- Related Stories
-
Microsoft's Mundie looks beyond Gates
May 17, 2007 -
Microsoft sued over Vista branding
April 4, 2007 -
Retailers aim to get Vista boost
January 22, 2007 -
10 things to consider before taking the Vista plunge
December 4, 2006 -
FAQ: Getting a handle on Windows Vista
November 29, 2006 - Related Blogs
-
Why Microsoft must abandon Vista to save itself
September 26, 2007 -
The lawsuit over low-end Vista
April 4, 2007
The case involves the way Microsoft marketed PCs as "Windows Vista capable" prior to the consumer launch of the operating system in January.
Plaintiffs Dianne Kelley and Kenneth Hansen claim Microsoft was not telling the truth when it put the "Vista capable" logo on PCs that would be capable of running only Vista Home Basic. They contend that "Vista capable" implies that the machine is able to run all versions of Vista, rather than just the pared-down Home Basic version.
In a filing for a class action at the U.S. district court in Seattle earlier this month, lawyers acting for the plaintiffs claimed that even Microsoft's director of marketing, Mark Croft, had become confused about the meaning of "Vista capable" when giving evidence.
Croft's explanation was that "'capable' has an interpretation for many that, in the context of this program, a PC would be able to run any version of the Windows operating system."
"Ready," Croft continued, "may (cause) concerns that the PC would run in some improved or better way than 'capable.'"
After a 10-minute break to talk to Microsoft's lawyers, Croft admitted he had made "an error" and retracted his previous statement, saying that by "capable" Microsoft meant "able to run a version of Vista."
In the filing, the plaintiffs' lawyers said that it was "ironic" Croft had made the mistake. "Mr. Croft understood Microsoft's logo to be telling customers that PCs would run not only the stripped-down Vista Home Basic, but also what plaintiffs contend are the 'real' versions of Vista: the ones that include Microsoft's heavily marketed 'Vista features.' Ironically, Mr. Croft's understanding of what 'Windows Vista capable' means is the same understanding that Microsoft asserts no consumer would be justified in having."
In a court filing of its own, Microsoft argues that it, along with computer makers and the press, educated consumers about Vista and the meaning of the term Windows Vista Capable.
"Plaintiffs ignore the comprehensive marketing campaigns through which Microsoft, OEMs, retailers and others provided consumers with detailed information on the different versions of Windows Vista and the 'Windows Vista Capable' program," Microsoft said in the filing. "Instead, plaintiffs focus on the tiny three-word logo that played only a small role in that process."
It also argues that the case should not be allowed to be a class action on behalf of those who took part in the Express Upgrade program for Vista because the named plaintiff in the suit did not take part in that program, which gave a free or nearly free copy of Vista to buyers of XP machines in the months before the newer OS came to market.
The Seattle-based law firm acting for the plaintiffs--Gordon, Tilden, Thomas & Cordell--is seeking to prove that Microsoft developed its "Windows Vista capable" marketing program, including the logo and the "express upgrade to Windows Vista" promotion, to maintain Windows XP sales prior to the launch of Vista.
Microsoft is fighting the claim. The software company claims that itself, OEMs, retailers and the press had informed consumers about what "Vista capable" meant.
Tom Espiner of ZDNet UK reported from London. CNET News.com's Ina Fried contributed to this report from San Francisco.
See more CNET content tagged:
plaintiff, lawyer, director of marketing, Microsoft Windows Vista, class action
- Not Ready For Prime time
- by Toulinwoek November 28, 2007 9:54 AM PST
- The world knows the truth...and prefers Windows overwhelmingly. As great as Macs are, most people just aren't interested, period.<br />Now, on to what the story is actually about. Windows Vista is arguably the biggest mistake Microsoft has ever made, possibly comparable to the fiasco that was Windows ME and the disaster that was DOS 4.0. Probably the only thing worse was Microsoft Bob (remember that?)<br />Anyway, it appears that Microsoft now has to try to force feed Vista to the masses. I know, a lot of people use Vista and have no issues at all and that's great, but it is obvious that Vista has had far more initial complaints, issues and frustrations than Windows XP ever did. Being in IT, I have never heard more talk of downgrading to a previous version since Windows Me, and I'm not sure it was as bad as Vista has been. For the first time in 17 years, I have no desire to move to the next Microsoft OS. Not that I am a barometer of users worldwide, but let's face it, it's a real mess right now.<br />I've never liked the thousand-version model Vista has anyway, and apparently even Microsoft isn't clear about their own somewhat deceptive branding. Just one more reason for me to pass on the whole thing.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- :-)
- by GGGlen November 28, 2007 10:53 AM PST
- I've always been amused by the argument that people "prefer Windows <br />overwhelmingly"- And I'll tell you why.<br />On the eve of Vista's release, I was standing in line behind a woman who had 3 <br />copies of Vista in hand.<br />The line was long, so we started to talk, and since I was curious, I asked her how <br />many computers she had at home.<br />"Oh, I've only got one, but I've got 3 teenagers, and I was told that this will make my <br />computer go faster, so I'm buying a Vista for each of them".<br />This is something I've seen, year after year, since Windows hit version 3.<br />The masses do not "prefer Windows", they simply buy Windows.<br />The "masses" are completely, utterly clueless, and they simply do what they're told, <br />when they're told to do it, and in the manner which they're told to do so.
- Like this
-
- Total agreement
- by ramudd November 28, 2007 1:49 PM PST
- Completely agree. I have finally got XP to work really well and not hang up and I am happy with it. Now M$ is telling me that I will be forced to downgrade to Vista. The only one that will work on my meager ACER crappy laptop with 20 minutes of battery life is the Vista Home Basic which offers me no more functionality than I have with XP. So why change just because they call everything by different names doesn't make it better. If I want to learn a new OS I will buy a MAC.
- Like this View reply
Processing -
- Nitpick:
- by Penguinisto November 29, 2007 9:07 AM PST
- The world (as an entity) doesn't "know" jack ****. <br /><br />This is the same 'world' that bases its voting decisions on who has the best hair or sounds the most caring and sympathetic about what each individual perceives as their 'needs'. <br /><br /><br />This means that it's up to those of us in geekdom to educate folks on the strengths and weaknesses of each OS, computer, and other choices. I get asked a LOT about computer-related things; enough so that I empathize with doctors at parties now.<br /><br />Me, I have my biases, and they can get obvious. I also make it a point to mention those biases up-front, then explain in layman's terms each relevant technical reason why I recommend a given solution. It works out pretty good.<br /><br />As for Windows, it has, until recently, its niches and its purposes that made it worth recommending on occasion. Vista broke that, for reasons that have been hashed out numerous times in numerous articles here, and elsewhere. <br /><br />The reason why, best I can figure, is that MSFT lost sight of what the damned thing was actually supposed to do. Instead, they tried to push their "vision" on to the scene, with no regard for speed or efficiency. Sure, they tried to put more "security" into it, but to no avail... all that managed to do was inconvenience the user while still leaving it [i]with more vulnerabilities[/i] than XP had at the same point in its lifecycle.<br /><br />Basically, they took their eyes off of the prize. They went from being halfway proactive to being full-on reactive. Think of c.1992 Apple, and their (back then) loss of focus. What Apple was in 1992, Microsoft is today.<br /><br />/P
- Like this View reply
Processing -
Showing 1 of 2 pages (116 Comments)