RSSMicrosoft: If Vista buyers knew so much, why would they sue?
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published March 16, 2009, 5:01 PM
In all the confusion that arose in 2006 over whether lesser-grade editions of Windows Vista was "real Vista" and whether existing PCs were ready or capable of running it, consumers probably downloaded a lot of information about different ways they could get their hands on the new product. In a motion filed last week by Microsoft in the "Vista Capable" suit in US District Court in Seattle, and first reported on by our friend Todd Bishop at Seattle's TechFlash, the company argues that the wealth of such information that former plaintiffs unearthed during their purchasing research should have been enough to tell them that Vista Home Basic wasn't the same as Vista Home Premium.
For that reason, the company claims, prospective plaintiffs can't exactly say they were harmed in the same way, so they don't deserve to be re-enlisted as class action plaintiffs. The judge in that case threw out the class action distinction last month.
Essentially, the argument goes like this: If these former plaintiffs know enough about the differences between Vista SKUs to file the suit, then they can't exactly say they've been damaged because they've proven they do have access to this information. And if they don't know enough about the differences, then they can't argue they've been harmed the same way because they don't understand the harm itself...so they lose either way.
"Simply having a subjective desire to obtain Vista and then obtaining Windows Vista Home Basic through the Express Upgrade program could not establish that an individual was deceived or suffered injury," writes Microsoft's attorneys. "Someone who read publicly available information and expected to receive Windows Vista Home Basic, and who had no desire to pay more for a PC to support Windows Aero or other premium features, could not claim that she suffered any harm as a result of an allegedly deceptive act. The trier of fact would face these questions for each member of the proposed Express Upgrade class."
Microsoft then cites case law which came to the conclusion that "Without determining what each member heard, saw, or knew, it is impossible to assign liability."
But Microsoft does apparently know what some prospective/former plaintiffs saw and knew, having cited a Computerworld article in one petitioner's possession as an example. That article stated that HP was offering its customers free upgrades from Windows XP Home Edition to Windows Vista Home Basic, or from XP Media Center Edition 2005 to Vista Home Premium (which contains the latest Media Center). Anyone who understood the distinctions between the XP SKUs should understand the corresponding differences between the Vista SKUs.
But just in case anyone wanted to argue that Vista Home Basic left many users without functionality and capabilities that Microsoft had long promised, the company's argument is that customers who don't understand what those capabilities are, can't argue that they're being harmed by using PCs that don't have them. If they're missing such features as, say, Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM, which enables Vista to run the Aero front end), and they wouldn't have known it unless someone else told them, then what does it matter?
"In sum, a trier of fact could not decide on a class basis whether PC buyers may have been satisfied with their purchase decision because, like Ms. [Diane] Kelley [the original plaintiff], they bought PCs that would perform well at a lower price running Windows XP," argues Microsoft. "For those who never upgraded to Windows Vista (and never intended to do so), the absence of WDDM support amounted to a hypothetical shortcoming that could not affect them at all in real life. And those who (unlike Ms. Kelley) chose to upgrade to Windows Vista Home Basic may have been entirely satisfied with their upgrade. The trier of fact would have to hear individual testimony to decide if anyone suffered injury, making the WDDM claim unsuitable for class treatment." Judge Marsha Pechman has not yet ruled on Microsoft's motion.
Get Linux......Problem solved.
100% Functionable...but it's like learning a new language. For the average user, Linux just isn't an option but then again if you are just an average user you won't care what version of windows you have either.
For the computer gurus out there, Linux could be your answer.
I am more of a power user and am set up to run both linux and XP....I just can't see myself ever getting vista...But if we look into history the pattern has always been the same. 95 was good...98 was bad...98SE was good, ME was bad, XP was good, Vista was bad...Now windows 7 looks like it will be good..We'll see!
http://JessieHachey.com
Score: 0
|Let's copy this to a field not Vista.
GM or Ford introduces a hybrid pickup. It is never shown without a trailer. The trailering capability is touted a distinguishing feature at every presentation. Mentioned is that the vehicle comes in four versions. At the company web site six links of vehicle specifications have to be followed to find that the trailering feature is Only available as a $17,000US 'Factory Option.'
This was 'Vista Capable', Aero, and HP.
Score: 0
|You forget that in FACT the ad would have a fine print disclaimer stating that the trailer is not included.
