Slashdot Mirror
Vista Capable Lawsuit Loses Class-Action Status
nandemoari writes "The long-running 'Vista Capable' lawsuit challenging Microsoft's marketing of PCs capable of running only the most basic version of the Windows Vista operating system has reportedly lost its class-action status. Federal judge Marsha Pechman decertified the class-action lawsuit, saying that plaintiffs had failed to show that consumers paid more for PCs with the 'Vista Capable' label than they would have otherwise."
What about Vista-capable monitors? Never understood the point of that sticker on the base of my 22" LCD monitor.
Bored at work? Play Game!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Another great victory for incompetence, inconvenience and greed.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'm confused by the judge's comment -- I thought the whole issue was *not* that users paid higher prices for "Vista Capable" machines, but rather that they bought such machines that were not actually capable of running Vista.
What gives?
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
The summary (and, indeed, the article) is a little misleading. It is not that they didn't show that the plaintiffs didn't pay more (if the judge had found that, the case probably would have been dismissed). Rather, they lost their clase certification because they hadn't shown that all the plaintiffs in the class had uniformly overpaid.
To form a class, the plaintiffs' situations situations have to be relevantly similar. Her ruling was just that, in essence, the cases hadn't been shown to be similar enough to be litigated as a class.
Now the cases will proceed individually, with each plaintiff having to show individually that they overpaid.
caritj.org
I thought the point of the lawsuit was that people were fooled (allegedly!) into thinking that lesser-spec'd machines were capable of running many of Vista's better goodies, and not specifically that the machines they did buy were overpriced?
Is this a cock-up of the presentation by the plaintiffs or their reps?
AT&ROFLMAO
Darn, my mouse was not vista capable! I wasted $75 on this MightyMouse thinking its gonna run on my lovely Vista laptop. I'm filing a class-action suit for this, hopefully I should get my $$ back.
nobody remains virgin, life fscks everyone...
I was part of one of the previous class action suits. After years of waiting all I got was a coupon for a $15 discount on windows or office.
The plaintiffs can still proceed with their individual lawsuits against MS. Class action would have had much more dire consequences against MS and more bad publicity. Class action would have brought more willing lawyers as there would have been the chance of a large settlement. MS can settle with the individual plaintiffs and quietly make this thing go away.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Judge Pechman said the plaintiffs could continue with the lawsuit on a case-by-case basis.
This would seem to effectively kill the lawsuit. Most who would bring an individual suit likely are either running a different OS already or are oblivious to the "Vista capable" issue.
Quotation is a serviceable substitute for wit. -- Oscar Wilde
The issue was about users getting a POS that wouldn't give them the minimum acceptable user experience. It has been proven that Microsoft lowered their standards after caving into hardware vendors who wanted to dump their inventory. This was deceptive to the consumers who had been informed of Microsoft's assurances about "Vista Ready" and as a result they spent their money on something that was less useful than they expected. An almost identical scenario occurred during the USB 1.0 to USB 2.0 transition. The USB consortium (HP, Compaq, Toshiba, etc.) decided to re-number the specs so USB 1.1 could be called USB 2.0 (full speed). USB 2.0 got renamed to "high speed". Everybody who was waiting to buy hardware that supported USB 2.0 ran out and bought it even though it still only ran at 11 megabits. This judge is either brain dead or corrupt.
I think the problem is really that their lawsuit was not class-action capable...
This is so disappointing! I mean, after the lawyers take their fees and after I spend a half hour filling out the forms, I was expecting that $1.87! Now, I'll have to return that bottle of Coke I bought with my expected winnings.
The case was dismissed because the low end laptops were "Vista Capable" but there was also a "Premium Ready" sticker on other models. It was a case of read the fine print.
http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE51I4KF20090219
Only fags use Linux.
... Oh sthop it ...
Class action lawsuits are a sham that benefit no one but the lawyers.
You individually have a case or you don't.
And how much bribes did Microsoft pay to get the suit dismissed?
I think that's a valid question since it's a lot of money at stake for Microsoft and they have tipped the odds earlier in the OOXML circus.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
These were bottom-rung machines bought by people who didn't give a shit. All they wanted was a computar thingy to access thar intarwebs.
When people like this walk into these stores to buy the cheapest computer they can, nothing can move that mountain. You can tell them time and time again that the performance will suck, that it won't work with newer operating systems, and they still won't pony up another dollar.
Face it, Vista got a bad name for three reasons:
1. The lowest-end computers certified to run it were not really capable (since fixed).
2. Nvidia's drivers sucked for the first 6 months.
3. The I/O subsystem was poorly designed (fixed in SP1), and the virtualization of video memory was a poor idea for Vista-32 that makes game memory usage balloon (hence the higher memory requirements for games under Vista, and problems running out of memory that players don't see on XP). REALITY: Vista should have pushed 64-bit as the primary OS.
Only one of the above was really under Microsoft's control.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
When I first heard about the case, my assumption about the main thrust of the argument (since proven wrong) was that consumers were put through undue hassle and extra expense in having to replace the extrememly low-end and basically unusable "Vista Capable" machines. I always thought it was more of a classic "bait and switch", with the user being deliberately misled into buying something different from what was being described. Even if unjust enrichment were required for such a legal argument, it would thus come not from the overpricing of labeled machines, but from the purchase of additional replacement machines to achieve the actual level of functionality advertised by the labels. Is anyone taking this tack?
Also, does this mean that any deceptive labeling is now legally okay, provided that the labeled merchandise is not overpriced? That seems a very dubious legal outcome...
Curious,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
This laptop has a Vista capable sticker. I didn't know that before I bought it.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
That's a fair question. Once I'm able to find and read the actual order, I'll try to say something about that.
caritj.org
A good idea, but I don't think that's the argument. Actually reading TFA (I know, I know), it sure sounds like the judge is saying that the prosecution is arguing that the low-end machines labeled as "Vista Capable" were somehow deliberately overpriced, thereby leading to 'unjust enrichment' for Microsoft. If so, this really seems like a royal screw-up for the prosecution, since it's your version of the argument that makes much more sense (at least to me, but IANAL).
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Here you go. The PDF linked in the article shows the actual email thread, including the "I now have a $2100 email machine" money quote by MS executive Mike Nash.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Steve Jobs? Is that you?
Cigarettes use computers! Who knew?
How ya like dat?
Maybe that's the issue you had a problem with, but the judge can only really rule on the issue the plaintiffs brought up. Their case did not allege "users getting a POS that wouldn't give them the minimum acceptable user experience". Instead, the case alleged "unjust enrichment" on the part of Microsoft, which requires showing that Microsoft made more money via the allegedly misleading behavior than they would have otherwise.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2009/feb09/02-22elevateamericapr.mspx
Firefox can't find the server at www.microsoft.com.
I just mentioned that to our sales manager, that we should put Vista Capable stickers on all our macs on display. He likes the idea. heh...
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
These machines did not work with Vista. And MS sold a Vista license that was not suitable. Since this Vista license cost money that went to MS, this is unjust enrichment.
While I see your point, I've also seen and touched computer speakers labeled as "Y2K compliant" back in 1999. And even that wasn't the most ludicrious thing. IIRC _the_ most ludicrious thing was a network cable sold as Y2K compliant.
I'm not even sure how a cable or speakers could _possibly_ have had a Y2K problem, seeing that neither even had a CPU, much less anything capable of knowing the date or depending on it.
The only sane explanation was that some marketer figured out they'd sell more of them with that extra claim.
And it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the Vista thing created similar effects.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
This lawsuit was a joke. For once I have to say I'm happy Microsoft won.
Why?
Simple.
There is nothing wrong with advertising a PC as "Vista Capable".
Even if it only runs Basic Home Edition of Vista, certainly it doesn't contradicted its ability as being "Vista Capable".
Furthermore, retailers and manufacturers who have been pushing Vista with their products (PCs, laptops, notebooks, etc...) have usually also made sure that they recommended their products with words such as "runs best with (insert flavor of Vista)".
This is one of those times where clearly, greed was the only reason for this lawsuit.
On another note, the cost of a laptop being "Vista Capable" and how much they overpaid? Oye Vay! Are they retarded? Even I know there are no collation between a product being branded as "Vista Capable" and a higher cost of purchase. If anything, I recall laptops being sold for like 400$ with Vista Basic. Dirt Cheap.
Now, let's not think I like Vista, heck no, in my honest opinion, it's a crappy product, but, this isn't about what I like, it's just about being fair.
Again, this lawsuit and the people behind it are just trying to make a quick buck on Microsoft by conning the system.
What a waste of time and resources...
OK. So I've read the order now and here's the story:
Under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA), one has to show not only that the practices at issue were deceptive, but that the deception injured the plaintiffs. Makes sense, I think.
The injury that these plaintiffs are alleging is having overpaid for their computers. That is, their computers were priced higher than they would have been had they not been advertised as Vista-Capable.
For class certification, of course, the plaintiffs have to show that this price inflation was uniform for all members of the class (in a nationwide class action lawsuit, this means they have to show that the prices were inflated throughout the US). And this is where they run into trouble, because MS has pointed out, and the judge has agreed, that the plaintiffs have not introduced any specific evidence that would indicate that this is the case (for example, they could have provided an economic study of the effect that a Vista-Capable certification has on the price of a PC, by way of supply and demand)
So, yes, the plaintiffs perhaps could have tried a different damage theory as you suggested (hassle of finding a replacement) but it looks like these didn't go that way.
