|
Search
Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.
 |
Case ID: 2699 | Technology | 11/17/2004
On November 19, 2003, the parties announced a proposed settlement, potentially valued at $9.33 million, in a class action against Microsoft Corporation on behalf of South Dakota residents who indirectly purchased Microsoft operating system, productivity suite, spreadsheet or word processing software for their own use between March 10, 1996, and December 31, 2002. The action alleges that Microsoft engaged in anticompetitive acts in violation of South Dakota antitrust and unfair trade practices laws.
Class members will receive vouchers that may be used to buy any manufacturer's desktop, laptop and tablet computers; any software available for sale to the general public and used with those computer products; and specified peripheral devices for use with computers. The parties have not announced the deadline for filing claims under the settlement. The action alleges that Microsoft established a monopoly in the marketplace for operating systems through various anti-competitive acts, and that it has illegally maintained this monopoly for over a decade. Furthermore, Microsoft allegedly used its monopoly power to stifle innovation in the market, reduce and eliminate competition and overcharge consumers. The settlement will not be effective until the court grants it final approval. At Lawcash.com, it is our goal to keep you informed about important legal cases, class actions and settlements. Our lawyers offer free legal evaluations in tort cases, class actions, personal injury, and other lawsuits because we are dedicated to helping you resolve your legal complaints. Other Technology Cases of Interest A class action has been filed against Boston Communications Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: BCGI) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between June 12 and July 16, 2003. The action claims that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. California Renters Certified as Class Against PacBell for False Advertisements About WirePro Service Sometimes an advertiser's failure to disclose that a service is not useful for everyone can amount to fraud. A class action has been certified against Pacific Bell Telephone Company, now a part of SBC Communications, Inc., by California customers of the company who are current or former residential tenants and who paid for a WirePro optional service plan between March 13, 1997, and the date of any eventual judgment in the action.
If work needs to be carried out on your land for the public good, you may have to grant the agency that is doing the working an easement, or permanent right-of-way, but you should be paid for it. The parties have reached a tentative settlement apparently valued at $986,769 in an action filed against AT&T Corporation on behalf of certain persons who own or owned land in Connecticut, through which railroads run and on which AT&T laid fiber optic cable. Claims must be received by March 1, 2004, to be considered valid. Several class actions have been filed against technology company Lattice Semiconductor Corporation (Nasdaq:LSCC), and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between April 22, 2003, and April 19, 2004. The actions claim that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. Aerosonic helps pilots get where they are headed. Several class actions have been filed against aviation instrument maker Aerosonic Corporation (Amex: AIM) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between May 3, 1999, and March 17, 2003. The actions claim that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. A class action has been filed in the Central District Court of California against Hienergy Technologies, Inc., a California based chemical technology company, (HIET.OB), and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between February 22, 2002 and July 8, 2004. The action claims that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. The stockholders seek to recover compensatory damages for the loss of value of their stock. |
|
© 2000 - 2008 Copyright. All rights reserved nola3, llc.
