
By Maureen O'Gara | Article Rating: |
|
October 3, 2003 11:11 AM EDT | Reads: |
21,572 |
Microsoft's lawyers sent Lindows.com CEO Michael Robertson a letter
lambasting the www.MSfreePC.com
Web site that Lindows set up a
couple of weeks ago as "deceptive," saying that it "seriously
mischaracterizes" the settlement Microsoft signed in the California
class action alleging it overcharged for Windows, and that it
"misleads the public and encourages class members to submit improper
fraudulent claims that will be denied by the Settlement Claims
Administrator."
They gave Lindows until noon California time on Monday to decide
whether to correct the site or take it down or else, they said,
"Microsoft will take all appropriate action to protect the integrity
of the settlement claims process and the settlement benefits to
which the class members and California public schools are entitled
as well as its own interests."
The deadline came and went without Lindows making a move. Tuesday,
Robertson issued a copy of a letter that he said he sent to Bill
Gates refusing to do anything about the MSfreePC site "in spite of
your threats" and basically said, "See you in court."
Presumably Microsoft will oblige. However, its lawyers said they
couldn't comment on their "litigation strategy."
Lindows set up the site to route as much of the settlement monies
into its own coffers as it could. It offers consumers a purportedly
"Instant Settlement" and dangles the offer of a free PC to the first
10,000 people who buy $100 worth of its products. Consumers can get
a free StarOffice and the Lindows operating system in the process.
In an apparent bid for sympathy and to raise the level of invective
aimed at Microsoft a notch higher, Lindows.com turned the letter
dated September 26 that it got from Heller Ehrman, the law firm
representing Microsoft in the California class action - the one that
Microsoft recently settled for a nominal $1.1 billion in vouchers -
into a press release.
Heller Ehrman says Lindows ignores the rules and regulations that
the court overseeing the settlement process has preliminarily
approved. Apparently Microsoft's lawyers weren't the first to
complain. The attorneys for the plaintiffs in the class action beat
them to it by sending Lindows a letter voicing their concerns first,
but evidently that letter doesn't object quite as much the Heller
Ehrman letter - and wasn't from Microsoft's side - so Lindows didn't
turn that one into a press release.
Heller Ehrman counsel Robert Rosenfeld says in the letter that the
claims process that the court has nominally approved disallows
electronically submitted claims and requires a claim form be signed
with pen and ink, none of this digital signature business. Any
Lindows-inspired claims will be invalid, he says, because they're
not signed. They will also be missing the settlement notice that's
supposed to accompany the claims form "so potential claimants can
make an informed decision about whether to file a claim, object or
do nothing."
Secondly, they will be invalid because the Lindows-inspired claims
will be missing the required proof of purchase and the required part
of the claims form that reads, "All of the information on this form
is true and correct" under penalty of perjury.
Thirdly, they will be invalid, Rosenfeld says, because the
settlement agreement doesn't allow retailers or vendors of
qualifying hardware and software to submit claims on behalf of any
claimant.
The Lindows Web site, however, as Rosenfeld notes, "purports to
authorize Lindows.com to take certain actions to pursue the
claimant's claim" and submit the claim and proof of purchase of
Lindows software to the Settlement Claims Administrator, modify the
claim so that vouchers and checks go to Lindows, open claimants'
mail and cash their checks and apparently appeal any claims that are
denied.
Well, guess what. To avoid a "gray market" in settlement vouchers
from developing, the Settlement Agreement that was signed says
claims can't be transferred at all and anybody that vouchers are
transferred to can't redeem more than $10,000 worth of them.
Rosenfeld accuses Lindows of "encouraging people to submit
fraudulent claims" He says that the "Web site's clear objective is
to encourage claimants to maximize the amount of their claims rather
than submit claims that accurately reflect purchases or benefits to
which they are entitled. For example, the Web site encourages
claimants to submit claims for combinations of products that total
exactly $100, and offers a 'free PC' only to claimants who submit
claims for only one purchased product, only allows claimants to
submit claims for certain combinations of purchased products (with
high total values), and does not allow claims that total less than
$50. The Web site also offers a prepared list of 'sellers' of
software, which encourages claimants to make a hasty, careless or
false designation of the seller of their products instead of
accurately identifying their software purchases before submitting
their claim."
Rosenfeld also complains that Lindows doesn't make it clear that
vouchers are only available for software bought in California, that
California public schools will get two-thirds of whatever is
unclaimed, an incentive for people not to make claims, and
incorrectly suggests the settlement is based on the decision in
Justice Department's antitrust case against Microsoft.
Given that there are actually court-approved rules that govern such
things, one would judge that the publicity-seeking Mr Robertson can
posture all he wants without having his claims recognized as
legitimate, maybe even be accused of fraud - unless of course he
gets the rules changed.
Simplifying the situation, Robertson, who protests that claimants
have to use paper forms and snail mail instead of modern technology,
told Gates in his letter that "If required, we will be a voice in
the courtroom defending a consumer's right to use technology and an
online process to secure their settlement claims. I believe your
company refers to this as the "right to innovate."
Robertson's letter, obviously written for public consumption, calls
Microsoft "hypocritical" for using digital signatures to advance its
business while it "resists them whenever it may negatively impact
your bottom line." It also accuses it of using the "public schools
as a smokescreen to hide your true motivations, which is to reduce
the payout Microsoft has to perform. As you are aware, Microsoft
benefits greatly if consumers do not submit claims or drop out
anywhere in the laborious process. One-third of all unclaimed
dollars are refunded back to Microsoft....It's undeniable that
Microsoft's actual settlement amount will be dramatically less than
the $1.1 billion amount trumpeted in the headlines - the complexity
of the manual settlement claim process...will see to that. The $1.1
billion number is purely a publicity stunt..."
CIO, CTO & Developer Resources
Published October 3, 2003 Reads 21,572
Copyright © 2003 SYS-CON Media, Inc. — All Rights Reserved.
Syndicated stories and blog feeds, all rights reserved by the author.
Related Stories
More Stories By Maureen O'Gara
Maureen O'Gara the most read technology reporter for the past 20 years, is the Cloud Computing and Virtualization News Desk editor of SYS-CON Media. She is the publisher of famous "Billygrams" and the editor-in-chief of "Client/Server News" for more than a decade. One of the most respected technology reporters in the business, Maureen can be reached by email at maureen(at)sys-con.com or paperboy(at)g2news.com, and by phone at 516 759-7025. Twitter: @MaureenOGara
IoT & Smart Cities Stories
![]() Feb. 16, 2019 04:45 PM EST Reads: 14,062 |
By Zakia Bouachraoui Feb. 16, 2019 04:00 PM EST |
By Zakia Bouachraoui ![]() Feb. 16, 2019 03:30 PM EST |
By Yeshim Deniz ![]() Feb. 16, 2019 05:45 AM EST |
By Yeshim Deniz Feb. 16, 2019 03:15 AM EST |
By Zakia Bouachraoui Feb. 16, 2019 01:00 AM EST |
By Pat Romanski Feb. 16, 2019 12:15 AM EST |
By Roger Strukhoff Feb. 14, 2019 05:00 PM EST |
By Elizabeth White Feb. 13, 2019 08:15 PM EST |
By Liz McMillan Feb. 13, 2019 06:45 PM EST |