Law Firm Beats Microsoft: $4 Million Dollar Lawsuit
Year long battle between a Minneapolis law firm and software giant Microsoft ends with a cool $4.2 award.
Not bad for a years work.
A judge in Wisconsin gave the large award, which includes fees and expenses to resolve this antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation.
Background on the Microsoft legal battle
The law firm, Zelle, Hofman, Voelbel, Mason and Gette, was represented by Minneapolis lawyer Richard Hagstrom. But they weren’t seeking that $4.2 million dollar award. No, they wanted more. They were actually seeking $22.6 million dollars in fees. That’s huge money - then again, Microsoft is a huge business. It’s the classic case of reach for the moon and even if you fail at least you’ll end up among the stars. In this case, the law firm shoot for the moon looking for that $22 million plus but only got $4.2 million. I’m sure they’re happy regardless.
Microsoft (MSFT), out of Richmond, Washington, had petitioned to the court judge that no award for fees be given to the firm. They felt that the attorneys at Zelle, Hofman, Voelbel, Mason and Gette had misrepresented the hours they claimed to work. Judge disagree with Microsoft’s assessment - but he still acquiesced them on the settlement though.
The judge’s opinion
Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Richard Sankovitz felt that while the lawyers at the law firm do deserve to get a nice fee for the hours they worked, the original petition of $22 million was just way too much and that the attorneys weren’t entitled to such a ridiculous magnitude of bonus.
“Microsoft’s stingy approach to this fee request is inconsistent with its willingness to pay arguably exorbitant fees to other lawyers representing other plaintiff cases,” wrote Judge Richard Sankovitz in his ruling.
The lawsuit didn’t just end there - consumers will be getting a piece of the action as well - as long as you live in Wisconsin. If you live in Wisconsin and you purchased Microsoft equipment from December 7th of 1993 through April 30th of 2003 you’ll be getting coupons for computer equipment (i.e. software such as Microsoft Office and Microsoft Vista and XP).
David v. Goliath?
I have to add that it takes guts to stand up to such a huge international corporation like Microsoft. Can you imagine the legal firepower they must have at their disposal? With 79,000 employees in 102 countries and a global revenue annually of $51.12 billion dollars Microsoft can definitely get themselves a legal dream team - leaving the O.J. Simpson dream team in the dust. To take them on - and then win - that’s monumental.
Does the fact that many feel that Microsoft has become too close for comfort as a near-monopoly play into the ruling? Public opinion of Microsoft in technology circles is sometimes low - with talk about Microsoft controlling and devouring competition in order to deliver leading profits.
Is there an underdog factor? Do people, including legal professionals, give a little bias to plantiffs going against the juggernaut Microsoft empire? Let’s think about it, we’re all human, what’s to say that no matter the professionalism of a jury or judge, that it doesn’t play into their minds?
We often speak highly of logic and reason when it comes to justice - but basic human faculties like emotion plays a role.
So I ask you a question. When you read this ruling, what did you feel? Were you happy that the law firm beat the “scary Microsoft monster”? Or did you feel that the ruling was unfair to Microsoft and that people can’t stand the success of business giants?
Burger King Files Lawsuit Against McDonalds Over Game Pieces
From Trademark Blog:
Burger King franchisee alleges that McDonalds is liable for false advertising in connection with statements made by McDonalds not about Burger King but about McDonalds’ own promotions (which in itself was interesting - it turns out that a company that McDonalds paid to run one of its sweepstakes promotions had embezzled winning game pieces, therefore representations made by McDonalds that its sweepstakes was fair, was false - however McDonalds pled an intervening cause defense).
Anyway: given that the Lanham Act accords standing to any person who believes that they are likely to be damaged by the bad act in 43(a), does the BK franchisee have standing:
11th Circuit: No. There is a five factor test in the 3d Circuit case, Conte Brothers, 165 F.3d 221, 225 (3d Cir. 1998) that weights factor such as proximitiy of the bad act to plaintiff’s harm, the speculativeness of the damages, and possibility of duplicative damages, among other factors, and in this situation, found that the franchisee was too far from the action to have standing.
Phoenix of Broward v. McDonalds, 06-14726 (11th Cir June 22, 2007).
Facebook Will Keep Your Content Forever
From The Small Print Project:
There’s been a lot of talk about Facebook and its terms and dedication to privacy over the past 5 months since it launched the F8 Platform which spawned an elaborate and decentralized Developers Network.
We recently received a submission questioning Facebook’s Terms of Service:
Lowpoints: By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant… worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy… and distribute such User Content for any purpose…. You may remove your User Content from the Site at any time.
Highpoints: If you choose to remove your User Content, the license granted above will automatically expire, however you acknowledge that the Company may retain archived copies of your User Content.
Based on these terms, it should be clear to all that what happens in Facebook is Facebook’s. Sure, you can remove anything you submit / post on Facebook at any time, which consequentially terminates said liscences / sublicenses, but — does Facebook immediately archive all submissions? According to these terms, Facebook could stay out of trouble by immediately broadcasting all submissions/content via archival copies — which Facebook retains all rights to in perpetuity, whether or not the user withdraws said content. In essence, Facebook could hijack one’s copyright thanks by adding it’s stamp to an otherwise unchanged digital archive.
What deficiencies have you noticed in Facebook’s Terms and privacy policies in regards to third party applications? What issues do you fear / foresee and how can Facebook users further protect themselves? Moreover, what risk do these conflicts present to a company now “valued†at $15bn and how must it lead by example? Is Facebook breaking its own rules by allowing staff to circumvent the privacy policy, as Valleywag’s Nick Douglas alleged?
