Well, we were hoping for some sustained hysterics to erupt from the whole "One-Year Office v.X License" brouhaha, but unfortunately it turned out to be a bust; the MacInTouch reader who claimed that the license specified "that the product will 'de-activate' one year (365 days) from activation" kinda sorta completely neglected the whole preceding clause that reportedly read along the lines of "If you purchased this software on a subscription plan..." Oops. As of today, MacInTouch has very quietly yanked the original letter with (as far as we noticed) nary a mention of the error, leaving our quote from the missive the only evidence that it ever existed at all. Easy come, easy go.

But there's clearly a law of conservation of drama in the Redmond area, because even as that potential doozy of an issue fizzled out, Microsoft's proposed class action settlement for a couple hundred private antitrust cases just gets more and more exciting. Yesterday we noted that Steve Jobs himself had leaped into the fray, saying that he was "baffled" by the idea that Microsoft might atone for abusing its monopoly power by volunteering to extend that monopoly into the nation's schools. That's hardly an overreaction, since most sane beings would notice that Microsoft would come out of the deal way, way ahead. The company would get to infect the nation's school system with its products with zero effort or competition, and most of the "$1.6 billion" it would have to "spend" in providing the goods really amounts to just about zilch, since $839.5 million of that is in free software, which costs next to nothing to duplicate. Heck, it'd be the wisest money Microsoft never spent.

Okay, so today it gets even better; faithful viewer Michael Grey pointed us towards an article in the Baltimore Sun which informs us that a "mathematical error" led Microsoft's economist to "gravely underestimate" how much the plaintiffs might have won if the cases went to trial. Initially he reported that figure to be about $5 billion (and Microsoft's settling for $1.6 billion, most of which isn't even real money-- talk about getting off cheap). But because "an assistant had omitted part of a formula," the actual potential trial award is closer to $12.5 billion. Whoops! Evidently that was some formula. Hey, what's another $7.5 billion to Microsoft, though? Gates probably has that much change in his sofa. It does make Microsoft's proposed $1.6 billion settlement look a lot less attractive, however, despite the company's claims that "the incorrect figure had not been used during settlement negotiations." (A likely story.)

Look, we've got nothing against Microsoft giving money to the nation's underprivileged schools (although $1.6 billion is sounding skimpier and skimpier). But we don't think the company should profit from the act by furthering the very monopoly that it was sued for abusing in the first place. If Microsoft wants to settle a $12.5 billion lawsuit for $1.6 billion, hey, that's fine with us... but make 'em pony up the cash, divvy it up among said schools, and let the schools decide what technology they want to buy. If that turns out to be Dells running Windows, well, that's unfortunate, but at least then we know the schools made that choice-- and if they're smart they'll buy iBooks and AirPort gear instead. Surely having the funds and the choice is in the best interests of the schools-- and obviously this is an entirely unselfish proposal and Microsoft only has the schools' best interests at heart, right? Right?