Watch original video:

Microsoft sought to bring a quick close Thursday to the lawsuit that has produced a steady spring of sometimes embarrassing internal e-mails about Windows Vista, a product whose reputation in the marketplace was already tarnished in the van of it launched nearly two years ago.

The company asked a founded on judge in Seattle to discharge the remaining claims in the class-action suit brought by PC buyers challenging its “Vista Capable” marketing program as deceptive, and to decertify the class.

Microsoft argued that the plaintiffs have not offered evidence that courtship the legal issues in question and their opportunity to do so has largely passed. The deadline for superadded discovery in the case was Nov. 14.

But there has been no shortage of evidence entered into the of the whole not private trace.

Hundreds of pages of e-mails unsealed since the case was filed more than a year and a half ago detail intense internal disagreements above the top least part technical requirements for the Vista Capable marketing program; Microsoft’s sometimes-tense relationship through PC makers and hardware suppliers; and, a board member’s negative at the head reaction to Vista’sitting debut, plagued by means of compatibility problems.

All of this disclosure has garnered headlines, “[b]ut those exchanges make not at all difference on this motion,” Microsoft’s lawyers wrote in the court filing. “Every company has the right to a robust internal debate over what products and features it should offer and at what price points; the law should encourage that strife of words.”

The suit in law’session point of concentration on Microsoft’s internal process around the Vista Capable marketing program — which was designed to maintain demand for PCs in late 2006 and early 2007 before the operating system was released — does not invoke the relatively narrow legal theories on which the case hinges, Microsoft argued.

In February, U.S. District Court Judge Marsha Pechman limited the scope of the case to whether Windows Vista Home Basic can fairly be called “Windows Vista,” and whether the Vista Capable marketing campaign inflated demand for PCs conspicuous with a Vista Capable log, increasing prices.

Plaintiffs have argued that consumers who bought PCs marked Vista Capable were deceived because they were able to upgrade only to the Basic edition of the operating rule.

That version could not run the translucent “Aero” user interface — one of the Vista features Microsoft touted.

In its filing Thursday, Microsoft noted that Basic, probably all editions of Vista, had improvements to security, “such taken in the character of Windows Security Center, User Account Control, and Parental Controls.”

The company also well-known improvements in stability, reliability, and efficiency over predecessor Windows XP — even supposing e-mail disclosed in this case and large reports from Vista’s first year on the market advise otherwise.

Vista caused headaches mostly due to incompatible device drivers and software, problems that have since been addressed.

Microsoft stated that through of a total 83 features, the Vista’s Premium impression had 17 that Basic did not, including Aero, improved file backup, Media Center and a DVD writer.

“Windows Vista Home Basic falls well within the Windows Vista household as technical matter, which should settle the issue,” Microsoft’s lawyers wrote.

Microsoft introduced a “Premium Ready” logo to identify PCs that could be upgraded to the Premium edition.

Citing marketing materials from Microsoft, retailers and PC makers, Microsoft’s lawyers wrote, “the industry made clear that non-Premium Ready PCs would not pursue in thought Windows Aero; no some hid that fact. And Plaintiffs be delivered of not identified any consumer intimation for the time of the program suggesting that a non-Premium expert PC would run Windows Aero.”

The house pointed public that the internal debate from hand to hand the marketing program occurred well in advance of its public unveiling May 18, 2006.

On the question of whether the Vista Capable program increased prices, Microsoft pointed to the plaintiffs’ own expert witness, an economist, who “cannot quantify any greaten in demand or PC prices.”

“He did not perform any pricing studies of PCs. He did not observe whether prices of PCs changed formerly Microsoft implemented the program,” the lawyers wrote.

For these reasons, Microsoft is asking the judge to discard the case, which is scheduled for trial April 13.

Jeff Thomas of Seattle-based Gordon Tilden Thomas & Cordell, representing the plaintiffs, said via e-mail: “We believe that the motions are in the absence of merit and look forward to their resolution so that we may proceed to trial.”

Benjamin J. Romano: 206-464-2149 or bromano@seattletimes.com

Original text: {news-link}