Microsoft and its antitrust suits

If you live in the European Union, you may have noticed that ‘N’ versions of Microsoft Windows software have surfaced, without certain features such as Windows Media Player or Windows Internet Explorer 7/8. This is due to European Union consumer watchdogs raising concerns about the problems in competitive practice law that this may throw up. Previously the European Union has fined Microsoft over a billion dollars due to anticompetitive activity and has no doubt been subject to other questioning in other parts of the world. This is the reason for the surfacing of the ‘N’ versions: Microsoft, through the inclusion of its Windows Media Player and Windows Internet Explorer programs in its operating systems, has been taking an unfair slice of the market share of media players and web browsers. Microsoft has since promised to offer a range of internet browsers upon installation of its operating systems, a move which will no doubt please European Union anti-competition watchdogs and provide consumers with a much wider choice when browsing the Internet and listening to music, radio shows, podcasts and watching television shows and movies. Hopefully this choice is extended to other parts of the world where the action was not as a result of intervention by the government!

Settlement reached in WV asbestos suit

According to AP writer Allison Barker, WVU will pay former and current employees as part of an asbestos class action settlement:

West Virginia University has reached a settlement in a class-action lawsuit affecting up to 5,600 former and current employees who may have been exposed to asbestos, the school announced Tuesday.

As part of the proposed settlement, WVU will institute and pay for a medical surveillance program to be conducted for 20 years. WVU also agreed to pay $1 million to cover potential claims and attorney fees.

A judge must approve the agreement before it becomes final. A hearing is scheduled for Dec. 22.

University employees sued in 2000 and sought medical monitoring for potential asbestos-related health problems as a result of working in university buildings containing asbestos insulation.

The workers, including professors, custodians, secretaries and other staff, alleged that asbestos in campus buildings put them at an increased risk of cancer.

The university said in a statement that the agreement had been reached in the “spirit of compromise.”

“WVU maintains that all standard, recognized practices for asbestos removal have been followed over the years, and that the general population of employees, through routine monitoring of buildings and air samplings, remain safe from any harmful effects of asbestos-containing materials,” the university said.

Until the 1970s, asbestos was universally prized for its resistance to fire and heat. Since then, the medical community has warned that asbestos fibers, when inhaled, can cause such illnesses as mesothelioma, a rare and inoperable form of lung cancer. It also causes asbestosis, an irreversible scarring of the lungs, and other lung ailments.

Asbestos Bill Dies in Senate

The Senate bill that would have established a $140 billion fund to compensate victims of asbestos was defeated last night because of budgetary questions. The vote to override the budget objection failed on a 58 to 41 vote.

Majority leader Bill Frist had said he would not try to bring the bill back later in the year, but one Senator who missed the vote because hiw wife was sick said he would have voted yes, opening the door for possible passage later.

What this means for those who have been poisioned by asbestos is that the courts are still the only way to get restitution. It’s estimated that 10,000 people a year die from asbestos related illnesses, but about 60 percent of the money in asbestos court settlements goes to lawyers instead of victims.

Still, many liberal Democrats said the bill did not go far enough to compensate victims and would serve only as a way to bail out companies that should be held liable for the damage. Some Republicans hesitated to create what they thought would become another entitlement program.

(Source: New York Times