Slashdot Mirror
PC "Lemon Law" Bill Introduced In Pennsylvania
wmperkins writes: "Fox News had this article about a new law in Pennsylvania where consumers might soon have the law on their side when battling frustrating computer glitches. State Rep. T.J. Rooney, D-Lehigh/Northampton, has introduced the nation's first computer lemon law." What Rooney's introduced is only a bill at this point, but if it does become law it would require that "computers found to be defective within two years of purchase must be repaired, replaced or refunded," at least for Pennsylania residents. With systems as complex and interconnected as computers are, this seems to me more like a feel-good measure than a real benefit -- if a component claims to be up-to-date but doesn't work with Linux, can I sue?
PLEASE NO!!!
If I was a system vendor, I'd probably stop selling computers in PA if the law went through. Like most computer companies, I would make sure the customer had working kit, but I would not bend over backwards to do it. Nobody replaces hundreds of dollars of equipment just because you say "it's broken", and when you have a problem, you ARE going to need to spend some time waiting for an analyst -- you're waiting for a SKILLED person, and there aren't a lot of them, especially for the coin that a system vendor can pay.
If the Pennsylvania legislature had any idea what goes on at the average tech support hotline, they'd change their minds really fast. It's challenging enough to deal with lusers without having the law involved.
I registered my hate for Jon Katz
--
--
Have good ideas? Want good ideas? ShouldExist.org
A company can set what kind of warranty they want to put on a machine. Typically a household appliance only carries a 1 year warranty. Higher end computer equipment, like my Armada M700, carry a 3 year warranty. But to keep costs down, the low end lines, i.e. Presario, Pavillion, and Aptiva, all have one year warranties. If the PC is out of warranty, you have to pay for repair, but if it is within warranty, the OEM should and is legally bound to repair it to full operation. I should know, I work for one of the largest computer vendors in the world.
Also people should keep in mind that statistaclly speaking a computer will only have one failure within its intended life, if you get that right out of the box, you're in luck actually, statistaclly speaking.
AMI does not provide an update, but they do offer to sell me one of their boards for $80.
[RANT]
Didn't they know Y2k was comming?
[RANT]
Fight Spammers!
Obviously, your economics courses were not covered by a lemon law.
Free and open markets require informed buyers and informed sellers. If something is sold as a working computer, it should be a working computer, and Joe Consumer should not be the one to unknowingly absorb the risk.
And that's exactly why Mr. Customer won't buy anything from you.
Customers have every right to expect manufacturers to stand behind their products. Excellent customer service makes customers happy, and in turn, generates more customers, who in turn are made happy by receiving excellent customer service...(the pattern continues.)
If you're not willing to bend over backwards to satisfy your consumers, they're going to find other places that will. Believe me, they're out there - any successful business owner will tell you that 90% of the success is due to good customer service.
Nobody replaces hundreds of dollars of equipment just because you say "it's broken"
Anyone who does, is a fool. That's usually why manufacturers have you ship the item back to them so they can have a look at it. Nobody out there declares something "broken" just because the user thinks so.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
I have done PC hardware warranty support for a few years for a couple of different companies and covering a lot of different brands of computers, and the sad fact is that if the system works in its 'original configuration' meaning you format the harddrive and run the restore disk they gave you with the system, then the support guys can pat themselves on the back for a job well done.
For a long time Creative Labs had only a 90 day warranty, counting their CD-ROM drives, sound cards, everything. I don't know if anything is different.
That was one reason I totally returned a defective CD-ROM drive that I bought from them a year or so ago.
Herein we find the root of the error of your reasoning: you rightly recognize the need for large-scale organization, but you believe that only government can provide it.
Actually, I think private standards bodies are a good thing, especially in industries that don't deal with life or death situations (not the pharmaceutical or medical professions, obviously).
Most importantly, though, is the nanny-state attitude that most citizens have: "the gub'r'ment will take care of us! we don't have to look out for ourselves."
Here's one of the areas where our fundamental views differ; I take it (and I apologize if I'm mistaken) that you're a libertarian, as this is one of those terms that seems to be in the standard libertarian arsenal. I've always preferred "statist" to "non-statist"; while it's meant as an insult, it doesn't have the slant that "nanny state" does.
To me this country is not a "nanny state"; that implies a lack of control that I don't think exists. If I try to eat food that hasn't been regulated by the FDA, I don't have federal health inspectors breaking into my house and wrestling it out of my hands. If I decide to take herbal remedies the Surgeon General doesn't send agents to my house to stop me. The FDA limitations on experimental drugs are another thing, but I agree totally with you that the rules governing them should be made more permissive.
I have a contract with my government. I pay my taxes, and I expect those taxes to be spent a certain way. I expect the FDA to test my drugs and food; I expect the Surgeon General's office to make recommendations as to my health. The government may be inefficient, overly bureacratized, and slow, but I'd rather have them conduct testing than private companies, mainly because I feel they are both more objective, and more prone to err on the side of caution.
I didn't sign this contract, but I endorse it by living in this country and taking advantage of it. If I wanted no part of it I'd move to a less restrictive place. Just as nature abhors a vacuum, so does a free market. Supply grows to meet demand... The free market is a "magical black box" which produces all good things without an outside controlling organization.
This is the other fundamental point on which we disagree. It's been consistently shown that the freer a market, the more liable consumers are to abuse. Whether it's the railroad companies in the 1800s using variable pricing schemes to squeeze out every dollar they could, to Japanese electronics companies flooding the US market with below-cost goods then driving up prices once the competitors were gone, to Microsoft driving competitors out of the market, to Savings and Loans going under because they made obviously bad loans to 3rd world dictators, business without oversight has been consistently shown to end in harm.
A central libertarian/anti-government mistake is, I feel, the premise that government takes control out of spite or in an attempt to grab power. The regulations in this country sprang up piecemeal in response to specific problems. Maybe they've grown too much, and maybe they're too encompassing, but it wasn't a product of some malevolent government official, but rather 300 years of (usually well-intentioned) lawmaking.
I'm not saying the system is perfect; far from it. I just think the alternatives are worse. And while I have major problems with the way the government has done a lot of things, I recognize that some form of central government is needed. I tend to defend more than most people mainly to avoid the hypocrisy that a sizeable chunk of our population participates in; the "there oughta be a law" crowd that later turns around and criticizes how large the government has grown. At least I (and my libertarian opponents) are consistent.
--
After all, a democracy can be a totalitarian state in which your only freedom is for whom to vote, if a majority decides that's the way it should be.
The majority is as dumb as the average person, so effectively, it is roughly equivalent to being ruled by a monarch of average intelligence, who is prohibited from referring to himself in his legislation. So if he want to make a law for his own benefit, he has to vote that benefit for everyone like him.
The majority don't have enough money for all the health-care they want, so they vote to make it "free". Sure, they still don't get all the health-care they want, but at least nobody else can buy more than them, and they don't have to worry about which insurance plan they should buy. Ughh, God I hate them, they sell out my rights for their convenience.
I'd never live in a country where the power of the democracy wasn't limited by an acceptable constitution.
Right now, most limit personal economic freedom so severely that I'd prefer anarchy. I'm getting off this dirtball ASAP.
It costs nothing,
TANSTAAFL; everyone pays for it in their taxes, and in higher prices due to having to comply with regulations.
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
Lesson learned here. Don't even jokingly insult the /. gods (i.e. Linus).
ÕÕ
If there is one thing I learned from my economics classes, it's that the U.S. has forever been built on a FREE and OPEN market.
For all of you snotty-nosed trolls, this means that there is open competition to help thwart these kinds of problems. Ultimately, you get what you pay for. If you buy a computer with a one year warranty (or no warranty at all), that's exactly what you get, damnit. If you want a two year warranty, buy from someone who offers such.
I will be very disappointed if this becomes a law. It effectively creates a government mandated warranty of two years. So, if you want to sell products in PA, you had better be ready to provide a two year warranty. God forbid we actually look at the real world, but there is actually a market for cheap computers that come with no warranty. Whatever mom and pop stores there are in PA, will be forced to provide a two year warranty whether they want to or not. So, this is actually a boost for big corps like Dell and Gateway. They can easy afford a two year warranty, while some smaller shops cannot.
So in the end, the government is forcing businesses to provide services they may not wish to provide, and the business has every right to not provide these services if they so choose. If this bill passes, the government will have chipped off a piece of the free enterprise system that has made America great.
-- Grow up and use mutt.
Think about all of the people who tales everything that happens to their computers as a sign that its crapping out.
I work on computers for a living. and we get alot of computers from places like Circuit City, and Best Buy from people who have no clue what is going on. Alot of the problems are reports that the mouse stops working (It needed to be cleaned, or replaced. or simply they are moving it around when the computer is busy) or like, 'I got a bad sector error when I ran scandisk. I want a new HD (even though the error only amounts to 1k lost on a 3.2gb disk)
The point is that If you tell the people that you cant fix it, or that it is something that happens to computers. then they get all offensive and start calling channel whatever on you side, and your local consumer advocate and saying that they were ripped off.
Imagine how people will then attempt to point to tiny things that are normal as a sign of a lemon PC. (it hung on shutdown, so its a lemon. I got a bad sector, so its a lemon. It wont read my old cds, so its bad) Before a goverment starts making laws about lemon PCs, they better take great care in noting what does and does not make a lemon PC.
But who the hell buys from local vendors anyways. They don't stock anything they just order from Ingram. Besides even *paying* the shipping for next day service, you beat the price ordering from an out of state supplier.
Tax?? we don't pay no stinkin sales tax.....
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Writing off an entire state because you don't like a law is something you do only if the law is going to make you go bankrupt. Otherwise you stay in the state and lobby to have the law repealed or have the teeth cut out of the enforcement.
This is not the way to build a lasting empire.
Usually because some mindless twit has decreed that "Our Office runs on Windoze, get over it." as I was told when I mentioned that Windoze was not sufficently stable to process an entire video file without crashing, and that I am running it on a Mac.
If the computer lemon law is written like the automotive one I could have a new computer for life. After a year and a half I would start calling support complaining about how the computer just shuts off all by it's self at random times and I loose all my work (pull the plug so the app logs show this). Send in the computer for repair. This is where it gets interesting in lemon law, Insist that you want the computer repaired and not exchanged. Let them fix something, anything. When they have made any repair they have acknowledged a defect. Send the computer in two more times and now you have an official lemon. Ask for your refund and get your Moors law upgrade. This stuff happens all the time at car dealers. Some law offices specialize in it. I know one customer on his 4th new suburban in 6 years.
The article cites that if the computer, scanner or software or other components fail, the law would apply.
IANALBIP1OTv, the proposed law appears to be a 'whole body' warranty...that is, if you buy the computer system, then it is covered by the proposed law in its entirety.
If the modem doesn't work, it gets replaced, fixed or refunded. If the pre-loaded software makes the system crash, you're covered.
Astute readers will notice the 'between the lines' part of this...the proposed law will cover what's on the machine at the time of purchase.
Reformat the drive and load Linux, and you've voided the software component of the warranty, though the hardware portion will likely still be in effect.
So...order your system with Linux pre-installed, and it should be covered. Go back to the same dealer and have them install any upgrades, and you should be able to continue to be covered.
It looks like a good effort; the practice if its passed and signed into law will be very interesting to watch.