And, yes, under the CPA at least, deceptive marketing in and of itself is OK, so long as it does not injure anyone. ...of course, I can't see why you would deceptively label something without intending to injure customers somehow.
(again, not legal advice and IANAL yet)
caritj.org
You mean 21.35%.
Market Share is the year divided by 100.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Is this what happened to the companies that used to make Scratch n' Sniff stickers in the 1980's?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
The people should have individually sued Microsoft. Class-Action suits do nothing. Hundreds of wins in lower courts does EVERYTHING including enriching those who were conned out of their money.
It also gets rid of Microsoft's lawyer ability to some degree, since some of these cases will wind up in small claims, where Microsoft can't send lawyers.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
of course, I can't see why you would deceptively label something without intending to injure customers somehow.
Well, deceptively understating would be deceptive (like saying a computer is adequate for email and light web browsing and pricing accordingly, when in fact it's a kill-em-dead gaming rig) but unharmful, particularly if priced like a email-and-web box instead of the blazing speed monster it is. In this case, deceptively giving more value than the customer paid for. Not injurious, probably, but of questionable fiscal sense.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
But, again, why would a company do this? And why would we want to stop them?
caritj.org
Maybe I should start manufacturing a new type of hybrid that's "Transportation Capable" & which has a phenomenal MPG rating when used in "Pedal Assisted Mode."
> Federal judge Marsha Pechman decertified the class-action lawsuit, saying that
> plaintiffs had failed to show that consumers paid more for PCs with the 'Vista
> Capable' label than they would have otherwise."
WTF! That's not the problem!
The problem is that these PCs had "Vista Capable" on them but they were so damned borderline as to be useless without an upgrade.
My daughter had a Toshiba laptop with Vista pre-installed. It had 500MB of RAM. Keep in mind this amount, though pathetic for Vista, was deemed sufficient. Now keep in mind it was less than that since 64MB was set aside for video RAM. So startup was a 15 minute Hell on Earth, as was starting applications.
Thrashing city, for those who know the situmication.
And again, if you say "well, buy more RAM!", you've missed the point.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Now that is what I call missing the point entirely. Maybe the person was going to buy a different, cheaper PC, until they saw the Vista Capable Lie%^H^Hogo. Maybe I was willing to pay more for a PC that was truly Vista Capable, but I chose one that didn't suit my needs. Sure I paid less, but - and pay attention to this Marsha Pechman - I didn't get what was advertised!
I expect a large degree of cluelessness on the part of various governemt officials, but this isn't about that. She is either phenomenally stupid, or she has been bought. Those are the only two options. Really.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
That's not "certified public accountant" in the subject line, but rather "Consumer Protection Act".
I questioned exactly the same line of reasoning in this post, and fellow slashdotter and lawyer-in-training pdabbadabba was kind enough to explain what s|he had found in this follow-up.
The upshot of it all is that it apparently *is* legal to market deceptively, provided no one is injured (or, in more practical terms, no one *notices* they are injured).
Ain't the law grand? :-/
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
There's also the wrinkle that the customer has to notice that they've been harmed. Slashdotter v1 brought up this very salient point here with regard to deceptive USB marketing to shift low-end mobos obsoleted by the arrival of USB 2.0. I doubt most run-of-the-mill consumers would have understood the difference between "USB 2.0" (formerly "USB 1.1" and only 12mbps) and "USB 2.0 high speed" (formerly "USB 2.0" and 480mbps), and many probably would not have understood enough to realize they were being swindled.
So yes, this was a case of deceptive marketing, and the customer was harmed (by paying more for obsolete hardware), so technically there was a crime committed -- but if the customer doesn't notice the harm, what then?
And so we have economic parasitism. Not surprising in the least, but good to be aware of.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
So... what you're saying is that Linux is the only OS that'll be Y10k compatible?
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
"So, yes, the plaintiffs perhaps could have tried a different damage theory as you suggested (hassle of finding a replacement) but it looks like these didn't go that way."
And I suspect for good reason. I doubt many people ran out and bought a more expensive computer just to have a better Vista experience.
If you end up reading the article, you might feel stupid. Don't. Don't let reality change your opinions. You're beautiful just the way you are.
And in other news, Microsoft's new legal department head, Marsha Pechman, made clear that "Windows 7 Capable" stickers on new PCs do not constitute a warranty agreement. The stickers, in the shape of a large yellow lemon, are planned to be placed on almost every new PC sold in the US over the next year.