered from Lenovo have XP-PRO. XP-MCE would be nicer. We had to pay extra for it... for computers THAT WILL NEVER EVER EVER have vista installed, period.

Its cheaper than buying the notebooks with Vista-Home, and paying $115 for XP-MCE or $140 for XP-Pro, then downloading the drivers.... but still, Microsoft HAS forced the OEMs into Vista and to make it more difficult for people to put XP on their computers/notebooks.


RE: Again...
By descendency on 2/19/2009 6:36:01 PM , Rating: 2
+1 to you. You hit it dead on.


do what? monopoly who?
By Dreifort on 2/19/2009 11:06:07 AM , Rating: 5
Let me get this straight. A woman that had a computer with a MICROSOFT OS is mad and suing MS for not putting ANOTHER MICROSOFT OS on her computer for free? Where is the "anti-trust" here? What competition is MS keeping her from putting on her computer? MS vs MS? huh?

The real monopoly is Apple for refusing to allow companies like HP, Dell or whoever to put Apple OS on their systems. And you thought $57 was expensive....




RE: do what? monopoly who?
By Spivonious on 2/19/2009 11:17:30 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah I don't understand the basis of this woman's claim. Even if it was Microsoft charging her and not Lenovo, that's not anti-competitive, it's just Microsoft wanting consumers to buy their latest product instead of an 8 year-old one.

Would you be able to sue if a car dealer charged you more for a 2003 model because they wanted you to buy the cheaper 2009 model?


RE: do what? monopoly who?
By reader1 on 2/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: do what? monopoly who?
By ccmfreak2 on 2/19/2009 1:07:15 PM , Rating: 4
But it's not the "car dealer" that is being sued. It's the "car maker" being sued. You can't sue GM (and win) because their dealer's prices are awful. Go to another dealer! Lenovo isn't the only company carrying Windows XP.


RE: do what? monopoly who?
By rcc on 2/19/2009 5:48:57 PM , Rating: 2
No, even if the dealer had a monopoly. You can't requre a company to sell/make an obsolete product for you. Unless you are the military and need to support 50 year old ships of course. : ) And they still pay out the nose for the privilege.


RE: do what? monopoly who?
By reader1 on 2/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: do what? monopoly who?
By omnicronx on 2/19/2009 1:18:38 PM , Rating: 1
Main Entry:
mo·nop·o·ly
Pronunciation:
\m?-'nä-p(?-)le\
Function:
noun

1 : exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
2 : exclusive possession or control
3 : a commodity controlled by one party

Ms does not fall under any of these categories, they are close, but this is not a game of horseshoes.


RE: do what? monopoly who?
By reader1 on 2/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: do what? monopoly who?
By Bateluer on 2/19/2009 2:03:51 PM , Rating: 1
Microsoft is an aggressive company that likes to win. This is not the same as a monopoly. Microsoft is not a monopoly and never had been.

It seems you are the one who does not understand the case. Please research how software works and report back to DailyTech. If the software world operated as you seem to think it does, nobody would write software because they'd be forced to provide free downgrades to all their old versions, and crippling development in the process. I suppose you want MS to provide you with MS DOS 5 and support it so you can run your 16 bit apps. Get with the picture. New version comes out, old gets phased out.


RE: do what? monopoly who?
By reader1 on 2/19/2009 7:35:54 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Microsoft is not a monopoly and never had been.


Microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems. People have to use Windows, even if they don't like it. There's no alternative for the majority of users.


RE: do what? monopoly who?
By soundrave on 2/19/2009 10:44:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's no alternative for the majority of users.


well there's apple... ;p it's an alternative right??


RE: do what? monopoly who?
By dav115 on 2/21/2009 4:16:50 PM , Rating: 2
Ever heard of Apple, idiot?


RE: do what? monopoly who?
By KCjoker on 2/19/2009 6:26:38 PM , Rating: 1
You are ignorant.


