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.
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."
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.