Jobs comments on the Microsoft settlement
November 27, 2001
Apple Slams Microsoft Proposal
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 1:42 p.m. ET
BALTIMORE (AP) -- Apple Computer Inc. on Tuesday criticized Microsoft Corp.'s plan to settle its consumer class-action lawsuits by donating refurbished computers, hardware and other resources to the nation's poorest schools.
"We're baffled that a settlement imposed against Microsoft for breaking the law should allow, even encourage, them to unfairly make inroads into education -- one of the few markets left where they don't have monopoly power," Apple chief executive Steve Jobs said in a statement.
Under the proposal made public last week, Microsoft and some plaintiffs agreed the company would provide more than $1 billion worth of Microsoft software, refurbished personal computers and other resources to more than 12,500 of the nation's poorest schools.
Critics contend the proposal will only serve to enhance Microsoft's competitive advantage in schools while doing little to meet the poorest schools' extensive needs.
Both sides were in court Tuesday to argue the settlement's merits before U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz in Baltimore.
Motz told a courtroom filled with more than 100 spectators -- many of them lawyers involved in the case -- that he did not know how he might rule.
"I have no idea what I am going to do," Motz said. "I want to hear from everybody."
Some lawyers who attended Tuesday's hearing, including the lead counsel for plaintiffs in California, have objected to the settlement, calling it inadequate.
And Apple, long one of the leaders in educational computers and software, filed a brief arguing that the settlement would only further Microsoft's monopoly power -- the concern that prompted the lawsuits in the first place.
Microsoft and Apple, once fierce rivals, have been on relatively friendly terms since 1997, when Microsoft made a $150 million investment in its rival to help keep Apple afloat.
Nonetheless, analyst Rob Enderle of Giga Information Systems said he wasn't surprised by Apple's strong criticism of the deal. "Apple is clearly the company that could be the most damaged" by the proposal, he said.
Michael Hausfeld, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers in favor of the settlement, said it would help close the "digital divide" -- the gap between affluent students, who generally have easy access to technology, and poor students, who do not.
Hausfeld said if consumers pursued their claim against Microsoft and eventually won the case, they would stand to recover as little as $6 each, before court costs were deducted.
"We clearly have a choice: We can spend several years, and a great deal of money, fighting the private antitrust cases in the courts for a few dollars benefit per claimant, or we can force Microsoft to assist economically challenged children now," Hausfeld said.
A growing group of educators are questioning whether the proposal as it stands will truly meet the schools' needs, though.
"States, districts and schools have spent a lot of time over the last five years creating technology plans," said Helen Soule, director of technology for the state of Mississippi
"I would much rather that they be able to implement those plans with some sort of Microsoft funding, rather than be given specific things that they don't necessarily need," Soule said.
Microsoft said the deal allows schools to choose to spend money on training and resources for non-Microsoft products. But the company concedes that those who go with Microsoft products will be given more resources, such as free software.
"The actual settlement is made up of a basket of resources," said Mark East, worldwide general manager of Microsoft's education solutions group. "The software component is just one of the elements."
The class-action settlement hearings comes as Microsoft continues to attempt to reach a deal with nine states seeking a remedy against the software giant for violating antitrust laws.
The Justice Department and nine other state attorneys general moved earlier this month to settle the lawsuit after Microsoft agreed to new provisions aimed at ensuring that competitors can build software products that work seamlessly with its Windows operating system.
But Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal became the latest official to back away from the proposed deal, saying Tuesday it "has too many gaps and ambiguities."
^------
AP Business Writer Allison Linn contributed to this report from Seattle.
[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>
Apple Slams Microsoft Proposal
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 1:42 p.m. ET
BALTIMORE (AP) -- Apple Computer Inc. on Tuesday criticized Microsoft Corp.'s plan to settle its consumer class-action lawsuits by donating refurbished computers, hardware and other resources to the nation's poorest schools.
"We're baffled that a settlement imposed against Microsoft for breaking the law should allow, even encourage, them to unfairly make inroads into education -- one of the few markets left where they don't have monopoly power," Apple chief executive Steve Jobs said in a statement.
Under the proposal made public last week, Microsoft and some plaintiffs agreed the company would provide more than $1 billion worth of Microsoft software, refurbished personal computers and other resources to more than 12,500 of the nation's poorest schools.
Critics contend the proposal will only serve to enhance Microsoft's competitive advantage in schools while doing little to meet the poorest schools' extensive needs.
Both sides were in court Tuesday to argue the settlement's merits before U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz in Baltimore.
Motz told a courtroom filled with more than 100 spectators -- many of them lawyers involved in the case -- that he did not know how he might rule.
