Mis-leading 1080p ads = lawsuits.

teranova · 09-15-2007, 03:00 PM

I was thinking about getting a Toshiba or a Samsung 40" "Full 1080p HD" as I currently have both brands (a 19" Sammy HD in the bedroom and a 32" Tosh HD) and I'm quite satisfied with them. However, I've been reading about two U.S. class action lawsuits against both Samsung and Toshiba that claim certain "Full 1080p HD" LCD models will not accept a 1080p signal from a PS3, an XBox 360, a Blu-ray, or a DVD-HD player all using an HDMI cable.
Apparently, the sets either down-rez the signal to 720p or you have to use component cables and feed the set a 1080i signal and then the set de-interlaces it to 1080p.
Question: Is this correct or am I missing something here and have Toshiba and Samsung fixed the problem in the 2008 sets? (I don't trust most of the electronic store reps' answers anymore as they either give you a line of B.S. or they don't know, or they outright lie to make the sale.)

BobY · 09-15-2007, 03:27 PM

Sorry, I'm on the manufacturers' side in this case. This is just people trying to make money off their own ignorance, laziness and impatience.

A display having a resolution of 1080p (1920 x 1080, progressive) does not imply that it will accept a 1080p input. The vast majority of HD content is 1080i and any good 1080p display will convert 1080i to 1080p for display.

In fact, until Blu-Ray and HD DVD players and the PS3 came out (the initial XBOX 360 did not have 1080p output capability), there were no consumer sources of 1080p signals and the interface chips available at the time these displays were designed were not capable of accepting 1080p inputs.

A quick look at the published specs for these products would have shown they only accepted 480i, 480p, 720p and 1080i.

If having a 1080p display with a 1080p input is important to you, then check the specs and reviews before buying. You may also want to make sure the display accepts 1080p/24 as well as 1080p/60. You may also want to make sure the display supports a refresh rate that is a multiple of 24 Hz. These are all different features with varying degrees of importance depending on your priorities.

teranova · 09-15-2007, 03:50 PM

[quote=BobY;367448]
"A display having a resolution of 1080p (1920 x 1080, progressive) does not imply that it will accept a 1080p input"

What you say is true however, on reading the court documents on the two separate cases, the plaintiffs have included direct quotes from both companies' ads that indicate both "Full 1080p HD" sets would accept a 1080p input!
I'm neutral as far as being on one side or the other, I just don't want to buy a set that can't accept a 1080p signal.
BTW Thanks for your prompt response and info!

unotis · 09-15-2007, 04:51 PM

I'm with Boby on this.

Many of the early 1080p flat panels did not accept 1080p signals but they did accept 1080i signals then de-interlace to display a 1080P picture in their native resolution.

If you end up with a 1080p picture what difference does it make?

To me it would be like complaining when he bought a vehicle and he specified he wanted to have a 375 hp engine, he assumed it would be a 8 cylinder engine (did not specify that just assumed) but when he looked under the hood it was a V6 that produced 375 hp and the exact same torgue, he said I thought I would get a 375 hp V8 not 375 hp V6!

The main thing is he wanted a 375 hp engine with lots of torgue so does it make any difference if it is a V8 or V6 as long the end power and torgue result is the same?

He got suprised because he did not check or know and now he is upset because of that and it no longer matters that he is still getting what he wanted in the first place just in a way he didn't realize it could be done.

And now he wants to sue the company even after he is told he still gets the 375 hp that he wanted in the first place.

I personally don't care how I get it as long as I get it.

The TVs are 1080p flat panels because that is what ends up being displayed which is their native resolution.

This is a case of ignorance and greed taking over from common sense.

Sorry, end of rant!

Ntruder · 09-15-2007, 05:06 PM

I have to disagree with both of you guys. I think its intentionally deceitful claiming "True or Full HD" when your set won't accept a 1080p signal. With all these new formats, somebody in the selling chain has to take responsibility to inform the consumers, and the manufacturers are doing everything they can to keep consumers stupid.

