Toshiba Laptop Class Action Lawsuit

Factual Questions
21

OpalCat: Usually the way it works is once the judgement is settled. Then information (data- names and address and ssn’s) is given to a claims processing center. Based on the judgement and the way the judge orded it you may have to do nothing to get your check. In some other cases you may have to file a claim form, then you will get your check.

  • Solid
22

Solidsnke, I beg your pardon, but there is a procedure in place right now.

Opalcat, if you bought your Toshiba new on or after March 5th, 1998, you are entitled to a cash remedy. This may be claimed by filling out the form at: http://www.csd.toshiba.com/tais/csd/support/fdc/fdc_claim.pdf

and mailing it to:
FDC Class Settlement
Claims Administration
P.O. Box 9344
Garden City, NY 11530-9344

The amount of cash you receive depends on when you bought the laptop. A purchase date of March 1998 will gerner you $210. This amount goes up each month by $11.10, so that the final month (December 1999) earns you $443.20.

You must provide proof of purchase along with your claim form.

You are also entitled to an equitable remedy. If your machine was under warranty as of March 1999, this can be either a software patch or a replacement floppy disk controller or an external floppy drive.

The software patch alternative also comes with a Toshiba Merchandise Coupon for $225. If you are dissatisfied with the software patch alternative, you must state this to Toshiba in writing (and return your $225 coupon, if you have it). You will receive a hardware replacement and a coupon for $200.

If your machine was not under warranty, you are entitled to the software patch and a $100 coupon.

I hope this helps.

  • Rick
23
      • Sorry Rick, most “ordinary” people (ie, non-lawyers) would disagree.
  • The nature of the defect was that files could be lost if they were saved to the floppy drive while doing another processor-intensive task, such as playing a game or watching a video (at the same time, mind you). The Los Angeles Times reported that no customers have ever complained to the company about losing data as a result of this defect, and it can be fixed entirely with a software patch. Do you know what a software patch is, Rick? Your computer probably needed a few just to be able to post here. What sort of computer industry will we have if every product that is “defective” by a lawyer’s standards is removed from the market? What sort of any industry will we have? (see Great Britain)
    • Some lawyers have become nothing more than well-dresses thieves, plain and simple. They will say that they’re only following the law, but they have had quite a bit to do with what laws have been made in the areas concerned:
      ! The “opt-out” model, where a lawyer pursuing a class-actiion suit can ‘represent’ all plaintiffs unless they notify him that they do not wish him to do so. This was the exact opposite of the previous arrangement, and made it significantly easier for laywers to pursue suits with less work.
      ! The requirements of “ripeness” and “actual injury” have been eroded to the extent that it is possible to sue on behalf of people to whom nothing bad has yet happened. In 1974 the US Supreme COurt did away with a rule that had required the organizing lawyers in many federal class actions to show a significant preliminary chance of winning on the merits of the case. (see Toshiba)
      ! Increasingly, actions are managed by and for the lawyers rather than the clients, who have had less and less input into case settlements as time goes on.
      ! A EULA is an agreement that most software and hardware cmpanies use today. EULAs basically state that the product is supposed to work, but that it may not work perfect (or not at all) and by using it, you agree not to sue on the grounds that it doesn’t work, because the manufacturer warned you. The ABA has already stated that it does not recognize the freedom of contract as far as EULAs are concerned, arguing that it shouldn’t be possible to lose your right to sue for any reason or under any circumstances, even to those which you are willing to agree. Kiss your computer goodbye, Rick.
  • The rise in lawsuits in the US has coincided with a marked decline in productivity of US industries. How much of a coincidence is that? - MC
24

I’m sorry… I don’t quite grasp what you mean by this comment. Most ordinary people would disagree with what?

I have advocated no position, MC. I have simply summarized the terms of the proposed settlement. If there’s disagreement about the accuracy of my summary, I will be astonished.

  • Rick
25

I should probably leave this alone, but for whatever it’s worth: I wrote my own patch for the original GNU/EMACS bug. I have installed patches for Linux, Berkeley and AT&T flavors of Unix, as well as DEC’s Ultrix and VMS running on Vax and Microvax systems. I have dutifully installed all service packs and interim patches for 3Com’s 3+, 3+ Share, 3+ Open, Microsoft’s LAN Manager, and Windows NT 3.5, 3.51, and 4.0 (both Workstation and Server).

Sorry for the excessive detail, but I wanted to forcefully make the point that I am involved in the networking industry, I have been for some time, and am very familiar with the concept of a software patch.

I’m still baffled that anything I said earlier in this thread could have given rise to a contrary inference.

