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

thanks for the link I am going to peruse it however the settlement amount stands at 2 mil I do not see any other money. did you see something in the court settlement documents that I did not? Again this is a legal document if it's not there it does not exist. I hope I am wrong about this...I just looked at that document

It would appear from what I read that you are right

I stand corrected... does anyone know how many people are part of the class in general or replacements or repairs?

 

Interestingly, I read the above PDF file in its entirety and found this quote from the Plaintiff's counsel to be highly relevant to our grief:

page 12, lines 7-19:

Objectors Todd Anderson (Document 251) and Richard Eckman (Document 255) complain they are not entitled to compensation. According to Mr. Anderson, after his HP laptop...” Respectfully, the Class settlement would have provided Mr.Anderson -- and any other Class member with a HP Class Computer -- with a new HP notebook of equal or greater value. ...."

That statement is even more explicit than what was stated in the original class action notice (imho)

With so many attorneys involved, I would think it would take a while before we hear anything.

In the meantime, if you can, send your certified letters to the presiding judge and all lead attorneys!

 

The person above you cited the exact section. The $2 million dollars is for reimbursement of repairs people already had done to their laptops, not replacement or repairs to be made as a result of the class action. On page 8 of 27 of the PDF:

B. Post Litigation and Current Repairs

NVIDIA took $196 million in reserves prior to the filing of this action. After this case was filed NVIDIA took further reserves of $312.9 million, including a reserve of $193.9 million on the day this Settlement was signed and announced. NVIDIA has acknowledged and agreed that the filing, pendency and prosecution of the Litigation, including the demands made in connection therewith, provided valuable consideration to the Settlement Class by being a causative factor in certain actions taken by NVIDIA, including: (1) assisting OEMs in extending or enhancing warranties for the Class Computers; (2) assisting OEMs in repairing Class Computers at no cost to consumers; and (3) causing NVIDIA to enter into the Settlement Agreement.

C. Reimbursement Fund

In addition to the sizeable value of the repair and replacement remedy, within three (3) business days of Final Approval, NVIDIA will deposit the amount of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) (the “ Reimbursement Fund”) into an account maintained by the Administrator. The Administrator will use the Reimbursement Fund to provide payments to reimburse Settlement Class Members whose Class Computers experienced one or more of the Identified Symptoms, and who previously paid money to an OEM or third party to repair their Class Computer.

 

Aaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

Thanks for the clarification guys. I have been looking into this myself as well and you are 100% correct. The reimbursement reserves are what is considered the $2million.

$2million just simply does not cover everyone filing for a replacement, even if they gave everyone the sub $400 netbook, imo at least.

I would also like to know more about how many people are officially included in this settlement so far, or at least the estimated amount the Nvidia is planning for.

 

I read The Summary Notice was sent to 5,123,594 people that is repair and replace. can anyone expound on this number ie: repair or replacement??

 

the above came from the court documents

 

I don’t have a dog directly in this hunt, though I believe my DV2700tv should have been included. That said, my sister-in-law has a DV2000Z that is included and, like you, she is none too happy with the prospects of a discontinued, poorly equipped, economy Compaq 15” CQ50 that sold at Wal-mart in Nov ’08 for $298.00 when she paid a tick over $1,100 excluding tax for her 14" HP DV series in June of ‘06. Hardly like “kind and value”.

“ Know your enemy and know yourself. Camp in high places facing the sun”. (Sun TZU)

Not to be too hard core, but I think those of you that are only worried about “You” and fear the money for replacement computers may not be there, if too many people are aware of the issues, need to re-evaluate. The manufacturers, Nvidia, and perhaps even some of the lawyers would love to dish out pablum and crap equipment to the public and keep this as quiet and as invisible as possible. It will save them public embarrassment, brand damage, and most importantly… money. On the other hand, if this hit TV, the PR will be a nightmare, stocks will likely slide, and they will face much greater public pressure to provide like “Kind & Value” to “ALL” afflicted consumers. In other words, follow the court order.