It's Called CTO for a reason, lady!
By MrBig99 on 2/19/2009 12:42:07 PM , Rating: 2
My guess is that the $59.25 "switch to XP Pro" fee is really an upgrade from Vista Home Basic to Vista Business, which entitles you to a downgrade to XP Pro.

Go buy a computer at Dell or HP - I bet they charge a fee to upgrade from Vista Home Basic to XP Pro, as well!




RE: It's Called CTO for a reason, lady!
By ccmfreak2 on 2/19/2009 1:00:12 PM , Rating: 2
I kinda thought that too. I checked out hp's laptops on their website. Unless you go with an hp "mini", I didn't even see a choice of xp (they had multiple Vista choices though). I didn't see dell charging extra for going to xp, but one can argue that the cost was already figured into the base price.

Bottom line is that their are not many systems out there coming with XP even being an option. Whether that is good thing or bad thing is up for debate. Personally I feel like it's a good thing.


By Dreifort on 2/19/2009 1:21:00 PM , Rating: 2
MS has licensing agreements with the vendors to only offer Vista as an installed OS new with system. They still support XP and you can still purchase licenses thru MS for XP.

But for retail sales, MS no longer offers XP as an out of the box new option...

that was until the minis were created with which most couldn't even support Vista - so the Mini's were pushed under the Business umbrella that still supports corporate sales and business requirements of XP.

Oddly, it's not just XP for minis that is available but also Linux (which *gasp* is an option).


Good for her, I thank her for taking the time.
By gochichi on 2/20/2009 2:20:06 AM , Rating: 2
It really is absurd that you have to pay to downgrade to something that is of equal or lesser value.

I don't care if it's Microsoft, Lenovo, Dell or whatever. If people want Windows XP instead of Vista then they ought to be able to switch for free.

I don't know the laws involved, my gut says she's totally right and I'm rooting for her... but my mind can't understand how paying extra for a Microsoft OS is monopolistic... in fact, the fact that we all have to pay (and want to) for Vista is what might be out of wack. Isn't the whole "bundling" how Microsoft became a monopoly... so actually, charging for Windows, any windows, is a pro-competition move. I mean, if nearly ALL computers could be optionally had for say $70.00 less without Windows at all... that would be anti-monopoly.

But let's face it, that would be just as pro-piracy as it would be anti-monopoly. B/c people would pocket the $70.00 and still load Windows just the same.

I think the whole pay to downgrade thing is utterly absurd and abusive. If I were Microsoft I'd be livid with Lenovo, HP, and DELL for doing this... it's a bunch anti-Vista hype. If someone want XP they should be able to quietly recieve it for the cost of disks and shipping. Not these HUGE BANNERS ADVERTISING THAT YOU CAN DOWNGRADE VISTA TO WINDOWS XP for a mere $99 !! I mean c'mon! That's totally absurd.




By Smilin on 2/20/2009 11:43:33 AM , Rating: 2
MS doesn't charge to downgrade. Period.

This is a Lenovo thing. It costs them more to make a deviation from their standard image, retest all preloaded apps with a different OS etc. I could see where they might want to charge something trivial.

However, I do not think that's the case here. I think Lenovo is charging this customer because they can. This lady doesn't know how to load XP so Lenovo is going to charge her for it simply to make some cash.

Since there is no Monopoly in the Laptop manufacturing space she DOES have a choice about this. She can just go somewhere else where they'll do it for free. Hell, if she wants she can choose a non-MS OS altogether. Microsoft is now the dominant OS on the market. It is no longer a monopoly.


By Mitch101 on 2/19/2009 11:12:31 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
In other words Microsoft is saying that it did not charge Alvarado the nearly $60 it cost to downgrade to Windows XP, Lenovo did.


The whole time I was reading this on various sites I had to wonder why the suit wasn't with Lenovo the company that charged the $60.00 fee. I'm not surprised though.

Now I'm waiting for someone to sue Microsoft for a refund because they bought a Ford and replaced their installed SYNC stereo with an after market stereo that doesn't have SYNC and believe they should receive a refund.




