Crowdsourcing 101
- First and foremost, please refrain from leaving personal opinions such as “this report is misleading”
- Each comment should reference a particular document name, page number(s) and line number(s);
- Our primary purpose is to identify inconsistencies and/or contradictions (example: sentence found at “page 2, line xx through xy ” in the nvidia.354.nvidia.reponse.pdf contradicts what they said on the web page, http://www.abcdefgh.com”)
- If you can catch a lie by omission of facts, well, that would be a bonus.
When you click on one of the following links, you will be taken to a dedicated page.
345, Plaintiff’s status report and response to emergency motion (TBD)
346. NVIDIA response to emergency motion (TBD)
354. NVIDIA response to [348] motion
355. Jon Peddie (NVIDIA) declaration
356. Keith Katchor (NVIDIA) declaration
357. Dan Rosenthal (NVIDIA/settlement administrator) declaration
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
Page 1, Lines 4-5: “The Settlement Agreement at ¶ 2.6 required the parties to “meet and confer in good faith and agree on a suitable replacement of like or similar kind or equal or similar value,” This is NOT what is in the settlement agreement. Why and how are both NVIDIA and Milberg – the two supposedly opposing sides – using the exact same misquotation of the settlement agreement??
Page 2. Lines 5-6: “The ASUS designation was ASUS T101MTEV17-BK” this is incorrect it is the ASUS T101MTEU17-BK.
Page 3: Lines 2-3: “We required NVIDIA to pick up the additional costs to make the CQ-56 option available to tablet owners.”
The CQ-56 is cheaper than the ASUS.
The two above comments are regarding the Westerman declaration.
In the 358.2 Bagherzadeh declaration on page 16 there are a few errors with the laptop descriptions it says
“The replacement unit has an AMD V140 @2.2 GHz, whereas all the originals use AMD Turion Dual Core TL-64, except for laptop d which uses Sempron 3500 at a lower frequency (1.8 GHz vs. 2.2 GHz)” The d in reference is to the F500 presario. This is my computer and it came with an dual core athlon 64 tk-53.
Also incorrect is in the next paragraph about the DRAM
”
DRAM—All the originals use DDR2 memories which are a generation behind the DDR3 utilized in the
replacement unit. The amount of memory used is the same in all cases (i.e., 2 GB), except for laptop d,
which had 0.5 GB”
This is also wrong as again I have laptop “d” and it came with 1gb of memory. They are making it look that all of those laptops are the same and they are not.
I did upgrade my laptop early on to 3GB and a turion tl-60 however none of the memory will work in the new laptop.
Let’s see if we can make this simple.
The dictionary defines the word AND, means ALSO.
The Word OR means EITHER.
The word AND was used in the settlement.
If the court decides that AND means the same as OR, then there are no changes needed. If the court says this then there are a lot of laws in this nation that can have a total new interpretation. Milberg, and was awarded $13,000,000 for their work in this class action. If I was them I would want this problem to just go away so I can enjoy my spoils of the battle.
I spoke with the settlement hotline about two weeks after filing my claim online. When I questioned the model of the replacement I was told that the CQ50 was the model that was approved by the judge in the settlelment and was the only model that was being offered. When I questioned as to why my 17″ dv9205 was being replaced with a 15.4″ screen, with no lightscribe, no numeric keypad, no meida card reader, etc, etc. I was again told that the replacement was approved by the courts and the only approved model per the settlement. I would be willing to sign a declaration to this fact.
Not sure if you caught this, but I don’t think it’s been brought up on here. Someone on the notebookreview forum brought up this valid point:
“In the Class notice it states 3 times that the replacement laptop will be an HP model. Twice in section 9, once in section 10, it states…
9. What does the settlement provide?
“The replacement HP notebook computer will be of similar kind and value as their eligible malfunctioning notebook computer”"
If I bought a Mercury Sable and it crapped out, I would want a new Mercury Sable, not a Ford Taurus, even though they are in the same manufacturing family.
Right after I received my approval for a replacement I spoke with the settlement hotline. The first person I talked to kept to the story that the court was the one responsible for the cheap single core processor approval. I asked to speak with his supervisor, and brought up the fact that my double core processor benchmarked much faster than the single core being offered. The supervisor said he knew that, but that the court choose the model. I told him I rather doubt the court knew the difference, and did not make this decision. Personally I believe we were sold out by Milberg for 13 million dollars in their pocket. My HP computer is the much higher end entertainment model, and has always had the WiFi connect problem. Many hotels have been written up with bad reviews by me because from what I now understand was NAVIDIA built the defective boards.
page 10 2.6
The parties recognize that the hp models included as class computers incorporate motherboards or other components, apart
from nvidia gpu or mcp, that are no longer available in sufficient quanties for use as replacement parts. Therefore, a replacement computer of like or similar kind and equal or similar value will be provided to the consumer 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.
A separate sound card vs intergrated sound, a webcam vs no webcam and a dual core processor vs single cor processor are not alike, similar or of equal value.
page 10 2.6 …”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.”
A separate sound card vs intergrated sound, a webcam vs no webcam and a dual core processor vs single cor processor are not alike, similar or of equal value.
I will accept a computer of similar kind and value. Meaning a 17″ screen, a numeric keypad, internal space for an additional hard drive, a dual processor and a media center remote control. Those were the reasons I purchased the dv9005 laptop and I am getting NONE of these things in the replacement.
I will sue NVIDIA, The Settlement Administrator, And anyone else who agreed to this absurd replacement.
Fix it now. Do the right thing.
I will definitely join you in that suit and we could start our own class-action! Anyone know where we start if the judge rules against the class? I’m going to do some research on this…Perhaps Mr. Frank could represent us or recommend someone who could do the job?
Suing the administrator would be completely misguided and pointless. That’s like suing the postman because you received a postcard from a friend you didn’t like. The administrator has no say-so or control over what happens in the lawsuit. Their are simply the intermediary between the court, defense, and plaintiff.
@mike-
I can see how you think Rosenthal & Co. (the settlement administrator paid by either NVIDIA or Milberg) gets a pass using the Superior Orders strategy (BTW, according to Wiki, the “Superior Orders, often known as the Nuremberg Defense or Lawful Orders, is a plea in a court of law that a soldier not be held guilty for actions which were ordered by a superior office”).
But look at it this way. Taking your postman example, if a local postmaster instructs this mail delivery person to intercept mail for whatever reason and complies with postmaster’s request, this mail delivery person would be breaking the law. The same principle should apply to Rosenthal & Co. when it knowingly (or unknowingly) abetted what seems like an illegal or unethical request by NVIDIA / Milberg to secretly change FAQ content.
Doc 256-1 Plaintiffs’ Memorandum Of Points And Authorities In Support Of Motion For Final Approval Of Settlement
Page 12 Line 7 (Last sentence is of the most importance)
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 failed, Mr. Anderson refused to pay HP to have the laptop fixed, and instead he “removed the hard drive and RAM from the broken laptop, and disposed of the rest.” Mr. Anderson says he purchased his laptop in February 2007, used it for parts sometime after November 2009, and thereafter purchased a new laptop. Like Mr. Stoyanov, it is unclear whether Mr. Anderson has standing to object, because there is no receipt or any confirmation Mr. Anderson owned a HP Class Computer. Assuming Mr. Anderson owns a Class Computer, first, Mr. Anderson is incorrect when he argues the replacement option “would probably just get another motherboard containing a faulty NVIDIA GPU.” 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.
If these words rang true then why are plaintiffs’ counsel, OUR COUNSEL, be trying to fight us so hard against our best interest which is to make is whole as in the case of Apple and Dell class members.