Slashdot Mirror
Florida Citizens' Anti-trust Payout Dwarfed By Lawyers'
According to Robin "Roblimo" Miller's article on NewsForge, Florida residents are receiving word by electronic and postal mail about the likely outcome of that state's class action suit against Microsoft (last mentioned on Slashdot last September): the upshot is that Florida residents who purchased a Microsoft operating system or Microsoft Office would be eligible for a settlement payment (in vouchers) of $5-12; the lawyers involved are seeking $48 million in fees. The settlement terms have several interesting clauses; for instance, by accepting, you would be agreeing to "settle and release all claims, demands, actions, suits, and causes of action against Microsoft and/or its directors, officers, employees, attorneys, insurers or agents, whether known or unknown, asserted or unasserted, that any member of the Florida Settlement Class ever had, could have had, now has or hereafter can, shall or may have, relating in any way to ... any conduct, act or omission that was or could have been alleged in this case as the basis for any antitrust or unfair competition claims."
In case the site (or routes to the site) get slashdotted, here is a mirror to the link.
The people *never* get any sort of reasonable payout from these sorts of lawsuits. I don't know why anyone even signs on. Is there a way to file suit against class action lawyers for abusing their clients?
Visit the
is it really worth signing your rights away for a measely $12?
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
$200 million is a decently sized chunk of money, but I would have preferred to see more enforcement fo the federal anti-trust judgement and settlement. I think that would have done a lot more for a lot more consumers than paying $5-12 to a bunch of people in Florida.
The plaintiffs in a class-action suit typically never outlay any of their own money. The terms of entering into an agreement are laid out and well known so I don't understand what the problem is.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Class Members will be eligible to receive a total maximum amount of $202 million in vouchers, worth $5 for each license for Microsoft MS-DOS, Windows versions 1.0 to 3.2, Windows NT Workstation, Windows 2000 Professional, Word, Excel and Office software, and $12 for each license for Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows Millennium Edition that Class Members indirectly acquired in the United States between November 16, 1996 and December 31, 2002 for use in Florida
Isn't this just yet another slap on the wrist for microsoft. It just makes them use their ill gotten gains from the monopoly, which probably has earned them quite a bit in interest anyway. I have a feeling this is a bit like the previous case, give them some punishment which "looks" big but doesnt actually have any affect on them.
Caveat: IAAL.
Of course the lawyers' payout will dwarf the payout of the individual class members - that's exactly why the class-action is structured this way. Individual claims are not worth enough to each member, considering the time, energy and money necessary to pursue an action. Aggregating the class makes this worthwhile, and attorneys take a percentage - and, often, these suits go nowhere, with a contingency of zero.
Too many lawyer jokes can be inserted here.
Omnis amans amens
I believe /. article is a bit misleading. It makes it seems like the attorneys are taking their fees directly from the total settlement amount. From the article:
If the Court approves the settlement, the Court will determine reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses to be awarded to Class Counsel. The attorneys' fees and expenses approved by the Court will be paid by Microsoft, and will not reduce, in any way, the amount of Settlement Benefits paid to Class Members.
So really, the people aren't getting stiffed, they're just getting gypped. However, the people of Florida will get some indirect benefits:
Microsoft will donate to public schools in Florida with at least 50% of their students qualifying for the federal free and reduced-price school lunch programs, 50% of the difference between the total maximum amount of the vouchers ($202 million) and the value of issued vouchers, if the settlement is approved.
So, while the settlement values seem extremely small, in reality, they're just small. At least the vouchers aren't for more Microsoft software.
"Come on, let's go drink till we can't feel feelings anymore."
... settle and release all claims, demands, actions, suits, and causes of action against Microsoft [that they] ever had, could have had, now has or hereafter can, shall or may have.
So everyone who's involved can *never* sue Microsoft again for anything related to Anti-Trust? They take their slap on the wrist, and go laughing all the way to the bank? I guess double jeopardy could be a factor, as subsequent lawsuits would be mostly the same, but this seems to go a tad too far.