I wrote a paper in college a couple years ago about the information problem in the high definition television market actually.

pappylap · 09-15-2007, 05:42 PM

So how many people are going to line up to sue because the 42" Plasma they purchased is 1024X720 and not considered true "high definition". Were they misled?

unotis · 09-15-2007, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ntruder

I have to disagree with both of you guys. I think its intentionally deceitful claiming "True or Full HD" when your set won't accept a 1080p signal. With all these new formats, somebody in the selling chain has to take responsibility to inform the consumers, and the manufacturers are doing everything they can to keep consumers stupid.

I wrote a paper in college a couple years ago about the information problem in the high definition television market actually.

Your entitled to your opinion, but how does the TV become not a so called "True or Full HD" TV when it in fact does in fact display a full 1080p picture?

Why should it make any difference how it does it if it actually does it?

Should I get mad because my 1080i signal get converted through de-interlacing to give me a 1080p picture or that my new TV does not accept a 1080p signal but still presents one with no way to tell the difference.

I'll admit maybe they should have spelled out what the TV does to get the desired 1080p picture but that would have confused most of the consumers even more .

For god's sake many of the people that buy HDTVs don't even hook them up to a HD signal (over 70%), should they sue the companies also?

I know plenty of people that have no idea how a computer works all they care about is if it does what they want it to do. They wouldn't know RAM from a goat and have no idea what it does for a computer as long as they can see their programs and use them the way they asked to be able to in the first place.

If they get a True HD 1080p picture why does it make any difference how it gets there?

unotis · 09-15-2007, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ntruder

I have to disagree with both of you guys. I think its intentionally deceitful claiming "True or Full HD" when your set won't accept a 1080p signal. With all these new formats, somebody in the selling chain has to take responsibility to inform the consumers, and the manufacturers are doing everything they can to keep consumers stupid.

I wrote a paper in college a couple years ago about the information problem in the high definition television market actually.

Your biggest misunderstanding is they are claiming rightfully that the TV is indeed "Full HD" because it does display a full 1080P picture!

It doesn't matter if it doesn't accept a 1080p signal as long as it displays one, the end result is what matters not how it gets there.

billinprinceto · 09-15-2007, 07:21 PM

Since "Full HD" is nothing more than a marketing term, I hardly see what difference it makes how any manufacturer uses this phrase.

No industry group or regulatory agency has ever indicated any position whatsoever on the use of this phrase. Nor has it ever been employed in the ATSC standards.

Sounds like the lawyers are dreaming for some easy money again.

Ntruder · 09-15-2007, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pappylap

So how many people are going to line up to sue because the 42" Plasma they purchased is 1024X720 and not considered true "high definition". Were they misled?

Thats a slippery slope scenario that would never occur. The purpose of the lawsuit is to keep the companies honest, not to get some idiots rich; lawsuits in this country are about defining laws and setting precedents. Someone files a suit against a company for 100 million dollars over false advertising. Worst case scenario, the company is forced to correct their advertising campaign and cover court costs.

Ntruder · 09-15-2007, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by unotis

Your entitled to your opinion, but how does the TV become not a so called "True or Full HD" TV when it in fact does in fact display a full 1080p picture?

Why should it make any difference how it does it if it actually does it?

Should I get mad because my 1080i signal get converted through de-interlacing to give me a 1080p picture or that my new TV does not accept a 1080p signal but still presents one with no way to tell the difference.

I'll admit maybe they should have spelled out what the TV does to get the desired 1080p picture but that would have confused most of the consumers even more .

For god's sake many of the people that buy HDTVs don't even hook them up to a HD signal (over 70%), should they sue the companies also?

I know plenty of people that have no idea how a computer works all they care about is if it does what they want it to do. They wouldn't know RAM from a goat and have no idea what it does for a computer as long as they can see their programs and use them the way they asked to be able to in the first place.

If they get a True HD 1080p picture why does it make any difference how it gets there?

Look, you guys are totally blowing the legal system out of proportion. You can't just go sue somebody because you don't understand stuff. But lawsuits are how you define laws. If you think a company is breaking a law by deliberately misleading consumers, you file a lawsuit. Thats just the process. That doesn't mean that everybody who sees the TV ad can go sue Samsung. Its about defining laws and setting precedent.

What I was trying to say was that there is so much new technology floating around in the HD market, and manufacturers have taken absolutely none of the burden to educate consumers. Remember the HDCP and ICT thing? You think that information was taught to anybody by the manufacturers? no way. They don't take ANY responsibility to inform consumers, and then they use deceptive advertising like TRUE HD, as in non 1080p is FALSE HD. I've seen 42" plasma TV's that have a native resolution of 1024 x 768, but they ACCEPT a 1080p signal, and they stamp "1080p" in the description.

The "free" market remaining functional hinges on consumer information. Companies should at least be required to provide adequate, accurate, and non-deceitful information. (with the exception of parady, puffery, etc)

This doesn't mean that anyone can go sue, ok? Thats not how it works.

Ntruder · 09-15-2007, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by billinprinceto

Since "Full HD" is nothing more than a marketing term, I hardly see what difference it makes how any manufacturer uses this phrase.

No industry group or regulatory agency has ever indicated any position whatsoever on the use of this phrase. Nor has it ever been employed in the ATSC standards.

Sounds like the lawyers are dreaming for some easy money again.

Ugh... its not about money. Its about ENFORCING LAWS.

Don't you think its kinda bullshit that NOT EVERY tv marked "1080p" ACTUALLY INPUTS a 1080p signal????? Should the consumer be responsible to dig up a copy of the owners manual and specifications before purchasing a TV? Absolutely not.

Sure, upconverting DVD players will upconvert to 1080p, but they still look like shit. An upconverted signal is not equal to a true signal. Its purposely deceitful and its bullshit, and I think they should clean up their act. It should not be the consumer's responsibility to find out technical details about the TV on their own; they should be able to reasonably believe what the advertisements tell them.

BobY · 09-15-2007, 09:50 PM

If the manufacturers actually said the TV's accept a 1080p input when they didn't, then they should be nailed to the wall.

I seriously doubt that is what happened, but if you have a link, I'd love to check it out.

If you think that is how the legal system works regarding litigation, then you have never been sued. My companies have. Four times. Totally without merit.

The first time cost me 7 months of my life consumed with legal proceedings and cost the company several hundred thousand dollars in legal fees that were never recovered. The outcome--"oops, guess we were wrong, sorry". Basically a competitor had sued us for trade secret violations. All they really wanted to do was find out what we were working on, slow us down and make us waste money. Did we want to countersue and spend another 7 months and hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to get our costs back? No, we wanted to get on with our business, not be 14 months behind.

The second time, a group of lawyers had gone around buying up old patents, then suing any company who could conceivably be violating those patents. Their hope was the companies would settle out of court for money to avoid costly legal proceedings and since they were lawyers and didn't charge themselves legal fees, there was essentially no cost to them at all. We stonewalled them and they gave up on us, but we later learned a number of our competitors had settled out of court with them.

The third time someone sued us claiming we were violating their trademark (despite that fact that we were using a common word which just happened to sound like their trademark). We settled out of court as it was clearly the cheapest solution even though we had done no wrong, but we already had experience winning at litigation and not recovering our legal costs.

The fourth time, a customer who refused an exclusive contract with our company, got upset that we were selling one of our OEM products to their competitors for less than what they had contracted for. They claimed we had not negotiated in good faith (it wasn't *our* fault they were willing to agree to a higher price than their competitors) and demanded several million dollars in compensation. In order to clear the case quickly, the judge, who was annoyed to be bothered with the case, suggested we only pay them half of what they wanted and that should be fair. Say what?-- We didn't owe them anything! The judge was further annoyed that we weren't going for it and rather than risk him punishing us, or sending the case before a jury (who might decide just about *anything*), we settled out of court.

I suspect there are far more fraudulent, abusive litigation cases than those with any merit, simply because most companies will settle out of court for money as it is cheaper than fighting the case, even if you win. And based on capricious judges and juries, there's a reasonable chance you'll lose even if you did nothing wrong.

As for the displays--again, without knowing the details, it's hard to comment. It's simply a fact that there was a time when 1080p displays were being produced when it wasn't technically possible for them to have a 1080p input, only to have a 1080i input and de-interlace it inside the set to 1080p.

I'd also point out that there are currently sets which accept a 1080p input (and 1080i for that matter) and which don't have 1920 x 1080 pixels and therefore can't display a 1080p image (such as 1024 x 768, 1024 x 1080, 1366 x 768). Should we sue? Why not just read the readily available specs?

Do I think that a consumer should research something before buying it? If they're the kind of consumer that cares about what they're buying and are likely to sue someone if they make a wrong choice then, yeah.

I do believe in caveat emptor to a certain degree. If someone is deliberately misleading or lieing about their product, that's one thing. If the consumer doesn't understand what they are buying, and are fully capable of learning, then that's their problem and they should learn from the experience.

teranova · 09-15-2007, 10:21 PM

This reminds me of my buddy who phoned me up all excited about the Hitachi P42401 " Full1080p" plasma set he recently purchased. I looked up the specs and it's a 1080 alright but 1080i, NOT 1080p!.(up until now, I thought flat panel LCDs and Plasmas were always Progressive not Interlaced) Furthermore, its resolution is 1024 X 1080i; not quite Full 1080! When I told him the sad news, he decided to keep it anyway because he got "such a sweet deal." Personally, I think his salesman sold him a bill of goods but that's just my opionion.
BobY:
I agree there's a lot of frivolous lawsuits. The McDonald's hot coffee suit comes to mind. Then there was the California case were a thief broke into a home and stole a VCR and on his way out, fell into an empty swimming pool and unfortunately for him,became a paraplegic. He sued and won a huge settlement!
Here's the case file you requested: http://cache.consumerist.com/assets/..._complaint.pdf

BobY · 09-15-2007, 11:10 PM

What an utter sham!

Their complaint is based on *their* misinterpretation of what a "1080p" display is. All of the manufacturers of 1080p displays at the time would be at fault. There is nothing in the sources they cited in which Toshiba, deliberately or otherwise, led them to believe those displays would accept a 1080p signal and that could easily be determined by simply reading the published specs or brochure.

The way you know it's a sham is they claim they paid far more for these "1080p" displays than other displays which were not marketed as "1080p", thinking they were getting a display with 1080p input capability. They did pay more than for a non-1080p display, but that had nothing to do with the input, it was the fact that these displays had 1920 x 1080 pixels, which was state-of-the-art at the time, and the other "non-1080p" displays *did not*. The cheaper displays weren't marketed as 1080p displays because *they didn't have 1920 x 1080 pixels*, not because they didn't accept a 1080p input.

These guys are either idiots, or scam artists who regret they didn't wait for next years' model and now want Toshiba to fix that. They are asking for triple damages, no doubt to help them finish off their home theater. Either that or they are hoping Toshiba wil settle out of court by giving them a new display and maybe an HD DVD player just to make them go away.

09-15-2007, 03:00 PM	#1
teranova High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 369	Mis-leading 1080p ads = lawsuits. I was thinking about getting a Toshiba or a Samsung 40" "Full 1080p HD" as I currently have both brands (a 19" Sammy HD in the bedroom and a 32" Tosh HD) and I'm quite satisfied with them. However, I've been reading about two U.S. class action lawsuits against both Samsung and Toshiba that claim certain "Full 1080p HD" LCD models will not accept a 1080p signal from a PS3, an XBox 360, a Blu-ray, or a DVD-HD player all using an HDMI cable. Apparently, the sets either down-rez the signal to 720p or you have to use component cables and feed the set a 1080i signal and then the set de-interlaces it to 1080p. Question: Is this correct or am I missing something here and have Toshiba and Samsung fixed the problem in the 2008 sets? (I don't trust most of the electronic store reps' answers anymore as they either give you a line of B.S. or they don't know, or they outright lie to make the sale.) Last edited by teranova; 09-15-2007 at 03:04 PM.

09-15-2007, 03:27 PM	#2
BobY What's all this, then?... Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,197	Sorry, I'm on the manufacturers' side in this case. This is just people trying to make money off their own ignorance, laziness and impatience. A display having a resolution of 1080p (1920 x 1080, progressive) does not imply that it will accept a 1080p input. The vast majority of HD content is 1080i and any good 1080p display will convert 1080i to 1080p for display. In fact, until Blu-Ray and HD DVD players and the PS3 came out (the initial XBOX 360 did not have 1080p output capability), there were no consumer sources of 1080p signals and the interface chips available at the time these displays were designed were not capable of accepting 1080p inputs. A quick look at the published specs for these products would have shown they only accepted 480i, 480p, 720p and 1080i. If having a 1080p display with a 1080p input is important to you, then check the specs and reviews before buying. You may also want to make sure the display accepts 1080p/24 as well as 1080p/60. You may also want to make sure the display supports a refresh rate that is a multiple of 24 Hz. These are all different features with varying degrees of importance depending on your priorities. Last edited by BobY; 09-15-2007 at 03:32 PM.

09-15-2007, 04:51 PM	#4
unotis UNOTIS Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: FLORIDA Age: 54 Posts: 3,347	I'm with Boby on this. Many of the early 1080p flat panels did not accept 1080p signals but they did accept 1080i signals then de-interlace to display a 1080P picture in their native resolution. If you end up with a 1080p picture what difference does it make? To me it would be like complaining when he bought a vehicle and he specified he wanted to have a 375 hp engine, he assumed it would be a 8 cylinder engine (did not specify that just assumed) but when he looked under the hood it was a V6 that produced 375 hp and the exact same torgue, he said I thought I would get a 375 hp V8 not 375 hp V6! The main thing is he wanted a 375 hp engine with lots of torgue so does it make any difference if it is a V8 or V6 as long the end power and torgue result is the same? He got suprised because he did not check or know and now he is upset because of that and it no longer matters that he is still getting what he wanted in the first place just in a way he didn't realize it could be done. And now he wants to sue the company even after he is told he still gets the 375 hp that he wanted in the first place. I personally don't care how I get it as long as I get it. The TVs are 1080p flat panels because that is what ends up being displayed which is their native resolution. This is a case of ignorance and greed taking over from common sense. Sorry, end of rant! __________________ B&K Audio/Video Receiver 507 Harman/Kardon TC30 universal remote Martin Logan Odyssey speakers Martin Logan Center Channel speaker Velodyne DPS-12 Powered Subwoofer B&W rear speakers Toshiba XA1, XA2, A2 HD DVD players Sony PS3 40 GB Panasonic TH-42PZ700U 1080p plasma Panasonic 34" Tau CT-34WX50 widescreen HD-ready CRT Monster Power Center Motorola Dual Tuner DVR/ HDTV capable Officially PURPLE HD DVDs = 105 Blu-Ray Discs = 45 with 5 on the way Last edited by unotis; 09-15-2007 at 04:59 PM.

09-15-2007, 05:42 PM	#6
pappylap Poopmaster Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Way over Yonder Age: 4 Posts: 2,876	So how many people are going to line up to sue because the 42" Plasma they purchased is 1024X720 and not considered true "high definition". Were they misled? __________________ Bar Wench...Where's my Waffle! You can checkout anytime you like but you can never leave.." 50"Pioneer KURO 111FD Pro Elite Pioneer BD320 Blu-ray player Pioneer VSX-919AH A/V Receiver 32" & 37" Olevia LCDs Sony DHG HDD 500 gig DVR Samsung DTBH260 Digital Tuner One Roll of Charmin Quilted Plus in each Bathroom...

09-15-2007, 09:50 PM	#13
BobY What's all this, then?... Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,197	If the manufacturers actually said the TV's accept a 1080p input when they didn't, then they should be nailed to the wall. I seriously doubt that is what happened, but if you have a link, I'd love to check it out. If you think that is how the legal system works regarding litigation, then you have never been sued. My companies have. Four times. Totally without merit. The first time cost me 7 months of my life consumed with legal proceedings and cost the company several hundred thousand dollars in legal fees that were never recovered. The outcome--"oops, guess we were wrong, sorry". Basically a competitor had sued us for trade secret violations. All they really wanted to do was find out what we were working on, slow us down and make us waste money. Did we want to countersue and spend another 7 months and hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to get our costs back? No, we wanted to get on with our business, not be 14 months behind. The second time, a group of lawyers had gone around buying up old patents, then suing any company who could conceivably be violating those patents. Their hope was the companies would settle out of court for money to avoid costly legal proceedings and since they were lawyers and didn't charge themselves legal fees, there was essentially no cost to them at all. We stonewalled them and they gave up on us, but we later learned a number of our competitors had settled out of court with them. The third time someone sued us claiming we were violating their trademark (despite that fact that we were using a common word which just happened to sound like their trademark). We settled out of court as it was clearly the cheapest solution even though we had done no wrong, but we already had experience winning at litigation and not recovering our legal costs. The fourth time, a customer who refused an exclusive contract with our company, got upset that we were selling one of our OEM products to their competitors for less than what they had contracted for. They claimed we had not negotiated in good faith (it wasn't our fault they were willing to agree to a higher price than their competitors) and demanded several million dollars in compensation. In order to clear the case quickly, the judge, who was annoyed to be bothered with the case, suggested we only pay them half of what they wanted and that should be fair. Say what?-- We didn't owe them anything! The judge was further annoyed that we weren't going for it and rather than risk him punishing us, or sending the case before a jury (who might decide just about anything), we settled out of court. I suspect there are far more fraudulent, abusive litigation cases than those with any merit, simply because most companies will settle out of court for money as it is cheaper than fighting the case, even if you win. And based on capricious judges and juries, there's a reasonable chance you'll lose even if you did nothing wrong. As for the displays--again, without knowing the details, it's hard to comment. It's simply a fact that there was a time when 1080p displays were being produced when it wasn't technically possible for them to have a 1080p input, only to have a 1080i input and de-interlace it inside the set to 1080p. I'd also point out that there are currently sets which accept a 1080p input (and 1080i for that matter) and which don't have 1920 x 1080 pixels and therefore can't display a 1080p image (such as 1024 x 768, 1024 x 1080, 1366 x 768). Should we sue? Why not just read the readily available specs? Do I think that a consumer should research something before buying it? If they're the kind of consumer that cares about what they're buying and are likely to sue someone if they make a wrong choice then, yeah. I do believe in caveat emptor to a certain degree. If someone is deliberately misleading or lieing about their product, that's one thing. If the consumer doesn't understand what they are buying, and are fully capable of learning, then that's their problem and they should learn from the experience. Last edited by BobY; 09-15-2007 at 09:58 PM.

09-15-2007, 03:50 PM	#3
teranova High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 369	[quote=BobY;367448] "A display having a resolution of 1080p (1920 x 1080, progressive) does not imply that it will accept a 1080p input" What you say is true however, on reading the court documents on the two separate cases, the plaintiffs have included direct quotes from both companies' ads that indicate both "Full 1080p HD" sets would accept a 1080p input! I'm neutral as far as being on one side or the other, I just don't want to buy a set that can't accept a 1080p signal. BTW Thanks for your prompt response and info!

