Slashdot Mirror
Judge OKs Class-Action Suit Against Microsoft
faqBastard writes: "This just in from CNBC. A California judge has OK'ed a class action lawsuit against MS. Has it's monopolistic practices harmed Calif consumers?" There really isn't much more to read here, but I'm sure we'll know more soon.
An excerpt:
Why can't we just let the doj handle this?
The DOJ is going after them for violation of antitrust laws, the class action lawsuit is about holding them accountable for the negative impact that their products have had on consumers.
Two cases with related issues behind them, but still separate and distinct.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Some how I have a problem seeing California being harmed by much of anything, aside from falling in the ocean...
Consider how much the State Govt, alone, would recoup in something like this. Large businesses, schools, etc. The state isn't just some nebulous entity tied to a chunk of land.
BTW, we're waiting for that big one, when all the land to the east of the fault slides off into the Atlantic.
Vote Naked 2000
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Federal anti-trust law states that victims of monopolistic practices can sue for three times what they've lost. Not sure if that holds true in state courts, but if it does they could be out some serious money; even if it's just that one state, California makes up a sizeable chunk of the US' population.
--
Even Bill will feel the pinch of lawsuits like this in every state.
True, _if_ lawsuits like this are allowed in every state. From the CNET article on the same story
Courts in Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island and Texas have dismissed similar class-action lawsuits on grounds that laws in those states don't allow them.
This is supposed to be great art. So why does it look like a bunch of decapitated naked people? -- Calvin
From what I've read, the million dollar settlement was a direct response of McD not playing nice. Here's the real story... that particular McD was warned many times about coffee *way* to hot (we're talking above the boiling point here) and refused to do anything about it, saying that people like coffee hot. People may like coffee hot, but I'm sure people don't like it boiling hot! So the lady spills her coffee, finds out about the history of complaints about way too hot coffee, and decides to talk to a lawyer. Initially, they wanted McD to pay *the cost of the medical bills only* and McD flat-out refused, so they took them to court. And they won $1M and the rest was history.
If a company treated me like an ass when I asked nice, you better believe I would do the same thing.
Anyone have any real details
Here are some details from the WSJ
A judge allowed the first class-action suit to proceed against Microsoft Corp. on allegations that the software giant's monopoly harmed California consumers. Dozens of similar suits linger nationwide. In a 21-page opinion released late Tuesday, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Stuart R. Pollak said an untold number of California consumers could be represented in one trial to determine whether they were forced to pay unreasonably high costs for Microsoft products. He said denying the suit "could result in repetitious litigation." "This case involves a very large number of claimants with relatively small amounts at stake," Judge Pollak said. "Most consumers have little incentive to litigate independently since the costs of litigation undoubtedly would overwhelm their potential recovery." Microsoft spokesman James W. Cullinan said the Redmond, Wash., company is reviewing the ruling. "This is just one step in a long process in this case," Mr. Cullinan said. He declined further comment. Attorneys in the case are scheduled to meet with Mr. Pollak on Oct. 4 to prepare for a trial. No trial date has been set yet. The products at issue are Microsoft's Windows operating system, its MS-DOS operating system, Word programs and Excel software purchased on or after May 18, 1994. Microsoft urged Judge Pollak on Aug. 4 not to allow the case to proceed because it would be nearly impossible to determine damages. Microsoft attorney Charles B. Casper argued that the company markets its products to thousands of companies who resell them at different prices, adding that the judge would have to weigh each consumer's claim on a case-by-case basis. Lawyers seeking class-action status said that Microsoft was trying to shield itself behind its size. "Just make your business large enough that you can overcharge and get away with it," San Francisco attorney Daniel J. Furniss argued. Mr. Pollak's decision came three weeks after Microsoft asked a federal judge in Baltimore to dismiss or at least consolidate 62 pending federal and state class-action suits. That action is pending and, so far, none have been able to proceed. Courts in Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island and Texas have dismissed similar class-action lawsuits on grounds that laws in those states don't allow them. The majority of the cases nationwide were filed after U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson in Washington, D.C., ruled that the company violated federal antitrust laws. Microsoft is appealing Mr. Jackson's ruling and his order to split the software giant into two companies. Three weeks ago, Mr. Pollak suggested that it would be a Herculean task for attorneys to demonstrate how consumers were wronged. "If they can't do it, they'll lose the case," Mr. Pollak said. Microsoft has argued that, even if it was a monopoly, consumers in many instances benefited and were not harmed. For instance, Microsoft says Netscape, now a division of America Online Inc., dropped its roughly $50 charge for a Web browser after Microsoft began giving its browser away for free.