At-any-rate, I think publicity is the way to go and the more the better. CNN, Anandtech, Neowin, ABC, CBS, CNet, you name it. As suggested here, we’ve sent a letter to the judge, an email to Ted Frank, and called Milberg. Those are just quiet prayers and pleas for justice though. Now it’s time to rumble. And if you really want to get your money back... just short the stock (HPQ, NVDA). It’s probably your best option to cover some of your losses anyway …if this ever starts to get any air time.

Oh, and the Judge. Well this story isn’t over yet. It’s yet to be determined what color hat he will wear when the final story is written. Enforce the court’s decision and he’ll definitely be a good guy, if not...

JMO and best of luck to all

 

as i said before. we will stroll down that road if need be only. for now i ask everyone to PLEASE have a LITTLE bit of patience. Milberg associates are aware of this and changes are promised soon. let's just see where this takes us, wait another week, and see what they are doing. if it turns out to be nothing, and we are being given the run-around; yes, it may boil down to a media cover.

but FOR NOW, be PATIENT. i was among the first to file a claim, and even i still have not heard anything back from them. no ones computers are being sent anywhere yet as no claims have been approved nor WILL they be approved until these "premature details" posted on the site are resolved. There is no harm in giving it a little more time before we start a whole big fuss over something they might all ready be fixing.

 

hmmm...I see. The symptoms described from the tx1000's failures were very similar to the problem I was experiencing, so I just figured it was the same. After the warranty expired, the laptop wouldn't turn on one day...some lights lit up, but the screen remained black. A quick 'fix-it' that I read about was to turn on the laptop and let it heat up so that the loose soldering (?) would melt back together.

Using that technique I've managed to be able to use this laptop til now...it does get quite annoying when in an emergency though. Recently I didn't need to do the heat up trick anymore, but it always fails when I need it most. haha

 

I agree with Matt. We have our goals, strategies,and plans. Let's wait for their response. It is just like a chess game --- our next step from our strategies and plans will depend on what their response is. Let's be alittle patient and wait to next week.

I even have not filed my claim. I want to see what they are going to give us ultimately. If it is not a compliance with the court's order, I may contact Ted Frank for a relief from the court.

Some people think that a media cover would reminder/notify more people in the pool and hence the portion from the cake for every one is going to be smaller. Based on the court document, this is not true though. The court's order is to replace the defective computer with one of similar or equal kind and similar or euqal value, not to divide a certain amount of money to the class memebers. So do not worry too much on this matter.

 

I do believe, legally, you're wrong on that last point. Once the funds set aside are depleted, anyone who has not gotten theirs is essentially out of luck. If it's true that five million letters went out, and each one was required by the courts to be replaced with a ~$1,000 value system, that's a five billion dollar hit. The company would just dissolve through bankruptcy channels, we'd get nothing out of it, and they'd continue on their ways. nVidia's a big company but they're not big enough to take a $5,000,000,000 hit over defective laptops. Their annual revenue is only slightly above half that number. They'd be effectively shut down regardless.

Much like a rebate company that gets too many submissions and goes under (ever wonder why you didn't get that rebate and the phone number was disconnected?), there's always a legal loophole that they can get out of. If they've set aside a specific number, and that number was approved by the courts, that's all that they're legally on the hook for.

 

^

I don't believe the final decree set a fixed dollar amount for the chip repair / notebook replacement. The "reserve" of $312 million dollar is a best estimate made by Nvidia bean counters. There have been cases where the claims exceed the reserves and in those cases, company is liable to take the hit and increase the reserve again (or declare bankruptcy or defy judge's order)

this is probably why Nvidia is trying to cheap out as much as possible, to make sure it does not go over the reserve (stock price will take a hit most likely if it does).

On the other hand, $2 million dollars set aside for the repair reimbursement can be depleted. Based on what they said, they will wait until July 2011 to gather all reimbursement claims and simply divide that into $2m and send out checks in that amount

Regarding 5+ million class action notices = $5 billion would be incorrect as we do not know what percentage of that 5+ million notices went to affected HP owners.

