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.'"
Anyone? I'll take bits of string, bug collections, and good will in trade. Just, please, get me off this train.
Hardware makers should be on the hook as well.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Microsoft in its response argued that giving litigants 'a free upgrade to Premium-ready PCs would provide a windfall to millions.'
I guess you shouldn't have lied, then. Let this be a lesson to you.
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
what if they re-funded the cost of an OEM version of vista to everyone, and provided a free downgrade to XP, or up to 7, im sure that would cost less than $400 per PC, and seems an especially more practical alternative to upgrading the laptops.
considering the value of a new laptop with 1GB ram and an aero-capable intel chipset these days, i wonder how many people would bother to get it changed once you factor in the hassle of sending off your laptop, waiting on the new one, setting it up, transfering the data etc...
its reasonable to hold microsoft accountable for what is clearly misleading, but retailers/manufacturers are equally responsible for putting the sticker on if they knew their hardware couldnt run it acceptabley, even if MS said it would.
MS can probably make Aero run on 513 MB RAM
So you'd just need to find/add a 1MB DIMM?
Whereas, of course, others would argue that the litigants provided a windfall of billions to Microsoft by purchasing Vista on a Vista Capable machine.
Funny, I have saved my company 10's or 100's of thousands of $ just by switching to Linux and dropping MS and Sun. MS can post what they want on a site but my budget don't lie.
Having followed class action suits before, the outcome most likely is that the lawyers will get paid exorbitant fees, and the plaintiffs will get discount coupons for their next Windows upgrade.
Discount coupons and vouchers are the way almost all class action suits are resolved. Very seldom do the plaintiffs actually recover monetary damages.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
...those figures for upgrades seem kind of inflated. These are all systems that were "certified" to be Vista (Basic) Capable, so it shouldn't cost that much for a 512mb ram stick and an el-cheapo graphics card for a desktop. If his estimates included installation by a "trained professional" then I would still be willing to bet it would be significantly lower, because they would probably work out a major group discount with a company (probably Best Buy) which would still bring the cost significantly lower. For laptops, I have no idea, although I would be willing to bet that costs would be individually lower than he quoted too (willing to bet that most of them have integrated capable of Aero, just not enough RAM), although some systems would have to be replaced. If that was how damages to be awarded were to be determined, of course. Considering this is a class action suit, what will probably happen is they will make a coupon available for X amount of money off your next purchase of MS software, and probably some other product as well.
For starters, Bill Gates isn't running the company anymore.
And that's pretty bad business. See, the minions and peons of a country are the only ones who are shamed and goaded into being "patriotic". Corporations cannot be bothered by such sentiments or they will wither and die, or so the common sense of today would suggest.
You're nothing; like me.
The only complaint of this frivolous lawsuit is the fact that Vista Basic does not contain "the actual features considered as Vista-defining such as Aero and other features". This is just about a bunch of lawyers trying to get shitloads of money from a class action suit.
There is no deception here. The computers labeled as "Vista Capable" were, in fact, able of running Vista Basic. They were not labeled "Aero Capable" or anything like that.
I used to own a "Designed for Microsoft Windows 2000" workstation. Should I sue Microsoft for not being able to run Windows 2000 Advanced Server at full clustering capabilities? Anyone buying any piece of hardware is responsible of knowing that they might not be able to run the most advanced version any product family. What's next? Suing EA or Valve for not being able to run Crysis at full settings using the minimum system specs? I mean, 1900x1200 with 4xAA and advanced shading is what I consider "the Crysis defining features".
Even if the computers were labeled as "Aero compatible" and Microsoft called the new Windowing theme as "Aero" (with or without the transparency), there would be no reason for a lawsuit. But they didn't. They called these computers "Vista Capable" and they were, in fact, capable of running a version of Windows Vista.
I'm sorry but even though sometimes Microsoft gives me the creeps, lawyers can be even worse. And class action suit lawyers are the worst ones of all, they're just looking for a jackpot suit so they can retire and buy a boat.
I'll give you 50 cents for every dollars worth of MS stock.
As for the trial:
What will happen is the same thing happens in most of these cases. Microsoft will settle and provide a "consumer redress" arrangement, and then start handing-out $20 checks to whoever applies before Dec 31, 2009. The end.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
if this happens, it will be the year of the linux desktop with duke nukem forever being released simultanously by steve jobs while monkeys fly out his ass.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
It was Dell inducing me to purchase a computer using "Vista ready" in their advertising, not Microsoft. Now Microsoft might have duped them by having poor specs in their sticker program, but that's a matter between Dell and Microsoft---the matter for me is that Dell sold me a computer with a false advertising claim on it.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
It's true. But only because of the modern misconception of patriotism. From the Wiki
I don't believe that welfare is patriotic, nor is buying American made products simply because they are American. I believe patriotism is the love of the ideals and customs that make your country great. So I think Socrates had the best idea about what Patriotism really is about. All that other stuff is simply mistaking one individual's version of Patriotism for another's. And in the USA, where the opinion of the individual is allowed free reign, there are going to be many versions of patriotism. But the key to remember is that your patriotism is not my patriotism in a free society.
Money is the root of all evil?
Nationalism is an oxymoron in a truly globalized world, but not patriotism.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
The Wikipedia article is total nonsense. Patriotism has always meant to 'love my country', and that includes criticism of my country if I see that my country is wrong.
It's only in the last few years with the wicked Bush administration that patriotism reversed to 'hush, don't say anything, support our troops'.