Page 2 of 2

The heart of the matter

The suit revolves around the question of whether Microsoft deliberately loosened the standards on which computers qualified as Vista Capable. The stated goal of the Vista Capable logo stickers affixed to computer boxes was to assure customers that, if they bought a Windows XP PC prior to delivery of Vista, the PC was capable of running Vista, or of being upgraded to run Vista.

Also clearly discussed in e-mails, however, was the fear that consumers simply might not buy new PCs during the 2006 holiday sales season since they came with XP, and not Vista, which wouldn't ship until after the new year. So another stated reason in the e-mails for the sticker program was to keep the bottom from falling out of the PC market at the end of 2006.

As it turned out, relaxation of the certification standards for the sticker, specifically to accommodate the Intel 915 integrated graphics chipset meant that those PCs could only run the bare bones, lowest cost edition of Vista.

That release, called Vista Home Basic, does not feature Vista's most visible new feature – the Aero Glass graphical user interface. Because of that fact, the plaintiffs claim they were tricked into buying computers that would not be able to run Aero Glass. What's more, they claim that an edition of Vista that doesn't run Aero Glass isn't really Vista, and so the promotion was intentionally deceptive.

Microsoft's legal team, of course, disagrees in the filings.

"The fact that Windows Vista Home Basic lacks some features available in premium editions of Windows Vista (as Microsoft always disclosed) shows only that Microsoft properly markets Windows Vista Home Basic as a distinct budget edition," the company's motion to dismiss states.

LATEST NEWS

Microsoft's Reliability Update Triggers Crashes
Microsoft Denies Windows 7 Tied to Battery Issues
Google Wants Chinese Look-Alike to Knock It Off
Pip.io: Not Just Another Social Network?
Google Plans to Twitterize Gmail?

Additionally, in support of the request for dismissal, the motion claims that the plaintiffs' expert, economist Dr. Keith Leffler, "cannot quantify any increase in demand or PC prices" caused by the alleged intentional mislabeling of PCs during the 2006 holiday sales season.

In fact, the unsealed e-mails, most from before Vista's launch in January 2007, demonstrated angst among both the rank and file, as well as with executives involved in developing and promoting Vista.

In e-mails, Jim Allchin, then co-president of the platforms and services group, and the Microsoft executive in charge of Vista, was horrified that the standards had been relaxed and demanded unsuccessfully that they be retightened. Allchin retired right after Vista shipped.

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer had a phone conversation with Intel CEO Paul Otellini regarding the changes, but claims to have no specific knowledge of the changes or details of discussions regarding the Vista Capable program.

Late Friday afternoon, Judge Pechman ruled that the plaintiffs' legal team can depose Ballmer regarding that conversation and other aspects of the case. Microsoft had filed a motion in mid-November asking the judge to block the deposition request. However, the plaintiffs came back with a request for a three-hour deposition with Ballmer on his schedule and in a venue of his choosing.

Microsoft officials declined to comment on the current filings or the suit in general.

The case is currently scheduled for trial on April 13, 2009.

Go to page: Prev  1  2