She will win Billions
By GuiasLocal on 2/19/2009 1:57:17 PM , Rating: 2
The end result will be this customer getting their money back. Then if they continue with the stupidity. Microsoft will sue for damages. In this economy shadows are being sued for anti privacy as well as pigs flying.




Absurd
By tech329 on 2/19/2009 3:04:01 PM , Rating: 2
If I want to buy some memory I can get a 2GB stick of a current generation for about $30. But if I want a 1GB stick of something from last or two generations ago it will probably cost more even though it is less. All the world works this way. The woman who filed the lawsuit has no clue how manufacturing or business or commerce works. I still get the occasional call for people wanting DEC Vax and VMS support. Until they hear the price. They have no idea that most of the people who worked on those systems are dead and buried. After 40 years in this industry I have learned the only direction is forward. I hope the judge who gets this case throws it out. That is all it warrants.




By kilkennycat on 2/19/2009 1:15:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
This lawsuit is the least of Microsoft's worries right now; the firm missed its earnings estimates and cut 5,000 jobs recently.


Another of Steve Ballmer's truly-bright ideas. With ~$40billion in the bank and still-vast earnings in a recession, he put 5000 out of a job and let the government pick up the tab for Social Security and COBRA payments etc, etc. Getting a new full-time job in the Seattle area these days for redundant tech employees has become a pretty tough deal. The 5000 fired were merely "sacrificial lambs on the stockholder altar" in an attempt to jack up the stock price (and the value of Stevie's options). I sometimes wish that Jerry Yang had consummated the deal for Yahoo when Stevie offered him over $30 per share. It would have been a disaster for Microsoft, but by now Stevie would have been looking for another job. Bill Gates was a ruthless long-term strategist, now replaced by Steve Ballmer, a ruthless but incompetent tactician... His strategic ineptness in dealing with the "Google challenge" is visible for all to see.




She's right.
By reader1 on 2/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: She's right.
By Spivonious on 2/19/2009 11:18:41 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft has the right to sell whatever they want to. They could stop selling XP licenses altogether and it would be perfectly legal.


RE: She's right.
By Ryanman on 2/19/2009 11:31:33 AM , Rating: 3
Not to mention the fact that what MS says is right... Lenovo simply charged $55 for a OS disc, it wasn't up to them (even if they might have influenced it). I learned this the hard way when I had to reinstall XP on one of their machines and had to dig for drivers over a period of a couple hours.


RE: She's right.
By SavagePotato on 2/19/2009 12:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
Likewise If you can argue that Microsoft is in the wrong for charging a downgrade fee for XP then by rights they should allow you to downgrade to windows 98 for free as well.

The fact is by offering XP that means they still have to support XP, and the OEM manufacturer has to develop drivers for XP, drivers are a whole different ballgame for the most part with notebooks.

All in all switching to XP creates costs for the OEM and for Microsoft, therefore a fee is applicable.


RE: She's right.
By mindless1 on 2/19/2009 1:44:56 PM , Rating: 2
Test, maybe, but develop? Methink you have this backwards, XP enjoys support for just about everything under the sun and driver issues are known through years of experience, while Vista drivers are still rarer. Hint - Laptops don't actually use proprietary drivers, many people don't realize this.

There may be a register change or two needed in power management apps but that's about it besides slapping a branding and self-extracting package around it.

There are some support costs for the OEM, IF that OEM wasn't already supporting thousands upon thousands of laptops already running XP but since they are, there is no significant difference what model it's on as this is down to a universal factory image among them, and a restore when things go wrong (you won't find OEMs telling you to dig in the registry or FDISK, repair install, etc, these days.

MS has no support costs, that's why it's an OEM license. They have, like the OEMs, years of experience with XP and still support it so there is trivial addt'l cost to them if any.