 

or how many are/will be filing a claim.

i agree that there was not a set amount listed in the settlement. there was no declaration saying that affected owners would receive replacements until they ran out of money. Nvidia put away reserves for this lawsuit an an estimate of how much they will have to spend. they may be liable to go over that amount that is set aside, as the court documents clearly say that any and all affected product owners are eligible, as long as they file within the set time frame. i have not seen a limit any where in the documents that prevents nvidia from approving a claim just because you were #5,000,001 and they only had money set aside for 5,000,000. They would be legally obligated to approve the claim (provided it meets the conditions) or risk further lawsuit.

 

yeah that's 5m+ people,
that does not subtract all the people that cut their losses a year ago.
also the people that cannot provide proof of purchase.
also people that have moved, changed email.
also people who have working with no problems.
also like me who never received a notice.
Just think of those subtracted number of people.
And more.

 

There are additional documentation which contains lots of empirical data.

Here is what I found out further:

1. Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC has been hired as the case manager to handle administrative tasks such as mailing post cards, magazine notifications and yes, maintain the website (Millburg was correct).

2. HP provided contact info for 1.69M owners; Dell provided 2.44M, Apple provided 998k. That means HP owners are roughly 33% of the total class members (Total of approx. 5.1M owners)

3. According to the administrator, since the class action notice publications, there were approximately 50,000 people who registered their email addresses at the nvidiasettlement.com

My guess is that unfortunately, based on the number of people who registered, most people who are going to submit claims are going to be tech savvy.

Perhaps we can even triple the total number of claims to be 150,000 without worrying breaking the Nvidia's piggy bank ($312m divided by 150k is approx $2,000usd.

Of course, that does not mean Nvidia is going to be willy-nilly and start handing out generous replacements either. As I said before, their job is to satisfied the judge's mandate while absolutely minimizing the expense.

So, why I am spewing all this trash? Don't be afraid to write letters and demand a fair settlement.

I'm sure assigning "value" can be a difficult task but attempting to hoodwink class members into trading in their $1,000+ laptops with a sub-standard $300 laptop is neither ethical or fair.

 

I spoke with someone at the contact number for the NVIDIA settlement and when I asked her specifically what my computer would be replaced with, she said that she didn't know, but did hint that that information might come with the mailing pack they will be sending.. Just FYI

 

I understand that you are talking about the complete amount of people that are affected but also I didn't want others to become confused by this thinking that these things can hold them back from making a claim...There are many ways to get proof of purchase, the easiest would be to go to your products registration page and print that and convert it to pdf. If your computer is not registered, then just register it! Look on page 4 or 5 of this thread for more info on that. Secondly, it doesn't matter if you have moved or changed your e-mail, I have done both and updated my registration to show that. Also it doesn't matter if you received a notice or not, I didn't, and after all of these things I was still able to fully file my claim.

 

i was not saying these are problems, just saying all those are factors for people not to try to file a claim; if they changed addresses or email they might not know about the settlement.
proof of purchase will be a big problem for many people because of loss of info from 3 years and hp is no longer allowed to provide info over the phone.
my claim has already been filed.
none are a problem for me

 

You are correct HP does not give out that info over the phone or anywhere else for that matter, I found out the hard way today spending my afternoon with Hasim. However, they will tell you the date of purchase, (mine was back in 2006), then you can register your product on HP's site, save the file and upload it as proof of purchase. (Please note the claim site requires certain types of files so it is best to convert the HTML file into pdf. This is done easily and for free at various sites around the web.) p.s.- I revised my posting and did originally understand what you where saying, I just thought some people might have been confused. p.s.s- I rc too!

 

How long does it take to get a reply to our claim? I sent mine in last week.

 

As far as i know, no one has heard back yet, nor will anyone hear back from them until the final details are settled. there was a supposed meeting this past Tuesday about possible replacement in stead of the models listed on the FAQs page. It is going to take a week, at the very least, for them to sort this out. and even longer for them to actually replace it. patience is definitely needed with this one. just keep checking this thread and the website for up to date information.