"Eustace? Eustace? Are you there? Are you there?" = John Leeming
"computers found to be defective within two years of purchase must be repaired, replaced or refunded,"
Am I the only one who thinks that within two years, the thing will be obsolete anyway? I don't think they usually sell the same computer models for two years. Can obsolesence be considered a form of defect? Then a repair is an upgrade and replace means get a brand new computer. Somehow I don't think the computer retailers will see it this way...
My computer is mostly* older than 2 years, though, so I guess I disprove my own point...
*My computer is cobbled together from parts of differing ages, oldest going back to ~1992, newest in 1999.
--
Seeing is believing; You wouldn't have seen it if you didn't believe it.
A law like this would likely have the same effect it's had on the auto industry... Any non-OEM parts installed can immediately void the warranty at any dealer's discretion. Buy a computer, upgrade the video card, and have the motherboard go sour, then they could say "you're not using our parts, too bad".
While I like the idea as far as it goes for replacing systems with intermittant hardware failures, any quality manufacturer or retailer already has a good customer service policy for this. My fear would be that all new computer purchasers would have to pay for the currently-optional extra year of hardware warranty coverage.
Both of my parents recently bought new computers... My Mom got a pretty fast Micron and my Dad got a near-top-end Dell. My Mom got approximately 20 hours free tech support to resolve some hardware compatibility issues (her scanner cause the whole computer to flake out until she got the drivers and resources figured out), and my Dad's wouldn't post so Dell immediately sent him a new computer without requiring him to first send back the original computer.
I fail to see how a lemon law could have further helped either of them, since both companies responded immediately and appropriately to get them up and running. Over the last 4 years, they both previously owned Gateway computers, and between the two of them they got over $800 in free parts under warranty (hard drives, power supplies, etc.) A lemon law certainly wouldn't have helped there either.
Sure - Rare if you get yourself a computer that is built well. However, Joe Computer is going to buy himself that spiffy Compaq he's had his eye on. Compaq is NOTORIOUS for shoddy computer equipment. (I speak from experience.)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
Exactly. This sounds a law dreamed up by politicians without any 'expert' advice. They should seek help in the professional community. Both the professional computer community, and the psychiatrist community.
- Justin
I think he means the manufacturer who claims to 'support Linux' and doesn't really.
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.
Most tech support and customer service from "computer stores" is crap anyway. Why would I want to pay extra for the privilege of calling up a manufacturer only to have them tell me that they don't know anything about getting the 2.4 kernel running on their hardware, and what is the 2.4 kernel anyway?
Basically, I want to buy stuff from a warehouse. And I'll bet there's a lot of people reading slashdot that feel the same way.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
It's been consistently shown that the freer a market, the more liable consumers are to abuse.
I think your confusing incompetent management with a free market.
Each of your examples is caused by incompetent government intervention:
Whether it's the railroad companies in the 1800s using variable pricing schemes to squeeze out every dollar they could,
Not everyone with money can lay rail. The government granted and enforced monopolies on rail-lines in certain places, which was naturally a bad thing for consumers.
In those cases where there is a natural monopoly, like rail or power lines, the government should retain ownership and rent their use to the highest bidder (they should also contract out construction and maintenance). That's the true free market solution here (and it's a better way for gov't to earn their money than taxing).
Look at Manitoba Hydro (in Canada) for a prime example of a natural monopoly owned by the government and run well. Okay, they should be renting more things out, and contracting more jobs out, but they luckily had some very sensible and competent bureaucrats so it worked anyway. Too bad such things are a crap shoot; if every gov't endeavor could be done this competently, I'd be a socialist (I was when I was younger and prone to thinking of how best to run the world if someone competent was in charge and everyone was pulling together for the common good... before I realized that those basic assumptions are totally backwards).
to Japanese electronics companies flooding the US market with below-cost goods then driving up prices once the competitors were gone,
Were they truly intentionally selling them at a loss? I doubt it. This was just the standard Jap-bashing propaganda line to justify protectionist tariffs.
America has more capital than Japan, and some of the best high-tech workers in the world. It isn't some two-bit banana republic that can't afford to ride out product dumping or build new factories to re-enter a profitable market.
Prices do fluctuate in a free market. That's the natural order of things. Low prices drive some out of business, high prices bring more into business. Any amount that stops this fluctuation does so by holding the prices high, and screwing the buyers.
to Microsoft driving competitors out of the market,
Poorly written IP laws. Copyright shouldn't grant total control over distribution in this age of instant near-free copying, only the right to set a price the holder must be paid per copy made.
IP law is an unnecessary government interference in the free market. Here is an essay that covers why I don't think IP law is necessary for software.
The ownership of copies as if they were physical objects is acceptable, but the ownership of the monopoly right of making copies, to do with as one wills, is insane. This behavior isn't analogous to any real property. All forced monopolies, like natural monopolies, should be owned by the government, and legal copies of copyrighted work (really just permission to make physical copies) should be sold by the government, with proceeds going to the copyright holder. Furthermore, copyright term should be limited to five years. If you aren't going to make your money back in five years, you won't write it for the money. These aren't the days of giant, expensive printing presses anymore.
If government's going to interfere, it should keep its interference under it's own control, not just hand over their power of violent enforcement to be wielded in whatever manner the IP "owner" sees fit.
to Savings and Loans going under because they made obviously bad loans to 3rd world dictators,
Yes, some companies are run incompetently. Some people invest poorly. Tough.
Regulation hasn't, and never will, guarantee any return on (or of) your investment.
business without oversight has been consistently shown to end in harm.
I don't see that at all. Regulation without foresight consistently causes harm.
Other evil government interference in the free market:
corporations- corporations are not natural, they are creatures of the government that have greater power than individuals in many ways and are used for securing individual profit without individual responsibility. You should not be able to buy voting stock in a company without being personally responsible for all actions of that company.
public schooling- Incompetent government bureaucracy given an important task combined with the government indoctrination of our children. How much worse can a deal get? I remember grade school as the greatest waste of time in my life, and I believe that the chosen course material forms most of the political opinions of the masses.
income tax- The more you earn, the more you pay, in fact, the higher a portion of your earnings you pay! An insane disincentive to profit and productivity.
With gaping holes like these in the boat, adding other regulations atop them to fix the problems they cause is akin to drilling holes in the other side of the boat so it sinks evenly instead of overturning.
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
so does that mean every time my computer blue screens microsoft owes me money
lose != loose
Granted a reputable firm will recall its defective products and supply or compensate the users (such as Intel did, not that I am a fan of Intel's), but I can also envision other circumstances where the liability is more diffuse and the defect more nebulous than that case.
more like a shank to kill off all the mom and pop computer stores with windows did this and windows did that give me money or ill sue you, i personaly have never had much problems with computer hardware and waht problems i did have there manufacturer warranty took care of, so i dont see much need for such legislation
lose != loose
So, seeing as how CompUSA is actually somewhat enlightened about return policies, I took it back, got a different brand card, installed it and its drivers, and now the Micro$oft driver DOES recognize my camera.
Query: Was this a hardware or a software problem? Please tell me how the lovely legislation protects me (obviously I don't NEED protection, since CompUSA, despite incredibly an incredibly inefficient return desk, did allow me to return/exchange the item in question).
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Yes, that's the same dork next door who has been told that if his kids don't get computer experience, they won't have a very promising future too look forward to. So he goes out and drops some bucks that were most likely earmarked for next months electric bill on a $800 PC only to find out his modem gets fried the next week, or his monitor goes on the blink.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
remind us all why you stuck with a compaq laptop? i hope it was only because pc connection wasn't willing to give you one of some other manufacturer's model...
eudas
Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed.
I am sure Dell can find a way to pass that problem on to microsoft (ms supply the buggy os, not Dell.) The worst case for this might be the end of preloaded windows in Pennsylvania.
Consumer "protection" is interference.
Of course it's interference. Doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad thing.
This isn't protection from the seller lying about the product, this is protection from their own bad choices, like seat-belt laws and anti-drug laws. It's government saying, "We know what's good for you better than you do." and forcing their opinion of what's good for you on you whether you like it or not.
What "bad choices"? So I -HAVE- to buy from a large, well-known company? Most computer retailers list their components in detail. If I buy a P3 that's really a falsely marked P2, how is that a "bad choice"?
It's wrong in principle, even if it improves results for thousands of stupid or careless people
It's wrong in principle? How? Is it wrong in principle when the FDA "interferes" with drug companies by examining their product before it allowing it to go on the market? Or forcing food companies to maintain some standard of quality control? How about when the EPA "interferes" with corporations pouring toxic chemicals into our rivers? Alright, enough of a rant, I guess seeing the automatic "any government interference is bad" reaction on slashdot for so long has gotten to me...
Even a lot of libertarians seem to think that one of the few purposes of a government is to make sure contracts are honored, and that's all that this law is doing. It's saying that if you have a warranty, it must be honored; that's all. It doesn't apply to non-warrantied computers.
--
ÕÕ
Don't you love it when two "Score: 2" people have a long conversation with each other that gradually gets more and more off-topic?
you know...we should take your inferrence just one step further and kill all butterflies.
.com's - the only real cash that was lost was venture capital.
why?
well, we all know about chaos theory, and the "butterfly" effect. So, suppose a butterfly in Zimbabwe gets riled up and starts flapping it's wings. It runs into an elephants nose accidentally, which causes the elephant to go berzerk, thusly causing a stampede of elephants. This, in turn, causes a stampede of enormous magnitude over the african plains, creating a gust of wind that, by the time it reaches the US coast, is a full blown storm. Many computer related industry workers take the day off...and this storm, in some very small way, affects the thinking paterns of IBM's manufacturing plant work-force.
Over the next several weeks, the plant makes poorly built hard drives (which probably wouldn't have happened if not for the storm). Eventually these hard drives fail, and we're back to where your point comes in. failure, medicare, etc. etc.
So you see, in my opinion....fuck the butterflies. Those bastards deserve to die!!
btw - the money that melissa or ILOVEYOU cost companies wasn't taken directly out of workers' insurance payments...it was taken out of profit. And being that about 50% of companies that were affected by these virii were
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
Even a lot of libertarians seem to think that one of the few purposes of a government is to make sure contracts are honored, and that's all that this law is doing. It's saying that if you have a warranty, it must be honored; that's all. It doesn't apply to non-warrantied computers
I misread the article; the only-under-warranty part refers to a law already on the books. Shouldn't of skimmed so fast I guess. So ignore my last paragraph (I know, I know, you're probably ignoring the whole thing anyway)
Anyway, my point still is that it's not automatically a bad idea when the government forces corporations to maintain some quality control. And for a lot of people a computer is a pretty major purchase. While I personally see no big deal in spending half of my salary on computer hardware, a lot of people consider it an investment that should last a while.
--
Honestly, this has nothing to do with Linux; you're still trying to bend it to mean such?
--Giving to trolls for the benefit of us all
i agree with you 100%.. i used to assemble and sell pcs (i dont now, much more money to be made in various software services) and the problem as i see it, people are going to take advantage of this law...
ive personally seen people buy my pcs, then return them 1 week before the 2 years is up, and say everything is broken... (and i would be willing to bet that they removed the hard drive and droped it a few times until it had internal damage)
after 2 years, the industry is completly different ! i couldnt even get their '2 gig drive', since all computers get '8 gig drives' now, etc... ALL PCS should come with a 1 YEAR REPLACEMENT ONLY policy, and thats it. (unless the reseller wants to charge extra for more time, which would lose money in the long run, imho)
Cybie! aka Ralph Bonnell
When computers fail, people don't die. There are of course exceptions to this for air traffic control or medical systems, but those aren't the target of the law.