In short, the fee really isn't reasonable, "applicable" really doesn't mean anything in this context except that if they otherwise didn't offer XP at all, paying someone a bench fee to manually install a different OS it otherwise didn't have might be a labor charge... if there were no XP image for these so it was being installed on one at a time which it wasn't.


RE: She's right.
By omnicronx on 2/19/2009 2:06:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hint - Laptops don't actually use proprietary drivers, many people don't realize this.
Unfounded, I can't think of a major laptop retailer (dell, hp, lenovo etc..) that does not make use of proprietary drivers.

Not saying you can't have a clean install without them and have a working laptop, but what you get from the manufacturer surely does make use of proprietary drivers.


RE: She's right.
By SavagePotato on 2/19/2009 2:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
Please tell that to dell so I can use the ATI reference drivers on my studio 17 without having to hack them.

OEM's like Dell have actually muscled ATI out of releasing reference mobility drivers for this reason.

You are also forgetting that Microsoft also has to keep tech support and activation support staff up and running for XP so that they can offer a downgrade option.

The notebook oem as well has to have support staff ready to support the other OS, when you are a non English speaking tech support agent that reads responses off a card it becomes a bigger issue than it seems.


RE: She's right.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/19/2009 11:24:10 AM , Rating: 2
Oh get out of here. That monopoly is defacto, and Linux is always an option. If using and maintaining Linux wasnt such a pain in the neck, maybe you would see it as a choice OEM's are willing to push.


RE: She's right.
By reader1 on 2/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: She's right.
By ccmfreak2 on 2/19/2009 12:37:02 PM , Rating: 5
I've been dual-booting Vista with Ubuntu for months now. I am almost ready to switch over to Ubuntu completely. Dell offers fully supported Ubuntu Linux machines. They are a great option. They come equiped with Open Office and full driver support for these Dell machines. It is definately an option. Plus, all the extra software is FREE! For todays average consumers (who surf the web and type a few word documents), Ubuntu is a great choice!

The only thing that Ubuntu hasn't been able to offer me personally is driver support for my wireless N card on my HP. I'm working on it though. I've even got my wife hooked on the graphic software that can be downloaded for Ubuntu. Ya gotta love open source!


RE: She's right.
By SavagePotato on 2/19/2009 1:09:44 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with Ubuntu is it still lacks polish in many places and is largely do it yourself.

One of the biggest peeves I have with Linux as a whole is ugly font's for example. Even Ubuntu just has ugly fonts. You can put in the ms core fonts, they still look like ass. Yeah you can screw around with things at a deeper level to make them look better but in the end there are just always those little niggling areas where Linux desktops lack.

Example right now on my Slackware desktop with kde 4.2 sure it all looks pretty good with kde 4.2, but theres the annoyances, like the fact that firefox is a GTK app and looks like ass in QT4, yeah I could install the gtk-qt-engine if I wanted to spend the time to get it working, but still.

Linux has all those little annoyances that you have to go to the extra mile to fix to make it how you want, and that is what it is missing to me. The little details.

And of course there is the fact you better be not interested in pc gaming at all if you plan to use it.


RE: She's right.
By ccmfreak2 on 2/19/2009 5:10:39 PM , Rating: 2
But your coming at this from an advanced user standpoint. Once again, most users are not going to care that this font is just off a little, or that app just doesn't look the exact same. As long as they can type and surf, most people are good. And that is what Ubuntu is excellent at. It can still handle most of your media (and in some ways do a better job at it, in other ways not so much), and give you the ability to type and save in a .doc format.

Sure, your gamers will always go to Windows (I'll always keep Windows around for this reason). My point is that Ubuntu is an option. It isn't for everyone, but it is there. As stated before, I dual boot - as in, use both. But Linux is coming along quite strong.


RE: She's right.
By SavagePotato on 2/19/2009 6:15:45 PM , Rating: 2
I would kind of argue the opposite, the basic user being more likely to care about appearances than the advanced user.


RE: She's right.
By dastruch on 2/19/2009 5:34:57 PM , Rating: 2
ya, me loves torrent source!