Lawyer speak is so great. Where else, besides an Eminem rant, would you hear such a string of words as: (empasis added by poster)
ever had, could have had, now has or hereafter can, shall or may have
That sounds like an Eminem lyric to me.......bitch.
Everyone who bought a Microsoft product gets $5-$12 in cash and the lawyers get a $48 million voucher to spend on Microsoft products. *grins*
Video Game cheats, hints a
If you don't like the payout, don't accept. Then pursue your own case by putting hundreds of thousands of your own dollars where your mouth is.
Most people won't, of course.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Did people expect Microsoft to buy them a new car? How about a new house? It's a measly computer program, when all is said and done.
They're paying out $202 million. Admittedly, Microsoft still has plenty left over, but I'm dead certain they didn't want to pay even THAT much.
As for the attorney's fees, again, why should these people work for free? Can you imagine the expense involved in something as simple as photocopying the documents required in this case? It's enormously expensive to run a lawsuit of this magnitude; the lawyers deserve to get paid.
I'm not saying a few of the key partners aren't going to get well off this case, but this is hardly the miscarriage of justice, screw-the-public outcome that seems to be the prevailing opinion here.
Oh wait, I forgot - this is Slashdot, where EVERYTHING Microsoft does is never good enough.
Every class action lawsuit I've ever seen has a similar restriction placed on it.
When you join the class, you relinquish your rights to sue independantly. It's a classic trade-off. By joining the class, you get an immediate pay-off, however you lose the right to sue on your own.
If you avoid joining the class, you can sue on your own, but you stand a chance of losing a great deal of money if you don't win.
Nobody's forcing you to join the class though so...
The settlement terms have several interesting clauses; for instance, by accepting, you would be agreeing to "settle and release all claims, demands, actions, suits, and causes of action against Microsoft and/or its directors, officers, employees, attorneys, insurers or [snip...]
how is that interesting? that's what a settlement IS--they give you something and you release them from any further liability. This whole reading-comic-books-between-the-lines editorializing is really getting old.
I signed up for payout from the settlement for cd price fixing. I still haven't seen a dime. I doubt I ever will. In case it hasn't become very obvious, class actions are little more than gigantic bribes to law firms.
The story mentions "Windows 3.2". There was no Windows 3.2...
Honey, I shrunk the Cygwin
By taking the settlement money, you've settled your claim with Microsoft. If you don't think this is a fair settlement, then don't take it and pursue your own case.
There's nothing "interesting" about a release clause. When you settle a lawsuit, that's what happens (or else why the hell would they settle in the first place?) Note: nobody was forced to join the class action.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
Are you sure? I guess it was Chinese only, but technically Windows 3.2.
And let's face it folks, even though the settlement is given in the form of vouchers, we're geeks. Like it or not, we're going to buy computer equipment and/or software anyways within the next few years. The vouchers seem to be good towards almost anything of this nature, so it's really not as bad as you think it is. In principle, it's not as good as cash. But economically, it's exactly the same thing. And if not, there's always eBay.
I think that MS is openly admitting that their products only cost $5-12 dollars.
I would allocate that as:
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
Seems to me that the real problem is that the judgements are always in terms of dollar amounts. $200 million is a big chunk of cash to almost everyone -- except Microsoft. To Microsoft, $200 million is nothing, half a percent of the amount of money they have in the bank.
Similarly, the little guys often get judgements against them that are tiny in comparison to $200 million, but which easily bankrupt them because they aren't Microsoft -- they're just normal people with normal incomes (if that).
None of this would be a problem if judgements (and settlements) were forced to be expressed in terms of the percentage of the worth of the target. An individual who is forced to pay, say, 20% of their total worth in a judgement or settlement would be hurt pretty badly by it, but they'd almost certainly survive. And the same is true of a huge entity like Microsoft. But the dollar values would be much different. $20K (for instance) against the individual, and something like $20 billion against Microsoft. But those amounts would yield roughly the same effect, and it's the effect that's important in any judgement or settlement.
The bottom line is that, in my opinion, the people who judge these settlements or who create these judgements simply don't think properly about the problem. They're focused on the amounts and not the effects.
That's to be expected in a money-driven society, I suppose...
Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
To accept that you are to hold them harmless for any future antitrust issues is outright illegal.
Wouldn't that be AWESOME?
IANAL, but surely if a class action wins, that sets a handy precedent for those people wishing to sue on their own. If you can hand a lawyer a precedent, he'll take your case immediately cos he knows he's got a greater than average chance to win
In Soviet Russia, the monkey spanks you!
I realize that the actual costs involved in suing a company like Microsoft can be astronomical, but for the legal firms in such a case to charge full rate for the entire effort is obscene. Their profit on such cases should be capped at something reasonable, like 5-20% of their actual costs (filing fees, supporting research, etc. and not the lawyer's time. Their time is what the percentage is to cover, not double-dipping as both an hourly employee and as a profit-sharing partner of the firm.)
Realistically if such limits were imposed across the board, 90% of the frivolous lawsuits in court would go away. It's the leeching lawyers who often advise their clients to continue, knowing full well that they're going to take the majority of the settlement as "legal costs".
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
It does bear mentioning that while the lawyers involved are getting a rather tidy sum of cash, it does only amount to 20% of the total. If the lawyers were all saints and accepted no money for their slaying of the MS dragon, the payouts would have gone from, and I agree that it's a silly small amount, $5 to $12 to... $6 to $14.40.
If the payout seems rediculously small compared to how much MS's actions cost consumers, then it's less the fault of the lawyers skimming the payouts and more the fault of the anti-trust system that allows MS to profit billions from it's illegal monopolies and only pay millions when caught.
On the broader topic of 'frivolous' lawsuits, I do deeply recommend to people that are interested in a fair society that they educate themselves about where that particular piece of memetic propaganda is coming from. It's not from anybody that has your interests as a citizen or consumer at heart.
In my opinion, lawyers for class action lawsuits should be paid, "in like manner and no more than 10x the individual payout."
So that means the lawyers should get $120 worth of Microsoft coupons. That seems fair to me. Hell, I'd even be willing to increase it to 100x the individual payout, but the "in like manner" needs to stay. I've been screwed before with the coupon payouts (BoA many years ago), and won't have anything to do with class action lawsuits because of that.
Under the current system, the lawyer's only incentive is to enrich themselves, without regard to the clients.
-- Will program for bandwidth
I have a great business deal for you.
You give me $10,000 and 1000 hours of work over the next 2 years. If the deal doesn't work out you get nothing. But if it does work out, I'll give you between $10,500 and $12,000 back.
Doesn't that sound great? It doesn't? Then why would you expect a lawyer to go for it? Your system means that no attorneys will take the risk, and so MS pays no penalty and the citizens of Florida don't even get their $12.
First off, it is not like the people who are a part of this class can never sue MS again. They just can't sue it as part of this particular Class. As I read it, if Microsoft injures a class member in the future, he or she can sue individually or part of another different class.
Second, the settlement is misquoted and actually says "Class Counsel will seek attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed $48 million". Not to exceed $48 mil != $48 mil. But think about it: Putting a class action suit together involving potentially millions of class members, notifying all potential parties (by placing expensive newspaper ads, sending mailing and perhaps advertising on TV), meeting with class members, explaining their rights, dealing with tons of discovery material (from class members and MS), going to court, negotiating with MS, handling stonewalling from MS, taking the malpractice liability risk of a case of this magnitude against a company like MS... yeah, I bet the fees are going to be justifiably high!
Third, yeah, 12 bucks worth of vouchers sounds sucky... but how many of these class members used Windows for four years and now expect a full refund? Cut me a break! Talk about unjust enrichment!?! Really, what kind of individual recovery do you expect for software that is worth half the cost of what MS charges for it? Enough vouchers to buy a new G5!?!
Of the million or so class members in this suit, how many are "true" Opens Source users who the minute they bought a machine, completely deleted Windows and installed *nix. They deserve a full refund, but they are better recoving it on their own instead of a Class Action suit.
This wasn't a judgment, this was a settlement. You can't lump them together.
