by Mike Masnick
Mon, Mar 1st 2010 5:59pm
Last year we noted that while it was amusing to see a lawsuit from someone angry that they had to pay to downgrade from Vista to XP on their computer, it was hard to see how it was an antitrust violation, as the lawsuit was alleging. As we joked, perhaps that could be Microsoft's new business model: keep coming out with worse and worse operating systems, but charge people more and more to stick with the older systems. Either way, as we expected, that lawsuit didn't last long and was recently thrown out. As the court found, there was no evidence that Microsoft actually benefited from users downgrading. It seems pretty clear that Microsoft has always wanted people to sign up for its latest operating systems, and it would greatly prefer that over anyone (paying or not) downgrading to older versions. It also turned out that the "fee" the woman who brought the lawsuit paid was not to Microsoft, but to the computer manufacturer (in that case, Lenovo). In fact, the court pointed out that, technically, Microsoft gave a "free" extra operating system with the deal, since the buyer received both Vista and XP, at no additional revenue to Microsoft.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Accidentally Revealed FTC Document Details Some Questionable Google Practices, But Not The Ones Most People Focused On
- How Corporate Sovereignty Provisions Could Undermine Anti-Trust Actions
- Did Lenovo/Superfish Break The Law?
- A Bit Late, But Lenovo CTO Admits The Company Screwed Up
- Verizon Makes It Very Clear Its 'Spectrum Crunch' Never Existed