Live to be Moderated
Here's the article,
Pretty uninformative, I have to say. How does this show that Microsoft has harme-- oh.---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I worked for a (different) McDonalds at that time. We turned the tempature down a little bit and got so many complaints that we ended up turnging it back up (Note, not up to boiling, but hotter then out compititors). People like coffee hot. Those that don't ask us to put ice in the cup, which we gladdly did free of charge, and always had.
You can read the court decision, what other restaruants were doing all you want. I personally heard several of the complaints about the coffee after that. We didn't change the tempature immeadially after the lawsuit, and didn't get complaints until after the change, which stoped when we brought the tempature back to where it was. Customers could tell the difference, and didn't like it.
On the contrary, these complaints were simmering before the Federal Antitrust trial got rolling. And when it's your choice being limited and your wallet being hit, I'm sure you'll feel the same.
The California case centers around monopolistic practices elimitating choice of other software, which may have brought prices down. The People of the State of California must demonstrate that costs were higher than would normally be if there were competition. This isn't an easy thing to prove, and still hinges to some degree upon the success of the antitrust trial.
If Microsoft Word were being given away free and drove Word Perfect and Displaywriter from store shelves, then they jacked up the prices, it would be open and shut. Most likely people wanted to settle on some standard for documents, spreadsheets, O/S behavior to simplify training, communication and exchange with other parties. The most damning thing really is lack of some storage standard which all vendors could agree on and then compete to make the best wordprocessor. Too many picked Word and the rest have pretty much faded. Without serious competition Microsoft sets prices where they want.
Vote Naked 2000
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I can see the settlement figured out now...
Windows 98 crashes an average of twice a workday. (or ten times a work week)
Re-booting takes an average of one minute and thirty seconds.
Five million (wild estimate) CA consumers use 98 at work.
The average salary of such a worker breaks down to $12/hr.
There are 52 weeks in a year.
So...
10 * 52 = 520
520 * 1.5 = 780
780 * 5000000 = 3900000000
3900000000 / 60 = 65000000
65000000 * 10 = 650000000
That ends up being about $65,000,000 in lost productivity per year for one simgle product. Of course, this isn't counting the travesty of Marco virii. This is what monopoly does...
Of course, saying this on Slashdot is like preaching to the snake-handeling, tounge-speaking, chior.
--
Feminism is the wild notion that women are human beings.
I once got a check for 14 CENTS (the other 32 cents went for the stamp - Damn!) from a Blue Cross class action suit in Maryland. The suit was for BC overcharging on premiums. That year my premiums went up over $300. Oh, and I never signed up for the suit. Who made money on that one? The lawyers.
I wonder. Can I sue the goverment for overpayment of taxes due to the surplus. I would love to have a class action against my garbage collectors who find it difficult to get the trash into the truck rather than on the ground - if they pick it up at all. Can I sue for the pshychological abuse administered by the D.C. Motor Vehicles Administration (similar to experiencing the Spanish Inquisition).
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
I really sincerely doubt it. I don't think you'll find anyone who would argue that cigarette smoking and carbon monoxide are both deadly toxins, and so I think it's totally appropriate that Cali passed those laws. I don't think a "feel good" label is appropriate here, their state government is just concerned with the well being of their citizens, as well they should be. Hey, maybe *that's* why their economy is so good. (isn't it in the top ten worldwide?)
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
Yes, Microsoft has done some things that shouldn't have been done, and yes, they should be held responsible for them. But really! Who is going to benefit from one or more class action lawsuits against the PC software giant? Hint: It won't be the consumers. You can bet that the lawyers will pocket billions before you or I ever see a dollar.
Bill Gates may be despicable in some eyes, but he is a saint compaired to a lot of the folks working in the legal system.
Gonzo
it's but about law firms making money. These large-scale class-action suits net the plaintiffs little money on an individual basis, but the 30% the law firm gets is in the millions. There are firms whose sole practice is to file class-action lawsuits in the name of people who didn't even ask for it.
Basically you get a letter in the mail from the lawyers stating that you are now a plaintiff (one of thousands) in a class-action lawsuit, and if you don't want to participate you have to submit a written letter stating so. This is supposed to protect your right to sue the defendant on your own if you choose to do so, but also exempts you from any proceeds from a successful verdict for the class-action. The problem I have is that you have to write a letter to bow out from a lawsuit you didn't even ask for. The lawyers also have the right to settle out of court with no approval from the plaintiffs, which they usually do for a fraction of the lawsuit amount so that they can make an easy buck.
