NET RESULTS: The decision not to allow the proposed Microsoft settlement to proceed only serves to block underfunded schools from getting much -needed PCs
Plenty of people are delighted that Microsoft got a legal slap in the face last week.
The rejection involved an adjunct action to everyone's favourite antitrust trial, in which a US judge decided not to accept Microsoft's proposed out-of-court settlement to more than 100 private antitrust lawsuits.
The suits are part of the continuing fallout from the antitrust suit brought against Microsoft by the US Department of Justice oh-so-long-ago. You know, back when the markets were looking good and the suffix dotcom lent a company an aura of cutting-edge hipness rather than evoking sniggers.
Basically, the lawsuits claim that tens of thousands of consumers have been overcharged for Microsoft software. But all those consumers would only get around $10 back as a result of the actions. So some prosecuting lawyers suggested, instead of lots of little payouts, Microsoft could donate $1 billion in computers, software and services to 12,500 low-income and disadvantaged US schools. Microsoft was keen to do this. But a federal judge in Baltimore rejected the settlement.
This rejection is a big headache for Microsoft. It's also stupid. It's indicative of just how many technology companies, judges and lawyers are completely cut off from the real world. Not to mention the often-ridiculous Anything But Microsoft (ABM) brigade, who kicked up a major fuss about the proposal.
The argument made by the judge and all the other opposition voices was that giving lots of Microsoft software to schools would give the company an advantageous marketing position later on. Having known only Microsoft software, those kids might demand their parents buy only Microsoft software. They might grow up and continue to buy even more Microsoft software into adulthood.
Oh, please! We are talking about schools where many of the students and their families cannot even imagine purchasing a home PC and software.
To its discredit, one of the biggest whingers about this proposed deal (and there were many) was Apple Computer.
Apple is the dominant computer player in education, with about half of the US market. There are good reasons for this. Teachers and students like Macintosh computers. They are extremely user-friendly, fun to use and have some great software. Apple computers are also the only ones that run Mac software and the Mac operating system because Apple decided a few years ago that it would no longer let other hardware makers build clones of Macintosh computers.
Now, let's just pause for a brief moment to consider this idea. Imagine what people - much less the courts - would say if Microsoft decided that the only computers in the world that could run its Windows operating system were computers that Microsoft would build and sell.
Talk about an abusive monopoly! We don't get too worked up about this because Apple has only about 3 per cent of the computing market overall, but still. And ironically, one could argue with justice that such a policy (and the high prices that went with it) demolished Apple's once-likely chances of being a, even the, leading market player.
But back to the matter at hand. Let us note that Apple has dominated the education market for more than a decade. And then, let's recall that Apple, despite this huge marketing advantage with young, ripening consumers, subsequently loses almost all of them as future Mac owners.
This is despite the fact that Macs definitely have a cooler brand image with this brand-conscious age-group than fustier Microsoft, which has only recently gained some hip credentials by releasing the X-Box gaming console. But Apple has watched its market penetration slide for a decade.
One could write a dissertation about why this should be so. And I am not arguing for or against any particular point of view. I use both Macs and PCs and find both useful, enjoyable and annoying in equal measure. I'm just trying to underline why the judge's main argument doesn't wash with me.
But there's a much bigger issue here and that's the one that the small-minded quibblers have missed entirely, to their deep shame. We are not talking about whether a bunch of elite Stanford University students will be strong-armed into a long-term relationship with Windows and .NET. We are talking about whether kids from some of the poorest areas and most under-funded schools in the US get their hands on a keyboard at all. If Microsoft doesn't give those schools software and computers, then those children and teachers simply won't get any software and computers, full stop.
I don't notice anyone - Apple, or any charitable organisation, or the judge, or the teams of lawyers arguing against this particular settlement - rushing in with an alternative way to give that equipment to those schools. It's all or nothing. It's as if Government-funded school lunches for poor children were withdrawn because the courts felt one manufacturer shouldn't have a monopoly on supplying crisps. Babies and bathwater come to mind.
Opponents to the deal have also put forward the even sillier idea that the settlement really would have been a burden to the schools because they don't have the funds to hire the computer specialists needed to run PCs and train teachers in their use.
Such arguments are beyond belief. Do these people see any reality beyond their range rovers, designer kitchens and pension funds? Those arguing full throttle against the deal must be incredibly self-absorbed if they would seriously insist that a bunch of software buyers - people who already own their own PCs - need a $10 bill more than thousands of disadvantaged schools need PCs.
Surely, the answer to such objections is to change and broaden the nature of the settlement to include more computing expertise, some Macs and some non-Microsoft software, and then let it go ahead. But sacrificing badly needed improvements in poor schools on the altar of anti-Microsoft sentiment is a complete and utter disgrace.
