Vista Capable Lawsuit Loses Class-Action Status 172
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."
Re:Monitors (Score:1, Informative)
What about Vista-capable monitors? Never understood the point of that sticker on the base of my 22" LCD monitor.
Usually that means it has HDCP or the drivers were bundled in.
Slightly Misleading (Score:5, Informative)
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.
The issue was never about users paying more... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Monitors (Score:4, Informative)
Could have been a DRM thing. I'm too tired to look up the exact acronym (though HDCP is sounding familiar), but Vista implemented new support for certain monitors having end to end encryption between the video card and the display, so that it wasn't possible to directly capture the video from the video cable. There was originally plans (that I'm not sure if they ever came to fruition) to downgrade HD video on monitors that didn't conform to this standard (or were connected using standard DSUB cables instead of HDMI or DVI).
Re:Monitors (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.ubuntu.com/partners/hardwareprogramme
Re:Slightly Misleading (Score:3, Informative)
Nope. It does matter whether they paid more. They are claiming unjust enrichment which requires that MS profit from the deceptive practices. This means that it has to be shown (now on a case by case basis) that the plaintiffs actually paid more than they otherwise would for the deceptively marketed computers.
(IANAL, but I will be AL soon and I have a fair deal of experience with these sorts of consumer class actions. And this, of course, is not legal advice. Take my word for it: the federal court system is far less corrupt than you think it is [though YMMV with state and local courts].)
It was about the features (Score:2, Informative)
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 [reuters.com]
Not a Surprise (Score:1, Informative)
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 [anandtech.com] 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.
TFA seems to disagree (Score:4, Informative)
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,
"Vista Capable" laptop == "$2100 email machine" (Score:4, Informative)
Here you go. [nwsource.com] 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,
Re:Linus is gay (Score:2, Informative)
that's not the issue they sued over, though (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Does "deceptive mktg" require "unjust enrichmen (Score:2, Informative)
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)
Re:Monitors (Score:4, Informative)
Then explain to me why it's on my ANALOG 22" LCD as well, then. There is no HDMI or DVI connection, so just how is HDCP implemented?
The Vista Capable is just a marketing scheme.
Re:This is how it shoudl have been originally (Score:3, Informative)
Well, that's what they'll have to do now. The down side with this strategy is that:
1. It will he harder for the plaintiffs to get good lawyers because there will be a lot less money involved. (The way it attracts top lawyers to take up the plaintiffs' cause - due to the large paydays - is one of the benefits of the class action system). Though, as you say, they may not need lawyers at all this way.
2. Similarly, MS will almost certainly pay less in damages if the suits are individually litigated. Remember, MS wants the cases to be litigated individually.