I received my Microsoft settlement Benefits claim form today, Woop dee doo. I can get a whole 16$ due to a california class action lawsuit. Anyone else get one?

Heres the website: http://www.microsoftcalsettlement.com

16$ huh? How much did you have to spend in your lifetime to get a whooping 16 dollars? I think M$ is pathetic!

what is this about?

Should go to Lindows.com and file it with them. I think you get a free copy of they're OS. With may not seem worth it, but it helps out the movement.

Apparently, there are people who don't realize that the creator of a product is free to attach whatever terms he wishes to the distribution of his product since if one does not like those terms he is free to not use the product.

If there were more OS choices and no just one OS that you can use for gaming I would go with another but there is no free enterprise in what microsoft has done as they have the only OS that you can play the good games on and they control Direct X.
A free market would have several companies creating OS's that you could run games on.
A free market would have fair prices for a decent OS instead of a high prices BSOD and illegal program operation-lose all your work and reboot and hope your mouse still works OS.
I dont remember anything on my windows 98 box that said "THIS OS MAY LOCKUP AT RANDOM, CREATE HOURS OF HORRIBLE FRUSTRATION, LOSS OF DATA AND MAKE YOU WISH YOU HAD A GUN TO SHOOT YOUR MONITOR"
Theres not much of a free market in a monopoly.

But as I've stated in other threads, it's not like you're entitled to a computer and operating system to your liking provided by someone else. Let's say Microsoft chose to stop producing Windows altogether--then you'd be up shit creek without a paddle as far as your "gaming" goes.

Fact of the matter is, Microsoft has no obligation to provide you with a well-behaved operating system good for gaming (or anything else, for that matter)--hell, they have no obligation to provide you with anything at all. You can take what they offer you if you like it, but if you don't like the terms attached to it you can do without. You just have to decide what's more important to you--your desire to avoid that choice (in other words, to have your cake and eat it too) does not give you (or anyone else) the right to use the force of law to compel Microsoft to make something you like--that's called slavery.

"Apparently, there are people who don't realize that the creator of a product is free to attach whatever terms he wishes to the distribution of his product since if one does not like those terms he is free to not use the product."

11 different Federal judges found Microsoft guilty of a long string of criminal acts. None of the Federal judges ever found Microsoft innocent of any of the charges. The judges disagreed a lot on what penalties to impose. So Microsoft is not free to do as they choose.

___________________________________
Be prepared. Create a LifeBoat CD.
http://users.rcn.com/srstites/LifeBo...home.page.html

Steve Stites

I'm not arguing whether or not Microsoft broke the law, I'm arguing that those laws are void and there is no moral obligation to abide by them since they violate the right of a creator to design and build his creation as he wishes.

Yes we are, every child in america is entitled to a computer and good software. Hopefully Hillary or one of the other Democrats wins in 04 so we can institute a west european, socialist economy based on compassion and economic equality for all children and get rid of this unfair capitalist, free market system and also eliminate the first and second ammendments so the government can actually take control of the people and get rid of this rediculous democratic voting system and end this system of individualism and personal freedom because we all know people cannot make good decisions for themselves.

PS: Just Kidding, LOL

In response to your first paragraph:
If M$ up and quit today making windows who would be up shit creek without a paddle? Just because M$ stopped making windows does not mean that game makers are gonna close there doors, they are gonna look for other avenues to produce there games ( ie other platforms).

In response to your second paragraph:
Are you saying that M$ has the right to continue to sell broken software? You pay good money to "buy" windows and they have a right to sell products that don't perform to standard? Look at windows 98, it is now 2003 and there are still patches being uploaded to consumers to cover security threats that have always been there.

I believe M$ has an obligation to there consumers to make a product that works, as well as is secure. They have never been able to live up to the obligation of doing that and blaster worm is a good poster child. If I buy a car and bring it home and it is one screw up after the other, I go back on the manufacturer for lemon laws, why does not the same things apply to windows? Let me answer this for you, it is because Bill Gates is filthy rich and the only way he can continue to get rich is by selling products that need to be upgraded to be fixed.

I am just ashamed that I live in a state that don't want to pursue this, Just because I don't live in California does not mean I should not have a piece of the pie!

Just my 2 cents!

Yes--because you don't have to buy it. Now, if they were making claims as to the quality of their products that could objectively be proven false, then that would be one thing--that's outright fraud and should be punished. But as far as I know that's not the case.

And that is where you are wrong--because essentially you're trying to force someone else to do something your way, and that's called "slavery".

Yet another instance of laws that should not exist, for the reasons I mentioned above.

Why do you think that your desire to avoid the decision of having to decide what is more important to you gives you (or anyone else) the right to demand that everyone else conform what they CHOOSE VOLUNTARILY to build and offer to YOUR specifications?

I would agree in most cases, but you're forgetting one thing.
MS is declared as a monopoly. That's why they lost.
If they where not declared as a monopoly, they would have won this hands down.

No, I'm not. For the umpteenth time in this thread: I know, and I still don't care. Anti-monopoly laws are invalid and there is no moral obligation to abide by them since they violate individual rights; namely, the right of an individual to trade freely with whomever he wishes without outside interference and to set whatever conditions he wishes for the terms of his product.

If you want to prove me wrong, then you will need to prove that those two things are not rights.

Because a monopoly means there preety much isn't choice in that field. You can't go with anyone else.
Many many companies and people are going to be forced to use this company, and companies that don't will go out of buisness.
Antitrust laws, are there to make sure this power of a monopoly is not abused.

Let's face it, Linux is not an option for 95% of people. Those 95% of people, don't even know P C != Windows.

Rights are not absoulte. Liberty is a right, but under certain circumstances it's suspended, like when you enter the army, or when you commit a felony. Note I gave the former argument so that noone can claim I'm saying you have to do something criminal to have a right suspended.

What would the 95% of people do if MS just.. decided, that to use MS you have to pay them $50/year... or tell Dell or Compaq. "If you support Linux with 1 cent, we'll never let you sell windows again"
Do you think they'll support Linux?
Do you think using this kind of power is abuse?