 

99 and counting!!!

 

I have not heard anything back yet either, should take some time although I am still interested in seeing any outcome from Tuesdays "meeting" and from class action fairness etc..

 

I just became the 100th

 

100 signatures in just over a week. hopefully this helps catch their attention. please continue to sign if you have not. I am currently mailing this to Nvidia and HP.

 

Just an update here. i called both numbers again, the hotline on the site and milberg, and i am getting mixed stories. after calling the 877 number listed on the site, i am told that all details on the site are final, have been approved, and the only thing they are working on is the specific model of the cq50.

after calling milberg, i am told that he is sorry for the confusion but they are still working on a fair and equal value computer replacement and this process could take another week at the very least. However, when i asked about the meeting details, he did not know what i was talking about but said that there may have been a meeting on tuesday.

for now, i am going to take milberg's word that they are working on changing the models and the details are wrong. they are in charge of the site and seem to have more control over what happens rather than the hotline 877 support number. i am going to keep up to date with them and post any news i hear on this forum, so if you see any other forums or people that are included in this settlement, please direct them to this forum.

sorry for the double post btw.

 

^

Thanks for the update Matt.

Just keep in mind what Ted said in his blog; any spoken communication can be unequivocally denied later.

According to the class action documentation, Kurtzman Consultants LLC is the company hired to maintain the website, so I am not sure if there is a disconnect between Millberg and them?

Based on no written communication coming out of Millberg leads me to believe that their current strategy is to drag this thing out in hoping that people will get exasperated and give up.

In order for me to at least get a some sort of confidence that this is not the case, leading plaintiff attorneys need to put out a written communication at nvidiasettlement.com

I will reach out to Ted to see what I need to get him to represent us pro bono. Perhaps he can petition the court to seize the attorney payout until this issue is settled.

 

I have submitted my replacement claim hoping for good.

My DV2000 was dead a year back, came back again few days later. It only starts up if it is given rest of few hours or so. Now it is almost gone. before HP replaced motherboard once.

We must be paid a value more than CQ50 for the time we spent, patience we showed and the pain we faced.

Not Only nVida, companies like HP and DELL should be responsible for this, so that no other manufacturers designs such a products that can be guaranteed to not to work after one year.

 

of course, which is why i am more than a little unsettled. i am definitely going to keep up to date with milberg. Those are the only two people (milberg and the 877 number) that seemt to know anything about the litigation. after calling Nvidia, they direct me to the website and say no one is able to help me with questions on the settlement. after speaking with an HP manager, she did not understand what i was trying to ask her; she seemed to have no knowledge of the litigation whatsoever (she kept trying to get me to give her the name of the person that wanted to replace my computer...no matter how many times i explained to her that i am talking about the settlement...).

No matter who i talk to, it is either ignorance of the whole situation or a runaround story that contradicts every single other story. Hopefully we get some answers soon. i guess patience is the only thing we have right now.

also, if anyone receives an approval email, or any email about your claim (other than the introductory email), PLEASE post what was sent here right away. i want to make sure no one's claim is getting approved before these final details are actually settled.

 

What is the point of starting claim process if the replacement is not yet finalized. Don't know how long it is going to take.

I am lucky to save and could locate a copy of the bill till now even though it is in a very bad shape.

 

That is what I said before --- do not believe those attorneys now until you get a written assurance.

I basically have a little concern about our situation. Since many people have filed their claims, the attorneys and the settlement administrators may say:" you have filed the claim and signed to agree the terms. This means that you agree to a replacement of an Asus netbook."

I think that their strategy is to drag the time as late as possible until their expected numbers of claim have been filed. Then if we go to petition a relief from court, they are going to release our names to the court and say that we all have agreed the replacement and signed the claim. Be cautious, man.

 

i believe it should also go to the judge and the lawyers.

 

filing a claim only says you have the computer and have problems, and that you are signing over rights to your old computer any data left on the computer,and that you will not try to sue again.
nutting to do with a replacement model.

