Re: Class Action Law Suit

[Daniel Potts <danielp cse unsw edu au>]

Why not save your money and use it for a licence and engineers to make an
Alpha CPU and system. That way you don't need to deal with Compaq FUD and
aren't wasting your money with law suits that will only waste time and
result in the Alphas demise anyway.

You aren't going to win a suit like that. Compaq still 'support' these
systems and offer migration paths when your new Alpha hardware needs
replacing.

Our Alphas didn't suddenly devalue because of these announcements. Last I
checked, they were still running at the same speed, computing at a rate
that they were when we bought them. The software we run on them didn't
suddenly stop working.. you get the idea. People that rely on any one
architecture to run their code are asking for trouble and those people
that really need Alpha for running their applications because they have
lost the source code or think the porting effort is too large, wake up, it
is your own fault.

In the end if the DOJ or someone says to compaq, "you have to keep making
Alphas", what a fine product that will be (sarcasm).

Maybe convincing someone like Samsung to develop and manufacture Alphas
via a partition is a better way to go.

On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Aaron Gee wrote:

> > It is easy to "do something" about it:
> 
> If you have the cash
> 
> > stuff skipped here
> 
> > While you are at it, if you have Compaq equipment, I suggest that you
> > should call them up and demand they refund your money, as they devalued
> the
> > Alpha machines you bought with their poorly thought out strategy and
> > announcements.
> 
> I would suggest that if you recently purchased Compaq equipment that you
> find other people that have recently bought Comapq equipment and start a
> class action lawsuit.  I think what Compaq did with their various FUD
> annoucements can be considered a "deceptive trade practice".  INAL (I'm not
> a lawyer) but I would think that a class action suit would also get the
> DOJ's attention.  The DOJ is MUCH less interested in anti-competitive
> behaviour now than it was, they have a lot on their plate at the moment.  I
> do think that Compaq's giving away the Alpha team may violate previous court
> rulings, then again INAL.
> 
> Perhaps a spin off for Alpha can be forced?
> 
> > A lot of you made purchasing decisions based on statements by Compaq
> > regarding the "future of Alpha" and Compaqs commitment to it.
> 
> As was the case, be it Intel or MS, DEC couldn't protect their own patents
> or inventions without hireing a BIG team of lawyers.  It looks as if Compaq
> and Itel are betting that no one has the cash to take them to court.
> 
> > If so, they lied to you. I suggest you demand your money back.
> 
> Again, stop saying "lied" and start saying "felony violation of the federal
> statute dot dot dot", and "deceptive trade practices".
> 
> > But please, do not blame Red Hat. They had nothing to do with it.
> 
> RedHat should be in on the suit, as they made some purchases WRT Alpha
> technology and that technology has been pulled out of the market place
> because of a questionable merger deal?  Any people in the EU think that the
> EU anti-monopoly people would have problems with some of this?
> 
> If you or your company recently (within the last 12 months) purchased Alpha
> or Alpha related hardware perhaps you should e-mail the list and some
> enterprising individual can collect the names.  Any state or state funded
> institutions would be especially important.  A state attorney general tends
> to take a dim view of a company defrauding it's state of even 5 dolalrs,
> much less tons more.
> 
> Whose game?
> 
> 
> Aaron Gee
> http://www.italian-cars.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Axp-list mailing list
> Axp-list@redhat.com
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/axp-list
> 

--
http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~danielp