Harriet-Microsoft Nexus

I was reading Harriet Miers's senate questionnaire and was pleseantly surprised to see that she was a lead local counsel for Microsoft. Here is what she said about her role:

Microsoft Corp. v. Manning, 914 S.W.2d 602 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 1995, pet. dism’d).
I served as lead local counsel for Microsoft and was the principal client contact. This case was an appeal from a state-court ruling that had granted the plaintiffs’ motion
33
for class certification. The putative class of software purchasers sued Microsoft alleging breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty--Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act, and Washington Consumer Protection Act. The case turned on the interplay between state and Federal class action laws, and also raised Federal constitutional issues involving the proper application of the Due Process Clause and the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Other issues included the speculative nature of the damages where no actual loss of data was shown and whether or not reliance-based causes of action could be certified as a class action in light of the multitude of individual fact issues arising from each class member’s circumstances. Microsoft contended that the trial court’s class certification violated Microsoft’s due process rights under the state and Federal constitutions and the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution. Specifically, Microsoft argued that the trial court violated the Constitution by applying Texas law to plaintiffs outside Texas whose own states’ laws did not recognize such a legal theory. However, the trial court held that the class certification did not violate constitutional due process or the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Microsoft lost its appeal to the intermediate appellate court. On behalf of Microsoft, I filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus with the Texas Supreme Court, oral argument was granted and briefs were filed. After Microsoft filed its brief with the Texas Supreme Court, the district court, on its own motion, vacated its class certification ruling, stating expressly that it did so after finding Microsoft’s Supreme Court brief persuasive. (Subsequently, the Texas Supreme Court affirmed Microsoft’s position in this case by holding that reliance-based causes of action are not suitable for class certification. See Henry Schein, Inc. v. Stromboe, 102 S.W.3d 675 (Tex. 2002)). Thereafter, the plaintiff non-suited the case.

Whatever it is, I still think "Mr.World's smartest President Bush" could have selected a better candidate.