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.'"

Comments

Microsoft Stock?

[Cormophyte]

Anyone? I'll take bits of string, bug collections, and good will in trade. Just, please, get me off this train.

Re:Microsoft Stock?

[stfvon007]

Ill take 100,000 shares. Im out of toilet paper.

why just Microsoft?

[nurb432]

Hardware makers should be on the hook as well.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[TubeSteak]

Hardware makers should be on the hook as well.

Microsoft is the one that had the final word on labeling standards for "Vista capable".

Hardware makers lobbied hard to get the sticker applied to hardware that couldn't support Aero & Microsoft caved.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[thetoadwarrior]

No, its Microsoft program that determines if the sticker can go on the PC.

Sure hardware people asked for it. But it's the same as if your friend tells you that you should con people out of money. You choose to do it so it's your fault.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[drinkypoo]

Hardware makers lobbied hard to get the sticker applied to hardware that couldn't support Aero & Microsoft caved.

The Hardware makers should be at least as responsible, because they are the ones putting the stickers on the system.

I dislike Microsoft as much as the next guy (well, most places) but fighting unfairness with unfairness is a little bitch move.

Microsoft didn't put the stickers on the computers. Hold the integrators responsible. At least as responsible as Microsoft, maybe more.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[vux984]

Sure hardware people asked for it. But it's the same as if your friend tells you that you should con people out of money. You choose to do it so it's your fault.

I disagree with your analogy. To me its:

My friends that want to con people out of money by selling them junk endorsed by a celebrity harware reviewer, (i.e. me). But I won't endorse their junk... so they piss and moan for a while, and I cave.

They then stick my endorsement on their junk, and the customer gets ripped off by my friends.

They then sue my ass for endorsing their junk, because I lied when I said it was good. Should I be on the hook? Yeah, I lied. But my friends are at the very least equal partners in this con; not only was it their idea, but they are the ones who actually sold the junk, and they did so deliberately and intentionally knowing it was junk.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[hairyfeet]

But they don't. That's the problem. From MSFT's own press releases and ads all they talked about was Aero. Everywhere you saw Aero this and Aero that. Hell if you read the emails you would know that there were higher ups in management complaining that they were burned as well. Why? Because they bought "Vista Capable" and didn't know that they wouldn't get Aero. So if guys within the company itself got burned, what chance did the non tech consumer have?

And let us be honest here: Vista Basic is the "Cleetus the slack jawed yokel" of the Vista line. It is just too crippled. Pretty much all Vista Basic gives you is the annoyance of UAC without any of the pretty. No wonder the customers aren't happy campers. I'm personally shocked that they aren't selling Vista Basic for less than $50 just to move some product. Maybe they didn't make enough copies to make it worth selling, who knows. I do know that talking to the guys at places like BB and Staples that Vista Basic just sits there and rots on the shelf. While none of the Vista line is moving in large numbers according to them Vista Basic doesn't move any at all. Nobody wants it.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[AliasMarlowe]

I dislike Microsoft as much as the next guy

Poster: Can I be moderated as "interesting" please?
Slashdot: No. Sod off.
Poster: Look, I hate Microsoft as much as anyone!
Slashdot: If you want to be interesting, you'll have to really hate Microsoft.
Poster: I do!
Slashdot: Oh yeah? How much?
Poster: A lot!
Slashdot: OK, you're +5 interesting.

Re:why just Microsoft?

[Adambomb]

This is redundant as it appears in a bunch of other comments, but given the amount of redundancy of the error i'll give this one another go.

Note that the problem with the Vista Capable program was that it was labeling systems BEFORE VISTA WAS AVAILABLE.

The hardware vendors did NOT have the means to test anything and although they may have 'bullied' microsoft into lowering the spec requirement, the onus was on microsoft to tell them "uh no, that just wont work.".

Well.

[ZorbaTHut]

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.

Re:Well.

[torkus]

Should they be held responsible? Yes. For the cost of the operating system that's not compatible. The computer itself is just fine - they got exactly the hardware they paid for - no more, no less.

Make MS give them a free upgrade/sidegrade/downgrade to a working operating system compatible with their hardware. The idea that MS should pay for hardware upgrades is plain old silly.

Re:Well.

[nosferatu1001]

Erm - so they lie to you, saying the machine will be perfectly capable of running Feature X, and when it doesn't you think they should only have to give you the money Feature X cost?

Wow. Whats silly again?

They lied to shift hardware. To avoid pissing off Intel. They therefore need to give you WHAT YOU PAID FOR - you paid for a machine that was stated it could run Aero capably, so you should get that. No more No less.

Maybe then corporations won't lie in order to shift old hardware?

Re:Well.

[neumayr]

The computer itself is just fine - they got exactly the hardware they paid for - no more, no less.

But that hardware was advertised as something else. The customer can't be expected to know if they're being lied to by looking at the specs.
They wanted Vista, it said it can run Vista on the computer's box, and it didn't work. Just giving them some other OS is silly, suggesting it is arrogant.

