__/ [ Jim ] on Saturday 17 March 2007 16:54 \__
> Jim came up with this when s/he headbutted the keyboard a moment ago in
> comp.os.linux.advocacy:
>
>> Five By Five came up with this when s/he headbutted the keyboard a moment
>> ago in comp.os.linux.advocacy:
>>
>>>
>>> I have some commercial scientific software for which our institute paid
>>> something like $20,000. So bad is it that it fails to save data
> properly,
>>> causing loss of user time (and therefore money). Thus it is costing more
>>> than the $20,000. Not only do I believe the software was not beta-
>>> tested, it was not even alpha-tested. The software was written in Java
>>> and requires the JRE, but I hardly think Java is to blame. The software
>>> behaves in way that has all the indications of building up massive memory
>>> leaks. Indeed the one workaround I have found is close the application
>>> and re-open after a "while." This behavior is very much like Windows
> 95.
>>>
>>> The software provided by this company built for Windows XP and AIX (not
>>> sure about Linux).
>>>
>>> My question is when does a transaction for the hand over of cash for
>>> software become civil "fraud", perhaps criminal fraud, or at least
>>> actionable.
>>>
>>> That is despite the standard legal document attached which may be some
>>> kind of user purchase or license agreement.
>>>
>>> I mean, if I hand over $20,000 cash and the company just hands over a CD
>>> with a single text file saying "you agree to hand us over $20,000 for
> this
>>> CD," and no software on it at all, and you look for the office of the
>>> company and see a vacant place, you've been de-frauded in my opinion.
>>>
>>> But suppose a software company (Microsoft, whatever) has been rushed by
>>> the boss to get the code on CD without so much as any alpha- or beta-
>>> testing, and the software has no value and wastes your time...what are
>>> your recourses in the justice system.
>>>
>>> Just because a company tries to tell you that it is not liable for this
>>> and that does not make it so, especially when there is public law that
> may
>>> say otherwise, and which trumps any no-liability statement.
>>
>> In UK law, any item (be it hardware or software) must do what it says on
> the
>> tin. This is according to the sale of goods and services act and the trade
>> descriptions act, both of which entitle the client to a full refund should
>> the contrary prove to be the case. For example, if I see in a car brochure
>> the claim that a car does 200 miles to the gallon, I buy it and find three
>> weeks down the road that I've only been getting 28 miles to the gallon, I
>> would be entitled to my money back - in full, notwithstanding the fact
> that
>> I've had it three weeks. Normally the period for a no-quibble refund (ie
>> the item isn't faulty, the reason could simply be "surplus to
>> requirements") would be seven days, an intrinsic fault 28 days, and a
>> developed fault 180 days. After the 28-day period the decision would lie
>> with the vendor as to offer a repair or a refund. The same would hold true
>> for software (I'd quote case law but I'm not arsed with Google right now).
>>
>> Discl.: IANAL.
>
> addendum: contrary to what the MS EULA claims, and contrary to what the
> adverts claim, MS Vista does not do what it says on the tin hence is
> actionable under the same two acts: I could give you a list of names of
> people who have taken action against DSG for selling them laptops with
> Vista on, that didn't work with printers, MFDs, DVD software, fax machines,
> scanners, wireless cards.... all brand new stock that they bought when they
> bought the notebooks.
> Go figure.
5 By 5, see the discussion here:
=== Begin quote ==
"The cost of these steps could reduce our operating margins. Despite
these efforts, actual or perceived security vulnerabilities in our
products could lead some customers to seek to return products, to reduce
or delay future purchases, or to use competing products. Customers may
also increase their expenditures on protecting their existing computer
systems from attack, which could delay adoption of new technologies. Any
of these actions by customers could adversely affect our revenue. In
addition, actual or perceived vulnerabilities may lead to claims against
us. While our license agreements typically contain provisions that
eliminate or limit our exposure to such liability, there is no assurance
these provisions will be held effective under applicable laws and
judicial decisions."
Ah, from the horse's mouth: Microsoft just might be held legally responsible
for selling software that is insecure.
== End quote ==
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20061122235224396
For for it's worth, some people have returned their copies of Vista and other
goods. They were successful. As for compensation, it's a hard gig. Also look
at the waiver/prenup (READ: EULA). Even with stuff like OneCare which
deletes your mail, one is unlikely to get away with something. Class action
may be the one route if you intend to face a giant whose hard foundation is
marketing and acquisition (software is 'produced' through acquitions,
according to a senior Softie from the UK).
--
~~ Best wishes
The Intel-Dell-MS oligopoly/treo can be weakened by competition (Freedom)
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
12:00am up 6 days 8:03, 7 users, load average: 0.78, 0.71, 0.37
http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
|
|