 

from claim form:
"By completing and signing this form, I agree that any Class Computer mailed by me in accordance with instructions provided me by
the Settlement Administrator in connection with the settlement in The NVIDIA GPU Litigation, Case No. 08-CV-04312 JW, pending
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, will be processed in accordance with the terms of the
settlement...."

The terms of the official settlement document say HP notebooks will be replaced by a "like or similiar and equal or similiar value will be provided......The Parties will meet and confer in good faith and agree on a suitable replacement of like or similiar kind or equal or similiar value" (bottom of page 10, top of page 11)

So by submitting the form, you are not agreeing to the Compaq or Asus machines - you are agreeing to the settlement, the "like or similiar" language.

 

Thanks for the information from the claim form. I am wrong on this point. I may file my claim tonight with a little more comfort.

 

Hey Core, remember there are many ways to provide proof of purchase. They have info regarding that on nvidiasettlement.com. I did not have a receipt, but used my computer registration as proof. So if your receipt is in bad shape, maybe this will be helpful to you or others.

 

I filed my claim today. I then look up the replacement and I was like in almost shock I thought at the least something more than a netbook. Wow how unfair. Does anyone really think that they will provide us with something better? I been waiting long time sad the TX1410us I has still looks brand new and tey going to get this and it is packed with a lot of features and I thinks they will get them working and make money back off of them. If we have to settle for such a down grad then I think we should not have to provide them with the useless one to us. We have proof of purchase. I now i could hve wrong feeling but 1200 was a lot. And the stress of it going out was just very agravating.

 

I agree with you 100%, it is a shocker. I felt the same way as soon as it first showed up on the site.

 

COSTCO.. If you bought your computer from Costco and had a problem with it recently you might want to check your receipt, they have a 3 MO. warranty w/refund and you might be able to get all your original money back to put into a well working computer instead..

 

IN A NUTSHELL.. just ran across WerdNerfs posting on the first page of this thread and thought this is the most accurate posting for the way I, and most of us with HP/Compaq notebooks feel about what we are supposedly getting as a replacement. SIMILAR KIND AND VALUE.. And this is what most of us have been dealing with, with patience - REPAIR TIME @ HP/TERRIBLE CUST. SERVICE/SHIPPING/MONTHS W/OUT WIRELESS/ MULTIPLE MONTHS TURNING ON AND OFF TO START/COMPUTER DYING RANDOMLY LAST 8 MONTHS.. I am tech savvy W/PROPER ANTI VIRUS/CORRECT FIREWALL SETTINGS.... and not rich. I paid alot, my computer has always had problems, and I admire my friends that have and have had for a while, perfectly running computers that they paid less for new then mine that still work great and are easily updated. In the words of Beyonce, SEND ME A NOTEBOOK OF SIMILAR KIND AND VALUE OR UPGRADE ME!

 

While the "cool, a replacement" reaction is understandable from anyone that purchased a pile of junk from HP it's really unrealistic. The entitlement mentality that anybody is owed anything beyond an equally spec'd machine is seriously flawed and goes way beyond what NVIDIA or HP should be liable for.

We all have to remember this is a compromise settlement in lieu of complete adjudication and not a customer service initiative. If they had really cared about customer retention there would have been no need for litigation in the first place.

What they owe class members is a equally spec'd machine, constructed with antiquated components, but one that functions free of the NVIDIA defects. Those machines may be worth 50-75% less in the real world today than they were new.

Now, replacing laptops and tablets with something less is unacceptable and that they ever planned to do this shows that they really do not care about doing the right thing. It also demonstrates the attorneys and judge that agreed to hardware downgrades are: (1) evil; (2) erred in their judgment; (3) just don't care; or, (4) incompetent, ignorant of technology; and, (5) did not demonstrate appropriate good faith for the best interests of the class members they represent.

 

Exactly one of the reason why I am not looking at HP right now for a new computer. I heard DELL did a good job.