RE: She's right.
By omnicronx on 2/19/2009 1:20:47 PM , Rating: 3
You mean its not an option you like..

OSX

Linux

Unix

All options..


RE: She's right.
By Slappi on 2/19/2009 9:51:43 PM , Rating: 2
You should change your name to -1


RE: She's right.
By mondo1234 on 2/19/2009 12:15:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That monopoly is defacto, and Linux is always an option


Master Kenobi, I will be waiting for that article on DT..if you have a pa1r, that is...


RE: She's right.
By mondo1234 on 2/19/2009 12:31:48 PM , Rating: 2
Master Kenobi, I hate to reply to my own post, but how about this for a title (from you own post):

"Why Linux is always an option"


RE: She's right.
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 2/19/2009 1:40:20 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like an interesting idea. You could do it yourself and submit it, I'm sure Kris would be happy to put it up. If not I might look into it.


RE: She's right.
By Dreifort on 2/19/2009 11:26:32 AM , Rating: 2
you can put Linux OS on your computer for free. And HP, Dell, etc is limited by the hardware manufactures and OS software as to who works with who.

But if made available, HP puts a list of drivers for all OS that "officially" support their hardware on their HP support website.

Don't get mad because the Software or Hardware company won't do the legwork of uninstalling and reinstalling OSes for you. Stop being lazy.


RE: She's right.
By mindless1 on 2/19/2009 1:50:22 PM , Rating: 3
That's not quite accurate. For example, HP may list several OS in their driver download section for any particular model, may have drivers that are known to work on XP, but are not listed and linked anywhere... even when that model used to ship with XP and XP restore discs can be ordered for a nominal charge!

As for "legwork", it's called setting up and selling a system, a finished PC product instead of just a bunch of circuit boards screwed into a hunk of plastic that might or might not happen to do anything when power is applied.

Bottom line - the customer wanted XP and was even seemingly willing to pay extra, certainly this is why the product was purchased there instead of elsewhere. The puzzling part is why the purchase was made accepting this addt'l cost and then later the suit about the cost. Frankly I feel she is SOL not because of any issues people here have mentioned, rather because she ACCEPTED THIS WHEN SHE BOUGHT IT BY PAYING FOR IT.


RE: She's right.
By SavagePotato on 2/19/2009 11:56:34 AM , Rating: 2
The word forced get's used alot with Microsoft.

Microsoft forced me to use vista,
Microsoft forced me to pay for XP,
Microsoft forces updates on me with service packs (yes this argument has been made on dailytech)

The reality that people don't want to acknowledge is the only thing forcing you to do anything is the fact that the competition sucks.

Why didn't this woman buy a mac, why didn't she buy a dell with ubuntu? the option is there.

You know why because they suck, and they don't do what she wants to do with the computer. It's not about force it's about fail, the competitions failure to do just that, compete.


RE: She's right.
By just4U on 2/19/2009 12:24:08 PM , Rating: 2
Sometimes I think they go and buy this stuff to purposely sell Microsoft. They see a oportunity, think hmm.. purchase it and then head off to the lawyer.


RE: She's right.
By mondo1234 on 2/19/2009 12:27:45 PM , Rating: 1
I do know that after the "Plays for Sure" debacle, MS forced me to buy an Ipod. I wish the Zune was more competitive in its market. Competition is good.


RE: She's right.
By ccmfreak2 on 2/19/2009 12:42:43 PM , Rating: 2
I agree entirely. It's the spirit of competition that led me to the Creative Zen. I enjoy their interface a lot more. Plus, I'm not forced into using iTunes and don't have to worry about moving all my MP3's into "aac" format (or whatever that format is).


RE: She's right.
By SavagePotato on 2/19/2009 1:15:40 PM , Rating: 2
Completely different thing, There is a ton of competition throughout the mp3 player market, and the cellphone market.

It doesn't change the fact that no one makes a competing product to Windows that is equal.

