nVidia Class Action Fairness Hearing is Tomorrow - Almost time to make a claim!

*DELETED* although all-in-one has many similar features, it's not exactly a tablet..

 

It shouldn't be that bad. I filed online on 1/10 and received the letter on 2/24.

 

I don't know about you guys, but I feel like a kid the night before christmas wondering if I am going to get a lump of coal or not.

 

I think we already got our lumps of coal when we bought these computers...

 

Just a HP diamond in the rough.

 

Now is the time for Pressure and Heat. Hopefully we can get that diamond that we saw in the window when we purchased these craptops.

 

While we are "waiting" I thought I would post this (from wiki) for your amusement:



No wonder so many class actions suits originate from California with bottom feeders frothing with greed...

 

A roller-coaster of emotions today. First excited because my very expensive and promising but useless computer, HP tx1000, was going to be finally repaired or replaced. And then ANGRY and SAD that the replacement for this defective $1300 TABLEt/Notebook hybrid was going to be a $300 NETBOOK. This is so unfair. I want to voice my experience to the parties involved. But alas, I am just a poor naive, college student. I don't know where to begin. Someone please tell me WHO and HOW? Because this is what I have to say...

I was so happy to find out about the settlement and the prospect of finally having a working tablet PC. I thought, as was stated in the settlement, that they would either repair my computer, or replace it with another version of itself, in effect, a functional tablet/notebook hybrid.

My computer, the HPtx1000, was a $1300 top of the line model with all of the bells and whistles. Read the reviews, I did when I researched it for months before it was released and I bought it. HP Pavilion tx1000 Review - Tablets - CNET Reviews
At minimum, a similar kind and value would equal this:
TOUCHSCREEN TABLET!
1.8GHz dual processor!
2GB RAM!
150 GB hard drive!
DVD R/RW with live scribe!

Because of its faulty functionality, my computer has barely been used. Honestly this defective Tablet PC SHOULD HAVE BEEN RECALLED! Then I would have at least had a refund of my $1300 or repair, but it was not. I should be getting an equivalent laptop/tablet or, at the very least, fix my computer so I can finally get what I worked so hard to pay for.

Why am I so upset? I am a college student. I saved for 2 years to buy this $1300 computer with the intention that it would be my primary computer. I upgraded options and paid extra for bluetooth, fingerprint reader, webcam, DVD drive/writer with lightscribe, and of course, most importantly the TABLET touch screen function so I could take written notes in class. I picked it out specifically because it was a TABLET AND a great entertainment PC, playing DVDs, online videos and such. And true, it was a tablet, but the entertainment aspect was nonfunctional because, as I’ve come to learn, of a defective GPU.

I never suspected that HP or NVIDIA would sell a faulty product with such integral defects. I thought originally that the overheating , choppiness and failed video was because of too little free memory, so I did my layman’s best to remove all extraneous programs and processes and free as much memory as possible. I even did 2 complete reinstalls of Windows but the computer still failed to perform. I blamed "bloatware", the poorly reviewed Windows Vista OS, and deteriorating HP quality for the inability to play videos, inability to get an attached an external monitor/projector to function, faulty wireless internet, and very HOT surface. I didn’t think I got a defective product, I thought I just picked out a bad model. Disappointed, I limited my use of the expensive laptop –now referred to as the hot paperweight-- to simple internet browsing and word processing. I have been using school computer labs, my iphone, and friend’s computers waiting to be able to afford a replacement. Which gets me to my point... a $300 Netbook is not an appropriate replacement. I could have afforded this ASUS or COMPAQ if that was what I wanted, but I use a TABLET. I need a TABLET/LAPTOP hybrid.

If the settlement is concerned about the cost of depreciation, I would argue that depreciation is only on the terms of advancing technology. $1300 today would buy me something more advanced than $1300 did in 2007. This is true, processors are faster, hard drives are bigger. After 3 years of use , albeit limited, I am not asking for a full refund. However, the replacements they are suggesting are of INFERIOR kind, value and technology. That is not a fair replacement as suggested by the settlement.


FAIR:
= Having my 3 year old tablet REPAIRED and the REFURBISHED with a properly functioning GPU.
= An equivalent replacement with be any of the nondefective HP tablets, refurbished or otherwise.
= Replacement with any brand Tablet/Notebook of equal processor, memory, hard drive and DVD R/RW.

LESS FAIR but ACCEPTABLE suggestions:
= Lenovo Ideapad Netbook tablet. Model: 06517HU $530 PROs: Tablet, similar processor (1.66Ghz) and storage (250 GB). CONs: Still not equivalent. No DVD R/RW and Less Memory (1GB RAM, but at least it's expandable to 2GB).
= Or HEY! Give us an iPAD for $500. It's a Tablet, and though clearly not equivalent to the fully functional laptop/tablet hybrid that I paid for, I doubt so many of us would be complaining about an iPAD. It doesn’t have much storage, nor a DVD R/RW drive. But it can stream movies better than my defective HP tx1000 ever did, and I can still use the tablet to take notes in class.

UNFAIR, UNACCEPTABLE (the current offered replacements):
= Compaq Presario CQ56-115DX. $400 bottom of the line laptop. It has a comparable processor, memory, storage, and DVD R/RW, however it still is NOT a TABLET! Though I paid 3X more for my LEMON, I would be more than satisfied with this notebook technology replacement if it was also a TABLET PC.
= Asus EEE T101MT-EU37-BK. The ASUS is a $300 (bottom of the line) NETBOOK with a slower processor (1.6GHz), Less memory (1GB)! and NO DVD drive! This is portable yes, but it is NOT A TABLET! If I wanted just portability I would have saved $1000 and bought one in 2007.

Sincerely,

Julie P...
Third year Medical Student
US NAVY RESERVES

 

I was just gonna say something to that effect.

 

Hey Folks… if you’re board waiting on Nvidia’s response, and haven’t already done so, why not jump over to JT’s Fair Nvidia Settlement site and drop something in the donation kitty. It even works with PayPal. JT is not only the author but is also footing the bill. If we could get 30 or 40 folks to drop $5 or $10… that would probably cover most of his cost.

Anything left over will go to Charity…. or perhaps even Ted Franks foundation.(my idea). Anyway, give it some thought. You could be rewarded in the end.

 

" There's a MOON out tonight "

 

Julie-

First of all, many thanks for your willingness to serve our great country.

I am sorry that for your loyalty and commitment, we provide you with a legal system where trial lawyers' greed trumpets everything else.

Please visit Declaration ? FAIR settlement - NVIDIA Defective GPU litigation and complete the online declaration form. Please make sure to include everything you said in your post.

 

Center for Class Action Fairness: Motion made in the NVIDIA GPU class action settlement

Nividia has filed a reply. 20 pages!

 

Thanks....

 

Just finished a quick read through..

looks like peddie wasnt consulted till the end of jan 2011 goes on and on about the asus with very little about the cq56 and then not till late feb 2011.

Nvidia claims the cq56 was Identified right away in discussions but that is prior to the cq50 being selected and then changed to the cq56

I think alot of semantics is going on trying to explain intent of the wording rather than focusing on the words written. It is a contractual agreement right.

How many times is old, outdated, worn,past its useful life used? No one takes into account the abnormal failure right out of warranty beyond the norm that was admitted by nvidia in 2007.

At the 11th hour when parts couldn't be found
we came up with this crap to meet the court deadline and get paid. Provisions should have been written to compensate for this 11th hour blunder.

As westerman said we have had the option for repair all along I want that option now even with my old worn dilapidated computer
that saw 1 year of light use.

I also think milburg is reading this thread and submitting at the last minute to make revisions.

 

Finished reading it. Though NVIDIA has one valid point: the "good faith" point, everything else seems to be completely biased of course hardly considering many things.

For one, of all those who filed claims, how many have actually sent their notebooks in? I would assume the majority were holding back until they find out whether they can get a better replacement or not. Plus, since the claims period ends in like they said 10 days, of course everyone in the class has to file or else they won't qualify for anything, at all.

They even somehow manage to jam in that the OEMs would have to agree to extend whatever&soforth however..all that's happening with HP is replacements. Scrap a notebook and sending a new one; is HP even in charge of doing that or is NVIDIA? Either way, it's not like it'd be a heavy burden like it would possibly be for dell and apple notebooks, since they actually have to hire professionals to replace the chips.

They also emphasized that the offered replacements are of similar or equal value. Even gesturing that they are much better than the laptops being replaced. For the non-tablet notebooks, I can assure that the Compaq is not better and I can't tell how they even generalized that the Compaq's similar or better than all of them. The only "advantage" I see is that they have a more "advanced" operating system and technology, which in my opinion, is arguable. For tablet notebooks; what the hell? So it can flip and be used. This tx1000 is heavy as hell, and I knew that. I didn't buy it as they said mostly due to its portability, I bought it because I could use it to draw with and everything else on, including games. It's been my desktop replacement, and I considered it as one when I bought it. That thing (ASUS) they call a replacement is much weaker, and of course it has a better battery life because it doesn't HAVE any features to drain battery. It's screen is way too small, I bought this laptop because it was the best (perhaps only?) choice for a tablet notebook but I still thought it was too small, and they want to offer an even smaller NETbook. The operating system is anything but more advanced, Windows 7 Starter? The W7 OS is hardly more advanced (arguably) than Windows 7, they're basically the exact same in my eyes but look shinier. Windows 7 Starter is...crap. It doesn't even allow multi-touch features which is one of the things that's supposed to make it better, tablet-wise, than the tx1000. Also, that ASUS is NOT faster and has a worst graphics card which was the point of this settlement.

Lastly, they argued that the motion didn't consider the class laptops were "old" and been through many years of "wear and tear." It's clear that the settlement was proposed in the first place because it was obvious there was something wrong with the graphics card when everyone's screen started crapping out on them before or shortly after the 1-year warranty expired. So, the laptops haven't been through "years of wear and tear." They've been collecting dust waiting for something like this, a settlement, to come along and finally repair what shouldn't have been done wrongly the first time. When the class was finally notified we all assumed that similar in kind or value meant "Hey, I'm finally getting a working $1100 notebook for the $1100 notebook I was supposed to be satisfied with." Even then, what about those 2-3 years everyone spent without the laptop they paid for? That can't be made up, the money spent for the laptop wasn't spent so it can die soon after, it was spent because we assumed it would last awhile and we liked the features on the laptop. At the time, these HP laptops included in the settlement were top-of-the-line products.

I want to talk to those so-called "experts" and give them a piece of my mind. I am anything but an expert, this is my first and only laptop, but I can see many of the (negative) disadvantages in the proposed replacements the settlement is currently offering.

You're free to use, edit, and revise these arguments of mine as long as you're opposing NVIDIA's response to the motion.

 

Seems to me that my 3 year old tablet/entertainment PC that died a couple of months out of warranty has only had 1 year of "Wear and Tear".

Seems like they want to keep our replacement cost down to the repair cost of the Dell and Mac owners. They get to "Keep" their hardware and get a "$200" repair option. We have to surrender ours to get the same, who is being shorted here?

I bought my TX1410us for its power and size. The Asus is only half the PC the TX is even after 3 years of "Life".

Lets start brainstorming ways to pick this apart and share our ideas.

 

Wow, even I, as I consider myself an average consumer, can spot where they contradicted themselves in this response many times.....

In one place they state "With ten days remaining in the claims period, such claims account for more than 70% of the total.", but then later they state "Only consumers who own Class Computers that are malfunctioning are in the class -- not everyone who owns a Class Computer. Most of the Class Computers have not and will not experience a chip problem.".

And another: They keep stating "outdated" and "old" computers nearing the end of their lifecycle, but then they go on to state "Moreover, hundreds of thousands of class members -- including one referred to in the Motion4 -- received free repairs of the chip problem through OEM enhanced warranty programs funded by NVIDIA and dating as far back as 2007.". Tell me, why would a repair in 2007 be funded by Nvidia if there wasn't a defect? And that statement alone says the problems started in 2007,,, so how exactly are all of these computer being used and abused while they don't work?

"NVIDIA and the OEMs cannot undo repairs already made, return Class Computers that have already been recycled or destroyed, or retrieve replacement models already supplied to class members free of charge.". Has any replacements even been sent out? I seriously doubt it....

I'll bet they didn't type up that document on a netbook or a CQ56,,, and furthermore, would throw a fit if thats all they had to work with....

And I haven't even read the delarations yet.....

 

Don't you just love the way they are telling future consumers if you buy and expensive laptop it will be OLD and at the end of it's life in a couple of years! Nice advertising huh? I'm sure this is just what HP wants to tell of the the people wanting to buy a new computer today no matter how much you pay it will be useless in a couple of years.

I spoke with Jeff today and he told me my computer would cost about what the replacement one cost today because of new technology???? What are you kidding me? Then why do they make a 17inch HP comparable to mine that is a lot more expensive than $300 or $400. My daughter in law has my computer but in the new model bought in 2010 and she paid way more than that.


"There is no recognition
whatsoever of the fact that the HP consumers are part of a class that is getting a repair of old
computers. Nor do the Motion or Vlastone Declaration acknowledge that the HP consumers (like
Dell and Apple consumers who are getting repairs) have used, out-of-warranty computers that are
nearing the end of their useful lives. These core errors lead the Motion and expert declaration to
adopt an erroneous approach in comparing the HP class computers with the replacement models."

 

** Crowdsourcing HELP needed **

As you know, NVIDIA and Milberg posted their responses early this morning (2:30 am for EST for NVIDIA and 2:55 am for Milberg)

Some of you have already managed to provide some very insightful comments. However, given our time constraint, it would be impractical for anyone to browse through different postings to quickly capture the essence of your feedback/comments.

I m currently in a process of creating new Wordpress pages for you to visit and leave your comments for a particular page.

For example, to leave a comment for page 5 of nvidia.354.nvidia.response document, you will:

1. hover on the NVIDIA.354.NVIDIA.RESPONSE tab located at the top of the menu bar
2. it should display a drop down box
3. choose NVIDIA.354.NVIDIA.RESPONSE-3-pg-5
4. leave your comments/reviews

Hope this makes sense. Let me know if you have any questions.

 

Thanks Kevin; this makes our efforts easier. You deserve a lot of credit for facilitating this. We're definitely going to need "crowd sourcing" because these overpaid invalids working at Nvidia and Milberg have a way with spinning the truth.

 

Wow, page 9, lines 5-8:

Thus, under the settlement purchasers of Dell, Apple and HP computers are to be provided comparable benefits and value, even though they are not receiving the same form of relief. If anything, the HP consumers are being provided substantially more value than most of their fellow class members.​

That is a horrible argument. Value should not be defined as $ cost. Say Mercedes made a faulty car part that went into their $500k sports car and their $50k sedans. And that $1,000 part was only available for the $50k sedans, so those sedans would get fixed and the $500k McLaren models would get a NEW (!) $50k SLK300. The McLaren members should be ecstatic - they got 50 times as much "value" out of the settlement as the other members!

A CQ56 has almost no value to me. It is significantly slower and smaller than my dv9000 and is not suitable to software development. Meanwhile, Dell/Apple claimants are getting the computers that they customized fixed.

 

just hold off on submitting comments. need to iron out few process kinks. brb

 

Page 9, lines 23-25:

The Motion fails to recognize that the settlement is directed at malfunctioning computers that are outside of their warranty and past or near the end of their useful life, and offers two forms of classwide relief.​

What basis do they have for saying that our computers are "past or near the end of their useful life?" Since my 2007 dv9000 began failing I have been alternating between a 15" laptop (for portability) that my wife bought in 2001, a computer I built in 1999, and a desktop that I bought in 2004. With the exception of the battery on the 10 year old laptop, all of these computers work just fine. Assuming that my dv9000 actually worked, I don't see a need to upgrade it for at least another 3+ years. Unless you're playing the absolute latest games, if you buy a quality computer you don't need to upgrade every couple years. As others have stated, this argument also ignores the fact that many of these computers began failing when they were only around a year old.

 

Thanks for setting this up. I don't have time to go through this whole thing until tonight, but NVIDIA's response is very distorted and misleading. Hopefully the Judge will see through this.

 

You'll notice that the papers are filled with irrelevant personal attacks on our expert. We also see argument from authority (noting the credentials of their expert) and so on.

We have some very good responses to the experts (and we're interested in hearing your opinions on that, too), including the fact that Bagherzadeh agrees with us on a number of the most material issues, but one problem we'd like to avoid is the judge taking a shortcut and "weighing the papers" rather than independently coming to his own conclusions when evaluating the arguments of competing experts.

If I had the resources of Milberg or NVIDIA, I'd hire ten lawyers to hire five Ph.D. experts to issue reports in the next week; any independent expert would agree with us. I don't have that money. But maybe you know people in the computer industry, computer-science or electrical engineering professors, IT professionals with writing skills, or tech journalists who are willing to volunteer to work pro bono to talk about the difference between dual-core and single-core processors. This is where we need help more than anywhere else.

 

I have been watching this forum for the past three weeks. I am the “not so proud” owner of a dv9420us. I felt compelled to join this group mainly due to frustration. I cannot believe how long this has dragged out. I sent my “boat anchor “ via FedEx on Feb. 6th. They received it February 8th. I called for status on Feb 22nd I was told, it has only been two weeks. My reply was, “yes, it has been two weeks, so what is your point”. She said it is going to take 6 to 8 weeks. At this point my plan is to take what they give me, sell it for a few hundred, then go out and actually buy something that will replace what I had, Something of like and similar value. These lawyers are not going to bend, they twist the facts and the truth, That is what lawyers do! I suppose most people would cheat and lie for $13 million. It is all about the money. You can go crazy trying to make sense out of people that do not make sense.

 

I just glanced through Bagherzadeh's declaration and found that it contained a lot of irrelevant material. The most troubling part is his analysis of dual-core versus single-core. He implies that Windows Vista can't utilize dual-cores. He also basically ignores that fact that when you are using a computer you have dozen of processes (each with multiple threads) running at a time (e.g. web-browser, Outlook, anti-virus, firewall, the O/S itself). I do hold a B.S. in Computer Science and an M.Eng. in Computer Science and Engineering.

 

Although I am commenting on the fairnvidiasettlement.com pages, this must be highlighted:

Page 14 of 20, ***LINE 25***: This is the biggest attempt to misconstrue facts and confuse the judge! “Faster CPU” is used, while technically true, does NOT represent the facts truthfully. This is a lie of omission. The fallacy in using the phrase “faster CPU” lies in the fact that FASTER CLOCK SPEED DOES NOT CORRELATE TO BETTER PERFORMANCE WHEN COMPARING TWO DIFFERENT CPUs. A 2.3GHz AMD V140 has a faster clock speed than a 1.6GHz AMD V140, but does not outperform a 1.6GHz AMD Turion X2 TL-50 or other similar dual core CPUs. See reputable benchmarking sites for scores; see any type of multi-core processor explanation such as Multi-core processor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I won't have much time until tonight to update my comments on the "fairnvidiasettlement" page, but I noticed the page numbers aren't matching on the 354 documents. That may be what you are already ironing out.

 

Page 17

When I fought with HP in 2009, they wanted to charge me $256 for a repair. Again in early 2010 when I contacted them, they insisted on a $256 repair bill.

 

The whole basis of Nvidia's argument hinges on

However the statement/notification given to us strictly mentions

Either the notification was misleading, thus the bait-and-switch, or the settlement is not being upheld. Nvidia is using an awful lot of "OR"s instead of "AND"s.

Furthermore, declarations such as Peddie's is based on Nvidia's definition, not the notice's definition of a replacement.

Based on Nvidia's definition, the only requirement necessary is like in kind. Therefore, a notebook is like in kind to another notebook. However, the notice's definition is similar in kind AND value. Therefore, their experts were using Nvidia's broad definition, which skewed their findings.

They also keep mentioning warranties being a bonus. I don't care about a warranty: that was not mentioned in the notice.

edit: exhibit A of Rosenthal shows the notice definition of "similar in kind AND value".

 

From page 14, lines 27-28 of Milberg's opposition:

if HP Class Members ask, they are permitted to remove their hard drives before shipping​

We now finally have written confirmation that we can keep our hard drives.

 

Milberg has asserted that depreciation is not a factor in the settlement, yet Peddie brings up the fact that our computers are depreciating. Not to mention, Moore's law was the number of transistors on a die doubles every two years...not performance. Page 24 of 31 (exhibit C) of the Peddie declaration, he even says that the AMD V140 is a worse CPU than the class computers. And that's after 4 years of "moore's law". ***PAGE 25 of 31 of Peddie's Declaration...HE HAS BENCHMARKS SHOWING THAT THE REPLACEMENT CPU IS AT TIMES ~65% OF THE OLD CPUS

Also, 'reliability' is of no consequence to us. If we take care of our hardware, it should last long enough...

Peddie also mentions that after a "quick search" he has come up with a $370 dv6000. Okay, well after my quick search, here's a dv6308nr for $699.99 on Amazon: Amazon.com: HP Pavilion dv6308nr - Turion 64 X2 TL-50 / 1.6 GHz - RAM 1 GB - HDD 120 GB - DVD?RW (+R DL) / DVD-RAM - GF Go 6150 - WLAN : 802.11b/g - Vista Home Premium - 15.4" Widescreen TFT 1280 x 800 ( WXGA ) - remarketed: Computer & Accessories

 

ok guys, FAIRnvidiasettlement.com has been updated

Please click on the "CROWSOURCING 101" tab to access sub-pages

You can also hover over the tab and select from the drop down box

Thanks!

PS. Whoever is Blogacomputer, please pm me with your email address and I will send your comments so that you can move it to the right thread. Sorry for the inconvenience.

 

JTF, I never mentioned it, but I have a transcript of a tech chat session from late 2008 when my WiFi Failed - which we now know was only a symptom cause by the REAL defect. At any rate, in that session the tech person definitively told me that my computer was not covered under the rumored "extended" warranty.

Later, once the tech community became more aware of the details involved and just how wide spread the defects actually were (though I think Nvidia still hasn't admitted just howwidespread) and there was further media coverage, I anecdotally discovered that my model WAS covered at that time. Of course by then it was out of warranty and HP refused to repair it, and by then the video was failing on a regular basis.

I'd have to cross some t's to make sure this is all sound on my end (family emergency right now, so I'm short on time), but you're welcome to my statement if it's of any value. If not, no response necessary. Just offering. My feelings won't be hurt.

 

I too find that too many experts rely on nvidias definition rather than the settlements wording.

I am still reading .....

 

I can add a little to your point, Bagherzadeh mentioned the shared-cache bottleneck issue with multi-cores. However, the dual-core processors actually have double the amount of L1 and L2 cache.

TL-60:
AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-60 - TMDTL60HAX5DM

V140:
AMD V Series V140 - VMV140SGR12GM

Bagherzadeh actually noted many disadvantages of the replacements---missing many features and significantly under-powered CPU. Which is quite surprising that he would come to the conclusion despite the above facts.

By the way, the following configuration of CQ56 would run faster than your existing one, though it does not have a 17" screen.

Compaq Presario CQ56-240CA Notebook PC - HP Shopping.CA

I want to upgrade the replacement to P340 as the performance difference from V140 is too significant. As for power consumption, P340is also 25w, same as V140.

 

Not only no 17" Sreen
no blue tooth
no webcam
no expressCard54 slot
no integrated muneric keypad
no Dual hard drives
no DVD light scribe
no 56k modem
no 4th USB

 

I have to say this again.. I hope you don´t take this as a personal attack, dchen2k. It looks that you are part of the above mentioned first group. I don´t think these SO-CALLED attorneys who are supposed to UPHOLD the law whatever side they are on. How can they look at themselves in the mirror. Surely there has to be compensation given to us who have been inconvenienced by:
1. Our computers failing to do what they are supposed to after the manfacturers have been paid.
2. Lack of responsiveness by HP to repair the problem (Now there are NO replacement parts available)
3. The replacement computers not having the features: Entertainment/Business class laptop, or tablet PC.
4. If this issue was resolved in a timely fashion and litigation had taken place speedily there could be NO argument used that our machines are OUTDATED? Compared to the replacement computers offered these computers are still better when you take the replacements out of the box and turn them on. The Millbergs and Orricks of the world are outright thieves, stealing, lying, cheating. Oh that´s right their getting paid, ¨what comes around goes around.¨

 

Compaq Presario CQ56-240CA Notebook PC - HP Shopping.CA

Look at the link again.
Not all true..

CQ56-240CA has HP Webcam with integrated microphone.
AMD Athlon II Dual Core P340
LightScribe SuperMulti DVD±R/RW with Double Layer Support

Double memory: 4 GB DDR3
Better video: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4250 (up to 1789 MB)

You can't and will never have everything. There has to be a compromise somewhere and I think it would have been a somewhat better alternative for non-tablet owners.

The ASUS model is also not all bad. But the N450 CPU is way too underpowered. According to some reviews you would even encounter performance bottlenecks watching Youtube videos. That's probably unacceptable to most people..

 

I'd completely discredit any mention of warranty, lifespan, and operating system (and of course, personal attacks).

New operating systems can be installed--I put Windows 7 Pro 32-bit on my pristine laptop before it failed. In regards to the lifespan, my laptop is in pristine condition and I have the original box and accessories. Don't tell me that it was doomed to fail in 3 years, when I know that they last longer. As for the warranty because it's a new computer: I don't care.

The above do not add to a "replacement notebook similar in kind and value" in my opinion. The only thing that affects that is the brand and the hardware performance. In other words, I want an HP with a dual-core. Bottom line.

I was disgusted to see the blatant attempts to discredit Mr. Frank because he's a lawyer "trying to push tort reform" or something along those lines. I'm not sure how the attacks on the expert will be interpreted, but an effort should be made on all of our parts to find reputable experts that support the motion. Try CS, CE, and EE professors that will volunteer a declaration. Tech blogs such as CNET, Gizmodo, Engadget, Tom's Hardware, etc. should be contacted to find an "expert". Also, any one you may know with years of IT experience (for example, buying hardware on behalf of a large company) could be contacted.

 

I have a netbook with the N450, and trust me, it doesn't even come close to the TL-50 I had in my HP.

 

No bluetooth and no 4th USB is a bigger problem than thier solution. Adding a $10 bluetooth dongle is 1. an additional cost to us, 2. takes away another USB, 3. adds a point of failure as well as 4. risking damage by sticking out the side of the notebook. Bluetooth is very important to me, and many others. Again, one of the main reasons I purchased what I did.

 

Nvidia 5-12:
The Motion’s claim that the parties must have intended the definition of “suitable
replacement of like or similar kind or equal or similar value”

the word used in the settlement is and

 

Hey, I'm definitely on your side if you look at the details. I just do not agree that those models are junks. There are upgraded versions of thIe CQ56 that are much more comparable to the models to be replaced---for non-tablet owners. Of course those models cost a lot more than CQ56-115DX.

For tablet owners, though. It's probably more difficult to find a solution that would be agreeable to both sides..

I will keep my mouth shut from now on.

 

First if the Standard is to make us "whole" Hp owners are only being made whole to the associated value of the repair cost of the apple and dell owners

Nvidia 8-12

"It necessarily assumed that the replacement
model(s) would provide value to HP consumers that would be comparable to the value conferred
on Dell and Apple class members via the repair remedy."

I believe this is the most telling statement as the replacements were predicated on the value of the repair cost of the apples and dells

 

That would be correct if we were getting the CQ-56 240CA. The settlement has CQ56-115DX as the replacement, not the CQ-56 240CA. Where did you come up with that model. Did I miss something?

 

The value of having your original system repaired is indisputable, as long as the repair actually eliminates the defect completely. That is a far greater value than having your system replaced with something inferior.

If equalizing the cost of the remedy among all class members is what their ultimate intent is, it makes no sense whatsoever and it is a breach of the settlement provisions. I think they are invalidating any argument they are attempting to present simply by making mention of it or referencing that. It is totally irrelevant, and I think it smells like bad faith on the part of Milberg to even go there.

The remedy is a repair or replacement, and the settlement provides for replacement system of similar value, not a similar repair or replacement cost among all class members.