So a better analogy would be if you got into your 1982 Escort and it didn't start. Should the manufacturer have to fix it? Hell no!
now watch every ingnorant computer user try to get their PC fixed, when it has nothing to do with the actual hardware ...
can anyone say Micro$oft?
I spend a lot of time maintaining the 5 computers in my house. We don't put up with poor quality in cars or TV sets. Why should computer hardware (and especially software) be any different ? Just because it's always been that way doesn't mean that it shouldn't change.
So, what if a manufacturer decided, "screw this," and not to sell to residents of Pennsylvania, but some resident of another state sold a used one to a Pennsylvanian? As I read the story, the manufacturer is still on the hook. This seems unfair, since the manufacturer would be trying to avoid running afoul of an onerous law.
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
i wonder if this law would provide protection against chips that were advertised as one thing but actually over clocked versions of lower-end chips like what was occurring in australia. pennsylvania seems to be one of the only states attempting to be 'nerd-friendly' with its tax expempt holiday (a month or two in pennsylvania you could buy PCs tax-free) and now this Computer Lemon Law, well... bill. is this some attempt to attract hi-tech users to the east coast, an attempt to make a philadelphia bay area... it makes one wonder.
--Ks9
(NOTE: The Following is purely hypothetical.)
I walk outside, down my driveway, and I get into my 1982 Ford Escort. I put the key into the ignition, turn it, and my dashboard explodes. After an investigation, it's found that this was the result of a faulty ignition mechanism plaguing all 1982 Ford Escorts, that you have just discovered at the risk (expense?) of your life.
Now, are you going to tell me that Ford isn't responsible, simply because this car is "obsolete?" Wrong. You'd bet your ass Ford would issue a recall and correct the problem.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
That would be a SOFTWARE problem. This bill seems to apply to HARDWARE problems only. This won't cover your missing drivers. What it would cover, however, is if it short-circuits and goes up in flames.
icqqm [ICQ:11952102]
So why is this different from warranty?
...
If you care you are free choose a manufacturer
which gives you desired warranty periode on
your HW.
OTOH since there is only a fine line between
HW and SW these days. Should a manufacturer
be liable for software updates or are you
no longer allowed to install any software
without wiping your warranty
Would a SW manufacturer be liable for your
HW/SW combination and thus could forbid you
any updates outside its control?
Let the buyer beware. Goods must be of merchantable quality, and fit for their purpose. This is pretty much standard law in all civilised countries (IANAL). if your monitor crapped out within the first week, through no fault of yours (ie hardware defect) the manufactures are obliged to repair or replace it. Manufacturers should not be expected to do anything more than provide you with a working machine, if it is shoddy equipment and it breaks they should repair or refund, if you break it then its your fault and you have to pay. You may have difficulty making manufacturers accountable, they may fob you off and blame microsoft or one of the many companies that contributed to the end product (or just exploit your ignorance). All this bill can usefully and reasonalby hope to do, is make the end retailer directly responsible and accountable to the customer. good retailers do this anyway. Dont underestimate the idiots, there are more of them than there are of us.
not exactly. both Hyundai and VW did this to overcome people feelings that they are both makers of lemon cars.
Both Hyundai are sufferers of disaster cars such as the Hyundai Pony (Excel) and certain years of the VW Bug. No matter if it was 10 years ago, or 30 years ago. people will look back and say see here, they make crap cars.
This is just like people who refuse to by Compaq computers, or HP machines because at one point in time, they or someone else had major problems.
If computer manufactures could, they would do this, but have you ever tried to find parts for a machine that is more than three years old? You'll pay just as much as a new machine. and all that will do is drive prices up because of manufactures stockpiling, and covering losses.
Having been a manager at a computer shop, I have seen many people coming in with computers purchased under a year ago that were, quite frankly, pieces of shit. Many of these people bought systems from now defunct copmuter shops.
One customer bought a system (out of town). She had forgotten her speakers and went back to pick them up only to find a closed sign and no contact information for warranties. This sort of Fly-By-Night customer exploitation cuts into the profitability of honest computer shops and takes advantage of customers. Ge their money and get out. Sure, it will likely raise the price of computers, but only so that companies out there have to use quality components.As far as problems with the software, I don't think that that will be part of it. Only the stuff that the shop can control. I could not control what windows would do if the user did such and such a thing. I could not possibly remember all the BSOD and error codes, it should not be the responibility of the reseller to support software that they themselves did not write. That's MS's job.
And damnit! Windows is a perfectly good OS for many, MANY, people out there. I can not remember the last time windows died on me. Not saying that Linux is not a viable alternative (not saying it is though either, as I sure as hell wouldn;t want my parents, in-laws and grandparents using it (imagine the phone calls? egads)). I am also not saying that windows is perfect. So far for many users, it is the lesser of two evils.
tinfoilmedia
"What "bad choices"? So I -HAVE- to buy from a large, well-known company? Most computer retailers list
their components in detail. "
Since when?
"If I buy a P3 that's really a falsely marked P2, how is that a "bad choice"? "
That's called fraud and it's already illegal.
No intelligent business writes off an entire market. I work in the insurance biz and I know we jump through stupid and absurd hoops to become regulated in the different states.
...
Writing off an entire state because you don't like a law is something you do only if the law is going to make you go bankrupt.
Funny, given that's exactly the stunt the auto insurance indistry tried to pull some years back when PA tried to put a cap on exorbitant auto insurance rates. Eventually, the state had to back down for fear of having every insurer stop insuring Pennsylvanians.
As much as I dislike "big gummint", I dislike "big insurance" more (and one of my parents used to be an agent...)
Tim
In response to this, Ford's "fix" was to reduce the recommended tire inflation pressure. That's right; Ford SUVs under normal condition run on flat tires.
It's pretty common knowledge that running on underinflated tires is bad-- the rubber has to flex more, which generates more heat, which causes more fatigue, which means earlier tire death (blowout, uneven tread wear, or even tread delamination!).
Ford has decided to use Firestone tires in a way that Firestone had not intended. Why has Bridgestone (owns Firestone) stock taken a beating and not Ford, when taken at face value this all looks like Ford's fault?
What happens when unscrupulous manufacturers take good parts and use them in ways that aren't intended? Is the part manufacturer liable?
Jeff
I live in Pittsburgh, and two weeks ago my girlfriend had (hopefully) her final experience with Circuit City. Her father bought her a computer right before college (95-96) and it NEVER worked 100%. He got her the extended 3 year warrenty, and within a month the mouse had stopped working. She tried other mice, and they didn't work. She took it back to Circuit City, and they sent it away for 2-3 weeks, she got it back, and everything else started to go. Finally, last year they said they'd replace it. New machine? Nope, they gave her an old packard bell machine which was pretty obviously someone else's return. Right from the start the sound does work, and it randomly dies on her. BSODs, lock ups, random reboots while typing papers, etc. She works tech support for an ISP, and I've spent 4-5 years doing tech support for various companies and schools. Neither of us could figure out what was wrong. My guess was the memory was bad and the harddrive controller was going. So we take it back one last time 2 weeks ago, and the manager refuses to even talk to us like we're humans. he treats us both like we're morons. So I rip into him. Finally they gave her a credit for the full amount that was paid for the first computer.
Each time she had to get her first two computers fixed, she didnt' have it for a minimum of 2 weeks. over 24 weeks without a computer over 4 years. Personally, I'm SO happy to see legislation like this, because Circuit City has a great scam going on.
I read through the other posts, so I don't believe this has been mentioned before, but I apologize if it has.
I used to work as a computer/service technician at my local Best Buy. Best Buy offers a 3 year "Performance Service Plan," and one of the perks of this plan is just this -- a No-Lemon Guarantee if the computer requires more than 3 repairs within the span of the warranty. In theory, this is an excellent idea, but trying to get a new computer out of BBY's No Lemon law is in the same category of Impossible as wringing blood from a stone. You have to keep the paperwork from each and every repair (even though we keep records of every repair in our database, you still have to hold onto a piece of paper from a repair that was done years ago). And of course, no one at a Best Buy store could authorize a No-Lemon exchange, the unit first had to be shipped out to our certified service center, who then decided whether or not our customer would get a new one.
I have seen person after person get screwed out of a new computer by this system. For example, a ~4 year old Packard Bell came in late last year, from when we used to sell 4 year warranty plans. The sound wasn't working on it, so we sent it out to be authorized for a No-Lemon exchange. Of course, two weeks later we get it back saying that there are software problems and we should restore it. We inform the customer to do this, they do it successfully, come back in after it was done and still no sound. We were all set to send it back out again after verifying for sure it was a bad sound card. But, behold, the warranty ran out when it was last at the service center. Guess what? No new computer. Well, technically they got a new computer after it sat in our back room for 9 months (NOT an exaggeration) as management sorted things out, but I digress.
So has this been off-topic enough? Yes, but the point I'm trying to make is if a company that made someone pay $180-$240 for a warranty can be this screwed up when it comes to issuing replacements for bad products, then imagine if the slow juggernaut of bureaucracy gets to warrant this claim. At least Best Buy had the opportunity to make the customer happy, after all they did pay extra for the service.
Imagine if Best Buy had to do this free of charge, for EVERY customer, not just the ~50% who had warranties.
An OS Lemon Law...
I would have responded to this sooner but my ISP Shaw@home was down all weekend
Hmmm... What about...
134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
A computer seldom retains factory configuration for long. People are adding software, reinstalling Windows, throwing in hardware, and in general making a mess of things.
Auto makers have the benefit of products that don't change a lot once they leave the assembly line. A new radio and some window tinting are the most dramtic changes many[1] cars get. If the axle falls of or the tires explode it is safe to assume that it was not due to some twit fucking with it.
Computer makers have no such benefit. Not long after it leaves the box, the happy computer user is causing all kinds of trouble with it. Putting out every possible fire would be difficult. Who will pay for the extra service and support?
"New Dell ZZ77 2 GHz computer, $899, $2599 in Pennsylvania."
Pennsylvania is trying to promote itself as a hi-tech state. This appears to be a step in the wrong direction.
[1] On average.
So, computer manufacturers would be responsible if too much cat hair gets sucked into the PS and the computer fails. Sorry, computers aren't cars and I don't think that a typical elected official (I'm leaving Mr. Gore out of this list---we all know he invented the internet) can really understand the nature of electronics well enough to write legislation to protect consumers from poor business practices has well has a consumers ability to sue said manufacturer. Better that we equal up the sides so that said manufacturer can't protect himself with a wall of cash (and you all know of whom I speak of here). I for one am tired of corperations being treated as super individuals.
I'm from Pennsylvania, and I thought it was funny.
First, you probably couldn't sue for a BSOD unless you could proove that the OS was at fault. Is Linux at fault becaues Netscape crashes all the time on it?
Second, who says it would go as far as a lawsuit. If you have the proof of a bug in the OS the first step would be to get a warranty repair, replacement or refund.
I can see the end of expensive "upgrades" (Windows 98?) that are mostly bug fixes rather than feature improvements.
Instead, they'll have to resort to "upgrades" which are a lot of new cosmetic splash on top of the same old Windows NT engine. Sort of like new model year cars, which don't really have any significantly new technology from one year to the next. You only see the technology improvements as you look over many model years over a long time.
I suppose you can even use the word "Innovation" to describe this pathetically slow pace of progress.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Like many other areas where consumer protection laws have been passed, consumer "choice" is often an illusion. In reality, its "take or leave it", with most vendors offering near-identical terms, written by lawyers who are trying to shield their client from all liability. These laws are not passed because it was a slow day in the legislature and they didn't have anything better to do.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I work in a shop where we do electronics repair on anything from antique radios to the latest stuff from the audiophile designer down the street (he's brought stuff in to us to be modified).
We also build OEM computers.
We have one customer who's kid is always wiping out the entire machine (uggh...). Who's fault is this? Certainly not ours. It's certainly not our fault that we have customers that install every binary program they get via email (gee, how many viruses this time?). Our computers are not lemons and the yes, sometimes bad parts wind up installed, but they're replaced with a smile.
Repeat customers are our lifeline.
If we screwed every tom/dick/jane who came into the shop, we would have closed long ago.
Should there be a law? Maybe... Should it be two years? No. 1 year is sufficient. If it doesn't burn out in 90 days, it's never going to burn out unless hit by a surge. On top of that, it should be a HARDWARE protection *only*. Software is just too flaky to even guarantee 'till next week.
On used PeeCees: We give a 90 day warrantee on used stuff. It's only sane. Most of these people are looking for a 200 dollar PC to "try out the net". To give a 2 year warrantee on used equipment would be sheer lunacy. Yes, we explain to the customer the significance of this. No, they really don't care and they know what they're getting into by spending only 200/250 bux (with monitor).
The important point is that we're honest and fair, unlike listening to a clueless salesdroid at CompUSA or Circuit City...
You wish it was a slippery slope, but requiring vendors that sell something to ensure that the product works is *not* burdensome government regulation. If you want to "risk" it, build your own.
The average lifespan of a computer is 3 years. This law would make 2/3 of that time covered. Does this make sense?
The average lifespan of a car is something like 10 years, if we made a law that was proportional that would mean any defect in the first 6 years would have to be fixed by the manufacturer. There are almost NO cars with this kind of warranty.
There is also the question of what defective means. If you install 10 pieces of software off the net and your computer stops booting, is the manufacturer libel?
--Tom Stanis
However, what is relevant: If I buy a computer with a defective drive controller that only shows up under Linux because Linux uses a different DMA mode/PIO level/whatever, will I be able to sue? This used to be a major problem. Until windows started using the higher performance settings, hardware manufacturers didn't give a rats ass if their drives corrupted data outside the most performance poor settings (irq unmasking, anyone?)
Same thing with memory and CPUs. I have had bad memory and bad CPUs that worked fine under windows, not even necissary because Linux "pushed the hardware harder", but just because of different usage patterns. The fact is, most hardware vendors only test under Windows, and if it works there, it is deemed "correct" regardless of whether 90% of the modes of operation were tested.
These things are getting better, but it would be nice to force vendors to have some accountability for these issues.
If I was a system vendor, I'd probably stop selling computers in PA if the law went through.
Since the article says that even used computers under warranty are still covered, it looks like even that isn't an out. If a PA resident buys a used one from some other state and it craps out, looks like the manufacturer must fix it.
What wqould keep me up nights if I was a manufacturer is what constitutes a 'defect', and how to establish that it's the computer, and not, say, that piece of shareware crap that the user installed after s/he got the machine. The cost of tech support for resolving issues like that could potentially be horrendous.
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
Pennsylvania - Home of Questionable Legislation
:)
:)
When I first read this one - I immediately thought, "Great! Now maybe we can convince the higher-ups to stop buying PoS* machines".
Now I'm thinking, "Oh sh*t! They're going to buy more PoS's and sue for free hardware support!"
I'll have a talk with my state rep next Sunday at church. I suggest all other geeks living in PA to do the same (not necessarily in church, of course.
PS - Doesn't ESR live in PA?
* - It's not "Point of Sale", either
DrQu+xum: Proof that the lameness filter doesn't work.
This isn't a law about upholding your warranty, there are already laws about that. (Try getting a lawyer on the phone with the Customer relations department at most any large computer corporation and see how fast they scuttle)
This law is about providing full warranty for 2 years regardless of the warranty the computer normally comes with.
You asked for it, you got it.
More Schoolhouse Rock then you can shake a verb at.
Schoolhouse Rock - everything about Schoolhouse Rock, including the lyrics, sound files, history, events, products, and more.
Schoolhouse Rock [Yak.net] - Lyrics
Schoolhouse Rock - More Lyrics.
Unofficial SHR - Even more Lyrics and links.
SHR Sound clips - Plays SHR sound clips using a Java applet.
And if all that isn't quite enought for you.. here is a page for info on Schoolhouse Rock Live.
I am sure that others have noticed this but a two year old computer that was worth 2000 bucks when it was bought after 2 years in only worth like 200 due to better technology. This seems like a great way to get a new computer every two years, break it your self, declare it a lemon and make them give you the equivilant. Since the companys will not be making two year old computers they will have to give them a new one (that equal or greater value bit). And since I have never had a computer (that I owned) where every part lasted for two years it would work for me (most of the ones I build and then sell to people work fine and I fix the ones that don't), I tinker with them, I don't OC but the case is rarly on the computer.
It just seems to me that two years is a little long for a computer and while a large computer company might not feel it that much a small computer company like mine would die a horible death if three times a year I had to give someone a new computer to replace his "lemon"
Just my thoughts
JOIN !LINK CLUB!
I don't think the point of the law is to make computers fault tolerant.
Most other things in the world that you buy aren't fault tolerant.
The point, I thought, was to deal with Lemons.
Like the used car salesman who shows you the shiny parts of the car, but not the problems. Like Microsoft who shows you the latest cosmetic splash they have piled on top of years of cruft and patches to patches which patch the old patches.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
As a purchaser of a dog ass AMD K6-2 system from UMAX,I am pleased to see something like this. It took me a year of calls and recalls, with them finally charging items to my credit card (without my permission)to finally get someones attention. (only because I appealed to every email address on their web site with a very nasty letter, and a complaint to the California Attorney General).
I ceratinly learned my lesson, as my home built CPU's were more compatable than that AMD, Foretuantely, after all the hassle, they replaced it with an Ntel CPU of the same speed and bus speed, I immediately sold it for what I had in it...and good riddance.
Sad to say, but the original system couldn't even load Windoz without crashing...it did load linux, but it even crashed with it. All I am sure due to incompatable hardware.....
Windows and drivers are the chief problems. I seriously doubt this bill is going to remedy those things. Many have pointed out the side effects such as voided warranties if you install anything. People buy these $900 computers from Best Buy then have a hissy when goofy stuff starts happening as they run mission critical jobs on them. I don't have much faith in lawmakers to carefully craft legislation to fix problems like these. They just don't have a good track record. And then Microsoft lobbyists will descend upon these state capitols to ensure their are plenty of loopholes and wiggle room. I just say don't get your hopes up.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
For those of you interested in reading the text of House Bill 1817 you can see it here.
The reason why this is dangerous is because everyone is busy brainwashing the masses into believeing that the Digital Divide is actually something that has to be fixed. When you have the press and every imaginable outlet of anything pushing the computer revolution and how you can't have anything without one, people run out and buy what they can afford and don't realize how many computers come into being.
We have a motherboard with a busted serial port. After 5 different attempts to get the thing fixed, costing us 10 bucks a pop in postage, we gave up. The company we bought it from was a local shop and wouldn't give us adequate credit or exchange, nor would the manufacturer with the clearly clueless tech support people with the -thick- foreign accents properly fix the board. In the end, we had to relegate the board to pure ethernet duty.
A friend of mine bought a PC from Tiger Electronics for like 500 bucks. The machine never worked properly, nor would Tiger repair or replace the defective components. The real mistake was in thinking that a 500 buck PC was worth anything, but many consumers who feel pressured to join the digital age will strike and cheap, believing that they can return defective products for repair or refund.
Some companies honor their warranties and others dodge. This is not merely cluelessness and lemon laws are not about unreasonable restriction on honest businesses. PA is simply doing to the fly by night operations what was done with cars. In the history of cars, where the lemon laws became famous, they were intended to protect consumers from defects in the product that were costing them lots and lots of money and lost time to get fixed. When these laws were past, suddenly many dealerships, the ones who were half-assing repairs and charging out the butt for it, straightened up their act. Still, in some cases, the individual cars were just doomed to have eternal problems and were taken back.
Basically, if you shell out a lot of hard earned cash for a product and the thing doesn't work, you have the right to redress.
In space, no one can hear you moo.
Software and Hardware?
It's a very good idea, but I think implementing it will be a major headache. What is classified as defective? A single hw or sw crash? A few? A chronic problem with them? I have chronic problems with systems that appear to *not* be defective, yet it seems as if they would be covered under this bill.
So if I buy a television set and it is a lemon, then it is because of my own bad choices?
I'm sure glad that there are consumer protection laws so that I don't have to become an expert on every possible thing I want to buy.
Things should perform as they are represented to perform. If Windows is going to crash every 45 minutes, then it should say so on the box. (It's a feature not a bug!)
This is a law to protect people from Lemons.
If you want to buy from a small dealer who doesn't have a service department, then fine. The system should perform as it is represented to do. If it doesn't, then you still have a lemon, and you should be entitled to some kind of relief.
If I buy a used monitor at a flea market with the understanding that it has a warranty that lasts until I walk out the door, then I understand this, and the risk is entirely mine -- and my bad choice. Or perhaps, just unlucky choice. Although so far, the monitor I'm writing this on has given me excellent service for just a few bucks.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
The state can ask the other state for extradition. But the state can't cross state lines and arrest someone, fine someone, etc.
--
It's wrong in principle? How? Is it wrong in principle when the FDA "interferes" with drug companies by examining their product before it allowing it to go on the market?
Absolutely. Doctors know their business and are quite capable of organizing their own testing of drugs. Putting the thing in the hands of government bureaucrats only adds a healthy dose of waste and incompetence to the process.
The FDA adds to the cost of drugs and puts them more firmly under control of large corporations.
Furthermore, it takes the choice out of how "experimental" a drug a patient can choose to take. People die who could be saved while FDA human drug tests go on, with no option to tell the government to stick their cautious testing methods wherever they care, and just try the medicine themselves.
Suckers are still sold poison as medicine every day. The FDA hasn't stopped that, and nothing ever will.
Or forcing food companies to maintain some standard of quality control?
Again, who is the government to say what is fit food and what isn't?
As long as the government enforces the exclusivity of standards-organization trademarks, sensible people would only buy food from vendors who follow practices they consider fit.
How about when the EPA "interferes" with corporations pouring toxic chemicals into our rivers?
This is pure "straw man" idiocy. The corporations don't own the rivers. Not everybody who has some interest in the river is agreeing freely to have toxic chemicals poured into it. This has nothing to do with the freedom for any two consenting parties to form any contract they wish. It is instead a crime against the non-consenting public, like robbery or murder.
That kind of thing is exactly what the government should be dealing with.
However, they often do it incompetently, setting required mechanisms rather than required results. For example: catalytic converters. These were needed to bring emissions from inferior American cars down to acceptable levels, but were not necessary for foreign cars which could meet the emission limits without them. They are now, in fact, counterproductive, adding expense and increasing fuel consumption. There are better ways to lower emissions, but you still can't sell a car without a catalytic converter. That kind of crap is what ties us to a handful of large car manufacturers and slows innovation to a crawl.
That kind of poor decision is exactly why government shouldn't be involved in anything it doesn't absolutely have to be.
If I buy a P3 that's really a falsely marked P2, how is that a "bad choice"?
It isn't, it's fraud, and it's already illegal.
It's saying that if you have a warranty, it must be honored; that's all.
