Latest Docs in Vista-Capable Suit Indicate Intel, Microsoft Collusion

It's been a while since I've written about the Vista-capable lawsuit, the class-action lawsuit that basically alleges that Microsoft knew the term "Vista-capable" wasn't exactly going to hold water for many consumers.

Previous excerpts from emails in the lawsuit have shown that Microsoft was aware of the possible problems. A new set of emails, revealed when a motion (.PDF, first posted by TechFlash) was unsealed on Thursday, show still more backstage shenanigans.

It seems, for one, that Intel was pretty upset when Microsoft wanted to pull in the start date of the Vista-capable promotion, as its 915 chipset would not meet the requirements of the new Vista Windows Device Driver Model (WDDM).

Renee James (Intel) in an email to Will Poole (Microsoft), dated 1/20/2006:

One thing that came out yesterday is that your team has the retailers in the US putting Vista Ready stickers on the shelf April 1st vs. the June 1st date we thought we had agreed.

As a result, we are not going to have supply and chipsets aligned such that the SKUs are ready for April 1st and now we are having discussions that we may have cancellations and returns blc OEMs have to go to non-Intel CSets [chipsets] to get Vista Ready as our schedule is post the date they would need stocking machines.

We believe this will cause material business issues and would ask again that we relax the retailers back to June.

In other words, "This will cost us money (material business issues). Please go back to the old date."

Three days later, another email, same people:

I would prefer not to have this discussion on email.

***

Needless to say, when we agreed on the June 1st date and asked you specifically to hold to that day for stickering in the channel, we knew our ramp rates and ability to ship vista ready parts. An April 1st date in retail means a significant change in terms of our ability to meet demand with Vista ready parts and in short will cost us significant business. While I do not want to discuss volume and $$ on email, it is material to our business, and we do not understand Microsoft's motivation to change the previously agreed upon date.

If you wade through the .PDF, you'll see there was a lot of high-level wrangling (we're talking Intel CEO Paul Otellini called Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer personally), but finally, on January 31st, 2006, Microsoft dropped the WDDM requirement:

Even the CEO's exchanged pleasantries, as Ms. James noted to Mr. Poole, "Paul did send a note to Steve [Ballmer] thanking him for listening and making these changes I know you did it. © )." The next day, January 31,2006, Microsoft formally announced that WDDM was no longer a requirement for the Vista Capable logo.

Rajesh Srinivasan, one of the Microsoft employees primarily responsible for what would become the Vista Capable program, explained what all this really meant:

Intel 915 and 915GM will also now qualify for "Windows Vista Capable" per the change in Windows Vista Capable marketing program last week. However, these will not support WDDM and will not offer any graphics stability or performance improvements over Windows XP, nor will they support any ofthe visual quality/productivity/style improvements over Windows XP. These also will NOT qualify for Designedfor Windows Vista logos.

I'm sure Dianne Kellyey (the plaintiff) and her lawyers just loved that quote. But this is better. At the time Jim Allchin was Microsoft's Co-President ofPlatform Products & Services, reporting to CEO Steve Ballmer. Based on this email, it seems he was a consumer advocate. Yes, I know it's hard to believe someone that high up in a corporation would be such.

I'm sorry to say that I think this plan is terrible and it will have to be changed.

I believe we are going to be misleading customers with the Capable program. OEMs will say a machine is Capable and customers will believe that it will run all the core Vista features. The fact that aero won't be there EVER for many of these machines is misleading to customers.

On top of that the fact that this has no relationship (i.e., is not the same as) Windows Vista Basic is just very strange.

We need to meet on this. Please set this up ASAP. We need something simpler in my view. I know we don't want to hurt the OEMs, but end-customers must be the top priority. We must avoid confusion. It is wrong for customers. And we probably will have to change your current plans.

Thanks,

JIm

These emails seem to indicate just what the plaintiff and her lawyers have been asserting, as noted in their conclusion:

In short, Microsoft temporarily lent the Vista name and the "Vista Capable" designation to PCs that were not capable of supporting what Microsoft had called a "core requirement," "fundamental to user experience, stability, quality, productivity, performance," the "biggest change over XP," its "customer commitments of stability and reliability." PCs without WDDM were not able to upgrade even to Windows Vista Home Basic, as Microsoft defined the hardware requirements for Home Basic effective on the day it was launched.

Yeah, well, at this point, the evidence looks pretty damning not just for Microsoft, but for its OEM partners, for the most. The only real "good guy" in this new set of disclosures looks to be Allchin (who was even described by CEO Steve Ballmer as "apoplectic" over the Vista-capable changes.

More to come, obviously.