backtop


Print 99 comment(s) - last by Pythias.. on Sep 13 at 7:27 AM

Consumers get $180 million in Microsoft settlement, lawyers get $75 million

Microsoft has settled its long-running antitrust case in Iowa. The lawsuit, which was initially filed in 2000, claimed that Microsoft was involved in anticompetitive business practices which in turn resulted in higher prices for consumers.

The lead plaintiffs in the case, Des Moines lawyer Roxanne Conlin and Minneapolis lawyer Richard Hagstrom will receive $75 million in legal fee and expenses as a result of the settlement -- a record for the state of Iowa.

The $75 million in fees represent a bill rate of $575 an hour for each of the 150 lawyers, clerks and paralegals involved in the case. Over a seven year period, 117,000 hours were logged in relation to the case. The individual rate for Conlin and Hagstrom works out to $1,072 dollars per hour. The payout for the two lawyers also includes a 43 percent risk premium which was approved by a Polk County district judge.

While the lawyers will receive $75 million, Iowans will receive $179.95 million -- $330 million was originally requested. Microsoft will dish out $10, $16, $25 and $29 respectively for Word/Works/Home Essential, Windows/DOS, Excel and Office. Individual consumers can claim up to $200 without a proof of purchase, however, any amount exceeding $200 must be backed with supporting documentation.

Iowa consumers will receive their settlements in checks from Microsoft while businesses and government bodies will receive pay vouchers.

Some Iowans aren't happy with the settlements they are receiving in relation to the payout reserved for lawyer fees. "How in the name of all that is sacred can you even imagine that to be equitable?" inquired Parkersburg resident Betty Klingenbord. "I also do not like how this makes Iowa look. Where will these lawsuits end?"

The settlement covers Iowans who purchased Microsoft software between May 18, 1994 and June 30, 2006. Customers who wish to receive their reimbursements from Microsoft must do so before the December 14 deadline.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Hrm....
By TomZ on 9/4/2007 2:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
If you want to change the system, you have to work within the system. By buying a car from another company that offers a non-A/C variant, or by special-ordering a car without A/C, then you are sending your vote to the market to have that "non-option" more readily available. If a significant number of like-minded customers do the same thing, then change will happen.

From a practical standpoint, at least in the U.S., I think most people believe that AC is a worthwhile investment, which is why most dealerships order most of thier cars with it. I live in Michigan, and I would never have a car without it, and I can't imagine the climate in any of the lower 48 is such that AC wouldn't add a lot of value, not to mention resale value.


RE: Hrm....
By Blight AC on 9/6/2007 1:56:15 PM , Rating: 2
Or, you know, I could just sue them later on, in a State vs Vehicle Manufacture/Dealer case... even though I've been using the A/C anyhow. Isn't that the American way. :P


"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki