Sure, Sprint and Palm are hoping the Pre turns the page on their relatively dark recent past, but karma's a bitch sometimes -- the other Palm news this week is that Sprint and Palm have settled a class-action lawsuit alleging the two companies misled customers into thinking there'd be WiFi and Bluetooth accessories for the Treo 600. Remember how crushed we all were when nothing ever hit the market? The pain was almost immeasurable -- unless you're a class-action settlement attorney, in which case you instinctively know anyone who bought a Sprint Treo 600 before October 27, 2004 is owed either a $20 Sprint service credit or a $27.50 credit to be used in Palm's online store. So, anyone still have their Treo 600 receipts from 2004? Yeah, we didn't think so.

[Via TamsPalm]

This one goes back a little ways, but a U.S. District Court in Seattle has now given the go ahead to a class action lawsuit brought by former AT&T Wireless subscribers, who have complained that their service went downhill after the company was bought by Cingular and ultimately became the new AT&T. They're also not too happy that they were forced to pay to get new Cingular phones, and they're now asking that AT&T pay back all those extra charges, plus the usual damages, of course. For its part, AT&T isn't saying anything more than that it "respectfully" disagrees with the court's decision, and that it's now studying the ruling and considering its options.

Microsoft long ago fessed up that the Xbox 360 was capable of scratching discs, and it even offered a (somewhat limited) exchange program for damaged games, but some recently unsealed documents from an ongoing lawsuit now suggest that the company was well aware of the issue for about as long as the console has been around. According to The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Microsoft first discovered the problem in September or October of 2005, and it even went so far as to send a "team of engineers" to stores across the US to determine the best course of action. Apparently, they came up with three options, two of which proved to be impractical, and one of which (installing small bumpers in each and every console) proved to be too expensive, leading Microsoft to offer the disc exchange instead. What's more, the documents apparently also revealed that some Microsoft employees thought that the warning labels on the console were insufficient, and that the company has received complaints about the problem from more than 55,000 customers as of April 30th of this year. No word on any movement just yet in the lawsuits themselves just yet but one of them, filed back in July of 2007, is seeking class-action status on behalf of everyone that's bought an Xbox 360.

[Thanks, Lyons]

Remember when Microsoft was hit with a lawsuit over its "Vista Capable" stickers? How about when the judge unsealed emails revealing that after a long battle to promote Vista's graphics-intensive Aero UI, it capitulated and lowered the requirements for the sticker so Intel could keep on selling its graphically-challenged (i.e., WDDM noncompliant) 915 chipset? Yeah, that was awesome. Connoisseurs of corporate drama should appreciate the latest development -- the judge has made public a second batch of emails revealing that MS execs were at odds about that decision. Senior VP Will Poole apparently made the call to appease Intel, but co-President of Platform & Services Jim Allchin (along with many others who had been fighting for the other side for months) was "beyond being upset," saying "this was totally mismanaged by Intel and Microsoft. What a mess." The mess he was referring to: an unhappy partner in HP, which had spent millions to meet the old standards... and presciently, the lawsuit we're watching now. Alright, maybe not so awesome for everyone.

Way back in December of 2006, NVIDIA and AMD were both pegged for potential price fixing, and nearly two years later it seems it'll finally be paying the piper. A settlement agreement is detailed in a recently filed 8-K form, which asserts that NVIDIA would pay $850,000 into a total fund of up to $1.7 million, with AMD / ATI probably left to make up the rest. Of note, the 8-K filing does mention that all of this is still "subject to court approval," but it's likely that the green light will eventually be given. Outside of that, we're also informed that NVIDIA will be handing over $112,500 to the individual plaintiffs who brought the case to court. Well, we're glad that's settled.

[Via CustomPC]

Notice that your freshly-purchased N75 smells more like a week-old head of cabbage than a bundle of brand new plastic, glue, and circuitry? That's gross, and no, we don't want to touch it (seriously, get that thing away from us). Turns out you may not be alone, though -- a new class-action suit filed in federal court alleges that CommClub, an independent retailer in California, was selling used Nokias for AT&T's network as brand new devices. For whatever reason, AT&T and Nokia are also named as defendants in the suit, though we're not sure exactly what role they played in CommClub's potentially nefarious dealings; at any rate, the class is looking to bring home some bacon for "injuries" suffered as a result of the bait-and-switch. You're going to go smell your N75 now, aren't you?

Couldn't fit those last two Oingo Boingo albums on your Zen when you thought you had enough space? Get ready for payback, because if you own a Creative Labs MP3 player made between May 5, 2001 and April 30, 2008, you could be entitled to a class-action settlement over this very issue. The proposed settlement -- not the first of its kind -- will force Creative to "make certain disclosures regarding the storage capacity of its hard disc drive MP3 players" and give a 50% discount on a new 1GB player or 20% off any item purchased at Creative's online store, if it's approved by the court. For its part, Creative denies any wrongdoing, but it looks like it's offering up the settlement to smooth thing over with consumers -- but you know it's going to fight the $900,000 requested by plaintiffs' attorneys in fees. Applications are due by August 7, 2008, so start digging up those serial numbers.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

It looks like that little lawsuit over "Vista Capable" stickers on PCs could now be about to get quite a bit bigger, as a federal judge has now bestowed class-action status on the suit, which accuses Microsoft of misleading marketing. More specifically, as the AP reports, the suit alleges that the "Vista Capable" stickers slapped on PCs during the 2006 holiday season created an "artificial demand" for the computers, and "inflated prices for computers that couldn't be upgraded to the full-featured version of Vista." As we've seen, those stickers even took in at least one higher-up at Microsoft itself, who has made his thoughts on the program quite well known. While things are still obviously in the early stages, the law firm that filed the suit is now looking for others that feel they've been burned by the stickers, and ComputerWorld has the details on you can get involved at the link below.

