The 60% Margin Of Error (11/28/01)
SceneLink
 

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?


 
SceneLink (3419)
And Now For A Word From Our Sponsors
 

Mash-ups and original music by AtAT's former Intern and Goddess-in-Training

Prim M at YouTube

 

The above scene was taken from the 11/28/01 episode:

November 28, 2001: Six weeks to the Power Mac G5? Pinch us, we're dreaming. Meanwhile, Microsoft's $1.6 billion settlement proposal looks mighty skimpy now that the company's economist admits that a trial award could be as high as $12.5 billion, and the key to buying a cheap iBook is fizzy sugar water, and lots of it...

Other scenes from that episode:

  • 3418: Tempting Fate & Loving It (11/28/01)   The G5 saga continues, and now more than ever it's getting kind of tricky to find the line. You know the line we mean: on one side of it is the sensible town of Plausible Speculation, populated with published facts and credible insider info; on the other there's the fevered burg of Rampant Wishful Thinking, land of the pipe dream and home of the whopper...

  • 3420: The Sugar Rush Pays Off (11/28/01)   The holidays are upon us, and we know that nothing would please your generous and giving spirit more than for you to send us, your doting and hardworking AtAT staff, a brand new iBook. (Awwww, how sweet!)...

Or view the entire episode as originally broadcast...

Vote Early, Vote Often!
Why did you tune in to this '90s relic of a soap opera?
Nostalgia is the next best thing to feeling alive
My name is Rip Van Winkle and I just woke up; what did I miss?
I'm trying to pretend the last 20 years never happened
I mean, if it worked for Friends, why not?
I came here looking for a receptacle in which to place the cremated remains of my deceased Java applets (think about it)

(1233 votes)

As an Amazon Associate, AtAT earns from qualifying purchases

DISCLAIMER: AtAT was not a news site any more than Inside Edition was a "real" news show. We made Dawson's Creek look like 60 Minutes. We engaged in rampant guesswork, wild speculation, and pure fabrication for the entertainment of our viewers. Sure, everything here was "inspired by actual events," but so was Amityville II: The Possession. So lighten up.

Site best viewed with a sense of humor. AtAT is not responsible for lost or stolen articles. Keep hands inside car at all times. The drinking of beverages while watching AtAT is strongly discouraged; AtAT is not responsible for damage, discomfort, or staining caused by spit-takes or "nosers."

Everything you see here that isn't attributed to other parties is copyright ©,1997-2024 J. Miller and may not be reproduced or rebroadcast without his explicit consent (or possibly the express written consent of Major League Baseball, but we doubt it).