Collusion trial resumes

Microsoft seems to be absolutely fine with antiquated and inadequate machines at the store, so long as they come saddled with Windows Vista and its sophisticated disablement capabilities, better known to many as "DRM". Intel has no problem flogging old machines that nobody wants, as long as there are salesmen out there whose Microsoft recommendation they fall for. This recommendation allegedly came after Intel's CEO, Paul Otellini, conversed with Steve Ballmer. The latter chap ought to have undergone his deposition by now (before Christmas), but there was no press coverage.

A lot of Microsoft-faithful analysts, whose opinions are up for sale at bargain prices [1, 2, 3], ushered and promoted the operating system that turned out to be a dud. So much for their credibility. It's incredible how corruptible one can become, but as Microsoft puts it, "Analysts sell out - that’s their business model..."

Either way, the "Vista Capable" class action lawsuit is far from over and a figure is now named, which is supposedly the amount of money Microsoft -- not just Intel -- made by deliberately lying to their customers.

An expert estimates Microsoft earned more than $1.5 billion through the sale of PCs labeled as "Vista Capable," according to a court document.

The declaration states:

I have been asked by Plaintiffs' counsel to estimate the amount of revenue earned by Microsoft from the licensing of Windows XP on Vista Capable but not Vista Premium Ready PCs sold to Plaintiffs. In Microsoft's Supplemental Responses it estimates that it received revenue of [redacted] from Windows XP licenses on upgradeable PCs sold in the U.S. during the April 2006 through January 2007 period. From the estimates of Windows Capable but not Vista Premium Ready PCs compared to all upgradeable PCs as in Table 1, I estimate that [redacted] of the [redacted] from Windows XP licenses on upgradable PCs were for XP licenses on Vista Capable but not Vista Premium Ready PCs -- those PCs purchased by the Plaintiff class. From these figures, I have, therefore reached the opinion that Microsoft revenue from the Windows XP licensing on Vista Capable but not Vista Premium Ready PCs sold to Plaintiffs was $1.505 billion.

This figure probably does not account for the injury caused to Microsoft's competitors, which is related to vapourware -- an offence in its own right. They froze the market or spurred sales based on false premises.

Microsoft tried to squeeze an unwanted product into PCs where it did not fit. Spotted in the news two days ago was also this report, which is similar to previous ones from May 2008. Microsoft is artificially crippling hardware performance, thus proving that its interests do not lie in maximising value for the customer. It shows not only that monopolies corrupt but that absolute monopolies corrupt absolutely.

Microsoft adds to Atom’s restrictions

One of our readers was kind enough to send in the Microsoft Windows hardware requirements (or limitations) for the NetBook and NetTop platforms. This spec applies to the top 20 OEMs and should have come into effect in September last year.

Since then, Microsoft moved further in its war against GNU/Linux (on sub-notebooks). ASUS conceded that Microsoft had tied them up and it very much shows. Will there ever be a class action lawsuit that protests and seeks compensation for these anti-competitive tactics? This was done before, even when the price of Windows by far exceeded $5. ⬆

"Government attorneys accuse Microsoft of using its monopoly position to bully, bribe and attempt to collude with others in the industry, while illegally expanding and protecting its Windows franchise."

--The antitrust case: a timeline