Bullshit. They are already legally obligated to honor warrantees.
Everything that should be done in protecting "consumer rights" in purchasing is already done, and in fact, too much is done already, hurting business and consumer alike.
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
Isn't this a Lemon law? Not a law to guarantee interoperability, fault tolerance, long lifetime, perfect performance, availibility of software/drivers, etc.
The most obvious thing that seems to qualify, in my view, is Windows.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
While a PC Lemon law is exactly what is needed, I'd just like to point out that many major electronics stores offer extended warranties/service plans that not only include and extend the manufacturer's warranty, but are more comprehensive as well. Best Buy, for example, offers what they call a Performance Service Plan for an extra $200 or so on a computer package (monitor & tower). This PSP thing not only offers free in-store service, but includes a no-lemon policy. That is, if the computer needs 3 repairs, Best Buy will replace your computer. If your model isn't made anymore (or simply out of stock), it'll be replaced with the next highest model, or your model's replacement, whichever is the case. Overall, it's a nice little deal, if you don't like to chance things. Although it'd be much nicer to have this sort of thing be law, and not cost an extra $200.
Actually I think this is good. It will protect the people who buy computers from CompUSA and the like that have defective parts. This is not interference this is consumer protection. You should appreciate that unless you are an executive of a large computer corporation who sells shitty hardware through marketing hype. I know damn well that the machines I have seen in various places aren't worth thier "899.00" dollar price tag. The lemon law has helped tens of thousands of people (I am sure of it) who unknowingly bought shitty cars. So before you get all hot and bothered about how the government is fucking you, think this one through. It's a good deal.
"If you love someone, set them free. If they come home, set them on fire." - George Carlin
If they shrink-wrap computers, wouldn't they fall under UCITA licensing where the computer is "not suited for any particular purpose" and the agreement becomes binding as soon as you remove the computer from the shrink wrap?
Under your statutory rights in the UK, _all_ goods sold must be of 'merchandisable quality' - that is, unless you specifically state it is sold 'as seen', it must work. The time frame for returning a defective product is three years. So, unless it fails due to reasonable wear and tear in the first three years, it gets repaired.
You already have this law for cars, so what not make computer sellers as honest as used car salemen?
So why, exactly, is this a problem for a country like the US?
I have a couple of things to say.. quoute: "If the computer has multiple problems, a second repair is not required, and returned computers could not be resold in Pennsylvania." What about people who want to buy the broken/cheap computers and fix them up.(like me) It's often cheaper then buying a new system.. ALSO I have a small comany that maybe makes 4 computers a year. (It's justone branch) We do tech support, but becasue we custum make the computers by buying it off the shelf at the store. WE can't afford to toally fix these computers, like that.. (not saying that we won't fix the computer) This law just provides safty, nothing else !!!
i'm sorry...but i really can't take that hypothetical too seriously. When you get into hypotheticals, you might as well just throw reality out the window, because you can come up with anything you want.
In you situation, however, no. Ford would not be held liable. No car could go 18 years without someone discovering a "bug" like an exploding dashboard. So...6months after the Escort is released in 1982...someone's dashboard explodes. Ford hears about this, and initiates a mandatory recall of their 1982 model Escorts. 99% of all Fords are fixed.
18 years later...you get fucked up by a car that wasn't fixed. You have no right to sue Ford. They initiated the recall - people were aware of the exploding dashboard...if they didn't get it fixed, it's not Ford's problem.
Maybe your argument will hold a little more water when a Coppermine explodes, taking out some poor schmuck's left nut.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
I think this is a great idea.
:) .. a little unfair, yes.
Hardware manf's should be held accountable for releasing faulty, or severely outdated or proprietary/standards-lacking equipment.
I leave that last statement in because I despise win-modems
Just as hardware manf's should be accountable, as should Software manufacturers.
Inherently faulty software should be replaced with an alternative, 3rd party or in-house, or money refunded.
this would really prop up the reliability factor and quality control from our favorite software distributors.
I realize there are a barrel full of arguments against this idea. For example, (and tell me if this doesn't sound familiar) Microsoft releases a new version of Win OS and it will only run on Pentium 1Gz with > 128 meg'o'ram. If a customer buys this OS and puts on his P 60, he's sh** out of luck. However, if he puts it on his snappy new PVIII 1.5 Ghz box, it HAS to work. M$ said it would. If it doesn't work, M$ is responsible.
I have a 3 year old matrox in my mac, and it's drivers don't jive with OS9, so I get no hardware accel at all. In this case, tough titty for me. I'll just have to live with the old stuff. However, if I buy a NEW matrox, and NEW macOS, and they both are labeled "compatible", I should be able to reclaim my money (or damages) if the two don't work togther.
... just some ideas...
And personally, I don't think it goes far enough. It should extend to parts and systems sold at trade shows.
And you would intend on enforcing that how...?
I know people who've had trouble with Lemon Law claims for cars ("The problem isn't quite the same as the other problems, so the Lemon Law doesn't apply")...imagine how hard it'd be to enforce on a PC...
(Actual run-around I had the other day when I couldn't connect to the 'net on my mother's computer)
ISP:"It's not the ISP, it's your modem."
Dell:"It's not your modem, it's your phone line."
Telco:"It's not the phone line, it's the ISP."
It was the driver for the modem. Would I be able to sue for a new driver? Would I be laughed out of court right now if I tried something like that?
DrQu+xum: Proof that the lameness filter doesn't work.
No, use Debian because it has the best package management system.
Je ne parle pas francais.
PC's arent solid state objects - they can, and do, change dramatically through their life. What happens if I add in another video card? Am I still under law? What if I flash my motherboard with the wrong bios? Delete my Windows partition? Install a buggy beta program? Would these instances be covered? There are so many variables for why a computer wont work!
Computers arent like a coffee pot or something. You cant break a coffee pot by putting the wrong coffee in.
Similar to automobile lemon laws, this bill will provide legal recourse for warranty abuses and ineffective repairs.
"Right now, PC consumers have little or no recourse when manufacturers refuse to back up their products and warranties."
Have you ever bought a car? If so you should be well aware of what the purpose of lemon laws are. ALL new cars are bought under warranty. So why do lemon laws exist for cars? Becuase it has not been uncommon for dealers and manufacturers to screw the consumer by failing to honour warranties. Or, in some cases, the quality is so poor that the same repairs need to be done over and over. The car ends up spending more time in the shop than on the road, and when the warranty expires the owner is left with a very expensive pile of metal, rubber, and plastic. Some good buying with a warranty does in those cases.
Computers are not as complicated to fix as cars, so you and I don't need this kind of protection (but I think it would be nice to have anyway). But for the average user who doesn't know much about computers, this is long overdue. Warranties only protect the consumer from the EXPENSE of fixing problems. They don't protect consumers from products that are such poor quality that the manufacturer can't/doesn't fix properly, or from abuse of the warranty.
your flame reply is why folks think that some Linux users are slightly off (in the head). Whats the matter...cant you reply to someone without f'ing anyone?? estúpido del señor.
take your pornography somehwere else a--hole
Ok, first off I can understand covering "hardware" related issues, like if the video card dies, ram, etc. But, what if they install AOL 5.0 and it screws up their computer, thus possibly requiring a reinstall of the operating system? Or, how about RealAudio beta 7, it actually will screw up the bios on computers with Cyrix cpus. You'd be amazed at how people can *uck up a computer. I don't see how any of the above examples can be held above the original stores head. Another example would be if they install Linux, and get the refresh rate screwed up and fry their monitor.
You get the point. (hopefully! Basically, how the hell would the suggested law even interpt these examples. Personally, it'll never work.
Life was hell, then I discovered Linux...
Really? I had to change auto insurance companies this year because the old one stopped doing business in NJ. It was a real pain. New photos of the car, fax the lease agreement, etc. etc.
:-)
Guess it wasn't your company.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
(from the article)
If consumers want to avoid serious functionality and warranty troubles, they should avoid low-end purchases from no-name companiesA former housemate of mine has a Hewlett-Packard machine he bought for $2000. I have a comparable machine I built from components for $1500.
He has endless stability problems; I have barely a glitch.
I'd say "the big manufacturers will give you a better product" might be a misleading message to get.
I'd agree about this on the component level - no-name mice and modems, for example, tend to be really shoddy, while second-tier ones seem to last much longer.
But on the computer level, from what I've seen, a brand name is no protection against trouble.
Perhaps this illustrates the potential two-sided nature of this law - it could be used as a wedge by the big companies to force their mom-and-pop competitors out of business.
If ever I saw lemon computers, they were from Compaq. :)
This is far different from state lemon laws on cars, since 99% of PA-driven cars are sold by PA car dealerships.
This will hurt places like CompUSA, Best Buy, Circuit City, Rat Shack, and might drive out of business some of the small ma-and-pa places. Meanwhile, it'll help every business outside of the state. The "computer fairs", full of out-of-state gypsies, might have better deals than retail again.
Meanwhile, our state legislature has proven itself incompetent once again, writing cruddy law that hurts businesses in the state. Unlike many states, the PA pols are highly-paid full-timers. That's supposed to make them better legislators, but in reality, it only makes them able to stick their fingers everywhere they shouldn't be.
--
Sure - Rare if you get yourself a computer that is built well. However, Joe Computer is going to buy himself that spiffy Compaq he's had his eye on. Compaq is NOTORIOUS for shoddy computer equipment. (I speak from experience.)
I agree with you, Compaq is notorious for selling crap, however the law should not protect people from their own stupidity. Computers are major purchases topping out over $1000 usually. You'd think these people would try to be informed, if I know Compaq sucks, and you know Compaq sucks and Joe Schmoe Computer Buyer goes out, without trying to inform himself about the products, and buys a Compaq, then its his own damn fault.
Everybody by now has heard of the Firestone tire recalls, if you hear about these and go out and buy firestone tires anyways then get in a car accident because the treads of your tires came apart, thats your own damn fault and the law should not protect you for it.
This law is a BAD idea.
-- iCEBaLM
Oh right. And you'd like to take your chances with a machine that didn't work in the store (had they let you look at it), had never worked right and will never work? I have an AMD K6-233, and have recently discovered that such processors of a certain batch No. don't address more than 32 mb. of RAM. And so what do I do? I really want to stick another 32mb dimm in there... Fortuneatly, I beleive that the laws are quite sane about this in my jurisdiction... Although I may be about to be proved wrong...
He who fights and runs away,
Okay, let's use that analogy. (Again, Hypothetical.)
I get into my 1982 Ford Escort, put the key in the ignition, and try to start the car. It doesn't start. After an investigation, it is found that it's due to a faulty starter that is found in all 1982 Ford Escorts. You have just discovered this manufacturer's flaw for the first time, however Ford has had many complaints in the past regarding similar issues. They finally acknowledge it's a defect, issue a recall, and correct the issue.
Now, for something better - a Non-Hypothetical, Real-Life situation. (And it's still a relevant analogy, too!)
The 1980 Mazda 626 had several manufacturer recalls done. Let's examine two of the recalls.
Wind noise around doors.
Steering wheel slightly off-center.
These issues are definitely not life threatening, and are minor irritants at most. Yet, Mazda issued recalls for these very issues. Should the manufacturer have to fix something they were responsible for creating problems in? Hell Yes!
Oh, and to invalidate yet another argument, someone brought up the issue of recalls not possibly going undetected for any excessive length of time. Well, the two recalls I mentioned were both issued in 1998 - The steering wheel in April, and the doors in July. That's 18 years between the car being manufactured and the recall being issued.
And to carry your analogy to real life: I get in my 1980 Mazda 626 and find it doesn't start. After an investigation, it was found that the battery went dead due to a manufacturer defect.
There was an October 1998 recall for that very issue.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
Even when people don't die as a direct consequence of hardware and software failures, they do die indirectly. Businesses spend a heap of money on these kinds of failures. They also lose untold fortunes in opportunity costs, the money they would have earned had they not been spending their time and money on computing failures.
Had these failures not occurred, the economy would have been significantly stronger, and a portion of this economic benefit would have gone to health care, medical research, and other life-saving investments. Because, however, the failures *did* occure, these investments were lost, and people died.
For example, it was reported that Lloyd's of London estimated the worldwide cost of the ILOVEYOU virus at 15 billion USD. Even if only 5% of this money had instead gone to life-saving investments (and this is a reasonable assumption; the average business spends over 5% of its money on health-care costs), there would have been 750 million more health-care dollars available to save lives. And with that kind of money, many lives could have been saved.
So the next time you justify shipping a buggy app because it's "not life-or-death critical" or "a few bugs won't hurt anybody", remember that there will be a cost associated with your program's failures, and somebody somewhere will be sicker or nearer to death because of it.
Easy, automatic testing for Perl.
What makes you think that Ford gave those specs to Firestone? Ford could have told Firestone they needed tires at 34 psi (for example). Then, after they have the tires and found out that underinflating them would help avoid rollovers, Ford simply inflated them to 24 psi (for example) and never bothered to tell Firestone anything.
--
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
I agree with you 100%. People need to make informed purchases. But that's not what this law is about.
Let's say Joe Schmoe Computer ignores his friends and buys a Compaq anyway (God help his poor soul). His Compaq comes with a warranty. He has problems with it, and tries to have it fixed under the Warranty. Compaq refuses to acknowledge the warranty. (They did this to me!) Now, Joe Schmoe Computer is SOL because Compaq refuses to abide by their own warranty.
But Joe can take action if the law says you MUST uphold your warranty. That's what the bill is about.
Now, if Joe were my friend, I'd sedate him before letting him buy a Compaq, but that's another story.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
On the other hand, this may just apply to computer hardware (again, the article isn't specific enough - this is FOX), in which case they can simply blame it on the software. I've had things like network cards that work fine in Windows but are still defective. Anything that doesn't work but seems fine is a software problem. Anything that doesn't is wear and tear or the user's fault.
Finally, even if it is hardware, what fits the definition of "computer"? If there's a chip in my TV and it breaks down, does the TV company have to repair it as much as two years later? What about all those internet appliances that are supposed to be a part of our lives already? The only thing the article says is that it has to cost over $10.
icqqm [ICQ:11952102]
You already can buy fault tolerant systems. They cost a buttload. Now, if systems are required to be fault tolerant by law (this seems to be the first step), the average price of a PC is going to have to climb. On the other hand, if all PCs are fault tolerant, then the price for fault tolerant servers is going to decrease.
From a different viewpoint, maybe this law is just going to be circumvented by marketing: "You can buy our fault tolerant system for 5K or the sub 1K PC that is waivered from the lemon law." That would suck! Warranties on cheap PCs would become less and less viable.
Network Security: It always comes down to a big guy with a gun.
I would like to call your attention to the recent Toshiba suit in which floppy drives made years ago (and no longer made) had a defect that could only be created in a lab, and had never been seen in production. Toshiba lost.
Hello little man. I will destroy you!
This is the problem with the Judicial system today. Someone gets a problem with something, they immediately think "SUE!" If you (editor) had actually READ the article, you would have discovered it pertains to WARRANTY issues, and REPAIR issues. Hardware, my friend.
Now, if the company claimed outright that the product works with Linux, and in reality it DOESN'T - Then you have a lot more solid ground to stand on. But for crying out loud, Don't break out the lawyers! (You cry when it's done against things you support, but if it's in your favor you'll turn and do the same?)
I bought a laptop from Compaq awhile back, and struggled with their so-called "customer service", just trying to get some repairs done while it was still 2 years before the end of the warranty. Writing to the BBB, and consumer protection divisions of several organizations had no effect. It wasn't until the company I bought it from (PC Connection) got wind of my situation, and kindly replaced it for me with a superior model/different brand, that this case was resolved.
Compaq refused to uphold their warranty, and I was left with a useless laptop. Now you're saying that having strong legal backing wouldn't be a real benefit? If it wasn't for the company I bought my laptop from, my POS Compaq would have ended up on eBay being sold "AS-IS" for quite a lot less than Compaq SAID they would have refunded me (in their warranty).
P.S.: I highly recommend PC Connection due to their outstanding customer service. No, I don't work for them, but they kindly replaced my shitty Compaq with a much better brand, and a superior model. I just wish I had this bill (law, hopefully) backing me up. Frustration is a lousy thing to be forced deal with by a company like Compaq, who's main concern is cutting costs and screwing the consumer.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
This law is designed to make it MORE expensive to sell a pc with poor components then to sell one with decent components, by requiring companies to support what they sell ... remember, freedom comes with responsibility. I've been burned on several premade pcs because they just used sub standard parts, even name brands like NEC (before they were bought by pack bell!)
Free Techno/Jazz/DNB/MI Music by guys obsessed with monkeys!
When I ran Windows 95, I found that I had to wipe the HD and reinstall about every 6 months. I would imagine that "had to reinstall OS 4 times in 2 years" would count as defective. OEMs are going to start feeling the pain of poor OS choice...
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
Yet again, some dork lawmaker decides that "there outta be a law" and here we go, drafting legislation on top of legislation. I'm sure Pennsylvania has laws of merchantibility already in place. What this will mean is that the price of hardware will rise because manufacturers would rather pass on the cost of the x% of people who claim defective hardware. I would, who wants to argue with an idiot. Just send 'em a new whatever and mark up the price of all the products by 10%. Let's face it, governments big and small are there to make laws. Since all the really good laws are already written, they have to come up with new ones.
No, its not a publicity stunt. No, computer failures for new owners are not rare. I have seen many people stuck with computers that don't work shortly after delivery. Sometimes I save the day, sometimes I just feel sad for them.
Its time engineers started bulletproofing computer designs and software. That might be a new concept for those who live in Redmond. Investing in quality assurance now will save everyone from having to wait on hold through levels of voice recordings, tech support, return information, and credit card protection. Believe me, consumer protection is needed.
If we have higher expectations of quality, business will thrive due to increased consumer confidence. Joe Consumer will no longer be afraid of buying a lemon and declining a purchase.
Obsolesence is when an item designed to work with other components cannont work with the lasest 'other components'. By analogy [0], consider a screwdriver, with a pentagram head. When it was made, pentagram head screws were common. not they are not. This screwdriver is obsolete. Is it defective?
No, it can still perfrom the purpose for which it was designed, and, presumably, purchesed for.
Obsolesence and defective are orthogonal concepts.
Everyone is saying "well Windows is screwed now."
So is Linux. Linux has FAR, FAR more compatibility problems that Windows. Plus, "too difficult to use" will be the #1 complaint.
I don't.
-Antipop
Unfortunately, most users get sucked in by stores like "Cameras, Sound, Video, and Computers" who give deals that are too good to be true, and stick consumers with crap parts.
I see this at the computer shows out here in PA all the time. You have people selling computers with parts that I wouldn't even use in a compost heap. When the parts break, the so-called "customer service" departments will do nothing to help and blame the consumer for even complaining. The consumer spends a lot of money out of pocket to get someone else to fix the system, and in the end they spend more for a crap computer with no warranty than they would have for something more stable and servicable WITH a warranty, such as a Dell.
Because of this, the BBB out here in PA HATES computer stores, and especially the ones that are cut-rate and outright rude to customers, which is most of them outside CompUSA and MicroCenter, when it comes to warranty service of broken equipment. CompUSA and MicroCenter are much better than average here than anyone else (most of whom are outright thieves, which is why I buy mail-order than buy in PA), which does not speak too well about PA at all.
Compaq (with their Presario line) is absolutely crap also, and Packard Bell/NEC are just as bad. A lot of smaller vendors also like to stick it to consumers by using the cheapest parts imaginable, especially in the systems sold in Computer Shopper.
These systems DO break a lot. Consumers do get upset. PA is finally putting some teeth into their laws to prevent manufacturers from selling utter crap. I hope it bankrupts those computer stores that have been selling junk that breaks to consumers, and teaches them lessons about how not to screw over PA.
Then again, most of these junk resellers will move to Delaware or New Jersey to try and avoid this law anyway.
``if a component claims to be up-to-date but doesn't work with Linux, can I sue?''
I really doubt it . . . for the same reason most computer companies' technical support refuse to help. If you computer isn't running windows, then any problems you have are your own.
So you're saying that you're against seat-belt laws? If so, maybe you'll change your mind if someone you care about dies in a car crash because they didn't think seat belts were important. A lot of people didn't wear seat belts until the laws were put in place.
--
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
For multiple reasons:
- It forces hardware and software makers
to either sell stuff that works
correctly or else sell nothing at all;
- It forces hardware and software makers
to finally make their products easy enough
to use that normal people won't have to
call technical support lines just to figure
out how to install an application or
copy a file;
- It forces companies to be financially
responsible for the quality of their products,
which is the closest thing you can do to
holding them ethically responsible;
- It forces companies to continue to fully
support their products for at least two
years.
I don't care if this stuff doesn't benefit the companies, because I'm not interested in benefitting the companies. I'm interested in benefitting everyday people, even if that means companies have to suffer. They SHOULD suffer for not meeting these kinds of guidelines of their own free will in the first place.
And no, this is not flame-bait. This is my honest opinion.
- "It's just a matter of opinion!" - PRIMUS
Since I live in PA, does that mean it will be illegal in my state to buy/sell E-Machines? "Sometimes we concentrate so hard on where we are going we forget why we were going there in the first place..." -- Mike Sponsler msponsler@med-media.come www.med-media.com
-- Spoony
So every time I get the BSOD in Windows, can I sue for a faulty OS? After all, your OS should be stable.
-Antipop
Absolutely. Doctors know their business and are quite capable of organizing their own testing of drugs. Putting the thing in the hands of government bureaucrats only adds a healthy dose of waste and incompetence to the process.
And how many individual medical practitioner can afford to fund their own tests? This isn't about who's qualified; private practitioners may be just as skilled in these matters as FDA scientists, but they have neither the time, the inclination, or the money to pursue rigorous testing. And the drug companies have a history of suppressing negative results, and a financial incentive to cut down on testing as much as possible.
Furthermore, it takes the choice out of how "experimental" a drug a patient can choose to take. People die who could be saved while FDA human drug tests go on, with no option to tell the government to stick their cautious testing methods wherever they care, and just try the medicine themselves.
I agree that restrictions on testing of experimental drugs should be made much looser, but I don't challenge the government's (as elected, and funded by me) authority in saying that publicly sold drugs should have some oversight.
Suckers are still sold poison as medicine every day. The FDA hasn't stopped that, and nothing ever will.
If I take a drug that's advertised as a antihistamine (hypothetically speaking), it shouldn't have a side affect of making me die. It has nothing to do with being a "sucker"; I can't analyze the chemical properties and possible biological impact of medication by just looking at the pill.
As long as the government enforces the exclusivity of standards-organization trademarks, sensible people would only buy food from vendors who follow practices they consider fit.
Yeah, fine, but the problem is enforcement. I'm supposed to take some large corporations word that what they put on their label is what's actually in the food?
This is pure "straw man" idiocy. The corporations don't own the rivers. Not everybody who has some interest in the river is agreeing freely to have toxic chemicals poured into it... It is instead a crime against the non-consenting public, like robbery or murder.
But distributing unsafe medicine to an unsuspecting public isn't? Or we should just force them to take responsibility for it after someone dies?
--
One man who submarined, and had his legs all smashed up, but had the top half of the car sheared right off, and would have been cut in half if a seatbelt held him upright. Another who was thrown from a car and landed in nice soft muck when his car rolled and the top was flattened right down.
Of course, I also know a lot of people who have survived accidents wearing seatbelts, and many would probably have died without them. And I've seen people hurt badly from accidents without seatbelts (I mean that, I've seen it happen with my own eyes).
I knew one woman who was burned over her whole body and permanently disfigured, while trapped in the flames by her seatbelt.
I also know plenty of people who had to pay fines because they weren't wearing seatbelts, and plenty more who have just learned to watch for cops and slip their seatbelts on when they see them.
I don't see any point to wearing a seatbelt on the highway. The chances of a crash are small, and you're not likely to survive one anyway. In the city, it makes much more sense, but I still think it should be left up to individual choice.
I find your attitude most offensive, assuming that my opinion is based on lack of real-world experience. I'm quite familiar with the real world. It's a place where everybody dies, sooner or later.
I'm not against seatbelts. Statistically they do lower your chances of death. I'm against "protecting" people from their own choices, and I'm against government pretending it always knows what's best for you.
People have a right to take whatever risks with their own lives that they wish. When it comes right down to it, people who act stupidly tend to die and improve the species. It's not biologically sound policy to interfere with that: eventually, you'd produce a race of hopeless morons who have to be watched constantly
Think of it this way: how many lives would be saved every year if every surface of every wall, floor, and piece of furniture was padded, if nobody had kitchens or workshops in their homes or was allowed to keep any sharp things, if everyone had to follow a diet set by his state-selected physician, couldn't smoke, and had to do the exercies prescribed for him, if cars were restricted to speeds at which they could guarantee the survival of all passengers (say, 15 mph)? Probably over a million. The average lifespan would probably be extended by 10 years.
However, that isn't sufficient justification for those measures; people have a right to destroy themselves, quickly or slowly, intentionally or through negligence. But we are moving toward that, one little step, one regulation, one tax "for your own good", at a time.
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
I look at all the pathetic computers and poorly written software and think, "Geez, if they designed washing machines like they design PCs and software, people would get eaten alive by them!"
We have standards enforcement bodies that see to safety in most appliances. Very likely all of your electrical appliances passed the Canadian Standard Association's requirements (even those sold in the USA). Even your computer's components, especially power supplies, need CSA or UL approval or both in many countries. It's common enough that we don't worry about burning ourselves or the house with our toaster or our stereo set so we don't bother checking for these. Operating instructions also come with safety instructions required by the standard bodies. Manufacturers will refer to these standards in their manuals and legal documents (IE: the Warranty!)
I want to see such warranties in software and in PC hardware, for instance, "When used as directed, this WizBang 3D Accelerator will work with all personal computers and motherboards with AGP2 capability." Of course motherboard and PC makers claiming AGP2 capability would have their systems tested by the standards body that oversees AGP2 (or whatever technology they claim to work with) so that said WizBang product will work with it.
Or, "When used as directed, this Windows v4.99.99 operating system will work with all personal computers using PC'98 architecture." Also, "this application is guaranteed to work on any computer system designed for MS Windows v4.99.99 (which in turn is guaranteed to run on a PC'98 certified machine)" The PC'98 spec is an example of a standard that can be enforced, like the CSA or UL standards. If MS could guarantee a working OS on a PC98 spec machine, and if the app maker could guarantee their app would work on Windows 4.99.99 (which in turn is guaranteed to run on a PC'98 machine) you'd have machines and software you could really depend on to do what you bought them to do. And if some part of the chain fails, the onus would be on whoever's component failed to fix it and honor their guarantee. (of course proving which component failed would take some time - that's what the standards bodies can do and routinely do today.)
We already have such standards in place. Things like PC98, the Win32 API (at least the published APIs), the GNU C Library, and such are good examples. If these could be "solidified" to the point where they'd stand up in court, people building on those standards MUST pass tests against them before claiming anything (or lose the compliance label and get sued by the standards body and the consumer), and that claim, if valid, would be one hell of a selling point over any claim made by a non-compliant competitor.
Use Evolution instead of Outlook? Bewa
The fact that Mazda decided to recall the vehicles was it's own decision, not a Government mandate. Government mandated recalls (or threats to recall) come usually from either safety related issues (but the car has to be 7 years and younger I believe) or emissions related issues (10 years and younger.) If the automaker wanted to issue a recall for an issue that had not known about (that is to say, only is manifesting after years of service) and the issue is neither emissions nor safety related, and the vehicle is out of warranty, then the automaker will issue the recall for customer service reasons.
No one has brought up the Mitsubishi recalls that were in the news recently, but those were forced because of the automaker had previously knowledge of design defects.
Hope the folks at emachines have some of their Y2k survival food left or they are going to starve trying to meet up to the standards this law would imply.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
I'm mostly a software developer at work, but when sales has problems with their PCs, I'm the one that gets called.
Thing is, they always call it 'the computer' when its really all Windows' fault, or an application is munging up or whatnot when it has nothing to do with hardware.
The typical PC user is no different. This could lead to some very dicey situations. EWww...
---------
You seem to be a Troll
PCXL Forever!!!!
This is disgusting
PCXL Forever!!!!
One critical question is who is in the better position to assume the risk that it is a lemon.
A dealer, even a small dealer without a service department has a responsibility to the buying public, unless it is sold explicitly as is.
A used monitor at a flea market, unless the seller has a lot of them, pretty much has to be at the risk of the buyer. The buyer and the seller cannot afford teams of lawyers for each purchase, so the government, legal system, whatever needs to set the rules and expectations that apply to a sale. Laws protecting Joe Consumer buying a computer, television, stereo, whatever seems like a good idea.
I wonder what it would take to get the bill to cover just parts. :) I'm not the type to buy a pre-built system with some good, some cheap components.
-------
CAIMLAS
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
The legislation should (unless they muck it up badly) protect you much the same, but probably not quite as well, as CompUSA's return policies.
The legislation would prevent CompUSA from saying "Doesn't work? Too bad, sucker."
Why not make adding software to the system also void the warranty? How many shoddy programs out there are going to screw with windows and cause problems?
"Whatever you do, take care of your shoes."
Oh god, do you mean you actually think those extra "warranties" from such places as Circuit City and Staples are anything less than a scam? For a libertarian mouthpeace, you sure are a sucker.
Seriously, sometimes the complete lunacy of Slashdot readers boggles my mind.
IANAL.
What the bill is essentially mandating is warranty. If you buy your computer from Dell or Gateway or any other major reputable computer retailer, you get one of these already (my warranty is 3 years on a Dell I have). This law is mainly to protect the consumer from those cheap computer builders who use refurbished parts, faulty returns, and just a dash of cluelessness to sell crappy computers, then charge people large amounts of money when they bring them back for repairs.
It's not about whether hardware works with Linux. It's not about making a faulty extension of the automobile lemon laws. It's about protecting the consumer. And personally, I don't think it goes far enough. It should extend to parts and systems sold at trade shows. There's a lot of people out there with enough knowledge of computers to completely screw people who have no knowledge.
Quit twisting good ideas and good intentions into some sort of cluelessness.
This is obviously about hardware problems, and possibly OEM software problems. Not about driver issues for every OS under the sun.
The interesting thing about the bill is that if software problems are not covered then vendors could just categorize everything as a problem with the software and wash their hands of the matter. "Scanner doesn't work? Software problem." "Machine crashes whenever these bad memory chips are in? Software problem. Oh, you replace the chips and the problem goes away? Still a software problem. Your software is incompatible with the chips we provlde." "Printer jams on every other page? Software problem. Your documents are too long." 95% of the people who purchase systems wouldn't be able to reliably diagnose hardware vs. software problems anyway. The other 5% would be bound by the obligatory and ensuing "crack open the case and you void the warranty" agreements.
Customer service would be trivial to perform. Just have an answering machine for Quaker State residents that picks up with "Hello, if you are having difficulty with one of our products then it is a software problem and not a hardware problem. Thank you and good day."
"I'm sorry but our DVD player is only authorized to run with Windows ME SP3 on a Compaq using a 872.5 Mhz Intel P3. Now we would be able to help you if you had met the requirements."
I think this will have the opposite effect from what they intend. If you don't have exactly what's on the box then they can claim that the suit was frivolous. Or worse, intenionally frivolous.
Any guesses how often Linux or FreeBSD will be part of the required system???
Can we get a Macintosh Apple Law?
"Computers found to be Apples within two years of purchase must be repaired, replaced or refunded"
-----
This is not interference this is consumer protection.
Consumer "protection" is interference. This isn't protection from the seller lying about the product, this is protection from their own bad choices, like seat-belt laws and anti-drug laws. It's government saying, "We know what's good for you better than you do." and forcing their opinion of what's good for you on you whether you like it or not. It's wrong in principle, even if it improves results for thousands of stupid or careless people.
Every new regulation makes it a bit harder and more expensive to open a new business, locking us more and more into the role of employee, making us more dependent on lawyers and professional business managers. More power for corporations, less for individuals.
The fact is, you can buy computers with full 2-year warrantees. Some people don't, and some buy inferior discounted products. Sometimes their computers don't work. Tough luck for them, it was their choice.
I don't think the government should be regulating minimum lengths to warrantees. It's not their business.
I want the option of buying from some shop on a shoestring that doesn't have a service department, if I think it's the better deal. I don't necessarily want to do it, but I'd still rather have the option.
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
Toshiba did not loose.. They settled, HUGE difference..
Death and poverty like me so much, they've brought friends!
Such rudeness is offensive
PCXL Forever!!!!
Fruit case is more like it...
PCXL Forever!!!!
[cpu/chipset] is not available in Pennsylvania, and some other locations with crazy PC hardware laws"
...Mo$eisley spaceport; you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
Republicans understand the importance of bondage between a mother and child.--Quayle
Mod me up scotty!
PCXL Forever!!!!
Fox News had this article about a new law in Pennsylvania where consumers might soon have the law on their side when battling frustrating computer glitches.
;).
"Frustrating computer glitches"? Does that mean that if^H^Hwhen their copy of Windows starts to crash left and right, they'll have the law on their side? Hmmm...watch out, Microsoft. 1 million+ lawsuits are on the way
=================================
I pledge allegiance to the flag...
of the Corporate States of America...
If you buy an item on the grounds of the company who made it claiming it to be up-to-date AND on top of that do not check for driver support beforehand, you are an idiot. OTOH, looking at the US legal system, yes, you probably could sue.
It's a sad day when you can't decide whether you want to pay extra for the warrantee or not.
Computer hardware failures within the first two years are pretty rare, and usually covered by warrantee.
This is just a publicity stunt which will drive prices up slightly for those of us who would rather take our chances.
But this kind of thinking is dangerous. Now it's "responsibility" legislation, next it will be "safety" regulations and all computers sold will be required to be equipped with the latest anti-virus software. Once government starts regulating an industry, it never stops.
Remember, bureaucracium has a negative half-life, the damned stuff grows over time, sucking energy from the area it's in.