Score: -1
|Well, Microsoft does have a point...
Score: 0
|Seriously, this is stupid. People need to pay attention when they spend money. Do some research. You should know what you're buying BEFORE you spend your money.
Score: 0
|yep its common sense. if you say to someone i want windows vista they will give you windows vista. its not there MS fault that they didn't know there were multiple versions. its like going to a car dealership saying i want a "Honda" and they give you a barebones Civic when you were thinking you were going to get an "Accord"
its the number 1 rule today before buying something DO RESEARCH!
Score: 0
|hahahahaha nice going Microsoft great way to win over your customers by calling them dumb first rule in sales is the customer is always right. With this and other things that I have heard going on with Microsoft that it seems like Microsoft is trying to make them selfs go out of business.
I said it before and I will say it again Vista was a bust for several reasons main one is it was just to bloated and there were to many different versions and confused people. Windows 7 seems to be what Vista should had been so far but Microsoft is making the same mistake there should be just 2 versions Basic and Ultimate and both include 32-bit and 64-bit versions in the same package.
Score: 0
|Yes, because there is no such thing as a business sector or a home user who wants a no-fluff PC. Very good logic!
Score: 0
|The biggest failure of Vista IS the marketing. Multiple versions is only part of it. With Windows 7 they are concentrating on Home Premium for the average user & Pro for the power user. For busineses they'll concentrate on the business version. No real different from XP, except for one more version tailored to busineses (introduced with Vista). Thats where the marketing will be concentrated on. Whats so darn confusing about that. Most PCs will come with Home Premium anyhow.
Score: 0
|"Yes, because there is no such thing as a business sector or a home user who wants a no-fluff PC. Very good logic!"
Microsoft has different departments for business and consumer products.
Home users in most cases do not care just want it to work, then you get the power users that want everything and have the hardware for it. The average users does not know or care that there is a Windows Server 2008 or Windows Vista Enterprise. Lets face it the average user is not going to spend $5,000 or more for a OS. I didn't think I would have to clarify that I was talking about home users and not businesses. Most Apple users don't know that Apple also makes a Server OS because its not something they would use or run.
80% or more of people do a short list of things with their systems and don't care.
But still I think Microsoft is shooting them selfs in the foot by having so many different "Home User O.S.'s"
Score: 1
|1. Caveat Emptor
2. Please impose a character limit on comments? Some of them look like they're auditioning for a James A. Michener novel contest.
Score: -1
|Arguing that "If they're missing such features as, say, Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM, which enables Vista to run the Aero front end), and they wouldn't have known it unless someone else told them, then what does it matter?" reminds me of the Sony CEO claiming that if people didn't "know what a rootkit is, why should they care?".
Score: 0
|I think the difference here may be that rootkit was a hidden security breach of the system, and vista home is just lacking some eye candy feature but comes at a lower price than a premium version of the OS, and the information is provided to the consumer on the company website. The only argument I see against M$ is that they allowed hardware manufacturers to label computers Vista capable, while Vista itself has different minimum requirements and may not be capable of running on that platform depending on the version of the OS.
Score: 1
|Common sense really. Machine says vista capable... look up minimum requirements. if it's outside of that. whoops... The Dell I have says Designed for Windows XP , Windows Vista Capable. My experience with Vista is such. I love it. So why do I love Vista when so many others have problems with it. I don't get it. Just disable UAC and there's no problem.
Score: 2
|So, let me see if I got this reasoning right: Microsoft says that some did the research into what each Vista OS did what before buying their systems and some didn't so therefore have no basis for the lawsuit becoming a class-action because they each suffered different harm? Is that it?
Well, that's bull. Microsoft marketed their computers as 'Vista Capable', and the only Vista that was capable was Home Basic on those machines - all without the eye candy - and even THEN, not all that capable.
"Vista Capable" means it will run Vista. Period. Yes, some folks went and looked up what it meant, but that doesn't change the fact almost no one else will look at "Vista Capable" and think, "Oh, will it run Vista Ultimate?" They can plainly see it SAYS Vista Capable. So it logically follows that it should run Vista, whether Basic or Ultimate. Most people are not computer geeks. They don't understand the distinction between "Capable" and "Ready". Most are unaware that there is any major difference at all. And although I'm sure Microsoft didn't seek to deliberately deceive people, the fact remains they took an ambiguous term and ran with it, deceiving thousands.
