Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft 'Vista Capable' Settlement Cost Could Be Over $8 Billion
bk- writes with news that documents from the "Vista Capable" class-action lawsuit against Microsoft indicate the software giant could be on the hook for as much as $8.52 billion in upgrade costs.
"[University of Washington economist Keith] Leffler came up with his total upgrade costs by calculating how much it would cost to upgrade each of the 19.4 million PCs with 1 GB of memory and graphics cards or onboard chipsets able to run Aero, according to Keizer. Leffler put the maximum cost of upgrading the desktops at $155, while positing that the notebooks' integrated graphics would be more tricky to replace and would cost between $245 and $590 per unit. The total price tag for Microsoft would thus range from $3.92 billion to $8.52 billion and in some cases would include complete replacements of notebooks that could not be feasibly upgraded, Leffler testified. Microsoft in its response argued that giving litigants 'a free upgrade to Premium-ready PCs would provide a windfall to millions.'"
Say what you will, but I'll use Linux on my servers when I want to start losing money. Get the facts, people.
Bill Gates needs to do his patriotic duty and give back to America.
Hire 5000 here, Fire 5000 there. It's called outsourcing.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Microsoft_to_axe_5000_but_no_job_cuts_in_India/articleshow/4018194.cms
No, the hardware specs were exactly listed in pretty much every case. Look at an add for a computer - it'll tell you hard drive, memory, CPU, monitor size, etc. It's all explicitly listed. There was no question as to what the hardware was that was being sold.
The actual issue here is that these computers won't run aero - that 'vista capable' implies running the whole OS and all the features. Yes, it was a sneaky way to help computer sales. I'm not disagreeing that it was poorly done. However, it's a sticker with two words on it. It's not a 20-page document detailing the exact behavior, capabilities, and so on of the hardware/software interaction. MS didn't sell the build, distribute, or sell hardware. I would require them to provide an workable OS (XP would be great on most of those computers) or refund of the price of the OS that's not working (provided the consumer stops using it).
Really, people just want something for nothing again - as usual. I mean, you can't expect a layman to understand that a $400 computer is not as good as a $3000 computer. That's simply not reasonable. I would expect a $400 computer to be just as fast - after all, they shouldn't sell it if it's not perfect. One can also not expect consumers to do any research about what they're buying. /sarcasm ... So a car analogy! The retarded smart cars are 'highway legal' but they struggle to hit 65-70mph that most people drive in my state. Taking one of those on a major highway is risky and far more dangerous than driving a "real" car if 2-ton SUV's are flying around to pass. I suppose everyone who bought one of those should be upgraded to a bigger vehicle for free?
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Yes, a consumer who blindly and broadly interprets a sticker should be given something for nothing. That's what you're suggesting after all.
If you want to argue consumers should be given what they paid for...well that's listed on the box. Unfortunately there's a conflict as the hardware specs explicitly detail what's in the box and a 'vista capable' sticker vaugely implies they're capable of doing something they're not. Well, partially - because vista will actually run, but not all the features will be available. Did the sticker say 'aero capable'? Did a follow-up manual inside the box say it would boot in x seconds, run benchmark y at a certain speed, run the UI with these exact features? No. None of that was explicitly guaranteed.
In the end, the computer HARDWARE is exactly as specified. The software you might call defective - so give consumers a refund or replacement for the defective part. I fail to see why a company should be liable for more than their ill-gotten profits. If MS made $50 per computer (even gross, generally net is used for damages) then fine them that much and refund it to the consumers.
So again, the idea the a software OEM should be liable for hardware sold at retail is SILLY.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
It will only be in the next few years with the wicked Obama administration that patriotism reverses to 'hush, don't say anything, support our centrally controlled economy'.
The mentality is already there.
Money is the root of all evil?