A settlement is an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant to a dollar amount that makes everyone "happy" enough to drop litigating the case. Here, Microsoft is essentially saying, fine, it's worth $202 million to us to be able to drop this case and the risk that we'd be adjudged against. The plaintiffs are essentially saying, $202 million takes care of enough of our "suffering" to make us drop this case AND the risk that we'd be adjudged against.
One way to look at it is an expected value analysis. Say MSFT puts a 50%-75% probability on losing the case, and that if they did lose, they would suffer a judgment of $300 million. The class puts a 25%-50% chance on winning the case, but a judgment of $400 million if they did win. MSFT's expected value of their loss is between $150 million and $225 million (probability * judgment amount). The class's expected value of their win is $100 million and $200 million. Thus, MSFT is looking to settle at anything less than $225 million. A settlement offer of, say, $250 million wouldn't be worth it to MSFT because they think that at MOST the class has a 75% chance of winning $300 million, and so at that number MSFT would rather take the chance and litigate fully. On the other hand, the class won't settle for less than $100 million. An offer of, say, $80 million wouldn't be worth it to the class because they believe that they have at LEAST a 25% chance of winning $400 million.
Thus, in this example, MSFT and the class will want to settle somewhere between $100 and $225 million.
You can also see in this example that there's no consideration whatsoever of what the effect of the judgment will be on MSFT. The plaintiffs are only looking to see how much they can be compensated. A judgment might involve consideration of the public in the form of punitive damages, but a settlement is nothing but an agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants.
John Grisham's most recent book, The King of Torts, explains a lot about the mania for class-action lawsuits lately. While it's fiction, Grisham is an attorney, so he knows what he's talking about. He doesn't paint a pretty picture.
Class-action lawsuits are easy money for lawyers. Find a big enough "class" and you can soak the defendant for lots of money. The fees can be huge, especially if there's the typical "we get one third" sort of fee structure.
Because the lawyers are looking at huge bucks because of the sheer volume of plaintiffs, they don't necessarily care how big the individual settlements are. If you get $12, and they get $4... if the class has a million people in it, that's $4 million made without going to trial.
Anyway, it's a good book, but a scary one. I'll certainly never look at a class-action notice the same way again.
(I've been out of work for a while now, thanks to Global Crossing's bankruptcy. Slashdot won't accept links to Amazon Associate URLs in comments, but if you'd like to help me out and contribute to my book-money fund without raising your cost, you could buy the Grisham book through this URL: <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0385508042 /macwhiztechnolog>)
is completely boilerplate. Not a Microsoft trick. Pretty much the same text I see every day when dealing with insurance companies, for instance. (IAAL)
Incidentally, for those of you griping about the legal fees, keep in mind the lawyers get nothing if they don't win the case, have to pay support staff all through the suit (including multiple associates who themselves are making in excess of a hundred grand a year), not knowing whether they'll win or not, and have to justify every bit of their time to the Court down to each tenth of an hour (I left the computer industry, pissed about billing my time in 15 minute increments. Now I do it in six minute increments). $48 million, incidentally, while a large sum of money, is comparatively small in the world of class actions. There's one in the Third Circuit right now where the legal fees will likely reach $3 billion, spread among about 20 law firms.
I'm not a class action lawyer, and I don't make anywhere near a hundred grand a year. But I've seen these guys, and for the work they do and the risks they take, their fees, while high, are not outrageous. (Most contingency fees are in the neighborhood of 33-40% in the rest of the legal profession)
I don't object to lawyers getting a good settlement for their clients and then getting a big chunk for themselves. I do object to their settling for Monopoly money for their clients while getting paid as though the clients received cash.
In your world, there would have been no attorney to take the case, so nobody would have received $12 vouchers, and MS would not have been punished at all.
The purpose of class-action suits is to compensate the plaintiffs for their loss, not to punish the defendant by funneling his money into the lawyers' pockets. You're right -- in my world, there would be no $12 vouchers.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
So what is so special about Florida? Am I right in guessing that just about any state and country can enter into the same kind of lawsuit?
So if $200M seems like a small amount of cash to Microsoft, then how about 50-100*$200M. It is starting to sound like a lot of money even to Microsoft.