It could have said, "Vista Home Basic Capable", which would have been more true and much clearer to the average computer user - but would NOT have generated as many sales as "Vista Capable" did. Whether the people who got it suffered equal harm or not is moot. The label was deceiving. It's not the damage the individuals in the suit received that is at question. It's whether Microsoft deceived (whether deliberately or not) people in general through their "Vista Capable" program. The fact there WAS confusion at ALL indicates that the term was OBVIOUSLY unclear. It was up to Microsoft to clear up that ambiguity - and they did NOT. All they did was perpetuate the ambiguity. By those actions alone, Microsoft was "deliberately deceptive".
It's not about injury. It's about deception. Microsoft was deceptive. Based on their actions, the deception was calculated and deliberate because they profited by promoting a program that, for those who bothered investigating before their purchase produced confusion and ambiguity in the minds of the above average customer. For the average customer, they would have seen Vista Capable and gone with it, thinking that computer could run any Vista version.
As an IT services provider to the general public for over ten years, I've seen and dealt with the problem from both sides. None of my client's Vista experiences have been good, regardless of the 'readiness or capability' of their machines. I never recommended Vista of any version to them but not being in control of their decisions, only had to deal with the mess they created. And this "Capable" program eventually produced a LOT of Mac owners among my clients.
Were people harmed in a very general, class-action sort of way? You bet!
Score: 0
|Just to clarify, Microsoft does not make or market PC's as the poster mentioned. The PC makers share the blame for marketing their products using this questionable tactic. PC makers used the hype created by offering a new OS to sell lower end hardware to uninformed consumers. Does this reduce consumer confidence in both the hardware seller and Microsoft - you bet. Is it illegal - in my opinion no, it is not. We as consumers need to be more informed on what products we spend our money on. This goes for a PC, Mac, or a netbook running Linux. Do your homework before making a substantial purchase and you will have an advantage over most.
Score: 0
|Yeah, it's so very difficult to distinguish between 2 stickers, one saying "DESIGNED FOR WINDOWS XP, VISTA CAPABLE" and the other saying "CERTIFIED FOR WINDOWS VISTA".
You'd have to be a huge idiot to pick the former OVER the latter, which mind you is most obviously more current and powerful, and expect the perfect scenario.
You don't have to be a computer geek to figure out that the machine that is cheaper and less powerful than that other machine, you know, the more expensive one...the one sporting the certified for vista sticker? is the one that will run any Vista version, since you know - it's certified to run it...over, being..."capable".
Put 2 computers or laptops in front of someone who knows NOTHING about computers, give them the price and the specs and then ask them to pick the better one and I'm 100% certain (unless they're somehow mentally impaired) that they'll pick the more expensive one as the 'better' machine.
Not only by price, but by specs, the layman can pick out the better machine. Most if not all Vista Capable machines come with 1gb of Ram, a single core and maybe 80-120gb of hard drive space vs. 2gb or more ram, generally a dual core pentium and 160gb or more hard disk for the Vista Certified machine.
Really, no matter how you spin it, this case has absolutely no reason to go class action. Not unless the majority of Americans really are that stupid.
Score: 0
|All your clients are morons, obviously.
Score: 0
|Waa Waa Waa!
Score: 0
|Wow. Way to go, MS. Change the argument to circular reasoning that skirts the true issue nicely. Wasn't this about customers buying PCs expecting them to be 'capable' of running 'Vista' (meaning with Aero, etc. - as it was advertised all over the entire planet)?
Considering how hard MS worked to get the word out about Vista (and how much money and time was spent), I'm curious to see how they will support their claim that people wouldn't have known about or expected WDDM functionality.
Score: 1
|"of running 'Vista' (meaning with Aero, etc. - as it was advertised all over the entire planet)?"
Who said Aero was in all version of Vista? Microsoft certainly didn't.
Elvis is dead, but not all dead people are Elvis. Aero can be part of Vista, but Vista doesn't have to contain Aero.
Score: -1
|spam, do not click
Score: 4
|i know i didn't keep up with Vista when it was released, because i figured i'd be on XP forever after hearing time and time again how bad it was (it isn't at all) ... and i saw the various labels, plain old 'Vista Capable' and 'Premium Ready' etc
i don't know, to me it wasn't hard to tell that one was just capable of running a basic version of Vista, while the other could eh, easily handle Vista Premium
now, MS could of made the versions a little easier on a persons head but hey, thats how they decided to roll with it
so to me this move by MS makes alot of sense, these people who were somehow 'harmed' would of had no idea what harm was inflicted IF they had not known before hand what they were getting OR did not care to begin with, and hey, when you don't care what you're buying, whos fault is it when you're in the end disappointed? i think the user is at fault, for being uninformed in their purchasing decisions
usually the saying goes, the customer is never wrong... well more often than not, they are
all that said, Vista itself, not a failure, the marketing for it? yes the driver suppliers, complete failure, that and the heaps of todays uninformed bloggers giving it a bad rap without even using it for more than a day did not help
Vista is my primary OS and in taking a look at Windows 7 so far, i can't wait to buy it and thats not something i did for Vista on release day
Score: 5
|Let's see... "We deliberately obfusticated the capabilities and limitations of the various versions of Vista, so people who bought computers that couldn't run the Vista features that we advertised heavily have no right to complain that we lied to them about what 'Vista Capable' means."
Right.
Score: -4
|The biggest problem I have is the loss of functionality between XP Home Basic and Vista Home Basic. I did not know until I tried to play a DVD with with windows media player in vista basic that it did not have the needed codec. Where as XP basic does. So how is this an improvement. What did I waste my money for. Know where in any of the television advertising do they say inorder to do this you must purchase the premium version. This is why I'm starting to learn Linux. Yes I was fully aware that there were added features if you got the premium version. I didn't know you lost abilities between the basic versions.
Score: -5
|no version of XP came with DVD decoding software ....
(unless WinDVD, PowerDVD, or any third party software came pre-installed)
Seems to me like the only people complaining about Vista, are the most ignorant.
Score: 4
|Uh, XP home and pro do not come with an mpeg-2 codec. Only XP MCE does.
Score: 1
|WMP 11 has it built in, I believe.
But yes, it wasn't enabled on a default XP install.
Score: 1
|Actually that's not correct. Vista is the first one that came with a mpeg2 decoder.
Score: 0
|Um, Paul...you seriously didn't know the difference between a media player and CODECs? WMP11 cannot play DVDs without third-party codecs.
Score: -1
|Pretty sure it does in Vista, bourg.
Score: 0
|funny.
it's like a parachutist sueing the parachute maker for providing a faulty parachute. but the parachute maker counters the charge by stating how can the parachute be said to be faulty if the parachutist didn't use it.
Score: -1
|yeah, this is funny. Is this from the Onion? Vista is a total failure and Microsoft does not want to live up to it. Why does Microsoft release arbitrarily stripped down versions of their OS? Apple has a single version of OSX with all the bells and whistles. $129 for a new copy which you can legally install and run on up to three machines simultaneously.
Microsoft releases what, five different versions with each one arbitrarily missing that and this and charges $399 for a single user "Ultimate" (ROFL) edition. I thought Apple overcharges for everything?
Score: -3
|Yeah, Apple is SO great. $129 for an OS that ONLY works on their hardware 'legally'. So throw it on 3 machines, as long as you purchased said machines from Apple. Heck, that was even literal from a hardware perspective a few years ago, when everything in them were proprietary. And don't forget their innovative new Shuffle that requires 'authenticated' headphones either made or licensed by Apple, and the fact that they have a death grip on any and all Apple 'fitted' products. Apple is really NOT a good example for contrast in this case.
MS has every right in this case to ward off class action status for this case. No one is ever truly uninformed when it comes to buying computers (like cars), you do at least SOME homework beforehand unless they really don't care, and if they don't care then it's not fair that they should choose to 'wise up' after they've made their decision.
Score: 0
|"...innovative new Shuffle that requires 'authenticated' headphones either made or licensed by Apple,"
Nice try, but WRONG. third party headphones DO work.
But Apple is certainly entitled to promote a proprietary platform if they choose - as limiting as such a choice may be,
So how about YOU doing your due diligence and assuming responsibility for YOUR choice and stop trying to tell others how they should choose.
And your claim that a few years ago Apple's platform was proprietary is also wrong. It was simply based upon licensed POWER technology! Nothing proprietary at all. In fact, Apple was literally the REAL IBM clone for many years from the inception of the PowerPC line of CPUs.
But then its apparent that your understanding of computers barely extends to the x86 platform!
Score: 0
|