"I have no idea what I am going to do," Motz said. "I want to hear from everybody."
Some lawyers who attended Tuesday's hearing, including the lead counsel for plaintiffs in California, have objected to the settlement, calling it inadequate.
And Apple, long one of the leaders in educational computers and software, filed a brief arguing that the settlement would only further Microsoft's monopoly power -- the concern that prompted the lawsuits in the first place.
Microsoft and Apple, once fierce rivals, have been on relatively friendly terms since 1997, when Microsoft made a $150 million investment in its rival to help keep Apple afloat.
Nonetheless, analyst Rob Enderle of Giga Information Systems said he wasn't surprised by Apple's strong criticism of the deal. "Apple is clearly the company that could be the most damaged" by the proposal, he said.
Michael Hausfeld, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers in favor of the settlement, said it would help close the "digital divide" -- the gap between affluent students, who generally have easy access to technology, and poor students, who do not.
Hausfeld said if consumers pursued their claim against Microsoft and eventually won the case, they would stand to recover as little as $6 each, before court costs were deducted.
"We clearly have a choice: We can spend several years, and a great deal of money, fighting the private antitrust cases in the courts for a few dollars benefit per claimant, or we can force Microsoft to assist economically challenged children now," Hausfeld said.
A growing group of educators are questioning whether the proposal as it stands will truly meet the schools' needs, though.
"States, districts and schools have spent a lot of time over the last five years creating technology plans," said Helen Soule, director of technology for the state of Mississippi
"I would much rather that they be able to implement those plans with some sort of Microsoft funding, rather than be given specific things that they don't necessarily need," Soule said.
Microsoft said the deal allows schools to choose to spend money on training and resources for non-Microsoft products. But the company concedes that those who go with Microsoft products will be given more resources, such as free software.
"The actual settlement is made up of a basket of resources," said Mark East, worldwide general manager of Microsoft's education solutions group. "The software component is just one of the elements."
The class-action settlement hearings comes as Microsoft continues to attempt to reach a deal with nine states seeking a remedy against the software giant for violating antitrust laws.
The Justice Department and nine other state attorneys general moved earlier this month to settle the lawsuit after Microsoft agreed to new provisions aimed at ensuring that competitors can build software products that work seamlessly with its Windows operating system.
But Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal became the latest official to back away from the proposed deal, saying Tuesday it "has too many gaps and ambiguities."
^------
AP Business Writer Allison Linn contributed to this report from Seattle.
[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>
Comments
"let's force MS to donate 1 billion in computers and software to poor schools"
"sir, wouldn't that just increase MS's monopoly?"
"shut up"
"..."
<strong>Isn't it about time that Steve and Co. got up and said something about what Microsoft has been up to? I mean, they have been sooo silent through all of this. There have been several points in time when it could have made a significant difference I think.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm actually glad Apple kept its mouth shut until there was something definite to comment on. It could have just turned into an ugly slanging match which would have done Apple's cause absolutely no good.
Now that this ludicrous settlement has been proposed, it's the right time for Jobs to speak out.
Now that Office X is out, and SUCKS, I really don't see why iOffice shouldnt come. or Cocoa AppleWorks. iWeb, too-
Microsoft? F---'em.
<strong>Well done, Steve.
Now that Office X is out, and SUCKS, I really don't see why iOffice shouldnt come. or Cocoa AppleWorks. iWeb, too-
Microsoft? F---'em.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately, the companies that should have been working on these competing products have been too busy making conference calls to their lawyers and whining to the government about how unfair Microsoft are.
While this kind of a sweeping statement, and I believe Microsoft has acted in some unscrupulous ways, I still believe its competitors have done little to beat Microsoft on the field of play. Netscape in particular deserved everything it got.
[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>
Or Netscape could have gotten suckier and died out on their own.
But we'll never know now will we.
<strong>Had Netscape been given even a chance it could have gotten HUGE.. who knows what browser feature that we could have had by now.
Or Netscape could have gotten suckier and died out on their own.
But we'll never know now will we.</strong><hr></blockquote>
True. Though I really believe Netscape lost out because they didn't understand that the browser was the tie-in to making vast amounts of money, not the product to generate it.
<strong>Motz told a courtroom filled with more than 100 spectators -- many of them lawyers involved in the case -- that he did not know how he might rule.</strong><hr></blockquote>I thought this was a telling sentence. I bet the lawyers are scheduled to get 1/3 of this deal, and don't care if it's a good settlement.
About Apple staying out of it: There were lots of depositions by Apple people (even Amelio, I believe), but it's true that it was mostly McNealy doing the public bitching.
