'Vista capable' suit no longer class action
In the latest twist in the long-running suit over Microsoft's "Vista capable" marketing program, a judge on Wednesday decided the matter no longer qualified as a class action suit.
According to the ruling, a copy of which is posted on TechFlash, the judge ruled that each PC buyer has to bring his or her own legal action in order to seek damages from Microsoft.
"Absent evidence of class-wide price inflation, Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that common questions predominate over individual considerations," Judge Marsha Pechman wrote in the ruling.
Although Pechman declined to dismiss the suit entirely, the ruling is a big win for Microsoft, which could have faced a huge verdict in the case.
Microsoft, in a statement, seemed pretty pleased.
"We're pleased that the court granted our motion to decertify the class, leaving only the claims of six individuals," Microsoft said. "We look forward to presenting our case to the jury, should the plaintiffs elect to pursue their individual claims."
In addition to limiting potential monetary damages, the move could also mean less airing of Microsoft's dirty laundry. The case has been a treasure trove of documents to date, including a number of juicy e-mails.
The dispute centers on whether Microsoft was being deceptive when it labeled PCs as "Vista capable" even though it knew they would never be able to run the operating system's more advanced features, such as its Aero user interface. (It's an issue I raised back in March 2006, when the program was first announced.)
The "Vista capable" stickers were used on Windows XP systems sold in the run-up to Vista, which had its mainstream launch in January 2007.
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
Wow. That'll hurt!
Precedents have a nasty habit of growing. If MSFT loses enough of them, it could mean a near-automatic chunk of change for anyone who bought a laptop during that time, with very little effort on the litigants' parts.
from MSFT's POV, it may be better to settle the thing once and for all, than to have to deal with thousands of them at any given time, assuming that they lose the current one(s) and a precedent gets set.
/P
The OEM's got what they wanted, Microsoft paid the price for bowing to the pressure. Guess who got hurt? Maybe MS will learn something.
"If MSFT loses enough of them, it could mean a near-automatic chunk of change for anyone who bought a laptop during that time, with very little effort on the litigants' parts. "
Anyone claiming damages will need to demonstrate with sales receipts that they purchased a laptop during this period, have photographic proof that their system came labeled as such from the OEM as Vista Compatible, and a sales receipt showing that they bought Vista separately. All of that will be needed to prove that they aren't just making it up.
Do you have your receipts from that long ago for software purchases? I certainly do not.
If a person received the unit as a gift, then they would have no claim at all as their financial damages would be limited to what they paid for it. These are the simple facts of life.
And if Microsoft wished to, they could sue Dell, Toshiba, and HP for using threats and boycotts of MS products unless MSFT downgraded the minimum specifications to run Vista to a level that matched their own sub-par products at the time. That also is a very real possibility. Will it happen? Probably not.
But if you believe the people who post here, nobody ever bought any copies of Vista in the first place because they believed it was a failure so there should be no problem. :)
Nah, it means they've got off scott free.
Which is a pity because someone should have been hung out to dry for this one.
Credit card or bank statement, or copy of cancelled check. Next?
"have photographic proof that their system came labeled as such from the OEM as Vista Compatible"
Dell's own records have that, which can be subpoenaed (or the laptop itself, which would still have the sticker in most cases). Next?
"and a sales receipt showing that they bought Vista separately. "
See above. Also, online purchases almost always give you the ability to retrieve sales receipts from the site itself, at the most by asking the vendor to cough up a copy.
It's not as hard as you make it out to be... though it was a valiant effort on your part ;)
@Mark Anderson:
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on two factors:
1) how this case turned out, and
2) how easy it would be to lodge a suit and use the initial one as precedent (which depends on how the judge worded it).
MSFT's only recourses are two
1) win the suit (which is a 'maybe' at best, or
2) if 1) doesn't look likely, settle the thing before it reaches its conclusion, in order to avoid setting a precedent.
Find a "Pro Bono" lawyer, which means free, lawyers have to take free cases from time to time in order to pass their bar exams and keep their bar numbers so they can practice law in court.
