Microsoft: If Vista buyers knew so much, why would they sue?

A motion filed by Microsoft last week in the "Vista Capable" suit argues that it should not regain class action status.

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.

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.
<------------------------------------->
In Comments: (edited)
<------------------------------------->

Farthion

Mar 16, 2009 - 8:05 PM

"So, let me see if I got this reasoning right: Microsoft says that some people did the research into what each Vista OS did before buying their systems, and some didn't, so therefore they have no basis for the lawsuit becoming a class-action suit because each party suffered different harm? Is that it?

Well, that's bull. Microsoft allowed OEM's to market their computers as 'Vista Capable', yet the only Vista that was "capable" was Home Basic on most of those machines - all without the eye candy - and even then, not all that capable.

"Vista Capable" to the average consumer 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, Ultimate, Professional, or whatever. 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 Microsoft may not have chosen 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 accurate 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 is there was confusion, and it indicates that the term was unclear. It was up to Microsoft to clear up that ambiguity - yet they did not do so. 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 the computer could run any Vista version.

Were people harmed in a very general, class-action sort of way? You betcha!