This was one of those things that when I first saw it happening, knew it was going to be trouble.  And sure enough, it went to court.

Now, I’m of two minds on this.

On the one hand, Microsoft clearly made their stupid Windows Vista Basic level far below what every other version of Windows Vista could run.  It was a clear and obvious ploy to put “Windows Vista Capable” logos onto machines far below actual Windows Vista capability.  And in all fairness, I think that Microsoft deserves some kind of slap on the wrist for that.

Was this done for Intel’s sake though?  I don’t know.  Really.  I’m glad I’m not the one who has to decide that.

I can see it.  Don’t get me wrong.  But I can also see a desperate Microsoft, willing to do anything to replace Windows XP.  And willing to do a lot to break into markets typically dominated by low costs, piracy, or a bit of both with a low-cost low-requirement version of Windows Vista.  Let no market go without a fight.

And so, by that very argument, I can almost see a legitimate market for Windows Vista Basic.

Almost.

But most certainly, Windows Vista Basic’s tie-in with the Windows Vista Capable logo branding machine was a very bad choice.  It created a lot of half-truths that ignorant consumers could find confusing.

And there’s the real rub.

What ignorant consumer spends so much money on a computer without even trying to research their purchase, and then has any right at all to complain when they foolishly spent their money?  Even the tiniest bit of research into the requirements for Windows Vista Basic and every other version of Windows Vista would have shed millions of watts of illumination.  (I know, watts isn’t technically the right term.  More like lumen, candel, lux, et cetera.)

So is Microsoft in the wrong for the confusing labeling?  Or is the consumer at fault for not even trying to understand something that was clearly documented?  I believe in protecting consumers.  I really do.  But somewhere you do have to draw a line.  At some point you do have to say, “Beyond this point, you the consumer were just not doing your own due diligence, and thus on your own head your foolishness be.”  I mean the phrase “caveat emptor” has survived so long for a reason.  Microsoft may have made a slightly confusing system, but it was far from obfuscated, so could one really call it misleading?

But deeper than this, is also the question, was Intel actually directly involved?  That, I find all that much harder to decide.  Because, as I already noted, there were legitimate reasons for Microsoft to create Windows Vista Basic.  It may have been bad form to call it Vista.  It certainly was ill advised to include this level of Windows Vista into the Windows Vista Capable program.  But even if Intel were in some way involved (and why woudln’t they be, being the largest PC CPU and motherboard chipset manufacturer by far in a PC operating system issue) are they really culpable in any of the damages?  Even the same system that gave Intel the(fair or unfair) “advantage” to labelling underpowered systems as Windows Vista Capable also gave companies like AMD and Via the same advantage.

So I’m glad that I’m not involved in the trial.  Because it’s certainly a mess.

I think it’s fair to say that Microsoft deserves at least some kind of slap on the wrist.  Possibly even more so.

Less sure though am I of Intel’s culpability in the debacle.

One thing is however certain in my mind, and that is that consumers should not get off without their own slap.  It really was not that confusing.  And it was clearly documented.  All that a consumer had to do was care enough to do five minutes worth of web surfing.  If that.  It was all right there, out in the open.  It would be like buying a car with a deisel engine and then complaining that it wouldn’t run on unleaded.  Or that it sometimes has problems starting in cold weather.  There’s still a certain level of onus upon the buyer.  There are plenty of misleading things going on every day.  This, in my opinion, barely qualifies.  The only difference is that this has a nice big target on it, Microsoft.  So I don’t think this is so much about the actual issue as it is about the cha-ching!

Good morning boys and girls. Today we have a story that only the insanity of California can bring to the world. I swear California is the state where sanity and logic go to die. It’s a state to hell, paved with all manner of good intentions. And here’s just one more example.

Richard Treanor and his wife, Carolyn Bissett, have a lovely home in California, a home with not just any foliage, but eight majestic redwood trees that provide their hot California home with plenty of free cooling shade as well as awesome beauty and carbon-trapping greenness. They love Mother Earth. They drive a Prius. Who could ask for more from their neighbors?

Well, Mark Vargas can. You see, according to him he loves Mother Earth even more. He doesn’t just want to keep up with the Jonses, he wants to outdo them. So he drives an electric car. And he installed a $70,000 solar system on his house.

Full well knowing his neighbors had eight redwoods.

And when the obvious became the inevitable, and those redwoods began to block the sunlight to his solar panels, he took his neighbors to court, demanding they cut down their trees. Because, you know, it’s their fault that he built his solar panels in shade.

Now, in any sane land, the trees being located on the sole parcel of property of Richard and Carolyn, and not growing over any property lines, it would be a clear cut and dry case of, “Mark Vargas, you’re a flipping idiot.” And in that it was quite clear this would happen (redwoods being redwoods) since the trees were there long before Vargas installed his solar panels, it really should make it more of a case of, “Mr. Vargas, you’re a f___ing idiot! Get this s__t out of my court!”

But alas, this is California we’re talking about: The land where sanity never makes a comeback and everyone is entitled to being “special”. A land where thirty years ago they passed an obscure little piece of legislation called The Solar Shade Control Act. This inane law requires homeowners to keep their trees or shrubs from shading more than ten percent of a neighbor’s solar panels during the strongest sun time: between ten a.m. and two p.m. Now, existing trees that cast shadows when the panels are installed are exempt. However, any new growth is subject to this law, regardless of that new growth being on existing trees or new ones.

So after years of battling this in court, Richard and Carolyn have finally been court-ordered to cut down two of their glorious redwood trees. All because Mark Vargas is a douche bag who put solar panels on his home, knowing full well that his neighbors existing trees would block the sun to them, and then sued his neighbors, in a state where they’ve gone plum environ-mental*.

And thusly did Mark Vargas and only Mark Vargas live happily ever after. Where the stick up his a__ is apparently even bigger than two redwoods and provides him with his very own high horse to ride in on everywhere he goes.

* Environ-mental was coined by the loverly lads and lasses at Vulture Central.