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
The other side of the pond. The side with honest computer sellers ;)
And how many individual medical practitioner can afford to fund their own tests? This isn't about who's qualified; private practitioners may be just as skilled in these matters as FDA scientists, but they have neither the time, the inclination, or the money to pursue rigorous testing. And the drug companies have a history of suppressing negative results, and a financial incentive to cut down on testing as much as possible.
Herein we find the root of the error of your reasoning: you rightly recognize the need for large-scale organization, but you believe that only government can provide it.
Consider: professional engineering organizations, bar associations, and medical associations did not, as a rule, start out as government organizations. They started out as voluntary private associations, and by long demonstration of superior competence, they were eventually granted special status by the government as having monopolies on official competence. Some have held to their private origins, while others have been integrated into the government, but they originally came into being without government assistance. However, there is no way to assure their competence after the day the government accepts them as the sole such organization. As they age, secure in their monopolies, they tend to gradually place higher and higher barriers to entry, while actually delivering a lower standard of service. It's not that hard to become a doctor, an engineer, or a lawyer, but you've got to put in your dollars and your years. From what I've seen, they've shifted from guaranteeing a high level of competence to guaranteeing knowledge of one's limits: doctors that refer all patients that might have a problem to other doctors, engineers that sit quietly in the back of meetings, and lawyers who act as glorified clerks. Meanwhile, as they claim to raise their standards by raising the barriers to entry, they lobby to expand their monopolies so it gets harder and harder to do anything without hiring an Official Professional.
Sorry, I got off track a bit, but the point is that they grow without any special privilege of the government to competence (which, tangentially, decays after they gain their government-granted monopoly).
The average doctor can't, by himself, test a drug. The average driver can't, by himself, design and build a car. However, both are bright enough to hire such work to be done for them, and figure out which sources produce reliable results. Private business has long since learned how split costs up among many buyers. So what if your drug verification cost shows up on your doctor's bill rather than your drug bill?
Intelligent buyers have always known that they can get honest evaluations by hiring uninvolved 3rd parties with good reputations. A lot of testing is done by private labs. Naturally, they work for the person who pays them. So it's in their best interests to be honest if they're hired by people who want them to be honest. Bribery is possible, but no more so than in a government process.
The drug companies won't do the testing that doctors trust. That would be insane. The doctors' associations would do the testing.
When the government isn't setting standards, obviously it becomes vitally important for private organizations to set them. That is why it's vitally important for government to enforce the trademarks of such organizations. It would be total chaos if not only were there no government standards, but any street vendor could put the "Kentucky Central Food Standards Association" logo on his cart without actually meeting their standards.
I'd really rather have the choice between, say the "Kentucky C.F.S.A." (which considers feeding growth hormone to chickens an acceptable practice) and the "Kentucky Food Approval Organization" (which considers feeding growth hormone to chickens unacceptable), instead of considering the government's decision as the only valid one.
Sure, you might say, that's all to the good, but there's nothing stopping you from starting such standards organizations now! True, but the government isn't very friendly to competing standards associations. For one thing, you have to meet the government standards, no matter what else; that gives a competitive price advantage to businesses that only comply with the minimum gov't regulations (not bad by itself, but downright nasty combined with the next two). For another, governments have a way of pooh-poohing these competing standards in their official propaganda (letters from the Surgeon General, etc.). Most importantly, though, is the nanny-state attitude that most citizens have: "the gub'r'ment will take care of us! we don't have to look out for ourselves." Part of that comes from the official propaganda lines, and part from the public education system, but mostly from the fact that this is a democracy, ruled by the whim of the majority, who see any problem and think, "There oughta be a law!" (I would never dream of blaming the government as something seperate from the people; the majority of the enfranchised public is directly responsible for all actions of the government; unfortunately, they don't understand government)
Just as nature abhors a vacuum, so does a free market. Supply grows to meet demand.
The free market is a "magical black box" which produces all good things without an outside controlling organization. You can control the quality of its products purely through selecting which businesses get your dollars, if you can muster the brainpower to choose someone competent to decide who's competent (and if you can't, you sure as hell shouldn't be trusted with a vote). The advantage over doing it with dollars has over doing it with violence-backed government enforcement is that each person can make his own choice, rather than all having to conform to the choice of the voting majority.
But distributing unsafe medicine to an unsuspecting public isn't [a crime against the non-consenting public?]
No, it isn't. It is a damned fool who buys medicine that his doctor hasn't told him is safe and necessary. If some such fool wants to buy it, that is all his fault and none of the seller's.
The difference here is that murder, robbery, or poisoning rivers, is something that is done to a non-consenting individual or public, while in a purchase of unsafe goods, the buyer asks for these goods.
That doesn't mean fraud shouldn't be a crime. Of course it should be illegal to claim that some sale good meets a standard when it doesn't. That doesn't mean that the government has to pick the standard.
I've always also felt that people should be able to make legal oaths, call down whatever government punishments upon themselves that they wish (guaranteeing payment in advance for the cost), and file them as public records. It would make establishing trust much easier. Contracts do part of this, but generally limit losses to financial ones, and criminal law can never codify appropriate punishments for every kind of betrayal.
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
Sorry, I couldn't resist:
>What Rooney's introduced is only a bill at this point
I'm just a Bill,
Yes, I'm only a Bill.
But, I've made it this far to Capitol Hill...
Does anybody remember the rest of the words to this classic ABC schoolhouse rock?
I tend to get extremely suspicious about legislation made 'to help the people'. You're all going to have to realize that legislation is only passed because someone, somewhere, is going to gain either money or power, and probably both. It is not the government's inherent responsibility to ensure that people don't do dumb things, such as purchasing computers without checking a vendor's references. So, logically, what is the point of this legislation? By definition, someone will be making money off of it, so who could that be? I'll bet that if you follow the paper trail of backers and sponsors for this bill, you'll find the ones who stand to profit by it.
Remember, "Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither."
http://unxmaal.com
I'm sure that almost every ./ reader has experienced the dork next door begging for your help. You know, the guy that constantly destroys his PC and is generally dangerous with a mouse?
This law is written right into that person's lap. Most of these ignorant, "bought my pc because it came with aol", consumers can't make the determination to distinguish whether a problem is a result of the OS rather than the hardware. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "this computer is a piece of sh*t", when the more correct phrase is "win98 is a piece of sh*t".
So, should we expect to see a deluge of law suits filed by people who crash the software they use, and simply believe they were sold a "lemon" PC? Interesting to think about. Where is the line drawn between a PC and the bundled software distribued with it?
Now, go fix your neighbors PC and do the right thing. Install Linux.
--cr@ckwhore
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
at Compaq, E-machines, and other similar companies in this market, suits are likely preparing the inevitable memo to the webmasters that goes something like this:
Add NOT AVAILABLE IN PENNSYLVANIA to the bottom of the order pages.
I haven't read it yet, but by the looks of the web page The Software Conspiracy looks pretty worthwhile too:
While it is indeed true that it is difficult or impossible to get all the bugs out of a system, the situation can be much better than it is (do you use a memory debugger like Spotlight, BoundsChecker, Purify or Bounded Pointers for GCC?).Until the public wakes up and realizes they're being ripped off the situation will continue.
For us developers, this is a matter of taking responsibility for our work. For the public (and us developers when we purchase software) it is a matter of demanding that the vendors take responsibility: refuse to purchase software whose End User License Agreement disclaims a warranty, and demand of your legislators that the government enforce minimum quality standards on software and quality products.
At the very least you should be able to get your money back on a defective product, even if the manufacturer disclaims responsibility. And if there are real costs associated with the failure, as when a friend of mine bounced a $4000 check because of a bug in Microsoft Excel, the injured party should be able to sue for damages.
-- Could you use my software consulting serv
If CompUSA's better than average, Pennsylvania NEEDS this law.
From my experience, if the lemon law for computers is like the lemon law for cars, virtually every Windows 95 computer and most of the NT machines I've used would need to be replaced numerous times.
Currently, I've only seen one stable windows 95 machine, and that's my current one, and I believe the only reason it is now stable is because it has exactly three pieces of software installed that didn't come on the Windows 95 cd. Those three pieces of software are Creative Encore DVD software, Diablo 2, and Final Fantasy 8.
And for people who would tell me to use NT instead of 95, I've only ever seen one stable NT machine and that was a monster of a machine (dual xeons, 512 megs ram, and a video card that takes both a AGP and a PCI slot). All the rest have been unstable for me.
Due to the above, I suspect that they are going to write the bill so that almost no one can collect. Bleh.
-- Superlame http://catpro.dragonfire.net/joshua/
Computers found to be defective within two years of purchase must be repaired, replaced or refunded...
And who makes the decision that a PC is defective? The customer, the retailer, or a third-party arbitration panel?
I work at a busy PC retailer where we assemble PC's to order. We have customers who enter the store daily whom we KNOW should never be allowed to own a PC (hell, there are customer's who should be licensed to operate toasters), but there is no reasonable way to deny them ("I'm sorry, but you are too stupid to ever learn to operate a PC"), so we are put in the unenviable position of selling to people who, three years later, still call our tech support weekly because they have forgotten how to cut-and-paste again, because they have deleted system files again, because they have forced a floppy disk in the drive upside-down again (quite a feat), who can't figure out how to plug their PCMCIA card into the serial port (I wish I was kidding, but I'm not), and who decide a week or an hour after purchase that their PC is "broken" because they don't know how to use it. They have been to classes, have been assisted hundreds of times by our polite, patient staff (and we are unfailingly polite and patient, despite the tone of this message: I'm ranting here, not responding as I would to a customer), but the Uncle visiting from Oregon (or Utah, etc.) who is a computer "expert" (meaning he owned a Commodore 64 for six weeks, ten years ago) told them that their new PC is "broken."
These people should be allowed to return a computer TWO YEARS after purchase because someone who couldn't possibly know the grief that they have put us through - or the smiling, apparently-reasonable customer's history of idiocy - because the customer considers it "defective?"
I would agree that this idea had merit only if customers were forced to take and pass a basic computer competency course before they were allowed to purchase a PC. If they aren't willing to take the test, or able to take it, they wave their right to arbitrary refunds (and arbitrary are what the refunds would be). Since I know that no such test will ever be required, I think that this legislation is an incredibly poor idea.
Neopets - the best free game on the Int
If I write a crappy little operating system (I'm not suggesting that Linux is, just creating a situation) and I forgot to write a driver for some obscure card that happens to come with a PC sold in PA, ca I sue? See how dumb that sounds?
Come on, think! This is obviously about hardware problems, and possibly OEM software problems. Not about driver issues for every OS under the sun.
Finkployd
Is there any election coming in the state of Pensylvania soon? ,a fly_by_night shop won't care of such law and bigger companies,retailers already have similar policies in place.At least that's the case here in Canada.Is this such a new concept for
our friends south of the border?
Honestly
The best way to escape from a problem is to solve it. Alan Saporta
It's understandable that lawmakers want to make OEM's more responsible for their products, but i'm not so sure that this is exactly the way to go about doing it.
One of the biggest considerations one would have to take into effect in something like this is the durability that a product has to have based on the average lifespan of a computer. Following the car to Computer metaphor, the average computer that was built two years ago could basically be compared to a 1982 Ford Escort. - Sure, it should still run...but there's no way the Ford should be held liable for a product that is, for all practical purposes, obsolete.
Should we hold OEM's accountable for faulty products? Yes. But let's take into account product lifespan in general. Not how long the product can run...but how long it should run.
FluX
After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume