Microsoft

Blogs

The Microsoft Blog

« Stats: The video-game console wars, one year later | Main | GO's Microsoft appeal denied ... and other leftovers »

Excerpts: Latest filings in 'Vista Capable' lawsuit

The lawsuit over Microsoft's "Windows Vista Capable" marketing program has reached a key juncture. Lawyers for the plaintiffs have formally requested class-action status for the case, seeking to open it up to many more people, and Microsoft last week filed its official opposition to that request. The filings contain some interesting tidbits on both sides.

First, a quick summary for anyone just tuning in: The case revolves around the marketing of Windows XP PCs as "Windows Vista Capable" last holiday season even in cases when they only had the horsepower to run Windows Vista Home Basic. The plaintiffs, two PC buyers, say that was deceptive, because Home Basic doesn't offer many of Windows Vista's signature features, such as the Aero Glass interface. They say it's not a "real" Windows Vista version. Microsoft says Home Basic is a real Windows Vista version, and it says it went to great lengths to make consumers aware of the differences among the different versions. It also says the case doesn't meet the legal requirements for a class action.

The case touches on key issues involving Windows Vista -- specifically, the variations among the different editions, and the steep system requirements for running premium versions of the operating system.

See this story from Monday's paper for more details. Here's the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, PDF, 31 pages, and Microsoft's opposition, PDF, 30 pages. (Both have been redacted by the lawyers to remove information, such as sales data, that Microsoft considers confidential.)

Among other things, Microsoft cites responses given by the first plaintiff in the case, Dianne Kelley, during a deposition. An excerpt from its filing:

"Although her claim (and that of the proposed class) centers on the allegedly misleading 'Windows Vista Capable' sticker, Ms. Kelley did not even see the sticker until long after buying the PC when her sister (calling at the behest of her husband, a lawyer working on this case) asked if her laptop had a 'Windows Vista Capable' sticker. ... The question (and the sticker) meant nothing to her even then."

Lawyers for the plaintiffs also cite information gleaned during depositions. Seeking to demonstrate how the "Vista Capable" logo could be a source of confusion for consumers, they point to the apparent confusion of a Microsoft marketing director, Mark Croft. Although Microsoft says "Windows Vista Capable" meant the machine could run a version of Vista, not any version, Croft initially said the opposite in a deposition excerpted in the plaintiffs' filing. Here's what he's quoted as saying when contrasting the terms "capable" and "ready":

"Capable is a statement -- single-word statement -- that 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 may have concerns that the PC would run in some improved or better way than -- than capable; therefore, the word capable was deemed to be a more fitting word for this program."

According to the plaintiffs' filing, after a break in which he spoke with Microsoft's lawyers, he later clarified his comments to say that capable meant a PC would run a version of Vista, not any version.

The plaintiffs' lawyer then asked: "Did you ever do any market research -- consumer research to determine whether or not the term Windows Vista Capable would cause any consumers to make the very mistake that you just made?" No, they hadn't, he replied.

The case is being litigated in federal court in Seattle. U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman will decide whether to certify the suit as a class action. Also see this earlier story about a previous hearing in the case.

Posted by at November 25, 2007 9:00 p.m.
Categories: Legal Issues, Windows

Comments

#69699

Posted by cherylsuzy at 11/26/07 6:44 a.m.

The claim that "capable" means a version of Microsoft's Windows Vista should run on these computers is inaccurate. In my case, I have a "Windows Vista Capable" sticker on my computer that I purchased last year. Not only does my computer have the sticker, but the salesperson made a point of telling me that I will be able to upgrade later. I recently spent $100 on a Windows Vista Upgrade, Home Basic edition. When I attempted to install it on my computer, I discovered that I was not able to do so, since my computer does not have 512 megabytes of RAM. Unfortunately, I can't return the upgrade cd because I already opened the package. I am also unable to take advantage of the features that I was specifically looking for in the Home Basic edition, which include increased security and parental controls. I hope that this case does attain class action status because if this has happened to me, I'm sure it has happened to many others.

Report violation

#69706

Posted by unregistered user at 11/26/07 7:03 a.m.

Why is it everybody looking for a hand out?
I mean come on just pay the money for a good mid to high end pc.

Report violation

#69750

Posted by unregistered user at 11/26/07 10:08 a.m.

To the first commentor, and possibly the plantiff, you can solve your problem by buying notebook memory. They are cheap (you can upgrade to 512 or even 1 GB of memory for less than $50), and easy to install (look on the manual, its a simple process that just requires a screwdriver).

Its not as hard as it sounds, but make sure you are buying memory that is compatible with your laptop. Do a google search or ask a salesperson at Bust Buy or something if you are not sure.

Report violation

#69871

Posted by unregistered user at 11/26/07 4:32 p.m.

Just buy half the machine and run Linux the learning curve
is the same and the software is better !
Microcrap likes vista , let the keep it.

Report violation

#69874

Posted by unregistered user at 11/26/07 5:14 p.m.

