[Am-info] Judge J. Frederick Motz -- On the take or taken?

[Gene Gaines]

Text below, or see this NYT link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/03/technology/ebusiness/03APPL.html?todaysheadlines

I have been following this.

In my view, the proponents of this settlement are either
on the take (being paid off, after all, money seems to
be able to buy the morality of many lawyers) or are truly
fools.

There is no way what is being reviewed by Judge J. Frederick
Motz an be viewed as a proper settlement.

We will see if J. Frederick Motz is a crook or a fool.

If any reader here has any other interpretation, please
share it with the list.

Sorry to be so partisan, but I see no other possible view.

Gene Gaines
gene.gaines@gainesgroup.com
Sterling, Virginia

New York Times
December 3, 2001

Steve Jobs Rejects Microsoft Plan

By LAURIE J. FLYNN

To Apple Computer (news/quote), the proposal by 
Microsoft (news/quote) and plaintiffs to settle more 
than 100 class-action antitrust lawsuits against 
Microsoft is riddled with flaws - and carries a 
big competitive threat. 

Microsoft's proposal to donate more than $1 billion
in software, computers and expertise to the nation's
poorest schools would do little damage to the
company's bottom line, Apple and other critics say,
but would help it shore up its lead in one market it
does not already dominate: education. Apple has
long been a significant player in the education
market for computers, though its share has been
shrinking in recent years. 

"It strengthens Microsoft's position in education
against their only competitor, and at the same time it
gets them off the hook," said Roger Black, an
industry analyst with the market research firm IDC.
"It even makes them look generous." 

Yet Microsoft and other proponents of the
settlement insist that the deal would give the
company no new advantage in the market because
it would establish a grant program giving schools
money to buy software. They say the program is
designed so that participating schools can use the
grants to buy Apple equipment and software other
than Microsoft Windows. And as part of the
settlement, Microsoft would establish a computer
refurbishment plan that would make 200,000
computers - Windows machines and Apple
Macintosh computers - available to schools. 

But as Apple's chairman and chief executive,
Steven P. Jobs, sees it, the deal gives Microsoft
tremendous advantages. "We're baffled that 
a settlement imposed against Microsoft
for breaking the law should allow, even 
encourage, them to unfairly make inroads
into education - one of the few markets left 
where they don't have monopoly
power," Mr. Jobs said in a statement last week. 

In a document filed with the court last week, 
Apple asked that, among other things,
every aspect of the donation program, 
including teacher training, be handled
independently of Microsoft, with 
oversight to ensure impartiality. 

"By its very nature, the settlement would 
heavily promote and subsidize the schools'
acquisition of Microsoft products at the 
expense of more effective and appropriate
alternatives," Apple wrote.

Apple has reason for concern. The 
company's share of the overall personal
computer market is only 4 percent, 
compared with a share of more than 90 percent
for computers running Microsoft Windows. 
But education has been an Apple
stronghold. The company estimates that 
about 47 percent of computers used in
American schools are Apple systems - 
even if some of those are obsolete
Macintosh models and even older Apple II 
machines. 

These days, only about 26 percent of sales to 
elementary and secondary schools are
for Apple computers, according to estimates
 from IDC.

Several industry trade groups and legal experts 
agree with Apple's assessment and
have urged Judge J. Frederick Motz of the 
United States District Court in Maryland
to reject the Microsoft settlement proposal. 
After 10 hours of presentations from
both critics and proponents of the proposal, 
Judge Motz said last week that he
would rule by mid- December whether to 
accept or reject it.