My wife and I went through this with Sears and Roebuck a couple of years ago. A law firm was suing them for a tens of thousands of plaintiffs in regards to there accounting practices for interest on their credit cards. I took the letter and threw it in the trash. Six months later a letter arrived stating that the suit was settled out of court and we were entitled to $15.00 before lawyer fees, processing etc. The check was for $3.50. I'm sure the law firm took home more than that.
Windows 98 is $189. You're pricing the braindamaged 'upgrade' version.
For comparison, I bought Windows 95 on release day for $149, and paid $89 for WfW six months after release. My copy of Office 95 cost me $189 on release, but copies of Office 97 are still running $239 today. I haven't bought, nor do I intend to buy, Win2K, ME, or Office2K, so I can't comment on their prices.
.sig: Now legally binding!
How can we ever say how farther computing would be if M$ did not stifle competition?
This may get flamed but....
While I do not agree with many of M$'s practices nor do I particularly like there products, without Microsoft, how far would personal computing have evolved?
M$ did bring PCs more into the mainstream. Unfortunatly they also brought more (l)users in as well, but in doing so, look at the price comparisons (for hardware and such). M$ did make it easy for people of average intelligence and far below to use computers, and thus increased the damand. They were useful in their innoveate and embrace attitude *(unfortunatly that was followed by 'Extinguish')*.
Do I like m$ products? no
Do I like their business ethics? no
Did they help in revolutionizing the computer industry? Yes
Do I still still think they're guilty? Yes
Check out MoralDefense.com for some excellent Objectivist rhetoric.
/. community.
I run Linux at home. And my personal boycott against MSFT products has been active since Windows 95. There's no reason to reiterate how much MSFT sucks to the
But, I also feel that a boycott should be the extent of my ability to limit Microsoft's power. Only the individual can lash out against a corporation: by not buying a product. The government has no place in this matter.
If you don't like Windows, be a geek, go to Fry's, and build your own friggin' computer so that Bill never gets his greasy hands on your prized possession. What's the issue?
Don't invite the government to save "the public" on this one. If you bought a MSFT product, you only hurt yourself. I hardly think that "the public" needs protection from MSFT.
Even worse with the case of MSFT is that they've actually provided a decent product to fill a market niche (albeit an incredibly large niche). MSFT has been offering a superior consumer product for years at an excellent price. Windows has brought law and order to the consumer computer market and helped to make computers useful for grandma smith and uncle bob. Windows is an excellent product in that regard.
Even worse, it's obvious that MSFT has had competition through the entire battle. As I recall, AAPL's headquarters are smack-dab in the middle of Silicon Valley; and SUNW's headquarters aren't far down the road. And SGI's and even the now defunct SCO (Tarantella?). There were plenty of choices out there if you really wanted an alternate. But, again: MSFT was providing a product that better suited people's needs at a much better price. Even today one can argue that Windows ME/2000 provides most people with more functionality than they'll ever need.
If you want to destroy Microsoft, don't waste your time with the government. Hack Eazel, GNOME, KDE; or some other Linux component that threatens the power or Redmond.
Invidia fortunum ovit.
Well, I'm not familiar with the shoelace lawsuit you reference, but the coffee lawsuit (Liebeck vs. McDonalds) was a lot more justified that many people seem to think. Tahe a look at what the Consumer Attorneys of California have to say about the case. Another good reference is at http://www.quellerfisher.com/liebeck.html.
Basically, the woman was awarded $200,000 to cover her medical bills (she suffered third-degree burns, acquired in three seconds), but that amount was reduced to $160,000 because she was deemed to be partially at fault. She was also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages, because McDonalds' statements showed that they knew they were putting people at risk for severe burns, but continued to serve the coffee at high temperatures. McDonalds was also able to get the punitive damages reduced to $480,000 in appeals court.
--Phil (I wish more people would research stories like this before spreading them.)
355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!
-
"GIVEN CALIFORNIA law, this ruling was not unexpected," Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan told Reuters.
He covers up so much by just saying "this ruling".Let's expand it for him, from the headline of the story:
-
"GIVEN CALIFORNIA law, charges that [we] harmed consumers through [our] monopolistic practices was not unexpected," Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan told Reuters.
When a company's business model means that this kind of thing is expected, there is something very wrong with the way that company opperates.My $0.02
G