Since you cannot sue by class action, you will have to find a lawyer willing to take your case, I suggest a 'Pro Bono" lawyer as lawyers are known to charge as much as $400/hr for cases like suing Microsoft. Disclaimer I used to work for a big law firm that had Microsoft as a client, but I no longer work there. Microsoft only hires the best lawyers they can find, so chances are you might lose your case.
My advice, suck it up, switch to a Mac, or use Linux, HaikuOS, AROS, or something else, as most likely you'll get zonked by Windows 7.0 again. Even, gasp, shock, horrors, take Commander Spock's advice and use OS/2 instead via eComStation.
I think the EULA of XP and Vista prohibit class action suits and takes away some of your rights to sue Microsoft if the software doesn't work the way they say it does, that is why there are no class action lawsuits over XP and Vista having bad security issues that thousands of viruses infect your system because of Microsoft's failure to fix exploits in a timely fashion. I recall there was a nuclear submarine that almost had a meltdown because a Microsoft Access database had a division by zero error that locked up the control panel. In order words, you use Microsoft software as-is at your own risk, and can't file class-action lawsuits only single lawsuits at your own expense.
(SARCASM)Gee, I can't wonder why so many people hate Microsoft over this, they are such a nice company because Windows is installed on every new PC ever sold so that must mean they are like really really popular with the masses.(/SARCASM)
In case the hardware vendor informed you that the machine was ultra capable, or that the "vista capable" logo meant things it didn't, then I wonder why you didn?t sue the vendor. But I guess that would have been more difficult.
I was about to suggest that you set up the web site yourself, as you don't have my sympathy, but I guess that's not your style. You like things easy and cheap.
Exactly what would you consider advanced graphics?
I'm running a PC that was certified by MS to be Vista Compatible after checking it against their own software. I looked on their website and found a piece of software meant to judge whether or not a pre-existing computer was "Vista Capable". I can guarantee my system is anything but Vista capable.
I'm currently running Ubuntu 8.10 with full graphics via Compiz Fusion, including the 3D cube and wobbly windows.
My system specs are as follows
1.87GHz Pentium 4 processor
512 MHz DDR Ram
NVidia GeForce 4000 (several years old)
As I said, I tested my system via the software provided by MS directly from their website and yes, my system was claimed to be capable of running Vista. There were no qualifications to whether I would be able to run Aero or whether there would be any other trouble with this system once upgraded.
This is not an OEM problem, it's a Microsoft problem and should be taken care of by a class action lawsuit. Someone should check the judges bank accounts or at least see just how poorly the evidence was presented. Thankfully I was smart enough to not fall for the promises of MS. I pity those who were.
That's pretty low speck for Compz, the forums have been pretty full of people with issues with the 4000 series and Compz.
@tm_anon: what's advanced graphics? How about not trying to run a one-year old OS on five year old graphics.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
He's already said he's running Ubuntu 8.10 on that system. That is an OS that's more like 6 MONTHS old (not even a year yet) running on old graphics. Troll attempt FAIL on your part.
Linux can do that because it gets out of your way and allows YOU to own YOUR computer. M$ can't do that because they think THEY own your computer.
Just see what happened in a stamps.com settlement. I get two months of "free" service while the attorneys get over $440K in fees. Isn't it awesome to be a lawyer on a class action case!
"I don't know what you mean and I don't f-ing care!"
I just hope the scum sucking lawyers walk awy pennyless, parasites that they are.
even though it knew ...
I've run Compiz on an ATI Radeon Xpress 200; I don't know how that compares with Intel integrated, but it was a bottom-of-the-line integrated graphics chip in 2005. So it's certainly possible to run a composited window manager on such a weak graphics chip, and Microsoft would have completely negated all this bad publicity.
Most of us saw right through it - but granny isn't like most of us. That's who their target was.
- by technewsjunkie February 19, 2009 8:04 AM PST
- It depends on what the meaing of "is" is.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(45 Comments)I guess the multiple versions of Windows OS is useful for something benficial for Microsoft now (other than milking people). When users are confused over the multitude of versions, they can't make a case for it in court! Confusion is their strategy, and style.