As we are all well aware, there appear to be efforts afoot by GB to reach an accommodation with the N680i board owners concerning the failure of that board to perform as advertised. And we are all also aware of all the screaming and bitching that had to occur on this Forum, and a few other places as well, that caused Anandtech to make a critical assessment of GB's customer support (or lack thereof) concerning the failed N680i board. All of that is history, and well documented on this Thread and its companion Thread on this Forum. So, we really don't need to rehash all of the unfortunate history, day after day.
GB has offered, among a few other resolution options, to replace the failed N680i board with a new GA-X48-DQ6 board - even swap. As I noted in an earlier posting, that particular option will result in the loss of SLI function, since that feature is not presently available with an Intel chipset. Otherwise, that swap is fairly comparable. A few other members have indicated a possible other solution being discussed, namely, awaiting the arrival of the N790i boards due to an absolute need for SLI, but also realizing the need to purchase replacement DDR3 memory sticks (since DDR2 is not supported by that chipset). That may become an additional option, going forward.
Now to the issue at hand. Mr. KillerG appears to be unsatisfied with the options for resolution being tended by GB, which, of course, is his right. It is also Mr. KillerG's right to initiate whatever legal action he chooses to engage to seek relief for the failed N680i board that he has. There is no question that he has those legal rights as a citizen of the State of Washington. And once initiated, the various agencies in WA will review those claims and take whatever action may be appropriate, including calling GB to answer those claims. Quite honestly, on the issue of false advertising, the claims are a sure winner - there's little doubt about that.
However, and unfortunately for GB, that's not all that they have to be concerned about. If the authorities in WA were to determine that GB's actions in the matter were either "knowing" or "reckless" then certain types of serious, class-based, remedial actions could be utilized to cause GB to "cure" the harm caused by its actions (or inactions), and sometimes those remedial actions can be quite painful for an errant manufacturer. Now it is equally obvious to me, that GB is reducing the "pool" of known unhappy N680i board owners by these recent proposed accommodations, by offering these swaps, and thereby reaching what the law calls "accord and satisfaction." In most jurisdictions, the acceptance of an accommodation such as the ones currently being offered by GB, would bar the owner of a N680i board from seeking additional relief.
However, those instances of individual resolution do not bar the State of Washington, or any other jurisdiction with similar consumer protection laws, from itself going after GB on account of alleged violations of various types of unfair trade practices statutes. The right of the State of Washington to pursue a global remedy is distinct from the individual rights for just relief of the individual owners. All the foregoing discussion does not affect an individual's right to seek to initiate a class-based civil action against GB for violation of some trade practices laws, and if granted class status by a Court, that plaintiff owner (and the law firm that represents him/her) would be permitted to represent the interest of the entire class. That type of litigation is very lengthy and expensive to pursue, but can be very costly to a manufacturer (if the plaintiff prevails), in certain situations.
So I suppose it all distills down to what an aggrieved party wants from a manufacturer such as GB in this type of scenario. If the person just wants to be made reasonably whole, then some form of accommodation between the individual owner and GB is a preferable method of resolution. On the other hand, if the aggrieved owner wants his/her "Pound of Flesh" (Shakespeare, The Merchant of Venice - Bargain of Shylock), then the true object is revenge and not relief. It is sometimes necessary to seek a Pound of Flesh from an opposing party on account of their unwillingness to be reasonable in reaching a balanced settlement of a dispute. And, of course "reasonable" is a relative word and concept, depending on all of the circumstances in a particular situation.
So Mr. KillerG, a fair question to you is what are you seeking? Are you looking for a reasonable accommodation from GB which will provide you relief from the failed aspects of the N680i board? Or are you looking for a Pound of Flesh. The former you can likely get from GB by engaging in some civil discourse with the GB reps. It is beyond question that these Threads and Mr. Gary's outstanding article have certainly procured GB's serious attention - so the forum of resolution is in place. On the other hand if you want revenge - but remember, "Revenge Is Mine Saith The Lord" (Romans 12:19) - then the legal route is the only recourse.
A number of members/posters, myself included, were/are very vocal advocates for the individual and collective rights of the N680i board owners, and we brought pressure to bear on this Forum and other places as well, to finally "get the attention" of GB. Now that that attention has been obtained, the dialog has begun, and some progress has been made - that's the very nature of these types of disputes. In a perfect world, we would all hope that a giant corporation such as GB would have been an exemplary good corporate citizen as soon as it knew one its products has failed to deliver as promised. But that's a bit of fantasy. Unfortunately GB's middle managers chose to basically stonewall and ignore the issues with the failed N680i board, until it reached a level that it was about to explode and cause some serious harm to GB's business interests and give GB's competitor's a potential business advantage, resulting in a real potential for loss of market share. That's what really got GB's attention, when it was about to hit them in the pocketbook. Those responsible for this fiasco within the GB structure ought to have been significantly disciplined, if not fired for exposing the corporation to this kind of grief - but those are decisions that GB must make.
In summary, those owners who want a replacement accommodation from GB as their chosen form of relief should pursue that route. Those who want a Pound of Flesh, should sharpen up their knives, and march off to war. Good Luck to Everyone, whichever road you choose to travel.
Facebook
Twitter