Re:Well.

[jimicus]

They lied to shift hardware. To avoid pissing off Intel. They therefore need to give you WHAT YOU PAID FOR - you paid for a machine that was stated it could run Aero capably, so you should get that. No more No less.

Here in the UK, that'd be the retailer's problem. After all, it was they who sold you the product (complete with Vista capable sticker), it's their problem if it later transpires it isn't Vista capable. (In the real world, you'd almost certainly have no end of trouble getting a refund or a free upgrade in a case like this, but that's not really the point)

I'm surprised that this isn't the case in the US, frankly. What's the point in retailers if they're not responsible for the products they retail?

Re:Well.

[chill]

No, you're wrong.

The original meaning of the "Vista Capable" sticker was that the hardware could be UPGRADED to handle every feature of Vista. "Vista Ready" meant that it could handle it (Aero & WDDM) as is, without upgrades.

Much of the hardware labeled "Vista Capable" could NOT be upgraded to handle WDDM and Aero. Specifically, Intel 915 and 915GM chipsets were not WDDM capable and WOULD NEVER BE. Intel wanted Microsoft to delay the program until they got their next chipset out, about 5 months. That one would be WDDM capable. Microsoft, instead, just lowered the specs for the program and told Intel it was basically "just a sticker on the box". HP was absolutely furious with this tactic, since their stuff was all ready.

In short, the marketing department flat out lied to people. Microsoft SHOULD be on the hook for providing those people with "Vista Capable" hardware with the proper upgrades that they promised would happen. In the case of Intel 915GM laptops, that means a new laptop since you can't upgrade the chipset.

A slap on the wrist won't give MS or anyone else pause before pulling this sort of stunt again. They need a good kick in the groin and enough pain to make them understand that profiting from outright fraud will not be tolerated.

what would be the cost to refund

[wjh31]

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.

Re:what would be the cost to refund

[Meshach]

I have to agree with you that OEM vendors should bear a share of the responsibility.

OEM do piles of testing and development to install their "tools" / malware onto the machines. They must have known that the OS was not capable.

Re:what would be the cost to refund

[Joce640k]

Nope. This lawsuit refers to machines which were sold with XP installed but with a sticker saying "Vista Capable" on them (and often a voucher for the Vista upgrade).

Vista because it wasn't available at the time so they couldn't test machines with it.

Re:what would be the cost to refund

[Meshach]

Vista wasn't available to general people but I would think/hope that OEM had access to some alpha/beta/per-release version to test their tools against. Since MS makes piles of money from OEM vendors I would think they would help them out.

Re:Does these 8 billion take into account...

[Anonymous Coward]

MS can probably make Aero run on 513 MB RAM

So you'd just need to find/add a 1MB DIMM?

No irony there, then.

[Bozovision]

Microsoft in its response argued that giving litigants 'a free upgrade to Premium-ready PCs would provide a windfall to millions.

Whereas, of course, others would argue that the litigants provided a windfall of billions to Microsoft by purchasing Vista on a Vista Capable machine.

Kind of agree with MS here...

[Darundal]

...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.

Re:Right now, America needs a strong Operating Sys

[LilGuy]

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.

This whole lawsuit is retarded anyway...

[gregorio]

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.

advertised by the retailer

[Trepidity]

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.

Re:Right now, America needs a strong Operating Sys

[wellingj]

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.

It's true. But only because of the modern misconception of patriotism. From the Wiki

Patriotism is commonly defined as love of and/or devotion to one's country. The word comes from the Latin, patria, and Greek patritha. However, "patriotism," or the love of one's country, has come to have different meanings over time. Thus, the meaning of patriotism can be highly dependent upon context, geography and philosophy.

Although used in certain vernaculars as a synonym for nationalism, nationalism is not considered an inherent part of patriotism. Among the ancient Greeks, patriotism of notions concerning language, religious traditions, ethics, law and devotion to the common good, rather than pure identification with a nation-state. Scholar J. Peter Euben writes that for the Greek philosopher Socrates, "patriotism does not require one to agree with everything that his country does and would actually promote analytical questioning in a quest to make the country the best it possibly can be."

During the 18th century Age of Enlightenment, the notion of patriotism continued to be separate from the notion of nationalism. Instead, patriotism was defined as devotion to humanity and beneficence. For example, providing charity, criticizing slavery, and denouncing excessive penal laws were all considered patriotic. In both ancient and modern visions of patriotism, individual responsibility to fellow citizens is an inherent component of patriotism.

Many contemporary notions of patriotism are influenced by 19th century ideas about nationalism. During the 19th century, "being patriotic" became increasingly conflated with nationalism, and even jingoism. However, some notions of contemporary patriotism reject nationalism in favor of a more classic version of the idea of patriotism which includes social responsibility.

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.