The great point about HP is, Even after they know the problem (I have sent my laptop after HP extended support), They replaced the same defective chip again. My computer failed again after one more year with same problems. When I needed help for second time, HP quoted for $450.

 

While I do agree on some of your points, I tend to disagree on the following:

The entitlement mentality that anybody is owed anything beyond an equally spec'd machine is seriously flawed and goes way beyond what NVIDIA or HP should be liable for.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this characterization. The entitlement mentality you stated suggests that we are getting something for nothing.

Regardless of who was at fault, there was a breach of contract when faulty notebooks were sold to the general public.

The judge's final settlement language that was approved "...NVIDIA will provide a new replacement computer of like or similar kind and equal or similar value to the consumer at NVIDIA’s expense." clearly attempts to address this main point.

We all have to remember this is a compromise settlement in lieu of complete adjudication and not a customer service initiative. If they had really cared about customer retention there would have been no need for litigation in the first place.


agree

What they owe class members is a equally spec'd machine, constructed with antiquated components, but one that functions free of the NVIDIA defects. Those machines may be worth 50-75% less in the real world today than they were new.


I disagree. What they owe is to follow the judge's order (which were agreed upon by both plaitiff and opposing attorneys) which is "to provide a new replacement computer of like or similar kind and equal or similar value to the consumer at NVIDIA’s expense."

The keyword is that highlighted "AND". It does not say "or" or "and/or", it says "AND". That means all conditions must be true to follow the judge's order.

1. Replacement has to be new (not refurbished or used); AND
2. Computer of like or similar kind (implies something that is equal BUT NOT LESS THAN existing specs); AND
3. Equal or similar value

If we were to strictly follow points #1 and #2, yeah, I can see how CQ50 may be a suitable replacements for certain HP dv2xxx models. But I believe all three points must be held TRUE.

So what is "value"? Merriam-Webster defines this word as "...a fair return or equivalent in goods, services, or money for something exchanged..."

So my "value" at the time was $850 I paid for my notebook back in July 2007, and expected a medium-tiered notebook performance.

Now 3 years later, that same "value " may be $850 for an Intel i5 notebook

You may say replacing today's medium-tiered notebook is not fair to Dell/Apple owners. While I agree on that point in principle, we have to go with the final settlement language

The fact of the matter is that plaintiff's counsels used no uncertain terms to draw in the class members and did not disclose what the the replacement notebook models would be until AFTER the case closure.

And judging by lack of any announcements in the nvidiasettlements.com suggest that involved attorney's are not being transparent.

If mistakes were made (like that "premature" announcement), then admit that it was incorrect but publish a corrective action. Not hide behind and start pointing fingers.

So how about if Millberg and associates start in the right foot by coming up with a replacement matrix for HP models involved and give customers some choices? Certainly you can spare some of that $13 million dollars to get HP product "experts" and come up with a suitable solution?

To get you started, here is a sample of my case:

dv2410 (AMD Turion 64x2, 2gb memory, 100gb drive); purchased for $850 in 2007

replacement suggestions:

HP g42t

HP dv6

Come on, it's not that hard.

[/b]

 

I agree but HP does not make a laptop with equal specs and equal or similar kind to replace the HP DV9000 series anymore. The replacement would have to be from another manufacturer such as Dell or Toshiba, etc. that still makes a full featured desktop replacement multimedia machine with 17" HD resolution display, expansion and firewire ports and dual hard drives!
The CQ50 or other current model of HP hardware would not be acceptable.

 

I think you might have misunderstood me, no where did I state that I want more than a replacement of similar kind and value. I think I know what you mean though- you are saying that even though my computer may have cost 1700$ in Dec 2006, a similarly equipped notebook today might be worth much less. That being said, I agree with Radioage and JT because my notebook is a HP DV9000 and the offered Compaq computer does not have most importantly, a 17"HD screen, dual hard drives, media center, expansion ports, etc....So you are darn right I have a feeling of entitlement towards a similar kind of replacement, and a computer that sold for 289$ at wal-mart in 2008 just ain't cuttin' it! IT IS NOT EQUALLY SPEC'D TO MY DV9000.

