Jim Hood announces $40M settlement of Microsoft antitrust claim
Here’s the Clarion Ledger story on the announcement:
Attorney General Jim Hood today announced a multimillion dollar settlement with Microsoft that could help shore up the state budget.
Hood, a Democrat, said the settlement will provide $40 million to the state coffers within 40 days, barring any legal challenge to the agreement. Republican Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant agreed that the money will help bring an end to bickering over a state spending plan for the coming fiscal year.
This will also be good news for the contract lawyer who handled the claim.
Per the contract, it sounds like this suit was filed on behalf of all of the citizens of MS who have been overcharged by Microsoft. Thus, shouldn’t those citizens who use Microsoft get the money? Why should the money go to the general fund? Or was the suit on behalf of just state agencies and employees who use state provided computers? Could a citizen file a similar suit, or does this settlement preclude such a suit? Just curious.
If the news excerpts are right, private citizens who bought Microsoft products between 1996 and 2004 will only get coupons worth $5 on Microsoft products for each product purchased.
If that same logic applied to the state’s portion, Mississippi government bought 21 million units of Microsoft products in that same time period – about 90 units per employee (based on government employment of ~277,000) – and are getting paid in cash not scrip.
Seems like a grossly inadequate remedy for the public that Hood was allegedly protecting.
I saw in an article in the CL today that individuals could file claims supported by sworn affidavits, for up to 5 separate past purchases of Microsoft products and receive in return that same number of vouchers worth either $5 or $12 per voucher —meaning the maximum individual voucher total would be worth $60 (5 x 12). No cash. I don’t recall our AG seeking our permission to file these claims on our behalf, nor seeking our permission to settle for such a relatively puny/worthless amount for the individuals on whose behalf the suit was ostensibly filed in the first place. Does the AG have the authority to sue and settle on behalf of the individual citizens of the state, or just on behalf of the state?
I am glad the state is getting some more money, but the flip side is that this one time money is enabling our state government to continue yet again to put off and avoid dealing with serious budget issues for the long-term.
It would be an interesting experiment for you guys to file your antitrust case against Microsoft to recover your unascertained individual damages for monopolistic behavior. Millions of dollars in case expenses later, you would get your $200 as opposed to $60. A good old-fashioned lawyer like you, AFOTL, knows that you sometimes have to compromise to settle cases, and sometimes you have to take less than you claim are your total damages. These comments amount to bitching about anything resembling a class action, and bitching especially high-mindedly about anything Jim Hood has to do with a class action.