Quote Originally Posted by pixelthis
I agree with you, and not sir talky, who as usual doesnt have a clue.
SUING is a matter of doing business, and vizio has caused some ill will.
ITS KINDA HARD to sell a 42in lcd set for two grand plus when a vizio can be had for a grand, sometimes with a better picture.
Whenever a manufacturer offers a decent product at a decent price, those who would want to trade on their "name", who think their product should cost two prices because
of the name on it rush to the attack.
NOT that I care, I have a nice set with DVDO scaling and a zero bright pixel guarentee,
and I love it, it looks great.
This sort of thing has been going on forever, using govt force to quell a competetor
when you cant compete.
PRETTY MUCH LIKE WHAT HAPPENED with Tucker motor,
or the way RCA tried to get FM radio outlawed when it first came out
If this was nothing more than big brother picking on little brother, then Apex and Cyberhome would still be here. This is a case of a company selling cheap underperforming televisions without the necessary liscenses, which by the way allow them to undercut the majors who pay their liscensing fees.

When it comes to PQ, Vizio is always at the bottom of the pile. Why, because vizio televsions lose 75% of their resolution when objects move. That is more loss than any CRT based televsion, and more than other brand of flat panels as well. They are at the top of list with flat panels with high light leakage(hence the low contrast ratio), and they cannot fully resolve 720p even with a DVDO(because the panel is the issue, not the processing). That is neither here nor there though, because the bottom line here is that it is clear they have not paid their liscensing fees, and using the same argument that Apex and Cyberhome used is not going to help them at all.