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
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."
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
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.
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.
"It's a measly computer program, when all is said and done."
No, it's a $300.00+ program, and that's not counting (the price of) the time and effort wasted using Microsoft products instead of better products that were forced out of the market by Microsoft's illegal business practices.
I'll stop complaining when the payout per-plaintiff is an appreciable fraction of the retail price of the software.
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.
Wouldn't that be AWESOME?
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.