Microsoft sued over Windows Vista marketing

[Bulldog]

I did not want to add this to the other Vista Thread, but this is interesting:

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/310004_msftsued03.html

Microsoft sued over Windows Vista marketing
Tuesday, April 3, 2007

By TODD BISHOP
P-I REPORTER

A lawsuit alleges that Microsoft Corp. engaged in deceptive practices by letting PC makers promote computers as "Windows Vista Capable" even if they couldn't run the new operating system's "signature" features.

The proposed class action, which Microsoft disputes, was filed on behalf of personal-computer buyer Dianne Kelley of Camano Island. It focuses on efforts by Microsoft and computer makers to avoid a lull in PC sales by assuring consumers that the machines they were buying last year could run the delayed operating system upon its January release.

Machines carrying "Windows Vista Capable" stickers included those that only met the requirements for Windows Vista Home Basic -- which lacks the "Aero" on-screen appearance, Media Center PC interface, Flip 3D window-switching and other features available in advanced Windows Vista versions.

"All the 'wow' stuff that Microsoft is selling and marketing is present in (Windows Vista Home) Premium, but it's not present in Basic," said Michael Rosenberger, one of the lawyers representing Kelley in the case.

Microsoft said Monday that the suit wrongly overlooks its efforts to make clear the differences between the different versions.

The company "conducted a very broad and unprecedented effort" to help PC makers, retailers and consumers "understand the hardware requirements to run the various flavors of the Windows Vista operating system," said Linda Norman, a Microsoft associate general counsel. "We feel as a company we went beyond what we've ever done to try to educate people so that they understood and could make the right purchase decision," she said.

Among other things, Microsoft created the additional designation of Windows Vista "Premium Ready" to indicate that a machine was capable of running the operating system's advanced features, meeting premium hardware requirements including a full gigabyte of system memory.

That "premium" designation was made available for PC makers and retailers to use in places such as computer boxes and in-store marketing materials, said Mike Burk, a Windows product manager. Microsoft also detailed the hardware requirements for the various Windows Vista versions in places including its own Web site.

However, the distinction wasn't made in the general "Windows Vista Capable" stickers.

The suit alleges that it was deceptive to include that logo on machines not capable of running all the features Microsoft was touting as capabilities of Windows Vista in general.

"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,' " the complaint says. As a result, the suit said, people were buying machines that couldn't run "the real Vista."

The suit also alleges that Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates contributed to the company's "deceptive marketing" during a Jan. 29 appearance on the "Today" show, when he said that PC users could 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. The suit alleges that Gates' statement "furthered Microsoft's unfair and deceptive conduct."

Norman disputed the notion that Windows Vista Home Basic isn't a true Vista version.

"Anybody who purchased a PC that had the Windows Vista Capable logo got the core experience of Windows Vista," she said.

"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 use."

The complaint, filed last week, seeks class certification and unspecified damages.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P-I reporter Todd Bishop can be reached at 206-448-8221 or toddbishop@seattlepi.com.

© 1998-2007 Seattle Post-Intelligencer

 

[Pepper]

What a bunch of bullcrap. Windows Vista Home Basic is as much a "true Vista version" as Windows XP Home is a "true XP version".

Every place I've ever seen "Vista Capable" and "Premium Ready" machines advertised, there's been plenty of info explaining what they meant.

people don't bother doing research before they buy something, then they want to sue.

 

[Bulldog]

What a bunch of bullcrap. Windows Vista Home Basic is as much a "true Vista version" as Windows XP Home is a "true XP version".

Every place I've ever seen "Vista Capable" and "Premium Ready" machines advertised, there's been plenty of info explaining what they meant.

people don't bother doing research before they buy something, then they want to sue.

As always, the lawyers are the ultimate winners in these types of lawsuit cases.

 

[Van]

Windows Vista Home Basic is as much a "true Vista version" as Windows XP Home is a "true XP version"..

True but the versions of one type of Vista as compared to another are about as night and day as 95 is to xp and the diference between xp home and vista home basic doesnt have much of a defining line when you look at it.

Every place I've ever seen "Vista Capable" and "Premium Ready" machines advertised, there's been plenty of info explaining what they meant..

I have seen nothing but vista capable stickers and not a single one has had any details as to what all is capable in the particular unit, all the stickers really do is spin a bunch of hoopla about why vista is so great.

people don't bother doing research before they buy something, then they want to sue.

Yep thats true, I've been reading as many reviews as I can and the general concenseus is that drivers are the biggest issue while the user access controls are lacking options and the cost for the premium is reminescent of $2,000 toilet seats.

 

[Bulldog]

'Vista Capable' Suit Against Microsoft Allowed to Proceed

I read this on PC World:


"Vista Capable' Suit Against Microsoft Allowed to Proceed"

The software giant's request to dismiss a suit alleging that "Windows Vista Capable" stickers the company put on PCs violated consumer protection laws has been denied.

