NVIDIA FAQ – Secret Updates Before and After


Ted Frank’s reply briefs filed on March 14, 2011 disclosed HP Class’ key strategy: that HP class is entitled to a replacement computer of “like or similar kind and value” as stated in the Settlement and in various Class Action Notices.

Just one day after Ted Frank’s filing, an unknown actor working for NVIDIA and/or Milberg and/or Rosenthal deleted all references to these key facts from the FAQ page within NvidiaSettlement.com.

Were these changes simply an innocent, routine maintenance updates claimed by NVIDIA / Milberg / Rosenthal or something that was done on purpose with an ulterior motive?  Read the following and then you decide.


For the purpose of comparing “before” and “after” FAQ versions, I used the following web pages:

  • NvidiaSettlement.com’s FAQ section dated March 14, 2011 (via Google Cache)
  • NvidiaSettlement.com’s FAQ section dated March 16, 2011

All pages have been archived and can be sent to you upon request.

Due to the FAQ web page being long (in terms of the page length), the FAQ page was broken into smaller sections.

As you examine these sections, please remember that:

  • Question numbers are based on the March 14th edition since the subsequent version has number of question were deleted in its entirety.
  • March 14th version is to the left side of the document and any changes are highlighted in orange.
  • March 16th version is to the right side of the document and any changes are highlighted in red.

In addition, all highlighted sections were placed into 4 categories:

  • Sentence Insertion – used to indicate new sentence(s) added to the March 16th version.
  • Sentence Deletion – used to indicate deletion of sentence(s) from the March 14th version.
  • Sentence Modification(s) – used to indicate sentence changes made to the March 16th version.
  • Word Modification – used to indicate word changes made to the March 16th version.
  • Claims FAQ – Questions # 1 through 3
  • Claims FAQ – Questions # 4 through 6
  • Claims FAQ – Questions # 7 through 10
  • Claims FAQ – Questions # 11 through 14
  • Claims FAQ – Questions # 15 through 19
  • Claims FAQ – Questions # 20 through 23
  • Settlement FAQ – Questions # 1 through 4
  • Settlement FAQ – Questions # 5 through 8
  • Settlement FAQ – Questions # 9 through 10
  • Settlement FAQ – Questions # 11 through 14
  • Settlement FAQ – Questions # 15
  • Settlement FAQ – Questions # 16 through 17
  • Settlement FAQ – Questions # 18 through 21
  • Settlement FAQ – Questions # 22 through 26
  • Settlement FAQ – Questions # 27
  • Settlement FAQ – Questions # 28

    After identifying and categorizing various changes, I tabulated the results into a simple table:

    Before and After changes (actual tabulation doc is here)

    *actual tabulation sheet can be found here

    Out of 37 total changes, 32 changes + 1 word-level change (“the deadline” –> “April 18, 2011) were entirely consistent with updates that are related to the expiration of the claims filing deadline.

    However, the following 4 word-level changes were clearly not related to any dates (Settlement FAQ – Questions # 9 through 10):

    • The word “HP” in “the replacement HP notebook” was deleted so that the new sentence reads “The replacement notebook” (changes made two times); and
    • The word “AND” in “similar kind AND value” was replaced with “OR” so that the new sentence reads “similar kind OR value” (changes made two times).

    So what do you make of these changes?  Is it believable when NVIDIA / Milberg / Rosenthal say that these changes were simply part of a larger maintenance update coinciding with the expiration of the claims filing period?  How would NVIDIA / Milberg / Rosenthal reconcile the fact that these subtle changes all of sudden align perfectly with NVIDIA and Milberg’s latest briefs?

    Please share your comments here and forward this post link to anyone who might be interested.