When does Apple's deal with MS end? This year?
IE took over because it is a better browser. Netscape sucked and there was no way they could keep up giving away a free browser and keeping the quality at IE levels. Look where they are now, AOL owns Netscape and their browser is still behind IE and the little progress it has made is thanks to open source programmers.
No tears for Netscape.
Who has written a competetive office application?
I mean, if Office is so shitty it shouldn't be that hard. . .
<strong>I thought this was a telling sentence. I bet the lawyers are scheduled to get 1/3 of this deal, and don't care if it's a good settlement.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're not kidding. The lawyers involved will be able to retire on this one.
[quote]<strong>When does Apple's deal with MS end? This year?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The deal was announced August 6, 1997, and was to last five years, so there's a bit to go yet.
[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: Belle ]</p>
[quote] We think our schools deserve to keep their power of choice, and our kids deserve better than having to learn on old, refurbished Wintel computers."
<hr></blockquote>
<strong>Who has written a competetive office application?
I mean, if Office is so shitty it shouldn't be that hard. . .</strong><hr></blockquote>
The idealist in me agrees. However - and this is where Microsoft holds power because of the advantages it's had for the last few years - Microsoft have the name to push the software.
No matter how good a browser you create, or how complete an office package you produce, people will still say "You can't get Internet Explorer on Macintosh?" or "It's no good to me if it doesn't have Office."
[ 11-27-2001: Message edited by: EmAn ]</p>
Power of choice. . . don't make me laugh. The kids have nothing right now, which is not as good as a refurbished Wintel.
What Steve is basically saying is "Microsoft should buy $1 billion in Apple gear and give it to kids."
He should have kept his mouth shut.
However, I find it shocking that a proposal for Microsoft's reparations should be based around something which has the potential to increase its share in a sector of the market.
How about Microsoft just give the money to an independent body who decide just how it should be spent? If the most basic facilities to give these kids an education aren't there, I'm sure these computers would be the last thing they need. How about new schools, books, and teachers? If Microsoft had a genuine interest in helping these kids, it could donate $1 of every license sale of a copy of Windows to a hardware manufacturer to the government's education fund.
The school should have the right to decide what needs the money. Many schools suffer by lack of class room, teachers, materials and other things.
Computer isn't everything.
If M$ really wants to help those poor kids and school they should donate money instead of their products.
Imagine if a tobacco settlement involved the tobacco company saying "Well, in the interest of helping out poor folks, we'll *donate* 1.6 billion $ worth of our product to them!"
Personally, I don't see any difference. In both cases, the company is recruiting a whole new crop of customers. To have this settlement come out of an *ANTI-TRUST* suit just boggles my mind.
If MS wants to help the schools, give them the cash to spend as they see fit. Period. Otherwise it's just self-serving interest for their pocketbook, as usual.
1) Microsoft products aren't harmful to your health. (yeah hahaha funny anti-MS joke upcoming I'm sure)
2) The whole reason this option came up is because these particular kids don't have. . . *ding* *ding* *ding* *ding* computers! No educational institute is suffering for lack of tobacco.
3) Windows is the market. Yeah there are about 5 Macs for everyone 95 PCs running Windows, but this isn't even close to stifling competition. Apple wasn't planning on doing charity work at these schools, so who is M$ hurting?
This is more akin to McDonald's serving lunches at poor schools for the next 4-5 years as punishment for anti-competitive practices.
[quote]<strong>To have this settlement come out of an *ANTI-TRUST* suit just boggles my mind.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Agreed. I have no idea what any of these solutions have to do with the case.
[quote]<strong>If MS wants to help the schools, give them the cash to spend as they see fit. Period. Otherwise it's just self-serving interest for their pocketbook, as usual.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Giving $1 billion to schools is good publicity no matter how you slice it.
The only difference would maybe Apple getting some scratch off the deal. No moral issues here (past the idiocy of all the proposals). Jobs needs to shut up and make some more good computers.
<strong>IE took over because it is a better browser. Netscape sucked and there was no way they could keep up giving away a free browser and keeping the quality at IE levels. Look where they are now, AOL owns Netscape and their browser is still behind IE and the little progress it has made is thanks to open source programmers.</strong><hr></blockquote>Sure, IE is better than the current Netscape. But at the time that IE began to take over (1997?), it wasn't better than Navigator. I remember when IE was cruddy, and Navigator/Communicator was far better.
The reason it took over is not because it was better, but because MS included it with Windows and made deals with box makers to have IE as the default, and then included it as part of the OS with 98. That's (partially) what the suit is about.