Monday, May 2, 2011

Court rules for NVIDIA

Details at the Point of Law blog. I'm sorry, as well as angry.

Update: I won't be filing an appeal, though my clients are of course free to find an attorney willing to do that for them.

I won't personally be filing a malpractice action, but I'm happy to consult with an attorney who is considering doing so if a class member finds one.

Update 2: Please don't email me asking for individual legal advice about what you can or should do with your computer, or what other legal options you may pursue. I don't have the resources to provide free advice to a million different class members beyond my five clients. You'll need to consult with your own attorney. I'm rooting for someone to bring a malpractice suit, but I'm not advising you one way or the other on that, either as a class action or as a small-claims case against Milberg.

I will note that I believe that, because NVIDIA failed to provide a computer of "like or similar kind" as the settlement notice promised, and because Judge Ware failed to enforce the settlement as written and noticed to the class (his opinion mistakenly says that the CQ-56 was "designated in the settlement"), the class notice is constitutionally invalid and cannot be considered to bind absent class members besides my five clients who got a ruling from Judge Ware. Someone who sues HP and/or NVIDIA in small-claims court and persuades the judge that the class notice does not bind them could possibly recover cash in small-claims court. Of course, HP and NVIDIA will argue that the notice was constitutionally valid and that the small-claims court does not have jurisdiction, so I am not giving you legal advice to pursue your claim in small-claims court; you could win, you could lose. Check with a lawyer.

14 comments:

  1. Cross-posted at NBR: Wow. The Judge's ruling PROVED that he didn't take the time to understand (read?) our overwhelming amount of evidence that the CQ56 is not of similar kind or value. He quotes, Bagherzadeh's ridiculous and completely unsupported claim that "the CQ-56 meets or exceeds nearly all of the specifications of the original computers." Moreover, the judge misses the point of a laptop - just because you can easily buy 11 peripherals doesn't mean that it provides the same convenience and usability as one with all of those features integrated in. The judge also misses the point of having a computer with a larger display (17" versus 15.6"), a huge difference in resolution, and one that is nearly twice as fast, based on CPU benchmarks - not clock rate.

    I hope the fact that the Judge cited Bagherzadeh's flawed report, and that Milberg completely ignored our statements about why Bagherzadeh's claim is wrong, opens Milberg and Bagherzadeh up to a lawsuit. As someone with a graduate degree in computer engineering, I know that there is absolutely no way that Bagherzadeh could create the report that he did in good faith.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ted: you fought the good fight...is there an appeal that you might go forward with? One must remember that the Supremes have been overwhelmingly kind to big biz ( EXXON-Valdez limiting punitive damages to $500,000.00; The tobacco case, reducing the $258 billion in reparations to mere pennies; and Citizens United v. FEC opening up the floodgates to corporations to directly financially sponsor candidates ) one would have been overwhelmed had the judge sided with you eloquent brief...clearly, he is just lockstep in a series of higher court actions that view common citizen needs as irrelevant. Thank you regardless of the ruling.I kinda wonder who might file such a lawsuit? YOU? If yes, and it is pro-bono..I'm in...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well Ted thanks for your efforts in this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ted, Ted, he's our man; if he can't do it, nobody can! Yay, gooooooo nobody!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm amazed that the judge had the balls to claim Bagherzadeh's report justified the claim that the replacement "meets or exceeds nearly all the specifications of the original computers" when the report *admits* that the replacements are inferior every major respect (slower, smaller screen size, slower graphics card, less ram, smaller hard disk, fewer features).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Is there such a thing as crooked judges?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you, Ted. Thanks for keeping us up to date. Thanks for all you did.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Soo...Ted, how do you support yourself? Pro bono doesn't pay the bills...who provides funding for you?

    Here's hoping karma is not a myth ;>

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thank you so much for looking out for us, Ted! You did indeed fight the good fight and, even though we lost, I learned a lot from following you - it was super-interesting and I'll stay tuned to your other work.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks for everything Ted. When do you plan on posting the information that would help us out in small claims court?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks for your work, Ted. Is there really a possibility of a malpractice suit on a contingency basis? How do we go about finding an attorney willing to take this on?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Brian said...
    Is there such a thing as crooked judges?

    Yes, we have them in Pennsylvania! Google kids for cash.

    Using this poor excuse for a judge's reasoning,I'll pay my next Tax bill with "Play" money. It's got the word "Money" printed on it, and the denominations will be equal to the amount owed.

    Sharon Engel is right!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mr Frank,

    Thank you for your efforts. I appreciate them. You're fighting the hard fight on a lot of these. Best of luck to you in your other endeavors.

    ReplyDelete
  14. How can anybody claim that the CQ56 is a fair replacement for my $1200 HP DV6258se? No part of the technical specifications come close to matching. And there is no comparison in terms of cosmetic finish and eye appeal. In fairness to Nvidia, I had a succesion of desktop computers with the Nvidia chipset, first-rate performance and no problems. Companies like HP alter the chipset and BIOS to their own specifications, often causing problems where there would not otherwise be any. I do not know if that is the case here, but for a company like HP to almost frantically insist on the consumer applying two BIOS updates within the first year is very unusual.

    ReplyDelete