Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ali Chen who wrote (33950)	7/6/1998 12:51:00 PM
From: Dale J.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574060

Ali, Can a product be 300MHz and 266MHz simultaneously? What if some evidences will be found that those parts can pass both 300 and 266 "definitions" and therefore are "essentially" identical? In this case there may be no difference from the B&L case. No. Here is the difference. Intel manufactures and markets two products a 300mhz (deluxe) and a 266mhz (standard). In other words two very distinct and definable products. Right? Now, Intel ran out of the 266mhz (standard) product, so they substituted to the consumer a 300mhz (deluxe) product at 266 (standard) prices. The key points are that there are indeed two products and at no time was the consumer defrauded. Mhz was part of the product definition, so either the consumer got what they asked for (300mhz for 300mhz price), or they got something better (300mhz for the price of 266mhz). It may have been deceptive for Intel to remark it, but it was a deception without the intent to defraud. The B & L case had only one product. Just because B&L called it two different products deluxe and standard, didn't make it so. If Intel has "clear definitions" as you seem to imply, there should be no problem to run corresponding tests on questionable parts and find out that the parts are identical. Therefore, you may think of the standard product (266MHz) as being sold as deluxe (300MHz) product, with all implications about "damages"... No. That never happened - see my above explanation. If Intel knowingly sold a 266mhz for the price of a 300mhz. Then there is trouble in Intel-land. I think this case is a goldmine for smart lawyers. Well anytime you sue Intel or Microsoft, you have the potential for big $$$. The law firm can also gain national exposure in the press. But that doesn't make it right. Or winnable for that matter. I would not underestimate them. That is true. Frivolous lawsuits are filed everyday. And the law of large numbers dictates that some of those lawsuits are unfortunately going to prevail. A case in point is Digital. Digital was sued for not providing a warning that the keyboard can cause RSI (repetitive stress injury). The jury awarded the plaintiffs over $5 million. It was overturned however on Appeal. But it just goes to show you can never predict what a jury will decide. Dale

To: Ali Chen who wrote (33950)	7/6/1998 1:01:00 PM
From: Dale J.	Respond to of 1574060

Ali and Bill, Here is another fine lawsuit you guys may want to join. Check out the rationale for the suit. Evidently MSFT was suppose to warn consumers that their software is not as good as other software. Dale Microsoft hit with Windows-related class-action lawsuit By David Pendery and James Niccolai InfoWorld Electric Posted at 12:21 PM PT, Jun 25, 1998 Two men in Louisiana have filed a class-action lawsuit against Microsoft on behalf of 150 million users, claiming that the software giant fraudulently represented Windows 3.1, 95, and NT during and after their releases. "Microsoft has intentionally engaged in a systematic plan to mislead and deceive purchasers that Windows is superior to software on the market," reads the lawsuit, filed in Louisiana's 19th Judicial District by Louisiana residents Ramel Kelley and Patrick Antoine. The suit alleges that Microsoft failed to test the Windows products sufficiently and that consequently many "vices and defects" were delivered to customers, subsequently causing "compensable damages" to as many as 150 million users of Microsoft software. The lawsuit demands compensatory, exemplary, and punitive damages to be determined by the court. Among the defects in Microsoft products and complaints listed in the lawsuit are: Failure by Microsoft to provide technical information to users. Failure by Microsoft to warn purchasers that the use of Windows may cause hard drive and other failures, causing data loss. Failure by Microsoft to warn purchasers that Windows settings may be unconfigured. Failure by Microsoft to warn purchasers that the ability to use the Windows data link library may be missing. Failure by Microsoft to warn purchasers that the use of Windows may cause disk fragmentation. Neither Kelley, Antoine, nor their attorney was available for comment. Microsoft spokesman Mark Murray, who had not yet seen the suit, said the software maker runs thorough tests of all its software products before they are allowed out the door. "All our products undergo hundreds of hours of testing before they are ever released to consumers," Murray said. However, he said, "The nature of software is [that] ... for any software maker there are inevitably additional improvements that you make after the product has been released." Microsoft faced a similar potential class-action suit in Seattle in March 1997, in which an individual sought compensation on behalf of 35 million Windows 95 users, Murray said. The plaintiff claimed that features and capabilities in Windows 95 did not live up to Microsoft's advertisements for the product, Murray said. In that suit, the Kings County Superior Court judge denied the request for class-action status, ruling that Microsoft had taken sufficient care to ensure its product worked as advertised, and threw the suit out of court, Murray said. Murray noted that the Louisiana court also has the latitude to find that there are insufficient grounds for class-action status. Microsoft Corp., in Redmond, Wash., is at (800) 426-9400 or