Microsoft took another hit on the legal front Monday when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to let the software behemoth appeal a ruling by the judge in the so-called "Vista Capable" lawsuit that had granted the plaintiffs class action status.
In a brief, one-paragraph order, the appeals court denied Microsoft's request to appeal Judge Marsha Pechman's February 2008 ruling expanding the case into a class action.
The denial effectively lifts a stay that Judge Pechman granted to Microsoft in early April while the request for appeal was still pending. Judge Pechman's stay halted discovery in the case, a welcome respite for Microsoft, which had been roundly embarrassed when Pechman unsealed 158 pages of previously sealed evidence, mostly executives' e-mails, in late February.
Whether the denial of Microsoft's request to appeal and the lifting of the stay will put the case back on schedule isn't clear. The case was originally scheduled for October, however, the discovery process – halted by the stay – will now likely restart.
View: Full Article @ internetnews.com
In a brief, one-paragraph order, the appeals court denied Microsoft's request to appeal Judge Marsha Pechman's February 2008 ruling expanding the case into a class action.
The denial effectively lifts a stay that Judge Pechman granted to Microsoft in early April while the request for appeal was still pending. Judge Pechman's stay halted discovery in the case, a welcome respite for Microsoft, which had been roundly embarrassed when Pechman unsealed 158 pages of previously sealed evidence, mostly executives' e-mails, in late February.
Whether the denial of Microsoft's request to appeal and the lifting of the stay will put the case back on schedule isn't clear. The case was originally scheduled for October, however, the discovery process – halted by the stay – will now likely restart.
View: Full Article @ internetnews.com
Microsoft Corporation
Agreed
The basis of this case, though, is that consumers cannot reasonably understand the difference between 'Vista Capable' and 'Vista Premium', even though Microsoft couldn't have made it clearer. Microsoft is being punished yet again for consumers' inability to take responsibility for their own purchasing decisions.
-Vista Capable: Runs Vista at least at a basic level (Home Basic)
-Vista Premium: Runs Vista with premium features such as the Aero interface
Is that too unclear for the general population to understand?
Since the correlation with Intel has not yet been proven, I'm not sure I would say they forget who pays their bills. There are lots of computers out there in the market and in order to make Vista available to more computers they needed to identify all computers that could run Vista. Rather than limit themselves to computers with the hardware to run all of Vista's features they made a 2-tier system so lower-end computers could also feature Vista Basic.
Sure Microsoft could have had different levels of "capable" branding. But consider how much heat they've taken from having several different releases of Vista (Home Basic, Home Premium, Starter, Enterprise, Business, Ultimate). I think they would take even more heat if they had different levels of "Vista Capable/Ready/Premium/Ultimate/Basic Only" branding.
If the correlation with Intel is true then Microsoft's motivations behind the project are not what they should be. But from a marketing perspective they are in a position where they can't please everybody no matter what they do.
I meant the consumer pays their bills. They have not been a consumer friendly company for over a decade know. As a consumer that uses their products, a technologist that uses their tools, and a long term stockholder, I really wish they would hurry up and straighten themselves out. But since it doesn't seem like the kids in Redmond want to to do it themselves, I welcome every lawsuit and judgment against MS that push them back to being consumer-centric.
-Vista Capable: Runs Vista at least at a basic level (Home Basic)
-Vista Premium: Runs Vista with premium features such as the Aero interface
I'm surprised no one has pointed this out yet but it was "Vista Capable" and "Vista Ready", not "Vista Premium".
Orwellian memory hole - double think! I wondered what these "news-hounds" were talking about too!
The basis of this case, though, is that consumers cannot reasonably understand the difference between 'Vista Capable' and 'Vista Premium', even though Microsoft couldn't have made it clearer. Microsoft is being punished yet again for consumers' inability to take responsibility for their own purchasing decisions.
Subpoenas are a very powerful thing. SOX compliance requires Microsoft to maintain those records and be available for things such as this.
Microsoft was punished for innovating their software years ago and have since been battling many lawsuits. Most of these are unsuccessful competitors trying to regain some money, or an overseas Union hiding behind a myth of "protecting the consumer". Some of them however, have merit.