If Microsoft was the horrible bastion of force that people make them out to be why have they not managed then to "force" the zune down peoples throats?

Oh right because there is equal or better competition...

Your counterpoint actually proves my point.


RE: She's right.
By mondo1234 on 2/19/2009 3:02:09 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I didn't, but keep thinkin that anyway. I like competition, I said it above.

quote:
Completely different thing, There is a ton of competition throughout the mp3 player market, and the cellphone market.


I didn't say anything about the cell phone market. Competition is knocking on Windows Mobiles door by the day. I think that it is OK. I am not so sure that you agree. On that note, I dont think releasing new windows mobile software that wont work with a customers Zune library is smart, but that is up to MS.

quote:
If Microsoft was the horrible bastion of force that people make them out to be why have they not managed then to "force" the zune down peoples throats?


They cant force the Zune down peoples throats as the Zune is not a market control product like windows. MS has no leverage with the Zune. The only tap root they have is to make it only windows compatible. Windows is and always has been the hammer for MS. Hystorically, it hasn't been their big money maker. Its just the hammer.

Take your meds, life is actually OK. I am not crying for any of these big companies. I'll say it again, Competition is always good in the marketplace. Without it, this stuff happens. We can still agree, but for different reasons.


RE: She's right.
By SavagePotato on 2/19/2009 3:18:31 PM , Rating: 2
You go back and forth comparing apples to oranges then trying to make it out like you said something else.

I am not sure even you know what you are saying much less managing to convince me of what you are saying.

Could it be that they in fact can't force anything, aka reality. The zune isn't a big takeoff because there is already competition, one could similarly accuse apple of monopolizing the mp3 market with the ipod because it is a success, that wouldn't make it true any more than Windows being a monopoly or being forced on anyone.

I looked and looked but you know, the Microsoft anti competition squad just never showed up to break my legs and force me to use windows when I installed slackware on this box.


RE: She's right.
By reader1 on 2/19/09, Rating: -1
RE: She's right.
By SavagePotato on 2/19/2009 12:57:56 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe if you thought about it for a second you would realize it is reality.

Why is there no competition to Microsoft, no one offers what they do.

The closest in supporting all possible platforms like Microsoft does linux and before you make some stupid comment bear in mind I am typing this from a Slackware desktop.

Apple will not support the base of hardware that Microsoft does because they are so determined to milk their hardware for exorbitant prices it is actually holding them back.

The opportunity is there for someone to build an OS that actually competes with Microsoft in all areas but no one can do it why? Why can't apple do it with OSX. Because it takes alot of developers and costs alot of money to build and support a polished product for every random peice of hardware on the market.

Yes Linux supports a wide base of hardware but save for Ubuntu it is unusable for the majority, and even Ubuntu leaves alot to be desired, however promising.

As much as you may like the open source community it does not work for a mass market desktop OS.


RE: She's right.
By mindless1 on 2/19/2009 2:02:22 PM , Rating: 2
You're putting the cart before the horse.

There were other OS being developed and anti-competitive practices allowed MS to gain the momentum needed to deprofitize competitive commercial OS development for the PC.

Apple only managed to survive through brilliant marketing to numskulls and the next most popular OS is FREE. It being free says enough about the situation. That was the state of things years ago, today if someone says nobody else offers what MS does it is only because this state has continued onto this day.

That's good, and bad. Good to have the world using a similar interface so one can go from one computer to another and use it productively. Good that we have unified efforts towards massive software and driver collections, and a huge peer support group when problems arise. The bad part is that ultimately we need an open market, competition to drive innovation and keep cost in check, and customer choice above all.

Some are too quick to claim Windows users have other choices. Only if you carefully chose to ignore all the factors which made you claim "no one offers what they do", which is a for-profit widely supported commercial OS for PCs. This is ignoring Apple, who MS lets live only so they're not the only one left. IF MS wanted Apple what were they worth around the time Win98 came out, about $2B? Easily within MS' reach.