[Via ComputerWorld]

It looks like those that bought a Seagate hard drive in the past few years could possibly be in store for a few freebies or a bit of cash, at least if a proposed class action settlement goes ahead. According to a recently-launched website for the settlement, the suit centers on alleged misleading sales and marketing by Seagate, which stated that "purchasers of the drives would receive approximately 7% more usable storage capacity than they actually received." To make up for that allegedly egregious offense, the settlement proposes that anyone who purchased a drive between March 22nd, 2001 and September 26, 2007 (which wasn't pre-installed in a system) receive either some free backup and recovery software or a cash payment equivalent to five percent of the price paid for the hard drive. To get in on that potential windfall, however, you'll have to sign yourself up as part of the class action on the website linked below, where you can also opt out of the suit if you so choose.

[Thanks, Joey]

It goes without saying that if you sell enough of pretty much anything, you're going to eventually get someone riled up over a missing feature, a broken feature, or in this case, an unwanted feature -- and that someone might just happen to know a lawyer (or worse yet, be one). The latest class action suit against Apple and AT&T over the iPhone, filed in California, reads like a what's-what of complaints we've heard since before the phone was even released: the carrier shouldn't be charging an early termination fee for a phone that isn't subsidized, its international roaming plan is a total ripoff compared to a prepaid SIM that you'd normally buy to use with an unlocked handset, and most notably, that neither AT&T nor Apple have the right to purposefully damage (via firmware update) or void the warranty of a "lawfully" unlocked iPhone. All told, the suit rocks the two companies with a grand total of six counts -- alleging violations of a garden variety of state and federal laws -- each asking for between $200 and $600 million in cold, hard cash. Anyone who's bought an iPhone and "sustained damages" from it is entitled to participate, so put on your lawyerin' pants and enjoy the courtroom action.

[Thanks, Mark]

Apple has obviously made some enemies over this whole iPhone firmware situation, and clearly not everyone wants to follow the straight-and-narrow when it comes to the company's factory-limited and locked device. Now, at least one California resident named Timothy Smith has decided to bring the fight to the Cupertino monolith's doorstep -- and he showed up with lawyers. According to papers filed last week, the angry iPhone owner is suing Apple in hopes of barring the company from selling locked phones, and forcing the Mac-maker to provide warranty service for customers even if they've bricked their phones via third-party software -- though there seems to be no definitive evidence that Apple's update is the source of the brickings. The suit claims that, "Apple forced plaintiff and the class members to pay substantially more for the iPhone and cell phone service than they would have paid in a competitive marketplace either for the iPhone or for AT&T's cell phone service," and that the company, "Acted in defiance and without sufficient consideration of consumers' rights to unlock their iPhones because it knew that the probable result of its update would be to render unlocked iPhones inoperable." The lawyers in the case have set up a website where owners can join in on the suit -- so if you're feeling slighted, maybe they can help.

Apple, despite (or because of) all its successes and odds-beating triumphs, still can't shake the occasional class-action suit being thrown its way. This week is no different, as the company sees not one, but two separate claims laid on its doorstep. The first hails from Florida, where two righteous citizens have filed suit against Apple alleging the company has "recklessly disregarded" consumers' rights. According to the suit, a law which prevents credit card information from being displayed on receipts has been ignored by the company, and if Apple is found to be in the wrong, it could be responsible for compensation to any buyer affected by its practices (that means you). The second suit comes from a man in Michigan, who claims that the Cupertino computer-maker has violated patents he owns for the inclusion of status lights on rechargeable laptop batteries. If his claim proves successful, Apple could find themselves accounting for lost profits and paying triple the awarded amount for the patent infringement. Of course, Steve Jobs loses money like that in-between his sofa cushions... right?

Here in lawsuit-crazy America there's only one thing to do if you don't like a lawsuit: file another suit, claiming that the basis for the original claim was illegitimate. That's the case with a recent filed class action lawsuit against Netflix, which argues that the company's lawsuit against Blockbuster violates antitrust law because the company fraudulently concealed prior art related to patents used to sue Blockbuster. Techdirt points out that this new lawsuit highlights prior art that Netflix knew about, but failed to include in its original patent applications, something it was required to do. Yeah, that's right, the whole affair hinges around the ineffective patenting system, which is the background for dozens of other technology related lawsuits. If this class action is successful, then Netflix will be left regretting ever filing against Blockbuster; if it's not, then the company's still got a whole lot of paperwork to do in its case against Blockbuster. As always, there's one group left lovin' the whole situation: the lawyers.