Take a look at Microsoft's Press Pass to see the battlefield they're on.
The only thing MS was innovating was finding new ways to extort OEMs and customers. Not to mention screw over competitors--ILLEGALLY.
Yeah, i wish i was gonna see any of those checks. Granted my laptop runs Vista great and i love it but i am "Vista Capable" also ... oh well.
Microsoft was putting "Vista Capable" stickers on systems that WERE NOT CAPABLE of running Vista well.
What does it take to get a Vista Capable sticker? Any old crap box with 800 MHz CPU w/ 512 Megs RAM. That's all. Ever run Vista on a system like that? Slow, slow, slow, slow, slow. That's half the minimum amount of RAM Vista needs and hardly enough CPU to do anything.
"Vista Capable" isn't even "Vista Basic" ready.
Microsoft advertises their Aero 3D interface as one of the reasons to upgrade to Vista, and that doesn't even work on "Vista Capable" systems.
I like Vista (Vista Business and Vista Ultimate, not the Home versions and certainly not the Basic version). But splitting the Home versions and claiming such LOW system requirements were a mistake. I wouldn't feel bad at all if they got punished for doing that.
...Any old crap box with 800 MHz CPU w/ 512 Megs RAM. That's all. Ever run Vista on a system like that?
This is actually a very old tactic, used by just about everybody. Almost every game I have ever purchased lists minimum system requirements, and the few times I only met those requirements, I ended up uninstalling and shelving the game until I could upgrade my system.
Let's take Crysis as an excellent example: the minimum videocard requirement is either a 6800GT or 9800 Pro. Now let's see a show of hands of people who are happy playing Crysis with these video cards...
Windows XP also had minimum system requirements: a Pentium II 233 with 64 megs. Oh, but wait...XP is much more performant if you have the recommended system requirements: a Pentium II 300 with 128 megs.
In cyberspace no one can hear you laugh.
It's not for me to say whether or not MS was in the wrong here. But this kind of thing is certainly nothing new.
...Any old crap box with 800 MHz CPU w/ 512 Megs RAM. That's all. Ever run Vista on a system like that?
Look at all the requirements for the Windows XP!
Minimum:
233 MHz CPU
64 MB of RAM (may limit performance and some features)
1.5 GB of available hard disk space
Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor
CD-ROM or DVD drive
Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
Recommended:
300 MHz CPU
128 MB of RAM
1.5 GB of available hard disk space
Super VGA (800 x 600) or higher-resolution video adapter with at least 8 MB of video RAM and monitor
CD-ROM or DVD drive
Network adapter
Sound card and speakers
Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
Now, who here can honestly say they can enjoyably run from the recommended settings? Also, why is this crap news? It's absolutely NOTHING NEW. Of course, that's not to say that it isn't a bit f***ed up, but if we've come this far without bitching about it, why the big fuss now? Because the sticker was more noticeable than the requirements listed on the box? Seriously now...
As for what you said about game requirements, Roger, I don't find them so bad at all. My computer meets the exact minimum requirements of BioShock, and I played it just dandy.
NOTCAPABLE of running Vistawell.Fixed for you. There is nothing anywhere in the definition of "Capable" that says it has to work well. Capable means just that; that it can work. Period.
Just because you can't run Crysis on max detail on a PC that barely meets minimum specs-or even recommended specs- doesn't mean that you aren't "capable" of playing the game.
Now whether or not I agree that Microsoft was using this tactic for the good or the bad is another story.
Ahhh, yes. But let's keep that in perspective: BioShock uses the highly-forgiving Unreal 3 engine. I play UT3 at 1600x1200/Intense on my 8600GTS, and it's beautifully fluid...can't exactly crank everything to the max with a much older Doom 3 engine game on my card without some visual suffering.
Well, that little bit is more dependent on the game developers. I mean, Quake Wars for instance is a decent game, but it takes a real system just to play it reasonably at all. Yet, as stated, BioShock is just yummy.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.