Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litigation

Zee

Diamond Member
Nov 27, 1999
5,171
3
76
Did anyone else get this email who bought graphic cards directly in the 5 years mentioned? I saw the previous posts about the alleged price fixing and ensuing class action pending. Just checking if it's legit


edit: damn, by the way, this is some heavy money. I wish I pursued it because you know we all were thinking of it. Almost makes me want to open a similar class action against amd/intel, western digital/maxtor/seagate, bic/papermate, etc etc


THIS IS AN IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE. THE MATTERS DISCUSSED IN THIS NOTICE MAY AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.





IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE GRAPHICS PROCESSING UNITS

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

This Document Relates to:

THE CERTIFIED CLASS OF DIRECT PURCHASER PLAINTIFFS


)

)

)

)

)

)

)


Case No: M:07-CV-01826-WHA

MDL No.1826

Hon. William H. Alsup

TO: All individuals and entities who purchased graphics processing card products online from the websites of ATI Technologies ULC (shop.ati.com) or Nvidia Corporation (www.nvidia.com) in the United States during the period from December 4, 2002 to November 7, 2007.


PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.
THIS NOTICE MAY AFFECT YOUR RIGHTS.

I. PURPOSE OF NOTICE

Your rights may be affected by a recent decision on class certification in In re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litigation, a lawsuit now pending before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (Northern District) ("the Court"). On July 18, 2008, the Court ruled that this lawsuit may proceed as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to a certain group of purchasers (the "Class"). You may be a member of this Class. The purpose of this notice is to advise you of your rights as a potential Class member.

II.DESCRIPTION OF THE LAWSUIT

Plaintiffs Jordan Walker and Michael Bensignor (the "Named Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated direct purchasers of graphics processing chips and graphics cards, brought this lawsuit against Defendants Nvidia Corporation ("Nvidia"), ATI Technologies ULC, Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., AMD US Finance, Inc., and 1252986 Alberta ULC ("collectively ATI"). The Named Plaintiffs allege that, in violation of the federal antitrust laws, Nvidia and ATI conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices of graphics processing chips and cards. The Named Plaintiffs also contend that Defendants unlawfully colluded to coordinate new product introductions. The Named Plaintiffs seek triple damages, attorney fees, and costs under the federal antitrust laws. Defendants deny all of these allegations and deny any and all liability for the claims that the Named Plaintiffs assert. A jury trial in this matter is scheduled to begin on March 9, 2009. The last day to file a motion for summary judgment is November 17, 2008. The Court has not ruled on the merits of the claims or defenses in the case.

III. THE COURT'S RULING ON CLASS CERTIFICATION

The Court has ruled that this lawsuit may proceed as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to the Class. The certified class is limited to:

All individuals and entities who purchased graphics processing card products online from defendants' websites in the United States during the period from December 4, 2002, to November 7, 2007.

The Court's ruling on class certification does not mean that the Court has found that the Defendants engaged in the conduct that the Named Plaintiffs have alleged or that the Class will recover any damages in the lawsuit. These issues remain to be resolved in the case. The class certification ruling simply means that the final outcome of the lawsuit, whether favorable to the Plaintiffs or to the Defendants, will apply in the same manner to every Class member who does not timely elect to be excluded from the Class as set forth below.

To be a member of the Class, you must have made at least one purchase of a graphics card from ATI's or Nvidia's website between December 4, 2002 and November 7, 2007. If you bought a graphics card during this period only from other sources (such as a retailer like Best Buy or a different website like newegg.com), you are not a member of the Class. If you are an employee of either ATI or Nvidia, you are also not a member of the Class. Also excluded from the Class are any federal, state or local government entity, and any judge, justice or judicial officer presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial staffs.

IV. ELECTION TO REMAIN IN THE CLASS

If you fit the above description of a Class member, you have a choice whether to remain a member of the Class on whose behalf this suit is being maintained.

1. If you want to remain a member of the Class, you are not required to do anything at this time. Your rights and responsibilities as a member of the Class are described in the section below.

2. If you want to be excluded from the Class, you must complete and send the attached Request for Exclusion Form to: In re GPU Antitrust Litigation, 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900, Oakland, CA 94612, by first-class mail postmarked by October 12, 2008. If you elect to be excluded from the Class:

(a) you will not share in any recovery that might be paid to the Class as a result of this lawsuit;

(b) you will not be bound by any decision in this lawsuit favorable to the Defendants; and

(c) you may present any claim that you may have against the Defendants by filing your own lawsuit or you may seek to intervene in this lawsuit directly as a party.

V. RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF CLASS MEMBERS

If you remain a member of this Class:

1. The Named Plaintiffs and their attorneys will act as your representatives and counsel. The law firm of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP serves as Class Counsel. Any Class member who chooses to may also enter an appearance through his or her own counsel at his or her own expense without requesting exclusion.

2. Any claims that you may have against the Defendants arising from the conduct that the Named Plaintiffs allege will be determined in this case and cannot be presented in any other lawsuit.

3. Your participation in any recovery that may be obtained from the Defendants through trial or settlement will depend on the results of this lawsuit. If no recovery is obtained for the Class, you will be bound by that result. You will not have to pay any judgment, court costs, or lawyers' fees if the Class obtains no recovery. All fees and expenses of Class Counsel will be paid only out of any recovery that the Class may obtain through settlement or trial as determined by the Court.

4. You may be required as a condition to participating in any recovery to present evidence concerning your purchases of graphics processing cards from ATI or Nvidia. Therefore, you should preserve receipts and any other records containing this information.

5. If ordered by the Court, you will be entitled to notice of any ruling reducing the size of this Class and also to notice of, and an opportunity to be heard, regarding any proposed settlement or dismissal of the Class claims.

VI. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Any corrections or changes in your name or address should be sent in writing to:In re GPU Antitrust Litigation, 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900, Oakland, CA 94612.

If you decide to remain a member of the Class and wish to communicate with lead counsel as your attorney in this litigation, or if you have any questions regarding this Notice, you may do so by writing to:

Kevin Barry, Esquire
Boies, Schiller, and Flexner LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900
Oakland, CA 94612
kbarry@bsfllp.com

You should not contact Judge Alsup directly concerning this matter.

You may seek the advice and guidance of your own attorney at your own expense. The pleadings and other records in this litigation may be examined and copied at any time during regular office hours at the Office of the District Clerk, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102.

VII. REMINDER AS TO TIME LIMIT

If you wish to be excluded from the Class, you must complete the attached Request for Exclusion Form and send it to: In re GPU Antitrust Litigation, 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 900, Oakland, CA 94612, by first-class mail postmarked by October 12, 2008.

Dated: August 13, 2008
BY ORDER OF THE COURT

_______________________

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Northern District of California
450 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102


REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION FORM

Read the enclosed legal notice carefully before filling out this form

The undersigned has read the Notice Of Class Action, dated August 13, 2008, and does NOT wish to remain a member of the certified Class in the case of In re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litigation, now pending before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Date:________________           Signature:____________________________

Printed Name:________________________

If you wish to exclude yourself from the Class, you must complete and return this form by first-class mail postmarked by October 12, 2008.

Class Counsel
In re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litigation
c/o Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP
1999 Harrison Street
Suite 900
Oakland, CA 94612
 

timmyb

Junior Member
Dec 17, 2004
9
0
0
I don't know if it is legit, but I got the same email at 4:04 AM this morning.
 

Zenmervolt

Elite member
Oct 22, 2000
24,512
21
81
Does anyone else find it rather shady that you're included by default and that if you want to opt-out it will cost you time and effort (and the cost of the stamp)?

ZV
 

Modelworks

Lifer
Feb 22, 2007
16,240
7
76
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Does anyone else find it rather shady that you're included by default and that if you want to opt-out it will cost you time and effort (and the cost of the stamp)?

ZV

Standard for class action lawsuits.

They have no chance in hell of winning.
Maybe if they claimed all cards that used the chips, but how is selling cards off a website for more than those at a retailer, price fixing ?
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
32,124
10,962
136
who buys directly from the MFR? ATI sells a #600 series product for like $150-$200 when they're $75 at newegg and the like
 

tracerbullet

Golden Member
Feb 22, 2001
1,661
19
81
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
who buys directly from the MFR? ATI sells a #600 series product for like $150-$200 when they're $75 at newegg and the like

I bought a card directly from them, it was some sort of trade-up program. Send in any junky crappy old card and get some big discount on a new one. At the time it was actually cheaper than Newegg or anywhere else, including what it cost me to ship the card.

I assume that's why I got the email, that purchase plus an adapter I could not find anywhere else are the two things I've ever purchased directly from them.

If that trade-up thing undercut everyone else's costs, is that what they are in trouble for?
 

MaxDepth

Diamond Member
Jun 12, 2001
8,757
43
91
UPDATE from Ars Technica

nVidia offers settlement in GPU price fixing lawsuit

NVIDIA has filed a United States Securities and Exchange Commission form 8-K that outlines a proposed settlement of two of the suits filed against it for alleged price fixing in collusion with ATI. The suit alleges that NVIDIA and ATI conspired to fix prices in the GPU segment in an effort to stabilize GPU prices resulting in buyers paying more for the companies' respective products.

