A class action lawsuit against Microsoft Corp. has been filed
for the company’s Windows
Vista Capable logo on new computers. According to Seattle
P-I, the suit alleges that it was deceptive to include the logo on
machines not capable of running all the features Microsoft was touting as new
features of Windows Vista.
To run Windows Vista, PCs require a minimum of 512MB of RAM,
an 800MHz or faster processor and a DirectX 9-capable graphics card—but those requirements
do not guarantee a computer of running the new operating system will run with
all new features. One such feature is “Aero,” an updated graphical user
interface that requires both a relatively powerful graphics card and one of the
most expensive versions of Windows Vista.
“In sum, Microsoft engaged in bait and switch -- assuring
consumers they were purchasing 'Vista Capable' machines when, in fact, they
could obtain only a stripped-down operating system lacking the functionality
and features that Microsoft advertised as 'Vista,'” read the complaint.
The suit also alleges that Bill Gates played a part in
misleading consumers after making a comment that users would be able to upgrade
to Windows Vista for less than $100.
“In fact, one can only 'upgrade' to Home Basic for that
price, which Mr. Gates and Microsoft know is a product that lacks the features
marketed by Microsoft as being Vista,” the suit said, alleging that Gates'
statement “furthered Microsoft's unfair and deceptive conduct.”
“Anybody who purchased a PC that had the Windows Vista
Capable logo got the core experience of Windows Vista,” said Linda Norman, a
Microsoft associate general counsel. “We have different versions, and they do
offer different features. ... The Windows (Vista) core experience is a huge
advance over Windows XP, we believe, and provides some great features,
particularly in the area of security and reliability, and just general ease of
quote: It can be. In this particular case, however, it's not.
quote: And? He wasn't promised Aero. He was promised Vista. And- -more to the point-- the person making the promise wasn't even Microsoft, it was the hardware vendor. So why sue Microsoft?
quote: The fact that the vast majority of suits are frivolous is supposed to reassure us?
quote: Even when they are thrown out, they still clogs up the judicial system and, by forcing manufacturers to defend against them, raises prices for all of us.
quote: being a law student you're (will be) involved in the scheme and quite frankly i consider your explanation as a form of pr, not convincing by the way (professional? - yes).
quote: most of the so called class action lawsuits (the more dubious reasons the better) does not benefit customers but only few lawyers that had come up with the idea of the lawsuit. consumers as a rule fork the bills (essentially losing even more).
quote: sue ms so it opened its file/os standards so others could create compatible applications/os; do it for reasonable price (if you can understand the meaning of reasonable the way the non-lawyers do) and i'll call it win win situations.
quote: it's a pity but most of the "law entrepreneurs" present themselves as an example of pure greed. sorry if this generalization offends you, but this is my opinion.