The California lawsuit, which also charges that Microsoft monopolized the software applications market, claims the company overcharged consumers in the state by US$2 billion to US$4 billion for Windows, Microsoft Office and other software, Crew said. Those damages would be tripled if the state court finds Microsoft liable, he said.
The refurbished computers would be installed in public schools where at least 70 percent of the students receive federally subsidized lunches, said Chesley. Schools, traditionally a fertile market for Apple Computer Inc's Macintosh computers, would be free to purchase non-Microsoft products, he said.
Ballmer dismissed the notion that Microsoft would use the settlement as an opportunity to increase its share of the school market. "The benefits that we provide can be used for PCs or Macs, it can be used for PC software or Macintosh software," he said.
Motz dismissed many of the class-action claims in 38 of the cases earlier this year, ruling that consumers who didn't directly purchase Windows from Microsoft couldn't sue. Most consumers buy PCs with Windows software already installed by the manufacturer.
The judge threw out claims brought by plaintiffs in states that don't allow suits by indirect purchasers of a product.
Motz continues to oversee cases filed on behalf of consumers from 15 states that allow people who buy a product from a retailer to claim they were overcharged by the manufacturer.
Those states, including California, passed legislation designed to get around a 1977 Supreme Court decision that allows only consumers buying a product directly from a company to seek monetary damages for monopoly overcharges. It is unclear whether the settlement would cover the 30 state cases filed in California.
Legal experts have said the plaintiffs in the private cases faced difficulty documenting whether consumers were overcharged for the Windows operating system.
Microsoft denies the allegation and says the government never proved it charged monopoly prices during the 78-day trial of the case brought by the Justice Department and 19 states.
The plaintiffs opted to help poor schools rather than giving consumers a coupon for a refund because it would be difficult to quantify damages, Chesley said.
RSS