According to the 8-K form NVIDIA filed the proposed settlement of the class action suit filed against it is $850,000. ATI is expected to make a matching fund contribution to supply the fund with a total of $1.7 million. There is no official statement from AMD on the settlement at this time. The proposed $1.7 million settlement has not been approved by the court. NVIDIA says that the settlement does not obligate it to pay any attorney fees or other costs associated with the suit.

Plaintiffs brought another proposed class action suit against NVIDIA relating to the same allegations of price fixing, which the judge didn't grant class action status to. Class certification failed on July 18, 2008 according to the 8K filing. Plaintiffs in the case were seeking an appeal of the ruling. NVIDIA has offered the plaintiffs of the suit $112,500 to drop all claims and stop seeking an appeal of the verdict. The GPU maker says that the settlement in this case needs no approval from the courts.

Big green sought to settle out of court to prevent information from being made public regarding the case. Judge William Alsup had already stated, "if we get to summary judgment in this case, nothing will be under seal."

If approved by the courts, the settlement of the class action will prevent any further information on the case from seeing the light of day.

 

Syran

Golden Member
Dec 4, 2000
1,493
0
76
6. Did you purchase at least one graphics processing card product online from the websites of either ATI Technologies ULC (shop.ati.com) or NVIDIA Corporation (www.nvidia.com) during the period from December 4, 2002 to November 7, 2007, at a time when you resided in the United States ?



YES______ NO______

If you answered "No" to question 6, please stop here and do not submit a Claim Form. You are not a member of the Class and are not entitled to participate in the Settlement.

I find this interesting. To me, it shows lawyers not doing their homework in their greed. Nvidia afaik, has never sold their own video cards, all the way back to the Riva days. They've sold some software and such, but no actual video cards that I can remember; which makes half of this a moot point.
 

jagec

Lifer
Apr 30, 2004
24,442
6
81
I bought an ATI card via the trade-up program, but why would a price fixing lawsuit only apply to cards purchased directly from the manufacturer's website? If true price-fixing were occurring, the companies would not be selling their cards, in bulk, at a much lower price to other retailers.

Does this mean that we can sue ANY company that offers the same branded product at a higher price than their competitors? WTF?

I for one do NOT want to be included as one of the plaintiffs, but I'm not going to spend money and time to mail a physical letter to be excluded, because I am not a caveman.

I'll never see a dime anyway.
 

Gothgar

Lifer
Sep 1, 2004
13,429
1
0
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
who buys directly from the MFR? ATI sells a #600 series product for like $150-$200 when they're $75 at newegg and the like

.
 

JMapleton

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2008
4,179
2
81
Lawyers do this all they time, they will sue on the behalf of millions of consumers.

Each consumer however will get a check for like 5 cents in the mail.
 

Zee

Diamond Member
Nov 27, 1999
5,171
3
76
Originally posted by: Fayd
Originally posted by: Syran
and such, but no actual video cards that I can remember; which makes half of this a mute point.

seriously... die irl.

LOL. Mute point. astoundingly silent point
 

brxndxn

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2001
8,475
0
76
I wonder if I can file my non-support of the entire lawsuit.. Seriously.. there are so many better things to sue for.. like DRM that doesn't allow me to play my pc games..
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
Originally posted by: Modelworks
Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Does anyone else find it rather shady that you're included by default and that if you want to opt-out it will cost you time and effort (and the cost of the stamp)?

ZV

Standard for class action lawsuits.

They have no chance in hell of winning.
Maybe if they claimed all cards that used the chips, but how is selling cards off a website for more than those at a retailer, price fixing ?

Class action lawyers don't care if they win, the class action scam is all about the settlement.
 
Feb 24, 2001
14,513
4
81
Originally posted by: Steve
Since nVidia doesn't manufacture cards, whose partner's cards were they selling off their own website?

VisionTek used to do a lot of their in house cards.
 

Steve

Lifer
May 2, 2004
15,945
10
81
www.chicagopipeband.com
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Originally posted by: Steve
Since nVidia doesn't manufacture cards, whose partner's cards were they selling off their own website?

VisionTek used to do a lot of their in house cards.

Back when they were an nVidia partner? Because VisionTek wasn't making any by themselves when I worked for them.
 

PaidLess

Senior member
May 29, 2005
295
0
0
just received this email today. I received it before and thought nothing of it. It says on the email that " IF YOU PURCHASED A $200 CARD DIRECTLY FROM ati OR nVIDIA DURING THIS TIME,IT IS ESTIMATED YOU are eligible to RECEIVE A CHECK FOR AT LEAST $20. you may RECEIVE A CHECK for a larger amount depending on the number of class members who submit valid claims. "

Wonder if its worth the time...
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |