Problems? See this thread at archive.org.
I strongly agree your point. I did not upgrade anything. But I waited for several months patiently to catch the deal, which is about $200 less than street price. I am thinking of a solution. To be fair, I think nVidia should issue vouchers of the initial purchase price for members to purchase HP notebooks.
-
-
-
-
Or Just Maybe they are Having a Clearance Sale for all the CQ56"s Nvidia had made for us, now that They know we aren't gonna take them
-
-
Just a quick update. We have collected 27 forms as of now.
Target of 150 forms is something I came up with, based on the number of petitioners who signed at matt198992's site.
It would be great if you can spread the word to get more people to complete the online form.
I put up a countdown clock to indicate our urgency. Feb 25th is the tentative last day for the online form submissions as Ted will need few days to review them and ask a small number of folks to officially sign and email them back.
Lastly, this is kind of a feeble attempt, but I dropped couple of forum postings at these sites but if I can get one extra person to submit it a claim, my 1 hour would be worth it
Hp pavillion dv9000 problems - General-Laptops-Notebooks - Laptops-Notebooks
Hp Nvidia Settlement - PCWorld Forums
As claims against Nvidia begin, what settlement means | Nanotech - The Circuits Blog - CNET News
Class Action Lawsuit Against Nvidia Chipsets In HP & Dell Computers | U.S. Financial Post
The NVIDIA GPU Litigation - Page 3 - [H]ard|Forum
http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/deal-discussion/1031502/m15727118/#m15727118
Also, If you use Facebook or Twitter, get the words out to your friends and followers.
If you have thoughts as to how I can improve the site, please let me know.
PS. I just got my "approval" letter today. Click here for the actual letter -
-
Thanks, you are awesome!
-
Some folks have asked me whether or not I am a client of Ted Frank.
Yes, I can confirm that I am a client of Ted Frank.
Yes, my work associated with FAIR settlement – NVIDIA Defective GPU litigation is purely voluntary (not paid by any one or any entity)
The sole purpose of the information gathering effort at the FAIR settlement – NVIDIA Defective GPU litigation is to enhance our chances at seeking fair replacement notebooks for ALL HP class members.
Any information I collect is not for sale, not for rent, not to be shared with any persons or entities other than Ted Frank and/or The Center For Class Action Fairness.
If required by law to share any information with legal authorities, I will seek Ted Frank's guidance before acting on it.
Finally, my user name is an alias I made up.
Hello, my legal first name is Kevin
-
-
I’m pleased that the discussion has primarily changed from this AMD Processor, and that GPU, and my Media Card Reader and the like… to a discussion of the core issue. I also appreciate each of your arguments and respect the fact that many of you have provided valid intelligent points. Please understand that my responses in debate are posted without malice and are presented, as best I can, as rational discussion. Sometimes this medium can be very difficult and if I’ve offended anyone here, it is/was not my intention and I ask for your understanding. So without further ado:
DV9000owner… You provide a good argument and I agree in-part. I agree that “Kind should be based on notebook screen size and whether it is a touch screen or not”. I do not agree however that “Value should be based on the features that the computer has” because “features” can also easily fit into the “kind” category. Typo I’d guess, but you even put screen size into both categories in your post . In actuality, I think we may be arguing the same point though. I have just taken it one step further and consolidated “features” or specification into “money” as “value”. Here is why:
1. As previously stated, there are 26 different base models of HP notebooks in question with 310 different model numbers. Some of those 310 notebooks are CTO (custom orders) while others are not, and I have no way of knowing which are which. That said, if I wanted to make an educated estimate (military =WAG= Wild As* Guess), then I would take the 26 base units and compute the number of variations for each model. This too is a bit of a problem because the number of variables may be different for each model. But if I estimate the number of major variables then I might get close. So if I designate Processor, RAM, Hard Drive, Disk Drive, and Wireless as the 5 major specification variables and each variable had 4 possible selections there would be 1,024 different available unit specifications for just one model (4x4x4x4x4). Now multiply 1024 x 26 models and you have 26,624 possible notebooks with different major specifications. This number would increase exponentially if you added additional variations like Operating System, Graphics Cards, Webcams, TV Receivers, Batteries, Card Readers,2nd Hard Drives, etc. Just to keep it simple though, I think 26,624 is a reasonable number for demonstration purposes. The price range for those 26,624 different HP computers is probably $400.00 to $3,000.00 (again a WAG).
Additionally, you could delve into the specific specifications for each upgradeable component and really send this computation into never- never-land and easily achieve over 2,000,000 differently spec’ed units. …And this is the point. The specification argument - as value, is a bottomless pit that represents a false dilemma because it can never be reasonably solved for each and every afflicted HP Class owner.
2. Say you go to the online HP store and select a notebook that fits your base budget and needs. You then decide that a few upgrades would make it even more suitable. The unit has a base price (money). Additional features or specification upgrades increase the price (money) while also increasing the unit’s value (money). Therefore, better specifications are a derivative of …. you guessed it….money. So why talk about the derivative (specifications), when money is the real issue. With “money” you don’t have to talk about the 26,624 variations or any technical specifications at all. You just discuss money, thereby limiting the variables to….(drum roll)……. “1”.
3. Doing some intelligence work. Judge Ware was born in 1949 and is 65 years old male. He is a prior Army Officer and graduate of the Stanford Law School. He is definitely a smart guy. He even practiced law in Pala Alto for a few years meaning he has probably been exposed to some level of technology during his life. He has however, been on the Federal bench since 1990. Therefore my guess is that, due to age and current occupation, he probably isn’t too technically savvy.
4. Someone else asked another very good question. Something like, “why then would we need to provide a specification comparison(s) of our computers and the CQ56”. My thoughts are that the specification comparison is a great tool for “ proving” that there is a gross disparity between the majority of afflicted owners computers and what has been offered to the entire Class in terms of value…. again meaning money. It is not the solution…. it is a tool to achieve one.
So that’s my argument with only a special "Thank You" left to say to JT (Kevin). You deserve a medal for your efforts in support of the Class. Now, finally you say, it’s time for me to shut up.
Best to All,
Dave -
Dave , I appreciate your and everybody's input here. I have to say though Judge Ware did not write the settlement agreement and then get the two sides to sign it. The lawyers negotiated this agreement between them selves and a neutral third party, a retired Judge named Layn Phillips.
"This Settlement is the result of nine months of extensive, arm’s-length negotiations between the Parties, with substantial assistance of Judge Layn R. Phillips, a retired federal judge and respected mediator with significant experience in mediating large, complex class actions like
The NVIDIA GPU Litigation."
"The settlement discussions were rigorous, hard-fought, and spanned over nine months.
Westerman Decl., ¶¶ 7, 35; Phillips Decl. ¶¶ 4-5. It was only as a result of substantial efforts by
the Parties, their counsel, and Judge Phillips that a settlement in principle was reached. The
Parties thereafter engaged in the time-consuming process of negotiating the language of the
Settlement Agreement, which required extensive additional consultation and effort, including
input from Dell, Apple and HP, taking months to complete. Westerman Decl., ¶ 39. The Parties
conducted the entire settlement negotiation process at arm’s-length and in an adversarial manner.
Westerman Decl., ¶¶ 6, 38, 57; Phillips Decl. ¶ 6."
"the Parties agreed NVIDIA will provide a new replacement computer of like or similar kind and equal or similar value to the consumer at NVIDIA’s expense."
"The mediation process involved extensive analysis of the parties’ positions
including, for instance, the value of plaintiffs’ claims regarding the defective computer chips"
"In addition, after the fee and expense amount was agreed to, but before the settlement agreement was executed, it was learned that certain HP models included as Class Computers incorporate motherboards or related components that are no longer readily available for use as replacement parts. After additional negotiation, the Parties agreed a new replacement
computer of like or similar kind and equal or similar value will be provided to HP consumers at NVIDIA’s expense. This of course represents an even better result."
"Settlement Class Members who own a Class Computer purchased from Dell, Apple and, as originally negotiated, HP, that experienced an Identified Symptom, and who submit a completed Claim Form to the Administrator within the Claim Period, are entitled to replacement of the motherboard which includes the NVIDIA GPU and the MCP (the “Chip Replacement”
I have taken these snippets from the court documents. The settlement also provides at the OEM discretion the replacement of the motherboards
for Dell and apple or chip replacement. I read this as them being essentially made whole if in fact their motherboard does get replaced.
In closing VALUE in our context is subjective at best depending
on who you ask. Nvidia would argue minimal to no value, given the time passed,Hp would argue minimal to prorated current market value being they will be the largest recipient of the settlement funds. You and I may Argue that since the problem was known from very early on in the production of all models, that full retail value should be used. -
-
-
-
@ Mr. Fox via your PDF:
"Mr. Westerman:
I am an NVIDIA class member presenting a claim and need clarification on one thing. As the settlement administrator, I
am coming to you for assistance because I cannot obtain a definitive answer elsewhere. There are other class members
with the same question."
Are you the settlement Administrator?
Just Kidding but I do think An Idea was left out?
-
I suppose I should have begun the sentences with, "As you are..." and Settlement Administrator probably should have been capitalized. However, I trust the Settlement Administrator will realize I am speaking directly to him and not introducing myself. (If he cannot figure that one out, then we should all accept Asus netbooks in the settlement and eat rat poison for dinner.)
nVidia Class Action Fairness Hearing is Tomorrow - Almost time to make a claim!
Discussion in 'HP' started by Mr. Fox, Dec 19, 2010.
