In the lawsuit against Microsoft and its use of the term "Windows Vista Capable" on PCs even Microsoftis director of marketing was confused by the term, a term that Microsoft Corp. claimed wasnit confusing at all, according to C|Net on Wednesday.
According to the plaintiffs, Dianne Kelley and Kenenth Hansen, Microsoft wasnit being upfront when it authorized the label "Vista Capable" on PCs. In their complaint, they claim that the label suggests that the computer could run all versions of Vista when, in fact, it could only run Home Basic.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs pointed out that even Microsoftis director of marketing, Mark Croft, had become confused during testimony. Mr. Croft explained at first that "capable" meant that the PC could run any version, as opposed to the term "ready" which would have the connotation that the PC would run in some improved way.
After a consult with his attorneys, Mr. Croft said that heid made "an error" and retracted his previous statement, and said that "capable" means that the PC would be "able to run a version of Vista."
The plaintiffis attorneys keyed in on this confusion quickly: "Mr. Croft understood Microsoftis logo to be telling customers that PCs would run not only the stripped-down Vista Home Basic, but also what plaintiffs contend are the ireali versions of Vista: the ones that include Microsoftis heavily marketed iVista features.i Ironically, Mr. Croftis understanding of what iWindows Vista capablei means is the same understanding that Microsoft asserts no consumer would be justified in having."
Microsoft claims that it had informed OEMs, retailers and press about what "Vista Capable" means.