 

I think some of you are misinterpreting my comments as well. Miscommunication is common when it involves a medium like this. I am as disenchanted with downgrades as anyone else. My comment about the entitlement mentality has to do with expecting hardware upgrades, not an expectation to get something for nothing. (Getting something for nothing would mean you received something as a gift and never paid anything for it to begin with.) Getting an upgrade is wonderful, but expecting or trying to demand it is not reasonable. We are all in the same boat as far as being sold a defective product is concerned, and none of us are happy about that.

It's OK for anyone to disagree with me that wants to. I am just presenting another view of this situation. We have already found a number of points we all agree on and that's pretty cool.

I'll provide an example to see if the point I was attempting to make is made clearer. Using my wife's laptop as the example (HP Pavilion dv6449us), we are "entitled" to a laptop with a low-speed 1.8Ghz AMD Turion x64 processor, 2GB of DDR2 memory with no capacity for more than 2GB, a mediocre NVIDIA integrated graphics solution with shared system memory and a 160GB 5400 RPM SATA HDD, ExpressCard slot (missing from the CQ50), yada, yada. I (my wife) is not entitled to receive cutting edge components or hardware upgrades. If she somehow comes out ahead with something a lot better (which would not be the CQ50) we will not burn any calories complaining about that.

Some of the examples of what would be satisfactory replacements proposed by some people are clearly upgrades in terms of technology and performance. Being compensated for past frustrations associated with owning a junk computer is not a reasonable justification for expecting something better, and compensation for poor customer service and a poor ownership experience are not elements of damages contemplated by the settlement agreement.

Low-end components by today's standards perform much like the lower mid-range dv6449us. In terms of performance, certainly comparable if not better, for less money than 3 years ago. The fact that similarly performing hardware cost more back then does not mean that I am entitled to better performance, or better components, using the original purchase price 3 years ago as the measurement of "new replacement computer of like or similar kind and equal or similar value". They left a gray area open for individual interpretation and debate with the "equal or similar value" statement by not providing a definition of what that really means. It does not say anything about original purchase price or current day value of comparable components. And, we don't get to individually interpret what they intended that to mean when it comes to our claims.

 

We can all agree to disagree, but I wanted to refine my points of view

"...Being compensated for past frustrations associated with owning a junk computer is not a reasonable justification for expecting something better.."

It would be interesting to find out what your definition of "frustration" is.

How about if someone missed a doctoral dissertation because her computer crapped out with her thesis and she had to spend a large chunk of money to buy another computer last minute? If she had to overpay $1,000 usd, would that be her frustration?

How about is someone could not prepare and submit his resume on time and lost his shot at the job because his computer stopped working? Isn't his "frustration" worth something?

The point of these hypothetical scenarios is that we can go back and forth on these minute details ad nauseum. I am sure attorneys from both sides have already done that.

The fact that similarly performing hardware cost more back then does not mean that I am entitled to better performance, or better components, using the original purchase price 3 years ago as the measurement of "new replacement computer of like or similar kind and equal or similar value".

If Nvidia had any legitimate chance of sending out CQ50 variants as replacement notebooks, it was 2+ years ago when this notebook first came out. It is not our fault that the case dragged on for 3+ years. Only Nvidia is to be blamed for that.

The fact that similarly performing hardware cost more back then does not mean that I am entitled to better performance, or better components, using the original purchase price 3 years ago as the measurement of "new replacement computer of like or similar kind and equal or similar value".

As much as you can express your viewpoints, what I am saying is that my replacement criteria follows what was stated in the final settlement language. I don't think I am grasping for straws when I say my "value" decision 3 years ago should be taken into consideration.


They left a gray area open for individual interpretation and debate with the "equal or similar value" statement by not providing a definition of what that really means. It does not say anything about original purchase price or current day value of comparable components. And, we don't get to individually interpret what they intended that to mean when it comes to our claims.

No, we do not get to make individual replacement decisions. That I can agree with you on. You are certainly entitled to wanting to receive whatever is decided for you by other people. But, and maybe I am the only who feels this way, I feel that the attorneys representing the plaintiffs and defense misled the court and at minimum, I would like the judge to re-review what took place here:

1. Plaintiff attorneys issued class action notices with generic language about replacements to entice potential class members;
2. Plaintiffs and defense attorneys settled on a purposefully obfuscated final settlement language which leads certain segment of the class members into thinking that a fair replacements were coming their way;
3. Plaintiffs and defense attorneys announce final replacement products notifications ONLY AFTER when class members can no longer object.

It looks and smells like a classic bait-and-switch tactics to me an at bare minimum, I would like the FTC (which I believe has some jurisdiction on class action lawsuits) and Ted Frank to get involved and go from there.

 

according to the court, no. no matter the "frustration", that does not equal to a bonus in the value of the computer. it is quite obvious that 100% of the products have caused their owners "frustration", otherwise this settlement would not be in place. the court order was to replace the defective unit (ONLY because the manufacturer, HP, does not produce the parts for their older laptops any more), or to reimburse you for the repairs made. nowhere does it say that they are entitled to provide more for your amount of frustration.

no one here wants a better computer than what they paid for. to me, personally, that netbook, since it has no optical drive, is as useful to me as a paperweight. all we are asking is for a notebook of equal specifications; a dual core processor, touchscreen, dvd burner, decent graphics card (for the TX1000 at least). a netbook meets none of that criteria.

this is where it gets tricky. first of all, i would like to point out my previous posts in that the firm presiding over the website, Milberg associates, is currently revising the site and making changes to what will be replaced. for now we hope for the best that this issue gets resolved.

IF, however, the details remain the same, it may boil down to another lawsuit (which could prolong the settlement for a large amount of time). Mr. Frank has all ready stated that he is looking into the matter and is expecting, at the very least, an explanation. He also said that he is NOT in a position to do anything that would make them change the details in the settlement and he is not our attorney.

this, i believe, is where you are wrong. Just because we payed $1500 in 2008 for a computer, does not entitle us to a computer that is priced at $1500 today. this would clearly be replacing our computer with a much better model, and that is not what the court has settled on. if they are to replace a computer with "equal value", it will be with equal value of the time that it was purchased.

it is obvious that the posted replacements are completely unfair and in direct violation of the settlement details. however, it is also clear that they cannot outright replace our computer with the exact same specs. a replacement will LIKELY be a little less powerful than our current computers, but not in any way greater. i, honestly, will take a little less powerful computer that WORKS over a computer that is a BRICK. however, the netbook is as useful to me as a brick.

bottom line is to have patience. if you know anything about the court system, you should know that these matters take time. and if Nvidia refuses to budge, i am reasonably certain that someone will step in and take this back to the courts, in which case this settlement could take another year. Milberg is also saying that the changes being discussed in the meetings could take another 2 weeks to be made final (assuming there ARE changes being made).

 

I'm ready to get on with life. I'd rather have a CQ50 now than hope something better might, just maybe, if we're really lucky, happen a year or two from now. I have to ask myself how many people have been "computerless" for 3 years, how many have already replaced their machine with something else, etc.

The Asus EEE netbook turd in exchange for a tablet is really not good at all, but I think I would still want to just be done with it. I would not put everything on hold waiting for NVIDIA to do the right thing.

I would bet a large percentage of the hp notebook and tablet user base does mostly nothing but email, web surfing, blogging, etc. and the Asus netbook is capable of doing that... just not very fast and with a crappy little screen. I agree with Matt, that a less powerful computer that works is better that one that does not.

03/20/2011 Edit: My expectation is "...NVIDIA will provide a new replacement computer of like or similar kind and equal or similar value to the consumer at NVIDIA’s expense." While I am still of the opinion that a functional system is better than a dead one, I am not satisfied with the replacement models being offered in breach of the settlement provisions.