  • Rick
26
      • Sorry; may have fired a little early on this one. The question of the “maximum value that someone’s work is worth” got to me. I have no problem with someone asking a ridiculous selling price for something, nor do I have any problem with someone else making a ridiculous purchase offer. This is not what the situation here involves; it is lawyers and judges in a courtroom deciding how much money to take from a third party that has never caused any wrongdoing to either, or anyone else it seems, that annoys me. I’m far from rich, and it still annoys me.
  • It is true that yours was not post most supportive of the judgement, here. - MC
27

No problem.

I asked the “maximum value for someone’s work” question because of a post that suggested (at least as I read it), among other things, that $500 per hour was an obscene hourly wage.

As to the concept that lawyers and judges are taking money away from someone that has done nothing wrong…

I agree there’s a certain amount of what seems like extortion here. But Toshiba is free to not offer any settlement at all, and to go to trial. At trial, they would seek to persuade the fact-finder of exactly what you suggest: that no one (especially the fine folks of Toshiba) have done anything wrong. The plaintiffs, meanwhile, would presumably be advancing the position that Toshiba negligently sold products which were inherently defective, ticking time bombs waiting to corrupt the data of their innocent users.

If the fact-finder believed Toshiba, then they would lose nothing (except the cost of defending themselves). If the fact-finder believed the plaintiffs, it would then calculate the damages suffered and award an amount in remedy. It might also award punitive damages to punish Toshiba for their gross negligence, if it found gross negligence.

So while I acknowledge that Toshiba is forced to spend some money either way, I guess I’m a little uncomfortable with the concept that they are being “forced” to pay by lawyers and judges. They have acquised in this settlement. They have chosen to pay.

My personal opinion only: they made the wrong choice. No one suffered any damage here. The damage is all conjectural, and people have a duty to mitigate their own damage, which they can at almost no expense by downloading the free software patch. I suspect Toshiba was afraid of what a jury might do. That’s an unfortunate comment on the state of affairs in civil law today.

  • Rick
28

Am I misreading something, or is there some general tone of glee about a company having to shell out big bucks over a “problem” that has not as yet caused a problem*, and there is an easy patch to forestall it, anyway?

I’m not sure I understand. . . .

29

I can only speak for myself, and I can report that no, there’s no glee on my part.

  • Rick
30

Bricker wrote that Toshiba probably settled because they were afraid of going to a jury (a conclusion I agree with.) My question is this: While the right to a jury trial is guaranteed, is it mandatory? Can a defendant be forced into a juried trial if they would rather have a judge decide the case?

Scott

31

The Seventh Amendment to the US Constitution provides:

The general application of this rule is that both sides must agree to waive a jury.

  • Rick
32
      • The fact which makes this sort of legal maneuvering dishonest is that the ABA has constructed a system whereby lawyers profit not by removing harmful products from the marketplace, but by removing products which are most popular, usually because they are most desirable. If only 1,000 of the defective Toshiba computers had been sold, Reaud, Morgan and Quinn wouldn’t have given a rat’s ass about it. It was only because the affected models were so popular, that they were an attractive target. - MC
33

This is true. And why not? If the claim in meritorious, the lawyers still don’t have to be selfless do-gooders; they have every right to select a case which will generate fees commensurate with the effort they expend.

If the claims are not meritorious, though, then it’s a different story. Then the lawyers are essentially extorting a settlement unmerited by the facts.

Which best describes this case? I don’t know; I haven’t seen the evidence. But my best guess is that the second description is closer than the first.

How has the ABA created this system? Causes of action are defined by the legislature, as are limits on damages and tort reform in general. And the legislature is elected by the people, and their actions presumably reflect the will of the people.

If anything, the ABA is simply a potent lobbying force - which they are. But in the end, the public, the voters, are responsible for electing people that will pass the laws that the public wants. If the people refuse to become informed about the issues and vote responsibly… the most the ABA (or any lobbyist) is doing is taking advantage of it… not causing it.

  • Rick
34

I, as a Toshiba laptop ownwer have been nothing but satisfied with its performance. I have used the external disk-drive without ever experiencing any problems, and any other problems I ever did have were quite easily solved through Toshiba’s excellent support site. The site includes all the drivers and patches on a model by model basis for all of Toshiba’s products.

When this disk-drive problem was discovered, I’m sure that Toshiba put out a patch for it. I think that should have been the end of it, as long as nobody could show that they were damaged by it. If there were people who incurred loss or damages, then I believe that they should have been the ones named in the lawsuit, not every single person who has ever bought a Toshiba laptop. It just doesn’t make sense. Needless to say, I won’t be filing a claim with Toshiba.

Toshiba’s support site: http://www.csd.toshiba.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/Toshiba.woa/wa/goto?page=ServiceSupportMain

Toshiba’s page regarding the settlement: http://www.csd.toshiba.com/tais/csd/support/fdc/index.html