Elizabeth Montalbano, IDG News Service
Friday, August 10, 2007 01:00 PM PDT

A judge in Washington state has denied Microsoft Corp.'s request to dismiss all claims in a suit alleging that "Windows Vista Capable" stickers the company put on PCs violated consumer protection laws and were an example of deceptive business practices, allowing the case to move ahead toward a jury trial.

In the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington in Seattle, Judge Marsha J. Pechman dismissed one of four claims by plaintiff Dianne L. Kelley in a lawsuit against Microsoft over the stickers, which Microsoft -- in conjunction with PC makers -- affixed to PCs that were sold before Windows Vista itself was available to give consumers an idea what machines could run the OS.

The suit also calls into question the fairness of Microsoft's "Express Upgrade" coupon program that allowed users to upgrade to Vista from XP machines for little or no cost after buying a "Windows Vista Capable" machine.

According to court papers, Judge Pechman is allowing two of the plaintiffs' claims to move into the trial phase of the case. One alleged that Microsoft violated the Consumer Protection Act by engaging in unfair or deceptive business practices by affixing "Windows Vista Capable" labels to PCs without telling consumers they may have to spend more money for a machine to run a premium edition of the OS. Another alleged that Microsoft unjustly received payment for Windows XP licenses and upgrades from Vista Basic to Vista Premium because of their practices.

Judge Pechman dismissed one claim, which called Microsoft's placement of "Windows Vista Capable" stickers on PCs that could not run all versions of Windows Vista a "breach of contract." Another claim -- that a "Windows Vista Capable" sticker represents a written warranty under federal law -- has been taken under advisement by the judge, which means she will decide how to proceed on that claim later, Microsoft said.

The case is scheduled to go to trial on Oct. 8.

Microsoft's hardware partners began shipping PCs with the "Windows Vista Capable" logo in April 2006 as a way for people to know that if they purchased a new Windows XP PC before the new OS was available, their machine would be ready to run Vista. However, the designation was potentially confusing, because a PC with the label was only guaranteed to run the least expensive, most basic version of Vista, Windows Home Basic.

A month later, Microsoft launched a Web site to explain the hardware requirements for different versions of Vista, as well as a new PC designation called "Windows Vista Premium Ready," which the company used to label PCs that could run Vista editions -- such as Vista Home Premium and Vista Ultimate -- with more features than Vista Basic. Microsoft also provided coupons for people who purchased these PCs to upgrade to the appropriate version of Vista either for free or for little cost once the OS was made available.

Kelley filed her suit against Microsoft in March as a class-action case, but whether the suit applies to an entire class of people with similar complaints has not yet been determined.

Kelley, a resident of Camano Island, Washington, purchased a PC with a "Windows Vista Capable" sticker affixed to it in November 2006. In her complaint, she said that Microsoft was "deceptive" in its failure to indicate that the PC lacked the "Premium Ready" designation. She also claimed that the upgrade she received for her PC only allowed her to upgrade to Vista Home Basic, which offered "few ... advantages over the existing XP operating system." Therefore, consumers were duped into thinking they would receive coupons for a "dramatically new" OS when they could not, according to her complaint.

Microsoft spokesman Guy Esnouf Friday said the company is pleased one of the claims in Kelley's complaint has been dismissed and looks forward to proving its case in court.

 

[Hall]

Can't believe I'm siding with Microsoft, but I hope they bring a "Vista Capable" machine into court and install Vista on it during the trial. When it boots up and runs, show the judge and jury and wait for him to dismiss the case.... The stickers don't say "Vista Ultimate Capable", do they ??

 

[Inno]

Agreed, by saying "Vista Capable" they make no mention of which one they are talking about (although I'm sure many consumers aren't aware that it comes in different flavours) which should then prompt the consumer to look a little further and I'm sure they'd find the correct answer. It's like taking a sticker price from a car with no options and expecting to pay that amount for a loaded model.

 

[AllieVi]

Can't believe I'm siding with Microsoft, but I hope they bring a "Vista Capable" machine into court and install Vista on it during the trial. When it boots up and runs, show the judge and jury and wait for him to dismiss the case.... The stickers don't say "Vista Ultimate Capable", do they ??

I agree. Much ado about nothing.

 

[Foxbat]

The stickers don't say "Vista Ultimate Capable", do they ??

But they didn't say "Vista Basic Capable Only", now did they? Since Microsoft now has "Ultimate Labels", that's almost an admission that they knew they needed to clarify the certification due to possible consumer confusion.

Maybe they should use the DirecTV argument: A PC with this sticker doesn't actually run Vista today, it just has the capability to do so...

 

[Hall]

I recall seeing "Vista Ultimate Capable" stickers a long time ago, but obviously only on higher-end machines.