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!
Can we get a Macintosh Apple Law?
"Computers found to be Apples within two years of purchase must be repaired, replaced or refunded"
-----
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