Suit Against Microsoft: Question's Price $5 million

A woman from Washington State, Dianne Kelley, has filed a class-action suit against Microsoft Corp. over their "deceptive and unfair" use of the 'Vista Capable' stickers, demanding $5 million. She cites violations of Washington's Consumer Protection Act, Ch. 19.86 RCW, as well as the corresponding Consumer Protection acts in the other U.S. states.

What the suit claims, is an established fact: Microsoft started a "Windows Vista Capable" campaign about a year before the release of Windows Vista, in order to assure computer buyers they will be able to upgrade to Windows Vista when the operating system would be released.

"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,” said Linda Norman, a Microsoft associate general counsel, pointing out that Microsoft had created different logos. ‘Vista Premium Ready’ is one such example, but the distinction was never actually made in practice.

The problem is that "Windows Vista Capable" meant in most cases "able to install a bare Vista OS." Most of these PCs can't run properly or can't run at all other versions that the Vista Home Basic, "which has been described by one reviewer as 'the most pointless edition of Windows that Microsoft has ever released'."

"Later, beginning in October 2006, Microsoft embarked on its 'Express Upgrade' promotion, under which purchasers of PCs Microsoft certified as 'Windows Vista Capable' were promised a free or reduced-price upgrade to 'Vista' when it became available. In fact, the version of Vista made available to many of these purchasers is Home Basic and thus is lacking features that Microsoft has touted in Vista as radical improvements over previous operating systems," the suit reads.

"In sum, Microsoft engaged in bait and switch," Dianne Kelley claims.

Mary Jo Foley, a ZDNet blogger, pointed out the fact that not even on Microsoft's web page you can find out what exactly "Windows Vista Capable" means:

"Nowhere (that I've found) does Microsoft spell out clearly which versions of Vista will run on Vista Capable machines. [...] why is figuring out which PC is best suited to running which version of Vista such a chore? Isn't there an easier way to help consumers make the right choice? I think it's fair to ding Microsoft for confusing branding/marketing."

The ‘Minimum Requirements’ for Vista are several gigabytes of disk space and at least one gigabyte of RAM. The actual requirements for a full-fledged Vista are at least two gigabytes of RAM, a powerful processor running at least at 3Ghz (P4 equivalent) and a powerful video card, such as a 7xxx series nVIDIA or corresponding ATI.

There is also mention in the suit of Bill Gates himself lending to the deception, when he appeared on the Today Show in January to report that anyone could upgrade to Vista for $99. The suite points out that for $99 you get the stripped down version of Vista known as Home Basic.

"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 question is not whether Microsoft was being deceptive, as that's quite clear, but whether it can actually be held legally responsible. Microsoft is a company used to operate right at the very limits of legality in terms of marketing tactics.

Make Your Own Kite (Sled, Diamond, Delta, Box, Parafoil, Dragon). How to guide.