The question isn't pay more, by buying a more expensive computer, or even installing more hardware as in ram memory. The issue is, like many, the product claims to be something it is NOT!

The next time you fly to England, would you want to be told we fly all the way to England, and you find yourself landing on Iceland, to walk and swim the rest of the way?

Just pay more, as if paying wasn't enough in the first place is completely wrong. How about, telling the truth and providing a product that claims to be what it really is?

No wonder why pirates advance, FREE software, no hassles, paid software and lots of issues and problems.

Punish your customers, and now Microsoft wants it's way!

To Hel_ with that...

Report violation

#69886

Posted by unregistered user at 11/26/07 6:21 p.m.

I can see why this happens:

- OEMs cut every hardware corner, and won't add the $10 to their cost of goods to have an acceptable amount of RAM

- OEMS load trialware on their OS installs which partially bogs down the system

- Person buys the cheapest PC possible, and the salesman will say it will do all they want

- After 6 months of installing various crud and/or clicking on "Win a Free Ipod" links, the computer starts to run poorly

- Person decides that the new Vista OS will fix all their problems (it's new...it must be better), and the salesman agrees of course.

- Person can't install Vista or the computer still runs poorly with Vista.

There's plenty of blame to go around on stuff like this. Sounds like a case of "let's sue the richest".

Report violation

#69948

Posted by unregistered user at 11/27/07

Let's sue the riches??? You serious?
Well, guess you are. Let's sue the guilty party is more like it. A pc with one of those vista stickers on it are supposed to be certified by microsoft. So, don't put the blame on the oem. Let's put it right where it belongs, at microsoft.
And like some said. You can do the same things, with a really fancy interface, on a linux pc. At a seriously lower price of course.

Report violation

#69954

Posted by unregistered user at 11/27/07 12:54 a.m.

Personally, I would argue that this qualifies as a deceptive advertising issue; as the first post stated, if the computer was advertised as being "Vista capable", and even includes promises from the salespeople that the computer will run Vista, then the customer who purchased the computer and found that the system could not be upgraded deserves compensation. In the case of the person involved in the first post, the purchase of Vista under the belief that it would be able to handle Vista qualifies, at least in my opinion, as a genuine injury to the customer (they paid a considerable amount of money to buy something useless to them under the belief, promoted by the product's manufacturer through the sales representatives, that the product would be of use). This case appears to be about integrity, and is therefore perfectly valid from my point of view.

Report violation

#70073

Posted by unregistered user at 11/27/07 11:04 a.m.

Look, it's very simple. Microsoft is the most wonderful company in the history of the world, and it would, never, ever do anything wrong, much less illegal. And so without even looking into the facts of the case, we can conclude with certainty that the plaintiffs are wrong.

Report violation

#70113

Posted by unregistered user at 11/27/07 12:50 p.m.

microsoft is the paragon of honest and morally upright corporations. bill gates would never ever ever ever let deception enter into his profit model.

Report violation

#70163

Posted by unregistered user at 11/27/07 3:35 p.m.

Those who say that another person out for a buck!! You obviously have no clue as to the issue and never will until you get screwed.
I'm glad someone out there has the Kahuna's to stand up against the crooked corporations. I'm sick of Corp's getting away with lies and deception. If it say's "Windows Vista Capable", the computer better darn well run VISTA as is!! (Any Vista) You buy a computer to do what its intended and says it can do.
Tell me if you would buy a Video card for the next hot game, that is advertised to play, and then find out it can't! You folks are telling me that you would just go oh well and buy more ram or another video card. Especially if you can't return it.. you better bet you'd be upset like you can't believe. If not 'WOW!' come to my store and buy from me.. I'd love too screw you over and walk away with your money then.

Disgusted

Report violation

#70535

Posted by unregistered user at 11/28/07 2:12 p.m.

This is the writer again from the first posting. I would have never purchased the Windows Vista "Home Basic" edition in the first place if it hadn't been for the false advertising. It's not a case of looking for a handout, and I was not expecting to have to spend more money to increase the RAM. $100 is a significant amount of money to lose that I don't take lightly. The point was made in the newspaper article that Microsoft is using the argument that "a" version of Vista will work, as advertised. They claim that the Home Basic Edition version will work, even if the other versions might not. I would like the lawyers in the case argue the point that even the Home Basic version doesn't work. So, yes, this is definitely false advertising and a demonstration of poor integrity. I've been buying Microsoft products for years and am disappointed with the company in this situation.

Report violation

#122347

Posted by unregistered user at 4/27/08 4:00 a.m.

Report violation

! Login below to post a comment.

Unregistered users, sign up now

Or post anonymously (About this feature)

RSS
Headline widget

BLOGGER BIO

Joseph Tartakoff: P-I staff reporter

SUBMIT A TIP

E-mail or call 206-448-8221 with tips or ideas

FEATURED COMMENT

Q: Why can't Microsoft buy 'Coolness'? A: Because Coolness has a poison pill in its contract in the event of a Microsoft takeover.
-- Reader on Microsoft to sell line of "softwear"-labeled shirts