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
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.
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!
(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.
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.
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.
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.
how is this law onerous?
Think about it. You the manufacturer get a call from a customer whose computer is crashing continuously. The problem is that the customer has added 27 software packages and 3 add-on boards to the thing since receiving it. Now you have a couple of unpalatable choices: 1)spend endless hours of tech support trying to help them isolate the problem so that you can determine whether it's your machine or their additions. Or 2) tell them to restore the machine to its originally-shipped state and see if the problem persists. In 1) you've incurred tremendous costs for yourself. In 2) you've ticked off your customer (who may or may not even be technically capable of restoring the machine to its original state anyway, in which case you're back to 1). A reputable manufacturer who wants to keep customers happy will try to make things right, but the PA law puts too much power in the hands of the customer to penalize even those manufacturers who act in good faith.
"If I have seen further than other men, it is by stepping on their glasses." - Michael Swaine
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.
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.
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.
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