Microsoft fooling justice?

In the private antitrust suits, Microsoft claims that end users are indirect purchasers of Windows, so only original equipment manufacturers have the right to sue for antitrust. The courts have accepted Microsoft's argument (Illinois Brick decision) and thrown out many of the private antitrust suits. Back in the government case, Microsoft claims that OEMs are not Microsoft's customers, end users are Microsoft's customers, so any restrictions Microsoft places on OEMs is not a restriction on customers. Does that sound like doublespeak?

Of course it does. Did you expect any big business to use any other sort of 'speak'?

Have you ever heard about my Dell problems? I rang up, ordered a computer. I asked what was included, she said 'blah, blah, blah and Windows', my response, 'is it possible to get it with out Windows and any of the other applications and receive a discount off my computer purchase', her reply, 'no', then I asked, 'how about no refund, hence, nothing on the computer and I pay the same amount', her response 'no', seems rather strange, considering I would get a blank computer, they've (Dell) has saved $100, that should be a win-win situation.

Matthew Gardiner

Said Bob Hauck in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 01 Aug 2001 01:44:28

Of course; I expect them to be honest and not lie. There are laws against fraud and deceptive sales practices, entirely separate from anti-trust law.

If they argue X and not Y in court A, but argue Y and not X in court B, this could cost them in appeals court C.

Usually, if it can be proven they have has done this in seperate cases, all favorable (to Micosoft) testimony involved in these arguments might get thrown out, which may gut their defense.

Ask in the legal groups what estoppel means. If they did this, it is dumb as all hell.

Pope Charles SubGenius Pope of Houston

This is what I know. In the state/federal antitrust case, Microsoft's attorney clearly stated and otherwise argued that the end users are Microsoft's real customers. The private suits are not nearly as familiar to me. All I know is that Microsoft has relied on some 'Illinois Brick' decision to get many of them thrown out. That decision prohibits certain states' indirect purchasers (end users) from suing for antitrust. There has been much talk about antitrust law being focused on the consumer, and not on other businesses. In the private cases, Microsoft must have at least implicitly argued that original equipment manufacturers are its customers. Otherwise, how would antitrust be dealing with consumers if OEMs are not (in light of Illinois Brick) Microsoft's customers? The smaller cases are not getting nearly as much media attention, but I might look for the transcripts, I guess.

If an attorney could find a case in which Microsoft explicitly and particularly argued that their customer was the end user, and found before that a case where MS explicitly argued that the OEM was their customer and not the end user, that attorney could move that MS be estopped, prevented, from relying on the later claim.

It is a basic foundation of law that one cannot argue X when its convenient and then argue not X when X is no longer convenient. If it is proven that they argued X in a court of law, they are stuck with X.

On the other hand, arguing X but noting that in some states Not X is the law, may not be grounds for estoppel, they may not argue Not X but may be merely delighted that that is the law in some states, and may thus insist the law there be enforced.

Then its just sleazy and hateful.

Pope Charles SubGenius Pope of Houston