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.

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.

[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.

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: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.

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.