09-15-2007, 05:06 PM	#5
Ntruder Defender of Sanity Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wisconsin Posts: 3,239	I have to disagree with both of you guys. I think its intentionally deceitful claiming "True or Full HD" when your set won't accept a 1080p signal. With all these new formats, somebody in the selling chain has to take responsibility to inform the consumers, and the manufacturers are doing everything they can to keep consumers stupid. I wrote a paper in college a couple years ago about the information problem in the high definition television market actually.

09-15-2007, 07:21 PM	#9
billinprinceto High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 1,121	Since "Full HD" is nothing more than a marketing term, I hardly see what difference it makes how any manufacturer uses this phrase. No industry group or regulatory agency has ever indicated any position whatsoever on the use of this phrase. Nor has it ever been employed in the ATSC standards. Sounds like the lawyers are dreaming for some easy money again.

09-15-2007, 10:21 PM	#14
teranova High Definition is the definition of life. Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 369	This reminds me of my buddy who phoned me up all excited about the Hitachi P42401 " Full1080p" plasma set he recently purchased. I looked up the specs and it's a 1080 alright but 1080i, NOT 1080p!.(up until now, I thought flat panel LCDs and Plasmas were always Progressive not Interlaced) Furthermore, its resolution is 1024 X 1080i; not quite Full 1080! When I told him the sad news, he decided to keep it anyway because he got "such a sweet deal." Personally, I think his salesman sold him a bill of goods but that's just my opionion. BobY: I agree there's a lot of frivolous lawsuits. The McDonald's hot coffee suit comes to mind. Then there was the California case were a thief broke into a home and stole a VCR and on his way out, fell into an empty swimming pool and unfortunately for him,became a paraplegic. He sued and won a huge settlement! Here's the case file you requested: http://cache.consumerist.com/assets/..._complaint.pdf Last edited by teranova; 09-15-2007 at 10:40 PM.

09-15-2007, 11:10 PM	#15
BobY What's all this, then?... Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 6,197	What an utter sham! Their complaint is based on their misinterpretation of what a "1080p" display is. All of the manufacturers of 1080p displays at the time would be at fault. There is nothing in the sources they cited in which Toshiba, deliberately or otherwise, led them to believe those displays would accept a 1080p signal and that could easily be determined by simply reading the published specs or brochure. The way you know it's a sham is they claim they paid far more for these "1080p" displays than other displays which were not marketed as "1080p", thinking they were getting a display with 1080p input capability. They did pay more than for a non-1080p display, but that had nothing to do with the input, it was the fact that these displays had 1920 x 1080 pixels, which was state-of-the-art at the time, and the other "non-1080p" displays did not. The cheaper displays weren't marketed as 1080p displays because they didn't have 1920 x 1080 pixels, not because they didn't accept a 1080p input. These guys are either idiots, or scam artists who regret they didn't wait for next years' model and now want Toshiba to fix that. They are asking for triple damages, no doubt to help them finish off their home theater. Either that or they are hoping Toshiba wil settle out of court by giving them a new display and maybe an HD DVD player just to make them go away.

Similar Threads to Mis-leading 1080p ads = lawsuits.
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
1080p: Time For A Reality Check!	TomBo777	Flat-Panel TVs	24	08-11-2007 07:39 AM
1080i signal to 1080P display question	BamaPanda	Flat-Panel TVs	12	06-15-2007 09:42 PM
1080p reality check	lee	HD DVD Players	6	04-24-2006 03:09 PM
What to consider when choosing a HD set.	S0LE_SURVIV0R	The High Definition Lounge	5	02-28-2006 04:18 PM
1080P HYPE...reality check time	TomBo777	Rear-Projection TVs	12	09-26-2005 12:22 AM