Microsoft Sued Over "Windows Vista Capable" Marketing

[grss1982]

---

http://blogs.pcworld.com/techlog/archives/004000.html

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne...22&btnG=Search


The suit is “Kelley v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 2:07-cv-00475-MJP,” filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington under Judge Marsha J. Pechman.

Representing the plaintiff is Gordon Murray Tilden, LLP, 1001 4th Ave., Ste. 4000, Seattle, WA 98154, Phone: 206-467-6477, Fax: 206-467-6292, E-mail: office@gmtlaw.com, Web site: http://www.gmtlaw.com.

[obemon]

This lawsuit is just stupid. A 'Vista Ready' PC means it can run the basic functionalities of Vista. Yeah some things won't work, you won't have Aero if it's a low-end PC but still..... it can run the basics of Vista. What's the big deal?

This lawsuit is nothing more but another lawyer who saw an opportunity to make a quick buck from corporate deep pockets.

[Metz]

yep yep

ang problema man sad gud kay ang mga reseller ug OEMs di tarongon ug inform ang customer nya ang mahitabo ang MS dayon basolon.

[Metz]

"Windows Vista Mostly But Not Entirely Capable"

hinoon dapat mao jud ni gibutang

[Visual C#]

The problem, obemon, is Vista itself is advertised with all the snazzle of Aero. Aero is now associated as being an integral part of Vista. In the eyes of the ordinary consumer, basing on the advertising for Vista, if their PC can't run Aero, then it is not Vista.

[grss1982]

Uhmm......

If anyone is interested here is the actual complaint.

http://z23.zupload.com/download.php?...filepath=58723

[obemon]

The problem, obemon, is Vista itself is advertised with all the snazzle of Aero. Aero is now associated as being an integral part of Vista. In the eyes of the ordinary consumer, basing on the advertising for Vista, if their PC can't run Aero, then it is not Vista.

Even if MS was more specific on what a 'Vista Capable' and a 'Vista Premium Ready' PC is capable of....respectively, I reckon a similar lawsuit would still emerge suing them for the same reason you've just said. This whole thing reminds me of an old saying...

"You make the world Idiot proof and the world will make better Idiots."

MS themselves could have avoided this whole confusion by making the Aero interface a must for every Vista edition... and make it that the minimum hardware requirements for Vista would be a 2Ghz CPU, at least 1GB of RAM, and a DX9 capable video card. But then you'll have people whining bout the hefty hardware requirements for Vista and would sue both MS and hardware manufacturer for co-conspiring against consumers.

[jiro]

This lawsuit is just stupid. A 'Vista Ready' PC means it can run the basic functionalities of Vista. Yeah some things won't work, you won't have Aero if it's a low-end PC but still..... it can run the basics of Vista. What's the big deal?

This lawsuit is nothing more but another lawyer who saw an opportunity to make a quick buck from corporate deep pockets.

How many of you purchased computers in the past few months?
How many of you have chosen "Vista capable LOGOS" over the non vista capable?

And have you seen Vista home Basic compared to XP, the upgrade is in NAME only with more MEMORY required.

there are 4 versions of vista - home Basic, home premium, business, and ultimate
Media center with the remote controll will only run on Home Premium.
What can you get from Home basic that XP doesnt have?
- ie7 is available to XP
- Windows defender is available to XP

what is so appealing in Home basic compared to XP? (name?)
if any, what new features that it have?

the original requirement was 512mb and 800mhz, the minimum requirement now is 1gb and ??mhz and a very good graphics card.
microsoft recently changed their description in their website the defenition of "Vista Capable" because of this lawsuit.


Many purchased computer in the past few months believed they could run the features of Vista(and i mean the REAL vista, where you mislead?)

if you are not computer literate and see only those things in advertisement, what do you think when you see vista capable? vista basic features only?

actual complaint - http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart...apablesuit.pdf

Points of interest
-Microsoft delayed its lunch was a blow to the PC industries, and many experts believe many consumers will delay their purchase of PC until the release of Vista, Microsoft then allowed vendors to put vista capable logos on machines (only to find that they wont run even the advertised vista features)

-Why did you even bother to buy computer with vista logos ready, expected to run vista but it doesnt?
- Microsoft (bill gates himself) advertised in the TV show that you can upgrade to Vista in Less that $100 (Home basic only)
in which there are no real advantages over XP, and misleading since many of the vista features that where advertise are not available to Home Basic.

no its not stupid. Microsoft saw an opportunity to make a quick buck from consumers pockets.

The complainant is just really FURIOUS when she found out the computer she invest doesnt even run the REAL vista.

[obemon]

The complainant is just really FURIOUS what she found out the computer she invest doesnt even run the REAL vista.

[jiro]

--Microsoft's unfair and deceptive conduct by reiterating the misleading implication that Home Basic can deliver the "core Windows Vista experience"

a. whether Home basic fails to contain the features marketed by Microsoft as being Vista.

b. where the machines sold as being "Windows Vista Capable" have insufficient RAM and/or hardware to run versions of Vista other than Home Basic.

c. whether the computers sold as "Windows Vista Capable" are incapable of upgrading to the features marketed by Microsoft as being "Vista"

d. Whether Microsoft's certification of machines as being "Windows Vista Capable" was false, unfair and/or deceptive when, infact, they could not perform many of the Vista's most touted functions.

e. Whether Microsoft misrepresented the capability of the machines sold as "Windows Vista Capable"

f. Whether Microsoft violated the Consumer Protection Act of the State of Washington or, Alternatively, the consumer protection statutes of the various states.

g. Whether the Express Upgrade promotion was false, unfair and/or deceptive in implying that consumers promised upgrades to Home Basic would recieved a free or reduced-price upgrade to a version of Vista containing the features touted by Microsoft as being "Vista"

h. Whether Microsoft has been unjustly enriched by purchases of licenses by Class members who purchased computers in the Express Upgrade program and who were promised Home Basic but who must now buy Home Premium to obtain the "Core Windows Vista Experience"





hmmmm


a.) hmm... dont know.

b.) true, old machines that were labled as one. If some computers do exist that cannot even run or insufficient to run Vista Home basic, Microsoft's in trouble

c.) depends on the word Vista, Vista basic then yes. If some computers do exist that cannot even run or insufficient to run Vista Home basic, Microsoft's in trouble

In my opinion, Microsoft made Home Basic just to avoid lawsuits *wink* and enriched themselves by misleading consumers thats it has all those features advertised by Microsoft.