RE: She's right.
By omnicronx on 2/19/2009 2:15:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There were other OS being developed and anti-competitive practices allowed MS to gain the momentum needed to deprofitize competitive commercial OS development for the PC.
So it is MS's fault that MSDOS was the chosen OS for IBM..(and as such IBM-compatibles) yep thats anticompetitive alright..

There were many better OS's than DOS upon the release of the first IBM PC, MS did not gain momentum due to anti-competitive practices as it was out of their control, it was IBM (and the popularity of the PC-compatibles) that put them in the position they are in today.


RE: She's right.
By SavagePotato on 2/19/2009 2:45:02 PM , Rating: 3
Microsoft's track record for anti competitive practices is known, they are not the nice guy. No corporate entity is, the only nice guy out there is open source and nice guys finish last. Last I looked Apple isn't much of a nice guy outfit either.

The fact of the matter is yes, Microsoft is out to get your money, every corporation is, that is why they exist.

The very nature of something like a desktop OS is such that it is extremely hard for multiple standards to exist. Why does Linux struggle so in this arena? because it is hurting on two fronts. One it is not compatible with Microsoft developed software, two because it is not unified enough for developers to make boxed products for it. Hell it is barely unified enough for apps like Firefox which get visually crippled in KDE because of the divide between QT and GTK.

In short there has to be a good reason for developers to support a platform. OSX is making alot of gains in this area, you see apps like photoshop being released with osx support and even some games like world of warcraft. By comparison OSX is a paragon of organization and developmental ease compared to linux. Yet you still don't see much development for it, and lets not even get started on how anti competitive apple is as well.

It offends me when I see the word forced get used in a situation like this however. It conjures up images of jackbooted Microsoft thugs holding you at gunpoint and saying "you must downgrade to XP and pay us for the privilege". No you have options, the fact that the options aren't that appealing is only because Microsoft does what it does well.

Despite all the complaining and posturing about how horrible windows is, or how windows killed your inner child that you see flooding the internet the fact still remains, no one offers a competing product that does the same. Would you expect that the Microsoft anti competition hit squad would show up at Apple HQ if Apple decided to go multi platform and sell OSX? Because that's what it seriously sounds like the way alot of the anti Microsoft crowd talks.


RE: She's right.
By vortex222 on 2/19/2009 1:19:47 PM , Rating: 2
So Reader1 is a closet mac fanboy.


RE: She's right.
By Dreifort on 2/19/2009 1:24:08 PM , Rating: 2
he's in the closet alright....but I don't think it's for a mac.


RE: She's right.
By musgrove on 2/20/09, Rating: 0
RE: She's right.
By Silverforce11 on 2/19/2009 6:53:01 PM , Rating: 2
You do realize that you can buy a PC without any OS and then you can pick one you prefer?

If you buy something that comes prepackaged with software, and then complain that it costs $$ to replace something (say hi labor cost!) its your own stupidity.

Clearly, this woman is stupid and needs her case be thrown out, and MS needs to sue her for damaging its image.


RE: She's right.
By Devo2007 on 2/20/2009 1:26:39 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly!

I remember when Sony offered to uninstall the "crapware" typically found on OEM PC's for a $50 fee. Luckily they reversed this decision after public outcries, but they were well within their rights for doing so. Nobody called this "anti-competitive" then.


RE: She's right.
By TOAOCyrus on 2/20/2009 11:34:41 AM , Rating: 2
The thing is even if MS has a monopoly she still has no case because a monopoly is not illegal. MS is not hurting competition by charging a fee to switch from one of their OWN products to another so I don't see how this violates anti-trust laws.


RE: She's right.
By dav115 on 2/21/2009 4:20:57 PM , Rating: 2
I hope MS sue her for damages and absolutely take her to the cleaners. I have just about had it with all of these quick dollar lawsuits against Microsoft and other large companies; it's about time these people get taken down a peg or two to set an example.


"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen














botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki