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

[QUOTE I also bought a bad optical drive because I wanted to retain my good drive for use in another computer. The bad drive, outwardly, looks just fine. It just does not work properly. My cost was three bucks on eBay . . worth it to me.
[/QUOTE]

Do we really want to give them more ammo to reject our claims? This forum is public and if Judge ware rules in our favor you Betta believe they are going to start nit picking and looking for things like missing caddy's or optical drives that don't match just to reject your claim and save them money. These question should have been pm'ed to other members and not published.

just my opinion only and i wish the webmaster could start deleting the flying ammo.

 

Good point.

Look at the pickle NVidia and the lawers are in now because they are trying to short change class members. It has cost them more work and (hopefully) more money being less than honorable.

It would be in everyones best interest to play by the rules as to avoid joining the NVidia/Lawyers club. It may end up costing you a denial of your claim. This would only benefit & empower the other team.

Rise above them and be victorious.

 

"Here Come Da Judge, Here Come Da Judge, Oh Crap It's Not Him"
The Suspense Is Building and Building ..

 

Do we really want to give them more ammo to reject our claims? This forum is public and if Judge ware rules in our favor you Betta believe they are going to start nit picking and looking for things like missing caddy's or optical drives that don't match just to reject your claim and save them money. These question should have been pm'ed to other members and not published.

just my opinion only and i wish the webmaster could start deleting the flying ammo.[/QUOTE]

I disagree, obviously. The optical drive I am returning, for example, is indistinguishable from the original. Are you saying we are expected to return a perfect laptop . . . except that it will have an improperly manufactured GPU which both nVidia and the laptop manufacturer refused to make good until the former was sued? It is my belief, BTW, that upon discovery of the bad GPU solder balls (circa 2008 or early 2009) every purchaser should have been offered either a new laptop or a refund. Indeed, taking the 20,000 foot view, I see no reason either nVidia or the manufacturers should be coddled or feared. They are not the victims in this situation . . we are.

Anyway, I believe we are under no obligation to return perfectly good peripherals . . only a complete laptop in whatever condition it happens to be in. But your cautious and docile reaction is most instructive. To wit:

I have wondered for a while how it was that both nVidia and the manufacturers would have the brass first to cheat us, and then to stonewall and obstruct our efforts to seek redress. So many buyers of these junk laptops lost their shirts. For many it was the only money they had to buy a device critical to their lives and livelihoods. What I'm saying is that, at least for some individuals, this fiasco has been a real kick in the teeth. These are tough financial times for many. Not every owner of one of these junkers could just rush out and buy another laptop when the inevitable happened. When their GPU went into the toilet, for many it was impactful.

But now I see the fearful and hesitant attitude upon which, it would seem, nVidia and the manufacturers were counting. It is not in my nature to think like that; I'm a bit more assertive. So I didn't expect to see the white flag coming from our side.

nVidia and the manufacturers, it appears, don't even own a white flag.

Finally, I want both of you to know I appreciate the exchange even though we don't agree. This is a discussion forum. While we see this differently, I have learned from your posts and I thank you.

 

Ok. Hope it works out for you.

 

Why do they want them back as complete as possible ? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$GREED$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Does any one actually think that they don't already have
these sold to someone "as is" ?

For the 'low-line' product they are offering me for my
'soup to nuts' tx1000 @ almost $2K I should be able
to keep the 'non-repairable' one, without the mod/ser
number sticker.

Unless something changes the only one's making out
on this 'such-a-deal' is the Lawyers.

 

I'm not intending to pass personal judgement on anyone on this forum, but I've never believed that t1t-for-tat (the forum censor won't let me write t1t) has ever been constructive for anyone in the long run; it perpetuates a cycle of destructive action. I simply want what's FAIR.

Maybe...maybe...if the judge rules against us, then I'd start considering the small steps that might help me gain a little more equity and mitigate just how much I'm being screwed. I can understand some justification in there, though even then it seems a bit petty.

But, if he does approve the CCAF motion and modifies the suggested offering to fairly match the terms of the settlement, then absolutely NO WAY. Upon equal ground, two wrongs do not make right, period. These lawyers and their respective firms (CCAF excluded of course) are shisters and parasites. They leech off the very system that offers them the opportunity to find success; they suck the blood from those whom they have sworn under an oath to protect; Simply put, I am better than them, and I would not stoop to their depths for petty gain.

Sorry if that got a little melodramatic, the waiting is getting to me and I have gotten to vent about Millberg, et al in quite a while.

 

Well put. Rep +1

 

This is for another case involving HP Printers and Plaintiffs receiving Coupons

Center for Class Action Fairness, LLC: Court reduces fees after CCAF objection to HP settlement

Frank gets a victory, of sorts. They lowered the Lawyers $$$ based on the Actual benefit to the plaintiffs not the contrived by economic "experts" value of benefits.

Dropped from $2.9mil to $2.1mil (27.5% drop). Even though the actual benefit to plaintiffs was only $1.5mil this is still a victory and may even go farther in creating Class Action Fairness reform. It's a good read, and short. Check it out. Shows Judges are trying to be Just.

 

If anybody knows different to what I'm posting here, please fill us in.

This is regarding the Judge, Judge Ware, and timing. I realize many are holding onto their laptops right now, not sending them in even though a claim has been approved, in hope the Judge will mandate something other than a kid's laptop be sent as replacement. I'm in that situation myself.

I believe many are making the possibly erroneous assumption that Judge Ware will render his judgement LONG before the July drop dead date. AFAIK there is no reason to believe this will happen. It might happen, of course. But legal proceedings can occupy years. There is no deadline beneath which Judge Ware is operating . . . at least not to my knowledge.

WE, OTOH, are operating currently under deadline. We have until July, and that's an absolute cut off. I'm good with all of it, except folks should not just assume we will have clarity before July. It might happen. It might not.

 

Anyone have estimation on the length of time it takes to get a replacement or are no replacements shipping since this whole thing is tied up? While I do support fighting the lack of a real replacement, I've gotten to the point where I would just like a machine.

 

It's a waiting game now. They hope everyone gets tired of waiting.

 

About a week before the hearing, I was told I would receive a replacement within 8-10 weeks of sending in my laptop. Before this, I was told I would receive my replacement 6-10 weeks from the date my claim was approved. My 10 week wait(from when I sent my laptop) will be over during the 2nd week of May..I hope it doesn't take that long.

 

I mailed my laptop to them 9 weeks ago from today. Feb. 8th

 

all these people that have sent in their laptop all ready. i sincerely hope that you do not get a lower end replacement while others get an actual like-model replacement...

 

That is the main reason I´ve held off on sending mine in. I hope that we can get some feedback from the court soon whether this be a judgement or another date.
Fingers crossed.
Hope there will be some repercussions for Milberg and Co.
Those expert opinions are just about as shoddy as it gets.

 

I think we are going to be waiting a very long time... to get shafted.

 

In the worse case scenario of having to choose.....

What replacement is the crappiest,, asus or compaq?

 

This really depends on what you are looking to do with it. If you need something, anything, that will run programs and be your main computer, I would choose the Compaq. If you have a main computer and want something for only travel and internet, choose the Asus. I think worst case scenario I will choose the Asus because I can get more out of it re-sale because neither one of these is what I need (portable AND powerful)!

 

I really don't think they're going to send a replacement to anyone before the judge decides what to send.

 

This is what I originally thought, but now I'm betting the lawyers are sweating over what to do. Does anyone know if they are obligated to send the replacements in "6-10 weeks" as promised? If nothing else, at least we gave them some stress over this and maybe, just maybe, next time they won't try to screw their clients so much- or maybe not...

 

Its only the second week of April. I think this waiting is a good sign that Judge Ware is taking his time to review all facts and truths.

Please be patient as we are not the only class action suit being handled by Judge Ware.

If you want to do something about what is going on, pick up the phone and contact your local media to get some exposure.

 

I am still patiently, but anxious to wait Judge’s decision.
I see this is never “similar kind and value” issue, it is $300 budget for each computer nVidia intend to pay.
$300 is usually the cost to repair each Laptop, and HP laptop is not designed to repair. So we get this “the replacement HP notebook computer” by default.
These so called "computer expert” are just paid to say what Nvidia and Milberg what to hear.
The affect Laptop cost between $500 to $2,000 for us, and it is impossible to replace this different Laptop with one or two models. (even my wife know that)
I believed the $300 is the amount nVidia intend to pay, and the Compaq Presario CQ56 is the cheapest in the current Market. I hope the Judge can see through this and make judgment soon.

 

Straight up, owners of the very high end (circa $2K) laptops, those caught up in this debacle, if their laptops remain in pristine shape save for the GPU . . . those owners should consider reballing of the GPU. They should at least look at it.

Exception:

If Judge Ware awards the high end folks a replacement laptop of similar kind and value, then obviously that offer should be gratefully accepted.

I do not own one of the extremely high end laptops. But if I did, I would at least price reballing before I would accept a kid's toy computer as a "replacement".

For anyone unfamiliar, reballing is not the same as reflowing. In reballing, the inferior nVidia GPU BGA solder balls are actually replaced with the proper solder. It is a very high precision, difficult, quite expensive procedure. Not many shops offer this service. And, no, I'm not certain the bad nVidia GPUs can even be reballed. But if I owned a great $2K laptop, I'd be looking into it.

Here is a link for BGA reballing:

http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=reballing

That link works with Chrome. Not sure about MSIE.

 

I will wait as long as it takes. I dont want a Comcrap. I want a Pavillion 17" like I had.

 

IMO, as Charlie reported as early as September 2008 in the Inquirer, the problem lies in the solder bumps of the die, not the solder ball of the substrate, so reballing will not do the work, and it will fail...

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1004378/why-nvidia-chips-defective

 

Very good post.

Are you saying our BGA solder is actually OK? I was under the impression it was inferior, something about them trying to avoid use of lead . . or whatever.

So the problem is totally beyond repair?

Could you explain why reflowing often works, albeit only temporarily. I was under the impression it was the BGA that was being reflowed. This is wrong, then?

Thanks

EDIT

OK, I went back and re-read the article. Thanks for the link. Last time I read that was late last year.

It seems to me a couple of things might help extend life:

A eutectic BGA to match the pads

Abandonment of Vista and 7 (owners won't like that at all) in favor of return to XP

Thermal rework to enhance heat flow. Copper shim at the least. I would use silver.

Maybe other stuff. Limitations on gaming?? Cut GPU clocking 10%?? Not sure.

Still think for the very high end laptops in (otherwise) excellent shape it would not hurt to speak with a real expert. $2000 is a lot of dough to flush, to exchange for a toy. JMHO

Boy, when you get into that article and see so clearly how they (nVidia and the manufacturers) conspired to screw us . . . . it really makes one's blood boil. They knew about all this so early . . . and they just stonewalled their customers instead of doing the right thing and offering refunds or replacements. It's a sad commentary on the industry.

 

Depends on whether you acted in reliance of that promise. But even if you did, what are your damages? And what can one do, other than complain to Judge Ware, and get a hearing date on that complaint some time in June? Aside from the fact that you signed a waiver when you sent in your computer for exchange and NVIDIA will argue that that waiver prevents you from complaining about anything that happens in the mailing process (though, in reality, the release is narrower than that).

I would be very surprised if NVIDIA mailed out any computers before Judge Ware rules. Take the delay as a good sign that NVIDIA thinks that there is a non-zero chance that they will be ordered not to ship CQ-56 computers as replacements for far more powerful laptops.

 

Ted,

Thanks for all the efforts in this case. In regards to the July 7th dealine, would it be reasonable to think/expect Judge Ware to make a decision prior to that dealine? And if he does not, would the class members that have approved claims be at risk of getting nothing if we hold off processing our claim until we hear from Judge Ware?

I know it's only be a couple of weeks since the hearing, but as we get closer to the deadline, would it be considered inappropriate for class members to contact Judge Ware asking for a update as to when he will render his decision in this matter?

-Shawn

 

There's almost three months before July 7 and the judge hasn't even had the case under submission for three weeks. Let's wait for that ratio to get well below one before panicking or worrying about contingencies. The judge has hundreds of other cases on his docket, many of which are criminal cases where there are constitutional speedy-trial requirements. Since we have truth on our side, and the other side has engaged in a strategy of obfuscation, we want the judge to take his time to get it right. Demanding an immediate ruling (aside from being sufficiently unusual that it risks alienating the judge) works against us. If, two months from now, there still isn't a ruling, I'll send a letter brief politely informing the judge that the lack of the decision to date has had consequences.

As always, I'm not infallible, and I don't have a monopoly over this case: I'm not your attorney, and anyone who disagrees with me is free to do whatever they want, with or without their own lawyer.

Do note that the court has refused to docket correspondence sent to the court that hasn't been formally filed rather than treat such correspondence as a pro se filing related to the case; anything that's being sent to the judge without complying with the formal electronic filing procedures almost certainly isn't being considered and is instead being forwarded to the settlement administrator, who, as we all know, is ignoring the complaints. I even asked the clerk for a copy of all the emails and letters that have been sent to the judge in this case so that I could docket them myself for the appellate record, and even that correspondence has received no response.

 

Ted,

That's fine. I know it's too soon and that Judge Ware is very busy. I just wanted to post those questions and get some idea of what plan of action would be possible as the July 7th deadline nears and we haven't heard anything.

I know you're not my lawyer, but I do appreciate what you are doing for the class as a whole.

Fight the good fight...

 

I was wondering what was going on with this. I sure hope ya'll were successful. I would rather something comparable to my DV2000 rather than that piece of feces compaq they were trying to pass off on us, even if I have to wait longer.

 

Hi fellow class members,

I got a letter from NVIDIA today stating that my claim was deficient because:

"You did not provide proof of purchase sufficient to substantiate your claim as required by this settlement. Proof of purchase can be a sales receipt, credit card or other account statement, shipping manifest, purchase order, proof of registration, or such other documentation that the Administrator deems sufficiently reliable to demonstrate that one of the specified models was purchased in the specified purchase date range."

My concern is that I called the hotline before sending my claim in explaining that I had none of these because 1. I paid with cash 2. I got it from circuit city who is no longer in business 3. I don't have a 2 year old receipt 4. I never registrered the product with HP.

The lady told me that was ok as long as I had the product number, serial number, and an estimated date of purchase. Which I know was between January 1 and 10 of 2008 because I bought with the end of the year cash bonus I got from work.

I am going to call back, but have any of you had this issue? The letter requires me to return the letter and corrected information by the 18th so I do not have much time.

Thanks for any help

 

In regard to the above post, I just got off the phone with them. They basically told me I was out of luck, even though from what I understand every tx1000 notebook is under this claim. They told me I should have kept a record like it is my fault that they made a defective product. He said I could try to write a letter. So I spent $1200 on a computer that work for 13 months before failing and now I'm getting nothing. I might book a flight and go visit the NVIDIA headquarters.

 

So, the question that jumps immediately to mind: If you file a claim as a member of the "class," and it is rejected, are you then excluded from the class? Probably not, but it does raise an interesting possibility.

 

It does. If he is not part of the class because his claim was rejected, he should be able to file a claim against HP in small claims court.

 

Try going to the HP support site and registering with your approx purchase date. Then you can print the page or email it to the Settlement Admin. Some members have done this and I think they were successful.

 

Hmm... I never would of thought of that. I didnt know you could enter a date. I will check it out tonight and post back tomorrow with the results. Thanks!

 

For proof of purchase, I didn't have a receipt either. I went to my bank and had them search for a canceled check and credit card receipts from the approximate time of purchase. I didn't have a clue how I had paid for it. It took about 30 minutes in the bank, but they finally found it. I had purchased 2 computers with the same check (a desktop and a tx series) so the amount of the check was not even close to the cost of the laptop. I used a copy of the canceled check, with the inaccurate total, as my only proof of purchase, and my claim was accepted.

So, my assesment is that they are pretty flexible when it comes to what is accepted as proof of purchase.

After I got the exact date from the check, I registered my tx with hp. I am certain that I had done that at the time of purchase, but I couldn't find any record of it, nor did hp seem to be aware that I am the the owner. Anyway, registering your computer now is OK as far as I can tell. I'm now getting email from hp as if I am a new customer... HP nor their registration system seems to care that the purchase date that I entered into their system a month ago was for a computer thats nearly 4 years old, and that the tx was out of warranty as soon as it was registered.

 

I wonder if anyone in the Federal or State governments or Corporations are in the HP Class? And if so, why we haven't heard from them? Maybe they had thier own lawsuits against Nvidia or HP, Dell and Apple. If so, I wonder what they got in thier settlements?

 

Wow this is taking a long time, maybe they think we'll burn out on this and just not care what we get anymore. Is there any deadline for how long is allowed for the judge to make his decision?

 

Today (April 14, 2011) I received a letter mailed on April 8, 2011 from the NVIDIA GPU Litigation Settlement Administrator stating "You did not provide proof of purchase sufficient to substantiate your claim as required by this settlement. Proof of purchase can be a sales receipt, credit card or other account statement, shipping manifest, purchase order, proof of registration, or such other documentation that the Administrator deems sufficiently reliable to demonstrate that one of the specified models was purchased in the specified purchase date range." I sent scans to the Administrator on January 13, 2011 of my Paypal Transaction Details for the used motherboard and resoldering work I had paid for (as well making a claim to replace my dv9000z). I have until April 18, 2011 to send my "corrected' information in (must be postmarked by the 18th of April).

I pulled out my paperwork I have accumulated and saw that I have 2 Claim numbers: the number on the letter I received today has the claim number for my Reimbursement Claim with DEF added between the NVF and 10 digit code. This was my submission for repair reimbursement. The number for my Replacement Claim Form to replace my dv9000z is different than the number I got today. I've already gotten my "Replacement Authorization Form - return your laptop via FedEx" letter, but am waiting to see what the judge decides NVIDIA needs to do in regards to replacement computers.

So far I've dug out my paperwork, recopied all my Paypal transaction receipts (making sure my name/address/claim number was added to each sheet), typed a letter explaining how I've already submitted receipts to verify my repair payments and am now resubmitting my proof of money spent for repairs, added the Notice of Deficient Claim to the heap, stapled the whole group together, and addressed the return envelope. The tiny envelope provided in case I wanted to have my claim reconsidered is inadequate, so I'll use a large mailing envelope I have and pay to register/get a return receipt verifying delivery.

How many other folks have gotten letters like this one? I dropped a few coins on repairs, and would like to see some of those returned...

 

worked for me.

 

I submitted a claim for exchange, and received my letter with FedEx instructions and claim number about a month ago.

I also submitted a claim for the expenses I had when making repairs to my tx1127cl.
On Monday April 11, I received a letter saying "You did not provide proof of purchase sufficient to substantiate your claim" etc, etc. Correction must be postmarked by April 18.
This letter naturally has a different claim number from the replacement claim.
It appears that I sent copies of my PayPal receipts, etc, but failed to include a copy of the original purchase receipt.
I sent back the letter with a copy of the original purchase receipt. They will not ok reimbursements without proof of the date the computer was purchased.
Looks like I was not the only one to make this mistake.

 

I'll be sure to add that to the mountain of papers I'm sending to the Administrator.

 

This is ludicrous. If you possess a product that is on the affected model list it should be sufficient. These incompetents should be automatically cross-referencing the replacement claim documentation that has been accepted. What's that old adage? "Possession is nine-tenths of the law." Whether you bought the machine new, used, or received it as a gift, it should be none of their business. It's just one more way to skirting their liability. They have proven time and again that they do not care about customers, and do not care about doing the right thing. Smells like feces.

 

Your are forgetting that the whole point of a Class Action Suit is to CUT the defendants losses in one mass fell swoop.

They don't want to fix all the defective chips, only the few that will jump through all the hoops. Looks good in court docs so the Judge will pass it off as a good attempt at reconciliation. Then they also try to short change the class with sub par replacements.

This suit has all the makings of a consumer horror movie!

Good thing for us Ted Frank heard about it. Even if we don't get a replacement of like or similar kind and value, we at least know we fought back and didn't just let it slide by.

 

Yes, Ted's involvement is much appreciated. Hopefully, it will result in a good outcome. The outcome depends 100% on Judge Ware's integrity, not Ted's good work.

 

WOW! NVIDIA has started rejecting a lot of claims lately which is a good sign for us. it may mean they know they will have to dig a little deeper in their pockets in the up coming weeks.

 

I believe Rosenthal handles the claims; Nvidia is just the financial / replacement provider.