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

Thanks Mr. Fox! I will go ahead with the online claim. Also want to thank everyone here for their help. Mr. Frank you are doing a great thing and we all appreciate you so much.

 

Hello Everyone,

I am posting with the purpose of seeking advice from all of you. I have read most of the posting on this thread, and I am definitely more informed on the settlement. I received yesterday my Replacement Authorization Form from the Settlement Administrator, which states that I am required to choose either the Compaq CQ56 or the Asus EEE tablet model. Furthermore, the instructions to mail in my computer (I have the TX1115NR tablet) states that I should mail it in within 7 days of receiving this form, but received no later than July 18, 2011. After reading all the posts in this thread, I am hesitant to send my computer right away. My question to all of you is: should I wait to see what happens with the settlement, or should I just send in the computer within the 7 day period? I am certainly unhappy about receiving a cheaper replacement, but if there is a chance the replacement model might be changed to a better suited equivalent to the tablet PC that I have, I would prefer to wait. However, I don't want to wait long enough that I don't receive a replacement whatsoever. Please, can someone advice me on what to do? Thanks in advance!!!

P.S. Please see attached image to read entire Replacement Authorization Form--without personal information, of course.

 

materanl, welcome to the forum. We are all happy you joined us and found this thread enlightening. There are lots of great threads besides this one, so spend some time browsing when you can.

As Mr. Frank pointed out a couple of posts back, it would not be likely that the replacement systems would begin shipping to customers while the objection is pending. I sent my wife's dv6449us to NVIDIA 2 or 3 weeks ago, and there is probably not any harm in sending yours. We sent her laptop to NVIDIA with the thought that the CQ56-115DX would be better than a door stop--since her system is totally unusable--but, not happy with what they are planning to send back; and not a great deal of optimism that we would get something more comparable to the dv6449us in return. As you've undoubtedly noticed, Milberg and NVIDIA are fighting Mr. Frank's motion something fierce and unless the judge is open-minded and agrees the current replacements are not in compliance with the settlement provisions, we will all be getting either a lame CQ56-115DX, or the choice between that and the extraordinarily anemic Asus netbook in the case of tx owners.

A few folks have suggested including a statement that you do not approve of the replacement option and you could include such a statement when you send yours in. It's anyone's guess if that will be read or round-filed.

This is my opinion and undoubtedly others will offer theirs. I'm ungrateful for the treatment we have received at the hands of HP, NVIDIA and Milberg, but at the end of the day my wife will be happier with the POS CQ56-115DX than nothing. The alternative would be spending money we don't have on a replacement that is primarily used for social networking, web browsing and occasional Office document creation.

The CQ56-115DX will do all of those things, just slowly and mostly one task at a time. It will be sad if we all get short-changed, but something most of us HP owners have come to expect as the status quo. Ultimately, it's going to be your decision.

Edit: My last two paragraphs should not be misconstrued as satisfaction with the CQ56-115DX as a replacement. My emphasis is on it being better than nothing. It's not compliant with the terms of the settlement.

 

I received my letter a couple weeks ago and decided to wait to see what happens. I have the HP DV9420US 17" notebook and do not want the replacement offered as it is not suitable for my needs! Even if they don't change the replacements, I haven't decided if I want to trade!
I think you would do better to hold off to see what happens but you have to decide for yourself. I think we have a good case though!

 

I haven't received my letter yet but I know it's coming this week. I will wait and see what happens. I do not need a craptop/nutbook as I have a few others either way this goes, I will wait till the last second before I mail in if I do at all.

 

I want to remind everyone that, when you sent in your claim form, you signed an extensive waiver agreeing not to sue NVIDIA or anyone else that becomes effective upon your mailing in for a replacement computer. I can't give individual legal advice for any individual's particular situation, which depends upon how badly one needs a replacement computer as soon as possible and how likely you think it is we will win individual parts of the motion, but sending in your computer before the judge rules means that you're taking the risk that NVIDIA will claim that you've agreed to accept the CQ-56 and that you waived any rights to the replacement computer of like or similar kind and value, or any rights to sue anyone later.

 

Settlement Para. 2.6 The Parties recognize that the HP models included in Class Computers incorporate motherboards or other components, apart for the Nvidia GPU or MCP, that are no longer readily available in sufficient quantities for use as replacement parts. Therefore, a computer of like or similar kind and equal or similar value will be provided to the consumers at Nvidia’s expense. The parties will meet and confer in good faith and agree on a suitable replacement of like or similar kind or equal or similar value.

Post Card Notice to Class Members. Clearly uses "similar in kind AND value"

Settlement Notice # 2. Clearly uses "similar in kind AND value" and further uses the word “their” indicating (to me at least) the individual’s class computer (i.e. not a holistic solution but an individual one).

So…I think you have it exactly correct, the "and equal or similar value" is really "similar in kind AND value" according to the notice”... and part 2.6 of the settlement document. The problem is the “ or” in the last sentence of par. 2.6. This is also where, according to Ted I think, “they've been hanging their hat on their interpretation of the settlement”.

Alone, the intent of 2.6 is debatable because it uses both “ or” and “ and”. The notices however, in my opinion, clarify and support the “ and” interpretation. The “ their” in the second class notice also (for me at least) rebuts the holistic solution supported by Nvidia and suggest a more individual solution.

JMO, Dave

 

The waiver is an excellent point, Mr. Frank. I submitted the claim form and shipped the laptop knowing full well that unless the judge rules differently for all class members, all we will get is the inferior CQ56-115DX in return.

Realizing your response would not constitute legal advice to an individual, I have a general question that others may be wondering. Would it be a sound legal concept or a common law principle that, until NVIDIA delivers the specified replacement to a class member, a settlement agreement between an individual class member and NVIDIA is not valid because they have not consummated the agreement by providing the class member with the consideration the agreement calls for? It works that way with just about any claim settlement, does it not? I've always heard that you cannot have an enforceable agreement, release or contract without consideration. So, I am wondering if that same principle applies to a class action settlement as well.

 

Not being a Lawyer I might be wrong. As vague as 2.6 might be and as many interpretations as there seems to be, does not the Notices sent by the parties (Class Council and NVIDIA) define the "intent" of the article? Now they decide it means something different. This is pretty sloppy work on their part. Good catch on the "Their" usage as each individual class members computer. Though all this could mean something different, like Agreement not to oppose doesn't really mean agreement not to oppose.

 

I would think so... but what do I know. Long Long ago I dropped law school to go fly jets and blow stuff up. I think I'd like to do some of that right now... if you know what I mean.

 

Alright, so that's where the deranged definition Nvidia came up with, but I'm focusing on the language in the notice I received, which I based my decision not to object or exclude myself:

http://www.nvidiasettlement.com/pdfs/NVF_NOT.pdf

 

Seems like some members oposed before the final judgement but were denied do to Class council further defining their intent. This is from Doc 349.

This is the best definition yet. Since my laptop was fairly new when the defect rendered it useless It should be much higher than what it would be worth today.

 

IANAL, but I think the cost to repair the Apple and Dell notebooks is irrelevant. What if those notebooks could be repaired for $10? Would we receive a $10 notebook? My reading of the settlement is that class members owning an affected notebook should be made whole, meaning that they should end up with a working notebook similar to the one they bought. Apple and Dell notebooks will be fixed and HP notebooks will be replaced with one similar to the original.

 

I live near an airbase, I think I can help you with that.

Just kidding

 

I believe the fact that they took no action to oppose before the Judge finalized the settlement means they would accept. Though NVIDIA has a strange way of presenting its objections. Maybe by not objecting they meant to object.

 

Yeah, sort of like when they told Mr. Frank "agree not to object" or something along those lines.

I think we need certified statements from Nvidia when they say they agree not to object or that they agree with what is being proposed...

 

Too funny!!

 

Here is a little table I whipped up of the Windows Experience Scores. I still have the pages that the data came from. My TX1410us is actually faster then the one in the table. Hope the table formats correctly. It didn't, I'll see if I can get an image attached.

 

Hope this works.
Table attached show some Windows Experience Scores.

 

That's excellent... Windows Experience Scores... is a much better and easily understood basic indictor than their supposed "expert" testimony. And it makes MS our expert witness.

You should send this to JT if you haven't already.

 

sorry, just caught this post;

can certainly add to the site but can someone tell me citations or source for these figures/?

 

Thank you for the welcoming, Mr. Fox. It appears that by sending in the computer, as Mr. Frank noted, I would waive all rights to receive a different computer if the judge upholds the claim that the settlement is unfair, specifically for class members who purchased an HP computer model that is included in the settlement. However, I do understand that by filing a claim, I had already waived the right to pursue further legal action against any party. The following was included in the Replacement Claim Form Receipt I received after filing an online claim:

Therefore, it appears that the HP class members, including myself, know that they are going to be short-changed, it's just a matter of by how much. I just hope that we are not totally taken as fools and that we are forced to accept whatever nVidia and everyone else--but us--deems fair. Let's, as they say, hope for the best, but expect the worst.

By the way, something else that I was expecting to receive in the mail was shipping materials to send the faulty computer, but now I'm told to go out of my way to a FedEx store? Here's another quote (underlines added for stress) from the Replacement Claim Form Receipt:

 

sorry this is in chinese, but it is the same tablet asus with the benchmarks and windows experience index.
http://www.eprice.com.tw/nb/talk/876/3772/

 

Just sent them to you in an email.

 

Nvidia Response: Page 9, Lines 1-8
As the Motion itself acknowledges, the touchstone of a class action settlement is to treat class members equally, and to provide them with comparable value as part of the classwide relief. See, e.g., In re General Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liab. Litig. (“In re GMCPick-Up Litig.”, 55 F.3d 768, 808 (3d Cir. 1995) (“One sign that a settlement may not be fair is that some segments of the class are treated differently from others.”. 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.

-------

I agree with you that the original intent was to make each class owner whole. Unfortunately, HP owner’s notebooks can not be repaired, so to be replaced (according to Nvidia logic) the value of the replacement should be near the value presented to the Apple & Dell owners as comparable value for class wide relief. Example: A person sends their MacBook for repair. Nvidia pays, say on average $300, for the repair to Apple. HP owners, since they’re getting replacements, get $300 in value. Nvidia starts looking for $300 notebook replacements.

IANAL either, this is just how I read it and it provides a logical explanation for the cheap replacements.

 

Outstanding....thanks!!

JT get this link.

 

Sorry, my original post wasn't clear - I wasn't disagreeing with you that this is NVIDIA's argument, I'm just saying that the court should rule that this isn't a valid argument. As I said, if the repair costs $10 for Dell members, but HP members can't get the repair, do HP members only get a $10 laptop?

I understand the all class members should be treated fairly. NVIDIA's definition of fair is how much do THEY spend on each claimant. Instead, the definition of fair should be how much value does each class member get out of it. The Apple/Dell members get their computer fixed by simply sending in their computer and getting it back in the mail. The HP members SHOULD be getting a similar kind of computer to what they own, but they have a bit more hassle since they'll have to transfer all of their files and settings over to the new computer. This seems like the class members are getting roughly the same value out of the settlement (a working computer like the one they purchased), despite NVIDIA likely having to pay more for the replacement computer. Based on this definition of fair, it follows that it is not fair for HP members to be getting a replacement model significantly worse than their original model.

 

link is up.

i created a new tab called "TECH SPECS" which acts like a link farm to all specification related pages.

I did translate the Asus review into English but I need to convert it to a PDF and host it. You can do the same thing at igoogle.

As suspected by many members, that windows rating sux

 

Well said. I absolutely agree... and apologize if I misunderstood your post.

 

Thank God I only use finger bullets, because if not I'd be dead.

NVIDIA is going to spend $300.00 to fix an Apple Computer.

If you have a $1000.00 Apple Computer and send it in to get a $300.00 fix , when you get it back you still have a $1000.00 computer. We HP owners have to send in a $1000.00 computer and get a $300.00 one in return.
How is this making us WHOLE ?

 

JT... I think the Widows Experiece Scores could be very helpful. What about you? Ps... check your email.

 

i tryed to log in to Webpage for Claimants with an approved HP Replacement Claim for the Tx1xxx Model but its says my claim is wrong id .. does anyone alse have same prob or just me?

 

Perhaps you should call them if it won't work for you via the web.

 

i will call them tomorrow i tryed to call them on sat but they where closed so i was just wandering maybe they diactivated till this issues get fixed for us to get better replacement? any news on that?

 

Pardon the expression, but I think the argument that you quoted from nVidia's response is BS. As I learn more and more about the details, I feel that nVidia, Milberg, and all the so-called "experts" are all collaborators. This class settlement seems like it was completely premeditated and done with only one purpose: how much less can nVidia spend to solve this issue. nVidia wins by saving money, Milberg wins by charging attorney fees, the "experts" win by charging consultation fees, and I wouldn't doubt that other people and companies involved would also profit. The only ones who end up losing are the consumers; mainly all of us who purchased an affected HP computer model. The article "Milberg, Nvidia Accused of 'Bait and Switch' in HP Laptop Settlement" linked earlier in this thread sums it up: we were bamboozled.

If "the touchstone of a class action settlement is to treat class members equally, and to provide them with comparable value as part of the classwide relief", why not replace ALL computers, including Apple and Dell computers with similar monetary value (e.g. $1,000)? I think that the best way to win this battle is if Apple and Dell costumers who are part of the class settlement side with us and state the nVidia is not complying with the class settlement as it was originally agreed upon.

 

- On or before March 14, 2011, class members shall file their Reply.
- The Court sets March 28, 2011 at 9 a.m. for the hearing on class members’ Motion.

 

I couldn't agree with you more. If you read the prior post I was just pointing out that this is the source of Nvidia'a agrument. As far as Apple or Dell owners joining us I'd have to say... not likely since they are gettiing their notebooks repaired.

 

I think to simplify everything... we as a class need to demand what the settlement promised us.... A similar kind and value laptop... specifically and only HP branded laptops.

No Asus... No Compaq... Simply an HP laptop or tablet. The screen size should dictate the "kind".

17" DV's should get a new HP 17" laptop.
15.4" DV's should get a new HP 15.4" laptop.
Tablets should get a new HP Tablet.

Period.

None of this wishy washy 85% of cpu speed and 75% of gpu speed or any other such confusing nonsense.

K.I.S.S. - Clean and simple... 3 models for the 3 major kinds of laptops... and specifically HP branded laptops.

 

Holly Bat Cave Bruce.... you got it!!

 

That's " Holy Toledo Batman " you hit the nail on the head. Now explain it to the Judge.

 

I thought perhaps you were trapped because there was no light at the end of the tunnel.

... but Personally, I don’t think Ted will have any problem with that.

 

Through NO fault of our own, We can't help it that they don't make parts for " OUR HP COMPUTERS " anymore.

 

If you open the Chinese web page with Google Chrome, you get a pop-up tool bar offering to translate the web page. That worked really well for me. The page does have some good information about the system.

 

If only it were so easy. Nobody is in a position to demand anything at this point in time. The process Mr. Frank is going through is the only course of action that might produce a different outcome. If it were as easy as making demands, I don't think he would be burning so many calories on this project.

 

Is that the Asus EEE T101MT-EU37-BK that is specified in the settlement though? I couldn't figure it out.

 

I went back and looked again and the EU37-BK information is simply not identified on the Chinese web page. It's only the T101MT model information that is identified. My guess it that the information tacked onto the end might be mostly irrelevant information just as it usually is on HP computers (i.e. NR for "no rebate" and WM for "Wal-Mart").

Man, this thread has gotten to be like a shark feeding frenzy every day. I'm having a hard time keeping up with the flurry of postings by disgruntled HP owners. I add a post and in minutes there's already 2 more pages to read and I have to hunt for what I just posted. It's pretty amazing. Grassroot efforts are awesome.

 

Here is another review link sent to me by Dchen2K for the MT but I don’t think it’s the EU37 either. He sent me another one also but every time I click on it crashes my computer ..LOL

Well... after several tries I finally got the other link to work for another MT review.

 

After reading the last couple of reviews on the Asus netbook, I think the only reason the settlement administrators chose such a horrible piece of junk is so nobody would want it. Offering a terrible option would be one way of ensuring all HP class members ultimately receive the exact same remedy, which seems to be their hidden agenda.

LOL! This sounds more like something our government would be doing, rather than a private sector thing.